Interesting article on our owners

[azbearsfan]

Good read, perhaps new ownership is afoot?

 

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0913/nfl...ets-midway.html

[jason]

Please, please, please...

[Bears4Ever_34]

Mark Cuban please!!

[Daventry]

Great article, thanks for sharing. I have always thought that the Bears as an organisation were a gold mine that was not being managed nearly as profitably or well as it could be.

[LT2_3]

That article is interesting certainly, but it doesn't deal with any of the real world political issues that existed with getting the stadium deal done. I think it's also important to point out that the author's definition of success is making more money - and not more wins.

 

ALL of the new revenue streams that it talks about revolve around a stadium that the team controls exclusively. Those streams simply don't exist when a team leases a stadium

 

Another aspect that is important in this issue is also one that the author fails to address: the political aspect.

 

Daley wanted the Bears playing downtown and had the issue of what to do with a deteriorating Soldier Field. The renovation only cost $600 million-ish and about a 1/3 of that was to reconfigure the lakefront in the area and building the underground parking garage to replace all those crappy looking blacktop parking lots by the marina.

 

The other teams had many more options on where they could build a stadium. There were other options explored for the Bears, but I really don't think they could have gotten any state funding done in Illinois outside Chicago because it was hard enough to get THIS deal through the state legislature. If Daley had been against it, there would have been opposition from the state reps from Chicago - which would be key in getting anything through. Then add to it the political grenade that Daley threw out there that they would have to change their name to the "Arlington Heights Bears" if that's where they played. I know the Giants/Jets get away with calling themselves NY teams even though they play in NJ, but that's because NY likes the name recognition without actually having to fund anything or have a place to build a stadium anyway.

 

Then, on to the financial situation. Jerry Jones can take more financial risks because he has other businesses that generate revenue. Let's say that a proper state of the art stadium would cost about $1 billion. Let's figure that the state could be counted on for $200 million of it - the road work and landscaping. Because the McCaskeys have no outside income, they would have to borrow $800 million that would cost $51 million per year at 5% over 30 years. I'm sure a new stadium like that would generate more income, but would it generate MORE than $51 million per year to make it more profitable?

 

The deal the Bears got with their stadium is still pretty sweet. They don't gross as much from those additional revenue streams that the other clubs have, but they also have far less in terms of expenses with a lease that is only $5.7 million per year with virtually no debt. That in turn gives them a very competitive NET income compared to other teams.

 

I DO wish we had owners that had deep pockets so that money would be less of a concern when it comes to football issues, but that's just not the reality right now. And on the bright side, once we do get a new owner with deep pockets, a new stadium with more revenue streams is completely possible even if they just pay off the lease on the current Soldier Field at $5.7 million per year.

[nfoligno]

I always gave credit for the new stadium deal. The only thing that ticked me off about the new stadium was the lack of seating. For a new stadium, it is sad when you look at the capacity.

 

That article is interesting certainly, but it doesn't deal with any of the real world political issues that existed with getting the stadium deal done. I think it's also important to point out that the author's definition of success is making more money - and not more wins.

 

ALL of the new revenue streams that it talks about revolve around a stadium that the team controls exclusively. Those streams simply don't exist when a team leases a stadium

 

Another aspect that is important in this issue is also one that the author fails to address: the political aspect.

 

Daley wanted the Bears playing downtown and had the issue of what to do with a deteriorating Soldier Field. The renovation only cost $600 million-ish and about a 1/3 of that was to reconfigure the lakefront in the area and building the underground parking garage to replace all those crappy looking blacktop parking lots by the marina.

 

The other teams had many more options on where they could build a stadium. There were other options explored for the Bears, but I really don't think they could have gotten any state funding done in Illinois outside Chicago because it was hard enough to get THIS deal through the state legislature. If Daley had been against it, there would have been opposition from the state reps from Chicago - which would be key in getting anything through. Then add to it the political grenade that Daley threw out there that they would have to change their name to the "Arlington Heights Bears" if that's where they played. I know the Giants/Jets get away with calling themselves NY teams even though they play in NJ, but that's because NY likes the name recognition without actually having to fund anything or have a place to build a stadium anyway.

 

Then, on to the financial situation. Jerry Jones can take more financial risks because he has other businesses that generate revenue. Let's say that a proper state of the art stadium would cost about $1 billion. Let's figure that the state could be counted on for $200 million of it - the road work and landscaping. Because the McCaskeys have no outside income, they would have to borrow $800 million that would cost $51 million per year at 5% over 30 years. I'm sure a new stadium like that would generate more income, but would it generate MORE than $51 million per year to make it more profitable?

 

The deal the Bears got with their stadium is still pretty sweet. They don't gross as much from those additional revenue streams that the other clubs have, but they also have far less in terms of expenses with a lease that is only $5.7 million per year with virtually no debt. That in turn gives them a very competitive NET income compared to other teams.

 

I DO wish we had owners that had deep pockets so that money would be less of a concern when it comes to football issues, but that's just not the reality right now. And on the bright side, once we do get a new owner with deep pockets, a new stadium with more revenue streams is completely possible even if they just pay off the lease on the current Soldier Field at $5.7 million per year.

 

[madlithuanian]

A man can dream! Thanks for posting that. It was truly interesting...and very telling.

 

Good read, perhaps new ownership is afoot?

 

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0913/nfl...ets-midway.html