Chicago White Sox owner Jerry Reinsdorf clearly wants to keep his stadium demands in the news as much as possible: After “a source involved in the meetings” talked up why the project needs $1.7 billion in public money to Crain’s Chicago Business last Friday, Reinsdorf himself was in Crain’s yesterday saying all kinds of stuff. For starters:
Financing the stadium would require not only $1.1 billion in subsidies from an existing tax on Chicago hotel rooms but also up to $900 million in infrastructure work that already has been authorized but not funded by a tax-increment financing district that covers The 78 property.
That’s right: We have seen the first $2 billion stadium subsidy demand, just a week after the first $1.7 billion stadium subsidy demand. This is technically the same tax kickbacks as mentioned last week — full refunds on property taxes and sales taxes from the entire development site, plus a renewal of the city’s 2% hotel tax surcharge — but the numbers have gone up, maybe because Reinsdorf is now claiming the property will be worth more or sell more goods, or because he’s switched to using Canadian dollar figures, who can say.
And why does he think he needs this ten-figure public check? Because if he doesn’t get it, you see, some bad man could take the White Sox away:
The team almost certainly will be sold after his death, and “the big money” is in the hands of outsiders who want to move the team to Nashville or another location.
Noting that he’s about to turn 88, Reinsdorf said that “when I’m gone,” his son Michael Reinsdorf, president of the Chicago Bulls, which the family also owns, “will have an obligation to do what’s best” for other investors in the Sox. “That likely means putting the team up for sale. . . .The team will be worth more out of town.”
There is seriously a lot in those two paragraphs, so let’s break it down:
- Who are these “big money” people who would rather see the White Sox in Nashville than in Chicago? Did Crain’s ask if they really exist or if this was just one of Reinsdorf’s leverage ploys that he’s bragged about?
- Speaking of asking questions, did Crain’s ask Michael Reinsdorf, who was apparently sitting next to his father at the time, if he would really sell the team to out-of-town investors in order to “do what’s best” for the current ownership group? Does Jerry, the guy who threatened to move the White Sox to Tampa Bay in the 1980s to get a new stadium, have some sort of heartfelt dedication to the city that his son would cast aside as soon as he got his greedy hands on the team? (“Michael Reinsdorf sat in on the lunch but didn’t comment on what his father had to say,” wrote Crain’s reporter Greg Hinz, which doesn’t exactly indicate whether Hinz asked him and he didn’t answer or Hinz forgot what his job was momentarily.)
- Why would anybody think the White Sox would be worth more in the nation’s 27th-largest media market than its 3rd-largest? The White Sox are currently in the middle of the pack in terms of TV revenues, but they’re also about to negotiate a new TV deal, which traditionally means increased fees, at least so long as anybody still watches TV and can’t look away from the disasterpiece that the 2024 Sox will be.
Reinsdorf also said that he needs a new stadium because Shohei Ohtani signed a contract worth $700 million (it isn’t really), that a new stadium downtown amid shops and bars should bring in more money (he didn’t say how this would work if the team won’t directly own the shops and bars, nor why if a new location is such a cash cow he needs $2 billion in tax money to make it worth his while), and that the development project can’t possibly happen without the “anchor” of a stadium that would at best still be dark more than 250 days a year.
Like I said, it’s a lot, but then, Reinsdorf is a lot. He’s not only the guy who coined “a savvy negotiator creates leverage,” he was also the point person for MLB when the league owned the Montreal Expos and was trying to get top dollar from Washington, D.C. for a stadium there, despite have no real other options for the team to relocate to. The resulting conversation went like this, according to the Washington Post:
When Williams suggested that the city would be willing to build a ballpark by using two-thirds public funding and one-third of the money coming from the team, The Washington Post reported that Reinsdorf responded: “Two-thirds/one-third is fine. But three-thirds/no-thirds is more of what we had in mind.”
That’s the kind of chutzpah it’s going to take to break the $2 billion subsidy mark, no doubt. The Chicago Tribune reports that there was “skepticism” in the Illinois legislature after Reinsdorf presented his plan there on Tuesday, but the legislators they quoted all still said they were willing to talk — which could be willingness to string Reinsdorf along, or could be attempts to make themselves look like they struck a hard bargain when they agree to, say, only $1.9 billion. (Okay, one did say the Sox owner was “going full Dr. Evil,” she’s probably not voting for this.) And Reinsdorf still hasn’t met with Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, who was apparently too busy with budget stuff to talk about a $2 billion budget item, and who has likewise said he hates subsidies but you know… This is promises to be quite the Illinois legislative session.
“Did Crain’s ask…”
Given that Crain’s entire reason for being is to unquestioningly carry water for Chicago Business (after all, it’s literally their name), I’m gonna guess “No.”
Neil, the dark mode isn’t working.
Yep, the latest update of the dark mode plugin that was rolled out on Tuesday made it look really crappy for this site. I’ve disabled it while I look for a new solution — though if you think it’d be better to have a marginally readable dark mode than none at all, I can restore it.
(I just turned it back on, let me know if you think this is worth keeping. The most annoying part is that links are no longer highlighted, so it’s impossible to see them without scrolling your cursor over the whole post and seeing what lights up as underlined.)
It’s working thanks! The links light up eventually.
It’s a sight saver for me but I dislike to inconvenience others so if it goes away oh well that’s life. Thank you for trying it out. I was surprised at the amount of other websites that told me to pound sand. You will always have a special place in my heart Neil!
I use Dark Mode for everything these days to avoid eyestrain, so I want to keep it if I can. I’ll leave it in place for now, and try to learn enough about how CSS @media queries work that I can get the colored links back.
It is even more unsettling than you think. Jerry is mentioning the “future owners” because his kids don’t want the White Sox. Once he dies, they are going to sell. This means Jerry is trying to get the tax payers to juice the asset value of the team to increase the inheritance of his already rich kids and grandkids. He bought the team for $19 million, and it is now worth over $1 billion. Great investment, made out like a bandit, and his family will get that money in addition to the ATM that the Bulls have been, and will continue to be for them. It is not on the people of the city to pump it up even more.
The team would undeniably be worth more in Chicago than Nashville, though, even in the old stadium. And Chicago has more rich people than Nashville who might want to buy it, so why would the kids seek to sell to out-of-towners? Wouldn’t that be a good followup question, you would think?
It goes without saying. The threat of someone moving the team is an empty one. A businessman is not going to buy the White Sox at a Chicago price to move it to a market that is a fraction of the size. If the White Sox are currently worth $2 billion in Chicago with 40% of it tied to the market, as Forbes suggests, a bidder would be signing up to lose probably between $300-500 million in value from the market by going to Nashville. I don’t think that is happening. I’m sure there is a rich guy in Nashville who loves baseball, but probably not enough to light hundreds of millions on fire.
Now, I am assuming Reinsdorf can sell the team now for an amount in that $2 billion range to someone who would want to keep them in Chicago. If he somehow to get the taxpayers to pay for his new stadium, then that sale price could very well double, especially if it comes with the non-baseball related businesses on that proposed site. If I am right, and that additional $2 billion is not in the sale of the franchise, then it is available to build that spiffy new stadium and surrounding nonsense without tax money. The only beneficiaries from the scenario being laid out are the family who stand to inherit and an even greater windfall than they are currently.
I mean, if all you wanted to do was lose $300-500m over a period of time, you could just buy the Coyotes…
Is it fair to lump in the $900M infrastructure cost to the stadium in this case? My understanding is that the site is empty (like there’s really nothing there at all) because it has no infrastructure for anything, not just improvements to be able to handle a stadium. Given its location, if the infrastructure is built, something significant will be built there, whether it’s with a stadium or not.
In other cases it felt like the infrastructure costs could be added because it was taking an existing area that was ok, but needed upgrades to handle a stadium; or the infrastructure didn’t exist but nothing else was going to built there anyway so without the stadium it wouldn’t be needed.
It totally is fair, because 1) it’s not like the developers are going to submit $900m in invoices and get reimbursed (in fact they’ve only identified $550m in costs), they’ll just get $900m in tax breaks and then can use it for infrastructure or anything else they want, 2) Related bought the land at a price that didn’t account for the city paying for infrastructure, so this would effectively be giving them a big windfall on land they bought on the cheap.
You can certainly argue that spending $900m, or $550m, or some other amount of money on infrastructure to build something on that site might be worth it for the city, if there’s value in getting that land developed. (Though you could also make a good argument that much of it would just be development redirected from elsewhere in the city.) But it’s undeniably a public cost.
Oh yeah, I wasn’t thinking it wasn’t a public cost. I was just more wondering about calling it the biggest subsidy for a stadium when that $900M seems like it’s going to be spent whether there’s a stadium there or not.
Just splitting hairs obviously, but was curious since given how disliked Reinsdorf is that maybe Related would be better off making it clear that’s not really part of the stadium deal. If you look at the list of things the $900M is paying for almost all of it needs to be done anyway if anything is going to go there (biggest cost is $364M for a new subway stop which would make it closer to the north side in how far apart stops are apart).
Fair enough, though the value of the TIF goes up if the stadium is built, since it increases the property value. (Haven’t done the math to try to figure out by how much.)
In any case, $1.1B is still the biggest subsidy for an MLB stadium, so let’s go with that?
Once again big bunny is going to rule the day and it’s going to come out of the people of Chicago’s pockets at least that’s what reinsdorf thinks. It’s one thing if the team was relevant but it isn’t, hasn’t had a championship in years they’re not any good they don’t even sell out the first day of baseball at home like they used to. Just like a new stadium for the bears, you’re not even relevant you can barely hold on to a positive record. Yet everyone wants a new stadium. There’s plenty there at soldier Field tear down that spaceship that you put inside the stadium and rebuild it from there. As for the White Sox you have more parking where you’re at now then you would on the new area that you’re looking at, tear it down and rebuild it. End of story.
How often does it happen that a municipality (electeds, not voters) tells an owner to just, Go on, git!” in the face of a relocation threat (veiled or direct)?
Glendale just told the Coyotes to GTFO, but that was because the city was tired of the drama. (And by all accounts they are better off financially with the building without the team.)
Don’t they almost always cave in the end?
Both Minneapolis and Miamidid it a bunch of times with the Twins and Marlins. The team owners kept coming back and threatening to leave again until it finally worked.
Oakland did with the Raiders. They were going to give the A’s hundreds of millions before Fisher’s temper tantrum over a $30 mil funding gap.
San Francisco/San Jose/Santa Clara voted down four proposals for taxpayer-funded stadiums for the Giants in the ’80s and ’90s.
Seeing how state senator Sara Feigenholtz quoted this post on Twitter, she’s probably a “no” as well.
Move the team you’re a cheap ass owner and you’re not willing to invest in the team and now you want the city to invest in you’re losing team you’re an idiot you think we’re all suckers move the team at least we’ll have pride in a team like the White Sox that’ll finally have an owner that will want to win…
I totally agree . When he bought the team, thought he was All in to be a contender year after year. That went away pretty quickly.
When we did get a winner , he let Williams blow it up the next year .
Let him leave and take the team. Rather not have a crappy team and a lousy owner than the one we have!
Put a retractable roof on it and make it usable 365!
The real story is hidden in plain sight: Billionaire sportsball team owner wants billion-dollar government subsidy from corrupt city and state governments during a cost of living crisis. Try telling that to lower-income people living within Cook County with its steep sales taxes.
Then again, government subsidies for big business are a hallmark of fascism.
There’s nothing wrong with that stadium. It’s not old or falling apart. Every owner thinks they can demand a new stadium every 30 years on the public’s money with cheaply made seats that squeezes the bodies of its fans for a few extra seats that don’t sell. They make a lot of money on the naming rights alone. Does this go to the state? No. Parking fees? Doubtful. They shouldn’t even get a cut of the concessions money, this is all paid by the state. You’re save way more money not building a new stadium than the loss of 20,000 seasonal jobs. A lot of jobs to watch a lot of empty seats.
The naming rights funds go directly back into stadium upgrades. It doesn’t go to owners.
I am a lifelong White Sox fan. I hope that the Sox don’t get the money and leave town because Jerry has been channeling Walter O’Malley for 40 years. His legacy is that if contempt for fans, contempt for winning and thinking he’s smarter than everybody. When he dies (hopefully soon) things will not change with the Sox.
I don’t remember the owner of the baseball team on the north side pulling any threats or stunts. I’m 67 years old and a die hard Sox fan and unlike last time when Governor Thompson saved our White Sox, I could care less what happens. College and NFL games get better tv ratings than the baseball playoffs and World Series. Times have changed and MLB is irrelevant.
It’s Wrigley Field, they can’t go anywhere else or build a new stadium. All that updated construction work that was done was not paid by the owners. Billionaires always looking for their hands out.
You need to put a winning team on the field, been a White Sox fan since I was a kid. A big change is needed. If you want to continue putting a losing team on the field with a low budget payroll, then you should fund your own new stadium or sell out to someone who cares about us the CWS fans.
I don’t like baseball, why should i have to fund a rich man’s hobby? Issue fans new stock, call it Stock for Socks
Bye Jerry. Your strongarm tactics won’t work anymore. The state’s pension crisis along with the massive migrations costing the state’s tax revenues, we cannot gift you another new stadium. The last one you built on our dime was trashy and cold anyway. Enjoy your next city, bilking them out of billions and heavy tax breaks because they want a team so badly.
You dismantled your team to nothing again so no one has any interest in saving you this time. At least in the 90s there was talent on those teams, and now, Tampa Bay has a baseball team, which they do not financially support there either.
We don’t care. Baseball isn’t even that exciting. The Bears also want a similar deal and they should be shutout too. You can both sell – we don’t want either owner in this town.
Please leave, you tight wad. Good luck in Nashville.
Go Sox! Take the Bears with you!
WOW! The people have spoken! Everyone is sick of this extortion! The people of Illinois are cash strapped and hurting. They struggle to pay bills, pay for groceries, take care of their families. Then you have grifters like the Sox owner wanting more. Stay in that 30 year old ball park or move! Do us a favor and get out and rip off some other state. Man, it does my heart GOOD to read these comments! Also, MLB SUCKS!!!!