I tend to agree. I think it was clear that they were using Chicago as a bargaining chip with Arlington Heights, which was always their first choice for the stadium.
With outright ownership of over 300 acres on the Arlington Park property, they have the ability to build (and own) an entertainment district that draws fans (and income) year-round, similar to what the Ricketts have done with Gallagher Way next to Wrigley Field, and what the Packers have done with the Titletown District next to Lambeau Field.
Brock Purdy gets his extention. Five years totaling $265 million, so $53 million average per year. $181 million in total guarantees, with $165 million of that in the first three years.
That’s pretty reasonable given the market and recent salary cap increases. Right in between where I was hoping ($50m/y) and what I was expecting ($55m/y).
I’m not so sure. I think that if they had unlimited money they’d 100% build in AH. The fantasy of owning the building and an attached hotel and entertainment district is impossible to resist.
But, they don’t have infinite money. They barely have adequate money. I think the reason the city has remained as a serious option is because the accountants at Halas Hall realize how sweet a deal they have at Solider Field. The city and the park district carry a ton of the ongoing operating costs and the rent they pay is negligible. The income is lower but so is the cost.
I think there’s a real fear that even if they are able to borrow enough money to build a venue in AH, between the debt service and having to pay for all the maintenance and operating costs they’ll basically be house poor right up until they are forced to sell by the lenders.
They won’t be able to build the entertainment district they fantasize about, so they won’t see the huge influx of revenue. In order to get that built they’ll need to take on investors and dilute their share which could put them in a worse spot than just staying in Chicago.
All speculation obviously, but if AH were such a financial no-brainer for them they wouldn’t still be sitting here 3 years later pissing and moaning about property taxes. Property taxes will be a pretty small slice of the overhead in the grand scheme of things.
Last summer, the NFL changed their rules on team ownership, allowing a team to have up to 10% ownership by one of a handful of private equity firms.
Especially now that Virginia McCaskey has passed, I could easily foresee a situation in which the Bears sell a 10% stake in the team to such a private equity firm, in order to help finance the project.
As Roger Goodell said, when the change was announced:
The above sounds exactly like what the Bears would need, in order to build the Arlington Heights site.
True, but reading between the lines a little bit, I don’t think this is an option the Bears are interested in for a few reasons.
First, 10% of $3 Billion is only $300M which won’t go that far when it comes to building a new stadium and adjacent facilities. So while they could do it to raise money, it doesn’t solve the underlying problem.
Second, now that Virginia is gone, ownership of the Bears is distributed across the family in some proportion. We don’t know exactly what the breakdown is, but if they did sell 10% of the team, every nepobaby would need to agree not to just pocket their share. I’m sure several would be thrilled with a payout and wouldn’t want to dump that into some real estate project with uncertain returns.
Next, Pat Ryan already owns -20% of the team. And supposedly he gets right of first refusal on any sale. This probably includes a sale to private equity. So if the Bears put that 10% up for sale, there’s a better than fair chance that Ryan swoops in and buys it up. If he were to step up his stake to 30% that might put the McCaskeys in a position where they could get nudged out of control of the team.
And lastly, I think the family still views the team as their birthright. Selling it off little by little probably feels like a knife in the gut. Virginia probably was opposed to the idea, so if the kids want to uphold her wishes, they would only do it as a last resort.
For all those above reasons I think a stadium in Chicago that allows the families to keep all their shares is pretty damn appealing.
We shall see, I suppose. If they do intend to break ground this year, as team president Kevin Warren apparently stated in the owners’ meeting recently, whatever they’re going to do, they’re going to need to do it quickly. OTOH, when it comes to building new stadiums in recent years, nothing moves quickly.
NFL owners are voting on several proposals during league meetings this week. The one which looks likely to pass will be to allow NFL players to participate in flag football at the 2028 Los Angeles Olympic Games. The proposal has a bunch of limitations and riders on it, but I suspect that, if any notable players shred a knee or an Achilles tendon playing flag football, it’ll be a one-and-done experiment.
Also being voted on are the Packers’ proposal to ban the tush push (which, even speaking as a Packers fan, feels like a bit of sour grapes), and the Lions’ proposal to reseed playoff teams based on regular-season records.
I love the idea. I know we’ve seen them play flag football at the Pro Bowl, but that is a game with zero stakes. Nobody cares who wins. At the Olympics, there are medals on the line. I would absolutely watch that.
Apparently, it’s not a demonstration sport (which would suggest it would be one-and-done); it’s one of five sports which the IOC approved for addition for 2028 (the others are cricket, squash, softball, and lacrosse).
If the NBA can handle players in the Olympics, I don’t see why that can’t work for the NFL. Especially with rules that minimize potential injury to players.
Not necessarily. Softball has been in the Olympics and then removed because of a lack of worldwide appeal. It is in the next one because local organizers have the ability to ask for sports to be added. Despite it’s popularity in Australia it is very uncertain if it will be at the 2032 games.
The main issue is scheduling. The summer Olympics typically occur firmly during the NBA offseason. Fatigue might be an issue but there are no major scheduling conflicts otherwise.
That’s less the case with the NFL where teams will be holding their training camps at about the same time and the first pre-season games will occur within days of the closing ceremony. Somewhat less of an issue for veterans but it also means less time for them to get used to new teammates, whether rookies or free agent acquisitions.
Of course, it’s worst of all for MLB. That’s in the middle of the season. So US Olympic teams have not been too competitive in baseball.
Also, I wonder how well players would do. Will NFL skillsets translate to competitive flag football, since it is a different game? Will it be like 3v3 basketball, in which the US is not really competitive?
I wouldn’t automatically assume we’ll field a team of NFL pros who barely have time to learn to play together while they are simultaneously gearing up for their individual NFL regular seasons. It’s tough enough for us to assemble a team of top NBA players to operate as a team against the best the rest of the world has to offer. The US men’s basketball team has occasionally struggled of late as international teams have almost caught up, as they play as cooperative teams rather than assemblages of individuals.
One assumption I have is that other than quarterbacks, it will essentially be nothing but wide receivers and cornerbacks. Is there even any blocking in flag football? There’s not, right?
Depends on the variant if there are linemen or not. Some competitions apparently do have some form of non-contact blocking, so no one can say for certain until the rules are announced
ETA: Note - running is allowed, so RBs are allowed, at least. And most flag football rules have some form of QB rushing, so just corners is probably not a good idea on defense.
It’s being reported that neither the Packers or Lions really cared about the proposed rule changes one way or another, but the league office pushed the teams to propose the changes. For some reason the league didn’t want to be seen as the instigator.
It’s worth nothing that owners voted 22-10 in favor of banning the play, but it required 24 votes to pass.
…but only if the team is trailing – that part of the rule wasn’t changed. And for some reason, they will be kicked from the 34 instead of the 35, which seems like an inconsequential change and, if anything, even more disincentive to attempt one. I haven’t seen any explanation for that.
Anyway, I think the rule change will have zero impact. How many teams would ever want to attempt an announced onside kick before the 4th quarter?