Chicago Bears 2026

#51      
Second place is 1st loser
WolfpackIllini said:
As a kid, I was a huge Raiders fan,
And they defined Oakland - tough, blue collar, etc
I was crushed when the moved to LA.
When thy moved back, I was "meh", and I haven't really recovered since.

The Bears ARE Chicago and Soldier Field IS the Bears.
All this talk of moving is sickening, right to my core.
Click to expand...
I have season tickets and Soldier Field is not only the smallest stadium in the NFL, but it's also a dump from logistics, to optics, to site lines, to amenities.....oh, and the Bears only get $0.70 on the dollar of their ticket price and none of the concession revenue. The Chicago Park District owns the Bears and the worst stadium in the league.

Now, we're picking hairs, but if you're bent on Chicago being the Bears, Hammond is basically an extension of the South side. You can literally see the Chicago skyline from there. It's 20 miles away from the current location. The hangup that you're having is that it's in Indiana and I get it. It's weird. I'm sure, to a point, that Kansas City Chiefs fans who live on the Missouri side feel the same way. The State of Kansas is swiping them, but the distance is pretty much the same as what Hammond presents. The Giants and Jets have the same set up.

Unless the city cuts the political cr@p out and pushes that PILOT bill through, if you're bent on Chicago being in the picture, Hammond is the best option and if you're bent on the Bears having the best facilities and best stadium product..... Arlington Heights is the best option. There are more than a handful of organizations that play in the suburbs. There's more room and there and more potential to grow.

Teams that move 3+ hours away is a different story. There is a legitimate disconnection from the fans in that situation. The Bears don't have that issue, plus I think that Lake Forest will continue to be their practice/office facility.

The move to AH should have been made 30 years ago.
 
#52      
Seppuku
MikeTisdale said:
The Bears moving to Hammond is like the best case scenario for Chicago/ Illinois.
a) The state of Illinois doesn't get fleeced for tax concessions, which are objectively a bad deal (it's been studied for decades, I can't believe this is still a narrative).
b) Chicago still gets basically all of what economic impact there will be - no one is flying into, staying, or spending their non-direct football entertainment dollars in Hammond, IN - all of that will be spent in Illinois.
c) Bears will sell the Arlington Heights property to someone who likely develops it in a more economically beneficial way (ie something that pays property taxes and is significantly more active year round than an NFL stadium with sparing off season use).

That said, they aren't building in Hammond. This is all a series of bluffs from the Bears that (thankfully) the IL legislature is getting right every time.
Click to expand...

I still don't understand where or how this "fleecing" is supposedly taking place.

The Bears bought the land with their own money, and are (were) willing to build the stadium without any public money. All the Bears asked for was that the state/county/town(s) address the infrastructure issues (which seems very reasonable as I'm unaware of businesses being forced to pay for roads, sewage, etc. that may be needed to accommodate added traffic from business being brought somehwere), and for reasonable property tax certainty.

Regarding the taxes, the only thing that the state/county are "giving away" is revenue from taxes they may levy--that is, a hypothetial tax revenue that does NOT exist, at least not until the Bears build the stadium, and which will never materialize without the Bears building the stadium and other facilities there, and the Bears were not even asking for tax free arrangement; they merely asking for reasonable taxes. Keep in mind here that when the Bears bought the land (track and all) in AH, the property tax was a mere $3M (and that, for comparison sake, only 4 NFL pay property tax, and the highest property tax being paid by an NFL team right now is that paid by the LA Rams, and it's mere $14M/yr). In other words, Illinois politicans gave up $400M in guranateed tax revenue, so that they won't give up $1B in hypthical tax revenue that they have levied.

Oh, and before you repeat your claim (point c), good luck finding someone or something that can use that land in "more economically beneficial way" to bring anywhere near the tax revenue (the "reduced" property tax and all the sales taxes from the games and other activities that the Bears were going generate) the Bears were going to generate. I've lived near that area, and there's nothing about that area that will attract anything in the caliber of an NFL team and related facilities.
 
#53      
Bucktown
Seppuku said:
I still don't understand where or how this "fleecing" is supposedly taking place.

The Bears bought the land with their own money, and are (were) willing to build the stadium without any public money. All the Bears asked for was that the state/county/town(s) address the infrastructure issues (which seems very reasonable as I'm unaware of businesses being forced to pay for roads, sewage, etc. that may be needed to accommodate added traffic from business being brought somehwere), and for reasonable property tax certainty.

Regarding the taxes, the only thing that the state/county are "giving away" is revenue from taxes they may levy--that is, a hypothetial tax revenue that does NOT exist, at least not until the Bears build the stadium, and which will never materialize without the Bears building the stadium and other facilities there, and the Bears were not even asking for tax free arrangement; they merely asking for reasonable taxes. Keep in mind here that when the Bears bought the land (track and all) in AH, the property tax was a mere $3M (and that, for comparison sake, only 4 NFL pay property tax, and the highest property tax being paid by an NFL team right now is that paid by the LA Rams, and it's mere $14M/yr). In other words, Illinois politicans gave up $400M in guranateed tax revenue, so that they won't give up $1B in hypthical tax revenue that they have levied.

Oh, and before you repeat your claim (point c), good luck finding someone or something that can use that land in "more economically beneficial way" to bring anywhere near the tax revenue (the "reduced" property tax and all the sales taxes from the games and other activities that the Bears were going generate) the Bears were going to generate. I've lived near that area, and there's nothing about that area that will attract anything in the caliber of an NFL team and related facilities.
Click to expand...
The proposal for the Chicago lakefront stadium would pay zero property taxes because it would be publicly owned. The revenue would to pay for the public's share would come from the existing hotel tax. Nearly all of the extra costs come from improving access to the area which is needed anyway. Mayor Johnson's lack of political capital doomed it from the beginning.
 
#54      
Seppuku
Bucktown said:
The proposal for the Chicago lakefront stadium would pay zero property taxes because it would be publicly owned. The revenue would to pay for the public's share would come from the existing hotel tax. Nearly all of the extra costs come from improving access to the area which is needed anyway. Mayor Johnson's lack of political capital doomed it from the beginning.
Click to expand...
Those are all fair points; however, my comments were directed to the comments I hear repeatedly where people say that what the Bears were asking for relating to the AH location amounted to giving away (or fleecing) of taxpayers. I just don't see how Illinois taxpayers are being fleeced when all the Bears were asking for was infrastructure upgrades needed to accommodate the increased crowed and traffic at the new stadium and related facilities, and reasonable property tax guarantees (something less than the insane amount the county and its greedy politicians could levy, but still much more than the county was getting from the land pre-developement or would be getting with anything else in that land).
 
#55      
Battle89
Seppuku said:
Oh, and before you repeat your claim (point c), good luck finding someone or something that can use that land in "more economically beneficial way" to bring anywhere near the tax revenue (the "reduced" property tax and all the sales taxes from the games and other activities that the Bears were going generate) the Bears were going to generate. I've lived near that area, and there's nothing about that area that will attract anything in the caliber of an NFL team and related facilities.
Click to expand...
Funny, I was thinking about this yesterday. For context, I am in Cary now but grew up in Des Plaines, and also lived briefly in Mount Prospect as an adult. Went to high school in Arlington Heights. All this to say I am very familiar with the area.

AH was considered a pretty tony suburb back in the day. Lots of old money there, not on the level of the wealthy communities closer to the lake (Highland Park, Bannockburn, etc.), but certainly the highest in the immediate area. South you had the industrial areas around O'Hare, and further west you had some newer money around Woodfield in Schaumburg and Rolling Meadows. But AH was considered pretty nice - and I even remember where Ray Meyer's old house is.

My sister lives there now, and any time I go visit her, I think 'meh'. The track is gone, the high schools are both gone (Arlington & Forest View, and yes I'm old), all the youthful energy is gone and you are left with just another decaying suburb. The downtown that they fixed up some years back still looks nice, but even that is getting dated now. Maybe the Bears' land would support one of those outdoor mall concepts, I don't know. Pretty close to Woodfield though - maybe such a project would entail a survival of the fittest battle.

The other factor is economic (or maybe every factor is economic!). Easy to say that Hammond is just an extension of the South Side, but the money is all north. The current economic pricing thinking (sports boxes vs. seats, Disney, Vegas, etc., and thank income inequality for that) is to chase after the 'whales' with the most money, not necessarily the most fans. I have to believe that you will get less return on an Indiana location (even if just over the state line) than one in AH from strictly fan revenue. Now maybe the tax benefits et. al. make up for that, who knows.
 
#56      
mattcoldagelli
Seppuku said:
Regarding the taxes, the only thing that the state/county are "giving away" is revenue from taxes they may levy--that is, a hypothetial tax revenue that does NOT exist, at least not until the Bears build the stadium, and which will never materialize without the Bears building the stadium and other facilities there, and the Bears were not even asking for tax free arrangement; they merely asking for reasonable taxes.
Click to expand...
Well, right, but also don't forget that a big part of the pitch for a stadium or any other kind of major development like this is "Sure, you'll see an increase in headaches like traffic, but it'll be an economic powerhouse for the [city/region]." Part of that economic argument is certainly tax revenue. Is it hypothetical? Sure - every bit as hypothetical as any other revenue or benefit, (i.e. "we'll host Super Bowls and Final Fours here! think of the prestige!")
 
#57      
Second place is 1st loser
Bucktown said:
The proposal for the Chicago lakefront stadium would pay zero property taxes because it would be publicly owned. The revenue would to pay for the public's share would come from the existing hotel tax. Nearly all of the extra costs come from improving access to the area which is needed anyway. Mayor Johnson's lack of political capital doomed it from the beginning.
Click to expand...
Mayor Johnson had no chance from the beginning. Chicago had no chance from the beginning.

The Bears are coming off if a TERRIBLE deal with the Chicago Park District. It's the Bears own doing to get into such a terrible contract, but in doing so they're only getting 70 cents on the dollar for ticket prices and they get no concessions revenue. The Park District runs the show and rakes the Bears over the coals. Again, the Bears did that to themselves on the watch of Mike McCaskey, the biggest buffoon of them all.

They're also is the smallest stadium in the NFL and it's not because they wanted it that way, it's because that's all the space allows. The logistics of that place is a dumpster fire.

Those are the facts of the situation. Can't get around any of it.

Other facts that Chicago can't get around:

1)The Bears want their own pad. They want all of the revenue, they want to hold large events and be the beneficiary of all of that. Nobody can begrudge them for that. Chicago/Johnson refuse to just accept that. They've been the beneficiary of that deal and seeing it walk out the door and the pressure that comes from the CTU not getting their palms greased is enormous. That group is the only reason he's on office

2)The Bears want a 70,000 seat domed stadium, with all of the parking needed, restaurants and hotels surround the area....and it's all on their land. Those facilities/hospitalities allow Indianapolis, of all places, the ability to hold Final Fours, Super Bowls, Big Ten Championship games, etc. Not sure if anyone here has been there, but it's the perfect setup and they left no stone unturned to be able to get those events.

For that type of setup to occur in Chicago, they'd have to demolish the current stadium, demolish McCormick Place, take 3/4 of Lake Shore Drive out OR......fill up 2 miles of Lake Michigan with a gazillion tons of concrete. Oh, and the Friends of the Park has to agree to not say anything about it or try and sue anyone for a sparrow being displaced. Warren, also a buffoon, tried to sell them in the fact that a new stadium enhances the park and beautifies it. They gave him the middle finger, the red tape went up and that was that.

So, that leaves the state of Illinois with only one option. That's Arlington Heights. The Bears want to stadium there, the NFL wants the stadium there, the mega PILOT bill made it through the house, but it got stopped in the Senate by one caucus and one caucus alone. It was the Democrat Chicago Caucus that Johnson has in his back pocket. The Senate was short votes because of that one group that refuses to be able to grasp the above. They have absolutely no chance of landing this project. The Bears have told them, Pritzger told them, the Indiana government flat out called him out and embarrassed him....doesn't matter. Now, for the program to get through for AH, they need 3/5 vote versus all that was needed was a simple majority on 5/31.

The only one who can strong arm that one is Pritzger, but he has his own political aspirations and he's held hostage by Chicago. He threw some real high inside fastballs at Johnson publicly basically saying all of the above with regards to the possibility of a stadium there is 0% and they had years to come up with a plan and couldn't. Pritzger won't go any farther than that on this subject. They can't even balance a budget, so he's got no real political capital behind him.

The only way this gets done is to call a special session and that only happens if a deal is being worked behind the scenes to get that 3/5 vote. I don't think it will happen and if I'm the Bears, there's NO WAY that I'm pushing this off until this fall and they should not be expected to.

Johnson is the leader of the clown show that is Chicago politics. He won't be reelected, Mendoza is already grilling him on this.....it's just meaningless drama.
 
#58      
Bucktown
Second place is 1st loser said:
Mayor Johnson had no chance from the beginning. Chicago had no chance from the beginning.

The Bears are coming off if a TERRIBLE deal with the Chicago Park District. It's the Bears own doing to get into such a terrible contract, but in doing so they're only getting 70 cents on the dollar for ticket prices and they get no concessions revenue. The Park District runs the show and rakes the Bears over the coals. Again, the Bears did that to themselves on the watch of Mike McCaskey, the biggest buffoon of them all.

They're also is the smallest stadium in the NFL and it's not because they wanted it that way, it's because that's all the space allows. The logistics of that place is a dumpster fire.

Those are the facts of the situation. Can't get around any of it.

Other facts that Chicago can't get around:

1)The Bears want their own pad. They want all of the revenue, they want to hold large events and be the beneficiary of all of that. Nobody can begrudge them for that. Chicago/Johnson refuse to just accept that. They've been the beneficiary of that deal and seeing it walk out the door and the pressure that comes from the CTU not getting their palms greased is enormous. That group is the only reason he's on office

2)The Bears want a 70,000 seat domed stadium, with all of the parking needed, restaurants and hotels surround the area....and it's all on their land. Those facilities/hospitalities allow Indianapolis, of all places, the ability to hold Final Fours, Super Bowls, Big Ten Championship games, etc. Not sure if anyone here has been there, but it's the perfect setup and they left no stone unturned to be able to get those events.

For that type of setup to occur in Chicago, they'd have to demolish the current stadium, demolish McCormick Place, take 3/4 of Lake Shore Drive out OR......fill up 2 miles of Lake Michigan with a gazillion tons of concrete. Oh, and the Friends of the Park has to agree to not say anything about it or try and sue anyone for a sparrow being displaced. Warren, also a buffoon, tried to sell them in the fact that a new stadium enhances the park and beautifies it. They gave him the middle finger, the red tape went up and that was that.

So, that leaves the state of Illinois with only one option. That's Arlington Heights. The Bears want to stadium there, the NFL wants the stadium there, the mega PILOT bill made it through the house, but it got stopped in the Senate by one caucus and one caucus alone. It was the Democrat Chicago Caucus that Johnson has in his back pocket. The Senate was short votes because of that one group that refuses to be able to grasp the above. They have absolutely no chance of landing this project. The Bears have told them, Pritzger told them, the Indiana government flat out called him out and embarrassed him....doesn't matter. Now, for the program to get through for AH, they need 3/5 vote versus all that was needed was a simple majority on 5/31.

The only one who can strong arm that one is Pritzger, but he has his own political aspirations and he's held hostage by Chicago. He threw some real high inside fastballs at Johnson publicly basically saying all of the above with regards to the possibility of a stadium there is 0% and they had years to come up with a plan and couldn't. Pritzger won't go any farther than that on this subject. They can't even balance a budget, so he's got no real political capital behind him.

The only way this gets done is to call a special session and that only happens if a deal is being worked behind the scenes to get that 3/5 vote. I don't think it will happen and if I'm the Bears, there's NO WAY that I'm pushing this off until this fall and they should not be expected to.

Johnson is the leader of the clown show that is Chicago politics. He won't be reelected, Mendoza is already grilling him on this.....it's just meaningless drama.
Click to expand...
I think you are forgetting that the Bears preferred the City location in 2024. That proposal was a joint proposal between the City and the Bears. The McCaskey's are not the Ricketts', Wirtz's or Reinsdorf's who all have other businesses and are capable of such a large development project. I think they only talked about the hotels restaurant's etc., because that is the only way they can finance a stadium in Arlington Heights; or Hammond. All of that lifestyle infrastructure already exists in Chicago. It the difference between a world class stadium environment and middling one. The lakefront location is not Wrigleyville, but I don't know that there is another facility in a setting for a stadium quite like the one in the Chicago proposal.

I agree Johnson is a buffoon, and the Friends of the Park(ing lot)s would whine, but a publicly owned stadium avoids the issues Lucas had and with legislation you can get around the lakefront protection issue--see Obama.
 
Back