Rustysurf83
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Dec 22, 2010
- Posts:
- 1,244
- Liked Posts:
- 694
- Location:
- PNW
Are you dense?
- Joined:
- Jun 15, 2010
- Posts:
- 46,377
- Liked Posts:
- 35,553
My favorite teams
I have a feeling you'll be disappointed.
- Joined:
- Aug 10, 2013
- Posts:
- 39,192
- Liked Posts:
- 36,463
- Location:
- Cumming
This has nothing to do with the election in 2 years
Certified Troll
Member
- Joined:
- Apr 1, 2024
- Posts:
- 77
- Liked Posts:
- 27
My favorite teams
Rustysurf83
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Dec 22, 2010
- Posts:
- 1,244
- Liked Posts:
- 694
- Location:
- PNW
Last number I saw was a 48% approval rating for Pritzker with registered voters, almost 20% undecided. He’s at 60%+ with registered Democrats in a blue state and won the last election by 16%. The only way he doesn’t get re-elected is if he doesn’t want to run.
didshereallysaythat
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Aug 14, 2011
- Posts:
- 21,268
- Liked Posts:
- 10,126
And Illinois keeps getting bluer and bluer. Mayor Johnson being elected who basically was for defunding the police supports that.
- Joined:
- Jun 15, 2010
- Posts:
- 46,377
- Liked Posts:
- 35,553
My favorite teams
Him leaving the governor’s mansion to run for president is more likely than him not winning in 26. More likely is that he just doesn’t run again.
Myk
85in25
- Joined:
- Sep 27, 2010
- Posts:
- 12,677
- Liked Posts:
- 5,263
Rich sports team owners don't like to spend their own money unless they get "free" money from tax payers. I think it's something like 20 out of the 32 stadiums are publicly funded. You can't get tax payer money without approval.
- Joined:
- Sep 15, 2012
- Posts:
- 63,394
- Liked Posts:
- 40,437
Not interesting at all. There was far less public money for AH because it was going to be privately owned. The Chicago stadium would be publicly owned.
Myk
85in25
- Joined:
- Sep 27, 2010
- Posts:
- 12,677
- Liked Posts:
- 5,263
I'm impressed. I thought the last time the state just threw money at them without much question.
How it should work is if you want tax payer money for your business you have to sell ownership to the tax payers and then pay out dividends, i.e., extra taxes forever.
If you come back for more money for the next remodeling you want you lose more ownership.
If you keep it up for too long without buying the shares back you lose complete ownership and become a publicly owned team like the Packers.
Odd, I thought the Bears were pushing AH as not being tax payer money (roads and sewer is understandable). Why do they need it now?
How it should work is if you want tax payer money for your business you have to sell ownership to the tax payers and then pay out dividends, i.e., extra taxes forever.
If you come back for more money for the next remodeling you want you lose more ownership.
If you keep it up for too long without buying the shares back you lose complete ownership and become a publicly owned team like the Packers.
Odd, I thought the Bears were pushing AH as not being tax payer money (roads and sewer is understandable). Why do they need it now?
Rustysurf83
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Dec 22, 2010
- Posts:
- 1,244
- Liked Posts:
- 694
- Location:
- PNW
New NFL rules preclude teams from selling public shares line the Packers did. I’d think you could form some sort of foundation to create a 501b benefit Corp and do it that way but if NFL lawyers havent found that loophole yet maybe not.
The current workaround are PSLs which…of course vanish immediately after the last home game at Soldier Field and can be re-sold. They’ll easily make $100m selling PSLs at a new stadium. I’ve seen estimates as high as $500m.
It’s a $6.1bn franchise. They don’t “need” taxpayer money, they want it. That’s why billionaires are billionaires. They are selfish pricks that will step all over anyone to further enrich themselves. Part of the reason they pivoted from Arlington is because the village and school districts wouldn’t give them an outlandish exception on property tax rates and the property valuation.
It doesn’t matter honestly. A new stadium on the Lakefront is not happening. This is all a ploy to force AHs hands in the negotiation or get some ridiculously favorable deal to renew the lease terms at SF. My money is that the team will still end up in AH.
- Joined:
- Sep 15, 2012
- Posts:
- 63,394
- Liked Posts:
- 40,437
That is why the stadium would be publicly owned. More than likely the big sticking point is the cost for the Bears to lease it and what if any cut the Bears want from non-Football events at the stadium.
Probably need to offer something like the Bears cover operating and maintenace for whole year which can be made up by them and city splitting the revenues from othwr events. That way the government cant lose if there arent enough events.
- Joined:
- Jun 15, 2010
- Posts:
- 46,377
- Liked Posts:
- 35,553
My favorite teams
Which I never understood. Why wouldn’t the priority be outright ownership?
Rustysurf83
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Dec 22, 2010
- Posts:
- 1,244
- Liked Posts:
- 694
- Location:
- PNW
It is. This is a ploy to twist AHs arm in negotiations. Building an entire privately owned entertainment complex is far more profitable in the long term and makes the franchise value skyrocket if they decide to sell when Virginia dies. They’ll have zero issue getting significant investors to fund AH so it doesn’t matter to them where the money comes from private or public. This is just a tactic to get a few numbers knocked off the property taxes for AH.
Chicago Staleys
Realist
- Joined:
- Sep 24, 2012
- Posts:
- 13,992
- Liked Posts:
- 9,243
What are talking about?
Chicago Staleys
Realist
- Joined:
- Sep 24, 2012
- Posts:
- 13,992
- Liked Posts:
- 9,243
Toast88
Well-known member
- Joined:
- May 10, 2014
- Posts:
- 14,424
- Liked Posts:
- 14,625
Oh boy, I have thoughts, my friend. People are taking the KC vote failure completely wrong because they’re not seeing the local political machinations.
I’ve heard the Kansas City failed stadium vote mentioned many times as an example of how residents don’t want to publicly finance stadiums anymore.
While I don’t doubt that’s what people around the country took from the vote, it would be a patently false conclusion to take from this particular vote.
The vote did not fail spectacularly because people here are against publicly-financed stadiums. Everyone here in Kansas City knows that. In fact, it’s generally understood that the Royals will likely be getting a publicly-financed downtown ballpark in the next few years, but the location and additional factors made this particular vote fall apart. The vote is extremely likely to pass once they decide to build it on the Riverfront or a downtown location with land (there are several spots) that doesn’t disrupt an entire entertainment district.
The vote failed because of the hubris of Royals owner John Sherman and because the particular location of the proposed stadium would’ve knocked out many beloved businesses of the Crossroads Entertainment District of Kansas City. John Sherman announced an intention to build a new ballpark in September, and a vote was held earlier this calendar year. The Royals did not even start to reach out to local stakeholders (like affected businesses, residents, the schools, etc.) until THE WEEK BEFORE THE VOTE. It’s generally believed that Royals ownership was so sure it would easily pass, they didn’t even think to properly involve the community. That approach ended up being misguided.
Facing a surefire loss at the voting booth in the weeks leading up, the Royals---in a last-ditch effort to save the vote---included an Arrowhead Stadium renovation in the vote WITH MERE WEEKS LEFT BEFORE THE VOTE because they believed people would be more likely to vote yes with the world champion Chiefs involved. The vote failed, because this was clearly rammed-through proposal that didn’t go through the proper channels, involve the proper people, or give enough time for full understanding & feedback with the community and fans.
Note that the Arrowhead Renovation would be fairly minor---not a new stadium and not a stadium overhaul. The Chiefs were included to solicit a yes vote on the Royals’ new proposed stadium.
This was not some big statement vote on publicly-financed stadiums. Rest assured, John Sherman and the Royals will get their approval for a new downtown stadium. They’ll come out soon, announce a new location that doesn’t have to kick out a bunch of beloved businesses in an entertainment district, announce an agreement with affected stakeholders like the school district, and solicit feedback from the public early on in the process this time.
A lot of noise from Kansas lawmakers who want to poach one or both teams to that side of the state line. Seems unlikely. The Hunts & John Sherman both have very good relationships with KCMO, and Kansas politics are even crazier than Missouri’s.
The Royals will get their city ballpark, and the Chiefs will eventually get their renovation or a new stadium, both in KCMO. Bank on it.
- Joined:
- Sep 15, 2012
- Posts:
- 63,394
- Liked Posts:
- 40,437
They cant afford Arlington Heights as it is going to cost more and have little to no public funding.
- Joined:
- Sep 15, 2012
- Posts:
- 63,394
- Liked Posts:
- 40,437
Because it costs more to build and stadiums lose money for like 350 days out of the year.
Owning a stadium is like owning a white elephant. That is why most teams allow the public to own them so they are the ones losing money on their upkeep.
Bearly
Guest
Warren was asked why Pritzker, who was less than a mile away from the stadium conference, wasn't invited. Warren said he was and always welcome. Pritzker was asked the same question and said he was never invited.
Illinois gov.: Bears' stadium plan a 'nonstarter'
The Chicago Bears' proposal to fund a new lakefront stadium remains a "nonstarter," Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker's office said after top aides met with team officials Wednesday.www.espn.co.uk
I thought the Bears laid out their plans last week like it was a done deal? So the team announced a new stadium but never had approval from the state?
Last edited by a moderator: