Chicago Bears 2025-2026

Status
Not open for further replies.
#826      
Mr. Tibbs
I am by no means in the Bears corner on this , nor do I think the current Bears ownership needs any extra money for a stadium . let thrm build it , own it run it and lease it out for other events .

what needs to explained is how much other things on that site will be built & operated by others . I recall retail , hotel , office & residential space being built . it could be the largest construction project in the history of the state - taking over 10 years to build . one needs to decide how important all those construction & then permanent jobs are to the state & area . the tax base will go up enormously from where it is now .

should the state encourage this ? one would think so

i’m not in favor of McCaskeys getting richer on my dime , but is there a way here in which EVERYONE wins ?
 
#827      
Ander1345
oldman said:
The Bears are not going to bully either the Legislature or the governor into putting more money into a Bears stadium. If you think the Pritzker administration and members of the General Assembly haven’t considered public sentiment you don’t understand how savvy they are. While a few Bears fans will be unhappy with the failure of the State to bankroll the billionaires who want money for a new stadium, the overwhelming majority of voters would be even more unhappy if the State chipped in for a new stadium. It doesn’t take much research to recall how little return on investment the State actually received from the White Sox, Bears, Bulls/Blackhawks for their current arenas. That letter simply shows how oblivious the Bears management is. What a surprise.
Click to expand...
100%. They want to reimburse the state at a fixed tax rate. Pretty ridiculous to even propose it honestly.
 
#828      
Second place is 1st loser
oldman said:
The Bears are not going to bully either the Legislature or the governor into putting more money into a Bears stadium. If you think the Pritzker administration and members of the General Assembly haven’t considered public sentiment you don’t understand how savvy they are. While a few Bears fans will be unhappy with the failure of the State to bankroll the billionaires who want money for a new stadium, the overwhelming majority of voters would be even more unhappy if the State chipped in for a new stadium. It doesn’t take much research to recall how little return on investment the State actually received from the White Sox, Bears, Bulls/Blackhawks for their current arenas. That letter simply shows how oblivious the Bears management is. What a surprise.
Click to expand...
You left off the Cubs and the Bears wanted to model their stadium after the setup the Cubs have.

The Bulls, Hawks and Sox play in absolute garbage dump areas when it comes to being any sort of entertainment district.

For the Cubs, Wrigley Field is the driving force behind huge crowds not only inside of the stadium, but for dozens and dozens of bars, restaurants, hotels, movie theaters, etc. A weekend series at Wrigley not only generates 120,000 a$$es in seats at premium pricing, but those people don't leave that area two hours before the game or two hours after the game. Think of all of the jobs and tax revenue that Wrigley generates. It's insane.

The Bears want to put in a 65,000 seat stadium, then have similar bars, restaurants, hotels, etc surrounding the area. Think about how many jobs that will create. Think about the tax revenue that would be brought in on GameDay alone. A domed stadium is viable 365 days a year and if they do secure Final Fours, Super Bowls, etc.....its becomes one of the epicenters in the country for large events and conventions.

I'm not sure how many people have been to Indianapolis to see their setup. That is a relatively small city, in a Midwestern state where the temperature is also an issue......but they've made that entire entertainment district an event by itself. INDIANAPOLIS holds Final Fours every 5 years and Super Bowls every five years. They funnel hundreds of thousands of people through there EASILY. You can't walk more than 200 feet without finding an eating/drinking establishment, hotels, business offices, retail shops....it's seriously a national and international icon for large events. It's in freaking INDIANAPOLIS!!!!!

Why do you think they're banging the doors down to pull this across state lines? If they put a 70,000 seat stadium in NW Indiana, draw Illinoisans there for a multitude of events, it'd be a coo. Think of all of that Illinois money going into an area that is 45 minutes away and you get NONE of it.

Now, to be clear, I don't think the citizens should be on the hook for building a stadium. I feel strongly about that. The Bears need to own that one and they are. The issue at hand with Arlington Heights is that while it's a great area, it's an older area and the infrastructure isn't anywhere close to where it needs to be to filter the types of crowds that the stadium would pull for an event. There is no easy way in and there's no easy way out. You have 90 and 53, which is great, but the only other major artery around there is Arlington Heights Road and it can't move traffic. They'd need to widen Euclid, which is basically a two lane undivided road lined with homes. There would have to be a complete and total overhaul of the area, which would probably be a 10 year project(more employment however), but you're looking at an $6B to $8B pricetag.....easily.

Pritzger is a God awful politician and he overseas a state that isn't exactly pro business and is bankrupt. That's on his watch and to try and sell this type of expenditure to the taxpayers is impossible. He is a businessman however and he needs to be able to craft a solution. By him saying that the stadium isn't a priority in 2026 is what set this off. The Bears are at fault here too. They should have NEVER have bought that land without negotiating this. They painted themselves into a corner from a negotiation standpoint. That's the McCaskey's however and they suck at pretty much everything they do.

Both parties are in a situation where they have to save face, but someone will have to blink. I think the answer probably lies with the Bears selling a portion of the team and allowing for there to be a minority stakeholder here.
 
#829      
Mr. Tibbs
Second place is 1st loser said:
You left off the Cubs and the Bears wanted to model their stadium after the setup the Cubs have.

The Bulls, Hawks and Sox play in absolute garbage dump areas when it comes to being any sort of entertainment district.

For the Cubs, Wrigley Field is the driving force behind huge crowds not only inside of the stadium, but for dozens and dozens of bars, restaurants, hotels, movie theaters, etc. A weekend series at Wrigley not only generates 120,000 a$$es in seats at premium pricing, but those people don't leave that area two hours before the game or two hours after the game. Think of all of the jobs and tax revenue that Wrigley generates. It's insane.

The Bears want to put in a 65,000 seat stadium, then have similar bars, restaurants, hotels, etc surrounding the area. Think about how many jobs that will create. Think about the tax revenue that would be brought in on GameDay alone. A domed stadium is viable 365 days a year and if they do secure Final Fours, Super Bowls, etc.....its becomes one of the epicenters in the country for large events and conventions.

I'm not sure how many people have been to Indianapolis to see their setup. That is a relatively small city, in a Midwestern state where the temperature is also an issue......but they've made that entire entertainment district an event by itself. INDIANAPOLIS holds Final Fours every 5 years and Super Bowls every five years. They funnel hundreds of thousands of people through there EASILY. You can't walk more than 200 feet without finding an eating/drinking establishment, hotels, business offices, retail shops....it's seriously a national and international icon for large events. It's in freaking INDIANAPOLIS!!!!!

Why do you think they're banging the doors down to pull this across state lines? If they put a 70,000 seat stadium in NW Indiana, draw Illinoisans there for a multitude of events, it'd be a coo. Think of all of that Illinois money going into an area that is 45 minutes away and you get NONE of it.

Now, to be clear, I don't think the citizens should be on the hook for building a stadium. I feel strongly about that. The Bears need to own that one and they are. The issue at hand with Arlington Heights is that while it's a great area, it's an older area and the infrastructure isn't anywhere close to where it needs to be to filter the types of crowds that the stadium would pull for an event. There is no easy way in and there's no easy way out. You have 90 and 53, which is great, but the only other major artery around there is Arlington Heights Road and it can't move traffic. They'd need to widen Euclid, which is basically a two lane undivided road lined with homes. There would have to be a complete and total overhaul of the area, which would probably be a 10 year project(more employment however), but you're looking at an $6B to $8B pricetag.....easily.

Pritzger is a God awful politician and he overseas a state that isn't exactly pro business and is bankrupt. That's on his watch and to try and sell this type of expenditure to the taxpayers is impossible. He is a businessman however and he needs to be able to craft a solution. By him saying that the stadium isn't a priority in 2026 is what set this off. The Bears are at fault here too. They should have NEVER have bought that land without negotiating this. They painted themselves into a corner from a negotiation standpoint. That's the McCaskey's however and they suck at pretty much everything they do.

Both parties are in a situation where they have to save face, but someone will have to blink. I think the answer probably lies with the Bears selling a portion of the team and allowing for there to be a minority stakeholder here.
Click to expand...
we agree on a lot of issues

there is a win win scenario here. but Im not sure Pritzker / Preckwinkle want to take the Win if the Bears do as well.
 
#831      
IlliniFaninHoosierLand
Second place is 1st loser said:
I'm not sure how many people have been to Indianapolis to see their setup. That is a relatively small city, in a Midwestern state where the temperature is also an issue......but they've made that entire entertainment district an event by itself. INDIANAPOLIS holds Final Fours every 5 years and Super Bowls every five years. They funnel hundreds of thousands of people through there EASILY. You can't walk more than 200 feet without finding an eating/drinking establishment, hotels, business offices, retail shops....it's seriously a national and international icon for large events. It's in freaking INDIANAPOLIS!!!!!
Click to expand...

Love that you mention Indianapolis but a couple things here. First, they host the Final Four every five years because of the MOU the NCAA came to with the city back in 2004 that guaranteed they'd host one of five events (including men's and women's prelim games, men's and women's Final 4, and the NCAA convention) in exchange for land to expand the headquarters and for Indy to be a backup site for the Final 4. Indy does not get the Super Bowl every 5 years. They've literally only hosted it once and they're not scheduled to host it again anytime soon.

But yes, the downtown area is great and there's a lot to do. I know people like to joke about Indy being naptown but there's so much more there to do than people realize and not just sports stuff either and not just in downtown. If anyone on here ever needs recommendations of stuff to do, I'm willing to share.
 
#832      
Second place is 1st loser
IlliniFaninHoosierLand said:
Love that you mention Indianapolis but a couple things here. First, they host the Final Four every five years because of the MOU the NCAA came to with the city back in 2004 that guaranteed they'd host one of five events (including men's and women's prelim games, men's and women's Final 4, and the NCAA convention) in exchange for land to expand the headquarters and for Indy to be a backup site for the Final 4. Indy does not get the Super Bowl every 5 years. They've literally only hosted it once and they're not scheduled to host it again anytime soon.

But yes, the downtown area is great and there's a lot to do. I know people like to joke about Indy being naptown but there's so much more there to do than people realize and not just sports stuff either and not just in downtown. If anyone on here ever needs recommendations of stuff to do, I'm willing to share.
Click to expand...
Every time the NCAA Tournament is there, generally when they host the first and second rounds, that's the location my son and I go to. We go to the first/second rounds every year and pick the location six or seven months prior. Indy is AWESOME. If people haven't been there, they have to go. There is literally no event that the location can't handle. NFL Sundays, Pacers games.....what a great way to spend the day and this is coming from a guy who, outside of college, has lived in the NW Suburban Illinois.

If I'm the Bears and I get promised that type of room and development....I'm gone and taking it. You can literally see the Chicago skyline from an area like Gary. It makes sense. If you can skip the state of Illinois and our ridiculous politics that are pretty much run by Chicago and the CTU.....don't.

Illinois money is as green as everyone else's and I'm sure Indiana will happily take it, while our state just continues to falter and have people leave.

Again, I'm not saying that the state should build a stadium. That should and will be the Bears job. Pritzger and Co should have kept their mouths shut about it not being a priority in 2026. They dropped the gauntlet and created this reaction and Pritzger calls this a slap in the face? What was his comment? He's a clown.

He and Warren SHOULD be able to get in a boardroom, close the door and commit to not leaving until a deal is done. They can figure this out.
 
#834      
tatupu70
Second place is 1st loser said:
You left off the Cubs and the Bears wanted to model their stadium after the setup the Cubs have.

The Bulls, Hawks and Sox play in absolute garbage dump areas when it comes to being any sort of entertainment district.

For the Cubs, Wrigley Field is the driving force behind huge crowds not only inside of the stadium, but for dozens and dozens of bars, restaurants, hotels, movie theaters, etc. A weekend series at Wrigley not only generates 120,000 a$$es in seats at premium pricing, but those people don't leave that area two hours before the game or two hours after the game. Think of all of the jobs and tax revenue that Wrigley generates. It's insane.

The Bears want to put in a 65,000 seat stadium, then have similar bars, restaurants, hotels, etc surrounding the area. Think about how many jobs that will create. Think about the tax revenue that would be brought in on GameDay alone. A domed stadium is viable 365 days a year and if they do secure Final Fours, Super Bowls, etc.....its becomes one of the epicenters in the country for large events and conventions.

I'm not sure how many people have been to Indianapolis to see their setup. That is a relatively small city, in a Midwestern state where the temperature is also an issue......but they've made that entire entertainment district an event by itself. INDIANAPOLIS holds Final Fours every 5 years and Super Bowls every five years. They funnel hundreds of thousands of people through there EASILY. You can't walk more than 200 feet without finding an eating/drinking establishment, hotels, business offices, retail shops....it's seriously a national and international icon for large events. It's in freaking INDIANAPOLIS!!!!!

Why do you think they're banging the doors down to pull this across state lines? If they put a 70,000 seat stadium in NW Indiana, draw Illinoisans there for a multitude of events, it'd be a coo. Think of all of that Illinois money going into an area that is 45 minutes away and you get NONE of it.

Now, to be clear, I don't think the citizens should be on the hook for building a stadium. I feel strongly about that. The Bears need to own that one and they are. The issue at hand with Arlington Heights is that while it's a great area, it's an older area and the infrastructure isn't anywhere close to where it needs to be to filter the types of crowds that the stadium would pull for an event. There is no easy way in and there's no easy way out. You have 90 and 53, which is great, but the only other major artery around there is Arlington Heights Road and it can't move traffic. They'd need to widen Euclid, which is basically a two lane undivided road lined with homes. There would have to be a complete and total overhaul of the area, which would probably be a 10 year project(more employment however), but you're looking at an $6B to $8B pricetag.....easily.

Pritzger is a God awful politician and he overseas a state that isn't exactly pro business and is bankrupt. That's on his watch and to try and sell this type of expenditure to the taxpayers is impossible. He is a businessman however and he needs to be able to craft a solution. By him saying that the stadium isn't a priority in 2026 is what set this off. The Bears are at fault here too. They should have NEVER have bought that land without negotiating this. They painted themselves into a corner from a negotiation standpoint. That's the McCaskey's however and they suck at pretty much everything they do.

Both parties are in a situation where they have to save face, but someone will have to blink. I think the answer probably lies with the Bears selling a portion of the team and allowing for there to be a minority stakeholder here.
Click to expand...
I think you are vastly overestimating the positive effects of the stadium There have been many studies done showing the economic impact is actually very little long term. Yes, you get a small bump during the construction but otherwise it's not much. If you build in Hammond/Whiting, which is what I've seen, you're never going to make it like Wrigelyville. It's a dump. Miles worse than the near west side of the United Center.

There will be 8 or 9 games/year. Most people go to the game and then go home. Yes, you'll get some concerts and maybe an NCAA weekend every few years. Is that worth several hundreds of millions of tax breaks? Almost certainly not. If the Bears want to own the stadium, then they pay for it. All of it.
 
#835      
logjam
RockfordIllini said:
the ineptness of the organization has had me mostly out on the Bears the last decade or so. However, I really want this one today.

Bear Down!
Click to expand...
200-92.gif
 
#837      
Grandpa
WolfpackIllini said:
View attachment 45816
Click to expand...
It was so muddy back then. The dirt part of the infields, warning track, between the hash marks. It got worse as the season wore on. The ground froze hard as a rock, and it wasn't frozen smoothly, there were frozen jagged clumps. Goal posts on the goal line to run into or around. Blood oozing out from underneath the mud on their hands.
No replays, no matter how horrible the call.
Payton used to toss the ball down immediately after being tackled, Atlanta game he did it, a guy scooped it up and the referees called it a fumble. Obvious as heck on TV. Oh well.
 
#838      
oldman
Second place is 1st loser said:
You left off the Cubs and the Bears wanted to model their stadium after the setup the Cubs have.

The Bulls, Hawks and Sox play in absolute garbage dump areas when it comes to being any sort of entertainment district.

For the Cubs, Wrigley Field is the driving force behind huge crowds not only inside of the stadium, but for dozens and dozens of bars, restaurants, hotels, movie theaters, etc. A weekend series at Wrigley not only generates 120,000 a$$es in seats at premium pricing, but those people don't leave that area two hours before the game or two hours after the game. Think of all of the jobs and tax revenue that Wrigley generates. It's insane.

The Bears want to put in a 65,000 seat stadium, then have similar bars, restaurants, hotels, etc surrounding the area. Think about how many jobs that will create. Think about the tax revenue that would be brought in on GameDay alone. A domed stadium is viable 365 days a year and if they do secure Final Fours, Super Bowls, etc.....its becomes one of the epicenters in the country for large events and conventions.

I'm not sure how many people have been to Indianapolis to see their setup. That is a relatively small city, in a Midwestern state where the temperature is also an issue......but they've made that entire entertainment district an event by itself. INDIANAPOLIS holds Final Fours every 5 years and Super Bowls every five years. They funnel hundreds of thousands of people through there EASILY. You can't walk more than 200 feet without finding an eating/drinking establishment, hotels, business offices, retail shops....it's seriously a national and international icon for large events. It's in freaking INDIANAPOLIS!!!!!

Why do you think they're banging the doors down to pull this across state lines? If they put a 70,000 seat stadium in NW Indiana, draw Illinoisans there for a multitude of events, it'd be a coo. Think of all of that Illinois money going into an area that is 45 minutes away and you get NONE of it.

Now, to be clear, I don't think the citizens should be on the hook for building a stadium. I feel strongly about that. The Bears need to own that one and they are. The issue at hand with Arlington Heights is that while it's a great area, it's an older area and the infrastructure isn't anywhere close to where it needs to be to filter the types of crowds that the stadium would pull for an event. There is no easy way in and there's no easy way out. You have 90 and 53, which is great, but the only other major artery around there is Arlington Heights Road and it can't move traffic. They'd need to widen Euclid, which is basically a two lane undivided road lined with homes. There would have to be a complete and total overhaul of the area, which would probably be a 10 year project(more employment however), but you're looking at an $6B to $8B pricetag.....easily.

Pritzger is a God awful politician and he overseas a state that isn't exactly pro business and is bankrupt. That's on his watch and to try and sell this type of expenditure to the taxpayers is impossible. He is a businessman however and he needs to be able to craft a solution. By him saying that the stadium isn't a priority in 2026 is what set this off. The Bears are at fault here too. They should have NEVER have bought that land without negotiating this. They painted themselves into a corner from a negotiation standpoint. That's the McCaskey's however and they suck at pretty much everything they do.

Both parties are in a situation where they have to save face, but someone will have to blink. I think the answer probably lies with the Bears selling a portion of the team and allowing for there to be a minority stakeholder here.
Click to expand...

Your dislike of Pritzker colors your observations, although parenthetically I have to point out that Illinois’ fiscal problems were arrived at through a bi-partisan team effort between Blago and Rauner. You may not like Pritzker, but he has made significant progress in improving the Illinois state budget situation. He inherited a State in an incredibly deep hole. All that is beside the point.

Looking at Indiana’s sports arena situation underscores why Illinois should not follow Indiana’s lead and subsidize the Bear’s stadium construction. When Indiana contributed about $720 million for Lucas Oil Stadium, part of the debt was created to pay off the outstanding debt for the RCA Dome which still existed when the Colts demanded a new stadium. Taxes to pay for the public contribution for Lucas Oil Stadium were layered on top of the taxes imposed for the RCA Dome. The approximately $600 million current debt for Lucas Oil will not be paid off until 2037. By that time well over a Billion dollars will have been paid in principal and interest for a 30 year old stadium. In the meantime the Colts continually press for significant upgrades, at the public’s expense, The Colts have not ruled out asking for a third stadium when the lease runs out in 2034, and given the history of their abandoning Baltimore in the middle of the night, I would say no thank you. The problem with dealing with extortionists is they keep coming back and are rarely satisfied.

It doesn’t take much to find study after study that concludes publicly financed stadiums do not provide an adequate return on investment, whether in construction jobs, increased tourism, or any other measure.
 
#839      
Bucktown
Arlington Heights is/was a bad idea.

Anywhere in the City is better. The bears should not be asking for any direct subsidy, but instead they should seek non-monetary help from the various governments…fast track permits, street vacations, deregulation…

I am ok with TIF-like tax diversions to help with infrastructure. Right now Soildier field pays no property taxes because it is Park District owned. A new stadium will be taxed, so wherever it ends up, the increase in taxes from where the taxes were prior to stadium construction can be diverted for 20 years to help pay municipal bonds issued to finance infrastructure.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back