Ever since the Chicago Bears owners signed an option to buy the former Arlington Park raceway property in suburban Arlington Heights last September, the big question has been: Does the McCaskey family, who are relatively cash-poor outside of owning the fabulously valuable team, the really intend to spend $7.5 billion on a massive development project that might or might not pay off? Or is this partly leverage to see what they can get in still more spending on Soldier Field by the city of Chicago?
Until now, Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot has mostly been noncommittal beyond saying “we remain open to discussions” and other niceties. But on Friday, Lightfoot upped her ante somewhat:
“We’re going to continue to do everything we can to keep the Bears in Chicago, and [we’re] working on some plans to present to them that I think will make a very, very compelling financial case as to why it makes abundant sense for them to stay in Chicago,” Lightfoot said Friday during an appearance on 670 The Score.
That’s still pretty vague, and Lightfoot went on to temporize a lot more, saying, “I’m not in favor of the city spending a ton of dough on a brand new municipal stadium” (but what about a renovated one?) and “working within the construct of Soldier Field, you can reimagine it in a way that will maximize the revenues” (at whose expense?) and “there’s plenty of opportunity across the city … if somebody wants to come in as a private investor and do that” (uhhh, okay). But “working on some plans to present to them” is definitely an indication that Lightfoot is preparing to make an offer, and then it just becomes a matter of haggling over the price.
Lightfoot has appointed a 23-member working group on the Bears stadium situation, headed by an investment banker, which could be good because he understands how money works or bad because he thinks like an investment banker (though his firm goes out of its way to claim it’s not that kind of investment banker). More news to come on this, but Vegas odds should be dropping on “Bears stay at Soldier Field, get a big pile of Chicago public cash to do so.”
Unlike other NFL teams, the Bears don’t have much leverage. They probably should build out in Arlington Heights, but they don’t have that kind of money. The Soldier Field sight is constricted on all sides. But without a credible move threat, the city and the state of Illinois have little incentive to give them more than a fraction of what they want. The next largest empty market, the San Antonio/Austin corridor, is still only half the size of Chicago.
I agree with you, mb. They don’t have much leverage (though that has not stopped most governments from tripping over themselves in an effort to shovel public money at sports franchises).
There’s a little… in that nobody appears to be happy with the colossal mistake that was the Soldier field renovation. There’s also “the history” of course, but since they are unlikely to leave the Chicago area that shouldn’t come in to play.
The NFL will allow them to borrow a little against the value of the team (but does have limits), and presumably there would be at least the $400m per team that the league has made available in loans for new stadium construction in the past (whether the fund actually has any money in at present or not, it can be topped up at will). There’s also the option of a small construction mortgage (though I would assume that the NFL would look at that as just another form of equity withdrawal from the team itself)
Maybe the best “sell” they could offer the city to provide money elsewhere is leaving the space ship that used to be soldier field and allowing it to be reconfigured to be less monstrous (and more suited to it’s remaining tenant, the soccer team). Whether the city would actually pay for anything other than the redevelopment of the SF site and parks et al is uncertain.
I would estimate that the Bears can float maybe $600-700m all in towards a new facility (including NFL funding and naming rights sales, not including possible PSL sales). And that leaves them with very little to play with on the commercial real estate side.
Would the city offer a site and maybe $300m to fund the rest?
Would the Bears demand a retractable roof (in a high snow zone)? If so, the price tag is likely to hit $1.5bn (as ridiculous as that number is).
Could the Bears – like the 49ers – raise another couple of hundred million (or more) through PSL sales?
This is as much about our desperate-for-anything-that-looks-good Mayor grasping at any straws she can grasp at to somehow hold on and get re-elected. She has generated nothing but ill-will from virtually every sector of the city. ¨And she lost the Bears¨ would almost certainly be the final nail in her re-election coffin.
To hell with that though – they built that giant space ship on the classical columns and now they should have to stay there.
I’ll wait for polling on that. “She lost the Bears (to the suburbs)” might poll better than “She gave the Bears how much?” Other mayors have won reelection after teams have moved.
She is extremely likely to lose regardless. What does or does not happen with the Bears will be one issue out of a whole lot.