PDA

View Full Version : Daily Herald: Explore selling U.S. Cellular Field


dakuda
09-27-2010, 05:52 PM
http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=411088

Without getting into the politics, any thoughts on the state selling the park?

roylestillman
09-27-2010, 10:32 PM
I don't know if there's a tax lawyer in the house, but I believe the park was built with tax exempt bonds and I think that might preclude sale to a private entity. Also the Sox lease is so sweet, I can't imagine that there is enough cash flow to make this worth anything to anybody.

DumpJerry
09-27-2010, 10:42 PM
Speaking from a purely financial perspective, it would be a bad move by the state.

Hitmen77
09-27-2010, 10:45 PM
The person in the article suggests that the state re-work the deal with the White Sox.

Now, why in the hell would Reinsdorf and Co. agree to that? They do have a contract, after all. They don't have to re-negotiate anything.

slavko
09-27-2010, 11:08 PM
Speaking from a purely financial perspective, it would be a bad move by the state.

Because why? BTW, a sale would require the Sox to renegotiate the lease. This one sounds like a non-starter. Politicians. I don't know the guy.

DumpJerry
09-27-2010, 11:24 PM
Because why? BTW, a sale would require the Sox to renegotiate the lease. This one sounds like a non-starter. Politicians. I don't know the guy.
I'm glad you're not in charge of my assets.

Sell an income producing asset and you have no more money coming in. If you own a building and a cell phone company wants to put an antenna on it, they will ask you if you want rental payments of, say, $10,000 per year for 10 years or would you take a lump sum payment of $75,000 today for a 20 year lease.

Which do you choose? Choosing the 75K will get you fired.

And you're incorrect about a sale will require the Sox to renegotiate the lease. The buyer is stuck with all assets and liabilities of the seller. This includes all leases in place at the time of sale.

Foulke You
09-28-2010, 12:28 AM
I wonder if Jerry Reinsdorf would consider buying the ballpark from the state if they cut him a deal? Wouldn't that be hysterical. JR gets the ballpark built with taxpayer dollars and then buys it back from the state for a song and a dance 20 years later. :tongue:

Sam Spade
09-28-2010, 01:35 AM
Which do you choose? Choosing the 75K will get you fired.

Not really. It depends what you think you can earn as an average rate of return on the 75K. Many people can achieve a high rate of return on their investments (above 20%). Those people would be better off with the 75K.

cards press box
09-28-2010, 01:51 AM
http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=411088

Without getting into the politics, any thoughts on the state selling the park?

I seriously doubt this idea goes anywhere at all.

DumpJerry
09-28-2010, 07:12 AM
Not really. It depends what you think you can earn as an average rate of return on the 75K. Many people can achieve a high rate of return on their investments (above 20%). Those people would be better off with the 75K.
So you would choose this over being able to charge higher rent as time goes on?

Ex-Chicagoan
09-28-2010, 07:58 AM
So you would choose this over being able to charge higher rent as time goes on?

I guess it depends on what I need now.

Sam Phillips sold the contract of a young Elvis Presley to RCA for $35,000 and maintained it was "the best deal he ever made." Why? It bought his company time, and he used some of the money to get in on the ground floor with an up-and-coming chain of motels called "Holiday Inn."

roylestillman
09-28-2010, 08:17 AM
I'm glad you're not in charge of my assets.

Sell an income producing asset and you have no more money coming in. If you own a building and a cell phone company wants to put an antenna on it, they will ask you if you want rental payments of, say, $10,000 per year for 10 years or would you take a lump sum payment of $75,000 today for a 20 year lease.

Which do you choose? Choosing the 75K will get you fired.

And you're incorrect about a sale will require the Sox to renegotiate the lease. The buyer is stuck with all assets and liabilities of the seller. This includes all leases in place at the time of sale.

How is this an income producing asset for the State?

The "rent" that club pays to the State is nothing more than a refund of the $10 million that the State and the City throw into the ISFA fund from the income tax proceeds each year. I don't think that amount ever exceeded $4 million.If the State were to unload the park, it would get back that $10 million and all the annual proceeds from the taxes (hotel primarily) that were dedicated to he debt service. Some of this is muddied up by the same revenue stream funding the debt service on the Soldier Field renovation, but it would be a net windfall for the State even if they gave the Cell away.

slavko
09-28-2010, 09:01 AM
I'm glad you're not in charge of my assets.

Sell an income producing asset and you have no more money coming in. If you own a building and a cell phone company wants to put an antenna on it, they will ask you if you want rental payments of, say, $10,000 per year for 10 years or would you take a lump sum payment of $75,000 today for a 20 year lease.

Which do you choose? Choosing the 75K will get you fired.

And you're incorrect about a sale will require the Sox to renegotiate the lease. The buyer is stuck with all assets and liabilities of the seller. This includes all leases in place at the time of sale.

Required in the sense that no buyer would buy the place unless the lease were renegotiated. Would you?

mrfourni
09-28-2010, 09:20 AM
Required in the sense that no buyer would buy the place unless the lease were renegotiated. Would you?

What incentive would the White Sox have to renegotiate their lease?

slavko
09-28-2010, 09:21 AM
What incentive would the White Sox have to renegotiate their lease?

None. That's why the deal is a non-starter.

DumpJerry
09-28-2010, 10:26 AM
Required in the sense that no buyer would buy the place unless the lease were renegotiated. Would you?
Of course not.

dickallen15
09-28-2010, 10:32 AM
Required in the sense that no buyer would buy the place unless the lease were renegotiated. Would you?
That's my question, the Sox have a sweetheart lease, who would want to buy the stadium and have to deal with that? The only people I see that would maybe want to buy it are the White Sox, and only if it were an unreal deal. That money would be blown by the state so fast you wouldn't even know it was ever there.

Noneck
09-28-2010, 11:56 PM
Sell an income producing asset and you have no more money coming in. If you own a building and a cell phone company wants to put an antenna on it, they will ask you if you want rental payments of, say, $10,000 per year for 10 years or would you take a lump sum payment of $75,000 today for a 20 year lease.

Which do you choose? Choosing the 75K will get you fired.



Make sense or not, This is Chicago, things like this have happened a couple times already in the past few years.

ewokpelts
09-29-2010, 07:39 AM
http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=411088

Without getting into the politics, any thoughts on the state selling the park?wont happen.

it's tied into a lease. a lease that the tennant(the sox) can possibly break if the property changes hands.

also to note: the state wont get much for it. the skydome was eventually sold for as little as $25 million to rogers communications(the blue jays owners). ontario's provincial govermant plowed upwards of $500 million into the now rogers centre.

ewokpelts
09-29-2010, 07:43 AM
The person in the article suggests that the state re-work the deal with the White Sox.

Now, why in the hell would Reinsdorf and Co. agree to that? They do have a contract, after all. They don't have to re-negotiate anything.infact, the sox can say they have been a better than expected tennant becuase they brought in outside money(us cellular) to finance rennovations to the facilty.
AND they extended thier lease far beyond the original commitment(it was a 20 year deal with a 5 year extension). the sox are locked in to the cell until 2026 at the earliest, where the original deal would have had them out as early as 2012(assuming they had a new facilty to move into after the origianl 20 year lease expired).