Bash Riprock Posted May 1 Posted May 1 20 hours ago, Muda69 said: The Bears get an "F" grade for the 2026 draft, right behind the "D-" Colts: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7240572/2026/04/30/nfl-draft-2026-grades-analytics-winners-losers/ USA Today a tad nicer with the grade for both Bears and Colts..... NFL draft grades: Ranking all 32 teams' 2026 classes, with lowly Jets earning an A+ Quote
Muda69 Posted May 5 Posted May 5 Ghosts of stadiums past haunt Chicago Bears quest for a new stadium deal: https://www.chicagotribune.com/2026/05/02/ghosts-of-stadiums-past-haunt-chicago-bears-quest-for-a-new-stadium-deal/ Quote As lawmakers consider helping the Chicago Bears build a new stadium, the ghosts of past stadium deals still haunt the present. Soldier Field, Rate Field and even Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis loom over the landscape, marking steel and concrete warnings and justifications for a new stadium deal. Critics and boosters alike say we should learn from those lessons when considering whether a new deal will be a boon or a boondoggle. “The big lesson is, read the fine print,” said Neil deMause, author of “Field of Schemes,” a book and website that analyze stadium subsidies. “A lot of deals in the past have gotten approved without legislators or the public examining all the different line items, and it ends up costing a lot more than you expect.” In the Bears’ case, Illinois lawmakers are weighing whether to let the team negotiate a long-term property tax break with local governments in suburban Arlington Heights. The team would pay $2 billion to build the enclosed stadium at its own cost, but wants the state to pay up to $855 million in infrastructure costs such as roads and utilities. Across the border, Indiana lawmakers have already authorized building a new domed stadium. As proposed, the Bears would kick in $2 billion, while the state would pay $1 billion. Funding for the new stadium in Hammond would come from a property tax in a special zone around the stadium, plus a 10% admissions tax, 1% food and beverage tax in Lake and Porter counties, and 5% hotel tax in Lake County. To reassure residents, officials say the funding mechanism would be similar to that of Lucas Oil Stadium, home of the NFL’s Indianapolis Colts. But Indianapolis has a couple of advantages that northwest Indiana does not. It has a state convention center that helps pay expenses and imposes a 5% rental car tax and an extra 1% food and beverage tax originally instituted for the old RCA Dome, which was imploded in 2008. State officials point to Lucas Oil as a great success story, since the state has never had to pay for the original $666 million debt. However, taxpayers still are on the hook to pay off the remaining $463 million debt through 2037. Economic research repeatedly has shown that public subsidies for sports facilities are a bad investment, largely because they reallocate spending from other businesses and forms of entertainment. University of Indianapolis finance associate professor Matt Will agrees with that, but says the Hammond stadium could be an exception, in part by benefiting from lower construction costs in Indiana. “It’s going to be a game changer we’ve never seen in a publicly financed stadium, because Indiana is going to move money from Illinois,” he said. Beyond the economic cost, he said, “There is a huge intrinsic value to have an NFL franchise in your city, and Hoosiers have been willing to pay for it.” Other economists are not so optimistic. Geoffrey Propheter, an associate professor at the University of Colorado Denver School of Public Affairs, has estimated that a new stadium in Indiana could cost closer to $4 billion by the time you include interest costs, a likely mid-lease renovation, and lost opportunity costs from how that money could be used for better investments. The scenario he paints isn’t much better in Illinois. Propheter has estimated the tax breaks in Arlington Heights could be worth at least $2 billion over 30 years, and could end up costing other property owners in the area. “People who don’t care about the Bears or the stadium are going to be paying higher taxes so that their town can host the Bears, and be partly responsible for the maintenance and capital repairs to the stadium over its life,” he wrote. That lesson became abundantly clear with the renovation of Soldier Field in 2003. The team kicked in $200 million toward the $632 million project. The public still owes $467 million for the job, which, once it was completed, drew widespread criticism. The debt for that construction was supposed to be paid by annual payments of $5 million each from Chicago and the state, plus a 2% Chicago hotel tax. But those payments have fallen short in recent years, forcing the city to pay about $51 million extra in recent years. The annual amount due will go up through 2032. Another lesson in taxpayer costs has come from the home of the Chicago White Sox baseball team, Rate Field. After the team threatened to move out of state, that stadium cost about $137 million to build when it opened in 1991. But after people were alarmed by the height of the upper deck, it cost another $118 million in renovations in the 2000s — all of it paid by taxpayers. The public still owes another $45 million for the ball field — even as the White Sox are looking to build a new stadium again on a better site, closer to downtown. In contrast, the 1994 construction of the United Center, where the Bulls and Blackhawks play, was privately financed, though it received tax breaks. Now, the Wirtz and Reinsdorf families that own the facility are seeking $55 million in tax incentives for the proposed $7 billion “1901 Project” mixed-use development around the arena. The $740 million in recent renovations in and around Wrigley Field, home of the Cubs, was also paid by its owners, the Ricketts family, with a relatively small $8 million tax incentive. And two new stadiums are planned to be built with private money: Ryan Field in Evanston, and a Chicago Fire Stadium in the South Loop, which would be likely to receive tax increment financing, or TIF, funds from the city for infrastructure. So when the Bears propose to pay for their Arlington Heights stadium themselves, that is a welcome investment, said Dennis Coates, professor of economics at the University of Maryland in Baltimore County. But since the Chicago metropolitan area has a gross domestic product around $900 billion, estimated by World Business Chicago, even a $2 billion splurge amounts to far less than 1% — making a small dent in the region’s economy, Coates said. The Bears would avoid Chicago’s 9% ticket tax in Arlington Heights, but still pay at least Cook County’s 3%, which Coates said brings up another lesson of good stadium economics. “As a matter of principle, people attending the games ought to pay the subsidy, not the little old lady who’s a fan of the opera,” he said. “In the same way, Bears fans shouldn’t pay for the little old lady to go to the opera.” Every dollar that goes to a sports team, he emphasized, is a dollar that doesn’t go to schools, libraries or transportation. And any shortfall in public funding will likely leave taxpayers on the hook. Despite the inequities of public financing for stadiums, perhaps the greatest lesson is that while voters often vote them down, they continue to get approved by state lawmakers. The lesson there, Coates said, is: “People who want the stadium are more politically influential generally than the people in opposition.” The new Bears stadium should be 100% privately financed, a sports franchise valued at over $5 billion dollars should be able to afford it. Quote
Muda69 Posted May 6 Posted May 6 Mayor Johnson determined to block Bears' move to Arlington Heights: https://chicago.suntimes.com/bears-stadium/2026/05/05/mayor-brandon-johnson-bears-stadium-legislation-arlington-heights-kam-buckner Quote Mayor Brandon Johnson on Tuesday mounted the legislative equivalent of a goal-line stand against the Bears’ quest for the property tax break needed to pave the way for a domed stadium in Arlington Heights. Johnson questioned why any lawmaker from Chicago would even think about providing a massive tax break for a professional sports team valued at nearly $9 billion, while ignoring the need for what he calls progressive revenue to increase school funding and help working people struggling to make ends meet. “If we’re asking anyone to tighten the belt, we should look at whose belt is exploding — and that’s the ultra-rich. As their bellies get fat and our people are starving, this is not the time to balance the budget off the backs of working people,” the mayor said at his weekly news conference. “The type of tax structure that they would set up for large corporations and billionaires without a clear pathway to provide certainty as well as equity for everyday working people, I believe that’s a mismatch there. And quite frankly, the infrastructure they’re even discussing in the suburbs — those infrastructure needs have been present on the lakefront for a very long time.” Hours before joining fellow Chicago-area mayors in Springfield, where he has had little success, Johnson made it clear that he would use whatever political muscle he has to block the so-called megaprojects bill now before the Illinois Senate after clearing the Illinois House on April 22. Though Chicago is no longer part of the conversation to build a domed stadium needed to keep the Bears in Illinois and stave off a move to Northwest Indiana, Johnson is still holding out hope to keep the Bears in the city. “I’m building things in this city. I want to build more things in this city. Why is that important? Because it creates opportunities for Chicagoans,” Johnson said. “Why would I advocate for something that wouldn’t benefit the people of Chicago? I don’t know why any Chicago legislator would vote for anything that doesn’t benefit the people that they represent.” .... Two years ago, Johnson joined Bears president Kevin Warren in unveiling plans for a domed lakefront stadium adjacent to Soldier Field that would have required $2.4 billion in public support. Gov. JB Pritzker and Democratic legislative leaders were conspicuously absent. The mayor’s plan went nowhere in Springfield. On Tuesday, Johnson said he has other stadium sites and ideas to keep the Bears in Chicago. He refused to reveal specifics. Alternatives include: The 78, site of the new Chicago Fire stadium under construction; the Amtrak site near The 78 eyed by the White Sox for a new ballpark; the stalled One Central megaproject on railyard land near Soldier Field; and the 49-acre Michael Reese Hospital site that the Bears have rejected as too narrow. Chicago Park District Supt. Carlos Ramirez-Rosa is preparing for life without the Bears by continuing to lobby for $630 million to renovate Soldier Field and ease the traffic bottleneck that makes it difficult to get in and out of the Museum Campus. But Johnson is not giving up hope, even though Arlington Heights and Hammond, Indiana, were the only Bears stadium sites discussed with NFL owners recently. On Tuesday, Johnson said he and Ramirez-Rosa agree on the need to improve lakefront access. “The campus needs a makeover,” Johnson said. “The ingress-egress is absolutely horrific. I don’t mean to trigger Bears fans or concertgoers. [But] it is just brutal getting in and out of that space. ... It disrupts the type of flow that would naturally carry over to the rest of the campus.” Quote
Coach Nowlin Posted May 6 Posted May 6 Great Mayor Johnson: Why don't you just sell the land/property to the Chicago Bears, the ultra rich, then? I will hang up and listen....... 1 Quote
Coach Nowlin Posted May 14 Posted May 14 IF the Leaks are true: and seems to be: Open on Road to Panthers: Then 3 straight HOME games; (ugh, not good for this guy). Eagles MNF, Pats TNF, Bucs SNF (those are the 3 I want to keep) Thanksgiving in Detroit XMAS at HOME vs PACKERS. This one burns me up: ugh. Really don't want to go on XMAS, really hope someone thinks what a great gift and pays the normal Packer pice we typically get. Finish with GB, Detroit, then Road at Minnesota Home games Saints and Jags... meh Quote
Coach Nowlin Posted May 15 Posted May 15 Well ended up getting too good price on Eagles game: Sold Home Opener, Eagles MNF.. and J E T S. and the JETS game I got 3-1 on my money.... insane..... 3 games sold..... 88% of total price back already. BEARS Quote
Muda69 Posted May 27 Posted May 27 Illinois Plans Tax Break for Billionaires and the Chicago Bears. Everyone Else Could End Up Paying More.: https://reason.com/2026/05/27/illinois-plans-tax-break-for-billionaires-and-the-chicago-bears-everyone-else-could-end-up-paying-more/ Quote The Illinois Legislature is busy advancing a bill that's one of the most egregious examples yet of the grift between professional sports teams and state and local governments. Under House Bill 910, projects designated as "megaprojects" would have their assessed value frozen at a base-year level, effectively shielding all new construction from property taxation for up to 45 years. Just two developments would qualify for the maximum duration under the current language: the proposed Chicago Bears stadium in Arlington Heights and the One Central mixed-use development near Soldier Field in Chicago. Rank-and-file property owners in Illinois pay the highest property taxes in the nation, but middle-class taxpayers get no relief under the bill. Instead, it's likely their taxes will go up even more. The language says "megaproject" developers (for projects that cost at least $100 million) would be able to negotiate a payment in lieu of taxes with local taxing bodies, with the duration of the tax break varying by the total cost of the development. For example, if a property tax analysis of the Arlington Heights stadium estimates it to be a $5 billion development on land currently valued at $100 million, this bill would reduce the developer's annual tax liability from roughly $350 million to approximately $7 million. What happens to the difference of $343 million in this example? Local governments can still count the full value of the megaproject when calculating how much they're allowed to tax and borrow—they just can't actually collect taxes on most of the megaproject. Given the record of local governments in Illinois, it's a pretty good bet they'll find that revenue elsewhere by raising taxes. The legislation, as it stands, does basically nothing to address this. The bill passed the Illinois House in April. The bill passed 78–32, with 10 Republicans crossing party lines to support it. Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker is busy pressuring the state Senate to get it across the finish line before the end of May. Pritzker (and the rest of the Legislature) are feeling pressure to pass the bill due to the looming threat of the Bears moving to northwest Indiana. Hoosier lawmakers, especially Republicans, have a standing offer for the Bears to relocate just across the state line for over $1 billion in public subsidies. (At least Indiana is in better fiscal health than Illinois.) Keeping the Bears in Illinois is not Pritzker's only interest in the bill, though. He and his family, the wealthy owners of the Hyatt hotel chain, stand to gain from similar property tax schemes for billionaires. (Pritzker and his wife once had five toilets removed from a vacant mansion they owned next door to their primary residence, with the goal of having the property classified as "uninhabitable" in a property tax appeal. The mansion's assessed value was thus lowered from $6.3 million to about $1.1 million.) Hyatt operates a state-owned, tax-exempt property, Hyatt Regency McCormick Place, that just received tens of millions of dollars in taxpayer-funded renovations, approved by a board partially appointed by Pritzker. Grifting off taxpayers via property tax schemes is a practice that goes way back for Pritzker, so it shouldn't surprise anyone that he's seeking to extend these property tax breaks to other billionaires. If he gets his way, Illinois residents will be stuck paying for these sweetheart deals while billionaires get a break. Frankly, good. Please keep this rapidly expanding boondoggle in Illinois, where those taxpayers can continue to get financially raped by the politicians they continue to elect. Quote
Boilernation Posted May 31 Posted May 31 On 5/27/2026 at 2:05 PM, Muda69 said: Illinois Plans Tax Break for Billionaires and the Chicago Bears. Everyone Else Could End Up Paying More.: https://reason.com/2026/05/27/illinois-plans-tax-break-for-billionaires-and-the-chicago-bears-everyone-else-could-end-up-paying-more/ Frankly, good. Please keep this rapidly expanding boondoggle in Illinois, where those taxpayers can continue to get financially raped by the politicians they continue to elect. No arguments from me on the burdens faced by Illinois tax payers, but those are fairlytale numbers in that article. There's not single for pro profit business who is going to buy that land from the Bears or previously Churchill Downs and pay $350M per year in property taxes. I believe at this point New England and Miami both own their own stadiums and pay less than $5M per year in property taxes. Arlington International Racetrack was paying around $9M per year in property taxes before going out of business. For comparison in the business world, All State was paying around $4.7M in property taxes on their massive 186 acre corporate campus in Northbrook, IL, prior to selling it. The article also fails to mention the gain in Sales Taxes that will come from the Arlington property once the Bears fully develop it into an entertainment district. The Bears bought the property. They've already said they'll pay 100% of the cost to build the stadium if they build in Arlington. They just want tax certainty and infrastructure around the property to be increased, which is what any business buying that property for development purposes would ask for. No business is buying that property and gladly accepting a $350M/year tax payment. At that point it would just sit empty. 1 Quote
Boilernation Posted May 31 Posted May 31 (edited) On 4/30/2026 at 2:48 PM, Coach Nowlin said: If Austin Mock was was such a genius with his "Model" I am just shocked that he does not have GM next to Austin I get why they have to fill space with "draft" grades and Austin Mock background is in Fantasy Football and his fantasy/Gambling..... So yeah.. HARD PASS on taking that seriously Edited May 31 by Boilernation 1 Quote
Bash Riprock Posted June 1 Posted June 1 Does this now put the NW Indiana option in the lead?? Especially if the Illinois senate and house doesn't meet until fall? https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/48938235/lawmakers-adjourn-passing-bill-keep-bears-chicago Quote
Irishman Posted June 1 Posted June 1 1 hour ago, Bash Riprock said: Does this now put the NW Indiana option in the lead?? Especially if the Illinois senate and house doesn't meet until fall? https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/48938235/lawmakers-adjourn-passing-bill-keep-bears-chicago My guess is the legislators called their bluff, even if it was not intentional. I have come to believe Hammond was a bluff on the part of the Bears ownership. My guess is Arlington Heights will end up being the site used. 2 Quote
Boilernation Posted June 1 Posted June 1 18 minutes ago, Irishman said: My guess is the legislators called their bluff, even if it was not intentional. I have come to believe Hammond was a bluff on the part of the Bears ownership. My guess is Arlington Heights will end up being the site used. Agreed and it likely wasn't intentional. IMO, the Bears would be accepting the Hammond offer this morning if they weren't deadset on building in Arlington Heights. At first I thought Indiana was foolish to get involved since they were likely going to be used. In hindsight, it was a win/win for them. In a matter of a few months they were able to put together a deal that Illinois still hasn't been abled to finalize since the Bears bought the property over 3 years ago. Braun and his buddies jumped at the idea of showing businesses in Illinois how easy it is to get deals done in Indiana. 2 Quote
Coach Nowlin Posted June 2 Posted June 2 my Stance still the same: 65-35, Arlington...... Let's call this what it is: Mayor Brandon Johnson is up for reelection NEXT year..... guess where many if not all the votes to kill the Bears bill to Arlington came from....... Connect those dots, Chicago Reps in Springfield are killing every Bears Bill, so they can get re-elected and Johnson gets the boot..... Let's just say Bears cannot find a way to build the stadium at Arlington..... what and who purchases that land that was once a pretty nice race track?? Bears have to start to think about recoup their close to 200 million dollar purchase..... 1 Quote
Bash Riprock Posted June 4 Posted June 4 On 6/1/2026 at 10:18 PM, Irishman said: hidi hidi hidi ho.......orange whip?? 1 Quote
Irishman Posted June 12 Posted June 12 On 6/2/2026 at 11:17 AM, Coach Nowlin said: my Stance still the same: 65-35, Arlington...... Let's call this what it is: Mayor Brandon Johnson is up for reelection NEXT year..... guess where many if not all the votes to kill the Bears bill to Arlington came from....... Connect those dots, Chicago Reps in Springfield are killing every Bears Bill, so they can get re-elected and Johnson gets the boot..... Let's just say Bears cannot find a way to build the stadium at Arlington..... what and who purchases that land that was once a pretty nice race track?? Bears have to start to think about recoup their close to 200 million dollar purchase..... I am moving the needle to 90-10 Quote
Muda69 Posted June 17 Posted June 17 Good opinion piece here from WGN: https://wgntv.com/sports/column-its-time-to-swallow-your-pride-bears-ownership/ Quote The unimaginable is on the precipice of becoming reality, which means it’s time for sacrifice from those who helm Chicago’s most popular team. To be clear, I am talking to the McCaskey family, team president and CEO Kevin Warren, and the horde of vice presidents brought on board to oversee what should have been a much more seamless experience than what has become of the Chicago Bears stadium saga. It’s time for those who run the Bears to swallow their pride and do what is necessary to keep the team in Illinois. This years-long charade has devolved into a debacle that is regularly as chaotic as it is comical. Whether it’s botched lobbying for property tax legislation in Illinois, neglecting to pull financial levers to pay for a new stadium themselves, or forgetting the necessary research needed to make moving across state lines feel real, the ammunition the Bears have burned shooting themselves in the foot is enough to put Colossus in a wheelchair. Let’s get started with the leadoff hitter in the Bears’ stadium incompetence lineup. Property taxes. Illinois has a long, winding and tumultuous history when it comes to property taxes. It’s a story that needs 10,000 words all on its own, so I won’t bother you with an extended blast from the past. The key point here is that not a single Illinoisan wants to pay a penny more than what they already are in a state that ranks tied for first or second in highest property tax rates across the country, depending on the source. Take that in combination with the possibility of a tax break given to a multi-billion-dollar business like the Bears to build a new stadium, and it’s reasonable to understand why everyone from JB Pritzker to your local school teacher has told the Bears to kick rocks if they ask for public funds to pay for a private stadium. No one is interested if that shifts property tax burdens onto the average Joe. But that hasn’t stopped the Bears from asking for a long-term property tax freeze or a hard cap on the property taxes they would pay in the northwest suburbs. In fact, legislation providing just that at the Arlington Park Racecourse property is the foundational piece the Bears have sought for years before beginning construction of a new domed stadium in Arlington Heights. It’s too bad the Bears showed they can’t be trusted to negotiate in good faith, though. Crain’s Chicago Business first reported that the team misrepresented their stadium negotiations with City of Chicago officials this spring, while publicly fronting for legislation that would allow the Bears to do the dash to what is seemingly their preferred stadium destination. Perhaps Warren was hoping to keep those details behind closed doors and await the moment he could pull a magician’s sleight of hand. After all, who doesn’t love a good magic trick? But then again, the secrets behind a street magician pulling a quarter out from behind someone’s ear seem harder to track down than the emails that exposed the Bears’ backdoor negotiations. That’s an ode to you, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). In case you missed it, Crain’s reported the team held at least six virtual and in-person meetings in April with Chicago officials, and discussions went far beyond basic housekeeping on the team’s Soldier Field lease, as opposed to the one meeting about lease details the Bears previously said took place. And if tanking their trust in Springfield didn’t sound like the most sound business strategy one could use in pursuit of a shiny, new stadium, the Bears also inadvertently created a two-headed monster on their road to property tax legislation. While one head showed the Bears may not be worthy of trust in property tax legislation negotiations, the other manifested itself in the form of 43 Chicago-based state politicians exercising a bit of common sense. State Sen. Bill Cunningham, who represents sections of Worth, Palos and Orland Townships in southwest Cook County, as well as the Chicago neighborhoods of Mount Greenwood, Beverly, Morgan Park and Auburn Gresham, made it plain to WGN-TV earlier this month. “When there are 15 state senators and 28 state representatives who call Chicago home, they are just not inclined to vote to give any business a tax credit to leave the city they represent,” Cunningham said. “That’s a very counterintuitive thing to ask a legislator to do.” It’s a real “Damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation that’s gotten to the point some have wondered, how could the Bears ever get a stadium deal done when they have to deal with politicians like the ones in Chicago and Springfield? Well. Every other family that owns a pro sports team in Chicago has found a way to keep their team anchored within city limits, despite existing political hurdles. The Ricketts negotiated renovations to Wrigley Field that brought in modern amenities while continuing to develop a world-renowned business district around the field. The Reinsdorf and Wirtz families helped get the ball rolling on the 1901 Project, a multi-billion-dollar redevelopment around the United Center that aims to bring the surrounding area more in line with what baseball fans experience in Wrigleyville. Justin Ishbia, the multi-billion-dollar venture capitalist set to inherit the White Sox from Jerry Reinsdorf, is working toward building a new baseball stadium on the South Side that benefits both the team and public transit infrastructure. Joe Mansueto is footing the entire bill for a brand new Chicago Fire FC stadium, McDonald’s Park. Now, I’ll concede that Illinois state legislators waited until the last minute to seriously consider legislation related to the Bears’ new stadium pursuits. HB 910 died in the Illinois Senate on the last day of the spring legislative session. Then HB 958 was passed by the Senate hours after the session’s midnight deadline, only for the Illinois House to pass on holding a vote that would have sent it to JB Pritzker’s desk for a signature. That chapter in this ongoing escapade felt a whole lot like two divorced parents who refused to talk to each other about the needs of their spoiled-rotten only child. Now, we’ve reached the point where one parent pitches a last-ditch plan to save their marriage when it’s become all too obvious that it’s too little too late. Introducing State Rep. Dan Ugaste, R-Geneva, everyone. “I have not talked to anyone in the Bears’ organization itself, and that has been very intentional,” Ugaste said earlier this month. “They’ve already been negotiating, talking to a whole bunch of people. What I looked at was their public statements of what they said they were willing to do, and what they need in order to go forward.” Ugaste proposed the Major Economic Development and Property Tax Relief Act last Monday, which would create frameworks for qualifying megaprojects in Illinois, while also aiming to address property tax reforms. The Illinois State Representative from the western suburbs has not introduced the bill, and it remains a long shot to be passed, but it isn’t a complete impossibility. Shortly after proposing the act, Ugaste said he was working through the final details and implored the state to convene a special session to consider the legislation. “We need to get this done,” Ugaste said. “Illinois can keep a historic sports franchise that means so much to the people of the state, remain competitive for major economic development projects, and also provide relief for homeowners and businesses who are carrying one of the highest property tax burdens in the nation.” Pritzker even said he’s open to the idea of convening a special legislative session, so long as Illinois politicians can rally around one piece of legislation. “The Bears would like to see something happen, and we all do too,” Pritzker said. Added Pritzker on Tuesday: “The reality is the Bears have to express themselves about what it is that they want. We’ve passed, I might add, a bill in the House. We’ve passed a bill in the Senate. Now, we need the Bears to express what it is in those two bills that they would like to have happen.” Politicians seem to have all the ingredients to make a hearty, “we actually want you to stick around” stew, but all of this could have been avoided if the Bears capitalized in the batter’s box with their No. 2 hitter. Fundraising measures. Can’t find a way to lobby for legislation to make building a new stadium a reality? No (Montez) sweat! There are ways to generate money to help pay for a new stadium through NFL bylaws and selling a minority stake in the team… But the Bears have not pursued them. Recently introduced NFL bylaws have relaxed the levers teams can use to help pay for major projects. One of those levers is a bylaw that allows NFL teams to sell up to a 10% minority stake to institutional investors and private equity funds as a means to generate additional capital. After a minority stake sale valued the Bears at $8.9 billion in September 2025, the McCaskey family could theoretically sell a 10% stake to a private equity fund for at least $890 million. And that’s just one specific lever. There’s no cap on how big a stake a majority owner can sell to an outside ownership group or an existing minority partner, so long as the majority owner maintains at least 30% ownership of the team. With that in mind, the McCaskeys could generate additional cash flow by selling a portion of their stake in the Bears to their minority partner, Pat Ryan, who dwarfs the family in net worth. The McCaskeys ($1.3 billion) own approximately 77.5% of the Bears, while Ryan ($7.1 billion), a multi-billionaire insurance magnate who has already helped fund an $862 million Northwestern University football stadium, owns the other 22.5%. Using the same September 2025 evaluation of the Bears, the McCaskeys could sell a 26.5% stake to Ryan (or any other willing partner) for approximately $2.36 billion and still maintain a 51% majority stake in the franchise. According to the Chicago Sun-Times, infrastructure costs in Arlington Heights — where the Bears are already committed to fully funding the construction of a new domed stadium — are estimated to be around $855 million. 2024 estimates said as much as $2.4 billion of state taxpayer dollars were needed for infrastructure upgrades and improvements around a new lakefront stadium in Chicago. That included green spaces, a new park, and a reconfiguration of DuSable Lake Shore Drive, on top of the $2.3 billion the McCaskeys and the NFL said they were willing to put toward building a new stadium. But no matter which way the cookie is cut, the Bears aren’t giving any of those possibilities the light of day. The Bears did not respond to my request for comment on whether ownership has considered either of the two measures mentioned above. In October 2024, Front Office Sports reported that the Bears were not considering private equity funding as a way to help pay for a new stadium. So, it looks as if the Bears’ first two batters have failed to get on base this inning, meaning with two outs and nobody on, the Bears’ hitter in the three hole — research to make a move across state lines feel like a real possibility — is up to bat. Surely they won’t strike out too, right? According to NBC 5 Chicago’s Paris Schutz, the 330-acre Lost Marsh golf course in Hammond, Indiana — the property the Bears’ Board of Directors voted to move forward with and vowed to “transform the region” through — has significantly less land to build on than originally anticipated. Schutz reported a permit from the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers put a 50-year easement in place for two large lake basins on the golf course after its construction was finished in the early 2000s. That means no development is allowed for those two lake basins until the early 2050s and explicitly limits the Bears to building on the golf course. What’s more is that Shutz reported the Indiana Department of Environmental Management has not yet received any permit applications from the Bears for construction near Lake George or the Lost Marsh Golf Course area. Not doing enough research on the region, or even applying for the permits needed to begin construction in the region, doesn’t exactly sound like the Bears are ready to “transform the region,” but that’s just me. At one point in time, Northwest Indiana wasn’t even an option for a new Bears stadium. Then, as time went on, the area crept into the discussion as a long shot. But the thing is, progress kept being made. The State of Indiana passed SB 27, establishing the Northwest Indiana Sports Authority and empowering it to offer financial incentives to attract a professional sports team to the area. As the final buzzer nears, the Hoosier state seemed like it was about to accomplish an upset near the likes of USA Hockey taking down Russia in the 1980 Olympics, or Buster Douglas knocking out Mike Tyson. Instead, reviewing a few legal documents has the Bears looking like they are about to reenact a Tim Robinson skit at Northwest Indiana’s expense. Maybe Warren will drive a hot-dog themed Volkswagen bug through a Hammond storefront, only to magically appear in full hot dog regalia and claim, “Who the h*ll did this?” when it turns out the Bears never intended to move to Indiana after all. Maybe a McCaskey will hold a focus group to get input on a new Bears stadium from Northwest Indiana residents, only to tell them they smell and have to marry their mother-in-law after the team builds a new stadium in Illinois. In reality, neither of those options is going to happen. But no matter which way the Bears stadium saga is spun, they have gone down in order, one-two-three, and are now left to pitch themselves out of the hole they’ve dug themselves into. Whether it’s finding a way to lobby for the right legislation, selling a minority stake in the team to pay for a new stadium, or doing their diligence to make a move to Indiana feel real, it’s time they swallowed their pride and got the job done to keep the Bears in Illinois. The Bears ownership is just like most other NFL owners, they want to suck on the public teat of "free money" even when they have the ability to privately fund 100% the cost of this new stadium. As for the "historic sports franchise" line I contend that most Illinois citizens south of Springfield don't give a darn about the Bears, and the city of Chicago for that matter. And they sure don't want to their taxes to pay for a new stadium. Heck most of them would donate $ for a new St. Louis Cardinals baseball stadium before giving a cent to the Bears. Quote
Boilernation Posted June 17 Posted June 17 (edited) 1 hour ago, Muda69 said: The Bears ownership is just like most other NFL owners, they want to suck on the public teat of "free money" even when they have the ability to privately fund 100% the cost of this new stadium. Huh? They are going to privately fund 100% of the cost of the new stadium if they build in Arlington Heights. They just don't want to get raped on property tax and want the state to pay for the infrastructure around the Arlington Heights property. Someone is going to have to pay for it if the Bears sell the property and it's developed into something else. Typically, businesses do not pay for infrastructure upgrades. Would you be pissed if Indiana agreed to pay for major infrastructure upgrades around Frankfort if that meant a major manufacturer was going bring jobs to your town? One thing that article pointed out that has been rumored on Chicago sports radio is that politicians who respresent neighborhoods within the city aren't playing ball down in Springfield, which is complete BS. The Bears shouldn't be strongarmed into paying rent on a stadium they don't own that is also one of, if not the the worst stadium in the NFL. The city/state made a colossal mistake when they decided to renovate Soldier Field as opposed to just building a new stadium. They essentially put lipstick on a pig that has lead to this fiasco. And are those bitter politicians from Chicago going to fight the Friends of The Park who have vowed to prevent a new stadium getting built on the lakefront? They successfully kept George Lucas from building his museum on the lakefront and he had to shift to LA. Edited June 17 by Boilernation Quote
Muda69 Posted June 17 Posted June 17 10 minutes ago, Boilernation said: Huh? They are going to privately fund 100% of the cost of the new stadium if they build in Arlington Heights. They just don't want to get raped on property tax and want the state to pay for the infrastructure around the Arlington Heights property. Someone is going to have to pay for it if the Bears sell the property and it's developed into something else. Typically, businesses do not pay for infrastructure upgrades. I should have been more clear: "100%" of the cost includes the "infrastructure". If you want the people to come then build that as well. It should not be a taxpayer responsibility. 11 minutes ago, Boilernation said: Would you be pissed if Indiana agreed to pay for major infrastructure upgrades around Frankfort if that meant a major manufacturer was going bring jobs to your town? Yes I would. I oppose all forms of crony capitalism, including tax abatement and publicly funded infrastructure upgrades. Quote
Boilernation Posted June 17 Posted June 17 23 minutes ago, Muda69 said: I should have been more clear: "100%" of the cost includes the "infrastructure". If you want the people to come then build that as well. It should not be a taxpayer responsibility. Yes I would. I oppose all forms of crony capitalism, including tax abatement and publicly funded infrastructure upgrades. Ok. Fair enough. Hypothetically, lets say the Bears end up building a stadium in Arlington Heights and pay to upgrade all of the roadways around the stadium. Would you be OK with them charging a toll to all drivers who use those roads? Quote
Muda69 Posted June 17 Posted June 17 50 minutes ago, Boilernation said: Ok. Fair enough. Hypothetically, lets say the Bears end up building a stadium in Arlington Heights and pay to upgrade all of the roadways around the stadium. Would you be OK with them charging a toll to all drivers who use those roads? Sure, if the Bears build and maintain those roadways they should be able to charge for their use. Actually sounds like a great model for most roadways in general. 1 Quote
Muda69 Posted June 23 Posted June 23 Two new Illinois locations make their pitch to become the home of the Chicago Bears: https://wgntv.com/sports/two-new-illinois-locations-make-their-pitch-to-become-the-home-of-the-chicago-bears/ Quote As the Chicago Bears contemplate their next move in the franchise’s ongoing stadium saga, two new suitors have stepped up to pitch themselves as future homes for a new Bears stadium. One is on Chicago’s Southeast Side, while the other is in McCook — Cook County’s smallest municipality, situated along the Des Plaines River in the southwest suburbs. The patch of property within city limits lies near South 85th Street and DuSable Lake Shore Drive, formerly known as the U.S. Steel South Works Site, and major investments are already being made on that specific plot of land in the South Chicago neighborhood. Two large-scale developments are in the works: The Quantum Microelectronics Park and a new Advocate Health hospital. State Rep. Curtis Tarver II, D-Chicago, who represents the district where the old U.S. Steel site is found, told WGN-TV he feels the location is a good option for a new Bears stadium. “There’s enough land there. There’s more land there than there is in Arlington Heights,” Tarver said. “The reality is, if Hammond suffices and it’s just across the border, why would we not look in the area where the city of Chicago’s residents can actually benefit?” Legislation to keep the Bears in Illinois stalled in Springfield at the end of the 2026 Spring Legislative Session, and the team followed up that development with a Board of Directors vote shifting the team’s sights to Hammond, Indiana, as the future home of the franchise. As the Bears’ focus pivoted to Northwest Indiana, it was at that point another southwest suburban mayor proposed his community as an option for the Monsters of the Midway. “Once all the drama happened, we started looking at a site in our town,” McCook Mayor Terry Carr said. “We knew it was going up for sale, which is 150 acres — The Vulcan property.” The Vulcan property is filled-in quarry land near 55th Street and East Avenue, valued at around $160 million in McCook — a village with a population of 241 — according to the 2024 U.S. Census. Carr told WGN-TV the area’s location in relation to major local roadways makes it a prime spot for a major commercial development like an NFL stadium. “We’re blocks away from I-55. We’re on Joliet Road, which is Route 66,” Carr said. “We’re right by Lagrange Road, First Avenue, Ogden, 47th Street, 294, 90/94.” Under McCook’s proposal, the Bears would get the land for free, build a $2 billion stadium with their own money, then lease it back to the village for $1 a year, while the village covers property taxes on the land only. Carr told WGN-TV there is also a secondary option where the Bears maintain ownership of the stadium, with property taxes on the development capped between $7-8 million per year. McCook’s mayor was joined by Village Clerk Ken Lyons, Police Chief Jeremy Carr, Fire Chief Dave DeLeshe and Building Inspector Brendan Meskill on a trip to the northern suburbs that delivered their proposal to Halas Hall last Thursday. “We’re waiting. We’re not going to negotiate a deal with anyone but Mr. McCaskey,” Carr said. “We’re waiting for him to call. If he calls, we’re going to sit down and negotiate this out and bring the Bears to McCook.” According to Politico, an announcement possibly involving the convening of a special legislative session could come as soon as Wednesday. Quote
Bash Riprock Posted June 30 Posted June 30 On 6/23/2026 at 1:40 PM, Muda69 said: Two new Illinois locations make their pitch to become the home of the Chicago Bears: https://wgntv.com/sports/two-new-illinois-locations-make-their-pitch-to-become-the-home-of-the-chicago-bears/ Unless the Bears can work through the tax rate, perhaps them leaving is a true possibility. I just read where Johnsonville Foods shut down a 63 year old manufacturing plant is having these operations absorbed in plants in both Wisconsin and Kansas. Definitely does not seem to be a business friendly environment. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.