PDA

View Full Version : Fat Ass Gretz at it again


ken ott
08-02-2005, 06:38 PM
I Just read his latest article, and it pisses me off. I got no problem paying me more money to help with the stadiums, but the owners (Lamar & Glass) need to pony up more money than 50 mill. by the Royals, and a whopping 25 mill. from the Chiefs. What a bunch of cheap asses.

GRETZ: Commitment & Partnership: It Can Happen
Aug 02, 2005, 6:03:51 AM by Bob Gretz - FAQ



RIVER FALLS, WI – Oh, if only the do nothing folks from the Missouri State House and the No-Show Governor of the Show-Me State could have been here Monday afternoon to see what happens when politicians and a professional football team work together.



Right here in the Chiefs summer home was the Governor of Wisconsin, Jim Doyle. He took time out of his busy schedule to be on campus for the official dedication of the training room and locker room renovations that have been done here at UW-River Falls.

A relatively small outlay of $2.4 million was enough to get the Governor out of Madison and into the northwestern part of the state. Why? There’s a simple reason: the Chiefs are important to the state of Wisconsin.

There were the usual comments about the Chiefs being Wisconsin’s favorite AFC team and sad memories were recalled of the Chiefs visit to Lambeau Field two years ago when they beat the beloved Packers in overtime. But with his mere presence, it was obvious the Governor wasn’t kidding or being politically correct when he said: “The Kansas City Chiefs are part of the Wisconsin family.”

He went on to talk about the partnership between the state, the school and the football team. Doyle called the Chiefs a “classy organization” and one that “every time they said they would do something in return for something, it’s been delivered on.”

Are you listening in the Missouri House? How about the Governor’s Mansion in Jefferson City? The Chiefs spend 23 to 25 days a year in Wisconsin, but nobody, not the school, the state or the Governor, takes their presence for granted. The folks in the land of cheese have provided a road map on how to get something done.

It helps when the Governor is involved. Doyle was part of the process in approving and finding funding for this project from the very start. Much like every other state that makes up our union, Wisconsin has budget problems. There are increasing demands for roads, education and health care. They are the 18th largest state with 5,363, 675 residents. Missouri is the 17th largest state with a population of 5,595,211. So you can see that the problems facing these two states are very similar.

Let’s be very clear here: what the state of Wisconsin pulled off with this renovation was peanuts compared to what’s needed at Arrowhead Stadium. It will take more than 100 times the River Falls outlay to return Arrowhead to “state of the art” status.

But the route taken from idea (improvements to keep the Chiefs returning to River Falls) to Tuesday’s ribbon cutting is a perfect map for Jackson County and the state of Missouri to follow.

First, officials from UW-River Falls brainstormed on how they could improve the facilities on campus with the Chiefs in mind. As part of their process, they spoke at length with the Chiefs and got their ideas. The plan was taken to the state capitol, where Doyle got behind the project. Lobbying efforts were done with the state legislature and with the students of UW-River Falls, who kicked in money for this project as well.

There were ups and downs but in 2004, the money was approved for the project and today, the Chiefs enjoy the benefits of a first class training room and locker rooms.

Nothing in this process was mysterious or underhanded. UW-River Falls wanted to keep the Chiefs and better their university with improved facilities which will be used by the Chiefs 25 days a year and the students the other 340 days. It was important to the state of Wisconsin that there were improvements at the school and the Chiefs were still summer residents. Something got done. How is the Chiefs situation in Kansas City, Missouri with Arrowhead really any different?

It’s time for the do nothings of Missouri to play follow the leader. It’s time for the No Show Governor to take a lesson from Governor Doyle and grab the lead in this situation. In the battle over where funds from the Athletes & Artist tax were directed, the Missouri Governor sat on the sidelines. When the House do nothings killed a vote on the matter, nary a word was heard from the No Show Governor.

Governor Jim Doyle and the folks in Wisconsin have shown the way. Oh, by the way, in the middle of the speeches and ceremonies, Carl Peterson got up and announced that the Chiefs would return to River Falls for training camp next season.

That’s what happens when you aren’t afraid to make a decision that a football team and everything that comes with it is important for a community, a college and a state. That’s what happens when there’s commitment and partnership.

Phobia
08-02-2005, 06:41 PM
Gretz said it himself.... $2.5 Mill vs. $250 Mill.

When the wife goes to the mall and asks for $2000 some of us will cough up the dough. What if she asks for $20,000?

Katipan
08-02-2005, 06:48 PM
When the wife goes to the mall and asks for $2000 some of us will cough up the dough.

god bless some of you

tk13
08-02-2005, 06:49 PM
Well, what I think they're really pissed off about is the fact that there's a tax in Missouri that taxes professional athletes, and money from that has been diverted to make up other budget problems in Missouri. They wanted money from that tax put back where it's supposed to be to help fund stadium repairs. The Missouri government shot that idea down. I think he has a legitimate gripe.

DenverChief
08-02-2005, 06:50 PM
Gretz said it himself.... $2.5 Mill vs. $250 Mill.

When the wife goes to the mall and asks for $2000 some of us will cough up the dough. What if she asks for $20,000?

If you can afford it cough it up...nothing is worth losing your one true love :D

Phobia
08-02-2005, 06:52 PM
Well, what I think they're really pissed off about is the fact that there's a tax in Missouri that taxes professional athletes, and money from that has been diverted to make up other budget problems in Missouri. They wanted money from that tax put back where it's supposed to be to help fund stadium repairs. The Missouri government shot that idea down. I think he has a legitimate gripe.

There's no question that's a legitimate gripe. None. In fact, if they want to divert all those taxes to care for the stadiums I'm fine with that too.

ken ott
08-02-2005, 06:53 PM
Well, what I think they're really pissed off about is the fact that there's a tax in Missouri that taxes professional athletes, and money from that has been diverted to make up other budget problems in Missouri. They wanted money from that tax put back where it's supposed to be to help fund stadium repairs. The Missouri government shot that idea down. I think he has a legitimate gripe.

He has a point but still 25 million from Lamar for improvements, give me a break. As far as I know there is no tax on anybody to go to the stadiums. I'm not saying the people in Jeff City are not idiots, but time for these teams to take some responsibity for stadiums just like they are doing in Dallas, Washington, etc.

Skip Towne
08-02-2005, 06:56 PM
Gretz said it himself.... $2.5 Mill vs. $250 Mill.

When the wife goes to the mall and asks for $2000 some of us will cough up the dough. What if she asks for $20,000?
I give her $2000 and a dildo. If she doesn't like it she can go f*ck herself.

jspchief
08-02-2005, 06:59 PM
He has a point but still 25 million from Lamar for improvements, give me a break. As far as I know there is no tax on anybody to go to the stadiums. I'm not saying the people in Jeff City are not idiots, but time for these teams to take some responsibity for stadiums just like they are doing in Dallas, Washington, etc.How are Dallas or Washington taking any more responsibility? Taxpayers paid for their stadiums too.

The people of Missouri may not like it, but the simple fact is the team owners aren't going to pony up any more of their money because they don't have to. Some other city will be willing to come up with the money if KC isn't.

Ninjaman
08-02-2005, 07:00 PM
Exactly. The Chiefs need to be 'REAL' and invest more money.

Lamar Hunt wants us to pay for LUXURY SWEETS . The revenue is NOT shared among Nfl clubs. It's a loophole in C-B-Agreement.

We do need a NEW stadium instead of spending a ton on Arrowhead and having them ask for a new stadium in 10 years.

jspchief
08-02-2005, 07:02 PM
Exactly. The Chiefs need to be 'REAL' and invest more money.

Lamar Hunt wants us to pay for LUXURY SWEETS . The revenue is NOT shared among Nfl clubs. It's a loophole in C-B-Agreement.

We do need a NEW stadium instead of spending a ton on Arrowhead and having them ask for a new stadium in 10 years.If they do a quality job renovating Arrowhead, it can last another 30 years. The recent upgrade of Lambeau is a perfect example, and should be a model of what we do to Arrowhead.

Luzap
08-02-2005, 07:10 PM
He has a point but still 25 million from Lamar for improvements, give me a break. As far as I know there is no tax on anybody to go to the stadiums. I'm not saying the people in Jeff City are not idiots, but time for these teams to take some responsibity for stadiums just like they are doing in Dallas, Washington, etc.

$5.00 from every Field Level ticket goes into taxes. In addition, the Chiefs as a business pay Missouri Taxes. All professional athletes that live in Missouri pay state income taxes. All professional athletes that play at Arrowhead pay (additional) taxes to the state on their income whether they live in Missouri or not. All of the thousands of hotel rooms generated by the games are each assessed a state and local tax. Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent by fans on souvenirs, restaurants, fuel, clothing, etc. of which all is assessed a sales tax as well as a business tax.

I have no problem with the Hunt’s contributing… but to think that the state is being taken advantage of is naïve.

Luz
And to think that gretz is a tool for addressing this is, imo, silly…

DenverChief
08-02-2005, 07:11 PM
$5.00 from every Field Level ticket goes into taxes. In addition, the Chiefs as a business pay Missouri Taxes. All professional athletes that live in Missouri pay state income taxes. All professional athletes that play at Arrowhead pay (additional) taxes to the state on their income whether they live in Missouri or not. All of the thousands of hotel rooms generated by the games are each assessed a state and local tax. Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent by fans on souvenirs, restaurants, fuel, clothing, etc. of which all is assessed a sales tax as well as a business tax.

I have no problem with the Hunt’s contributing… but to think that the state is being taken advantage of is naïve.

Luz
And to think that gretz is a tool for addressing this is, imo, silly…

agreed

htismaqe
08-02-2005, 07:22 PM
How are Dallas or Washington taking any more responsibility? Taxpayers paid for their stadiums too.

The people of Missouri may not like it, but the simple fact is the team owners aren't going to pony up any more of their money because they don't have to. Some other city will be willing to come up with the money if KC isn't.

I already did this research a few months ago when people were bitching then. The idea that owners/teams are kicking in alot of money for these stadiums is a PURE MYTH.

Here's the stadiums built in the last 10 years or so:

Stadiums not financed by teams at all - Alltel, Cleveland, Edward Jones, Paul Brown, Qualcomm (1997 renovation $78M), Raymond James (Tampa), Reliant (Houston),

Fields partially financed by the team/owner: Ford (Det), Heinz (Pitt), Invesco (Den), Lambeau (renovation) Lincoln Financial, Qwest (Seattle) -- almost all of these were 75% tax, 25% team

Fields where ownership kicked in more than 50% of the cost: FedEx (privately owned, but not all Snyder), Gillette (NE Pats, Kraft did 100%)

That's TWO out of 15.

shaneo69
08-02-2005, 07:34 PM
I didn't see the part where Gretz mentioned that the Bears, Saints, and Vikings have all left Wisconsin in the past 10 years, and the state was desperate to keep at least one out-of-state team there.

I've also noticed that one of the buildings the Chiefs use at UWRF is called Hunt Hall.....wonder if naming rights for that building were bought for a not-so-small donation to the university, and now the state is repaying Lamar for his generous contribution? Maybe it's just a coincidence.

Finally, the athletes tax that Gretz is whining about may have paid for some of the upkeep of Arrowhead, but it wouldn't have done anything to bring it up to state-of-the-art status, so it's stupid for Gretz to continually beat that dead horse.

In fact, not getting the athletes tax diverted back to the stadiums was probably the best thing that could happen for the Chiefs cause, because now Gretz can use this as an easy sympathy issue when pitting the organization against the MO politicians. Had they voted to divert the tax money back into the stadiums, the Chiefs would've had a harder time asking for even more money (to renovate Arrowhead) after getting the athletes tax money for yearly upkeep.

tk13
08-02-2005, 07:41 PM
I already did this research a few months ago when people were bitching then. The idea that owners/teams are kicking in alot of money for these stadiums is a PURE MYTH.

Here's the stadiums built in the last 10 years or so:

Stadiums not financed by teams at all - Alltel, Cleveland, Edward Jones, Paul Brown, Qualcomm (1997 renovation $78M), Raymond James (Tampa), Reliant (Houston),

Fields partially financed by the team/owner: Ford (Det), Heinz (Pitt), Invesco (Den), Lambeau (renovation) Lincoln Financial, Qwest (Seattle) -- almost all of these were 75% tax, 25% team

Fields where ownership kicked in more than 50% of the cost: FedEx (privately owned, but not all Snyder), Gillette (NE Pats, Kraft did 100%)

That's TWO out of 15.
If I'm not mistaken, the new Colts stadium is supposed to be $100 million from the Colts and the NFL, and about $400 million in taxes... for a $500 million retractable roof stadium. And that doesn't even include the new Convention Center they're building as part of that project. Totaled up it's a $923 million project. Somewhere in that neighborhood.

Ninjaman
08-02-2005, 07:42 PM
If you want to upgrade Arrowhead then just fix the damn plumbing. Thats all thats wrong with it.

To do a 'greenbay' and throw tons of money at it is STUPID.

Sorry Carl or Hunt Jr. if you are here reading the boards. You guys need to kick in real money and maybe we can build a downtown stadium.

There is nothing wrong with Arrowhead !!!!!!!!

Except location.

ENDelt260
08-02-2005, 07:46 PM
If you want to upgrade Arrowhead then just fix the damn plumbing. Thats all thats wrong with it.

To do a 'greenbay' and throw tons of money at it is STUPID.

Sorry Carl or Hunt Jr. if you are here reading the boards. You guys need to kick in real money and maybe we can build a downtown stadium.

There is nothing wrong with Arrowhead !!!!!!!!

Except location.
Wow.

Um... I'm speechless. Shame you aren't suffering the same affliction.

ROYC75
08-02-2005, 07:47 PM
If you want to upgrade Arrowhead then just fix the damn plumbing. Thats all thats wrong with it.

To do a 'greenbay' and throw tons of money at it is STUPID.

Sorry Carl or Hunt Jr. if you are here reading the boards. You guys need to kick in real money and maybe we can build a downtown stadium.

There is nothing wrong with Arrowhead !!!!!!!!

Except location.


Actually the location is fine, you have 2 major Interstates for quicker traffic exiting the complex.

Go downtown, bottleneck city, not to mention a major clusterf*ck getting out of there with 90 K people.

Fix Arrowhead to state of the art and enjoy ............ :)

Dayze
08-02-2005, 07:51 PM
Let me preface that I'm a novice on this topic to say the least, so I'm not being sarcastic here or challenging...

But, have the Cheifs specificallly asked for a new stadium yet? Or have the just 'implied' the possibility of moving w/out one? i'm not up to speed on this topic.

And, what did those cities which have partially financed a new stadium do that we're not doing?

Luzap
08-02-2005, 07:51 PM
If you want to upgrade Arrowhead then just fix the damn plumbing. Thats all thats wrong with it.

To do a 'greenbay' and throw tons of money at it is STUPID.

Sorry Carl or Hunt Jr. if you are here reading the boards. You guys need to kick in real money and maybe we can build a downtown stadium.

There is nothing wrong with Arrowhead !!!!!!!!

Except location.

Luz
nevermind...

jspchief
08-03-2005, 04:57 AM
If you want to upgrade Arrowhead then just fix the damn plumbing. Thats all thats wrong with it.

To do a 'greenbay' and throw tons of money at it is STUPID.

Sorry Carl or Hunt Jr. if you are here reading the boards. You guys need to kick in real money and maybe we can build a downtown stadium.

There is nothing wrong with Arrowhead !!!!!!!!

Except location.It's pretty evident that you don't know what the f*ck you're talking about.

For starters, Arrowhead is in need of much more than plumbing.

And if you haven't seen what GB has done to Lambeau, I don't think you can accurately form an opinion on whether they threw money away or not. That stadium is 3 times older than Arrowhead, and with the new renovations, it's on par with some of the best stadiums in the league in many aspects. Besides just the football Sunday business it generates, it has become a destination in itself just for the non gameday attractions. It's the perfect marriage of keeping the tradition, and keeping up with the times. I guarantee you'd have a hard time finding a GB fan that thinks it was a waste.

And there's a legit reason why the Hunts don't pony up more money. They don't generate the revenue that other teams do, because KC doesn't have a large corporation presence to fill up large numbers of luxury boxes. The revenue generated from luxury boxes in Dallas or Washington make it a much smarter investment for those owners.

KC is a little fish in a big pond when it comes to NFL cities. The reality is they are lucky to even have a team, and if Clark Hunt ever decides he wants the team to be more about business than tradition, he could easily move this team to a new city that will pony up for a stadium, an will generate more money for him once it's built.

MO residents may not like the idea of having to pay. But the reality is, if they wants the Chiefs in KC, they are going to have to.

jspchief
08-03-2005, 05:04 AM
Let me preface that I'm a novice on this topic to say the least, so I'm not being sarcastic here or challenging...

But, have the Chiefs specificallly asked for a new stadium yet? Or have the just 'implied' the possibility of moving w/out one? i'm not up to speed on this topic.

And, what did those cities which have partially financed a new stadium do that we're not doing?1. The Hunts have started campaigning to get tax dollars for renovation of Arrowhead. They have pushed hard on two different proposals to get the money. The first was the bi-state tax which was voted down, and the second was earmarking the existing entertainers tax to be put back into pro sports facilities. From all I've read, they haven't asked for a new stadium, or even really specified what upgrades they want at Arrowhead. They are simply trying to be proactive about getting the money so they can determine what really needs to be done.

2. They passed legislation that generated the money, mostly through new taxes. Other cities have shown the ambition and ability to keep their major sports franchises. Meanwhile Kansas City, which barely even deserves a pro team, has the audacity to think someone else should pay for it.

DaWolf
08-03-2005, 05:12 AM
MO residents may not like the idea of having to pay. But the reality is, if they wants the Chiefs in KC, they are going to have to.

Exactly right. And the reality of the situation is that if MO doesn't pony up, someone else will, and that someone else will be reaping the benefits of having an NFL team in their own backyard. So Gretz can whine all he wants, the fans can whine all they want, it's time for the city and the state to come up with a solution to the issue. If St Louis is getting their money, KC should be getting money too. And neither of our teams has been demanding a new stadium yet, just upgrades to meet modernization...

Baby Lee
08-03-2005, 05:36 AM
Lamar Hunt wants us to pay for LUXURY SWEETS .
ROFL - Ghirardelli??

Bob Dole
08-03-2005, 06:07 AM
How are Dallas or Washington taking any more responsibility? Taxpayers paid for their stadiums too.

Actually, the taxpayers (City of Arlington) will only pay half of the construction cost, capped at $325 million. $60 million of that will be recovered from the 30 year lease at $2 million per year. Additionally, Arlington gets 5% of the naming rights, up to $500k per year.

The Cowboys also pay for all management and upkeep of the stadium during the term of the lease and assume all responsibility for recruiting outside events. So for a bottom line investment of $265 million (conservatively), Arlington gets the economic boost of having the Cowboys call Arlington home for the next three decades and assumes very little risk.

That averages out to an outlay of $8.83 million annually. Apparently Arlington feels having a popular NFL franchise in town will generate more than that amount each year in ancillary revenue. Bob Dole would tend to agree.

Assume 8 home games each season and an attendance of 76000 each game. If each of the 76000 spends $14.50 on tailgate food and beverages, lodging, fuel and all the other crap associated with attending a game, Arlington breaks even over the 30 year term. (This of course is in terms of cash flow, not bottom line tax revenue recovery.) Bob Dole would take that gamble any day of the week.

Of course, the 51 property owners who are having their property ganked probably don't feel that way...

htismaqe
08-03-2005, 07:34 AM
I sincerely hope that the folks on the Kansas side of the border are serious.

That way if MO ****s this up, they can move a few miles to the west and we can still root for the Kansas City Chiefs...

beavis
08-03-2005, 07:38 AM
Silly taxpayers... don't you know money grows on trees?

I'd really like to be a multi-millionaire, then still have the balls to ask the Joe Sixpack down the road to kick in a few bucks so I can have a new building to make more money. It's gotta be a tough life.

Dr. Facebook Fever
08-03-2005, 07:41 AM
I agree with Gretz.

Dr. Facebook Fever
08-03-2005, 07:42 AM
I sincerely hope that the folks on the Kansas side of the border are serious.

That way if MO ****s this up, they can move a few miles to the west and we can still root for the Kansas City Chiefs...
I'm among the few outside of Kansas that would love that... IF Arrowhead can't be saved first.

penguinz
08-03-2005, 07:45 AM
Silly taxpayers... don't you know money grows on trees?

I'd really like to be a multi-millionaire, then still have the balls to ask the Joe Sixpack down the road to kick in a few bucks so I can have a new building to make more money. It's gotta be a tough life.
They are not asking for a new building. They are asking that a PUBLIC OWNED building be kept up to date and in compliance of a lease.

Dr. Facebook Fever
08-03-2005, 07:46 AM
If you want to upgrade Arrowhead then just fix the damn plumbing. Thats all thats wrong with it.

To do a 'greenbay' and throw tons of money at it is STUPID.

Sorry Carl or Hunt Jr. if you are here reading the boards. You guys need to kick in real money and maybe we can build a downtown stadium.

There is nothing wrong with Arrowhead !!!!!!!!

Except location.
...and the award for the dumbest post ever goes to............

jspchief
08-03-2005, 07:54 AM
Actually, the taxpayers (City of Arlington) will only pay half of the construction cost, capped at $325 million. $60 million of that will be recovered from the 30 year lease at $2 million per year. Additionally, Arlington gets 5% of the naming rights, up to $500k per year.

The Cowboys also pay for all management and upkeep of the stadium during the term of the lease and assume all responsibility for recruiting outside events. So for a bottom line investment of $265 million (conservatively), Arlington gets the economic boost of having the Cowboys call Arlington home for the next three decades and assumes very little risk.

That averages out to an outlay of $8.83 million annually. Apparently Arlington feels having a popular NFL franchise in town will generate more than that amount each year in ancillary revenue. Bob Dole would tend to agree.

Assume 8 home games each season and an attendance of 76000 each game. If each of the 76000 spends $14.50 on tailgate food and beverages, lodging, fuel and all the other crap associated with attending a game, Arlington breaks even over the 30 year term. (This of course is in terms of cash flow, not bottom line tax revenue recovery.) Bob Dole would take that gamble any day of the week.

Of course, the 51 property owners who are having their property ganked probably don't feel that way...

Great. Now do the cost of renevating Arrowhead, offset by the revenue generated.

It doesn't reallly change my point that cities/states regularly do pay for stadiums that the owners could afford to build themselves. Even though most studies have shown that there is little tangible positive economic effect from having a pro sports franchise in your city.

And like I said in another post. Cities like Washington and Dallas will generate enough luxury suite revenue to make it a viable investment for the owners, while KC doesn't have the corporate presence to compete in that area.

Another less obvious benefit, of a pro sports franchise in an otherwise crappy city like KC is that it will have a positive effect on brain drain, IMO. As midwestern cities and states try and come up with new ways to keep young professionals from moving to more exciting places, losing one of the few fun things to do is a step backwards.

jspchief
08-03-2005, 07:58 AM
Silly taxpayers... don't you know money grows on trees?

I'd really like to be a multi-millionaire, then still have the balls to ask the Joe Sixpack down the road to kick in a few bucks so I can have a new building to make more money. It's gotta be a tough life.Maybe you aren't aware of this, but cities and states routinely come up with economic incentives to keep certain businesses and bring in new businesses.

Like I said before, if KC and it's citizens aren't willing to pay for this, you can bet your ass that some other city will be willing to do it. It has nothing to do with whether Lamar can afford to do it himself, and everything with whether he has to.

Lzen
08-03-2005, 08:03 AM
Maybe you aren't aware of this, but cities and states routinely come up with economic incentives to keep certain businesses and bring in new businesses.

Like I said before, if KC and it's citizens aren't willing to pay for this, you can bet your ass that some other city will be willing to do it. It has nothing to do with whether Lamar can afford to do it himself, and everything with whether he has to.


Yup. Like Parker, I just hope that when the MO idiots lose the Chiefs, Kansas will step up to the plate.

Lzen
08-03-2005, 08:05 AM
...and the award for the dumbest post ever goes to............

I imagine that if you read some of his other posts, you'd find that he has a lot of dumbest ever post awards. ;)




Well, maybe I'm being kinda mean. We should cut him a little slack. I think he's just a kid who's still naive and uneducated.

Dr. Facebook Fever
08-03-2005, 08:09 AM
Yup. Like Parker, I just hope that when the MO idiots lose the Chiefs, Kansas will step up to the plate.
The funny thing then will be all of the bitching some Missourians will do that could have helped pass the bi-state bill... and seeing how many swear off the team because of it.

jidar1
08-03-2005, 08:25 AM
Using what the Redskins do as an example for the Chiefs is stupid. They sell their luxury boxes to political lobbyist groups for christ sake. They probably have a higher profit margin than any other team thanks to that. Why do you think they can break the bank in FA every year?

And the Cowboys are formerly known as "America's Team", and their merchandise sells like it. Not only that, their market is larger and it's growing like no other place in the country right now. It's easy to see why the Cowboys would pony up a larger percentage of the cash.

As for the rest of the NFL. Well nobody is paying a lot for their stadiums. NOBODY. And if the thick ****ing skulls in MO think that the Chiefs are going to be one of the few teams to pony up, they need a serious reality check. That is not going to happen. Not a chance. No way in hell. If anything the Chiefs are one of the least likely teams to simply because they can't expect the kinds of returns you get in other markets. You don't get to be wealthy enough to own a pro sports franchise by being stupid.

beavis
08-03-2005, 09:17 AM
Maybe you aren't aware of this, but cities and states routinely come up with economic incentives to keep certain businesses and bring in new businesses.
I'm fully aware of it. Doesn't make it any less wrong.

beavis
08-03-2005, 09:19 AM
They are not asking for a new building. They are asking that a PUBLIC OWNED building be kept up to date and in compliance of a lease.
Incorrect. They are asking that the current building be kept up to date until a new facility can be built elsewhere.

Dave Lane
08-03-2005, 09:20 AM
Gretz said it himself.... $2.5 Mill vs. $250 Mill.

When the wife goes to the mall and asks for $2000 some of us will cough up the dough. What if she asks for $20,000?

How about $200,000 says the math instructor...

Dave

Dave Lane
08-03-2005, 09:21 AM
Gretz is such a f#cking tool. Yes we know you want $250 MM now go and soak your bottom you son of a window dresser.

Dave

htismaqe
08-03-2005, 09:23 AM
Using what the Redskins do as an example for the Chiefs is stupid. They sell their luxury boxes to political lobbyist groups for christ sake. They probably have a higher profit margin than any other team thanks to that. Why do you think they can break the bank in FA every year?

And the Cowboys are formerly known as "America's Team", and their merchandise sells like it. Not only that, their market is larger and it's growing like no other place in the country right now. It's easy to see why the Cowboys would pony up a larger percentage of the cash.

As for the rest of the NFL. Well nobody is paying a lot for their stadiums. NOBODY. And if the thick ****ing skulls in MO think that the Chiefs are going to be one of the few teams to pony up, they need a serious reality check. That is not going to happen. Not a chance. No way in hell. If anything the Chiefs are one of the least likely teams to simply because they can't expect the kinds of returns you get in other markets. You don't get to be wealthy enough to own a pro sports franchise by being stupid.

:clap:

penguinz
08-03-2005, 09:24 AM
Incorrect. They are asking that the current building be kept up to date until a new facility can be built elsewhere.Peterson has said several times in the last few days that they do not want to Leave Arrowhead. They want to renovate it as what was done in Green Bay.

Mr. Kotter
08-03-2005, 10:39 AM
Sorry, but I think Fat Ass has this right....

Jackson county, and Missouri, better wake up. Or the Chiefs are headed to Johnson county....or worse.

Bearcat
08-03-2005, 11:01 AM
Even though most studies have shown that there is little tangible positive economic effect from having a pro sports franchise in your city.


I was just thinking about this... business-wise, it's obviously in the Chiefs' best interest to demand the money, because as it's been mentioned 400 times in this thread, someone else will pay if we don't.

But, from Jackson County's/Kansas City's perspective, is it worth it? In economic terms, the Chiefs might draw more out-of-towners than other teams, plus the away crowd, but it's only 8-20 days a year (preseason, spending the entire weekend). There's a benefit from employees of the large companies in the area to have access to luxury suites, but I don't know what the current demand on those is at Arrowhead. There are the benefits that the Chiefs give, as far as contributions, sponsorships, etc. As well as merchandise to retailers, ticket resales, etc. I don't know if that would all add up to the amount of, say, the Big 12 tournament/NCAA tournament.

jspchief
08-03-2005, 11:11 AM
I was just thinking about this... business-wise, it's obviously in the Chiefs' best interest to demand the money, because as it's been mentioned 400 times in this thread, someone else will pay if we don't.

But, from Jackson County's/Kansas City's perspective, is it worth it? In economic terms, the Chiefs might draw more out-of-towners than other teams, plus the away crowd, but it's only 8-20 days a year (preseason, spending the entire weekend). There's a benefit from employees of the large companies in the area to have access to luxury suites, but I don't know what the current demand on those is at Arrowhead. There are the benefits that the Chiefs give, as far as contributions, sponsorships, etc. As well as merchandise to retailers, ticket resales, etc. I don't know if that would all add up to the amount of, say, the Big 12 tournament/NCAA tournament. Yep. It creates very few quality jobs, the tourism impact is nominal, as are the number of "feeder" businesses that rely on it.

But like I said in my other post, there are less tangible benefits derived from having pro sports in your town.

What kind of image would it project if KC lost it's sports teams? It would make it look like a city that's on the decline, making it less appealing to current and potential residents, as well as corporations.

J Diddy
08-03-2005, 11:15 AM
Yep. It creates very few quality jobs, the tourism impact is nominal, as are the number of "feeder" businesses that rely on it.

But like I said in my other post, there are less tangible benefits derived from having pro sports in your town.

What kind of image would it project if KC lost it's sports teams? It would make it look like a city that's on the decline, making it less appealing to current and potential residents, as well as corporations.

Yes and no. I would say there are millions being made off of staff, players, etc income as well as taxes paid. As well as the lease of the stadium.

jspchief
08-03-2005, 11:15 AM
Incorrect. They are asking that the current building be kept up to date until a new facility can be built elsewhere.I've never heard or read anything to that effect. I challenge you to find one article that states the team wants to use renovation as a band-aid.

Everything I've seen has said they want a major renovation to make Arrowhead a viable venue for many years to come (i.e. Lambeau or Soldier Field), or they want a new stadium.

unlurking
08-03-2005, 11:18 AM
Yep. It creates very few quality jobs, the tourism impact is nominal, as are the number of "feeder" businesses that rely on it.

But like I said in my other post, there are less tangible benefits derived from having pro sports in your town.

What kind of image would it project if KC lost it's sports teams? It would make it look like a city that's on the decline, making it less appealing to current and potential residents, as well as corporations.
And how many community programs run and funded by the team as well as players and staff will disappear if the team does?

jspchief
08-03-2005, 11:20 AM
Yes and no. I would say there are millions being made off of staff, players, etc income as well as taxes paid. As well as the lease of the stadium.I wish I could find the last article I read on the subject, because it broke it down pretty well. It explained all the pluses and minuses, and came to the conclusion that pro sports teams did not equate a significant positive economic impact on the area. I believe the specific article was in relation to the Cowboys moving to Arlington, but the points were about pro sports teams in general.

If they did have much of an impact, I imagine these stadium deals would be much easier to get done.

jspchief
08-03-2005, 11:23 AM
And how many community programs run and funded by the team as well as players and staff will disappear if the team does?You are preaching to the choir.

I've already said several times that there are other less tangible things.

I'm simply stating that from a government economic viewpoint, building a several hundred million dollar stadium to bring a team in does not pay good dividends. And it's not even my own opinion, it's the opinion of people much smarter than me.

Bearcat
08-03-2005, 12:55 PM
Yep. It creates very few quality jobs, the tourism impact is nominal, as are the number of "feeder" businesses that rely on it.

But like I said in my other post, there are less tangible benefits derived from having pro sports in your town.

What kind of image would it project if KC lost it's sports teams? It would make it look like a city that's on the decline, making it less appealing to current and potential residents, as well as corporations.

It would have a huge impact on potential tenants of the Sprint Center, too. If the Penguins don't get their new arena in Pittsburgh, is it any better to move to a town that didn't take care of the Chiefs? (two cities not taking care of two teams that have been in their respective city for about the same amount of time). Heck, they couldn't even dig the freakin' hole at 14th & Grand before running into problems. Certainly, the AFL team could benefit from no NFL team, but I'm not sure people are going to spend the money they would rather be spending on the Chiefs on an NHL or NBA team, unless there was a winning bandwagon to jump onto.

Bob Dole
08-03-2005, 12:55 PM
I wish I could find the last article I read on the subject, because it broke it down pretty well. It explained all the pluses and minuses, and came to the conclusion that pro sports teams did not equate a significant positive economic impact on the area. I believe the specific article was in relation to the Cowboys moving to Arlington, but the points were about pro sports teams in general.

Here's the one Bob Dole saw, where Irving officials state that losing the stadium is no big deal.

A study commissioned by Irving last fall concluded that a new stadium would have a $51 million annual economic impact on the city. The study was in sharp contrast to another report that states that a new Arlington stadium would generate $238 million a year in economic impact in that city.

Bob Dole wouldn't call a $51 million annual economic impact "insignificant." Especially when one considers the dollar amount risked by the taxpayers.

And for the record: Bob Dole is not claiming that the county should pony up all the dollars. Bob Dole is suggesting that there's a happy medium that hasn't been found because each side is taking a hard-line approach.