Friday roundup: Bears buy stadium land but won’t promise to build stadium on it, and other confusing news of the week

We have made it to the end of another week, or will soon, anyway. Why not celebrate with a round of bullet points about ways in which pro sports team owners are seeking to extract money from the public purse to use to pad their own profits? No, no, that was a rhetorical question, I’m sure you have many good reasons why not, but you’re here now and it’s too late to go back. so:

Other Recent Posts:

Share this post:

6 comments on “Friday roundup: Bears buy stadium land but won’t promise to build stadium on it, and other confusing news of the week

  1. Interesting read on the debt from the 2002 Soldier Field renovations.

    https://www.nbcchicago.com/investigations/taxpayers-still-owe-640m-on-2002-soldier-field-renovation/2981068/

    “Documents obtained by NBC 5 Investigates show the actual bond issue by the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority came to $398 million. But today, more than 20 years after that money was borrowed, the ISFA still owes over $383 million in principal, and more than $256 million in interest.

    That’s a total of over $640 million, $63 million more than was originally borrowed, even after making payments for more than 20 years.”

    “The grand total for what the public was told would be $387 million in bonds? $1.19 billion.”

    “The ISFA declined NBC 5’s request for an interview to discuss the looming debt which Soldier Field still faces. The repeated refinancing of the deal shows the agency has improved on the original plan, but that they still face a bill of $640 million to pay off the 2002 rehab. The total cost will be $1.13 billion.”

  2. Although it meets the technical definition, I think the word “stadium” is a bit of a stretch for describing Phoenix’s new stadium.

    1. No matter where it has been, it has always been an erector set. Not bad if you plan to get in and get out, but, yeah, in this day and age, it’s not what you would expect.

    2. So… wait… the money for the new stadium was actually just meant to move the old one? Shouldn’t that have been, you know, cheaper?

      I’m not against minor league teams using temporary or ‘erector set’ facilities. It saves money and, as often as not, provides all the legitimately necessary amenities that a minor league sports team really needs.

      Did public money go towards moving this stadium from one part of the city to another? I know, it’s a dumb question… obviously it did but… isn’t that a lot like a city digging up a park, then buying up some warehouses, knocking them down and moving the park turf and trees to where the warehouses were under the guise of economic development? (But look! it frees up all the old park space for… errr.. old derelict warehouses!)

Comments are closed.