CHICAGO | Da Bears | Now these shitheads wanna drive their clown car over to Indiana?

[twister244]

Originally Posted by 2PRUROCKS!

As a thought experiment let's say the Bears selected the South Works area to build a stadium. How would folks feel about it? It would be within the Chicago city limits and sate of IL but all the same drawbacks that folks have expressed about Hammond are the same if not worse (far away and difficult to get to for majority of wealthy fan base in north, NW, and western suburbs or portions of the city, former industrial site with with possible environmental remediation issues, few attractions or desirable developments nearby, poor transit access). If folks here are honest I bet those who are so outraged by the Hammond site would be ok with a South Works site. I think what really bothers most people is the phycological factor of the stadium being outside of Chicago and then outside of the State. I get it... I want the Bears to stay in Chicago but I don't really care about the state lines. As long as they are in the metropolitan area its seems about the same to me. I actually like the Hammond option better than AH. I go to AH weekly and drive past the old racetrack area. That entire area is just a bland suburb that has no visual connection to the city. The Hammond site is directly on the city's border with views of the Lake and skyline and a weird combination of postindustrial mystique and natural beauty with Wolf Lake and other natural areas nearby. I just think the Hammond site has more potential to still intergrate with the city than AH.

Well, as some have pointed out earlier in this thread - Putting the Bears in Hammond moves them further away from the parts of the metro that may have gone to games at Soldier Field. I guess it's possible they pick up new fans in some of the Southern parts of the metro, but how many of those people also were willing to go to Soldier Field? I promise you folks in the Northern/NW metro areas aren't going to have any desire to drive all the way to NW Indiana to see a Bears game in person.

Secondly, people are more pissed about the game the Bears are playing. Personally, I could give a fuck where the Bears go because either way, they are leaving the city, and I don't go to their games. What I am more pissed about is this childish tactic the Bears are playing to try to suck as much public money out of taxpayers as possible.

This is why I'm glad Pritzker (along with other lawmakers in Springfield) seem to have a good ear to the ground and recognizes most taxpayers feel this way.

[nomarandlee]

Originally Posted by 2PRUROCKS!

I think what really bothers most people is the phycological factor of the stadium being outside of Chicago and then outside of the State. I get it... I want the Bears to stay in Chicago but I don't really care about the state lines. As long as they are in the metropolitan area its seems about the same to me. .

I think the fact that it is another state certainly adds insult to injury. It is one thing for an established third airport in Gary to serve as a third airport for the metro; it is another for a scheming state to pilfer a team from a neighboring state by continuing to play the subsidized pro-sports palace game by throwing billions at a team.

I guess I am just finding the whole charade that pro sports leagues are participating in to be ever more shameless. The constant shaking down of communities and states, pitting one against one another, is emblematic of all that is wrong with the national corporate socialism we find ourselves in. More than ever, long after the proof and studies have come in, showing net negative outcomes, it seems less about the merits or logistics of a site or potential future revenue. Heck, they don't even seem to be primary or secondary considerations. It is about which government can subsidize a sports factory every 30 years.

I understand this point is beyond the larger scope of the Bears, and I don't exactly blame the Bears for playing the game they find themselves in. That doesn't mean they aren't choosing to be the villain in this story.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Randomguy34

The South Shore Line made a brief announcement saying they're interested in exploring how to improve transit access to the proposed Bears site: https://mysouthshoreline.com/south-shore...s-advancement-of-hammond-stadium-option/

Good to see they are paying attention. I don't know what they can easily do, other than offer a bus shuttle from Hammond Gateway... but if the state or the team is willing to chip in some funding, there are a few different rail spurs into the stadium site (IHB or CSX) that could be used to offer a rail shuttle service or even direct trains from downtown Chicago.

Tracks might need to be rebuilt to offer a decent speed/ride quality. They'd also need some diesel locos to haul the cars on unpowered trackage, and some kind of half-decent boarding platform near the new stadium. But it certainly seems possible to set up a decent service for well under $100M.

[k1052]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Good to see they are paying attention. I don't know what they can easily do, other than offer a bus shuttle from Hammond Gateway... but if the state or the team is willing to chip in some funding, there are a few different rail spurs into the stadium site (IHB or CSX) that could be used to offer a rail shuttle service or even direct trains from downtown Chicago.

Tracks might need to be rebuilt to offer a decent speed/ride quality. They'd also need some diesel locos to haul the cars on unpowered trackage, and some kind of half-decent boarding platform near the new stadium. But it certainly seems possible to set up a decent service for well under $100M.

I think busses are the most likely option unless Indiana is going to foot the bill for that.

[Danillo]

For team owners, is the whole point of the exercise that they just get a high out of extorting as much money as possible from the public?

I feel like teams, the Bears included, like to say that they need to create sources of non-gameday revenue, or gameday parking revenue, and that they can't get that downtown. The NFL is such a colossus that I'm guessing the Bears will be able to sell out in Indiana (though they probably should at least be a little wary of what happened in DC when the team moved, got bad, and went from a huge season ticket waitlist to having to cover seats...), but it seems hard to imagine that the IN location is going to be a year-round revenue producer.

I remember when the Vikings wanted to replace the Metrodome they made a big deal out of needing these other sources of revenue, but then ended up being happy to stay in the same downtown location. By all accounts, US Bank Stadium is truly great, but it's location seems counter to their original claims. In Green Bay, the Titletown district seems like a success, but I should look up the Packers public financial statements to see if it's generating significant revenue. I guess what I'm getting at is, does all of this talk about non-gameday revenue really matter, or is it just a chip a teams have come up with to extort money from public sources?

[vexxed82]

I thought I posted this a few days ago, but apparently it never posted. Wouldn't this move necessitate a full rethink of the design and programming of the entertainment/residential district?

The socioeconomics and "urban geography" if you will, of Hammond vs. Arlington Heights is so different. You can't just drag and drop the same plan for Arlington into Hammond and hope it works, at least I don't think.

As closely as I've followed this, mostly via headline and forum/Reddit posts, I can't remember seeing any official renderings or updated plans for the Hammond site(s). Did I miss something?

[r18tdi]

When it comes to generating year-round revenue, I always thought the Bears partnering with the One Central proposal to build their mixed-use campus just west of DLSD made the most sense logistically (especially if OC would have won the casino bid), but the state said no to footing the infrastructure costs associated with capping the tracks. The plan also didn't address the issue that Soldier Field has the lowest capacity in the league, lacks a roof and the Bears really want to own -- not rent -- their stadium and be able to sell off the naming rights.

Originally Posted by vexxed82

As closely as I've followed this, mostly via headline and forum/Reddit posts, I can't remember seeing any official renderings or updated plans for the Hammond site(s). Did I miss something?

This is the only rendering I've seen so far.

[JN12Franklin]

I'd be curious to know if you all disagree, but I feel like the process for gaining support (politically and from fans) and for gaining funding pretty much ALWAYS starts with a rendering and/or site plan. Every step of this process in Illinois has always included renderings and site plans. I have to wonder why they're withholding that from Hammond.
But maybe the answer is obvious. They know whatever they're able to present will be laughable. These sites in Hammond are so ill suited to their overall goals. Best case scenario, they're at least 18 months away from putting a shovel in the ground. The environmental, pollution, and wetland concerns/mitigations aren't going away.
The reality is that Arlington Heights is still much further ahead in the timeline and process than NW Indiana.
The Wolf Lake site in particular just isn't remotely viable. That's why they've actually gone backward on their timeline with respect to NW Indiana. In February, it was Wolf Lake. Now they're back to evaluating multiple sites. What a joke...

[Danillo]

Looking at the Packers FY '25 statement, they took in $432.6 million in national revenue, and $286.4 million in local revenue. I'm going to guess that over $200 million of the local revenue is in some way tied to gamedays (whether that's actual ticket sales or things like selling luxury suites for the year, parking, etc.). Looking at the % dip they took in local revenue during the almost-no-fans pandemic season in '20 seems to support my estimate.

So that leaves $50-$80 million in local revenues. I would imagine that the significant majority of that comes from sponsorship deals. Like the Bears, the Packers don't own their stadium and there is no naming-rights income from the stadium. The Packers lease is very inexpensive, and I believe they keep most of all of the other stadium revenue, and I don't know how that compares to the Bears situation at Soldier Field. Also, while Lambeau isn't named, just about everything else at the stadium is, and I don't recall how that compares to Soldier Field (for instance, are the entrances to Soldier Field named?). So there are some sources of local revenue that the Packers may have access to that the Bears currently don't. At the same time, with Chicago being the much, much larger market (even taking Milwaukee into account for the Packers), the Bears should have quite a bit better access to sponsorship revenue.

So what do the Packers make from the Titletown District and whatnot? I can't imagine it's more than $10 million per year. Chicago doing the same sort of thing should generate more than that, especially if it were in Chicago, but I doubt it's going to be 5x more or something. That money matters as revenue, but is it really worth it to give a team a billion dollar subsidy so they can generate a couple tens of millions more?

As others have said, the real goal has to be the franchise value gained from owning the stadium, which is something that only benefits the owners. Should the public be investing large sums of money on something that will have little to no impact on the product on the field, but add hundreds of millions to the net worth of the team owners?

[Chi-Sky21]

It will be AH, NOBODY is going to drive to Hammond to see a concert or almost anything else. The artist or whoever would pick Soldier Field or some other venue in the city. So if they can pretty much only make money off of games good luck! Also, who is going to drive there when the Bears are BAD? Not me. Not even going to go to Hammond if they are good honestly. They move it is adios for me, will just watch on TV.

[nomarandlee]

All good data points Danillo. It's been a few years since I was at Soldier Field, but Soldier Field has the United Club (formerly the Cadillac Club). I think I remember seeing some Chase-related club or promotional stuff, I could be wrong on that

That money matters as revenue, but is it really worth it to give a team a billion dollar subsidy so they can generate a couple tens of millions more?

The short answer? No, I don't think it does.

What seems apparent to me is that the Bears want "tax-certainity" (i.e., a heavily capped tax-cut that other NFL teams also receive). Supposedly, no other team pays more than 15million, most far less, for their property taxes per year. Out of sheer honor and face-saving, this is probably important for them as a franchise in terms of getting. It may also be important to the league to insist on, lest other municipalities feel they can start docking stadiums on property and sales taxes. Reading between the lines, it seems that A.H. and the state are willing to play ball on that end of things.

The bigger question mark is this amorphous "infrastructure" component, which I thought I remembered reading was a +750million ask from the Bears. That is a lot of infrastructure. Important to sort that out: what would the cost of basic infrastructure/TIF assistance be for a typical commercial/residential developer who would otherwise develop the space? That estimate, I'm sure, could vary wildly depending on the size, type, and placement of units and buildings on the site. Maybe someone else could give a back-of-the-envelope estimate for that; I wouldn't have a clue. I have a hard time thinking it would be upwards of $750 million, however.

Which leads to my next point, I think that the 750-1 billion infrastructure subsidy ask from Illinois seems, most likely, to be hiding the itemized funding egg. The team hasn't even done a traffic study or enviromental studies (AFAIK). What estimates for various scenarios of the stadium and ballpark village infrastructure would cost would depend on long-term unknown market demand, interest rates, building costs, etc., over 10-20 years. Still, the fact that they haven't put forth any rough estimates indicates to me they want to use the term "infrastructure support" very liberally, likely to funnel a fair amount of that funding to facilitating the stadium or stadium grounds, if I had to guess.

So, does A.H and Illinois nearly $1 billion to funnel ambiguous "infrastructure" spending to the Bears? It will take nearly 100 years to recoup that amount, based on the relatively paltry approx. 10million in tax revenue that is collected from the Bears. Unless the idea is to make up for large tax proceeds on the rest of the development, of which the type and extent are still very much unknown and unpromised.

Would the idea be that it would cost 100-250million in infrastructure TIFs for alternative site development anyway? Again, I don't even know what is typical in terms of infrastructure subsidies or TIF's by governments to master developers of this size when building more typical residential or commercial districts, which is what the Bears proposal has to be weighed against.

Still, I foresee the taxpayers losing their shirt with the Bears' plans. That is, unless officials think that the prospects may be sparse in making it a tax-revenue generator, without large subsidies in the near future, with some other kind of development aside from the Bears stadium.

[munchymunch]

The site would absolutely need a figure of between $750M and $1B. You're basically working off of nothing as it currently stands; I'd be shocked if they could reuse much of what's there, and that's before we get into new Metra stations, pedestrian bridges, etc. And to be honest, isn't that what the government is here for? To supply bridges, roads, and infrastructure? Sure, I get that maybe not everything, since it's basically going to be an entertainment complex, but to me it's valid.

My largest issue with what's coming out of Halas is the 'property tax certainty'... they're deliberately being vague and pulling B.S. comparisons between cities. Saying SoFi pays $10-15M a year misleads the average person because it leaves out the rest of the entertainment complex that Kroenke built. Yes, taxes would be high here, but $100M+ is for EVERYTHING, including the stadium, hotel, Cooper's Hawk, bowling, Cava, and the other copy-paste crap.

[sammyg]

Speaking of the entertainment complex, how much land will the McCaskeys control in Hammond? I know one of their motivations for leaving Soldier Field was that they had no income from all of the surrounding bars/restaurants/hotels, and they would own the entire district in Arlington Heights.

Are they going to settle for just owning the stadium in Hammond?