CHICAGO | Da Bears | Now these shitheads wanna drive their clown car over to Indiana?

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by urbanpln

Do you think not having the Packers in Milwaukee causes Wisconsin to miss out on significant tourism, media attention, and economic benefits?

It's not that the Packers franchise isn't in Milwaukee, it's that Milwaukee could theoretically benefit from having a venue with 60000 seats to compete for concerts and other events, and the team owner(s) would stand to make money off of these, either directly or by helping to underwrite the cost of the stadium.

That being said, Milwaukee is at a disadvantage given its relatively small population and it's just 90 minutes from Chicago. The biggest concert tours were never gonna hit Milwaukee regardless, while mid-size tours can easily use one of Milwaukee's existing venues (Fiserv, High Life, Summerfest, etc).

But if the Packers didn't exist and Wisconsin was awarded an expansion team, the league would insist they locate in Milwaukee, and the owners would have to locate there anyway to have a chance at making money off other events. Having a stadium in Green Bay is a legacy quirk, but makes zero sense under the current NFL school of thought.

[Danillo]

It's beyond question that the Packers are a quirk of history and would never, ever be located here is a new team were awarded.

Let's say the Packers organization as it exists moved to Milwaukee (as a hypothetical new team with a single owner may behave differently, but who can say how?). It wouldn't attract many more events. The Packers are VERY reluctant to host other events. And it's certainly true that Green Bay isn't going to be a destination for many acts, but it used to be none and the team had to be sort of strong-armed into hosting more. As it stands now, the team's limit is one per year, and certainly they could host more than that successfully if they wanted to. And it isn't that the team doesn't care about revenue, they very much do.

[urbanpln]

Originally Posted by ardecila

It's not that the Packers franchise isn't in Milwaukee, it's that Milwaukee could theoretically benefit from having a venue with 60000 seats to compete for concerts and other events, and the team owner(s) would stand to make money off of these, either directly or by helping to underwrite the cost of the stadium.

That being said, Milwaukee is at a disadvantage given its relatively small population and it's just 90 minutes from Chicago. The biggest concert tours were never gonna hit Milwaukee regardless, while mid-size tours can easily use one of Milwaukee's existing venues (Fiserv, High Life, Summerfest, etc).

But if the Packers didn't exist and Wisconsin was awarded an expansion team, the league would insist they locate in Milwaukee, and the owners would have to locate there anyway to have a chance at making money off other events. Having a stadium in Green Bay is a legacy quirk, but makes zero sense under the current NFL school of thought.

All good points. Thanks

[2PRUROCKS!]

The numbers were a little fuzzy but the Bears were asking for somewhere between $1-2.4 billion for the whole new stadium and infrastructure south of Soldier Field depending on which option was done (not counting the money the Bears and NFL would contribute which is about$2.5B). I think $300 million to $1.2 billion would have been for infrastructure. Now the park district wants to spend $630 million to renovate Soldier Field and improve infrastructure plus there is the possibility of spending $1.6 billion on this One Central related stuff. It seems the city/state would have been better off spending the money on the Bears stadium plan than this. It seems like spending around $1 billion and getting a new domed stadium and improved infrastructure for the Bears would have been a better value than spending $630 million for a renovated Soldier Field and improved infrastructure without the Bears and a domed stadium.

[2PRUROCKS!]

To add to what I said above...if the state ends up keeping the Bears in IL and they go to Arlington Heights the current ask for infrastructure improvements there is $855 million that the state seems willing to pay. So if the Bears move to Arlington Heights and the state pays $855 million and then Soldier Field needs to be renovated when the Bears leave for $630 million that adds up to be at least $1.485 billion in taxpayer money to be spent no matter what. It seems it would have been better to spend comparable money to keep the Bears in a new domed stadium in Chicago near Soldier Field. But Pritzker wanted to play a tough guy and look like he was saving the taxpayers money that will end up being spent anyway.

[left of center]

Originally Posted by 2PRUROCKS!

To add to what I said above...if the state ends up keeping the Bears in IL and they go to Arlington Heights the current ask for infrastructure improvements there is $855 million that the state seems willing to pay. So if the Bears move to Arlington Heights and the state pays $855 million and then Soldier Field needs to be renovated when the Bears leave for $630 million that adds up to be at least $1.485 billion in taxpayer money to be spent no matter what. It seems it would have been better to spend comparable money to keep the Bears in a new domed stadium in Chicago near Soldier Field. But Pritzker wanted to play a tough guy and look like he was saving the taxpayers money that will end up being spent anyway.

Your math is somewhat off in that if the Bears did indeed move south of Soldier Field, the $630 million would still need to be spent to "downsize" Soldier Field from an NFL stadium to one that would only host concerts and events. Any new stadium south of SF would also require massive infrastructure improvements (water, sewer, electric, gas, roadways, etc). Maybe not at the price tag of $855 million like in AH, but certainly in the hundreds of millions. And then on top of that, you would need to add in whatever tax subsidies that the Bears would request/demand from Illinois for the new stadium itself.

I agree that keeping the Bears in Chicago would have been the most ideal outcome, especially from the city's and state's perspective, but since the Bears cannot own city parkland, it would complicate their plans for an all year entertainment complex, which was their impetus for leaving SF to begin with. Their best option then would have been the old Michael Reese site which is even further south, but the Bears ownership passed on that.

[2PRUROCKS!]

I'm not sure why you are saying the math is off. Going though past info it looks like the Bears were asking for anywhere from $1-2.4 B in public money for their entire south Soldier Field plan depending on if and when they did the full Soldier Field demo and the scale of the infrastructure improvements. I believe the Bears said the most basic infrastructure improvements they could get by with would be $300 million. If you can find better numbers please let me know.

The current plans for infrastructure improvements in AH and redoing Soldier Field would be at least $1.485 B. This doesn't count the entire property tax negotiation issue.

So, the way I see it is $1-2.4B in public money and the Bears stay in Chicago and the city gets a publicly owned domed stadium or $1.485B in public money and the Bears move to AH to a privately owned stadium and Soldier Field gets renovated.

I too wish they could have stayed in Chicago and the Michael Reese site could have worked. The city and state both seemed willing to give money for the MR site but the Bears claimed it was too narrow. I can only take the Bears at their word on this because I don't know why else they would have turned it down.

[Klippenstein]

You really believed them when they said 300 million?

[left of center]

Originally Posted by 2PRUROCKS!

I'm not sure why you are saying the math is off. Going though past info it looks like the Bears were asking for anywhere from $1-2.4 B in public money for their entire south Soldier Field plan depending on if and when they did the full Soldier Field demo and the scale of the infrastructure improvements. I believe the Bears said the most basic infrastructure improvements they could get by with would be $300 million. If you can find better numbers please let me know.

The current plans for infrastructure improvements in AH and redoing Soldier Field would be at least $1.485 B. This doesn't count the entire property tax negotiation issue.

So, the way I see it is $1-2.4B in public money and the Bears stay in Chicago and the city gets a publicly owned domed stadium or $1.485B in public money and the Bears move to AH to a privately owned stadium and Soldier Field gets renovated.

I too wish they could have stayed in Chicago and the Michael Reese site could have worked. The city and state both seemed willing to give money for the MR site but the Bears claimed it was too narrow. I can only take the Bears at their word on this because I don't know why else they would have turned it down.

My argument is that the $630 million would have had to be spent on the SF "downsizing" whether the Bears stayed in Chicago, moved to AH, or to Indiana, so you can't really include that in the $1-2.4B subsidy the Bears asked Illinois.

[2PRUROCKS!]

Originally Posted by Klippenstein

You really believed them when they said 300 million?

I believe that is the minimum amount that would have covered the most basic infrastructure improvements not the rest of the costs. The Bears where asking for $1-2.4B so the $300 million would have been part of the $1B low ask. In reality with cost overruns and inflation it would have increased but you can say that about any project. I'm also pretty sure more infrastructure improvements and the Soldier Field redo would have been done bring the cost more to the $2.4B.

[2PRUROCKS!]

Originally Posted by left of center

My argument is that the $630 million would have had to be spent on the SF "downsizing" whether the Bears stayed in Chicago, moved to AH, or to Indiana, so you can't really include that in the $1-2.4B subsidy the Bears asked Illinois.

The high end of the ask of $2.4B included the Soldier Field redo (downsizing).

The low end $1B was just basic infrastructure and for part of the new stadium. The high end $2.4B was for more extensive infrastructure, part of the new stadium, and the SF redo.

The reason part of the money would have been able to go to a new stadium south of SF is because the new stadium would have been publicly owned.

[NYguy]

• Video Link



• Video Link

[pip]

No subsidies to the Bears. Just let them go where they will go.

[Halsted & Villagio]

Originally Posted by pip

No subsidies to the Bears. Just let them go where they will go.

Indiana just wants this thing because they think they will "own the libs" by taking an Illinois asset, which is laughable. But that kind of small minded bullsh*t political point means so much to them that they are willing to f*ck themselves, f*ck over the taxpayers of their state, and pour a bunch of money into a team now and likely forever called the "Chicago" Bears... instead adding more benefits, upgrades and perks to the team clearly representing their own state - the Colts.

One thing thing small minded people like this will never understand is how people with center left, far left and even some with center right (super rare, I know) leaning views is how we support the candidate "because of the issues they stand for" and that if that candidate has f'd up (like covering for pedos) or has done some horrible sh*t in their past (like SAing women or 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 little girls), we are done with them! F*ck em! For instance, if Clinton did any of these things, f*ck him! He should stand trial and rot in jail -- if, if, if, he did these things. WE DON'T WORSHIP THE PERSON and we are not in a cult. I just wish these guys had to cojones to stand up to the orange blob that way.

As a lifelong Bear fan.... season ticket holder/my family buys the gear/have a man cave at home, etc. If they move out of state the decision is easy for me -- I will be done! Its a matter of principle with me... and a matter of loyalty. If they are not loyal to us, I am not loyal to them. I will be become a Packer fan until we get a new team to replace the Bears.

Btw, Pappa Bear and Virginia would not approve of any of this. Knowing Virginia would never, ever agree to this, instead of respecting her enough to honor her wishes they shamefully plotted, waited, and essentially snuck behind her dead back to pull these shenanigans. Virginia would be rolling over in her grave if she knew what they are doing.

If this is too political, go ahead and zap it. Seeing my NYguy coming over with that video, just kind of struck a nerve. Contrary to what some want to believe, Chicago people are not sweating this. Most of us are clear (I talk to them every day) if the Bears move, we are done. On to the next.........

[left of center]

Originally Posted by 2PRUROCKS!

The high end of the ask of $2.4B included the Soldier Field redo (downsizing).

The low end $1B was just basic infrastructure and for part of the new stadium. The high end $2.4B was for more extensive infrastructure, part of the new stadium, and the SF redo.

The reason part of the money would have been able to go to a new stadium south of SF is because the new stadium would have been publicly owned.

Gotcha, I was unaware of that, thanks for the info!

Having the Bears immediately south of SF would still land them in the same unfavorable spot though, where the stadium is on public land and thus they would not have the full amount of control of the land around the stadium that they keep claiming that they want.

I still think the Michael Reese site is the best location for them. They are 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 away a once in a lifetime opportunity to own so much land that is right on the lake and also so close to downtown. There is nowhere else in the city where all those factors come together.

Originally Posted by Halsted & Villagio

Indiana just wants this thing because they think they will "own the libs" by taking an Illinois asset, which is laughable. But that kind of small minded bullsh*t political point means so much to them that they are willing to f*ck themselves, f*ck over the taxpayers of their state, and pour a bunch of money into a team now and likely forever called the "Chicago" Bears... instead adding more benefits, upgrades and perks to the team clearly representing their own state - the Colts.

One thing thing small minded people like this will never understand is how people with center left, far left and even some with center right (super rare, I know) leaning views is how we support the candidate "because of the issues they stand for" and that if that candidate has f'd up (like covering for pedos) or has done some horrible sh*t in their past (like SAing women or 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 little girls), we are done with them! F*ck em! For instance, if Clinton did any of these things, f*ck him! He should stand trial and rot in jail -- if, if, if, he did these things. WE DON'T WORSHIP THE PERSON and we are not in a cult. I just wish these guys had to cojones to stand up to the orange blob that way.

I honestly almost want them do pull the trigger on this, just so that Indiana voters realize for themselves how moronic their government is, and realize that the GOP does not represent nor fight for their common interests at all.

Its a weird cult, dude. Democrats don't wear t-shirts of their politicians looking all ripped and holding 🞵🞵🞵🞵 or babies or whatever. I don't think they realize that it comes off as really weird and unsettling. Or maybe they do, and that's their intent?

Originally Posted by Halsted & Villagio

As a lifelong Bear fan.... season ticket holder/my family buys the gear/have a man cave at home, etc. If they move out of state the decision is easy for me -- I will be done! Its a matter of principle with me... and a matter of loyalty. If they are not loyal to us, I am not loyal to them. I will be become a Packer fan until we get a new team to replace the Bears.

Btw, Pappa Bear and Virginia would not approve of any of this. Knowing Virginia would never, ever agree to this, instead of respecting her enough to honor her wishes they shamefully plotted, waited, and essentially snuck behind her dead back to pull these shenanigans. Virginia would be rolling over in her grave if she knew what they are doing.

If this is too political, go ahead and zap it. Seeing my NYguy coming over with that video, just kind of struck a nerve. Contrary to what some want to believe, Chicago people are not sweating this. Most of us are clear (I talk to them every day) if the Bears move, we are done. On to the next.........

To everything except the part about the Packers, Amen


No one I know really cares much about this. It's a topic of conversation when drinking beers at a bar, but otherwise no one that I know is losing much sleep over this.

[JK47]

Originally Posted by Halsted & Villagio

If this is too political, go ahead and zap it. Seeing my NYguy coming over with that video, just kind of struck a nerve. Contrary to what some want to believe, Chicago people are not sweating this. Most of us are clear (I talk to them every day) if the Bears move, we are done. On to the next.........

Honestly, I want them to move to Indiana. Partly, because I'll enjoy having another state foot the bill for a Chicago team ... even better that most of the taxpayers supporting it will be Colts fans.

Additionally, I think it'll really tank the value of the stadium as a concert venue. Placing it in an awkward and off-center location in the metro area. The AH site would be a strong competitor with Soldier Field ... a Northern Indiana site less so.

Ultimately, this reminds me of the Redskins relocation to Landover MD. Middle of nowhere location (bonus points for Bears, being between a refinery, a steel mill, and a superfund site) with no transit connection on the fringe of the metro area isolating it from high earner fans (NoVA, Montgomery County). Attendance fell off a cliff and over time the Redskins went from regularly selling out their stadium to having to cut down seating capacity (ranking near the bottom of the league). Feels like history repeating itself.

[left of center]

Sometimes people only learn the hard way. I am fine with the Bears taking that approach if they truly want to.

Originally Posted by JK47

Honestly, I want them to move to Indiana. Partly, because I'll enjoy having another state foot the bill for a Chicago team ... even better that most of the taxpayers supporting it will be Colts fans.

It's remarkable how Indiana doesn't see how much of an own goal this is. They think they are getting a one up on Illinois, but in reality they are going to pay billions for a new stadium that Bears fans will get to enjoy.

[OhioGuy]

Bears stadium debate: New Soldier Field proposal includes dome, entertainment district

The Brief

• A new proposal would transform Soldier Field with a roof, more seating and a surrounding entertainment district to make it a year-round venue.

• The concept comes as the Chicago Bears weigh their future, with Arlington Heights and Northwest Indiana both competing for a new stadium.

• It’s unclear who is behind the proposal or whether the Bears or city leaders are considering it.

(source)


(source)

[iguy]

I’m in firm agreement that the State should not be bankrolling the Bears, certainly in the sense of doling out some give away the farm sweetheart deal that puts taxpayers in a bad spot.

That said, I’m not sure I’m comfortable with the “good riddance” attitude either.

The economic loss is one thing (and I understand that the incentives Illinois would potentially need to provide would offset, if not perhaps surpass the economic benefits; but it’s a 100% chance of loss if they leave, vs. something at least a little less concrete if incentives get deployed to retain them).

But in an age where Chicago’s brand is struggling, the economy is still feeling the effects of covid, and development - which is what brings us all here - is severely lagging, I am not thrilled at the prospect of another major institution leaving, even if it’s just down the road. Optics matter, and I do think the perception hit would be much greater than a 20 mile move would suggest.

And that says nothing of the “morale” hit that would occur to lose the history, tradition, and pride of having the team in the city, but that’s a different conversation.

[2PRUROCKS!]

The design of this plan is really cool but the practically and cost of bridging over LSD and building concessions around a renovated SF seem impractical. It mentions seating expansion but I'm not sure if it would be enough or of the quality to meet the Bears needs and potentially host events like a Super Bowl. I really dig the design however.

https://www.dezeen.com/2026/03/19/edward-peck-chicago-bears-concept-design-soldier-field/