WrigleyField 22

Man that's tough. Hope there isn't anything serious driving the decision.

Thats crazy value to give up for Montgomery

To add to that, all the teams ahead of Bulls in tank standings have a 2 or 3 win clip in the last 10. New Orleans is the only one of the 8 with no tank motivation (having a unprotected pick that the Bulls could have purportedly got, but I digress) But take Utah at 6. If they play at 0.200 pace they finish 5-23 and 23-59 overall. Bulls have already clinched their 24th win. If New Orleans can keep up 0.500 pace, Bulls can only afford 4 more wins to pass them.

Top 5 is a heavy left. I really can't see past top 7. The drop-off really begins at 6/7 right now (insert Gen alpha meme)

Full grades on everything. https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/47987931/nfl-2026-report-cards-nflpa-32-teams Re field, 14 teams got C+ or above. So Bears tied at C with a handful, and then I think 11 at C- or below. Very few fake turf fields scored B range or above. Detroit and Minny I think were the only fake turfs above Chicago, and a couple fake turfs tied.

And here you go. So at very least not bottom 10

I'd be curious to see all the field grades. Fake turf has become very unpopular too. A lot of these categories in past are clearly not in a curve, so B+ is like median and C is basically an F. Wouldn't be surprised if turf looked more like a normal grade curve where C was actually average.

https://capitolnewsillinois.com/news/lawmakers-take-step-to-incentivize-bears-to-stay-in-illinois/ This article is a decent overview of some of the issues. Some issues more straightforward than others. However it's also evident how much the complexity of property tax assessment and levies are that the bill doesn't really account for given possible unique taxing body situations. It's a topic I don't even really fully grasp, but there was some clear concern that taxing jurisdictions where a mega project is a large parcel of the total assessment base of that district could end up really punting the tax levy burden to all the nearby properties that aren't part of the mega development. That's compounded by the length of time that these mega project incentives could last (up to 40 or 45 years) and the structure of how the agreement would be reached - weighted by the amount of each taxing body. Basically there probably need to be a ton of extar guardrails in place for it. The guardrails that are there are really just making sure the investment value or job requirements are met (along with some other things like minority investment). But nothing to protect for a insider giveaway that just shifts tax burden around to residents or other commercial property owners.

The Cleveland agreement has been referenced, but not sure there's a hard ask. I doubt Chicago lawmakers care where it comes from. If it's $500M of infrastructure, that's a W for them.

That, but also the bill itself has issues too, even if they handed Chicago $500M for museum campus infrastructure today.

House Bill 910 passes committee 13-7, but sounds like it has significant issues to work out. I don't think we'll see a House vote today, though they could. More ammemdments to come, but House will enter a recess until March 18

Sounds like PILOT bill will go up to committee. Can view text here if so inclined. https://www.ilga.gov/Legislation/BillStatus/FullText?LegDocId=209446&DocName=10400HB0910ham001&DocNum=910&DocTypeID=HB&LegID=156588&GAID=18&SessionID=114&SpecSess=&Session= Can include fixed payments or subject to adjustment (over 40 years any municipality that doesn't enact some minimum adj for inflation is crazy) Provides sales tax exemption on building materials for 7-10 years with possible 5 year extension. Interestingly, mega project can't contain residential dwelling. Interesting addition that perhaps carves out the full development from any agreement re: Bears $500 investment or $250m and $100m with full time job requirements attached Incentive period is 23-40 years. Company required to operate site for minimum 20. Any other questions shoot them my way, I'll try to answer

"I didn't care about politics in my 20s so no one else in their 20s does"? And you don't know who Kash Patel is so sounds like you're still not.

Probably too niche. But sounds like the path is going to be wetting the beaks. We have a SF post-Bears plan and that will probably be the combined infrastructure bill to get Chicago votes on board.

Splitting off too much of the franchise will be the issue with the league rules. That's part of their liquidity issue. Accross all rumors they seem to have narrowed in at like $2B, maybe $2.5B that they're offering up. That can build a stadium. But it can't build a entertainment district too. So whatever liquidity they can muster is probably reliant on a diversified plan and not just dumping into a stadium NFLs contribution/loan, naming rights, and PSLs probably pushes $1B together. So they've managed to find another $1B in cash on hand or financing tied to a entertainment district type investment. Thats my best guess of the situation.

My brother in law who is a season ticket holder just made a comment his two tickets will be in the 3k range. He's in 400 level. So that's somehwere in the $150+ range for face value per ticket on low end now?

Pritzkers insistence on affordability measures is interesting though I'm extremely skeptical they can actually design something around it that isn't some shell game.

So there are some actual details of Indianas financial commitment coming out. A lot of amendments to original bill got pushed through, so there may be some things I need to update, but from what I can tell: https://www.wishtv.com/news/chicago-bears-stadium-taxes-indiana/ I believe only the food/bev, hotel, and ticket taxes can directly back the bonds. Per the high end estimates from that article, that would be $35M annually, which would equate to about $500M in bond borrowing capacity. Indiana House speaker said Bears have pledged $2B. So anything over $2.5B is coming from Bears lease payments or from refinancing over time. Any tax over that $35M estimate would effectively reduce the Bears lease payments though. Since I don't think tolls or income tax can back bonds per the bill language I'm assuming tolls will pay for any add-on infrastructure that isn't part of the immediate site "capital improvements". I'd guess the local income tax is a replacement to property tax. Not sure what the rate is, but likely makes IL more competetive given Lake County IN is only 0.45% lower today. Of course that's mostly players problem, so Bears won't care much. Its both a shakedown of residents, and not all *that much* money in stadium terms. Bears will still pick up a big bill. And a 12% ticket tax is definitely an indirect tax on Bears revenue, in a already less desirable location that might not be able to justify the ticket prices AH could demand.

I support this plan

No complaint by me if they ever sell, but forced by who? It's possible NFL would relax some of those liquidity or leverage rules if they knew they would sell... Because they wanna pump that topline valuation number to be BIG if they can... But it would be dependent on a sale happening

Only chance is Silver steps in with the lotto fix lol

No it's absolutely true they're too poor (cash flow wise). Not making the argument they should be helped either. But they can't really properly liquidate or leverage it because of NFL rules. So they're stuck and trying to get the taxpayer to subsidize them

Texted this as a challenge to the biggest baseball nerd I know and he came back pretty quick with this one to the list (he's a Cleveland fan, so makes sense). These are sick strikeout numbers https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/s/seweljo01.shtml

But they're too poor to do it themselves

I figured people overestimated how much revenue Bears generate to city at Soldier Field. But even this is lower than I thought https://www.fox32chicago.com/news/exclusive-chicago-park-district-pitches-630-million-plan-post-bears-soldier-field I've long though Solider Field will function better as a city asset without Bears. But that revenue gap will still be significant, and there's plenty of room for them to keep effing it up.