This is going to be really interesting, to see how this all plays out. While the Bears have to pay $84 million in 2026 and beyond to cut ties with their current contract (through 2033), that's a drop in the bucket compared to larger / longer-term costs. All that matters to me is that taxpayers don't pay to build a new stadium. Don't care where the stadium is, as long as the company making money off of it is paying for it themselves. And, if the Bears are having to foot the bill for a new stadium entirely themselves, I'm willing to bet that's a pretty big incentive for them to stay put. There are a lot of dynamics to this. We're gonna get dragged through it over the next few years, at least.
I just think it's a leverage ploy, they're fishing. You and I both know they won't spend money on a new stadium, and unless someone builds it for them they will remain where they are. Even if they went ahead and purchased the property it doesn't necessarily spell out moving the Bears there. It could be purchased as an investment with immediate power of leverage over the Park District.
The McCaskeys have no money to fund a stadium and I agree they're playing hardball. But please, I hope the mayors/citizens of either Chicago or Arlington Heights do not give those fucks a dime of money for the stadium. It would give them new life as owners with the increases in revenues and power. If you have dreams of them selling the team, it won't happen if they're getting a new stadium at the tax payers expense.
Most residents of AH don't want to, but the Mayor is a 33 year political lifer whose run uncontested since 2013 for Mayor, who keeps running on "I'll fix the economy and small businesses!" Got a feeling he's going to give the bears a blank check.
This is my ignorance on this issue, but how can a suburb of 75k residents fund a $2 billion (or more) stadium? A quick google search shows that their annual budget is less than $200 million. The residents are going to be paying it off for decades into the future. Maybe they assume the increased revenues from gamedays will sort of offset that? Seems unrealistic.
You answered it here. This is sadly the day and age in America. We sure as fuck aren't Christian, we don't do the right thing, we don't solve problems no matter how easy the simplest of solutions come, we just do what gets us more money. And when you understand that--you'll see how a Mayor/residents who can't afford ~$2 billion (think your number is generous, think it'll be more because the Rams/Chargers' new one was over $6 billion final--not that AH would be that much compared to SoCal) can cop out behind "well, at least 8-9 Sundays a year and maybe a college football/basketball game or maybe a concert/sporting event will get them revenue which will help small businesses." If politicians can run up a credit card/national or state or local debt and deficit and worry about it later before bitch-slap fighting as we see at all levels of 2 partied governance that's broken this country, if Atlanta can for the Olympics in 1996 they didn't pay off until a year or two ago then have teams abandon the stadiums/buildings it had, then it doesn't matter. What matters is a suburb gets to have a plaque saying "home of the bears." The folks I know in AH don't want them there. Can't blame them. I-90, the main highway that'll get you to/from AH to the city is still a clusterfuck when it splits from 94, past O'Hare all the way to Schaumburg, even with new "express" lanes from Cumberland exit to the Airport. Its highly residential without the nonsense the city has of street parking permits based on neighborhood. But hey, I can hope when Shad Khan inevitably leaves Jacksonville that he'd want to move to a federally landmarked status stadium with a spaceship on it.
Two questions i have for you guys, particularly the Chicago guys after hearing about this. 1- Does it bother you that the team would be so far outside the city? I had no idea this place was 35miles away, that seems like a lot. 2- Does the team moving to a new stadium increase or decrease the chances of the McFuckskey's selling?
1) Not at all. Soldier Field when I go (haven't been to a bears game there since 2004 when Peyton Manning hung 40 on them, but have gone for a few college games/Northwestern plays the Illini there as well as concerts) is just ass-backwards to get to unless you take the CTA and walk from Roosevelt red/green/orange line after being packed like sardines in the train cars--which hilariously on Sunday there are only 4 of. Don't bother parking. When the afternoon game ends, you're waiting for 2 hours and you're just wiped out getting home after 6 PM knowing the game ended at 3 when I live 10 minutes north on 90/94 with no traffic. Tons of teams don't play within city limits. LA Rams/Chargers don't play in LA. Giants/Jets don't play in New York City. The Cowboys don't play in Dallas. I hated the space ship when they added it and I won't miss it. Afraid Arlington Heights doesn't have the same skyline Chicago does when networks show 'the city shot.' Just a really big Meijer and Top Golf. And on top of it, the bears have the "3rd biggest market" in Chicago, which I struggle with because even though I've been to SoCal 1x in my life at 33 years of age--the beach always wins when I was out there. Having a stadium with 63.5K people is egregious, especially when the Packers in "the Green Bay area" have over 80K capacity in their toilet bowl. 2) Increase. New stadium, new look (same bumass team), and NFL revenues keep going up and up and up. No reason to think with a stadium locally that can now host a Superbowl, NCAA tourney bigger than the United Center, big time NCAA Football games/not one-off of Notre Dame/Illini/NU playing at Soldier field once every few years.
I no longer live in the area, but my two cents. 1. Ease of commute wise, as pat said it's actually easier (and coming from out of town, it's closer to the airport even - the only airport that matters anyway, midway can get fucked). I think no matter where the stadium is, they'll still do skyline shots from the city itself. Personally I like Solider Field and museum campus, tailgating on the lake front, etc, but there's no question it's a pain in the ass if you were a season ticket holder. 2. I think it increases the value of the franchise and they might try to dodge the inheritance tax, but if they DO get someone else to pay for it, it will also be a cash cow. For a bit there, I got this confused with the Rosemont mayor, he's another one that would for sure spend money they don't have to buy stadiums. Rosemont has the allstate arena and the convention center, etc, etc, they love out of town money. It might be a ploy still for the city of chicago since they don't have funding for the stadium yet, but actually buying the land to me sends a stronger message. They haven't been happy with the soldier field arrangement for a long time.
I'm not the least bit concerned, considering the Bears move only 1.1 yards at a time, it most certainly won't happen in my lifetime.
