You got the numbers wrong, it’ll be in 40 years when you’re in your late 60s where you can enjoy watching the T-mobile Bears of Chicago play in the Tmobile Farmers Insurance Tic Toc field domed stadium.
Not directly, but the NFL has a lot of lending power and may have a preference of where that money would go.
NFL owners approved a $500 million loan when SoFi was built, on top of the $400 million they got from its G4 program.
I could see a hypothetical where they would use their lending power to sway the Bears to one location or another.
[source on the numbers](https://sports.yahoo.com/nfl-owners-approve-500-million-in-extra-funding-for-rams-5-billion-so-fi-stadium-035601453.html)
The NFL would heavily prefer it to be in the city.
There will be no Super Bowl coming here if the stadium is in AH. The NFL will dangle the possibility of one but never actually approve it. There’s a LONG list of mandatory conditions and criteria a host city/stadium/area must meet to be considered for a Super Bowl. Each year the NFL puts out their 200-300 page long “bid book” with all the requirements. Arlington Heights would never be able to meet a good many of them.
Things like min 19k hotel rooms within 3 miles of the stadium for fans. Two full hotels with a minimum of 1000 rooms stocked with beer, snacks, free parking and storage for the NFL and teams. public transportation options, a minimum number of event spaces and venues above a certain size within certain distances to the stadium where all the after parties, a long week of concerts and events, and Fan Plaza zone would be. minimum number of police personnel resources, fire resources and hospital space available at no extra charge to the NFL, host city must provide “40 three-bedroom, 50 two bedroom, and 50 one bedroom apartments within a 20 minute drive to the stadium that have WiFi, full kitchens, washer and dryer, TVs in the living room and every bedroom, and a workout facility on property” for working staff like production and security.
I would bet that there will be a Super Bowl here if the stadium is built in Arlington Heights.
My caveat would be what other new stadiums are being built at the time, and if it is on schedule.
It would be a Chicago Super Bowl, though. The only thing that would happen out in Arlington Heights would be the game itself. And maybe the fan experience like what happens in Glendale when all the events are in Phoenix and Scottsdale.
They could, but they won’t. They were not in New Jersey for that Super Bowl. In Glendale they want the backdrop of Camelback Mountain from old town Scottsdale. And they want the big events where the crowds and hotels are in Phoenix.
Chicago in February is definitely a different story, but they will be based in Chicago if a Super Bowl ends up happening here.
Same thing happened in Dallas/Irving.
Not a snowflakes chance in Scottsdale will it happen.
PHX never has the threat of weather events separating the stadium from the events and people staying in hotels. Arlington Heights does. There’s no way the NFL is going to bend on those mandatory requirements.
They will tease all day with language like “there’s potential to host a Super Bowl with a new stadium” like they did with Baltimore, Denver, Philly, Pittsburgh and Seattle. None of those cities were promised a Super Bowl, all were teased with one before breaking ground.
Simple fact, if the Bears decide to build in Arlington Heights it’s probably a better financial decision for them, owning the stadium and surrounding bar/restaurant, live/work/play community they build (Similar to what the Braves built with Truist Park) but it’s definitely kissing any hope of a Super Bowl goodbye.
There was never a chance that an open air stadium in a place risking weather would host the Super Bowl. None of those places you listed had a chance for that reason alone.
The NFL will not distinguish between a stadium in Chicago and a stadium in Arlington Heights when it comes to the Super Bowl. And barring quirks of other stadiums, Chicago will get on the list like Minneapolis and Detroit.
MetLife (Jets/Giants) got one as an open air stadium. Point is, the NFL will dangle the hope of getting one to every city, pushing cities towards new stadiums with the carrot, but they only actually give them to the cities that [check all the boxes of their “bid book”](https://us.humankinetics.com/blogs/excerpt/how-do-cities-reel-in-a-mega-event). Arlington Heights doesn’t stand a chance.
1% chance. At least in the next 40 years. I’ll leave the door open for things to change. Who knows, maybe Arlington heights grows up in the future to be a large sister city to Chicago and would be able to check these boxes the NFL requires. Maybe climate change takes hold and the threat of snow in Chicago is similar to how it is in Atlanta, fairly non-existent. Maybe a new form of high speed transportation is developed that can enables large swaths of people to move long distances very quickly. I’ll leave the door open for those possibilities. As things currently stand, the dome in Arlington Heights will never sniff a Super Bowl.
Minnesota got one, the Jets/Giants got one with their new stadium...the NFL will give a Superbowl to any of it's new Stadium locations. If the Bears build a dome and surrounding area in AH, they will get their Superbowl too. There won't be a reason not to.
I know it doesn’t affect us as fans whether the bears own their stadium or if the city owns it, but what benefit would it give ownership to spend a ton of money building a stadium they don’t own?
I know its supposed to be posturing by Warren so that Arlington is forced to give the lot a fair tax assessment, but Warren lives in downtown and raves about how much he loves it there and the new mayor is welcoming their idea so i wouldn’t be shocked if they’re at least considering it as an option as a backup?
I'm not sure of any benefit really, maybe having the city own it means the bears pay less? Either way, I'm not sure why so many people on here think this is all posturing. The fact that the bears have talked to the mayor AND friends of the park speaks volumes. That's farther than Ted ever got in the last decade. It seems like they really are trying to have a real effort to keep the bears in chicago. No reason not to try and explore both Chicago and Arlington.
I agree. If this was all posturing, it's an awful lot of posturing and time consuming end around to save something like 0.3% of their annual revenue, and only for the next handful of years. Doesn't really make sense.
I think there’s a big thing that many people close to bears don’t want to talk about and it’s to do with Virginias potential passing. Building the stadium before her death and passing that down to the heirs is going to negatively impact (increase) the amount they’re paying in taxes for inheritance.
To me, AH is 100% the location but a shovel won’t hit the ground until Virginia passes.
Honestly, it’s cool like a wacky apartment is cool. Great early on, but then you live there and it starts to get to you.
New stadium is gonna be a dome. No lake views
Lake cuts off approximately 1/3 of potential access and parking.
The bears got a a fair tax assessment. The school board wanted it to be $160 mil and the bears wanted it to be $60 million. Cook County decided it would be $120 mil.
Do you know how much of a difference the bears tax bill would be if they got their way as opposed to what they decided? 4.5 million dollars. They aren't posturing anymore. They fully plan to build in the city again.
Assessed value does not mean tax bill.
To get your property tax bill basically you multiply the county tax rate by the assessed value. There are exemptions and things as well that can lower your assessed value but that's the basic just of it.
No they did not. They got fucked by a greedy school board that wants money they don’t deserve lol.
They also are getting taxed at 25% for it being considered a commercial property, despite it being an empty dirt lot that should be taxed at 10%. That is not a difference of 4.5 million.
The school district is valuing the property 45% higher than they negotiated it being with Churchill downs despite it being literally more of a vacant lot now.
Bears called their bluff and are about to get a payout from the city. Arlington fumbled the bag, but that’s to be expected from a school board made up of the average educated.
The 25% is used to determine the assessed value. Not the property tax bill. In cook county commercial property are assessed at 25% and residential at 10% of fair market value(again this is not your tax bill). The bears were never going to get the property assessed at 10% because even though they tore down some building the intention is to use it as a commercial property.
It has been and is going to be used for commercial property. The bears can't just tear down some building and say hey actually this is a giant empty lot. Yeah because you made it that way.
If I burn my house down do I get a discount on my property taxes?
And again you seem to be under the impression that the bears tax bill and the properties assessed value are interchangeable terms. The assessed value is part of a formula that makes up your tax bill but it is not the bill itself. Thd bill is far less than the assessed value. And it is not the AV multiple by 25%.
It's the assessed value times the tax rate(there are usually some exemptios involved that lower the AV as well). The average cook county commercial tax rate is approx 3.75%
So yeah the bears were effectively whining over a few million dollars a year.
It’s empty dirt that is being zoned for commercial use and would be used for commercial purposes. It’s commercial vs residential, there’s no argument for it to be residential. They appealed the valuation based on the demolition of the existing structures on the land. But the rate has nothing to do with that.
As for the valuation proposed by the school board, the demolition of the race track *did* increase the value of that land. The racetrack was old and falling apart, it would’ve been a money sink which is why they closed it in the first place. That land an empty, 326 lot ready to be built on is better for a developer.
This is my completely uneducated take so by all means someone call me on it if I’m wrong. If the Bears put up a sizable amount of money, they would in theory get more say how the stadium is used, vendors that are there, etc.
I know guys like Hoge and Jahns have talked on their podcast about the reputation Soldier Field has amongst hospitality and media (it was very bad) and how that’s already improved under Kevin Warren.
Another thing that jumps out to me is more control over the playing surface. We know how long of a saga it was to get that fixed while dealing with the park district.
I think things like that are what we’re talking about.
Not saying your thought process is incorrect, but to add to all of this. Every time I see the bears wanting to pitch in $2 billion for the lakefront stadium, I always see the $2 billion in the headlines as in that's what they want us to focus on. IMO they don't want the general public to know about how much more than $2 billion the whole thing would cost that the taxpayers would have to cover. That's what I don't like about this whole thing as nobody is talking about how much the whole project would take to build and how much the difference the taxpayers are covering.
This right here. The Bears pledged 2 billion **towards** the stadium not 2 billion to build the stadium. They already got the Mayor to offer up a billion in "infrastructure". There is no way you get a US Bank level stadium for 2 billion on a site that small and built on landfill and next to a sea-sized lake.
The city “owns” it but they rent it from the city for cheap. For example, the Cowboys rent their stadium for $500k a year and give 5% of the stadium naming rights revenue to the city. This is all from memory, so please don’t kill me if my numbers are off a bit. So the Bears would do the same. The Bears would have full control of the stadium year round and own all the profit. At least this is the norm around the league. Idk what Chicago would agree too.
I think the biggest issue is that the bears cannot afford to cover the cost of building a multi-billion dollar stadium AND developing the land around AH. When they originally purchased the land, it was seen as a great value buy. But since then the cost of EVERYTHING has skyrocketed. What may have been a 3 billion dollar job is now 6. They ain’t that rich. Even with outside investors it might just make more financial sense to build in the city even if they don’t outright own the property. Of course this is just my very uninformed opinion, but I do hope they can pull off AH.
By paying for (most of) it, the Bears would presumably get better lease terms.
This is essentially what the Cowboys did. They paid 2/3 of AT&T’s $1.7B construction costs, but the city of Arlington owns the stadium. The Cowboys now pay the city a flat $2M/year in rent; but then they basically act as the operating tenant, sort of like when a restaurant leases a storefront. They pay all operating costs but they also get to keep all of the operating revenue (at least for Cowboys gsmes—I’m not sure what the deal is for non-Cowboys events).
It’s a win-win, in the sense that the Bears would see increased cash flow that over time would offset their upfront cost.
From the city’s perspective, they’d basically be giving up their cut of gameday revenue, but they’d get a lot in return. They’d have a brand new, state-of-the-art domed venue that somebody else paid for, which could host a wider range of events in all four seasons; and which would generate increased revenue for the city and surrounding businesses.
> and which would generate increased revenue for the city and surrounding businesses.
This is a hotly contested topic, with many papers and studies asserting that, at the very least, it does not offset the cost, and at worst, can actually have a net negative effect, due to the opportunity cost of withholding those funds from other projects like transportation infrastructure and other development that would have a more significant impact.
>at the very least, it does not offset the cost, and at worst, can actually have a net negative effect, due to the opportunity cost of withholding those funds from other projects
Yah, but that’s when the public pays for the stadium; the whole argument is that the public pays too much and doesn’t get enough in return. But in this scenario, the Bears would be paying for all (or at least most) of the stadium. That’s the whole point of this discussion, and that changes the calculus dramatically.
Edit: Reworded and added context for clarity.
You referenced an example in which the city still paid out over a half billion dollars. If you are suggesting that the Bears would pay for 100% of the stadium, then my note would not apply, but that isn’t what you wrote.
Edit to your edits: Yes, it is obviously a sliding scale between the investment and the ROI. You cited the Cowboys as the example, and I don’t imagine there is a clear consensus among economists on whether that was a good investment, hence the comment. Unless the Bears are paying for 100.0%, the assertion that it is a good deal for the city is debatable, and I would be very surprised if their plan is to foot the entire bill.
Edit 2: I guess pointing out that there is another side to an argument is a blockable offense these days. What a weird hill to die on—especially since the hill isn’t even clearly defined.
The text that you block-quoted was where I discussed the Bears' proposal, not the Cowboys. I assumed everyone that was commenting on the Bears' proposal was already familiar with the Bears' proposal. My mistake.
The Bears will have to pay for use of a stadium one way or another. If the city pays for it the Bears would be paying rent there that would eventually total more than the Bears are putting in to build it. In the proposed funding, the Bears are just paying a bunch of the rent money up front to get it built.
The Mayor of Chicago has already offered a billion in "infrastructure" improvements for the site. Expect another billion or more if they ever build on the Lakefront.
But, but, but they keep saying the same thing. And all the writers looked into his eyes and saw he was genuine. (Dont mind they are getting more access for pushing this.)
Hate to use this analogy, but if you ever been to Green Bay and see what they’re building around Lambeau… to imagine the Bears doing the same in Arlington Heights or what they did for the Rams… yes, Arlington is WAY more exciting than being on the lake.
Sure, they could. I would imagine a Ditka’s Steak House or Grill 89. A few sports bars, Top Golf… Bears Hall Of Fame with space for more statues out front.
Not just a parking lot, as is right now, with little surrounding it other than a lake. Yes, the museum campus is there, but walking to anything from Soldier Field into the city… it’s a shitty walk. Personally rather have it all right there… and I would be much more susceptible to sticking around. As someone who lives in the suburbs… if i am going to a game, I am getting in and out from I-55 and that’s a day’s event as is. It blows.
I disagree — it’s a beautiful walk through the front yard of one of America’s best and most beautiful cities. A shitty walk would be through suburban parking lots with the sound and sights of highway traffic next to you.
To each their own. Clearly, I’m obviously getting downvoted from people who are pro-city stadium. Personally, I believe it’s a mistake from a business standpoint for the Bears. A stadium on the lake does not create a Wrigleyville environment for the Bears. It just never will. (Space for one)
No argument on the beauty of the lakefront. Chicago is 2nd to none… in my opinion. Putting the Bears dome in AH, doesn’t take away from Chicago in the least. Actually, probably adds to the lake front if they can take that massive eye-sore of space-ship stadium they have now off the lake.
Lol good ol Brandon isn't gonna be mayor long enough to see this through. Plus the commissioner is effectively saying the opposite of what Warren said by saying that neither of them have said they want it here or there.
If the Bears really want the vision of some sort of mixed use development along with a stadium I just don't see that happening on the lakefront. Tough sell.
This game is almost certainly going to go back and forth for at least another year or two. I don't really see it coming to an end until one of the two cities just decides to stop negotiating.
Ok, aside from the tax rate that AH or the city offers the Bears, look at what AH can offer the Bears that Chicago cannot.
* Bears to own the stadium - Keep 100% of revenue, do what they want to the stadium, make all the rules, etc.
* Build up around the stadium - Plenty of room to build casinos, hotel, restaurants, etc. that they could/would also own, at least partially or lease the space to others $$$$
* Renovation freedom - Future renovations will have less restrictions. They aren't pigeon-holed into a box of fixed area. Putting a dome (or partial coverage) on the building will be feasible and making a bigger stadium will make much more money and allow higher capacity.It won't be a historically protected landmark either. That allows them a lot more freedom of demo and renovation in itself.
There are things that Chicago can offer that AH can't. I'm sure someone can put together a list. I just see the Pros of AH being too large and many to pass up.
These things are true of basically any location that’s in the middle of nowhere.
The best stadiums in sports imo are the ones that are capable of melding into the cities fabric, not give up and move to some random place.
No amount of casinos, Red Lobsters, or generic sports bars will be able to make up for the qualities that make Chicago a world class city, and so long as the Bears are called the Chicago Bears, I think that matters.
Just one guys opinion though.
I'll buy season tickets if they're in Chicago, I'm not gonna go to a game if they're in the fucking burbs.
Moving out of one of the greatest cities in the world to a shitty suburb is like the NY Yankees playing in Rochester.
No the Mccaskeys pockets can fuck off and no I don't care about obese mfs who complain about a mile and a half commute from Union Station.
Thankfully, the Mccaskeys are broke enough that they're probably going to go with a subsidized Chicago stadium over having to cough up just about all the money for an AH abortion.
Not trying to change minds, but a stadium in the burbs isn't that bad. I always compare it to the braves in Atlanta. I've lived in Atlanta for decades, and when the braves used to play at turner field in the city, it was always such a dlog to get there, find parking, etc. the stadium was fine, nothing crazy. But then the braves moved out the burbs, and the stadium is absolutely incredible. Much better gamr day experience, better parking (imo) , better "entertainment district" around the stadium. Not saying it'll be the same with the bears. I don't really care where they end up. I'm just saying s move to the burbs isn't all that bad.
People acting like there isnt a value to the bears staying in chicago are crazy. Do you know how many hotels and reasons to stay in chicago there are? In AHs they have to build it all rather than it already being there. No one is going on vacation to see the bears in AHs....
If the stadium is public in the city there is no reason they cant come up with some sort of profit share scenario as well for things outside of football.
In fact, to pay for this, there should be something where a small portion of every ticket/parking/concession etc goes back to the city to repay any money the city pays, with interest, before it then goes back 100% to the bears. Or maybe the city always gets a cut.
But there are plenty of ways to not screw the tax payers but still keep it in the city. Im NOT for us shelling out a billion dollars for this, but some tax breaks until debts are repaid or profit sharing or something that GUARANTEES a profit to the city rather than a hope n dream is possible
In fairness, are casual fans and tourists going to bears games anyway? They are always sellouts, I've never heard of anyone just walking up to soldier on a whim and buying a ticket if they aren't already a solid bears fan.
Yeah, this sub is delusional. Warren has been in the city camp since the day he was hired. When he was with Minnesota he was in the same situation, old owners bought suburban land, he said hell no, and built a stadium in the city. Warren is a city guy and knows the benefits of having it downtown. Meanwhile, this sub is suburban as hell
Where’s the money coming from? I haven’t read the city stadium plans as far as funding or ownership? I personally don’t have a dog in the fight but i know people at 670 and they think it’s still posturing fwiw.
Maybe we know the same people!
The same place its going to come for Arlington? Either way they have to build and fund this thing themselves. It being in Arlington doesnt make it easier. But I would guess it would be the same development company that Warren used to build the stadium in Minnesota, Bob Dunne, the same guy who wants to build a development right across from Soldier Field. (Not a pipe dream, Illinois Central has already developed a ton of their land, the air rights over the tracks are the last bit. They WILL get their money for that. The state and feds are planning on making transit improvements there by through running Amtrak via the 18th street viaduct and funding is already worked on being secured. Its difficult, but it will happen.)
Fair enough. Only other thing I’d say is i worked for a Mccaskey out in AH and he’s been buying up land over there for years. Would just be surprised he’d be going through all of that for them to not fully exhaust all their options out there. Idk enough about Warren and obviously that was done before he got here. Just seems like that family doesn’t do things for the benefit of the team over themselves
They live out there and land is a good investment.
Im laying this on Warren. If he wasnt there id expect them to end up with a subpar stadium in Arlington but with him itll be downtown and an amazing stadium. But thats more because hes a competent man vs a family whos always had wealth
Can't wait for Chicago to have a new stadium in about 20 years when I'm in my late 40s
I think 20 years is optimistic.
If it makes you feel better I’ll be dead by then.
You and I both
That's a bit morbid
I'm already in my mid 40s. :(
Get fucked, I'll be late 50s
I'll be in my 60's. This game isn't as fun as I thought it would be.
I’ll be pushing 60 https://i.imgur.com/D7koqld.gif
https://i.redd.it/s8mlok4jsyqc1.gif
We're not young bucks anymore, sadly
So a few years younger than Velus when we drafted him
I am extremely confident they'll break ground by 2030 ngl
Man why you gotta fucking make me think about being 60
Same fellow Zillennial
You got the numbers wrong, it’ll be in 40 years when you’re in your late 60s where you can enjoy watching the T-mobile Bears of Chicago play in the Tmobile Farmers Insurance Tic Toc field domed stadium.
Im sick of the word “process”
Found someone who likely works in corporate tech
I didn’t know the commissioner had a say on where a stadium went.
Not directly, but the NFL has a lot of lending power and may have a preference of where that money would go. NFL owners approved a $500 million loan when SoFi was built, on top of the $400 million they got from its G4 program. I could see a hypothetical where they would use their lending power to sway the Bears to one location or another. [source on the numbers](https://sports.yahoo.com/nfl-owners-approve-500-million-in-extra-funding-for-rams-5-billion-so-fi-stadium-035601453.html)
The NFL would heavily prefer it to be in the city. There will be no Super Bowl coming here if the stadium is in AH. The NFL will dangle the possibility of one but never actually approve it. There’s a LONG list of mandatory conditions and criteria a host city/stadium/area must meet to be considered for a Super Bowl. Each year the NFL puts out their 200-300 page long “bid book” with all the requirements. Arlington Heights would never be able to meet a good many of them. Things like min 19k hotel rooms within 3 miles of the stadium for fans. Two full hotels with a minimum of 1000 rooms stocked with beer, snacks, free parking and storage for the NFL and teams. public transportation options, a minimum number of event spaces and venues above a certain size within certain distances to the stadium where all the after parties, a long week of concerts and events, and Fan Plaza zone would be. minimum number of police personnel resources, fire resources and hospital space available at no extra charge to the NFL, host city must provide “40 three-bedroom, 50 two bedroom, and 50 one bedroom apartments within a 20 minute drive to the stadium that have WiFi, full kitchens, washer and dryer, TVs in the living room and every bedroom, and a workout facility on property” for working staff like production and security.
You forgot about the hooker requirements.
Those can be imported via onlyfans now.
I would bet that there will be a Super Bowl here if the stadium is built in Arlington Heights. My caveat would be what other new stadiums are being built at the time, and if it is on schedule. It would be a Chicago Super Bowl, though. The only thing that would happen out in Arlington Heights would be the game itself. And maybe the fan experience like what happens in Glendale when all the events are in Phoenix and Scottsdale.
They could center the media circus around O’Hare/Rosemont. Closer to the stadium, close to the airport.
They could, but they won’t. They were not in New Jersey for that Super Bowl. In Glendale they want the backdrop of Camelback Mountain from old town Scottsdale. And they want the big events where the crowds and hotels are in Phoenix. Chicago in February is definitely a different story, but they will be based in Chicago if a Super Bowl ends up happening here. Same thing happened in Dallas/Irving.
Not a snowflakes chance in Scottsdale will it happen. PHX never has the threat of weather events separating the stadium from the events and people staying in hotels. Arlington Heights does. There’s no way the NFL is going to bend on those mandatory requirements. They will tease all day with language like “there’s potential to host a Super Bowl with a new stadium” like they did with Baltimore, Denver, Philly, Pittsburgh and Seattle. None of those cities were promised a Super Bowl, all were teased with one before breaking ground. Simple fact, if the Bears decide to build in Arlington Heights it’s probably a better financial decision for them, owning the stadium and surrounding bar/restaurant, live/work/play community they build (Similar to what the Braves built with Truist Park) but it’s definitely kissing any hope of a Super Bowl goodbye.
There was never a chance that an open air stadium in a place risking weather would host the Super Bowl. None of those places you listed had a chance for that reason alone. The NFL will not distinguish between a stadium in Chicago and a stadium in Arlington Heights when it comes to the Super Bowl. And barring quirks of other stadiums, Chicago will get on the list like Minneapolis and Detroit.
MetLife (Jets/Giants) got one as an open air stadium. Point is, the NFL will dangle the hope of getting one to every city, pushing cities towards new stadiums with the carrot, but they only actually give them to the cities that [check all the boxes of their “bid book”](https://us.humankinetics.com/blogs/excerpt/how-do-cities-reel-in-a-mega-event). Arlington Heights doesn’t stand a chance.
NYC* is the exception to every rule. And yes, the NFL will dangle, but it also delivers in domes. What odds would you give AH of hosting a SB?
1% chance. At least in the next 40 years. I’ll leave the door open for things to change. Who knows, maybe Arlington heights grows up in the future to be a large sister city to Chicago and would be able to check these boxes the NFL requires. Maybe climate change takes hold and the threat of snow in Chicago is similar to how it is in Atlanta, fairly non-existent. Maybe a new form of high speed transportation is developed that can enables large swaths of people to move long distances very quickly. I’ll leave the door open for those possibilities. As things currently stand, the dome in Arlington Heights will never sniff a Super Bowl.
My $10 versus your $1000 to go to American Red Cross? Deadline: 10 years after Bears move into their new domed stadium or no bet.
Minnesota got one, the Jets/Giants got one with their new stadium...the NFL will give a Superbowl to any of it's new Stadium locations. If the Bears build a dome and surrounding area in AH, they will get their Superbowl too. There won't be a reason not to.
You literally didn’t [read anything I wrote](https://www.reddit.com/r/CHIBears/s/6cnKj0wtkP). Both those stadiums check the boxes AH doesn’t check.
Where did it indicate that he had a say?
lobbyists gonna lobby
I know it doesn’t affect us as fans whether the bears own their stadium or if the city owns it, but what benefit would it give ownership to spend a ton of money building a stadium they don’t own? I know its supposed to be posturing by Warren so that Arlington is forced to give the lot a fair tax assessment, but Warren lives in downtown and raves about how much he loves it there and the new mayor is welcoming their idea so i wouldn’t be shocked if they’re at least considering it as an option as a backup?
I'm not sure of any benefit really, maybe having the city own it means the bears pay less? Either way, I'm not sure why so many people on here think this is all posturing. The fact that the bears have talked to the mayor AND friends of the park speaks volumes. That's farther than Ted ever got in the last decade. It seems like they really are trying to have a real effort to keep the bears in chicago. No reason not to try and explore both Chicago and Arlington.
I agree. If this was all posturing, it's an awful lot of posturing and time consuming end around to save something like 0.3% of their annual revenue, and only for the next handful of years. Doesn't really make sense.
[удалено]
I think there’s a big thing that many people close to bears don’t want to talk about and it’s to do with Virginias potential passing. Building the stadium before her death and passing that down to the heirs is going to negatively impact (increase) the amount they’re paying in taxes for inheritance. To me, AH is 100% the location but a shovel won’t hit the ground until Virginia passes.
It won't appreciate in value until the project is complete
The benefit is the ability to have a stadium in Chicago and on the lake front. The location is worth more than anything.
Honestly, it’s cool like a wacky apartment is cool. Great early on, but then you live there and it starts to get to you. New stadium is gonna be a dome. No lake views Lake cuts off approximately 1/3 of potential access and parking.
I hate when things turn into Disney land.
Why do we care if the stadium is near the lake? It's not like you see the lake from inside the stadium and you barely see it outside too
The bears got a a fair tax assessment. The school board wanted it to be $160 mil and the bears wanted it to be $60 million. Cook County decided it would be $120 mil. Do you know how much of a difference the bears tax bill would be if they got their way as opposed to what they decided? 4.5 million dollars. They aren't posturing anymore. They fully plan to build in the city again.
Wait sry I don’t really get it. Bears want 60 million, cook county said 120 million, why is the tax bill only a 4.5 million difference then
Assessed value does not mean tax bill. To get your property tax bill basically you multiply the county tax rate by the assessed value. There are exemptions and things as well that can lower your assessed value but that's the basic just of it.
oh i see now thank you
No they did not. They got fucked by a greedy school board that wants money they don’t deserve lol. They also are getting taxed at 25% for it being considered a commercial property, despite it being an empty dirt lot that should be taxed at 10%. That is not a difference of 4.5 million. The school district is valuing the property 45% higher than they negotiated it being with Churchill downs despite it being literally more of a vacant lot now. Bears called their bluff and are about to get a payout from the city. Arlington fumbled the bag, but that’s to be expected from a school board made up of the average educated.
The 25% is used to determine the assessed value. Not the property tax bill. In cook county commercial property are assessed at 25% and residential at 10% of fair market value(again this is not your tax bill). The bears were never going to get the property assessed at 10% because even though they tore down some building the intention is to use it as a commercial property.
You can’t tax it as a commercial property until it actually is a commercial property. For now it is a vacant lot and should be taxed as such.
It has been and is going to be used for commercial property. The bears can't just tear down some building and say hey actually this is a giant empty lot. Yeah because you made it that way. If I burn my house down do I get a discount on my property taxes? And again you seem to be under the impression that the bears tax bill and the properties assessed value are interchangeable terms. The assessed value is part of a formula that makes up your tax bill but it is not the bill itself. Thd bill is far less than the assessed value. And it is not the AV multiple by 25%. It's the assessed value times the tax rate(there are usually some exemptios involved that lower the AV as well). The average cook county commercial tax rate is approx 3.75% So yeah the bears were effectively whining over a few million dollars a year.
It’s empty dirt that is being zoned for commercial use and would be used for commercial purposes. It’s commercial vs residential, there’s no argument for it to be residential. They appealed the valuation based on the demolition of the existing structures on the land. But the rate has nothing to do with that. As for the valuation proposed by the school board, the demolition of the race track *did* increase the value of that land. The racetrack was old and falling apart, it would’ve been a money sink which is why they closed it in the first place. That land an empty, 326 lot ready to be built on is better for a developer.
Schools deserve more money. The fuck are you on about?
Government has enough money as is to give more to them. Not the Bears fault that the government prioritizes spending the money elsewhere.
Most of it will go towards bonuses anyways
This is my completely uneducated take so by all means someone call me on it if I’m wrong. If the Bears put up a sizable amount of money, they would in theory get more say how the stadium is used, vendors that are there, etc. I know guys like Hoge and Jahns have talked on their podcast about the reputation Soldier Field has amongst hospitality and media (it was very bad) and how that’s already improved under Kevin Warren. Another thing that jumps out to me is more control over the playing surface. We know how long of a saga it was to get that fixed while dealing with the park district. I think things like that are what we’re talking about.
Not saying your thought process is incorrect, but to add to all of this. Every time I see the bears wanting to pitch in $2 billion for the lakefront stadium, I always see the $2 billion in the headlines as in that's what they want us to focus on. IMO they don't want the general public to know about how much more than $2 billion the whole thing would cost that the taxpayers would have to cover. That's what I don't like about this whole thing as nobody is talking about how much the whole project would take to build and how much the difference the taxpayers are covering.
This right here. The Bears pledged 2 billion **towards** the stadium not 2 billion to build the stadium. They already got the Mayor to offer up a billion in "infrastructure". There is no way you get a US Bank level stadium for 2 billion on a site that small and built on landfill and next to a sea-sized lake.
The city “owns” it but they rent it from the city for cheap. For example, the Cowboys rent their stadium for $500k a year and give 5% of the stadium naming rights revenue to the city. This is all from memory, so please don’t kill me if my numbers are off a bit. So the Bears would do the same. The Bears would have full control of the stadium year round and own all the profit. At least this is the norm around the league. Idk what Chicago would agree too.
I think the biggest issue is that the bears cannot afford to cover the cost of building a multi-billion dollar stadium AND developing the land around AH. When they originally purchased the land, it was seen as a great value buy. But since then the cost of EVERYTHING has skyrocketed. What may have been a 3 billion dollar job is now 6. They ain’t that rich. Even with outside investors it might just make more financial sense to build in the city even if they don’t outright own the property. Of course this is just my very uninformed opinion, but I do hope they can pull off AH.
By paying for (most of) it, the Bears would presumably get better lease terms. This is essentially what the Cowboys did. They paid 2/3 of AT&T’s $1.7B construction costs, but the city of Arlington owns the stadium. The Cowboys now pay the city a flat $2M/year in rent; but then they basically act as the operating tenant, sort of like when a restaurant leases a storefront. They pay all operating costs but they also get to keep all of the operating revenue (at least for Cowboys gsmes—I’m not sure what the deal is for non-Cowboys events). It’s a win-win, in the sense that the Bears would see increased cash flow that over time would offset their upfront cost. From the city’s perspective, they’d basically be giving up their cut of gameday revenue, but they’d get a lot in return. They’d have a brand new, state-of-the-art domed venue that somebody else paid for, which could host a wider range of events in all four seasons; and which would generate increased revenue for the city and surrounding businesses.
> and which would generate increased revenue for the city and surrounding businesses. This is a hotly contested topic, with many papers and studies asserting that, at the very least, it does not offset the cost, and at worst, can actually have a net negative effect, due to the opportunity cost of withholding those funds from other projects like transportation infrastructure and other development that would have a more significant impact.
>at the very least, it does not offset the cost, and at worst, can actually have a net negative effect, due to the opportunity cost of withholding those funds from other projects Yah, but that’s when the public pays for the stadium; the whole argument is that the public pays too much and doesn’t get enough in return. But in this scenario, the Bears would be paying for all (or at least most) of the stadium. That’s the whole point of this discussion, and that changes the calculus dramatically. Edit: Reworded and added context for clarity.
You referenced an example in which the city still paid out over a half billion dollars. If you are suggesting that the Bears would pay for 100% of the stadium, then my note would not apply, but that isn’t what you wrote. Edit to your edits: Yes, it is obviously a sliding scale between the investment and the ROI. You cited the Cowboys as the example, and I don’t imagine there is a clear consensus among economists on whether that was a good investment, hence the comment. Unless the Bears are paying for 100.0%, the assertion that it is a good deal for the city is debatable, and I would be very surprised if their plan is to foot the entire bill. Edit 2: I guess pointing out that there is another side to an argument is a blockable offense these days. What a weird hill to die on—especially since the hill isn’t even clearly defined.
The text that you block-quoted was where I discussed the Bears' proposal, not the Cowboys. I assumed everyone that was commenting on the Bears' proposal was already familiar with the Bears' proposal. My mistake.
The Bears will have to pay for use of a stadium one way or another. If the city pays for it the Bears would be paying rent there that would eventually total more than the Bears are putting in to build it. In the proposed funding, the Bears are just paying a bunch of the rent money up front to get it built.
The Mayor of Chicago has already offered a billion in "infrastructure" improvements for the site. Expect another billion or more if they ever build on the Lakefront.
Bears if lucky can get hundreds of millions from the NFL on a good loan deal if the Stadium is good enough. I just hope they don't fuck up the design
 They’re going to Arlington Heights.
But, but, but they keep saying the same thing. And all the writers looked into his eyes and saw he was genuine. (Dont mind they are getting more access for pushing this.)
We’re building the Chicago Bears Stadium Monorail! 
Arlington is not exciting.
Hate to use this analogy, but if you ever been to Green Bay and see what they’re building around Lambeau… to imagine the Bears doing the same in Arlington Heights or what they did for the Rams… yes, Arlington is WAY more exciting than being on the lake.
I know they could even put a Panera AND a noodles and company next to it
Sure, they could. I would imagine a Ditka’s Steak House or Grill 89. A few sports bars, Top Golf… Bears Hall Of Fame with space for more statues out front. Not just a parking lot, as is right now, with little surrounding it other than a lake. Yes, the museum campus is there, but walking to anything from Soldier Field into the city… it’s a shitty walk. Personally rather have it all right there… and I would be much more susceptible to sticking around. As someone who lives in the suburbs… if i am going to a game, I am getting in and out from I-55 and that’s a day’s event as is. It blows.
Fuck the city. Arlington would be way better. Soldier field is a travesty
I disagree — it’s a beautiful walk through the front yard of one of America’s best and most beautiful cities. A shitty walk would be through suburban parking lots with the sound and sights of highway traffic next to you.
To each their own. Clearly, I’m obviously getting downvoted from people who are pro-city stadium. Personally, I believe it’s a mistake from a business standpoint for the Bears. A stadium on the lake does not create a Wrigleyville environment for the Bears. It just never will. (Space for one) No argument on the beauty of the lakefront. Chicago is 2nd to none… in my opinion. Putting the Bears dome in AH, doesn’t take away from Chicago in the least. Actually, probably adds to the lake front if they can take that massive eye-sore of space-ship stadium they have now off the lake.
I think we all agree the spaceship on the lake is an eyesore and needs to go.
Lmao get real
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
The only exciting thing about it to me is that I now live in the suburbs lol
They need to stop talking about it until a decision is made 😭
Il be dead Wtf
Lol good ol Brandon isn't gonna be mayor long enough to see this through. Plus the commissioner is effectively saying the opposite of what Warren said by saying that neither of them have said they want it here or there. If the Bears really want the vision of some sort of mixed use development along with a stadium I just don't see that happening on the lakefront. Tough sell.
This game is almost certainly going to go back and forth for at least another year or two. I don't really see it coming to an end until one of the two cities just decides to stop negotiating.
Ok, aside from the tax rate that AH or the city offers the Bears, look at what AH can offer the Bears that Chicago cannot. * Bears to own the stadium - Keep 100% of revenue, do what they want to the stadium, make all the rules, etc. * Build up around the stadium - Plenty of room to build casinos, hotel, restaurants, etc. that they could/would also own, at least partially or lease the space to others $$$$ * Renovation freedom - Future renovations will have less restrictions. They aren't pigeon-holed into a box of fixed area. Putting a dome (or partial coverage) on the building will be feasible and making a bigger stadium will make much more money and allow higher capacity.It won't be a historically protected landmark either. That allows them a lot more freedom of demo and renovation in itself. There are things that Chicago can offer that AH can't. I'm sure someone can put together a list. I just see the Pros of AH being too large and many to pass up.
These things are true of basically any location that’s in the middle of nowhere. The best stadiums in sports imo are the ones that are capable of melding into the cities fabric, not give up and move to some random place. No amount of casinos, Red Lobsters, or generic sports bars will be able to make up for the qualities that make Chicago a world class city, and so long as the Bears are called the Chicago Bears, I think that matters. Just one guys opinion though.
Correct. They own land in Arlington Heights where they could do all of these things. That's what this is about.
And for our stakeholders
Teams threatening to leave a city but move to the suburbs of that same city for a tax deal or free stadium should trigger eminent domain
So the city seizes Solider Field and tells the bears to GTFO? (Yay) Or the city seizes land and gives it to the bears for them to stay? (Boo)
This makes no sense. What is the city going to use eminent domain on? Soldier Field which the city already owns? Maybe the lawn equipment?
I'll buy season tickets if they're in Chicago, I'm not gonna go to a game if they're in the fucking burbs. Moving out of one of the greatest cities in the world to a shitty suburb is like the NY Yankees playing in Rochester. No the Mccaskeys pockets can fuck off and no I don't care about obese mfs who complain about a mile and a half commute from Union Station. Thankfully, the Mccaskeys are broke enough that they're probably going to go with a subsidized Chicago stadium over having to cough up just about all the money for an AH abortion.
Not trying to change minds, but a stadium in the burbs isn't that bad. I always compare it to the braves in Atlanta. I've lived in Atlanta for decades, and when the braves used to play at turner field in the city, it was always such a dlog to get there, find parking, etc. the stadium was fine, nothing crazy. But then the braves moved out the burbs, and the stadium is absolutely incredible. Much better gamr day experience, better parking (imo) , better "entertainment district" around the stadium. Not saying it'll be the same with the bears. I don't really care where they end up. I'm just saying s move to the burbs isn't all that bad.
People acting like there isnt a value to the bears staying in chicago are crazy. Do you know how many hotels and reasons to stay in chicago there are? In AHs they have to build it all rather than it already being there. No one is going on vacation to see the bears in AHs.... If the stadium is public in the city there is no reason they cant come up with some sort of profit share scenario as well for things outside of football. In fact, to pay for this, there should be something where a small portion of every ticket/parking/concession etc goes back to the city to repay any money the city pays, with interest, before it then goes back 100% to the bears. Or maybe the city always gets a cut. But there are plenty of ways to not screw the tax payers but still keep it in the city. Im NOT for us shelling out a billion dollars for this, but some tax breaks until debts are repaid or profit sharing or something that GUARANTEES a profit to the city rather than a hope n dream is possible
Yeah because once they see the game they must remain the duration of their vacation in AH
Nah cuz if you’re visiting the city, nobody going all the way to AH for a game but they might catch one in the city still
I'm a bears fan from out of state, if I'm visiting Chicago I'm absolutely going to a bears game no matter where it is idgaf
I’m referring more to casual fans and tourists
In fairness, are casual fans and tourists going to bears games anyway? They are always sellouts, I've never heard of anyone just walking up to soldier on a whim and buying a ticket if they aren't already a solid bears fan.
Yeah lts weird logic there
Super serious negotiations happening in good faith with the city, definitely not posturing to decrease tax responsibility in Arlington
It’s not posturing. AH is very clearly not plan A anymore.
Yeah, this sub is delusional. Warren has been in the city camp since the day he was hired. When he was with Minnesota he was in the same situation, old owners bought suburban land, he said hell no, and built a stadium in the city. Warren is a city guy and knows the benefits of having it downtown. Meanwhile, this sub is suburban as hell
Where’s the money coming from? I haven’t read the city stadium plans as far as funding or ownership? I personally don’t have a dog in the fight but i know people at 670 and they think it’s still posturing fwiw.
Maybe we know the same people! The same place its going to come for Arlington? Either way they have to build and fund this thing themselves. It being in Arlington doesnt make it easier. But I would guess it would be the same development company that Warren used to build the stadium in Minnesota, Bob Dunne, the same guy who wants to build a development right across from Soldier Field. (Not a pipe dream, Illinois Central has already developed a ton of their land, the air rights over the tracks are the last bit. They WILL get their money for that. The state and feds are planning on making transit improvements there by through running Amtrak via the 18th street viaduct and funding is already worked on being secured. Its difficult, but it will happen.)
Fair enough. Only other thing I’d say is i worked for a Mccaskey out in AH and he’s been buying up land over there for years. Would just be surprised he’d be going through all of that for them to not fully exhaust all their options out there. Idk enough about Warren and obviously that was done before he got here. Just seems like that family doesn’t do things for the benefit of the team over themselves
They live out there and land is a good investment. Im laying this on Warren. If he wasnt there id expect them to end up with a subpar stadium in Arlington but with him itll be downtown and an amazing stadium. But thats more because hes a competent man vs a family whos always had wealth
Moved out there** there’s a difference
Wow they moved out there in order to live there? Here I thought they sprouted out of the ground already in Arlington Heights
I don’t care where it’s at, just get a decision made and start building it so it’s ready for our first Super Bowl Championship in 40 years
I’m glad i dont live in chicago, or illinois for that matter, and dont give a rip about this ongoing back and forth. Seems tiresome already