WrigleyField 22

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.

He might be the funnest in terms of edging out his place on the list. While many fail on like 1:3 rookie cup of tea he maneges to sneak by with multiple low PA seasons of 16:15 5:3 9:2 (on 36 PA!) Even his partial season with the 1941 Dodgers makes the list at 3:1 at 31 PA. So two teams in one season.

Sorry Gracey https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/r/randowi01.shtml?utm_source=direct&utm_medium=Share&utm_campaign=ShareTool https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/h/hargrmi01.shtml?utm_source=direct&utm_medium=Share&utm_campaign=ShareTool https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/g/gilliji01.shtml?utm_source=direct&utm_medium=Share&utm_campaign=ShareTool https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/a/ashburi01.shtml?utm_source=direct&utm_medium=Share&utm_campaign=ShareTool https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/a/ashburi01.shtml?utm_source=direct&utm_medium=Share&utm_campaign=ShareTool https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/g/galanau01.shtml?utm_source=direct&utm_medium=Share&utm_campaign=ShareTool https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/v/vaughar01.shtml?utm_source=direct&utm_medium=Share&utm_campaign=ShareTool If 0:0 tie on 26 PA counts https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/a/applilu01.shtml?utm_source=direct&utm_medium=Share&utm_campaign=ShareTool Honorable mention to Mr I Hate Walks Even Though I Walked A Lot (on two very low PA seasons) https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/morgajo02.shtml?utm_source=direct&utm_medium=Share&utm_campaign=ShareTool The end or the career misses might be more prevalent than the rookie ones... Damn. A very modest PA minimum would turn up at least another dozen. Source list I used to find possible candidates (didn't search all 200, focused on biggest differentials, so may be more) https://www.baseball-reference.com/tools/share.fcgi?id=Egf3A

Ted Williams missing out on a year with 2:2 on a year with 12 PA is rough, lol Ozzie Smith is another who misses only on a tie 37:37 on 649 PA in 1979 Searching for other possibilities....

Nah Warren bungled this. It would never have taken this long with someone who knew what they were doing. Thats even if it meant they eventually ended up in Indiana. They probably could have been playing there by 2027, if not this year.

I have a hard time believing the interest is zero. However it's clear to me that the Indiana deal won't be a clear giveaway where it's like $4B difference or something absurd. If it's like $1B package in favor of Indiana it's all short term financial gain and will be probably all be lost in like a decade.

DBB said same thing. Of course DBB still says glowing reviews of Phillips and it seems pretty evident Phillips didn't know how to prep for a stadium deal either as he oversaw purchase and closing period until Warren came in.

Lmao https://indianaeconomicdigest.net/MobileContent/Most-Recent/Government-state/Article/Wolf-Lake-site-in-Lake-County-would-pose-challenges-for-new-Chicago-Bears-stadium-residents-say/31/124/120669

I'm fairly confident all the super confident ones are straight up mouthpiece. Thats not to say Indiana isn't real. But if the Bears want best leverage possible, they need the window on both to stay open. Even with the legislation in place in Indiana they don't have a real deal until ink is on paper with financial terms and a site plan. And having two courters strengthens their leverage no matter who their favorite is. I predicted weeks ago that the Bears would make some level of commitment to Indiana by end if Feb. And actually that statement was even less commital than I thought they'd go.

Yea people are desperate to find comparable situations when a 20-25 year stadium run is pathetic. And the Bears had other options for years that they either didn't want or fumbled on. The same people who are like "derp derp way to go Illinois" have zero self awareness of the irony of the last time the state made a deal with the same damn business.

And that's part of what never made sense from the day they put the bid on Arlington. It was always going to be a Stan Kroeke level investment. If it was just about an upgraded football facility, there is a site in Chicago with political will and is probably viable. Probably 2 actually (I'm sure minor renos to Soldier Field could address issues). Bears want a multi use facility that they don't have the money or know how to really pull off.

$855M for infrastructure was the official ask, publically announced Sept 30, 2025. Then also tax certainty in the form of a "PILOT" bill which is a mega-project bill that allows mega developments to negotiate a fixed long term payment with local taxing jurisdictions. On the first point, the Bears have never publically stated with any real specificity what that $855M covers. But reading between lines I don't beleive it is even covering infrastructure for the whole development, just the stadium. But for some context, NY State and Erie counties $850m was a record setting contribution at the time of their agreement (not in % terms or inflation adjusted, but still). We can presume cost has only risen since then and will probably have creep beyond inflationary reasons. Ultimately it's evident to me is that the AH site was a bad investment because of how much infrastructure was needed, and I don't think it's unreasonable to question if the public benefit for infrastructure would be there (let alone being paid back with new tax revenue). On the second point, I think the Bears have also been really bad at conveying specifics. There's been a lot of bad misinfo out there like "the state asked Bears to pay $200m". The state doesn't set tax rates/assessments, local taxing bodies do, and the $200m was never an ask from any government body but a third party think tank number on what the tax could be if the entire dev cost was the assessed value and taxed at standard commercial rate. And bad apples to apples comparisons are being made to much smaller properties, including Sofi where everyone is quoting as the highest stadium property tax ever at 8.8m, but that is additionally just the stadium and not entire 300 acre development. So at this point all we really know is Bears want new legislation, but even that wording they're still asking for tweaks on. And no explanation for why existing tax abatement structures like TIFs aren't suitable.

It's just so hard seeing this ending up anything other than a Meadowlands type stadium ABC 7 Chicago | This is the area where the Bears stadium would be... WWW.INSTAGRAM.COM 1,713 likes, 696 comments - abc7chicago on February 19, 2026: "This is the area where the...

I rarely go to games as is. It would probably become a Meadowlands type dump, and I'd go even less. So I'll move on, but I bet they'll see their franchise value grow more slowly than it could I bet. They'll still end up on the hook for a decent amount of the cost of trying to make Hammond a destination and when that fails they won't have made that much more to their name. Or at least less than if they prioritized a good location.

They're a poorly run business. Have been for a very long time. They've had several good offers in Chicago since Soldier Field's was thier "temporary home" in 1971. And turned them down for suspect reasons. We got the worst of the options eventually with a SF reno and now theyre solely focused on it being this multi-use entertainment district. Something they never really ever brought up until AH became available... Even today if they just wanted a nice football stadium, it could probably happen in the city. But they want to socialize even more cost to create a playground they are the sole benefactor of. Socialize cost. Privatize profit.