30 minutes ago, Stinger226 said:

This explains what most of the deal with Indiana will supply. They will become a tenant with the option to buy the stadium at the end of the lease. What makes this attractive is the bulk of the dollars brought in will go to them. Basically they will get a high return on the their money invested in the Stadium and then buy the stadium for 1 dollar at the end of the lease. There is already casinos in the area. That is the attractive part for the State by getting more revenue with the added attention to Hammond.

(No, the Chicago Bears would not own the stadium (at least initially) if they move to Hammond, Indiana.

indianacapitalchronicle.com

Recent developments (as of June 5-6, 2026) show the Bears' Board of Directors voted to advance stadium plans in Hammond after stalled negotiations in Illinois. The project involves a new, enclosed stadium (likely near Wolf Lake) as part of a broader mixed-use development.

chicagobears.com

Key Details on Ownership and Financing

• Public ownership via authority: Indiana's legislation (Senate Bill 27, passed earlier in 2026) created the Northwest Indiana Stadium Authority. This public body would acquire land, issue bonds, finance, construct, own, and lease the stadium.

  indianacapitalchronicle.com

• Bears' role: The team would act as a tenant under a long-term lease (at least 35 years). They have committed ~$2 billion toward the project (construction and related development), while public incentives total up to ~$1 billion. The Bears would keep most game-day and non-football event revenues, handle maintenance/operations, and avoid property taxes during the lease.

  indianacapitalchronicle.com

• Path to potential ownership: At the end of the lease, the Bears could have an option to purchase the stadium—either for any remaining debt or for $1 if bonds are fully paid off (via lease payments and related taxes like admissions, food/beverage, and hotel taxes in

I read somewhere about the Bears not owning the stadium, but the piece I read had them renting the stadium for 40 years. 35 or 40, I don't like the fact that the Bears wouldn't own the stadium from day one. I guarantee you, long before the 35 years pass, this new stadium will be considered outdated and need to be replaced or go through major renovations.

Just now, Pixote said:

I read somewhere about the Bears not owning the stadium, but the piece I read had them renting the stadium for 40 years. 35 or 40, I don't like the fact that the Bears wouldn't own the stadium from day one. I guarantee you, long before the 35 years pass, this new stadium will be considered outdated and need to be replaced or go through major renovations.

I suspect its about getting a high return on their investment compared to how long it will take to pay back their investment if they owned it. If they owned the stadium it would still need to be replaced in 40 years also.