Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
Next Post: Question of the day
Posted in:
* Background is here if you need it. Gov. JB Pritzker was asked by a reporter yesterday about Sen. Ann Gillespie’s new bill that would help facilitate a Bears stadium by freezing its local property taxes and allowing the team to negotiate additional payments for decades going forward…
I only read about it in the great newspapers of our state. And, I really haven’t, you know, opined about it. There are a lot of hoops to run through in the General Assembly for this to ever get to me. And I have to say there was, I took a, there was a note of skepticism even in the words of the person who introduced the bill. But I think she wanted to make sure that the General Assembly had an opportunity to hear about it and consider it in committee. So I look forward to hearing more about it and seeing how it might evolve.
Q: [No discernible audio]
I love the Bears. I do. But it is a private business. And I honestly do not think that the public has an obligation to fund in this major way a private business. Obviously, there are things that we do for private businesses all the time that are important to them, including, you know, paving roads that are very important for building industry in the state. But I’m of the opinion that it’s not our obligation as the state to step in and provide major funding. And I think I certainly don’t want to burden taxpayers with major support for private business. So, having said that, we’ll see how this project moves along in the General Assembly.
* More background from the Tribune…
Under her bill, whose provisions could be used for by any large-scale developer, the Bears would be required to invest at least $500 million in converting the 326-acre former racetrack to a stadium and surrounding mixed-use development.
The Bears would be required to negotiate an annual payment to local taxing bodies on top of property tax payments based on the frozen assessment.
Supporters of the legislation say it would create an incentive for larger developments that would not occur without the assistance. But it’s likely to face pushback from Chicago lawmakers who don’t want to make it any easier for the NFL’s charter franchise to leave its namesake city. The Bears have played in Soldier Field since 1971.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 9:13 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
Next Post: Question of the day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
If you can’t run your business without a 40 year tax reprieve : consider selling your business to someone else.
Comment by Steve Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 9:30 am
The Bears Bailout Bill is, by its own design, a burden on the taxpayers and while burdening taxpayers, the Bears, a private entity worth $5.6+ billion (with a b) would be “chosen” as a winner solely because of an absolute phony threat (like from Todd Maisch) that the Bears would leave the the third largest media market, an unshared media market, for St. Louis… even as the Bears close on a property that allows the Bears every opportunity to gain value for the franchise.
Gillespie is putting into peril decades of taxing that would likely hurt schools, public safety, and infrastructure wear and tear…. All would lead to, again, Springfield needing to maybe step in… again.
Horrific.
Not one nickel, not one.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 9:34 am
“Supporters of the legislation say it would create an incentive for larger developments that would not occur without the assistance.”
Wow, what a hook. Can’t wait to vote to reelect my legislator for her gutsy decision to make it easier for the 1% get a public money promise because they don’t like the risk if they don’t get one.
Civilization will probably just grind to a halt if we don’t pass this stupid proposal. Nobody will build anything big again.
Comment by Larry Bowa Jr. Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 9:36 am
I don’t get why any rep or senator from Chicago would vote to help move the Bears out of the city.
Comment by ChicagoVinny Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 9:39 am
===I don’t get why any===
There might be some. But not many, unless there’s a broader deal.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 9:42 am
Good on Pritzker for pushing back on this.
I’m all for the Bears getting their own place and controlling the revenue. And all they have to do to make it a reality is to assume the risk that accompanies such a venture.
Comment by thunderspirit Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 9:46 am
=I don’t get why any rep or senator from Chicago would vote to help move the Bears out of the city.=
I wouldn’t be so sure about that. If you consider the Bears moving to Arlington Height a fait accompli (and I do) and you consider the many needs of the City of Chicago and it’s various wards, it’s not hard to envision a scenario where horse trading takes place. In fact it might be the only way Chicago sees a return on the Bears departure. So in that context it could make a lot of sense.
But the Bears have no leverage here. The ownership is unpopular but also profitable. The threat of moving is hollow but could be welcomed by many fans as it would usher in a new team with new owners. But it’s not going to happen. One way or another the Bears will be in Arlington Heights.
Comment by Pundent Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 9:54 am
We there is a first time for everything I suppose
JB doesn’t want to burden taxpayers
Comment by Lucky Pierre Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 9:59 am
The characterization of the “pushback” is so offensive. The author portrays it as some sort of self-interested parochialism instead of just saying “maybe people don’t want to give free handouts to billionaires who don’t need them.”
Comment by Homebody Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 10:03 am
Does Gillespie have every intention to serve the next 40 years to see this through?
I thought putting an “unneeded burden on future generations” is something a legislator would be opposed to, let alone propose themselves.
Of course, “I kid”, the next 40 years of service in the GA, that’s not reasonable, but is it reasonable to force 40 years on her constituents for a building and venture that likely might not make it 25 years, without major stadium renovations and more concessions from taxpayers?
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 10:03 am
- LP -
So you readily admit it’s a burden to taxpayers?
Why would you want there to be for such a burden placed on taxpayers?
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 10:05 am
“Not one nickel, not one.”
Um. Yeah. Sure, if that’s what you think.
If this thing gets built, Arlington Heights is going to be on the hook for infrastructure upgrades to water, sewer, and roads which will be impacted by a new Bears stadium and surrounding improvements. They may attempt to recoup some of the costs, but I doubt it will cover everything.
Comment by Huh? Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 10:07 am
“I honestly do not think that the public has an obligation to fund in this major way a private business.”
The public has no obligation to do so and vanishingly little interest in doing so.
I cannot imagine that there would be much political downside to standing up to some millionaires with exactly one more SuperBowl win than any other Illinois family.
– MrJM
Comment by MisterJayEm Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 10:08 am
The bears could easily build a stadium and parking within the limits of the horse track oval. The remaining 260 acres could be sold off for development to help pay for the new stadium.
Comment by Huh? Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 10:10 am
===Arlington Heights is going to be on the hook for infrastructure upgrades to water, sewer, and roads which will be impacted by a new Bears stadium and surrounding improvements. They may attempt to recoup some of the costs, but I doubt it will cover everything.===
Infrastructure?
I have no problem with the city, working in conjunction with the state for roads/expressways, all that entails, power…
You talk sewer, water, well, the Bears can do like all “homeowners” and make the building safe and accepting to servicing.
But… you talk about aiding and abetting the cost and financing to the building of the facility…
Not one nickel, not one… including taxing relief for the building the Bears will play in.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 10:12 am
More can happen on the Bears development of the property faster with the State’s help. That’s my presumption… but I think the private sector also lines up to partner in that development for a share. They don’t need the State to do this… bring in other partners and share in the goldmine that this development should be if done properly with the right people.
Comment by Lincoln Lad Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 10:12 am
“Under her bill, whose provisions could be used for by any large-scale developer…”
That is what could turn into a major problem for localities outside of this particular tussle. PILOT is not something to allow lightly. And with a bill still “in development” who knows what the final bill will look like and which industries would benefit.
This article features what happened in Kansas with PILOTs and the wind industry. And, yes, Illinois has a different way entirely of taxing wind and solar projects. However, as we saw with the 102nd GA with HB 4412, a reversal of course could come with the stroke of a pen.
https://investigatemidwest.org/2017/12/04/rush-to-attract-wind-turbine-investors-leaves-kansas-school-districts-shortchanged/
Comment by Anon221 Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 10:13 am
=== the private sector also lines up to partner in that development for a share. They don’t need the State to do this… bring in other partners and share in the goldmine that this development should be if done properly with the right people.===
Between a $100 million naming rights deal for 10+ years, “corporate partners and sponsors”, PSL (personal seat licensing) and skybox ownership… there’s no logical funding for the state here, or tax relief.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 10:16 am
Nice to see you agree with me that the JB’s and the Democrats policy to increase expenditures have in fact burdened taxpayers
llinois’s recent expenditure totals (general fund spending/total spending, including federal transfers) were:
FY 2022: $43.5 billion
FY 2021: $43.5 billion/$87.5 billion
FY 2020: $36.1 billion/$77.8 billion
FY 2019: $36.4 billion/$71.8 billion
Comment by Lucky Pierre Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 10:18 am
“And I honestly do not think that the public has an obligation to fund in this major way a private business”
And yet he’s willing to spike the ball for EVs. He just signed into law a huge ( read “major”) tax incentive under the Reimagining Electric Vehicles in Illinois Act (REV).
“The REV Illinois Act includes tax credits for income tax withholding, training costs, tax exemptions, and investment credits, as well as allowing local jurisdictions to reduce property taxes for EV projects”
Comment by Donnie Elgin Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 10:19 am
=there’s no logical funding for the state here, or tax relief.=
Agreed. The Bears are a profitable enterprise which will become more profitable with the move to Arlington Heights. What we’re really talking about is having the state contributing to an even larger profit margin.
Comment by Pundent Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 10:23 am
It’d be hilarious if the Bears ended up in St. Louis. I mean, they already have a vacant NFL stadium from when the Rams left.
If that happened, I suppose the Chicago folks would have to start rooting for the next geographically closest franchise…the 13-time World Champion Green Bay Packers.
Comment by sulla Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 10:27 am
=== if the Bears ended up in St. Louis===
Leaving, as a founding member of the NFL, to go play in another building the Bears would rent, in the 23rd media market, a market where the Chiefs are the most identifiable team to fans, it would be a disaster to the franchise, branding, and worth…
The Bears can rent Soldier Field, why rent out in STL or buy a building already needing upgrades?
They wouldn’t
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 10:32 am
I’m all for tax rate/appeasement deals. What I’m not for is the state/municipality not negotiating the way any loan company (because that’s what this should be) would negotiate.
Make the tax relief come in the form of a balloon note. Make it where every dollar of revenue the state gets a nickel until we recoup what we lose. Make it where if they default the state then takes possession of the business and all its assets.
As taxpayers, we should want these kinds of deals. No bank would ever accept terms that include “you should be grateful we want your money for nothing.”
Comment by MG85 Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 10:32 am
Yet another reason to appreciate JB. If the Bears want to play in Arlington, they and their private sector investors can pay every nickel of their building costs. The city can cover the cost of upgrading utilities with tap on fees from the franchise. public money should only go for public services like schools, health care, infrastructure, etc.
Comment by froganon Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 10:33 am
No one believes that the Bears will end up in St. Louis. The Rams left St. Louis because that stadium wasn’t up to date. Anyone that says that isn’t to be taken seriously.
Comment by Appears Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 10:35 am
Could the Bears move to another part of the country…yeah, sure. But the NFL would eventually put an expansion team (or another team would move) to Chicago. And anyone who watched the Bears this year would think that the Bears where an expansion team…a first year expansion team.
Comment by Appears Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 10:37 am
When an ownership group shows so little regard with the product that they are producing, and then claims that they need more money, why is anyone racing to throw cash at them. Let them prove that they are worth it.
Comment by Appears Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 10:40 am
Can Springfield get one of these deals to redevelop the old Pillsbury site? Would it accellerate that project?
The Bears should bear down and pay for their own development. The state is only on the hook for the roads around it.
Comment by Give Us Barabbas Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 10:41 am
May need to refine the talking points a bit.
Governor: “And I honestly do not think that the public has an obligation to fund in this major way a private business… But I’m of the opinion that it’s not our obligation as the state to step in and provide major funding. And I think I certainly don’t want to burden taxpayers with major support for private business.”
Crain’s (Jan. 10):…lawmakers already have authorized putting $400 million into the fund, which is being created with an eye toward getting Stellantis to convert its Belvidere Jeep factory to EV production but could be used for non-EV projects. Other provisions of the bill would make it easier for companies to get tax breaks under the state’s existing Edge program without having to prove they’d get a better deal in another state.
Not saying the closing fund is a bad idea, only that it doesn’t really jibe with claims that we don’t or won’t provide major taxpayer support to businesses.
Comment by Moe Berg Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 10:42 am
Getting Stellantis to convert the factory is about jobs for the middle class. The Bears bailout is about making the ultra rich even richer.
Comment by Appears Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 10:50 am
“I certainly don’t want to burden taxpayers with major support for private business”
Didn’t Pritzker announce just two days ago that he created a $40 million Megasite Development Fund to give money to “private business”?
And last month, didn’t he announce the creation of a $400 million Large Business Attraction Fund to give money to “private business”?
And isn’t all the incremental taxable activity that will be generated by a domed stadium at Arlington Park worth governmental support to help create and optimize?
Comment by Occam Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 10:52 am
Even if it was just a stadium and no larger entertainment district, I think public money should be available for road, water, sewer changes. The public owns the infrastructure. The city benefits every time there is a large/non-Bears event such as mega concerts, a NCAA Final 4 or a Super Bowl (with the crazy dream of a Super Bowl that the Bears played in). Run the economic impact number credibly and see what comes up before the knee-jerks and spasms start (but probably too late for that too).
Comment by levivotedforjudy Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 10:53 am
Will someone please think of Papa Bear’s 13 grandchildren, who are going to spilt the $5.6B when Virginia passes and the team is sold. How are they supposed to get by without State help goosing the value of the team?
Comment by Henry Francis Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 10:59 am
Just curious - what do current PSL holders get in exchange for their initial investment?
Comment by Stones Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 11:08 am
The Rams left STL because the new owner was ready to build SOFI (which is built on another horse racing grave site) Meanwhile what can be done to get the Jacksonville Jaguars to move to CHI? Who needs who more? We guess Chicago can attract another team. Meanwhile Arlington Heights can try to convince IDOT to rebuild the poorly designed Rte 53 exits. How much will METRA be asked to coughed up? And has anyone prepared a survey on the square footage of empty office and commercial space within 10 min. of Arlington Park. Staggering.
Comment by Annonin' Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 11:33 am
Less time debating development handouts for a very valuable business with an extremely affluent minority owner and more time trying to lure the Jacksonville team up here. Owner has Illinois ties, vastly better media exposure, and if he wants his team to keep playing 1-2x a year in Europe Chicago is much better equipped to support (and benefit from) that kind of international travel & tourism.
Give the Governor a real nice Michael “My offer is this: nothing” Corleone moment with the Bears.
Comment by ChicagoBars Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 11:34 am
==If that happened, I suppose the Chicago folks would have to start rooting for the next geographically closest franchise==
If the Bears ever left the Chicago media market, the NFL would have another team in here within five years.
Comment by Arsenal Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 11:40 am
NFL stadiums might be the worst type of stadium to use public money to build (and none deserve money).
Lucas Oil Stadium currently has 3 events on the calendar before the Colts next home game. A motorcross event, a country music concert and the US Olympic Team Swimming Trials.
40 years of that? As it’s been covered here before, Chicago could hope for 1 Super Bowl and maybe 2 Final Fours over decades.
Hard pass on 40 years worth tax avoidance for three weeks of sold out hotel rooms.
Comment by Cool Papa Bell Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 11:41 am
==Lucas Oil Stadium currently has 3 events on the calendar before the Colts next home game. A motorcross event, a country music concert and the US Olympic Team Swimming Trials.==
This isn’t correct, the NFL Combine is at Lucas Oil later this month. https://www.nfl.com/news/nfl-scouting-combine-to-remain-in-indianapolis-through-2024
There are also Big Ten title games, NFL Conference Finals (if they make the rumored move to neutral site), winter concerts, and more. that said, I don’t support the state providing money for the stadium.
Comment by supplied_demand Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 11:55 am
What’s sad to me is that, if the Bears leave Soldier Field, then the “improvements” done to SF are now pointless. It was a one-of-a-kind classic stadium. Now it reminds me of a bad house remodel.
Comment by Sir Reel Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 12:15 pm
I see a big difference between EV parts/components/cars manufacturing and a stadium. Manufacturing involves good paying jobs. Stadiums involve low paying service jobs.
Comment by cermak_rd Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 12:17 pm
=Nice to see you agree with me that the JB’s and the Democrats policy to increase expenditures have in fact burdened taxpayers=
There are societal obligations that government has. In short we rely on the government to do things that private enterprise cannot or will not. Tax dollars are used for the common good of our citizens and to provide a social safety net where needed. Funding stadium construction projects for wealthy professional sports teams does not meet this criteria.
Comment by Pundent Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 12:26 pm
=== Nice to see you agree===
Then you should stop promoting the Bears Bailout.
Further, your ridiculousness with “Fiscal Year” numbers, all the while ignoring the rainy day fund and bond upgrades makes you look like you lack actual budgetary acumen to discuss anything other than one who is an in-law uncle that goes on and on about things they know nothing about.
:)
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 12:35 pm
=Nice to see you agree with me that the JB’s and the Democrats policy to increase expenditures have in fact burdened taxpayers=
Funny how you never criticized Rauner’s financial debacle and the billions it cost the state for literally zero return.
To the post. No state money for the Bears. I would not have a problem if the state lent them the money at a market competitive interest rate.
Comment by JS Mill Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 12:46 pm
@supplied_demand
https://www.lucasoilstadium.com/events-tickets/
Only two events you can buy tickets too right now. The Combine is specific to Indy and won’t be going anywhere and just recently became open to the public via 10,000 free tickets (last year was first year for fans I think).
The Big Ten basketball event isn’t at Lucas, the Big Ten Title Football game is AFTER the Colts season starts.
So I might have missed the combine. But right now Lucas is empty with the exception of 3 events prior to the first Colts game in August or September.
There aren’t many big winter concerts that fill NFL Stadiums. You already have the UC for those or UIC or DePaul’s facility and plenty of summer shows are going to be on the lake.
Comment by Cool Papa Bell Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 12:48 pm
Perhaps the Bears and the Packers could merge, put together a good team and alternate games at either stadium.
Comment by flea Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 12:58 pm
If not for Tony Evers, I’d expect Wisconsin to offer $10 billion to the Bears to relocate to a partially empty development site outside Racine. /s
Comment by CLJ Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 1:00 pm
How are 13 grandchildren going to split 5.6 billion?
The Mc Caskey family own 80% of the stock. Andy Mc Kenna (who just passed away) and Pat Ryan (age 85) own the other 20%.
The Bears an illiquid asset with a paltry ROI on an asset that large.
A better question will be how will the heirs pay the estate tax on an illiquid asset and also fund a multi billion dollar stadium?
Comment by Lucky Pierre Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 1:23 pm
===How are 13 grandchildren going to split 5.6 billion?===
How ever will they manage? The poor things!
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 1:32 pm
I mean, that’s only $431 million per grandchild!
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 1:33 pm
=The Bears an illiquid asset with a paltry ROI on an asset that large.=
Sounds like an argument to sell and not a taxpayer problem. But you go right ahead and continue to educate the rest of us on why we should take pity on this poor multi-billion dollar franchise.
Comment by Pundent Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 1:43 pm
” a vacant NFL stadium from when the Rams left.” As mentioned, the Rams left because they wanted improvements to the stadium to the tune of $700M (in whatever-year-that-was dollars.)
“Perhaps the Bears and the Packers could merge, put together a good team and alternate games at either stadium.” Or they could play in Milwaukee? It’s been done… /s
Comment by Skeptic Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 1:45 pm
The grandchildren who did nothing but be born are in line, if the Bears sell, for $430+ million…
… and - LP - wants others to take pity on “0.02% World Problems”?
If you’re worried about a family splitting $5.6 billion, and get roughly… between $431-$344 million?
Dude, how wealthy are you - LP -?
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 1:48 pm
=The Bears an illiquid asset with a paltry ROI on an asset that large.=
Which is why I have long held that once Virginia (who controls the grandkids’ interests) passes away, the grandkids are gonna sell, or liquidate.
Comment by Henry Francis Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 1:52 pm
=As mentioned, the Rams left because they wanted improvements to the stadium to the tune of $700M (in whatever-year-that-was dollars.)=
The then TWA dome was built in 1995 and the Rams used it for 21 years and then had to have $700 million in upgrades. Total lunacy.
It’s another reason that teams want someone else on the hook to build and maintain. So after a massive handout they can come back in 20 years and demand what would be now about a billion dollars in upgrades.
No to all of this - the great stadium robberies need to come to an end.
Comment by Cool Papa Bell Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 1:58 pm
=A better question will be how will the heirs pay the estate tax on an illiquid asset and also fund a multi billion dollar stadium?=
What a ridiculous concern for anyone that is not in line for the inheritance.
I don’t care what they get if anything at all.
Comment by JS Mill Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 2:08 pm
===So after a massive handout they can come back in 20 years and demand===
Which is exactly what is happening here now.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 2:08 pm
- Dude, how wealthy are you - LP -? -
Wait, is LP actually Bruce Rauner?
Comment by Excitable Boy Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 2:09 pm
When the Bears move to AH, will that resurrect the IL-53 extension? (sarcasm intentional)
Comment by Jerry Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 2:18 pm
=As mentioned, the Rams left because they wanted improvements to the stadium to the tune of $700M (in whatever-year-that-was dollars.)=
The decision to move the Rams to LA had little to do with upgrades to the TWA dome. A St. Louis Post Dispatch investigation found that Kroenke and the league conspired to move the Rams despite St. Louis’s best efforts to keep them.
https://news.stlpublicradio.org/show/st-louis-on-the-air/2022-05-17/kroenke-and-nfl-worked-hand-in-hand-to-hide-rams-relocation-plans-post-dispatch-finds
Comment by Southern IL Bob Too Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 2:18 pm
You have forgotten about taxes which are significant
The Bears are valued at 5.6 billion
the Mc Caskey family owns 80% - 4.4 billion
Illinois is one of only 12 states that impose an estate tax which is 16% above a 4 million dollar threshold
The Federal government has a top estate tax rate of 40% so unless they structured extensive tax avoidance like other rich families (Pritzkers) have done, the 13 grandchildren would be facing a 56% tax bill on that 4.4 billion dollar inheritance.
Comment by Lucky Pierre Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 2:22 pm
The Chicago Park district owns Soldier Field and charges the Bears rent so the Bears did not get a handout.
The Arlington deal is completely different as the Bears own the land
Comment by Lucky Pierre Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 2:25 pm
=== You have forgotten about taxes which are significant===
LOL… “Sure, Jan”…
=== unless they structured extensive tax avoidance like other rich families===
You don’t think the McCaskeys are protected with an asset of $5.6+ billion, they are most assuredly in “tax avoidance”
Sincerely, are you defending a family that the grandchildren even after taxes will get $110 million, and that’s if they are “honest” according to you?
How pathetic you are. It really defines you, worried about the “well being” of a family that has grandkids that will get *AT WORST*…
$110+ million dollars.
It speaks to how shallow and small you are that your concern for the Halas… grandkids… is your alleged plea to give them a bailout.
Are you on the payroll? A “Halas”? One of the ridiculous supporters of a plan designed so the Bears fleece AH?
Gotta be one of the three.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 2:44 pm
Let me play my tiny violin for the McCaskey family LP. Please. Only someone like you would shed tears for an uber rich family. Unbelievable. Just when I thought you couldn’t get any more ridiculous you manage to surprise me.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 2:45 pm
Oh my gosh LP. That only leaves them $2 billion left over. Those poor people. How will they survive.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 2:47 pm
=== The Chicago Park district owns Soldier Field and charges the Bears rent so the Bears did not get a handout.===
The Bears pay … $6 million a year.
Given the Bears will receive, roughly $330+ million this year in TV revenue sharing… that rent is… roughly 2%… of all revenues BEFORE any other revenue stream is realized.
Geez, - LP -, that’s not even worth discussing
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 2:49 pm
My understanding is Papa Bear bequeathed his shares directly to the Grandkids, so with the generation skipping, the estate taxes have been dealt with.
So you can stop clipping coupons for the grandkids LP.
Comment by Henry Francis Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 2:57 pm
“The decision to move the Rams to LA had little to do with upgrades to the TWA dome.” I didn’t mean to suggest that it did. But upgrades were definitely part of the extorti … er … conversation.
Comment by Skeptic Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 3:01 pm
Those are simply facts no violin playing whatsoever.
I never said I felt sorry for anybody. Again why don’t you just stick with what I wrote instead of adding your words to mine
Truly amazing a simple recitation of basic facts amount to accusations of defending the Mc Caskeys
If you think the Mc Caskeys have a better stadium deal than other NFL franchises you are simply mistaken
They have one of the worst leases if not the worst in terms of revenue for the smallest stadium in the NFL
If only the Bears could figure out a way to put solar panels on the roof of the new stadium JB would gladly open the states coffers
Comment by Lucky Pierre Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 3:24 pm
=== If you think the Mc Caskeys have a better stadium deal than other NFL franchises you are simply mistaken
They have one of the worst leases if not the worst in terms of revenue for the smallest stadium in the NFL===
Ah. The rub.
It’s about maximizing profits at the taxpayers’ expense.
You say so. Right “here”
“They have one of the worst leases if not the worst in terms of revenue for the smallest stadium in the NFL”
There it is, no?
Can’t do naming rights… how about parking… how about other building revenues.
Think on this, the profits the Bears and the McCaskeys have with that $6 million in rent, the McCaskey family wants a sweetheart deal for 40 years when the renovations aren’t even 30 years old, and the Bears still *OWE* on the lease they sighed.
Not one nickel. Not one.
You wanna help the McCaskeys… in better revenue…
That is a horrific way to fleece Arlington Heights for an alleged 40 year agreement.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 3:42 pm
It’s great to see an issue discussed on CapFax that unites all sides…
Comment by Friendly Bob Adams Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 3:43 pm
=If you think the Mc Caskeys have a better stadium deal than other NFL franchises you are simply mistaken=
As a taxpayer it is not my responsibility to ensure that the Bears franchise is on par with the rest of the NFL.
Comment by Pundent Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 3:44 pm
===It’s great to see an issue discussed on CapFax that unites all sides===
Not quite. The IL Chamber and LP are notable exceptions.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 3:45 pm
Maximizing profits at taxpayer expense sounds more like the horse trading during the Mike Madigan Com Ed era.
And yet he is still beloved by so many here
Strange contradiction
Comment by Lucky Pierre Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 4:09 pm
The Bears most certainly got Free Stuff (as Republicans like to call it) from the guv’mint when they decided to rent the house on the lake. They could do the civic thing and repay the money!
Comment by Jerry Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 4:15 pm
- Lucky Pierre -
So the McCaskeys are ComEd in your little play?
That’s an odd way to advocate for a Bears Bailout, compare them to a company that pled guilty to corruption?
Try again.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 4:20 pm
I find all of this interesting and amusing, a.) because I worked for the NFL and the Bears in a gameday capacity on various programs for almost 20 years; b.) one of my closest high school friends is a senior executive within the organization who is involved in all of these decisions; and c.) I’m actually a Lions fan living in Chicago, so I have no skin in the game from a fan’s perspective.
The Bears are leaving Chicago. They aren’t staying in Soldier Field. You don’t go outside the organization for the first time in team history to find a team president if the plan is status quo. Especially when the person you hired has a proven track record of getting things built (stadiums, revenue diversification, media deals, league expansion, etc.). And you definitely don’t do it after you spend all that money to buy the property they did in Arlington Heights.
The Bears are doing what any smart business would do - seeing how much they can get local government to help them out. This is only more important to them because unlike nearly all of the league’s owners, the McCaskey’s don’t own anything but the team. They don’t have some huge conglomerate of companies and businesses bringing in hundreds of millions of dollars each year. The BEARS are what pay them, and they know that.
Yes, media deals and TV revenue, advertising, etc., are the lifeblood of the NFL. But despite being in the nation’s third-largest media market, the Bears don’t control the ability to take naming rights deals. Parking revenues. Concession dollars. Suites revenue. All of those currently are things that have to be brokered in part with the City and the Park District. Not to mention the fact that their team consistently plays on a field ranked in the bottom 5 of the league annually as far as quality of surface.
Will they look for money? Sure - so would you if you were them. Do they hope to secure it? Of course they will, and they’ll make their case that they will kick more money back to local/state government, etc., with the increased dollars they’ll see from a Super Bowl, Final Four, NCAA regional games, World Cup, etc. But will it matter to them in the end if they don’t get it? Nope.
Comment by Just a guy Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 7:58 pm