An update on the A’s and White Sox stadium situations

An update on the A’s and White Sox stadium situations

Earlier this month I wrote about a proposed new stadium for the White Sox, which would be located in “The 78,” a neighborhood in Chicago’s South Loop. The renderings — one of them is above — are pretty cool. The area proposed would include not only the stadium, but an entire new neighborhood with residential and retail areas.

Sounds good, right?

Not until you hear the price tag and how much public money Jerry Reinsdorf wants from the state of Illinois. From Crain’s Chicago Business:

Chicago White Sox owner Jerry Reinsdorf is preparing to ask Gov. J.B. Pritzker and other state leaders for roughly $1 billion in public money to build his team a new home in the South Loop.

The first answer is also the last, as far as I’m concerned: “No.”

Here’s the actual ask, which is a bit more nuanced:

To pay for the new Sox stadium, Reinsdorf is seeking to lay claim to the revenue from a 2% hotel occupancy tax, currently used to pay for ISFA’s annual debt service, for decades beyond when all outstanding bonds are currently meant to be paid off in 2034.

Extending ISFA bonds over 30 years while adding a new line of revenue to back the debt would provide the upfront capital to begin work on the stadium at The 78 site, which sits between the Chicago River and Clark Street, connecting Chinatown to the Loop.

Reinsdorf is also seeking to create a tax-overlay district surrounding the proposed stadium that would capture the state’s portion of sales taxes generated in the area — estimated at roughly $400 million over an undisclosed period — to be set aside to subsidize the stadium and back the new bonds.

The special tax district would be restricted to The 78 property, which currently sits vacant and does not provide any sales taxes.

Adding the sales tax revenue to the pot would also allow ISFA to borrow more money, which a source familiar with the bonding plan said would get into the “ballpark” of the roughly $1.2 billion in assistance that Reinsdorf is seeking in order to build a park with a capacity to hold between 35,000 to 38,000 people and retire the current ISFA debt.

So this is not asking for property tax money, which is the main concern of many Chicago residents — myself included — who pay property taxes in the city. Still, it’s an ask for hundreds of millions of dollars in public money to pay for a stadium. Would that benefit anyone other than the White Sox?

The folks at Field of Schemes cover these things in depth:

I was on the radio in Chicago this week to talk about the new White Sox and Bears stadium proposals, and props to WBBM’s Rick Gregg for leading with my juiciest quote: “I think we went in fairly skeptical, and we came out of our research horrified.” Click the link above to give it a listen, and have a good long weekend for those who celebrate!

Further from the Crain’s article:

“The two [Reinsdorf and Related Midwest President Curt Bailey] are bullish they can win state support by arguing the stadium subsidies will bring along billions more in private investment, and the deal is structured in a way to not require new or increased taxes,” the report states.

Good luck with that.

I’ll leave the White Sox situation with this: The Ricketts family spent $750 million of their own money to renovate Wrigley Field over the last several years, so it can last perhaps another 100 years. Jerry Reinsdorf and his partners should do the same if they want a new stadium.

About the A’s situation, this interesting article in the San Francisco Chronicle by Scott Ostler suggests there might be a future for Major League Baseball in Oakland:

Although the Athletics intend to leave town forever, the Oakland Mayor’s Office and the baseball Commissioner’s Office have had preliminary talks about the possibility of Oakland being guaranteed an expansion team, in return for the city giving the A’s a lease extension at the Coliseum.

Also, Oakland is very interested in persuading A’s owner John Fisher to sell his 50% interest in the Coliseum site to an Oakland group that has plans for a major development.

Possible end result: a major development of the Coliseum site, which could include a new ballpark to house a big-league expansion team.

Honestly, Fisher should just sell not only the site but the team and let the new owner(s) make a deal to stay in Oakland. Then if Fisher wants to be in Las Vegas so badly, he should apply for an expansion team there.

The whole article is worth a read.

There’s also the question, if Fisher does go ahead with his current plans, of where the A’s would play after their Oakland Coliseum lease expires after 2024. The Chronicle article suggests a lease extension might be negotiated, but there’s also this:

The problem with the A’s moving to Sacramento on a temporary basis, according to Evan Drellich’s linked article above, is this:

From a club perspective, staying in Oakland has one prime benefit: it would allow the team to keep the TV money it’s already contractually owed by NBC Sports California.

Relocating to Sacramento, however, could also allow the A’s to keep a considerable portion of the money they are owed, the person said. Exactly how much might be a matter of negotiation. Even if the A’s are technically out of the territory outlined in their TV deal, NBC Sports California already carries another Sacramento team, the Kings. A spokesperson for NBC Sports California declined to comment.

The TV rights fee reportedly amounts to about $70 million a year. It seems clear the A’s would only be able to keep part of that if they temporarily relocate to Sacramento.

Lastly, I cannot leave the A’s issue without posting this tone-deaf quote from MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred:

I’ve had pushback here when I suggest that Manfred isn’t really a baseball fan. Here’s further proof, in my opinion, that he really doesn’t understand baseball fandom. The A’s actually have a fiercely loyal and passionate fanbase that’s been screwed over by John Fisher. To suggest, as Manfred did, that they should just shut up and go to Giants games completely misunderstands the deep roots most baseball fans have.

I had a look at something similar here in 2020 in an article that looked at several times the White Sox nearly left Chicago in the 1960s and 1970s. I asked Brett Ballantini, who runs our SB Nation White Sox site South Side Sox, what he thought might happen to Sox fans if their team had departed Chicago. Here’s part of his reply:

No matter what you north siders think about your team (and I know the meter runs from humble to I-would-like-to-suffocate-you hubris), the entire city would not gravitate to the Cubs. Not everyone likes the team or admires its heritage (at least at the time of possible White Sox moves) of lovable loserdom. The park is not charming to all of us.

White Sox fans, true White Sox fans, would not sidle to the Cubs.

Brett thought that MLB wouldn’t let Chicago be a one-team town for long, and a similar thought is expressed in the Chronicle article above, suggesting that Oakland could get an expansion team if the A’s leave.

But fans deeply committed to one team don’t just up and root for another just because they’re nearby. I know some older folks who were fans of the NFL’s Chicago Cardinals and now, more than 60 years later, still hate the Bears because of the perception (true or not) that George Halas helped force the Cardinals out of town. Manfred simply doesn’t appear to understand that deep, emotional fan connection.

Manfred has, without doubt, done a fine job of making owners lots of money, which appears to be what the job of Commissioner has morphed into over the last decades. It would be nice if Manfred’s successor — and he’s now promised to leave the job after the 2028 season — would be someone who’d do this for owners AND be a baseball fan, someone along the lines of what Adam Silver does for the NBA.

As always, we await developments.