Teams
Forum List
Toggle sidebar

Chicago Bears bought Arlington Heights track only to build in Indiana?

The Colts will want in on some stadium improvements if the state is going to help give tons of $ to the Bears.

Two NFL teams in Indiana and none in Illinois. That's something I would have never thought would happen.
 
BigJCy said:
Talk is the other Owners told them they should take the Indiana deal due to how good it is.
Click to expand...
Exactly

Not taking a free stadium when leveraging for tax breaks is not what owners want

They don’t care what the Bears want in terms of additional revenue streams.

And moving to NWI without tying up Illinois means all other owners in stadium disputes can, and will, leverage Chicago as possible relocation imo. Yes, there is a 75 mile rule. It only matters if the league wants it to, which they won’t if it can make them money

An owner with real wealth will be able to build in Chicago, particularly after SF site sits largely unused for a decade
 
cytor said:
The Colts will want in on some stadium improvements if the state is going to help give tons of $ to the Bears.

Two NFL teams in Indiana and none in Illinois. That's something I would have never thought would happen.
Click to expand...
They just paid off RCA and have about 10 more years to pay off Lucas

I don’t have an issue with what they’re doing, it is much easier politically to add a team than to relocate within state. But maybe it makes them money, maybe not. More a political victory than balance sheet win
 
FinalFourCy said:
They just paid off RCA and have about 10 more years to pay off Lucas

I don’t have an issue with what they’re doing, it is much easier politically to add a team than to relocate within state. But maybe it makes them money, maybe not. More a political victory than balance sheet win
Click to expand...

It seems like a win for everyone.

Indiana puts money into a **** area.

The Bears get a free stadium.

The Illinois taxpayer pays nothing for the new stadium (sorry about the old one, Chicago. Keep paying)

And the TV networks still get a view of the Chicago skyline even if you won't see it from inside of a dome.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: isufbcurt
For those that live in Chicago proper, either site was going to be farther to get to.

For all the people that live in Aurora, Naperville, and other western suburbs it doesn't make all that much difference.

For the affluent northern suburbs it is going to be a long trip to go down to Hammond. Depending on traffic not all that different than living in the Des Moines metro and going to Iowa city (less miles but will likely take about as long).
 
KnappShack said:
It seems like a win for everyone.

Indiana puts money into a **** area.

The Bears get a free stadium.

The Illinois taxpayer pays nothing for the new stadium (sorry about the old one, Chicago. Keep paying)

And the TV networks still get a view of the Chicago skyline even if you won't see it from inside of a dome.
Click to expand...

It’s a small win for most, if ignoring politics.

The Bears still do not get the extra revenue stream they wanted, as developing that area in to a destination will be risky, and losing the bears as an anchor devalues their AH site. They’re further away from Lake Forest

But a free stadium is a decent floor

Chicago and Illinois likely keeps some stadium related commerce without spending a dime

AH area could be considered a loser. Same with White Sox which were hoping to utilize same mechanisms in bill

It also means a few sites sit open in a city and state likely more open for business, particularly with a real businessperson rather than Warren/McCaskey
 
FinalFourCy said:
Exactly

Not taking a free stadium when leveraging for tax breaks is not what owners want

They don’t care what the Bears want in terms of additional revenue streams.

And moving to NWI without tying up Illinois means all other owners in stadium disputes can, and will, leverage Chicago as possible relocation imo. Yes, there is a 75 mile rule. It only matters if the league wants it to, which they won’t if it can make them money

An owner with real wealth will be able to build in Chicago, particularly after SF site sits largely unused for a decade
Click to expand...

Several nfl teams don't play in the city that the team is named after (Giants, Jets, 49ers, Cowboys, Dolphins to name a few off the top of my head, I'm sure there are several more)

The main risk is the citizens of Chicago take the move as a slap in the face and don't support the team (obviously northern Indiana can't support an NFL team by themselves). That hasn't happened with the previous moves made so I don't envision that to be the case here.

As you say, there is a secondary risk given the size of the city (NY and LA have two teams) that at some point in the future, and maybe not that far out, that another team moves to Chicago and you're now in the Chargers situation.
 
You guys still aren't understanding this.

49ers are still in the Bay Area, albeit a ridiculous distance away from SF. Cowboys play in the Dallas Metro area. Dolphins play in the Miami metro area.

They didn't move to a different state entirely.

The Jets and Giants could have a case made.
 
BMWallace said:
Until the team sells the Arlington Park site, or there is structure going up in Hammond, I am not taking anything that Kevin Warren or George McCaskey say at face value.
Click to expand...

We’ll see if the bears can do proper leverage on this Indiana site. From what I understand, they still haven’t done a basic traffic study on the Arlington Heights site so it’s hard to believe they will ever move there
 
  • Like
Reactions: FinalFourCy
RedlineSi said:
You guys still aren't understanding this.

49ers are still in the Bay Area, albeit a ridiculous distance away from SF. Cowboys play in the Dallas Metro area. Dolphins play in the Miami metro area.

They didn't move to a different state entirely.

The Jets and Giants could have a case made.
Click to expand...

The Metroplex is bigger than New Jersey
 
The optics are dumb but hard to fault Chicago and Illinois for not bending over like Indiana did. People are still going to stay in Chicago when going to Bears games so they’ll still have people staying, eating, and drinking but don’t have to give away $5 billion of free money to the Bears.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FinalFourCy and RedlineSi
BMWallace said:
Until the team sells the Arlington Park site, or there is structure going up in Hammond, I am not taking anything that Kevin Warren or George McCaskey say at face value.
Click to expand...

This is such a "done" deal they don't even have a site picked out in Indiana. Planet Park was also a done deal too; until it wasn't.

Its nothing more than another leverage play to get Illinois to call a special session this Summer so they don't have to wait until November.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FinalFourCy
Clark said:
Several nfl teams don't play in the city that the team is named after (Giants, Jets, 49ers, Cowboys, Dolphins to name a few off the top of my head, I'm sure there are several more).

As you say, there is a secondary risk given the size of the city (NY and LA have two teams) that at some point in the future, and maybe not that far out, that another team moves to Chicago and you're now in the Chargers situation.
Click to expand...

Right, I see no issue with the Bears playing outside Chicago limits, but in metropolitan area, for NFL

But leaving state it creates a vacuum and changes politics in regards to area pursuing 2nd franchise

That was never palatable with bears in city and in Illinois

Much more feasible politically for Chicagoland to get 2nd franchise now

Still NFL hurdles, but the nfl tends to do whatever makes them more money. If a new owner group is willing to put up huge money or existing needs a better home, Chicago will be in play imo. Particularly with Bears not owing anything on brand new stadium- instant $$$ pumped into their valuation. Bears would be against it, but I don’t think other owners care too much
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Help Support Us

Become a patron
Top Bottom