Bears Stadium news

[Outshined_One]

1 hour ago, Wilson A2000 said:

How do you lose money owning an NFL team? Sell the team then.

I'm sure they're losing $144m a year for tax purposes only.

[Soul]

My thought is we won’t see the Bears actually leave for a new stadium until the 2030’s regardless where it is.  Took sofi 6 1/2 years from the time of site selection to opening game.  That puts us 2033 season, best case.

[Wilson A2000]

1 hour ago, Tryptamine said:

So maybe fire Kevin Warren the guy who put you in this position

They probably want to, but that would absolutely destroy any last remaining leverage they have

[mul21]

12 hours ago, Wilson A2000 said:

They probably want to, but that would absolutely destroy any last remaining leverage they have

Disagree.  I think that would actually help them save some face by completely throwing him under the bus.  There's enough out there in the media to make the case that he led them down this path and they disagreed with it all along and now they've had enough.

[Soul]

15 hours ago, mul21 said:

Disagree.  I think that would actually help them save some face by completely throwing him under the bus.  There's enough out there in the media to make the case that he led them down this path and they disagreed with it all along and now they've had enough.

If they are ever going to take control back and remove Warren, now’s the time.  Think of how weak it looks if they let themselves be led all the way down this path, disagreeing the whole time, but just letting it happen anyway.

[Brian707]

This is the same family that let Flus do a press conference an hour before he was canned. They won't fire Warren, if anything he is taking the blame in the media when the whole ownership is to blame 

Edited June 10 by Brian707

[champaignchris]

On 6/8/2026 at 6:30 PM, Wilson A2000 said:

How do you lose money owning an NFL team? Sell the team then.

You don’t. Never believe a team owner who says he’s losing money. 

[Wilson A2000]

On 6/9/2026 at 8:23 AM, mul21 said:

Disagree.  I think that would actually help them save some face by completely throwing him under the bus.  There's enough out there in the media to make the case that he led them down this path and they disagreed with it all along and now they've had enough.

They would get a worse deal for them with Kevin Warren gone because you only fire him if you want Arlington Heights and the state isn’t budging on that

[mul21]

23 minutes ago, Wilson A2000 said:

They would get a worse deal for them with Kevin Warren gone because you only fire him if you want Arlington Heights and the state isn’t budging on that

I'm not so sure that's true.  Based on everything being reported, Warren straight up ignored the advice of the consultants he hired and the Bears didn't have anyone in Springfield trying to get votes for whatever proposal they were going to need passed for the funding to happen.  You dump Warren, listen to the consultants and get in front of the people you need votes from, and things might change quite a bit.

[Outshined_One]

1 hour ago, Wilson A2000 said:

They would get a worse deal for them with Kevin Warren gone because you only fire him if you want Arlington Heights and the state isn’t budging on that

The problem the Bears have is they've already horsefeathers the bed with Pritzker and a good chunk of the General Assembly for the reasons @mul21 mentioned.  The grumbling come out of this last session was less "screw the Bears!" and more "how does a Bears deal benefit Peoria, or Rockford, or Carbondale?"  The Chicago contingent of the general assembly was fully on board for *something* (especially since they were under the impression the Bears could stay in Chicago), but the PILOT bill was only going to benefit mega-projects in and around Chicago, the Bears relied on lobbyists in Springfield without actually going down to stump and court votes, and no one had a backup bill ready if the PILOT bill failed.

I'm unsure how this ultimately plays out, though, because the Bears have Indiana over a barrel at the moment.  Firing Warren would show they mean business about Illinois, yes, but if Illinois' best bill falls short of what Indiana is offering, would the Bears stay regardless?  I'm unsure about that.

[Tryptamine]

9 minutes ago, Outshined_One said:

The problem the Bears have is they've already horsefeathers the bed with Pritzker and a good chunk of the General Assembly for the reasons @mul21 mentioned.  The grumbling come out of this last session was less "screw the Bears!" and more "how does a Bears deal benefit Peoria, or Rockford, or Carbondale?"  The Chicago contingent of the general assembly was fully on board for *something* (especially since they were under the impression the Bears could stay in Chicago), but the PILOT bill was only going to benefit mega-projects in and around Chicago, the Bears relied on lobbyists in Springfield without actually going down to stump and court votes, and no one had a backup bill ready if the PILOT bill failed.

I'm unsure how this ultimately plays out, though, because the Bears have Indiana over a barrel at the moment.  Firing Warren would show they mean business about Illinois, yes, but if Illinois' best bill falls short of what Indiana is offering, would the Bears stay regardless?  I'm unsure about that.

It doesn't have to be as good as Indiana's bill. You think they'd take the hugely negative press and resentment of their fan base if they left the state for comparable deals? Let's not forget the quality of the proposed site in Indiana. I'm not even sure it has to be all that close to Indiana's offer to get them to stay in Illinois. 

[mul21]

6 minutes ago, Outshined_One said:

I'm unsure how this ultimately plays out, though, because the Bears have Indiana over a barrel at the moment.  Firing Warren would show they mean business about Illinois, yes, but if Illinois' best bill falls short of what Indiana is offering, would the Bears stay regardless?  I'm unsure about that.

I think anything Illinois gives them will fall short of what Indiana has offered, but the prospect of building a stadium on a toxic waste dump is probably a bigger pitfall than a little less help from Illinois.  I also keep going back to the fact that they don't even have a site to build on in Hammond, let alone all of the pre-construction work that has to be done before you move a single piece of dirt and every day they delay makes a stadium more expensive, so building in Indiana, even with the extra kickbacks, may not be as viable as AH is.

[Outshined_One]

Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of issues in play here that could tank an Indiana deal, but the Idiot Ball is being passed around at a rapid clip, and I don't think it's a safe assumption the Bears stay with AH.

[CubinNY]

Nothing makes any sense. They sunk a good chunk of money into AH already and are now going to be left with a lot. They may be able to develop it in some way, but in real estate profit is long term in less you are flipping in a hot market. 
 

Am I correct in assuming they won’t own the property in Hammond? 

[Old Style]

 

[Wilson A2000]

 

[Banedon]

The Bears are gonna end up renewing the Soldier Field lease, aren't they?

[Brian707]

8 minutes ago, Banedon said:

The Bears are gonna end up renewing the Soldier Field lease, aren't they?

Yeah I haven't ruled that out.

Its far more likely than Hammond. 

 

[Irrelevant Dude]

On 8/17/2026 at 12:41 PM, Banedon said:

The Bears are gonna end up renewing the Soldier Field lease, aren't they?

That's the best possible outcome for me.  I'm likely never attending a game in person regardless, and I enjoy watching the cold weather/snowy/windy/foggy games on TV over a sterile dome environment.  I'm not going to be out in the elements, so what do I care?

[Brian707]

Is there a non 0 chance Godell/ the other 31 owners are fed up with the McCaskeys and ask them to sell the team? Bernstein brought this up the other day. NFL is a  billionaires world and the McCaskeys are in over their head.

[Rex Buckingham]

1 hour ago, Brian707 said:

Is there a non 0 chance Godell/ the other 31 owners are fed up with the McCaskeys and ask them to sell the team? Bernstein brought this up the other day. NFL is a  billionaires world and the McCaskeys are in over their head.

Why would the other owners care? This Bears stadium stuff isn't keeping the other owners from making more money, and I imagine the McCaskeys are probably well-liked around the league. 

[Outshined_One]

2 hours ago, Brian707 said:

Is there a non 0 chance Godell/ the other 31 owners are fed up with the McCaskeys and ask them to sell the team? Bernstein brought this up the other day. NFL is a  billionaires world and the McCaskeys are in over their head.

I thought it would have happened when Virginia McCaskey died based on the absolute mess that happened in Denver after Pat Bowlen died, but the McCaskeys seem to have handled it appropriately and we have heard absolutely nothing about any estate challenges or related issues, which hey, credit where it's due on their estate planning.

I don't think the other teams care at this point.  It might be something else if the Bears end up on the hook in a massive lawsuit regarding the stadium or if the Bears simply don't have a stadium ready when their lease is up, but for now it doesn't seem to be enough of an issue to force such a drastic move.

[Banedon]

57 minutes ago, Rex Buckingham said:

Why would the other owners care? This Bears stadium stuff isn't keeping the other owners from making more money, and I imagine the McCaskeys are probably well-liked around the league. 

There's a lot of reasons.  NFL owners are all participants in a massive NFL conglomerate, and the Bears are one of the flagship teams.  The McCaskeys are rich...but all their money is tied up in the team.  They don't have external wealth to rely on here, like most mega-rich owners.  They just haven't been able to keep up with the Jerry Jones's.

Also, if the Bears fail to get the stadium done, because of failing to conquer political issues, that can have an effect on other teams as they attempt to do similar deals.

[WrigleyField 22]

I'm not aware of any mechanism the owners could use to stop the Bears. They'd have to vote on them leaving the market, but Hammond isn't them leaving the market.

About the only leverage I think is the NFL stadium loan. Would probably be about $300M loan. They could forgo that, but if Bears/Indiana want to make Hammond work I don't think that would be a hindrance (if other owners even cared, which I'm not sure they do).

I guess Super Bowl hosting is the only other variable. If they said "fine, but we're never approving a Super Bowl in freaking Hammond". Well that's pressure...

[jersey cubs fan]

Nobody in the nfl is going to begrudge the Bears moving to Indiana, if they maximize tha taxpayer funded portion of the move. 
 

they will get annoyed if they drag their feet too long but they won’t step in to force a sale until things get much worse, or the Feds find something to charge the McCaskey family with and force a sale to a trump family member