Jump to content
North Side Baseball

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 135
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

 

 

I'm not sure I like any 3 of those options over the McCaskeys

 

Bezos, maybe, as long as he doesn't move the team

Do you mean move the team from Chicago to the burbs? Or move the team outta state?

 

I can’t see any buyer moving the team out of IL.

Posted

 

 

I'm not sure I like any 3 of those options over the McCaskeys

 

Bezos, maybe, as long as he doesn't move the team

Do you mean move the team from Chicago to the burbs? Or move the team outta state?

 

I can’t see any buyer moving the team out of IL.

 

out of the metro area mainly. It certainly can happen, and given the history of the Bears I would def not want it to. I honestly dont want them to move off the lakeshore and I'm not sure what the reason would be other then to get a bigger stadium and field turf. traffic?

Posted

 

 

I'm not sure I like any 3 of those options over the McCaskeys

 

Bezos, maybe, as long as he doesn't move the team

Do you mean move the team from Chicago to the burbs? Or move the team outta state?

 

I can’t see any buyer moving the team out of IL.

 

out of the metro area mainly. It certainly can happen, and given the history of the Bears I would def not want it to. I honestly dont want them to move off the lakeshore and I'm not sure what the reason would be other then to get a bigger stadium and field turf. traffic?

I’m not sure how the game day revenue is split with the city, but I could see an ownership group wanting 100% of whatever that number is. It’s gotta be a helluva number to justify the cost of building a new stadium plus the potential blowback from the fan base.

Posted

 

 

I'm not sure I like any 3 of those options over the McCaskeys

 

Bezos, maybe, as long as he doesn't move the team

Do you mean move the team from Chicago to the burbs? Or move the team outta state?

 

I can’t see any buyer moving the team out of IL.

 

out of the metro area mainly. It certainly can happen, and given the history of the Bears I would def not want it to. I honestly dont want them to move off the lakeshore and I'm not sure what the reason would be other then to get a bigger stadium and field turf. traffic?

Bigger/domed stadium and in the case of a venue the size of Arlington, an entire entertainment district.

 

Thing is, even by the end of the Bears lease, in 2033, It's hard to imagine IL being in a position to be ready/willing to help finance a project. Maybe NW Indiana inserts itself in the field at that point again if a new owner is shopping around for a new venue while still keeping them in the area.

Posted
Honestly have not thought a ton about what a new owner could do to the Bears franchise as they’ve always owned the Bears and thought they would never sell.
Posted
Honestly have not thought a ton about what a new owner could do to the Bears franchise as they’ve always owned the Bears and thought they would never sell.

New owner could probably finance a stadium. That's probably the biggest thing. So as far as the value of that ymmv.

Posted
Honestly have not thought a ton about what a new owner could do to the Bears franchise as they’ve always owned the Bears and thought they would never sell.

New owner could probably finance a stadium. That's probably the biggest thing. So as far as the value of that ymmv.

 

Why would they do that?

Posted
Honestly have not thought a ton about what a new owner could do to the Bears franchise as they’ve always owned the Bears and thought they would never sell.

New owner could probably finance a stadium. That's probably the biggest thing. So as far as the value of that ymmv.

 

Why would they do that?

Well they surely wouldn't finance the whole project, but they could chip in more than the McCakseys. That's basically why they have Soldier Field. A rich and experienced businessperson would have a dome and enough equity to make it very worthwhile, while milking the state for as much as they could.

Posted

New owner could probably finance a stadium. That's probably the biggest thing. So as far as the value of that ymmv.

 

Why would they do that?

Well they surely wouldn't finance the whole project, but they could chip in more than the McCakseys. That's basically why they have Soldier Field. A rich and experienced businessperson would have a dome and enough equity to make it very worthwhile, while milking the state for as much as they could.

The Bears aren’t in Soldier Field because the McCaskeys are too poor

Posted

 

Why would they do that?

Well they surely wouldn't finance the whole project, but they could chip in more than the McCakseys. That's basically why they have Soldier Field. A rich and experienced businessperson would have a dome and enough equity to make it very worthwhile, while milking the state for as much as they could.

The Bears aren’t in Soldier Field because the McCaskeys are too poor

Its a pretty big reason. Inability to secure financing killed the Elk Grove deal in 98 is my understanding.

Posted
The state/city/public kicked in a god awful amount to build Soldier Field. I'm sure if the Bears wanted to build their own stadium they could, but why when the state is willing to give you a hand
Posted
The state kicked in a god awful amount to build Soldier Field. I'm sure if the Bears wanted to build there own stadium they could, but why when the state is willing to give you a hand

Well they don't own any of it. So that's the trade off. Don't get me wrong, it was a pretty sweet deal as is for the Bears, but owning a domed stadium outright and still getting city/state to kick in financing would probably be the preferred deal for most teams.

Posted
I wonder if the McCaskeys would consider an IPO?

Not sure if serious, but they can't do that.

Oh really, why? I didn't know that

NFL ownership guidelines require a controlling individual/entity. They don’t want the scrutiny of what a publicly traded company would necessitate.

Posted

Not sure if serious, but they can't do that.

Oh really, why? I didn't know that

NFL ownership guidelines require a controlling individual/entity. They don’t want the scrutiny of what a publicly traded company would necessitate.

 

 

ah. Are they *presumably* selling because they are tired of running it or are they just broke? and if its the later, why couldn't they sell, say, 30% (or whatever maintains their leadership) in a public offering to bring in some money? Is that even possible?

Posted

Oh really, why? I didn't know that

NFL ownership guidelines require a controlling individual/entity. They don’t want the scrutiny of what a publicly traded company would necessitate.

 

 

ah. Are they *presumably* selling because they are tired of running it or are they just broke? and if its the later, why couldn't they sell, say, 30% (or whatever maintains their leadership) in a public offering to bring in some money? Is that even possible?

well it’s a $3 billion company that kicks off a certain amount of profit each year. If the individuals aren’t that into owning the Bears there are better ways to invest that money. So you sell and take that capital to use in other ways. And if you enjoy the idea of owning the bears you keep a small percentage for vanity purposes.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
The North Side Baseball Caretaker Fund
The North Side Baseball Caretaker Fund

You all care about this site. The next step is caring for it. We’re asking you to caretake this site so it can remain the premier Cubs community on the internet. Included with caretaking is ad-free browsing of North Side Baseball.

×
×
  • Create New...