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?
What's confusing about it? The Bears prefer to stay in Chicago if they can get a new stadium, but we know that's going to happen. Then they turned to Arlington Hts. But Chicago politicians refuse to let that happen because they feel like they can force the Bears to stay. Instead of working with Bears on a solution.
Let's look at it. These teams only play 8 games at home each year. Half of their games are played out of state or in another country.
Not worth it to the states tax payers to pay for a new stadium being used by their professional football team 8 days out of 365 days in the year or 24 total hours out of the 8,760 hours of the year.
Not worth it to the states tax payers to pay for a new stadium being used by their professional football team 8 days out of 365 days in the year or 24 total hours out of the 8,760 hours of the year.
That would be true if they weren't building a multi-use facility to be operated year-round...
The Bears put out a statement saying the only options are AH and Hammond, a very simple to the point statement. Then during spring session as talk/voting is ramping up it comes out the Bears have been talking to City still. Those are conflicting. Chicago delegation has the responsibility to serve their constituents and the Bears have now given them hope by still having conversations with them when their official statements have been Chicago is not an option. That is not presenting confusion?
Look at this from a purely financial perspective and remove your prejudice that the "Bears belong in Chicago". The Bears have stated that they want a new stadium before their lease expires at Soldier Field in 2033. The Bears bought property in AH in February of 2023. They tore down the unused race track and began exploring how the stadium would be financed as well as what infrastructure would be done and at who's expense that would happen. Chicago was no longer an option to them because, let's face the facts, Chicago is flat broke and they would not be a capable cooperative party in any discussion.
Arlington Heights can't possibly do this on their own because they can't even pretend that they have the money to go it alone without the state of Illinois being a partner. The state of Illinois has an A- credit rating. Would you consider any partner in this effort that is considered that unreliable by the money people? Sure, something could be put together but understand that an A- credit rating means much higher debt service on any bond.
Look at the amortization chart on your own home mortgage or car payment and see just how much expense the interest that you're paying is taking out of your pocket. Now look at it as if it were a $2 Billion note. Quite a significant number for most anyone but Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos. The Bears called Indiana to see what they could do and within a matter of a couple months put together a pretty complete package and presented it to them. The option that the state of Indiana has offered because they are flush with cash and they have an AAA+ credit rating is difficult to criticize. They are buying the money for far less expense than Illinois can ever dream of doing. They plan on being repaid by the Bears and any other user of the facility from the revenues produced by the complex. Illinois could do the same but the expense of their bond would force much higher prices for everything related to hosting an event. That means that the Bears would be paying far less for the 40 years of the duration of their agreement with Indiana. Indiana has a very similar deal with the Colts and also with the Pacers. The expenses of this bond are shielded from the taxpayers because Indiana Has a constitutional limit of !% tax on property taxes for commercial and home property taxes. Illinois is totally incapable of matching this deal. It is because Illinois isn't in nearly the same position as Indiana financially.
This is really a nobrainer for the Bears. They need something to begin finalizing a deal because you don't build a $2 Billion dollar multi use stadium in a few days and 2033 is looming up large with each passing day. Looking at it even closer, Illinois sales tax is 10.5% while Indiana is at 7%. Just that difference in tax alone on the materials needed to build the facility is quite a difference as well. It is no wonder that I heard the Lieutenant Governor of Indiana say that if the opportunity arises, they'd be willing to after the White Sox and even the Cincinnati Bengals.
Indiana maintains a reserve for the bond which serves as a way to insure funds for the repayment of the bond. It has never been touched in the case of the Colts or the Pacers. When a state is financially sound, they have a significant advantage over one that is struggling.
If this is perceived as being too political for this board, I apologize completely but I thought that a realistic appraisal of the actual realities involved in the decision needed to be addressed. Not merely the frustration of Bears fans being upset because they might leave Illinois. In this case, Indiana is showing to be a much more responsible and capable place to be doing the business that needs to be done for the survival of the Bears.
Arlington Heights can't possibly do this on their own because they can't even pretend that they have the money to go it alone without the state of Illinois being a partner. The state of Illinois has an A- credit rating. Would you consider any partner in this effort that is considered that unreliable by the money people? Sure, something could be put together but understand that an A- credit rating means much higher debt service on any bond.
Look at the amortization chart on your own home mortgage or car payment and see just how much expense the interest that you're paying is taking out of your pocket. Now look at it as if it were a $2 Billion note. Quite a significant number for most anyone but Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos. The Bears called Indiana to see what they could do and within a matter of a couple months put together a pretty complete package and presented it to them. The option that the state of Indiana has offered because they are flush with cash and they have an AAA+ credit rating is difficult to criticize. They are buying the money for far less expense than Illinois can ever dream of doing. They plan on being repaid by the Bears and any other user of the facility from the revenues produced by the complex. Illinois could do the same but the expense of their bond would force much higher prices for everything related to hosting an event. That means that the Bears would be paying far less for the 40 years of the duration of their agreement with Indiana. Indiana has a very similar deal with the Colts and also with the Pacers. The expenses of this bond are shielded from the taxpayers because Indiana Has a constitutional limit of !% tax on property taxes for commercial and home property taxes. Illinois is totally incapable of matching this deal. It is because Illinois isn't in nearly the same position as Indiana financially.
This is really a nobrainer for the Bears. They need something to begin finalizing a deal because you don't build a $2 Billion dollar multi use stadium in a few days and 2033 is looming up large with each passing day. Looking at it even closer, Illinois sales tax is 10.5% while Indiana is at 7%. Just that difference in tax alone on the materials needed to build the facility is quite a difference as well. It is no wonder that I heard the Lieutenant Governor of Indiana say that if the opportunity arises, they'd be willing to after the White Sox and even the Cincinnati Bengals.
Indiana maintains a reserve for the bond which serves as a way to insure funds for the repayment of the bond. It has never been touched in the case of the Colts or the Pacers. When a state is financially sound, they have a significant advantage over one that is struggling.
If this is perceived as being too political for this board, I apologize completely but I thought that a realistic appraisal of the actual realities involved in the decision needed to be addressed. Not merely the frustration of Bears fans being upset because they might leave Illinois. In this case, Indiana is showing to be a much more responsible and capable place to be doing the business that needs to be done for the survival of the Bears.
IL was never paying for the new stadium in AH, IL was helping with infrastructure, which is not abnormal for major developments. Now things have gotten a little more murky after spring session and other options have be tossed around but it was always; Bears pay/finance stadium, IL helps with infrastructure and Bears/local municipalities negotiate payment in leu of property taxes.
Any suitable response to this would send me into a perceived and most probably political setting and I am not going to go there so as to preserve the wishes of keeping politics off the board. But you do make a necessary point about self ownership which does need to be discussed in the context of the proposed move.
For what it's worth. Of the last 10 new stadiums built in the USA, only one was built with 100% private funding. And that was SoFi stadium. It was built without any direct public funding. So, while I am against it, public funding of some kind is the norm.
This is a business deal and while I understand the sentiment, bringing up how the fans feel means nothing to anyone involved with this decision. The Bears are a private business and as a private business they should, and will, seek the best monetary deal they can get regardless of where it comes from. They also know, regardless of where it is built, when it opens it will be sold out for years.
This is a business deal and while I understand the sentiment, bringing up how the fans feel means nothing to anyone involved with this decision. The Bears are a private business and as a private business they should, and will, seek the best monetary deal they can get regardless of where it comes from. They also know, regardless of where it is built, when it opens it will be sold out for years.
Yes, it is an outlier to own your own stadium in NFL, 5 teams with different varying structures.