The one 4Afan posted is the regular cover and the Iceman one is the special edition, whatever that means.
Bears
- Thread starter PowerI66
- Start date
it means "give me more money for a slightly different cover"
Welcome to the 2033 IHSA State Football Championship in Hammond, Indiana!
But hey, if it's indoors, I would happily go watch 8 games in 72 degree weather in late November.....
Not too many teams are as synonymous with a city as the Bears are to Chicago. This would be like the Yankees moving to New Jersey (yes I know, but the Yanks aint the Jets or Giants).
Everyone is just posturing. Bears aren't going anywhere and if they do yall are not supporting them in Hammond. Maybe we can bring the Cardinals home?
Everyone is just posturing. Bears aren't going anywhere and if they do yall are not supporting them in Hammond. Maybe we can bring the Cardinals home?
I agree. Sorta feels like the are using Hammond as leverage to get the best deal in Arlington Heights.
Tough to get any kind of a deal when Illinois refuses to even bring it to a vote.
Everyone is in full CYA. Don't want to be a politician on duty when the Bears leave, but also don't want to be the politician who allowed the Bears to essentially not pay any taxes.
Kevin Warren says Chicago not an option but then it comes out Bears had 5-6 meetings with city after he says that. Then city delegation decides to be a no vote. This is on both parties. And Hammond is leverage that would be their worst case scenario or it would be 100%, any idiot can see that. The Bears keep dangling the carrot even after saying they voted to advance Hammond project. It is pure armature hour on both sides.
Last edited:
How are they still dangling the carrot? They voted to move forward with Hammond last week, the meetings with the city were prior to that.
Also, those "meetings" with the city were phone calls and zoom meetings, never anything serious. If the city delegation said no then why does the mayor keep saying the city is still the best option?
Why is Hammond the worst case scenario? They're willing to give the Bears what they want, they will get to keep all revenue from games and events, and it will benefit the players in terms of the amount of income tax they will have to pay in Indiana vs. Illinois.
Kevin Warren told both State Sen. Bill Cunningham and State Rep. Kam Buckner either before they released the statement or right after "he looks forward to continued discussions with the state". Maybe both Cunningham and Buckner are lying, I guess that is an option but I seriously doubt it.
If Chicago was a flat out "No" as the Bears have said repeatedly, then why are they still having meetings when you know a vote is coming? It sends mixed messages and Chicago delegation should look out for Chicago and if the Bears are still having discussions, no matter how small, it causes confusion and hope. Bears know what state they are dealing with here...come on.
Maybe "worst case" was bad use of words. It certainly was not their first option or second. Players will pay 1.8% less in state income tax for games played in IN.
I want to be clear, IL lawmakers have fumbled this, no doubt. But the Bears have as well. It is clear they want a Kansas v Missouri situation here, or they would put it to bed and sign on the dotted line with IN. They want to stay in IL, it is obvious. Doesn't mean it is going to happen but I will believe they are moving to a new stadium when construction begins. This whole thing has been a circus.
Last edited:
I see what you're saying, but to me this is just the Bears not burning all their bridges. Gotta keep every option open until something is signed and money starts changing hands. It would be bad business to do otherwise.
If casual fans or those in denial about the Bears leaving the city are confused or still have hope then that's on them and I have no sympathy for them.
1.8% is nothing to guys like us, but if Caleb keeps improving and gets that big 2nd contract then his game checks would likely be around $3 mil. 1.8% of that is $54k in savings per game or $432k saved for 8 games played in Indiana.
That is fair but I'm not letting the Bears off the hook clean. Why should we believe the Bears when they released that statement after what we have seen for 4 years? We have differencing opinions, I think they are leaving the door open cause they want to stay and you think they are CYAing just in case something falls through. Both reasonable it is probably both if I am being honest.
Just putting a % to the discussion on state income tax difference in IL/IN.
For sure, but if you represent Chicago and you know Bears were still having talks with city, doesn't that cause confustion from publically made Bears statements?