StLunatic88 Posted October 8 Share Posted October 8 3 hours ago, beardown3231 said: What about London in 6 days? In all seriousness I'd personally rather them stay in Chicago. I think a new stadium is 100% getting done. A safer bet, to me, would be "Caleb will never play a Bears home game outside of downtown" There are so many factors going against another downtown stadium. The biggest thing that someone who is going to buy the Bears from the McCaskeys will want is to fully own a new stadium. Renting it (even for cheap) completely hamstrings the real revenue making opportunities. Because isn’t anything downtown, especially on the lake (the biggest draw to downtown) going to be owned by the city? Or at the absolute most partially owned by the city? That doesn’t even get into the want of all these owners to have their own little town of attractions to surround the venue with. Sure it’s not as fun if it’s not downtown I guess, but I think most fans would get over that really quick with a state of the art stadium, and the entire village of stuff to do around it, especially when it will bring in not only the biggest shows, but the other biggest sporting events (March Madness, B1G Championship, Wrestling, International soccer, etc) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZBearsFan Posted October 8 Share Posted October 8 10 hours ago, StLunatic88 said: Sure it’s not as fun if it’s not downtown I guess, but I think most fans would get over that really quick with a state of the art stadium, and the entire village of stuff to do around it, especially when it will bring in not only the biggest shows, but the other biggest sporting events (March Madness, B1G Championship, Wrestling, International soccer, etc) Not everything has to be Wrigleyville IMO. Give me a place to tailgate and throw a football around before a game with ample parking space and what more do I need? It’s a football game, not a resort. Agree on the next ownership being a factor too. We don’t know that they’re going to sell once VMc passes on but I think most of us see it as a reasonable likelihood, and a non-owned stadium in the city cuts franchise value significantly in a sale. Now, if they outright owned a stadium in the city? That’s different, but as you pointed out, I don’t think that’s possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEAR FACE DOWN ARROW Posted October 8 Share Posted October 8 9 minutes ago, AZBearsFan said: Not everything has to be Wrigleyville IMO. Give me a place to tailgate and throw a football around before a game with ample parking space and what more do I need? It’s a football game, not a resort. Agree on the next ownership being a factor too. We don’t know that they’re going to sell once VMc passes on but I think most of us see it as a reasonable likelihood, and a non-owned stadium in the city cuts franchise value significantly in a sale. Now, if they outright owned a stadium in the city? That’s different, but as you pointed out, I don’t think that’s possible. I kind of treat downtown Soldier Field the same way I treated Justin fields. Really like them have a lot of strong feelings about both, but there is no way it makes sense to hang on to either one. Sale value is really important for the bears, I think they would actually be best off if this is like a 10-year plan, to buy Arlington heights, to build a stadium, add some basics, and then sell with the potential of whatever goofy owner wants to add in. It's like when you're selling a house, and your realtor convinces you to use all his favorite contractors to add a bunch of stuff and finishes that the next owner is going to tear out anyway. Leave it a gray vanilla box, with enough amenities to host and play and let Jeff Bezos or whoever build whatever they want with the rest of it. Likewise if you're the city what possible value is there in giving the Bears what is now public land? Unless they are going to completely pay off the old stadium Plus an exorbitant sale price to get past all the resistance that would come out, it just doesn't make any sense. The long-term question of what to do with it remains, and I'm not saying in 15 years it won't end up sold anyway, but I do not think that there would be any appetite for selling Soldier Field to the Bears unless the price was ridiculous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StLunatic88 Posted October 8 Share Posted October 8 (edited) 19 minutes ago, AZBearsFan said: Not everything has to be Wrigleyville IMO. Give me a place to tailgate and throw a football around before a game with ample parking space and what more do I need? It’s a football game, not a resort. I dont disagree thats all Football Fans need. But just look at the Chiefs, Arrowhead is perfect for just that, Tailgating and Football, and they are trying to leave and build one of these resorts as you referred to them. But thats not how owners will look at it. No one wants a massive stadium and all that parking to just use 10 times a year. They are thinking about it all as investment, they want people to go there regardless if they are going into a game or not. You add those things (bars, stores, hotels, event spaces, etc) around the stadium, you also attract alot more things than just Football Fans, and thats where they really make the money. Edited October 8 by StLunatic88 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dll2000 Posted October 8 Share Posted October 8 12 hours ago, StLunatic88 said: The biggest thing that someone who is going to buy the Bears from the McCaskeys will want is to fully own a new stadium. Renting it (even for cheap) completely hamstrings the real revenue making opportunities. Because isn’t anything downtown, especially on the lake (the biggest draw to downtown) going to be owned by the city? Or at the absolute most partially owned by the city? Anything they build on the Lake downtown has to be publicly owned from what I understand. Unless they change the laws. If it isn't on the Lake they can own it. But they ideally want to be on the Lake. They still would gladly take that deal if they got vast majority of all revenues from use of it. For initial proposal they asked for 100%. Which is a pretty crazy starting ask especially when you were asking for them to also fund half of it, but that's what they did. Mayor was all for it. But he doesn't have half the money to give. He is broke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beardown3231 Posted October 8 Author Share Posted October 8 16 hours ago, StLunatic88 said: There are so many factors going against another downtown stadium. The biggest thing that someone who is going to buy the Bears from the McCaskeys will want is to fully own a new stadium. Renting it (even for cheap) completely hamstrings the real revenue making opportunities. Because isn’t anything downtown, especially on the lake (the biggest draw to downtown) going to be owned by the city? Or at the absolute most partially owned by the city? That doesn’t even get into the want of all these owners to have their own little town of attractions to surround the venue with. Sure it’s not as fun if it’s not downtown I guess, but I think most fans would get over that really quick with a state of the art stadium, and the entire village of stuff to do around it, especially when it will bring in not only the biggest shows, but the other biggest sporting events (March Madness, B1G Championship, Wrestling, International soccer, etc) Here's my 2 cents: I don't really give a damn where the stadium is. I do agree that it makes way more sense to put it in AH, but I think Warren is obsessed with downtown and I think McCaskey worships him and will likely believe anything he tells him. Maybe McCaskey is happy getting $7B for the team down the road whereas he could get $9B but doesn't care. I have no clue. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZBearsFan Posted October 9 Share Posted October 9 21 hours ago, dll2000 said: Anything they build on the Lake downtown has to be publicly owned from what I understand. Unless they change the laws. If it isn't on the Lake they can own it. But they ideally want to be on the Lake. They still would gladly take that deal if they got vast majority of all revenues from use of it. For initial proposal they asked for 100%. Which is a pretty crazy starting ask especially when you were asking for them to also fund half of it, but that's what they did. Mayor was all for it. But he doesn't have half the money to give. He is broke. Is the 78 site that keeps pushing itself as a White Sox stadium site big enough for the football facility we’d want to build? It’s definitely got the desired sight lines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dll2000 Posted October 9 Share Posted October 9 12 minutes ago, AZBearsFan said: Is the 78 site that keeps pushing itself as a White Sox stadium site big enough for the football facility we’d want to build? It’s definitely got the desired sight lines. Maybe it isn’t big enough. I don’t know why it’s never once been mentioned for Bears and only for Sox. Seems to solve the Lake problem and you can design an easier in and out and it is closer to more public transportation hubs. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JibjeResearch Posted October 9 Share Posted October 9 With a budget deficit of almost $1 Billion, there is no way the Chicago Bears will get help from the city or the state. The Bears should just stop with all the nonsense .... either build a new one with their own money or stop talking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beardown3231 Posted October 9 Author Share Posted October 9 FWIW, Poles and Warren spoke today. Warren said private equity isn't something on the table yet, the focus is still downtown and hopes to start in 2025 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.