White Sox Interactive Forums
Sox Clubhouse
 Soxogram: 
And away we go...

Welcome
Go Back   White Sox Interactive Forums > Baseball Discussions > Sox Clubhouse
Home Chat Stats Register Blogs FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91  
Old 08-19-2017, 08:29 PM
Grzegorz Grzegorz is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Western Suburbs
Posts: 2,903
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by anewman35 View Post
The Braves had a stadium newer than ours and already left it. The Rangers are planning on doing the same. Nobody would deny that some mistakes were made, but the idea that if they had made a few different decisions 30 years ago it would be a guarantee that nobody would talk about a new stadium is silly.
How are those two teams funding their new stadiums?
__________________
“There were a few hard rules, but everybody was unique, and he understood that. George’s great strength was he didn’t overcoach. There’s no place for panic on the mound.” - Jim Palmer on George Bamberger “Arms and the man,” Sports Illustrated, April 19, 2004
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 08-19-2017, 08:40 PM
anewman35 anewman35 is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Buffalo Grove, IL
Posts: 3,306
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grzegorz View Post
How are those two teams funding their new stadiums?
Ripping off tax payers mostly, from what I can tell. Not sure what your point is?
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 08-20-2017, 12:01 AM
soxnut67 soxnut67 is offline
WSI Regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 496
Default

Is anyone going to more or less games depending on who pays for a new ballpark?
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 08-20-2017, 06:37 AM
Grzegorz Grzegorz is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Western Suburbs
Posts: 2,903
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by anewman35 View Post
Ripping off tax payers mostly, from what I can tell. Not sure what your point is?
I am curious as to the funding.
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 08-20-2017, 06:39 AM
Grzegorz Grzegorz is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Western Suburbs
Posts: 2,903
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by soxnut67 View Post
Is anyone going to more or less games depending on who pays for a new ballpark?
That's not the point. The point is who pays for the new stadium.
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 08-20-2017, 09:25 AM
Golden Sox Golden Sox is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Oswego, Illinois
Posts: 1,491
Default

1)Hawk and Stone have commented on the new Rangers stadium. They've both said that the city of Arlington is paying over $500 million of the $1 Billion dollar cost of the new stadium.
2) It seems like cities and suburbs always find a way to get new stadiums built. I just read this morning that Rosemont Illinois will be spending at least $55 million dollars on their new Minor League stadium. Schaumburg Illinois is going to spend another $13 million dollars on upgrading their present minor league ballpark
3) When the time comes there will be enough offers for a new White Sox stadium when the present lease runs out.
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 08-20-2017, 11:27 AM
Frater Perdurabo Frater Perdurabo is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 19,068
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Golden Sox View Post
1)Hawk and Stone have commented on the new Rangers stadium. They've both said that the city of Arlington is paying over $500 million of the $1 Billion dollar cost of the new stadium.
2) It seems like cities and suburbs always find a way to get new stadiums built. I just read this morning that Rosemont Illinois will be spending at least $55 million dollars on their new Minor League stadium. Schaumburg Illinois is going to spend another $13 million dollars on upgrading their present minor league ballpark
3) When the time comes there will be enough offers for a new White Sox stadium when the present lease runs out.
Without getting into the politics, it needs to be said that Arlington, Texas, has a population of approximately 350,000 whose voters twice previously passed referenda to tax themselves (and visitors) to build stadia. But those voters also refuse to do the same to provide any sort of public transportation. Their tax base and tax funds already are built on, and designed to subsidize, professional sports.

It also needs to be said that voter participation is quite low, and one of the city's largest employers in the General Motors factory that makes full-size SUVs and trucks. The influential population in Arlington is people who drive (and many who make) large vehicles everywhere, who expect acres of parking, and who value professional (and high school) sports. So it's a confluence of unique factors that give rise to a willingness to prioritize stadia for the Rangers and Cowboys.

Indeed, the Rangers and now the Cowboys are inextricably wedded to Arlington's self-identity.

In that way, Arlington has more electoral and financial ability and willingness to build massive stadiums than either Dallas or Fort Worth, or many other larger US cities.

None of the Chicago suburbs alone - not even Rosemont or Oak Brook or Shaumburg - have the same confluence of factors as Arlington, that would allow them to build a billion dollar major league stadium.

Nevertheless, let's pretend all five major league teams left Chicago. It would be a wound to Chicago's pride, but Chicago still has world class cultural attractions, museums, architecture, food, neighborhoods, the Lake, etc.

But if the Rangers (or Cowboys) left Arlington, it would be a mortal blow to Arlington's identity. Other than Six Flags, pro sports is just about all they have. That's why they will spend a billion dollars to keep the Rangers.
__________________
The universe is the practical joke of the General at the expense of the Particular, quoth Frater Perdurabo, and laughed. The disciples nearest him wept, seeing the Universal Sorrow. Others laughed, seeing the Universal Joke. Others wept. Others laughed. Others wept because they couldn't see the Joke, and others laughed lest they should be thought not to see the Joke. But though FRATER laughed openly, he wept secretly; and really he neither laughed nor wept. Nor did he mean what he said.

Last edited by Frater Perdurabo; 08-20-2017 at 02:38 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 08-20-2017, 12:50 PM
Lip Man 1 Lip Man 1 is offline
WSI Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Chubbuck, Idaho
Posts: 31,511
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frater Perdurabo View Post
Without getting into the politics, it needs to be said that Arlington, Texas, has a population of approximately 350,000 whose voters twice previously passed referenda to tax themselves (and visitors) to build stadia. But those voters also refuse to do the same to provide any sort of public transportation. Their tax base and to funds already are built on, and designed to subsidize, professional sports.

It also needs to be said that voter participation is quite low, and one of the city's largest employers in the General Motors factory that makes full-size SUVs and trucks. The influential population in Arlington is people who drive (and many who make) large vehicles everywhere, who expect acres of parking, and who value professional (and high school) sports. So it's a confluence of unique factors that give rise to a willingness to prioritize stadia for the Rangers and Cowboys.

Indeed, the Rangers and now the Cowboys are inextricably wedded to Arlington's self-identity.

In that way, Arlington has more electoral and financial ability and willingness to build massive stadiums than either Dallas or Fort Worth, or many other larger US cities.

None of the Chicago suburbs alone - not even Rosemont or Oak Brook or Shaumburg - have the same confluence of factors as Arlington, that would allow them to build a billion dollar major league stadium.

Nevertheless, let's pretend all five major league teams left Chicago. It would be a wound to Chicago'a pride, but Chicago still has world class cultural attractions, museums, architecture, food, neighborhoods, the Lake, etc.

But if the Rangers (or Cowboys) left Arlington, it would be a mortal blow to Arlington's identity. Other than Six Flags, pro sports is just about all they have. That's why they will spend a billion dollars to keep the Rangers.
Well thought out post.

The city of Chicago and the state of Illinois WILL NEVER agree to pay that kind of money for a stadium in the future. Not with all the other needs and a population growing increasingly activist. If they tried, they'd be removed from office so quickly if would make their head's spin.

No politican will be willing to risk their future for a sports team.

Now if an owner is willing to pay for it themselves like the Giants and Dolphins did, that's a different set of circumstances. The city or state would probably be willing to donate the land and some services towards that.
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 08-20-2017, 01:19 PM
anewman35 anewman35 is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Buffalo Grove, IL
Posts: 3,306
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lip Man 1 View Post
Well thought out post.

The city of Chicago and the state of Illinois WILL NEVER agree to pay that kind of money for a stadium in the future. Not with all the other needs and a population growing increasingly activist. If they tried, they'd be removed from office so quickly if would make their head's spin.

No politican will be willing to risk their future for a sports team.

Now if an owner is willing to pay for it themselves like the Giants and Dolphins did, that's a different set of circumstances. The city or state would probably be willing to donate the land and some services towards that.
The city and state wouldn't give any money. But I feel like it would at be at least possible that one of the suburbs or suburban counties would be willing to offer up a bunch of money, sort of what happened in Atlanta. You say no politician would risk their future for a sports team, but that actually happens all the time (there's a website called Field of Schemes that frequently reports on such things)

I don't EXPECT this to happen, mind you. It's pretty much always a horrible deal for the community doing it, and I don't necessarily know it would benefit the Sox to be out in the suburbs somewhere. But it's possible.
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 08-20-2017, 02:33 PM
LITTLE NELL LITTLE NELL is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sebring Florida
Posts: 10,082
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by anewman35 View Post
The city and state wouldn't give any money. But I feel like it would at be at least possible that one of the suburbs or suburban counties would be willing to offer up a bunch of money, sort of what happened in Atlanta. You say no politician would risk their future for a sports team, but that actually happens all the time (there's a website called Field of Schemes that frequently reports on such things)

I don't EXPECT this to happen, mind you. It's pretty much always a horrible deal for the community doing it, and I don't necessarily know it would benefit the Sox to be out in the suburbs somewhere. But it's possible.
Possible but not probable, stadiums are running about a billion dollars+ these days. What Chicago suburb has that kind of money and what kind of grief would they get from their tax paying residents? Rosemont would be the only possibility.
At this point in time, I see only 3 scenarios, the Sox stay where they are at 35th and Shields, a new owner comes in with deep deep pockets and builds a new stadium or some other city clamoring for Major League Baseball comes up with the money for a new stadium and the Sox are gone from Chicago. Lots of things can change in 12 years, we can only wait and see.
__________________
Batting in the second position for the White Sox, number 2, the second baseman Nelson Fox.
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old 08-20-2017, 02:47 PM
Golden Sox Golden Sox is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Oswego, Illinois
Posts: 1,491
Default

Another possibility is to just keep the hotel-motel tax was used to build the present White Sox stadium. I could be wrong but that same tax helped build and fund the new Soldier Field. I still think that tax is being used to maintain the White Sox stadium.
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 08-20-2017, 08:18 PM
Grzegorz Grzegorz is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Western Suburbs
Posts: 2,903
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frater Perdurabo View Post
Nevertheless, let's pretend all five major league teams left Chicago. It would be a wound to Chicago's pride, but Chicago still has world class cultural attractions, museums, architecture, food, neighborhoods, the Lake, etc.
But if the Rangers (or Cowboys) left Arlington, it would be a mortal blow to Arlington's identity. Other than Six Flags, pro sports is just about all they have. That's why they will spend a billion dollars to keep the Rangers.
Not so fast:

http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/multimed...fiscal-50#ind5

http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/multimed...fiscal-50#ind9

http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/multimed...fiscal-50#ind4

Last edited by Grzegorz; 08-20-2017 at 09:17 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 08-20-2017, 11:42 PM
Brian26's Avatar
Brian26 Brian26 is offline
WSI Guru
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Chicago
Posts: 31,413
Blog Entries: 52
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frater Perdurabo View Post
Without getting into the politics, it needs to be said that Arlington, Texas, has a population of approximately 350,000 whose voters twice previously passed referenda to tax themselves (and visitors) to build stadia. But those voters also refuse to do the same to provide any sort of public transportation. Their tax base and tax funds already are built on, and designed to subsidize, professional sports.

It also needs to be said that voter participation is quite low, and one of the city's largest employers in the General Motors factory that makes full-size SUVs and trucks. The influential population in Arlington is people who drive (and many who make) large vehicles everywhere, who expect acres of parking, and who value professional (and high school) sports. So it's a confluence of unique factors that give rise to a willingness to prioritize stadia for the Rangers and Cowboys.

Indeed, the Rangers and now the Cowboys are inextricably wedded to Arlington's self-identity.

In that way, Arlington has more electoral and financial ability and willingness to build massive stadiums than either Dallas or Fort Worth, or many other larger US cities.

None of the Chicago suburbs alone - not even Rosemont or Oak Brook or Shaumburg - have the same confluence of factors as Arlington, that would allow them to build a billion dollar major league stadium.

Nevertheless, let's pretend all five major league teams left Chicago. It would be a wound to Chicago's pride, but Chicago still has world class cultural attractions, museums, architecture, food, neighborhoods, the Lake, etc.

But if the Rangers (or Cowboys) left Arlington, it would be a mortal blow to Arlington's identity. Other than Six Flags, pro sports is just about all they have. That's why they will spend a billion dollars to keep the Rangers.

Good post. Everything is backwards in Texas. I just read about this late last week...a $70 million high school football stadium was approved:

https://www.today.com/video/get-a-fi...-1027450435527
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 08-20-2017, 11:54 PM
Brian26's Avatar
Brian26 Brian26 is offline
WSI Guru
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Chicago
Posts: 31,413
Blog Entries: 52
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Golden Sox View Post
For what its worth the new White Sox stadium will be somewhere by the United Center.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lip Man 1 View Post
Lip,

If the Sox get a new stadium, I'd be willing to put it at 50/50 odds that it's built either at 35th and Shields (old Comiskey site) or somewhere near the UC. What's happened in the West Loop over the past five years is absolutely remarkable. The new Morgan Green Line stop was well planned. There's a new Damen stop in the works also. Actually, this could probably never happen, but if you look at the footprint of Union Park, it would the ideal place for a new stadium. You could take the Green or Pink lines out there, use the UC parking lots a few blocks away, still near the Eisenhower, or walk back downtown on Randolph, and you'd get a great view of the Chicago skyline. That general area though would be great.
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 08-21-2017, 12:47 AM
Lip Man 1 Lip Man 1 is offline
WSI Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Chubbuck, Idaho
Posts: 31,511
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian26 View Post
Lip,

If the Sox get a new stadium, I'd be willing to put it at 50/50 odds that it's built either at 35th and Shields (old Comiskey site) or somewhere near the UC. What's happened in the West Loop over the past five years is absolutely remarkable. The new Morgan Green Line stop was well planned. There's a new Damen stop in the works also. Actually, this could probably never happen, but if you look at the footprint of Union Park, it would the ideal place for a new stadium. You could take the Green or Pink lines out there, use the UC parking lots a few blocks away, still near the Eisenhower, or walk back downtown on Randolph, and you'd get a great view of the Chicago skyline. That general area though would be great.
Brian:

I simply don't think the Sox will be getting a new stadium anywhere unless new ownership pays for it themselves. Guaranteed Rate opened in 1991 and has been very well maintained, it is not falling apart or is an engineering safety issue (a la the original Comiskey Park). Given the financial state of the city and state, most folks are going to say (correctly in my opinion) there is absolutely nothing wrong with a 40 year old stadium in great shape still having many years of usefulness.

My laughing at the original post wasn't based on the location but on the fact that the original poster felt the Sox would be getting a new stadium in the first place as if it was a done deal.

Again if new ownership pays for it then that dramatically changes the narrative with the voters and the politicians and your suggestion could certainly be correct.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Forum Jump




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:18 AM.




Design by: Michelle

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Site-specific editorial/photos Copyright ©2001 - 2008 White Sox Interactive. All rights reserved.