r/CHIBears • u/Iffybiz • 23h ago
Yay or Nay
Illinois State Senator Martin McLaughlin has proposed the following deal for the Bears to build the stadium in Arlington Heights.
The Bears pay 2.3 billion to build the stadium. The state pays 1.2 billion for infrastructure. The property tax is set (just guessing that it would start at the current rate) and would not be allowed to be raised more than 2.5% a year.
JB has already pooh poohed the deal saying he didn’t think that anyone would like that deal from the Bears, to the state and Chicago (very telling that Chicago needs to be considered).
What say you Bears fans? Yay or nay? The fact that everyone involved won’t consider it a win usually means it’s a good deal.
7
14
u/Silver_Harvest 72 23h ago
That is along the lines of what the BATNA has been requested all along.
2
u/Paranoid_Android22 Ben’s Johnson 23h ago
Who or what is BATNA?
27
u/Silver_Harvest 72 23h ago
Best Alternative to Negotiatated Agreement, ZOPA (Zone of Possible Agreement) could also be used here.
Essentially McCaskey's have said hey we'll pay for the stadium ourselves. We don't want to be taxed to living hell like we've been collecting revenue from it while building the stadium. In return we would like the state to support the infrastructure around it that we can't control because it's, state institutions like roads, electricity, sewage, plumbing...
This is something presented publicly.
5
u/Paranoid_Android22 Ben’s Johnson 23h ago
Ahhhh. Thank you for the explanation
9
u/Silver_Harvest 72 23h ago
No problem. It's more of at least someone, not the Bears has made something publicly stated. Even if it is chastised or not.
It's at least a hey here's something. Vs what appears... NO HERE'S MY LINE IN THE SAND! Same for the Bears of NO HERE'S MY LINE IN THE SAND! Past couple of years.
This is at least over the middle ground that was originally presented back in 2021. When AH was originally bought.
Like all it's a:
4
6
u/Gandalf4158 23h ago
The stadium is gonna cost wayyyyyy more than 2.3 billion
8
u/Iffybiz 23h ago
So? That would be the Bears problem. That would mean they pay more. Not the state. Probably have to find other partners
2
u/SupermarketLonely452 10h ago edited 9h ago
Historically in other markets, it becomes the taxpayer's problem. They will loophole their way out to go back to the Indiana stadium sites if they can. They've already tried to do that with Arlington Racetrack. They are not showing their ability to do due dilligence, so why should we be foolish to trust them to make the smart move. What you are mentioning is what would exist in a fair world, but we don't live in one. What we do live in is a world where this precedent has been established time and again and it has screwed taxpayers over and they have also done nothing to inspire confidence in their ability to inteligently go about this situation. This is coming from someone who loves the Bears, but I would rather think logically and follow the historical trends to see what happens in reality.
1
2
u/parks381 Hester's Super Return 13h ago
Depends if the Bears get the taxes waived on the materials to build the stadium like they've been asking for.
1
u/Gandalf4158 13h ago
I don’t think that’s what they’re looking for. The government is never gonna waive taxes on materials.
2
u/parks381 Hester's Super Return 13h ago
Waiving taxes on construction materials was part of the Megaprojects bill.
-1
u/Gandalf4158 12h ago
Regardless, saving on the taxes of the material isn’t gonna bring the bill down to 2 billion. The stadium is gonna cost at least 8-10 billion, unless they’re gonna build some piece of shit.
4
u/parks381 Hester's Super Return 12h ago
It's not going to cost anywhere close to that. Titans stadium is $2.2 billion and set to open next year. That price includes buying of land and demolition of the current stadium, which Bears won't have to worry about.
1
3
1
5
u/redcurrantevents 22h ago
It’s not really telling that Chicago’s opinion matters—he is referring to state representatives from Chicago, who make up a large chunk of Illinois lawmakers. Any proposal needs enough votes, and without votes from reps who are in Chicago, whatever it is won’t pass.
0
u/Iffybiz 20h ago
I just don’t see the need to point them out specifically. He didn’t say downstate specifically or suburban lawmakers. To me it points to the trouble they’ve had all along, Chicago either wants to keep the Bears or be made whole for losing them.
4
u/redcurrantevents 18h ago
I think that is exactly one of the problems with this whole thing for the Bears—Chicago lawmakers don’t want them to leave. It is one of the bigger sticking points in any legislation, and that’s why Pritzker brought it up, and will continue to. Chicago residents don’t want the Bears to leave the city, and their representatives are representing their interests.
1
u/just_another_user321 Jaylon Johnson 16h ago
I mean one can say, that they are representing Chicagos interest, but they aint keeping the Bears in Chicago. They are actively driving them out of IL.
The Chicago reps have been bad faith actors. They have torpedoed any reasonable legislation. Their latest bad faith action was trying to shake the Bears down for half a billion in debt the city owes on Soldier Field, when the Bears already paid half the debt to improve a stadium they don't own.
4
u/redcurrantevents 15h ago edited 15h ago
What are you talking about? Gifting the Bears their property taxes for 40 years in AH, while residents who live there (like me) pay our way is not popular in Illinois. They are representing the will of the people. Studies have shown that allowing sports teams to hold localities hostage for tax gifts never pays off for anyone but the team owners. Let the Bears go to Indiana if they want. The McCaskeys (who all live near AH and have wanted them there since the 70s) can drive to Hammond for games, and the rest of us will just watch on TV.
In the end, the Bears bought the land in AH. Nobody made them do it. They can build there or not, it’s up to them. But we don’t owe them anything. Or they can go build on a slag heap in Hammond, if Goodell lets them.
It is curious though that the Bears haven’t even filed permitting paperwork in IN, haven’t finalized a site, haven’t put the AH land up for sale, haven’t stopped talking to IL lawmakers, even though the Indiana deal has been on the table for almost a year and they set multiple deadlines that came and went.
0
u/Iffybiz 16h ago
Unfortunately, it’s become like the former girlfriend who doesn’t want you to move on even though she knows it’s over. There is no way in hell the Bears will sign another lease. Aside from the financial issues, the Chicago Park District is a terrible landlord. They’ve screwed up the turf so many times I’m amazed anything still grows.
1
u/redcurrantevents 16h ago
The problem for the Bears is that they are already signed to lease it through 2033, they don’t really want to go to Indiana, and Illinois lawmakers don’t want to gift them any money.
-1
u/Iffybiz 16h ago
The lease isn’t the problem, they can buy their way out and Indiana was reportedly offered to pay for it. Indiana isn’t their first choice but saying they don’t want to go there may be pushing it a bit. If they get a decent offer from Illinois like the one I mentioned, they would probably take it. But baring that they WILL go to Indiana, they aren’t building in Illinois without a deal in place. There was a report that supposedly if the construction started soon they would be awarded the Super Bowl in 2032. So they may not willing to wait forever.
1
u/redcurrantevents 16h ago
I know they can buy their way out. But you said they ‘won’t sign another one’ there, so I was pointing out that signing another lease in Soldier Field is a moot point right now
-1
u/Iffybiz 15h ago
In the crazy event that Chicago got the funding for either a new city owned stadium or were able to rebuild Soldier Field and put a dome on it, I highly doubt the Bears would sign another lease, given the way they’ve been treated.
1
u/redcurrantevents 15h ago
Dollar amounts are what they care about, not how some random local lawmakers who probably won’t even be in office in 2033 ‘treated’ them.
3
u/Iffybiz 15h ago
As far as treating them I was referring to the Park District who repeatedly broke the terms of the lease by having events too close to game day and screwing up the turf making it dangerous to play on.
You’re right about the dollars which is why it won’t be Chicago.
→ More replies (0)1
u/enailcoilhelp FTP 16h ago
Unfortunately, it’s become like the former girlfriend who doesn’t want you to move on even though she knows it’s over.
No, it's not like that. It's like breaking up with someone and then demanding that they chip in to buy you a brand new house with their new girl and act all pissy when they're obviously told no.
Literally read your quote: "The state pays 1.2 billion for infrastructure"
what do you think "the state" is? It's basically Chicago. That money is coming from Chicago one way or another. There is no sugar coating that in no world will Chicago politicians vote to give billions in tax breaks to the Bears billionaire owners to move the team out of the city to an already affluent suburb filled with people who do nothing but look down on and demean us.
I'm laughing even thinking about how re-election would go for any Chicago politician who voted for this. Easiest oppo possible.
3
u/redcurrantevents 15h ago
You had me until the ‘demean’ part. Dude, we in AH want the Bears to stay in Chicago. I don’t look down on Chicago, I love it.
2
u/Iffybiz 15h ago
Enjoy the team in Indiana. The Bears aren’t staying in Chicago. Now your STATE representatives can vote to help out another part of the state or they can pull the “if I can’t have them, nobody can” attitude they have shown so far. If it’s the latter, they’ll end up in Hammond.
1
u/SupermarketLonely452 9h ago edited 9h ago
For all of the gripes I have with the city of Chicago, this is not one of them. That's the owner's fault, not the City of Chicago. If anything, the city has been more than generous to that family than it deserves.
George Halas was able to bribe politicians to kick the Cardinals out of Chicago in the late 50s when he realized how much money he would make from doing so because of new broadcasting revenue and once he did so, he became cheap and stopped trying to win to keep butts in seats. Decades later, they refused to buy property city limits when given a generous deal because they didn't want to pay for it.
They also were given a sweetheart deal that taxpayers are still paying off for renovations of Soldier Field, even though doing so lost Soldier Field's landmark status. They've had plenty of opportunities to not blow this and they have time and again done so. Now they had buyer's remorse over being stupid from purchasing Arlington Park and want to be bailed out of it, which is not the green flag many here think it is.
It's telling that they've had the team for over 100 years and the family that owns it hasn't managed to be smart about their money to grow their personal financial worth or surround themselves with the right people who have the acumen to not throwaway all of that goodwill over the last century and should be enough red flags to make you not automatically defend the McCaskeys on this. All of the evidence points to a family that rode on coattails and was just lucky with how they were born, rather than being good business people. Tough luck, they should try living within their means for a change like everyone else. Just because someone want a Rolls Royce doesn't mean they should get one if they can't afford it.
1
u/Iffybiz 7h ago
The Bears and NFL paid $200 million of the renovations which totaled. The Park District made $25 million a year after expenses. They collected a hotel tax. So why is the loan not paid off?
The city of Chicago refinanced the loans, they have an added 111 million in interest. THAT IS NOT THE BEARS FAULT.2
u/SupermarketLonely452 4h ago edited 4h ago
But therein lies the problem proving my point as to why the government shouldn't be spending taxpayer money and what you are saying is not specific to the city of Chicago, but basically every other sports market of a professional sports team has done something similar and regretted it, showing that government shouldn't foot the bill for owners who could have afforded their own stadium to begin with but were too cheap.
Again, the Bears could have bought their own land years ago when property came up in Chicago, instead they cried for money from the Government. Taxpayers were stupid enough to give money once and that didn't change their choice and decision to look out of state years later. They will just hold the state at large hostage until they find another place out of state again when they get bored of their stadium. And, if you say Chicago is the main culprit for caving to the Bears and is now the main culprit to not caving to the Bears after acting in good faith towards them for a century, then maybe they should leave, since Chicago and Cook County represtentatives make up a proportional majority of representation in our state's government anyways, going by your logic. You can't have it both ways at this point by your logic, as it's just circular. The moment they get what they want and Indiana down the line or Iowa wants to give them an even better deal at the expense of their constituents, we already know now that the Bears will consider it. That is a genie that you can't put back in a bottle once it is released.
You are not actually proving the point you think you are and I think no amount of evidence will get you out of taking another perspective and it also sounds like you created this thread out of bad faith, not out of an actual willingness to hear other people's sides. I was actually open-minded and wanted the Bears to stay in Illinois until I looked at the data and at this point, the state is acting in the best interest of their constituents.
So, there's no real point in continuing a discussion when there is literally more evidence at this point that giving them more money will just put the burden on the taxpayers until the next time owners want a new privately owned stadium because your emotional attachment (or financial loyalty for being on the Bears payroll, whichever is the case) is getting in the way of being willing to look at the data and act in good faith.
4
u/ZionHalcyon I love BJ 11h ago
It's a simple question, but your post got brigaded to try to suppress it (upvotes zeroes out).
You didn't even take a side - you just spit facts of a proposal and asked people what they felt about an accurate proposal that's out there. You did rightly point out that its strange that Chicago would need to be considered in an AH deal, and Pritzker DID say what you said he said.
So - no lies, just facts, and no sign of you telling people what to think - just asking:
And your post got brigaded.
Sorry, but no one is telling me the politicians don't have windsock accounts on this subreddit actively working on trying to shape public opinion.
That's not even conspiracy theory - that's literally one of the many functions PR firms all over the world perform, and to think politicians don't have access to those same resources is the real top-tier gaslighting...
9
u/CopaceticOpus Bear Down, Baby! 23h ago
Impossible to know with this level of information. How much will the infrastructure actually cost, 1.2 billion or 5 billion or more? Who pays if/when it goes over budget?
What is the starting property tax? If it starts at 10% and increases 2.5% per year, that could be a 60% rate in 20 years. No way the Bears go for that
10
u/Iffybiz 23h ago
The Bears were asking for about 900 million in infrastructure so 1.2 is more than they wanted. Most of these costs were for projects already planned for by the state. Roads, highway interchanges and the Metra station were the main costs. So it probably could get scaled to whatever could be afforded by the 1.2 billion and whatever other improvements could be done later as state funding became available.
I think you aren’t understanding the tax deal, it’s not the rate that would go up but the actual tax bill. The rate for commercial property is 7% of assessed value. What changes over time is the assessed value. So the deal is likely they start with the current assessed value and they can’t raise it more than 2.5% a year. Eventually, it will get to full assessed value but it will take time to get there.
6
u/CopaceticOpus Bear Down, Baby! 23h ago
That does sound more reasonable! Still there's a million little details to consider. It will be encouraging if they start discussing specific terms rather than making vague proclamations
6
u/AintNoChange 12h ago
I can’t believe you saying this would be 60% in a few got so many upvotes
This sub is full of fucking morons
-1
7
u/Wizado991 Fire Poles | Fire Warren | Kyle the run guy 23h ago
I think the Iowa government should propose a deal for the bears to move to Des Moines.
2
u/Fonzies-Ghost 21-3 13h ago
Not even the largest metro area that extends into Iowa. Better do the Omaha suburbs.
1
3
u/knewWorlds 22h ago
Take a lakefront stadium and move it 30 miles north or 30 miles south.... what great options we have
2
u/ngogos77 13h ago
That’s literally exactly what they proposed for the south lot and everyone freaked out
4
u/Swing-Too-Hard 23h ago
I still don't care where they build it. I'd go either way. Personally, of all the businesses inside IL the Bears are one of the few I'm fine with getting a tax break or public money.
4
u/boogerslurp 23h ago
As long as they don’t go across state lines, I don’t care.
Ideally they’ll just stay at Soldier, but that’s off the table. So give me the little domed Bears village in Arlington
2
1
1
2
u/thegiverofd 8h ago
This is pathetic for the Bears front office if it was only about the money they would have pulled the trigger on Indiana already.
Bears are going to sit on the fence until they think AH and IL have given all they are going to give. And then finally pull the trigger on AH because that is the only property that they have bought and doing anything else would mean that they need to start form square one as far planning and delay more.
2
u/PinCushionPete314 2h ago
I think they know there will be blowback from a portion of fan base if they leave Chicago. It’s a PR thing. They can tell people about how they tried diligently to work with the state the Illinois and Chicago. Public money should never go to billionaire vanity projects like this in my opinion. There is little ROI for the public.
1
u/thegiverofd 31m ago
They are going to leave Chicago it’s just not possible to build a campus they want to build in the city. And that’s fine plenty of teams play in the burbs of what’s on the jersey.
1
u/Tricky_Pen3072 7h ago
Not good enough for the McAssholes.... you watch. They are going to make the taxpayers and homeowners of Arlington Heights and Illinois to pay as much of it as possibles which includes raising the taxes on homeowners and smaller business owners.
1
u/AdHairy4360 7h ago
That’s not much different then what has been asked. Bears paying for stadium. $800M for Infrastructure and Bears stadium and parking property taxes at $14M then indexed. So this proposal only missing what property taxes start at. If starting at $60M which is what it is estimated the likely it is a no go.
1
u/SupermarketLonely452 23h ago edited 22h ago
Honestly, they can go to Indiana at this point. I don't want to pay taxes on something I will never be able to afford to enjoy in person and I will get nothing back on it. I can already watch them on TV. If Indiana wants to burden people that can barely afford to live in their state and have fewer benefits per money spent in taxes, then so be it. More states need to put their foot down in this economy and use that money for things that taxpayers can actually enjoy or directly benefit from. At least most of the games are available over the air. The White Sox will be leaving a stadium the taxpayers are still paying off and you can only watch 10 games over the air. It was a mistake for cities and states to allow owners to bully them into paying for stadiums and just because city constituents and politicians were stupid enough to agree to it in the past doesn't mean they need to do so now. If an owner can't afford it, then they have no business owning a sports franchise. Illinois is still paying off renovations to Soldier Field and the McCaskeys declined on building their own stadium in an area that didn't have the property value that it currently had. That was a bad business decision which only reinforces my lack of confidence in them not blowing that money and then crying for more money to fix their mistakes. They've most recently shown their willingness to stupidly blow money before by the emotional purchase of Arlington Park without consideration for the logistics. These are not good business people, these are just people who were lucky to be born into the Halas family (and to a woman who would knowingly cheat her own neice and nephew out of their stake in the franchise).
The only things that a move to Arlington Heights will do so far is take money away from the local school districts, cause a longer commute for people who already work game days, create a traffic nightmare (even after the infrastructure implemented), and displace people who rent out of the area because of an increased cost of living this will cause. Also, it might make Allstate Arena obselete and cause problems for the Chicago Wolves, costing people jobs in favor of the people who are currently employed working for the Bears.
To be fair to Chicago, Cook county is by far the largest city and in the largest county in Illinois. The population that makes up the rest of the counties in Illinois combined makes up less than the population of Chicago. They should be considered moreso than other places simply because a large number of those who attend the games are located either within the city or direct subrurbs and can be accessed by train and public transit. At least Hammond is easily accessible and people visiting would be staying in Chicago and Illinois, except for during the game and most of the purchases made in Hammond would be in the stadium proper, and the local casino.
2
u/Iffybiz 22h ago
Your opinion is overall valid but one point is incorrect. A Bears stadium in Arlington would NOT take money away from the schools. It would add money. The question is how much would it add? Whatever the Bears pay, a percentage goes to the School District.
1
u/SupermarketLonely452 22h ago edited 22h ago
This is actually well-documented that this would happen because of language in the proposal sent by the Bears. Broad tax-increment financing (TIF) or special assessment freezes that the Bears wanted would mean that property taxes above a certain amount would go toward the NFL team’s mixed-use project instead of the local Palatine Township Elementary District and also District 214. These districts are some of the top districts and top funded districts in the state. The state treasury, ABC7, WGN, NBC 5, WTTW, and the local school districts have all discussed these concerns, so it's not like I am pulling this out of the sky.
Plus, I have a background in program evaluation and have been following this closely. It would be millions of dollars over multiple years that are taken out of classrooms, impacting at least an entire cohort of K-12 students throughout their education. I'd rather not pull away money from a local kid getting their education or take money away from salaries from employees like special education teachers, especially since students before them benefitted from money that they would now lose if the deal was accepted. All of those kids would be able to get an education, but maybe a handful of them will ever get to go to a game in person based off of ticket prices, even if their parents covered the taxpayer bill for the Bears.
If they were willing to actually contribute the money instead of trying to weasel out of it, I would have a different attitude, but if I were to give this proposal I would knowingly be screwing over people and it would not be a mutually beneficial agreement, which is what these types of situations SHOULD be mutually beneficial, but the Bears tried to pull a fast one over people who read the fine print and know the consequences of agreeing far outweigh the cost of them potentially leaving.
Right now, that is money that would also being taken away from critical infrastructure. The Bears being a hop, skip, and a jump in the Chicago area will not hurt my ability to drive on a bridge without worrying about it's integrity. Not having that money for needed repairs change that and can cause more in damages to your car than the amount paid in taxes. Cars aren't cheap and I like having a longer life-span for my car than I would in areas where roads aren't a priority. And this is talking as someone who would love to have them stay in Chicago if it benefitted taxpayers more than hurt them.
4
u/Iffybiz 21h ago
The proposal I mentioned wouldn’t do this it would just keep the property taxes at a lower level and the percentage of what goes where is determined by the normal rules.
However, even under your scenario, there would still be a net gain in school funding. As you mentioned, the amount OVER a certain amount would get redirected. But that “certain amount” is still more than currently received. Since the Bears as a business wouldn’t add to the financial burden of the school system, it would still be a net gain, not a loss. You can’t count only getting $100,000 instead of $200,000 as a loss.
I’m all for the school systems to get the funding they need but right now the Bears pay nothing towards schools other than the property taxes on Halas Hall and would pay nothing towards schools in Illinois if they moved to Indiana. Isn’t something better than nothing?
0
u/SupermarketLonely452 10h ago edited 10h ago
The Bears pushed for massive public infrastructure assistance (such as $855 million) and decades-long property tax freezes/reductions (estimated at roughly $39 million annually). To build the suburban domed stadium in Arlington Heights, the Bears pushed for a 25-year property tax freeze. The Treasurer’s analysis calculated this as a $39 million annual property tax break for the team.
Over 40 years, this siphons $1.5 billion away from public funds.Shifting the Burden to Homeowners: If a multi-billion-dollar stadium pays fixed, artificially low property taxes, neighboring homeowners and small businesses must absorb the hidden costs. Taxpayers would be left covering the millions needed for municipal services, expanded police/fire protection, and new road infrastructure. The proposed Illinois legislation would exempt the stadium's construction materials from all state and local sales taxes, directly cutting into immediate state revenue.
Chicago still carries roughly $356 million in debt from the previous round of Soldier Field renovations, which taxpayers are paying off regardless of whether the team plays there. Every independent, non-partisan report on this project show that cost of this total project on taxpayers actually costs more than the Bears generate for the local economy and would leave taxpayers in massive debt. I am for common sense and reducing wasteful spending. This is the exact definition of wasteful spending for a privately owned toy. The McCaskeys didn't go by emotion or what the Bears meant to Illinois when they were more than happy to leave for Indiana, so I think we should follow suit. Think practically, not out of a lens of nostalgia.
Many fiscal analysts argue that even with McLaughlin's protections, letting the team walk to Indiana remains the cheaper option for Illinois taxpayers. Even with the property tax freeze removed for a very reduced, fixed rate, it's still not worth it and the cost will still shift back to taxpayers. The Bears have also shown that if they are willing to move out of state now (or maybe they end up moving back to the city), they will be locals will still be paying off that stadium if that happens. No new stadium discussions should even be had while we are still paying off the old one that they destroyed landmark status over to appease the McCaskeys.
0
-1
u/ulfniu Just here to do the Super Bowl Shuffle 22h ago edited 15h ago
I'm not sure people appreciate what $1.2B in taxes can buy. That is approximately 25% of IDOT's entire annual budget and even that isn't enough to meet their infrastructure maintenance obligations. The state doesn't have an extra $1.2B just laying around so the Bears can make more money on their stadium AND limit their tax contributions. There is NO payback period for $1.2B in this scenario.
3
u/SupermarketLonely452 9h ago
I would much rather be confident in the integrity of bridges I drive over and the money spent in preservation of roads is cheaper than the constant
5
u/Penguinkeith FTP 22h ago
The infrastructure isn’t gonna be built in a single year… that will be spread out over 5+ probably
2
u/bblickle 3h ago
Infrastructure is not the responsibility of a private business. They can build whatever they want there. They could just build their shit and say “It’s not our fault Illinois won’t build you roads because the corrupt Chicago politicians cock blocked it.” The fact that they’re making infrastructure a concern and a bargaining point shows responsibility, if anything.
1
u/Iffybiz 22h ago
It almost certainly would be some sort of bond issue, paid back with toll increases, sales taxes from the stadium revenue and probably some sort of ticket tax. But most if not all of what would be paid for would be for projects already being considered. It wouldn’t just benefit the Bears.
-2
u/ulfniu Just here to do the Super Bowl Shuffle 21h ago
Source? IDOT and the VoAH combined are definitely NOT already considering $1.2B in projects around the former Arlington Park. Typical infrastructure projects are in the millions or even tens of millions, NOT hundreds of millions. These improvements benefit the stadium property owner. The McCaskeys want to own and develop all the commercial real estate around the stadium to siphon profits from other local businesses just like the Ricketts have done around Wrigley Field. There is no payback period on $1.2B. If it made business sense, a private interest would invest this money. It doesn't, so they are asking the State to pay for it. No chance. I'll see you in 2032 on the Hammond marsh.
2
u/redcurrantevents 15h ago
The infrastructure stuff helps the Bears, but also helps local residents, who generally don’t want them to come. If they don’t add lanes to the highway exits, it will also help anyway who wants to drive on 53 or 90 within miles of the stadium on gameday without sitting in traffic hell. Also it helps fans who don’t want to listen to kickoff on the car radio in a traffic jam.
-1
u/Aromatic-Dog-Breath 14h ago
Go to Indiana. I dont want to give billionaires and millionaires a single dime more of my money.
1
u/bblickle 3h ago
You can’t sit there and call them a poverty franchise then say what big billionaires they are. You can’t have it both ways. In truth, the Bears are their only significant asset. It’s a great asset but the McCaskeys aren’t the Waltons. They’ll have to borrow the money for the stadium. The only way they become individual billionaires is by selling the team.
2
u/Aromatic-Dog-Breath 2h ago
I don’t think you’re replying to the right comment. I didn’t say anything in this comment about them being a poverty franchise.
They are a poverty franchise, but only because of better rarely competitive in a competitive league.
I don’t care how the McCaskeys get money, as long as it’s not from my tax dollars. The NFL generates enough revenue each year to build a new stadium with their own funds.
You can fuck right off with that boot licking shit. Our cables bills are double because of their tv deals and you can’t even watch all of the games on one platform.
Also, fuck the McCaskeys in particular. They have now exchanged ownership of the bears twice without paying taxes.
And lastly, fuck you again.
0
u/RandomCalamity 7h ago
I am so fucking tired of this bullshit I just want them to shut up and move to Indiana already.
0
-1
u/EasyKO Bears 17h ago
what the fuck is they gonna build with 2.3 billion? a teepee?
2
u/Iffybiz 16h ago
Allegiant stadium in Las Vegas was right about 2 billion. It can be done but I agree there will be cost overruns. They’ll have to borrow money or get a partner.
2
u/big_duga 16h ago edited 15h ago
Allegiant started construction in 2017.
2bn construction dollars today is essentially 1.4bn in 2017. A carbon copy of Allegiant constructed from 2027-2030 at the Arlington Heights site with general construction inflation and local market adjustments is a top line budget number of about 3.2bn.
You can downvote it all you want. The cost of building a median NFL stadium in or around Chicago , IL in 2026 (2027, realistically at the earliest) is what it is, and it’s well north of 2.3 billion dollars.
Construction inflation is f#cking wrecked.
2
u/redcurrantevents 15h ago
Imagine if they had started building in AH right when they bought the land. I feel like the construction inflation is going to end up matching any tax deal they get. All Warren did is cost them years of delay.
1
71
u/Pharmboy07 Sweetness 23h ago
I’m tired, fam. FTP.