Friends don’t let friends listen to what comes out of sports team owners’ mouths

access_time personNeil deMause

Imagine you’re a wealthy sports team owner in the middle of trying to strike a stadium deal. (You go get your top hat, monocle, and snifter of cognac; I’ll wait here.) What is the best thing to say in a public statement, on the occasions it seems necessary to deign to speak directly to the public? You don’t want to make the task at hand seem impossible, because that could be interpreted as a loss of momentum for your demands; but at the same time, you don’t want to make it seem a sure thing, because that could take the pressure off elected officials to grant you the bags of cash/tax breaks until the sun burns out/land grants from here to the distant shore that you so desire. How to thread that needle?

Let’s see how some actual sports team execs do it! Contestant #1:

“It’s always been my experience when you’re doing important work, it’s not easy,” [Kansas City Royals owner John] Sherman said. “It shouldn’t be easy, and these are complicated processes. Public-private partnerships, multi-jurisdictional, dealing with multiple entities as well. But I think we’re making progress. I’m as anxious as anybody to get this behind us.”…

“We’ve got a little bit of a cushion, but not a big one,” Sherman said. “It’s time to get on with it.”

This is pretty much the same as Sherman said last month, when he described the lack of a finalized stadium deal as “from the governor on down, there’s a lot of effort being put forth” but also “when you have a window of opportunity, you better run through it because those windows close.” You’ll also note the Sherman avoided mentioning what the holdups are, or when some decisions might be reached — to date, Sherman hasn’t even identified a site or sites where he might want a stadium built, but that’s a double-edged sword, since the more you narrow down your options the fewer potential bidders you have. Sometimes it’s better to say nothing, or at least nothing in a lot of words, and hope that the media wanders off and pressures elected officials for some action instead.

(Sherman also got in a statement about how much he liked the Atlanta Braves‘ Battery stadium district when he visited this past week for opening day, because “there were bands playing” and “tons of people around.”)

Contestant #2:

“We’re confident that [the $600 million is] going to come through and obviously we’re starting a stadium,” [Cleveland Browns co-owner Dee Haslam said. “We’re building a stadium. So we’re full steam ahead, but we’re pretty confident. I mean, they’ve done it in the past for economic development and this definitely fits into that criteria.”

This is in reference, of course, to the $600 million that the state of Ohio promised to give the Browns owners last summer, yet which is being held up by lawsuits over whether the state can legally use unclaimed private funds to supply the cash. Dee and Jimmy Haslam are already moving dirt for the stadium and have an official groundbreaking set for April 30, so they have to be at least a little bit antsy about how to pay the construction companies. Nothing they say is likely to sway the courts, though, so they best they can do is express confidence in the system of “economic development,” which is that governments give a lot of public money to “job creators,” and then some number of jobs are created, or not.

And contestant #3, who is not strictly a team owner but plays one in the press conferences:

“We have the legislation passed in Indiana, and they’ve been a great partner to work with,” [Chicago Bears] president Kevin Warren said. “We are going through legitimate due diligence because we have working through traffic, and construction items, and transportation and all those kinds of different things. It’s progressing right on pace.

“Illinois, they’re still working on legislation and we have a wonderful piece of land in Arlington Heights — 326 acres. So we don’t have a set deadline, but I am confident that sometime this spring/summer, we’ll know.”

“We’ll know” is a strange way of saying “We’ll make a decision that is entirely up to us,” though less so if you take it as “We’ll see what offers we have on the table, and then we can decide which one should make us the filthiest rich.” As discussed here last week, Bears owner George McCaskey doesn’t have any pressing reason to make a decision before the Illinois legislature adjourned at the end of May, so we can expect another two months of kicking the can down the road while hoping that Illinois will match or even raise Indiana’s bid. (Or at least come close: It’s always possible that McCaskey would take a lesser deal to stay in the state where most of his team’s fan base is, though if so he’s sure never going to admit it.) “I am confident that sometime this spring/summer” there will be a Bears stadium decision is an especially clever turn of phrase, given that it sets an expected deadline without actually setting a deadline deadline that anyone can hold Warren to in case circumstances change over the next two months.

What did we learn from all this? Not much in terms of the actual state of stadium talks for the Royals, Browns, or Bears, which is why it’s almost certainly bad journalistic practice for the news media to start transcribing every time the local sports team owner opens their mouth. Ask questions about the stadium deal process? Absolutely. Run an article when the owner says something newsworthy? Sure. Give the local rich guy or gal unlimited column inches to spin the situation however they like, instead of going out and investigating what’s actually being discussed or what experts have to say about whether it’s a good idea? This is maybe not what you spent $130,000 on that journalism degree for.

Share this post:

Maryland Gov. Moore facing 2027 deadline to okay Orioles development deal or face early lease exit, thanks to Maryland Gov. Moore

access_time personNeil deMause

If you can remember as far back as two winters ago, then-Baltimore Orioles owners the Angelos family agreed to sign a 30-year lease extension for Camden Yards in exchange for $600 million (or more) in state money for stadium renovations. The new lease had an out clause, though: If the Orioles owners can’t agree with the state on a development agreement around the stadium by the end of 2027, they can break the lease after just 15 years. As I wrote at the time:

What’s left now is for the state and Angelos to negotiate the development agreement, but [Maryland Gov. Wes] Moore has effectively tied his own hands in those talks, since if he doesn’t agree to what the O’s owner wants, Angelos can spend his $600 million and then walk. Or, more likely, spend the $600 million and then demand more in about a decade, since he’ll be able to point to his expiring lease.

The end of 2027 is getting ever closer, and for the Orioles owner — now private equity goon David Rubenstein, who bought the team from the Angelos family in 2024 — the above scenario is becoming ever more real:

Catie Griggs, president of business operations for the Orioles, said this week the priority for the club and the Maryland Stadium Authority was to complete the upgrades to the ballpark this winter.

“What I will tell you is MSA has been an incredible partner throughout the process of getting this done,” Griggs said, “so I have full confidence that as we enter the season to sort of pick our heads up to look around again, that they will continue to be great partners.”

That sounds like a … backhanded compliment? Veiled threat? One of those?

Early indications were that the development agreement could amount to a whole lot of extra free money for Rubinstein — as much as $7.1 million a year in new revenues just from taking over the historic warehouse in right field for 99 years, in exchange for less than $1 million a year in rent. And Rubinstein has the hammer in the form of that 15-year out clause, though I suppose Gov. Moore could be equally hard-nosed and say he’ll pull out of the entire development deal if it’s too rich for Maryland taxpayers’ blood, damn the extra 15 years of stadium lease. That could work, just so long as he doesn’t first … oh noooooooooo:

“The thing that we know is that we’re completely aligned on this being the long-term home of [the] Baltimore Orioles,” Moore said of the priorities for the city, state and team owners. “That was a key priority for me. Gone are the days when we were doing one-year deals and two-year deals. I would only accept a long-term deal because we need to have certainty for downtown Baltimore and certainty for the Baltimore Orioles, and I’m grateful that, with this new leadership team, we got that.”

Yup, Wes Moore is very, very bad at this.

If you want to learn more about how the Orioles stadium came to be, meanwhile, student journalists at the University of Maryland have put together a website with a bunch of videos that claim to be the “most complete telling of the Camden Yards story.” I haven’t watched it yet, because I’ve already read (several times) an extremely comprehensive story of the making of Camden Yards. But admittedly that didn’t include hour-long video clips of Edward Bennett Williams testifying, so if you have a ton of time and an enjoyment of YouTube, neither of which describes me, it may be fun to poke around in.

Share this post:

Friday roundup: Can the Home Team Act save your home team, and other pressing questions

access_time personNeil deMause

Let’s get this out of the way, since it’s blowing up on the socials: Yes, Sen. Bernie Sanders and another less famous guy (Rep. Greg Casar, a second-term representative from Austin and chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus) yesterday introduced a “Home Team Act” that would require sports team owners to give one year of notice before moving or terminating a team — and also give local buyers the right to purchase the team “at a fair and reasonable price” first, with the price determined by a team of appraisers appointed by the Treasury Department. According to the bill, either private buyers or local governments themselves would be eligible to purchase the team, and any owners who jumped the gun would be subject to a $30,000-a-day penalty.

Removing team owners’ ability to threaten to yank a city’s team away if they aren’t bestowed with public subsidies would indeed be a huge step toward ending stadium shakedowns. And it’s justifiable on a couple of grounds: Not only do teams owe their livelihood to the local fan base, but leagues also routinely use their monopoly power to deny teams to cities if they, say, have one in the next state over, or just out of spite.

At the same time, though, there are plenty of questions about this bill. First off, this is Congress we’re talking about, which has not exactly shown the backbone to stand up to the sports industry — even Sanders and Casar, notes the Chicago Tribune, “acknowledge the legislation won’t get passed quickly, if at all.” The bit about governments being allowed to purchase teams could be dicey, given that leagues currently have the power to reject public ownership, or, for that matter, even private buyers they don’t like. And in terms of enforcement, a $30,000-a-day penalty only amounts to $11 million over an entire year, and no sports team owner is going to let a crappy $11 million stand in the way of moving wherever they damn well please, or at least threatening to in order to extract money from the public treasury. (Local governments could also seek “injunctive and monetary relief,” so presumably judges would have the power to impose harsher penalties, if they saw fit.)

Basically, once this has more than two co-sponsors, then we can start taking it more seriously. Until then, it goes next to David Minge’s Distorting Subsidies Limitation Act as proof of concept that our elected representatives could be doing more to stop the flow of tax dollars to extortionate billionaires, they just don’t want to.

Other pressing questions from the week that just was:

  • Could there be some speed bumps for the Tampa Bay Rays stadium plan and its $2.25 billion in public cash, land, and tax breaks after all? Hillsborough County Commissioner Josh Wostal is demanding that the county and the Tampa Sports Authority release “all draft documents and personal notes” about the deal before a hearing is held next Wednesday — and further says if no public hearings are held before a scheduled April 15 vote, he’ll move to postpone it. “People at a minimum deserve transparency,” said Wostal. “And we are playing hide the ball?“ No word yet on whether others on the commission will support such a wild-eyed radical position as wanting to talk about what’s being voted on before a vote, but people are arguing on the internet about the Rays deal, and in particular its potential use of infrastructure money that elected officials previously pledged wouldn’t go to stadiums, so that’s a start, perhaps.
  • Will the Ohio state legislature add $45 million in road and transit upgrades around the Cleveland Browns‘ new stadium to the $600 million in state money they’ve already promised owner Jimmy Haslam for construction costs? We won’t know until they revote on April 23 following a public comment period, but given the committee that can authorize such spending unanimously passed it the first time: probably.
  • What about Haslam’s demand for $50 million in city and county money for a stadium for a Columbus women’s soccer team, will he get that too? Five out of nine city councilmembers say they’re opposed, the other four say they need more information, more lobbying is clearly needed.
  • Will the new Oklahoma City Thunder arena end up costing taxpayers there more than the $850 million they approved back in 2023? Possibly, says assistant city manager Brent Bryant, who explained that given “economic uncertainty,” the city will “add a factor to that on top of the anticipated cost, to try to plan for that.” What does that mean? Sorry, only one question per bullet point!
  • Is prospective new Portland Trail Blazers owner Tom Dundon “a go-getter” with “enormous passion and spirit,” like NBA commissioner Adam Silver said he was on Wednesday, or a predatory lender who got rich by letting people take out high-interest car loans that they would inevitably default on, like Oregon Public Broadcasting and ProPublica reported earlier that morning? Nothing saying it can’t be both!
  • As Anaheim officials push for the Los Angeles Angels to restore “Anaheim” to the team name, could team owner Arte Moreno or the 80-year-old’s eventual successors move the team to Los Angeles County? The L.A. Times’ Bill Shaikin writes that “the logical landing spot would be Inglewood,” only to have Inglewood Mayor James Butts tell him, “We’re maxed out when it comes to sports. We are not going to reduce the housing stock and move residents out to have a baseball team.” Welp, that’s unfortunate, but the column’s already written, too late to go back and choose a new topic!
  • Does the city of L.A. know what year the 2028 Olympics will be held? Possibly not!
Share this post:

Sabres exec says team deserves up to $400m in state cash because of “all this going on at the arena”

access_time personNeil deMause

Buffalo Sabres owner Terry Pegula, fresh off getting over a billion dollars in state and county money for a new stadium for his Bills NFL team, has already hired a lobbyist to seek public money for a $400 million renovation of the arena his hockey team plays in. And Pegula got some good omens today from the Buffalo News, which reported that all the foot traffic Sabres generate downtown is a huge boon to Buffalo, according to, oh come on, you knew it was coming:

“All this going on at the arena helps,” [Sabres head of business operations Pete] Guelli said. “The arena is the anchor for downtown, and the Sabres are the primary tenant, so those two properties have to operate at a high level and at some point, there needs to be a long-term solution.”

“Sabres exec says team deserves up to $400m in state cash because of ‘all this going on at the arena'” would have been a less sexy headline than “Downtown foot traffic from KeyBank Center a boon for Sabres in lease talks,” I guess? Google Analytics will tell me soon enough, but it does have the advantage of being true, if that still matters anymore.

Weirdly, Guelli actually makes a great case against the Sabres (and the Pegula-owned pro indoor lacrosse Bandits) being the key “anchor” to downtown, given that he notes the Buffalo arena went from hosting 140 events in 2024 to 178 in 2025, with close to 200 expected in 2026. The Sabres still only play the same 41 regular season home games a year (though a few more are added when they make the playoffs, which they should finally this year for the first time in human memory) and the Bandits nine, so the vast majority of events at the arena are taking place with or without the teams. The NHL Draft will be held there this year, and that wouldn’t happen without the Sabres, but also it’s not going to happen there more than once a decade or so regardless, so that’s small potatoes. Overall, the 30-year-old arena seems to be doing great, which undercuts the idea that it’s somehow decrepit and in desperate need of an overhaul.

There’s also the issue that most of these events draw mostly locals, so this is largely money that would be spent regardless, if not necessarily in downtown Buffalo, somewhere in Erie County or at least New York state. So at the very least it makes more sense for the city to put money into it than the state, which would only be moving spending around with no gain—

The county owns the arena building, while Buffalo owns the property it sits on. County officials would like to get out of the arena business and could do so during the new lease negotiations, which may bring the state increasingly into the fold.

Sigh. Gov. Kathy Hochul is a Buffalo native and has already shown herself to be inclined to shovel state money at Buffalo business interests — see the Bills, above. We’ll see if the state legislature feels the same way, if she even gives them a chance to discuss it this time.

None of which is to say that upgrading the arena is a bad idea, necessarily, or that its public owners — whichever level of government ends up getting stuck with the deed — shouldn’t be involved. If a renovation really would generate even more arena business, though, government should be able to negotiate a cut of that for taxpayers, whether it’s in terms of arena revenues or lease payments or what. The Sabres currently pay no rent or ticket taxes on the arena, or property taxes for that matter, so there’s lots of room for improvement in that regard. What say you on that, Mr. Sabres Head of Business Operations — whoops, he’s off already, guess we’ll have to wait and see if the Buffalo News asks him about it next time, LOL.

Share this post:

“Privately funded” Bulls/Blackhawks arena development asks for $55m in tax breaks, could seek more

access_time personNeil deMause

It’s been almost two years since the owners of the Chicago Bulls and Blackhawks announced plans for a $7 billion development housing-and-concert-space-and-hotels-and-0ther-stuff project on the parking lots around the United Center arena, without exactly indicating who would be paying for it, though it’s been widely described as “privately funded.” And now we have one sliver of an answer: a $55 million property tax break.

[Chicago Mayor Brandon] Johnson introduced the estimated $54.7 million in property tax incentives to the City Council on March 18. Under Cook County’s Class 7b special assessment, the project’s property tax rate for the first phase would be 10% for the first 10 years, 15% for Year 11, then 20% for Year 12…

“Cook County incentives such as a Class 7B are standard incentives designed to encourage private investment in underserved areas, and this project is exactly that,” [an unnamed United Center] spokesperson said. “Developments across Cook County routinely pursue these types of incentives, and we’ve done so with the understanding that the development will generate significantly increased property tax revenue over time.”

Developments across Cook County indeed receive tons of property tax breaks — it’s a Chicago specialty — but that doesn’t necessarily make them a great idea. Yes, a new development will pay more in property taxes than parking lots would have, but it would also come with new costs, starting with schools for all the kids at the new housing to attend; and that’s assuming that any new development at the United Center doesn’t lead developers to build less somewhere else in the city, which is very much something that can happen. (The Chicago Tribune editorial board points out that the planned music theater could also siphon off concerts from other city venues.) As for categorizing the arena’s Near West Side environs as “underserved,” that’s possibly a bit of a reach when it’s had the second biggest increase in property values in the entire city since 2000.

That said, $55 million in tax breaks for a $7 billion project wouldn’t be the worst sports-related development deal, if that’s all that Bulls owner Jerry Reinsdorf and Blackhawks owner Danny Wirtz would be pocketing—

The project is also in a tax-increment financing district, which could give city officials another way to subsidize the project or the infrastructure it needs, including a new station on the CTA’s Pink Line.

Sigh. Okay, file this one under “Public cost: TBD” for now. Maybe we’ll learn more once the Chicago city council, which unanimously approved the project itself last year, takes up consideration of the tax breaks, at a time also TBD.

Share this post:

Rays execs tell public that $2.25B stadium subsidy won’t cost taxpayers anything, really

access_time personNeil deMause

The Tampa Bay Rays have scheduled two more “community engagement sessions” on their new $2.3 billion Tampa stadium project plans, which are less public forums than places where Rays officials talk at residents and take questions. And what sorts of things are they saying?

“We took a no-harm approach to the work that we’re doing. No part of our financial proposal will take funding away from other priorities that the city and county have committed to,” [Rays CEO Ken] Babby said [during a recent community meeting at Hillsborough College]. “No part of our financial proposal will take money away from other sports teams in the community that desperately also have asked for resources around an opportunity.”

That is … innovative? Batshit crazy? Suggesting that a project can siphon off $1.15 billion in tax money while also taking up $250 million worth of state-owned land that currently hosts a community college campus that will need to be relocated, all while paying no property taxes over a 99-year lease (estimated loss to the public: $839 million), and that this won’t prevent the city or county from funding anything else they might like is a bold claim, and the sort of thing that might get pushback if you said it in an actual public hearing. Or maybe there was pushback, nobody seems to have reported what the questions were at this public session, so for all we know Babby was greeted with a surge of derisive laughter and WUSF just didn’t tell us.

The Tampa NPR station also had this to say about Babby’s presentation:

The Rays would build surrounding development, including hotels, offices, restaurants, residential and recreational areas, that would be “100 percent” privately financed, with tax dollars from the district used to eventually pay off the tab.

Roll that around in your brain for a second: A “100 percent” privately financed development project paid for with tax dollars. That only works if you consider any tax money paid by you or anyone connected with your project to be really your money, because they got it from us, you got it from them, you give it back to us, everybody’s even.

The whole point of public forums is for the public to be able to ask tough questions about a proposed project, and maybe even engage in a debate about its merits. But for these — at least as far as they’re making it into news reports — it seems like everyone is just assuming that Babby’s claims are factual, and you know what the great thinkers say about why you shouldn’t assume.

The next public sessions are tomorrow at 6:30 p.m. at the Press Box, 222 S. Dale Mabry Highway, and next Wednesday On April 1 at 6:30 p.m. in the Robinson High School auditorium, 6311 S. Lois Ave. If any Field of Schemes readers can attend, please report back.

Share this post:

Illinois house postpones discussion of Bears “megaprojects” bill for one week

access_time personNeil deMause

An Illinois state legislative subcommittee was set to move forward last Thursday with a “megaprojects” bill that would, among other things, allow the Chicago Bears to get as much as $2 billion in property tax breaks, and then … didn’t:

The Illinois House Tax Credit and Incentives Subcommittee opted not to resume discussion on a proposal to make designated “mega project properties” eligible for an assessment freeze — despite scheduling the proposal for review.

Instead, the panel focused on evaluating Illinois’ tax revenue forecast separate from any stadium discussion.

There’s nothing stopping the legislature from taking up the megaprojects bill later — the legislative session runs through the end of May — and, in fact, it’s back on the subcommittee’s calendar for this week. But putting it on the calendar and then taking it off certainly seems like a sign of cool interest on behalf of state legislators. Or, who knows, maybe Bears execs themselves asked for it to be tabled, like last time! Or maybe bill proponents are busy trying to convince Chicago-area legislators that the state should approve subsidies to move the team out of Chicago? Or it could just be that the state’s budget outlook is so uncertain that elected officials need to focus on that. Anything is possible!

Anyway, this is almost certainly going to increase speculation that Bears owner George McCaskey will leap to grab Indiana’s up-to-$4-billion stadium subsidy offer, and yup, check that off today’s pundit bingo card. Not that it makes any sense: The Indiana offer doesn’t come with an expiration date, so if McCaskey really wants to see if he can get a better deal out of Illinois, he can wait till May; and if he really just prefers Indiana, he could accept it without waiting to see Illinois’ counteroffer. But the two-minute warning is part of the playbook, you can’t just start skipping it now, where would that leave you for fan service?

Share this post:

Pelicans owner demands state arena subsidies so wealthy fans can have crushed velour seating

access_time personNeil deMause

It’s been a few years since New Orleans Pelicans owner Gayle Benson last talked about getting upgrades to the team’s arena, in part because she fell behind on making payments to the state on Superdome renovations for the Saints, which she also owns. The arena renovations are back on again now, and they include adding more seats, more VIP clubs, and refurbished luxury suites with “high-end furnishings like island bars, crushed velour furniture, brass light fixtures and wood floors” — all the better to distract you from the fact that you just paid premium prices to watch the Pelicans.

How much would all this cost? The New Orleans Times-Picayune, which got ahold of the team’s plans via a public records request, notes:

Cost estimates were not included in the report. The state and Pelicans are expected to pay for the project through a public-private partnership similar to the one used to fund the recent $560 million renovation of the Superdome.

The Times-Picayune doesn’t bother to go into detail about how the Saints deal works: It was in fact two-thirds state money, one-third Benson money that the owner dragged her feet on paying until she could get the state spending upped from $300 million to $380 million in exchange for a five-year lease extension until 2035. How much taxpayers would be on the hook for in a Pelicans deal, and how long Benson would be willing to extend her lease for — it currently expires in 2029 — remains unknown: Louisiana Stadium and Exposition District attorney Larry Roedel told the paper that the arena plans are “preliminary at best” and both renovation funding and a new lease are “subjects yet to be negotiated.”

The New Orleans arena, for those keeping score at home, turns 27 this year, and just got a state-funded $54 million renovation in 2014. It’s sadly lacking in crushed velour, however, as well as having too many upper-deck seats and not enough lower-deck seats, which the Times-Picayune informs us are “a prime revenue source for the Pelicans.” If the goal here is to have the state of Louisiana spend a pile of money so that the team can increase its profits, might it be simpler and cheaper to skip the whole renovation business and just have the state pay Benson directly? It is a local tradition, after all.

Share this post:

Friday roundup: Pittsburgh cancels in-person school while hosting NFL Draft, this is just a thing that happens now?

access_time personNeil deMause

It’s been quite a week: In case you missed it, I spent much of it keeping up with the comment storm after this Q&A about a paper on housing policy published on Monday. (Turns out people have very many feels about housing policy.) Add in a busy week of stadium news, and I should probably take the day off from typing to avoid a repetitive stress injury — but not before taking a run through the week’s additional stadium and arena news, that’s more important than my wrist tendons.

Share this post:

Would-be ChiSox owner considering buying railyard for would-be stadium, maybe

access_time personNeil deMause

Private equity goon Justin Ishbia has an option to buy the Chicago White Sox in a few years and is reportedly negotiating to buy an Amtrak railyard in the South Loop, and hoo, baby, are people connecting the dots:

The White Sox, whose lease at Rate Field in the Armour Square neighborhood expires in 2029, have previously pitched plans for a new stadium at “The 78.” If the deal between Shore Capital and Amtrak is completed, Crain’s reports, the groundwork could be all set for a stadium-centric district on the southern edge of downtown.

It all sounds plausible enough in internet comment thread logic, but there are some major questions about how this would all work. First off, the “The 78” stadium project faltered after nobody in Chicago was interested in giving current White Sox owner Jerry Reinsdorf up to $1.7 billion to help pay for it, a funding gap that remains. Second, the Amtrak property is across the Chicago River from The 78, so it would be a “district” with a large body of water dividing it in two. This could be resolved if both the White Sox stadium and the rest of the district went on the Amtrak side of the river — but Crain’s Chicago Business reports that the Amtrak site is narrower than The 78 (it doesn’t look it on Google Maps, but maybe Amtrak is only selling part of its site?) and so might not be able to fit a whole baseball stadium, but also that “sources” say Ishbia is considering a stadium there anyway.

Ishbia outright buying the land would be interesting, since it would mean he would be on the hook for property taxes on the site, as well as any development he built on it. Though, of course, this is Chicago, where property tax breaks are handed out like oranges with Jack-o-Lantern faces drawn on them, so it’s always possible he could apply for a TIF district like The 78 got.

Or not! We are deep, deep in speculation territory here, when all we really know is “Jerry Reinsdorf wants a new White Sox stadium, preferably before he dies” and “the rich dude who is set to take over the White Sox wants everyone to know he’s looking at buying some land.” The devil, as always, will be in the funding details, and those are so far down the road you couldn’t see them clearly even with the help of mini-flashlights.

Meanwhile, what’s next is, let’s let Fox32 sum it up:

What’s next: The White Sox’s current lease for Rate Field does not end until 2029, well after the 2028 season.

Nailed the concept of time’s arrow, Fox32, no notes.

Share this post: