davidl - Here is a link I came across. Does this help you in your search for revenues by team? This is gross revenue and not net. Ignore the text in the URL. The data is from 2022.
I believe there are specific sources of revenue that the teams do not share with the rest of the league. If you look at the following article it gets pretty specific about that is shared and what a team can keep all to itself.
I looked for “net income” as better indicator of how much $$$ the team can afford to put into building a stadium. They couldn’t do much without some tax revenue to help finance the project.
There is also a thread about this on the Seahawks forum where I am arguing with a bunch of Tea Party type people who are criticizing Warren and the Bears financial approach.
There is some shifting that can be done there. Not a lot of play, but if they have expenses related to a new stadium, that will be deducted from gross revenues, reduce their net revenues and therefore their tax which will give them a little extra. Also, the investment will increase local revenues that will then also help service the debt. And depending on what else they build out on the property, the local revenues could skyrocket. With some judicious planning and creative marketing and business decisions, I think it could be done. I do think that any municipality would have to take care of infrastructure and tax breaks though. They will also be reaping rewards which will benefit them long term
I personally wouldn't count on that as a definitive and authoritative source for data. Outside of the individuals directly involved with the various discussions, negotiations, etc we do not know jack about what is really going on. And, most likely, we never will know.
We are just arguing about Bears paying for everything vs. the private-public partnership between the Bears and the city that Warren’s plan provides. That difference is very clear and known. The fact is, only 4 teams in NFL own their own stadiums. The people on the Seahawks forum don’t want one dime of tax revenue in the financial plan.
I personally think the Bears ought to make the old racetrack property work. And not use any taxpayer money. My personal guess is a decent domed stadium and an appropriately sized parking structure would cost something like $1 billion to $1.5 billion. That is a lot of money and it will take some creative financing to achieve it (aka organizational risk). . But if you look at the revenues for the Cowboys (something like $1.2 billion in 2022). This is virtually double the #2 team. What they have done is maximize the revenues they do not have to share with the league or the other owners. So, even if a new stadium costs are $1.5 billion or higher, if you can get an additional $300 million or $400 million out of the deal, you have something like a 4 to 6 year payback.
I looked for “net income” as better indicator of how much $$$ the team can afford to put into building a stadium. They couldn’t do much without some tax revenue to help finance the project.
There is also a thread about this on the Seahawks forum where I am arguing with a bunch of Tea Party type people who are criticizing Warren and the Bears financial approach.
There is some shifting that can be done there. Not a lot of play, but if they have expenses related to a new stadium, that will be deducted from gross revenues, reduce their net revenues and therefore their tax which will give them a little extra. Also, the investment will increase local revenues that will then also help service the debt. And depending on what else they build out on the property, the local revenues could skyrocket. With some judicious planning and creative marketing and business decisions, I think it could be done. I do think that any municipality would have to take care of infrastructure and tax breaks though. They will also be reaping rewards which will benefit them long term
I think this is critical. If the Bears go for no government money, the local governments (the one who will share in the increased tax revenues as well as the local job growth) will be in a pretty solifd position to pay for additional police, road improvements, etc.
I looked for “net income” as better indicator of how much $$$ the team can afford to put into building a stadium. They couldn’t do much without some tax revenue to help finance the project.
There is also a thread about this on the Seahawks forum where I am arguing with a bunch of Tea Party type people who are criticizing Warren and the Bears financial approach.
There is some shifting that can be done there. Not a lot of play, but if they have expenses related to a new stadium, that will be deducted from gross revenues, reduce their net revenues and therefore their tax which will give them a little extra. Also, the investment will increase local revenues that will then also help service the debt. And depending on what else they build out on the property, the local revenues could skyrocket. With some judicious planning and creative marketing and business decisions, I think it could be done. I do think that any municipality would have to take care of infrastructure and tax breaks though. They will also be reaping rewards which will benefit them long term
The Warren plan costs $7 billion to build. Bears are putting in $2 billion. They cannot possibly pay it all without some tax revenue. The Seahawks fans concede that point, but argue that Warren should scale down the plan to only a football stadium like we have in Seattle that Bears could afford to build alone without any tax revenue.
The Warren plan costs $7 billion to build. Bears are putting in $2 billion. They cannot possibly pay it all without some tax revenue. The Seahawks fans concede that point, but argue that Warren should scale down the plan to only a football stadium like we have in Seattle that Bears could afford to build alone without any tax revenue.
I have to believe that building costs on the Lakefront would be significantly higher than in Arlington Heights though. Even the logistics of building at that particular location would be a nightmare. I "get it" that the taxpayers would foot the bill for the Lakefront plan - and the McCaskeys would be renters again. They'd spend $2-billion dollars off the top, just for the "privilege" of renting from the City of Chicago, again.
The AH plan has the potential to be a huge revenue source for the McCaskey family. It would be far beyond just a football stadium thing... that entire campus of high-end entertainment entities would make $7-billion in investments look like chump change. And the McCaskeys would own it, not rent it.
There is some shifting that can be done there. Not a lot of play, but if they have expenses related to a new stadium, that will be deducted from gross revenues, reduce their net revenues and therefore their tax which will give them a little extra. Also, the investment will increase local revenues that will then also help service the debt. And depending on what else they build out on the property, the local revenues could skyrocket. With some judicious planning and creative marketing and business decisions, I think it could be done. I do think that any municipality would have to take care of infrastructure and tax breaks though. They will also be reaping rewards which will benefit them long term
The Warren plan costs $7 billion to build. Bears are putting in $2 billion. They cannot possibly pay it all without some tax revenue. The Seahawks fans concede that point, but argue that Warren should scale down the plan to only a football stadium like we have in Seattle that Bears could afford to build alone without any tax revenue.
I'd have to see what the 7B is coming from. Is that the amount for the initial stadium, or is that the amount for the stadium and part of the complex around the stadium. And how much revenue is going to be associated with each phase? will the revenue service the debt associated with that phase? And not all of it would be serviced from tax savings. Remember, this is going to be their stadium (at least if they do it in AH) and current revenues would go up. That would be used to service the debt too. You would have to do a deep dive into costs, expected revenues, margins on those revenues, etc. All I am saying is that those numbers could close the gap quite a bit.
We are just arguing about Bears paying for everything vs. the private-public partnership between the Bears and the city that Warren’s plan provides. That difference is very clear and known. The fact is, only 4 teams in NFL own their own stadiums. The people on the Seahawks forum don’t want one dime of tax revenue in the financial plan.
I personally think the Bears ought to make the old racetrack property work. And not use any taxpayer money. My personal guess is a decent domed stadium and an appropriately sized parking structure would cost something like $1 billion to $1.5 billion. That is a lot of money and it will take some creative financing to achieve it (aka organizational risk). . But if you look at the revenues for the Cowboys (something like $1.2 billion in 2022). This is virtually double the #2 team. What they have done is maximize the revenues they do not have to share with the league or the other owners. So, even if a new stadium costs are $1.5 billion or higher, if you can get an additional $300 million or $400 million out of the deal, you have something like a 4 to 6 year payback.
There is some shifting that can be done there. Not a lot of play, but if they have expenses related to a new stadium, that will be deducted from gross revenues, reduce their net revenues and therefore their tax which will give them a little extra. Also, the investment will increase local revenues that will then also help service the debt. And depending on what else they build out on the property, the local revenues could skyrocket. With some judicious planning and creative marketing and business decisions, I think it could be done. I do think that any municipality would have to take care of infrastructure and tax breaks though. They will also be reaping rewards which will benefit them long term
I think this is critical. If the Bears go for no government money, the local governments (the one who will share in the increased tax revenues as well as the local job growth) will be in a pretty solifd position to pay for additional police, road improvements, etc.
Meanwhile, it should be noted that the Jaguars are making better progress than Warren in their private-public partnership agreement on the $1.4 billion renovation of their stadium with the city paying 50%.
I personally think the Bears ought to make the old racetrack property work. And not use any taxpayer money. My personal guess is a decent domed stadium and an appropriately sized parking structure would cost something like $1 billion to $1.5 billion. That is a lot of money and it will take some creative financing to achieve it (aka organizational risk). . But if you look at the revenues for the Cowboys (something like $1.2 billion in 2022). This is virtually double the #2 team. What they have done is maximize the revenues they do not have to share with the league or the other owners. So, even if a new stadium costs are $1.5 billion or higher, if you can get an additional $300 million or $400 million out of the deal, you have something like a 4 to 6 year payback.
I think this is critical. If the Bears go for no government money, the local governments (the one who will share in the increased tax revenues as well as the local job growth) will be in a pretty solifd position to pay for additional police, road improvements, etc.
Meanwhile, it should be noted that the Jaguars are making better progress than Warren in their private-public partnership agreement on the $1.4 billion renovation of their stadium with the city paying 50%.
I think it's a whole different world trying to do this in Illinois & Chicago versus the Jaguars in a smaller Florida town of 900k people. And a reno project to boot, versus a new build from scratch here in Chicago.
Meanwhile, it should be noted that the Jaguars are making better progress than Warren in their private-public partnership agreement on the $1.4 billion renovation of their stadium with the city paying 50%.
I think it's a whole different world trying to do this in Illinois & Chicago versus the Jaguars in a smaller Florida town of 900k people. And a reno project to boot, versus a new build from scratch here in Chicago.
Buffalo got $500 million and Nashville $600 million. Both are much smaller markets than Chicago. My hunch is that Warren will get SOME public money, but not as much as he wants.
I think it's a whole different world trying to do this in Illinois & Chicago versus the Jaguars in a smaller Florida town of 900k people. And a reno project to boot, versus a new build from scratch here in Chicago.
Buffalo got $500 million and Nashville $600 million. Both are much smaller markets than Chicago. My hunch is that Warren will get SOME public money, but not as much as he wants.
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. One of the articles I was reading this morning was talking about this being the dance they do before a deal is made. I have to figure that if the McCaskey's are really going to pony up $2-billion dollars, then that money would go further and return more on their investment in Arlington Heights where they already own the property. And they would have a higher return on their investment with the land holdings they would own around that new sports complex. In contrast, in Chicago where they would be renters again, there would be no 350 acres of land to be developed like in AH. The AH real estate would be a gold mine for the family... and they'd own it.
I have been going to games at Soldier Field for many years now. There is zero that attracts me to that location. It is a pain to drive there, park there - and everything is horribly overpriced. The crime (yes, even in that area) is an issue too (and I'm a retired 30-year police officer, and even I don't want to be in that area). The fact that it is lakefront does nothing for me... I go to watch football, not watch the waterfront. In recent years I quit going to home games. I go to away games just so I don't have to deal with the Chicago issues that just don't make the experience enjoyable at all for me or my family.
Buffalo got $500 million and Nashville $600 million. Both are much smaller markets than Chicago. My hunch is that Warren will get SOME public money, but not as much as he wants.
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. One of the articles I was reading this morning was talking about this being the dance they do before a deal is made. I have to figure that if the McCaskey's are really going to pony up $2-billion dollars, then that money would go further and return more on their investment in Arlington Heights where they already own the property. And they would have a higher return on their investment with the land holdings they would own around that new sports complex. In contrast, in Chicago where they would be renters again, there would be no 350 acres of land to be developed like in AH. The AH real estate would be a gold mine for the family... and they'd own it.
I have been going to games at Soldier Field for many years now. There is zero that attracts me to that location. It is a pain to drive there, park there - and everything is horribly overpriced. The crime (yes, even in that area) is an issue too (and I'm a retired 30-year police officer, and even I don't want to be in that area). The fact that it is lakefront does nothing for me... I go to watch football, not watch the waterfront. In recent years I quit going to home games. I go to away games just so I don't have to deal with the Chicago issues that just don't make the experience enjoyable at all for me or my family.
So are the Bears using Arlington as their ace in the hole to pressure the city into absorbing most of the $7 billion cost? I can understand that, but still Warren may be overplaying his hand.