malagabears Posted April 22 Share Posted April 22 9 minutes ago, dll2000 said: BOOM!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBears019 Posted April 22 Share Posted April 22 24 minutes ago, dll2000 said: The timing of this is interesting. That said, i wonder if this will be an actual announcement or if they’ll just say “This is our primary focus now” and show some 3d renderings of what it would look like, still giving them an out if they want to pivot back to AH. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dafreak Posted April 22 Share Posted April 22 This would be another bad decision by an already bad franchise.... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskieBear Posted April 22 Share Posted April 22 correct me if i'm wrong, but didn't the MINN stadium start off as a public stadium because it used public funds, and then ones those funds were repaid to the public (in record timing) then the stadium became fully private of the wirfs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madmike90 Posted April 22 Share Posted April 22 48 minutes ago, CBears019 said: The timing of this is interesting. That said, i wonder if this will be an actual announcement or if they’ll just say “This is our primary focus now” and show some 3d renderings of what it would look like, still giving them an out if they want to pivot back to AH. Giving the timing of it I would at least expect to see renderings of the surrounding area like we saw with Arlington Heights...hopefully we see what their vision is for the stadium... As much as a publicly owned stadium isn't what anyone wanted it is a massive boost for the city of Chicago as a whole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBears019 Posted April 22 Share Posted April 22 6 minutes ago, HuskieBear said: correct me if i'm wrong, but didn't the MINN stadium start off as a public stadium because it used public funds, and then ones those funds were repaid to the public (in record timing) then the stadium became fully private of the wirfs? I don’t know about minnesota, but i thought lakefront property in Chicago has to be publicly owned. Some sort of historical landmark-esque ordinance. My guess is there will be a lot of pushback on this, even before they get to the discussion of public funding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beardown3231 Posted April 22 Author Share Posted April 22 I may be wrong but the downside here is that if it stays publicly funded it makes McCaskey one of the poorer owners therefore there is less cash for players, coaches, etc? In a vacuum IDGAF if the organization gets less money from concerts, Final 4's, etc but if it starts to effect how cash poor they are, this sucks I'd like to think Warren has this all figured out, but on the surface it looks like Warren's love of the city won out above all else and George was once again taken advantage of Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dll2000 Posted April 23 Share Posted April 23 2 hours ago, beardown3231 said: I may be wrong but the downside here is that if it stays publicly funded it makes McCaskey one of the poorer owners therefore there is less cash for players, coaches, etc? In a vacuum IDGAF if the organization gets less money from concerts, Final 4's, etc but if it starts to effect how cash poor they are, this sucks I'd like to think Warren has this all figured out, but on the surface it looks like Warren's love of the city won out above all else and George was once again taken advantage of We don’t know numbers. If they get most all revenue and don’t have to pay for building or expenses of up-keeping and running stadium and property tax it could still be a win for Bears. Without a property tax deal in Arlington that bill could be huge expense by itself in Cook county. But I think they would have given a deal with some patience. If it is true City is going to build them a stadium and I won’t believe it until all details are announced it still seems a short term win. The Arlington long term plan was way better IMO all things considered. Cubs were patient and it paid off for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZBearsFan Posted April 23 Share Posted April 23 2 hours ago, dll2000 said: We don’t know numbers. If they get most all revenue and don’t have to pay for building or expenses of up-keeping and running stadium and property tax it could still be a win for Bears. Without a property tax deal in Arlington that bill could be huge expense by itself in Cook county. But I think they would have given a deal with some patience. If it is true City is going to build them a stadium and I won’t believe it until all details are announced it still seems a short term win. The Arlington long term plan was way better IMO all things considered. Cubs were patient and it paid off for them. What if the solution to the tax issue for the team is to basically pay for the stadium and just give it to the city, in exchange for a sweetheart lease where they get a huge portion of all revenue it generates (65-70%?), priority usage and final say in all football-related upkeep? The city benefits from the tourism boost and didn’t buy a $2B+ stadium, and the team gets basically the same revenue they’d be getting if they owned it and paid the taxes they want to pay. Would something like that even be legal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dll2000 Posted April 23 Share Posted April 23 5 hours ago, AZBearsFan said: What if the solution to the tax issue for the team is to basically pay for the stadium and just give it to the city, in exchange for a sweetheart lease where they get a huge portion of all revenue it generates (65-70%?), priority usage and final say in all football-related upkeep? The city benefits from the tourism boost and didn’t buy a $2B+ stadium, and the team gets basically the same revenue they’d be getting if they owned it and paid the taxes they want to pay. Would something like that even be legal? City/State can make virtually anything legal if they really want to get something done. They may have to pass something. People have thrown up hurdles before. Friends of park. Wrigleyville threw up hurdles for years. Not sure what legal tools they used. Landmark laws I think, something like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dll2000 Posted April 23 Share Posted April 23 5 hours ago, AZBearsFan said: What if the solution to the tax issue for the team is to basically pay for the stadium and just give it to the city, in exchange for a sweetheart lease where they get a huge portion of all revenue it generates (65-70%?), priority usage and final say in all football-related upkeep? The city benefits from the tourism boost and didn’t buy a $2B+ stadium, and the team gets basically the same revenue they’d be getting if they owned it and paid the taxes they want to pay. Would something like that even be legal? I bet Bears get all the revenue from stadium from Bears games. City would tax this or that. Other events probably not. The 2B investment, if that is still on table for a stadium they don’t own, probably takes away any lease payments in perpetuity or for 50 years or something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZBearsFan Posted April 23 Share Posted April 23 2 hours ago, dll2000 said: I bet Bears get all the revenue from stadium from Bears games. City would tax this or that. Other events probably not. The 2B investment, if that is still on table for a stadium they don’t own, probably takes away any lease payments in perpetuity or for 50 years or something. So most of the perks of owning the stadium, but none of the taxes? That sounds like a great deal for the Bears! How do I get that deal for my own house??? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dll2000 Posted April 23 Share Posted April 23 46 minutes ago, AZBearsFan said: So most of the perks of owning the stadium, but none of the taxes? That sounds like a great deal for the Bears! How do I get that deal for my own house??? Own something the local govt. really, really wants to keep around. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEAR FACE DOWN ARROW Posted April 23 Share Posted April 23 I remain skeptical that they even want to be in Chicago, and think this might be the most theatrical leverage move that I can recall, but if they did stay in Chicago I'm also very curious to know the plan of what and where. If it's on the lakefront making it retracting would be cool if impractical, but there's just something about those great Sept/Oct Sundays by the lake... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dll2000 Posted April 23 Share Posted April 23 2 minutes ago, BEAR FACE DOWN ARROW said: I remain skeptical that they even want to be in Chicago, and think this might be the most theatrical leverage move that I can recall, but if they did stay in Chicago I'm also very curious to know the plan of what and where. If it's on the lakefront making it retracting would be cool if impractical, but there's just something about those great Sept/Oct Sundays by the lake... I’ve read retractable has fallen out of favor primarily due to expense, but also because in most situations people just prefer it closed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.