PDA

View Full Version : KC already hospitable to teams


Bob Dole
03-12-2006, 07:39 AM
From the Star (http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/opinion/14077067.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp)

“Hasta la vista, baby.” That’s what Mike Hendricks (March 6) is afraid the Chiefs will say to Kansas City if voters reject the Jackson County sales tax on the April 4 ballot.

Not so fast. The Chiefs are not likely to leave Kansas City, where they have prospered quite nicely.

Consider these statistics: According to estimates published by Forbes magazine, the Chiefs have averaged $26.3 million in pretax profit for the 1998 through 2004 seasons. In 2005, the Chiefs ranked third among 32 National Football League teams in home-game attendance.

Another boon for the Chiefs is the annual increase beginning in the 2006 season of about $42 million in revenues from new national TV contracts. It is difficult to imagine a business that is in less need of public subsidy than the Chiefs.

Likewise, Kansas City has been good to the Royals. From 1990 through 2005, the Royals’ home-game attendance averaged about 20,500 fans.

Financially, the Royals are challenged by the inequitable revenue-sharing system of Major League Baseball resulting in a player payroll that was about half of the major-league average in 2005. This makes it difficult for the Royals to be competitive in Kansas City or anywhere else.

If the “threat” of the teams leaving is unrealistic, why are Jackson County voters being asked to approve a three-eighths-cent sales tax — which would raise $425 million — to renovate Arrowhead and Kauffman stadiums? And why is the Missouri Development Finance Board considering $50 million in tax credits for the stadium improvements?

A $50 million subsidy of professional sports is unsound fiscal policy at a time when 100,000 very low-income Missourians have been cut from the state’s Medicaid health insurance program. Those left without health coverage include working parents, the elderly and people with disabilities.

Missouri’s elementary and secondary schools continue to be underfunded by $791 million, and the state’s universities and colleges have raised tuition an average of 58 percent in the past five years.

Certainly the Chiefs and Royals are tremendous economic and civic assets to Kansas City and our state. Missouri does provide financial support for the teams — $3 million a year for stadium maintenance.

These professional sports teams would be hard pressed to find a more favorable location than the Truman Sports Complex. If stadium renovations are needed, they can and should be funded entirely by the teams. After all, we expect other businesses to invest their own capital to sustain their enterprises.

Missouri taxpayers should not foot the bill and provide further subsidies to professional sports teams. Public dollars should be invested in strengthening Missouri’s basic services, such as health care and education; such investments will enhance economic development as corporations look closely at these services when deciding where to locate.

Pro sports teams bring a lot of excitement to Kansas City. They are and will continue to be good corporate citizens who are committed to the well-being of the community.

However, it is not the responsibility of Jackson County residents to fund profitable businesses.

Voters should reject the sales tax proposal on April 4.

JBucc
03-12-2006, 07:41 AM
They aren't going anywhere. They might not get their stupid roof but they're staying put.

58-4ever
03-12-2006, 07:44 AM
why doesn't whoever wrote this article shut the **** up.

Bob Dole
03-12-2006, 07:48 AM
They aren't going anywhere. They might not get their stupid roof but they're staying put.

You sound pretty sure. Here's a snippet from a larger article in the Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/sports/football/articles/2006/03/12/tagliabue_may_be_up_for_tackling_more/?page=2)

The Chiefs have been in Arrowhead Stadium since 1972 but could be in a refurbished facility with a retractable roof by 2010 if Jackson County voters approve a $777 million overhaul of the stadium April 4, paid for by a three-eighths of a cent sales tax. If it passes it would raise $575 million and the Chiefs and Royals would extend their leases for 25 years. If not, the Chiefs would be free to move as early as 2007. Citizens believe aging owner Lamar Hunt would never abandon Kansas City and they're right, but his son, Clark, is fed up and would be in Los Angeles by nightfall if the vote goes against the Chiefs because he believes the team needs to expand its local revenues with a new stadium, and fast. The NFL has already promised the city the 2015 Super Bowl as a bribe (sorry, incentive) if the vote goes the right way . . .

Dunit35
03-12-2006, 07:50 AM
Clark doesn't take shit from anybody. He hates CP as well doesnt he?

I would be so pissed off if the tax increase does not pass.

BigRedChief
03-12-2006, 08:02 AM
Mike Hendricks and Kietzman/810 are the only ones opposing this.

It's got my vote. Get your facts here. Not this BS filled piece in the first post

http://www.saveourstadiums.com/main.html

Bob Dole
03-12-2006, 08:04 AM
To steal a quote out of context from someone else, communities get a chance to do this kind of thing right only once every generation.

Bob Dole certainly hopes the residents affected by this get it right.

BigChiefFan
03-12-2006, 08:05 AM
Pay up,and they'll stay. Have fun in L.A, Clarkie.

Phobia
03-12-2006, 08:13 AM
Clark doesn't take shit from anybody. He hates CP as well doesnt he?

Yes, Clark hates CP so much that his first official business as Chairman was to extend CP's contract.

milkman
03-12-2006, 08:13 AM
Isn't Jackson County the Chiefs landlord?

Isn't maintenence and upkeep the landlord's responsibility?

HMc
03-12-2006, 08:15 AM
Can't you build a new modern facility with 750 million bucks?

Dunit35
03-12-2006, 08:19 AM
Yes, Clark hates CP so much that his first official business as Chairman was to extend CP's contract.


Wow for what four more years? I'm sure it was all 100% Clark on that decision too.

stevieray
03-12-2006, 08:23 AM
I heard a rumor they'll end up in San Antonio.

T-post Tom
03-12-2006, 08:24 AM
As someone who often disagrees with KK and his less than honorable debate tactics, I think that he's right on this stadium deal. That kind of coin should translate into a new, state of the art stadium.

The going rate on recent NFL stadiums is around 50% financing from owners & 50% from taxpayers. This deal limits the Hunt contribution to about 12-13%. NOT A GOOD DEAL FOR THE TAXPAYERS! The only reason the county nimrods agreed to this is that they were 'over a barrel' due to bungled handling of the current lease agreement. Now the taxpayers are expected to pick up the slack?

Bob Dole
03-12-2006, 08:29 AM
I heard a rumor they'll end up in San Antonio.

Is Priest's dad going to be the new GM?

T-post Tom
03-12-2006, 08:32 AM
Is Priest's dad going to be the new GM?

It's true. Why not? DT was our GM intern for awhile, wasn't he?

KCChiefsFan88
03-12-2006, 08:33 AM
If Kietzman is so concerned about developing downtown KC why doesn't he put his $$$$$ where his big mouth is and 1) Encourage 810 to move their offices downtown (they are currently in Overland Park, I believe), 2) Move downtown (Kietzman currently lives in Lenexa I'm pretty sure).

Lzen
03-12-2006, 08:48 AM
As someone who often disagrees with KK and his less than honorable debate tactics, I think that he's right on this stadium deal. That kind of coin should translate into a new, state of the art stadium.

The going rate on recent NFL stadiums is around 50% financing from owners & 50% from taxpayers. This deal limits the Hunt contribution to about 12-13%. NOT A GOOD DEAL FOR THE TAXPAYERS! The only reason the county nimrods agreed to this is that they were 'over a barrel' due to bungled handling of the current lease agreement. Now the taxpayers are expected to pick up the slack?

I don't know where you get this info, but I don't think it's accurate. I'm waiting for Parker to show up to debunk this.

If the Jackson County voters don't approve this, I think my Governor will step up to the plate. A new stadium over in Wyandotte County would be nice. :)

KC Jones
03-12-2006, 09:39 AM
If Kietzman is so concerned about developing downtown KC why doesn't he put his $$$$$ where his big mouth is and 1) Encourage 810 to move their offices downtown (they are currently in Overland Park, I believe), 2) Move downtown (Kietzman currently lives in Lenexa I'm pretty sure).

Kietzman and friends have invested pretty heavily in downtown real estate (condos, flats, etc.) It's precisely because of this investment that he backs anything and everything that could increase the value of downtown property and opposes anything sports related that isn't tied to downtown. He's using his pulpit to try to make a buck.

ChiefsFanatic
03-12-2006, 09:53 AM
They aren't going anywhere. They might not get their stupid roof but they're staying put.

said residents of Baltimore, St. Louis, Cleveland. People that think the way you do are clueless. How arrogant can you be.

The great, storied fans of Baltimore thought that way. So did the venerable fans of the Browns. What happened to those teams?

Bowser
03-12-2006, 10:03 AM
Clark would be stupid to move the Chiefs to L.A. That city has no interest in the NFL, as evidenced by two, TWO franchises moving the same year. Oh, the NFL wants to have a team there for the TV revenues, but the city just seemingly couldn't care less.

unlurking
03-12-2006, 11:05 AM
...The going rate on recent NFL stadiums is around 50% financing from owners & 50% from taxpayers. This deal limits the Hunt contribution to about 12-13%. NOT A GOOD DEAL FOR THE TAXPAYERS!...

...the Chiefs have averaged $26.3 million in pretax profit for the 1998 through 2004 seasons...

OK, what am I missing here?

A new stadium averages what, $500-$700 million?

Figure the post tax profit of the Chiefs is what, $20 million?

The cost of a new stadium to the Chiefs (at the above mentioned 50% rate) would be around $250-$350 million dollars?

That would take 100% of the Chiefs net profits for 12.5 to 17.5 YEARS?

Of these teams that have paid 50%, what are THEIR annual profits?

Sorry, but if this report is accurate regarding the Chiefs profits, asking them to pay 50% is inexcusable for a small market team. I would not be surprised to see them move to a large market city, bump their annual profit to $100 million, and then OFFER to pay 50%.

cdcox
03-12-2006, 11:10 AM
This guy wants more $ to go to education and health care. I would which senario achieves that goal?

a) levy a 3/8 cent new tax to meet obligations on an existing lease that keeps both Major League sports franchises in town.

b) don't levy a tax and risk both sports franchieses leaving town, at which time, KC becomes an oversized version of Wichita, Des Moines or Omaha. Being a city on the decline would surely make all the problems he is so concerned about better.

cdcox
03-12-2006, 11:22 AM
Here is why LA is going to be a good deal for some franchise, even if fan support is low. The reason the last two teams left was for lack of good stadium facilities (i.e. luxury boxes). LA has a ton corporate cash to pour into luxury boxes. If they have the right stadium, an LA franchise will be hugely profitable, even with a half-full stadium. The NFL wants a franchise there so bad, that they will no doubt help finance the stadium. Once the right stadium is in place, LA becomes a no brainer. Income from regular seats are no longer the major local revenue stream for most NFL teams. That is, the ordinary fans just don't matter that much.

The income from an LA franchise will be large enough to allow a team to offer large signing bonuses. That will allow them to compete for free agents. A competent owner will be able to put a good team on the field there. If the team is successful, folks will show up for the game, even in LA.

Wile_E_Coyote
03-12-2006, 11:27 AM
the Dallas Texans/KC Chiefs/LA Chieftains

Bowser
03-12-2006, 11:34 AM
the Dallas Texans/KC Chiefs/LA Chieftains

Piss on that. If Clark is that big of an ass to move the team, he doesn't get to take the name "Chiefs" with him. Chiefs stays in KC just as the Browns name stayed in Cleveland.

unlurking
03-12-2006, 11:36 AM
Piss on that. If Clark is that big of an ass to move the team, he doesn't get to take the name "Chiefs" with him. Chiefs stays in KC just as the Browns name stayed in Cleveland.
yep, LA Metrosexuals works

cdcox
03-12-2006, 11:38 AM
Piss on that. If Clark is that big of an ass to move the team, he doesn't get to take the name "Chiefs" with him. Chiefs stays in KC just as the Browns name stayed in Cleveland.

I don't know how quickly we'd get a new franchise. 32 is the perfect number of teams, due to the symmetry. The NFL may not be to anxious to expand to accomodate a small market like KC. We could be looking at stealing a team away from another city, and again, KC may not be as attractive as other markets.

Mr. Laz
03-12-2006, 11:40 AM
why doesn't whoever wrote this article shut the **** up.
afraid of a little reality?

Bowser
03-12-2006, 11:40 AM
I don't know how quickly we'd get a new franchise. 32 is the perfect number of teams, due to the symmetry. The NFL may not be to anxious to expand to accomodate a small market like KC. We could be looking at stealing a team away from another city, and again, KC may not be as attractive as other markets.

Cleveland is small market too, no?

Even the mighty NFL (and other teams/owners) knows how good Kansas City is for the league.

cdcox
03-12-2006, 11:42 AM
Cleveland is small market too, no?

Even the mighty NFL (and other teams/owners) knows how good Kansas City is for the league.

So the new team is going to move into a 40-year old Arrowhead? Fat chance. The city will have to commit to a new stadium first (as did Cleveland). Wouldn't it be a whole lot easier to give the Chiefs what they want and be done with it?

Bowser
03-12-2006, 11:45 AM
So the new team is going to move into a 40-year old Arrowhead? Fat chance. The city will have to commit to a new stadium first (as did Cleveland). Wouldn't it be a whole lot easier to give the Chiefs what they want and be done with it?

You mean this whole roof/upgrade thing? Sure it would. I'm for it.

As for needing a new stadium to lure potential franchises back to KC, well, let's just hope we never have to find out what it'll take.

cdcox
03-12-2006, 11:49 AM
You mean this whole roof/upgrade thing? Sure it would. I'm for it.

As for needing a new stadium to lure potential franchises back to KC, well, let's just hope we never have to find out what it'll take.

My understanding is that the upgrades and roof are two seperate issues. I further understand that only the upgrades need to be approved in order to secure the Chiefs and Royals for another 25 years. If I were voting (I'm not local) I'd vote YES on the upgrades and NO on the roof.

Wile_E_Coyote
03-12-2006, 11:51 AM
Piss on that. If Clark is that big of an ass to move the team, he doesn't get to take the name "Chiefs" with him. Chiefs stays in KC just as the Browns name stayed in Cleveland.

I doubt the name Chiefs would fly in LA anyway. The pickets & hunger strikes would be entertaining though

Bowser
03-12-2006, 11:52 AM
My understanding is that the upgrades and roof are two seperate issues. I further understand that only the upgrades need to be approved in order to secure the Chiefs and Royals for another 25 years. If I were voting (I'm not local) I'd vote YES on the upgrades and NO on the roof.

I'm torn on the roof issue. The upgrades are a no-brainer. New toilets, concoursed and amenities are needed without question. New box seats as well, even thought I'll probably never see one.

The roof will get us the Super Bowl. After that, I don't see much of a need for it, until I stay dry at a rainy game. :)

Sure-Oz
03-12-2006, 12:37 PM
i dont know wtf id do if there was no chiefs football in kc, there would be major hell if the team was moved.

beer bacon
03-12-2006, 12:42 PM
Can't you build a new modern facility with 750 million bucks?

Why would we want new stadiums? I would rather spend that money making our current stadiums that much better.

alanm
03-12-2006, 01:11 PM
"A $50 million subsidy of professional sports is unsound fiscal policy at a time when 100,000 very low-income Missourians have been cut from the state’s Medicaid health insurance program. Those left without health coverage include working parents, the elderly and people with disabilities."

"Missouri’s elementary and secondary schools continue to be underfunded by $791 million, and the state’s universities and colleges have raised tuition an average of 58 percent in the past five years."

Oh my Gawd!! What ever shall these poor people do. :deevee:
Someone found the Liberal playbook and is running their base offense. ROFL

Douche Baggins
03-12-2006, 01:20 PM
Lamar isn't going to move back to Texas. He moved the 'chise because he couldn't compete with ONE Texas franchise and now there are two.

We DO need a new stadium, though. I don't really know if the taxpayers should foot the bill though. I don't really have an opinion since I live in Guatemala.

jspchief
03-12-2006, 01:25 PM
This guy wants more $ to go to education and health care. I would which senario achieves that goal?

a) levy a 3/8 cent new tax to meet obligations on an existing lease that keeps both Major League sports franchises in town.

b) don't levy a tax and risk both sports franchieses leaving town, at which time, KC becomes an oversized version of Wichita, Des Moines or Omaha. Being a city on the decline would surely make all the problems he is so concerned about better.This is what I've been saying for a long time. You can argue about the fiscal return on government investing in pro sports, but it's hard to put a number on the effect it has on the overall face of the city.

KC loses it's pro teams, and the young professionals of the area are going to start clamoring to get out of there. While Des Moines and Omaha are trying to figure out how to slow "brain drain", KC is on the verge of shoving their bright youth out the door.

And I don't believe they'll ever get a team back. This will kill Kansas City, and there are too many other cities that are exploding while KC regresses.

Demonpenz
03-12-2006, 01:26 PM
lets see what happens when a couple of the games get blacked out this year

Douche Baggins
03-12-2006, 01:29 PM
This is what I've been saying for a long time. You can argue about the fiscal return on government investing in pro sports, but it's hard to put a number on the effect it has on the overall face of the city.

KC loses it's pro teams, and the young professionals of the area are going to start clamoring to get out of there. While Des Moines and Omaha are trying to figure out how to slow "brain drain", KC is on the verge of shoving their bright youth out the door.

And I don't believe they'll ever get a team back. This will kill Kansas City, and there are too many other cities that are exploding while KC regresses.

Are professional sports teams really that important to a city?

jspchief
03-12-2006, 01:35 PM
Are professional sports teams really that important to a city?If you think of Midwest cities you'd rather live in, what's more apealling? Minneapolis, or Omaha? Kansas City, or Des Moines? Having a pro team puts the city on the map for people that might not otherwise consider living there.

When you are a young adult coming out of college, determining where you want to start "the rest of your life", you consider things like whether the city has fun things to do. Young adults are going to look at KC and say, "pro teams can't even stay there, why shoud I?"

I don't think there's a way to put a concrete statistic on it, but in my opinion KC losing these teams would be the start of a decline for the city.

Bob Dole
03-12-2006, 01:56 PM
I don't think there's a way to put a concrete statistic on it, but in my opinion KC losing these teams would be the start of a decline for the city.

Agreed.

On the other hand, there's always NASCAR.

alanm
03-12-2006, 02:09 PM
This is what I've been saying for a long time. You can argue about the fiscal return on government investing in pro sports, but it's hard to put a number on the effect it has on the overall face of the city.

KC loses it's pro teams, and the young professionals of the area are going to start clamoring to get out of there. While Des Moines and Omaha are trying to figure out how to slow "brain drain", KC is on the verge of shoving their bright youth out the door.

And I don't believe they'll ever get a team back. This will kill Kansas City, and there are too many other cities that are exploding while KC regresses.
Don't lump Omaha in that catagory. Along with Lincoln, Omaha is growing by leaps and bounds. It's one of US's top 20 fastest growing cities. And I don't think that's a good thing either. :shake:
Omaha just doesn't have a desire for a pro sports team other than minor league. It's more of a college sports town anyway.

Lzen
03-12-2006, 02:10 PM
Agreed.

On the other hand, there's always NASCAR.

That's fine.......if you're a damn redneck!!
:shake: :banghead:

jspchief
03-12-2006, 02:13 PM
Don't lump Omaha in that catagory. Along with Lincoln, Omaha is growing by leaps and bounds. It's one of US's top 20 fastest growing cities. And I don't think that's a good thing either. :shake:
Omaha just doesn't have a desire for a pro sports team other than minor league. It's more of a college sports town anyway.That actually supports my point though. While cities like Omaha, Louisville, and Memphis grow they'll be looking for ways to establish themselves as the next great city. A pro franchise helps put those cities on the map.

Meanwhile, KC loses it's teams, and it looks like a dying city.

BigRedChief
03-12-2006, 03:37 PM
My understanding is that the upgrades and roof are two seperate issues. I further understand that only the upgrades need to be approved in order to secure the Chiefs and Royals for another 25 years. If I were voting (I'm not local) I'd vote YES on the upgrades and NO on the roof.
Why no roof? We are gauaranteed a Super Bowl with it. We spend $200 million qnd we get $400-500 million in out of state revenue into our city. A college bowl game? A mens final Four? Who knows?

King Carl is already on record as saying it will never be used for a Chiefs game. It's only for special events.

cdcox
03-12-2006, 03:50 PM
Why no roof? We are gauaranteed a Super Bowl with it. We spend $200 million qnd we get $400-500 million in out of state revenue into our city. A college bowl game? A mens final Four? Who knows?

King Carl is already on record as saying it will never be used for a Chiefs game. It's only for special events.

Indoor football in the abomination that brings desolation.

Carl won't be there forever. The first monsoon game in October or the first below 15 degree game in December and all the pusses will be calling for it to be used.

I'm not sold on the benefit to KC of hosting a Super Bowl. The Sports Guy reemed Jacksonville as a terrible place to have a Super Bowl cause there was nothing to do. Are people going to start rushing to Detroit as a great January vacation destination? Watching KC's hotels, resturaunts and transportation system struggle under the load will only reinforce the perception of outsiders that KC is a cowtown.

Brock
03-12-2006, 03:54 PM
Indoor football in the abomination that brings desolation.

Carl won't be there forever. The first monsoon game in October or the first below 15 degree game in December and all the pusses will be calling for it to be used.

I'm not sold on the benefit to KC of hosting a Super Bowl. The Sports Guy reemed Jacksonville as a terrible place to have a Super Bowl cause there was nothing to do. Are people going to start rushing to Detroit as a great January vacation destination? Watching KC's hotels, resturaunts and transportation system struggle under the load will only reinforce the perception of outsiders that KC is a cowtown.

I have a hard time believing that KC has any fewer things to do than New Orleans did, and they've hosted many, many super bowls.

FAX
03-12-2006, 03:59 PM
I have a hard time believing that KC has any fewer things to do than New Orleans did, and they've hosted many, many super bowls.

You might as well host a SB on the moon as Jacksonville. At least you could hop around in low gravity and play solar radiation tag.

Is KC really as replete with fun and engaging adult activities as New Orleans these days, Mr. Brock? I'm glad to hear it, if so.

FAX

jspchief
03-12-2006, 03:59 PM
I have a hard time believing that KC has any fewer things to do than New Orleans did... I don't.

cdcox
03-12-2006, 04:04 PM
I can surmize one of 3 things about Brock:

1) he is the king of unstated sarcasm

2) he is a Mennonite

3) he has never veuntured outside his bedroom in his parents house.

Brock
03-12-2006, 04:05 PM
Feel free to enlighten me about the wonderment that was New Orleans.

I liked the town, but the only thing I saw was a bunch of drunk stumblebums milling about.

cdcox
03-12-2006, 04:11 PM
Feel free to enlighten me about the wonderment that was New Orleans.

I liked the town, but the only thing I saw was a bunch of drunk stumblebums milling about.

They are one of the top ten convention cities in America; therefore, they have hotel facilites for a gabillion out of town visitors.

They have dozens of 4-star resturaunts.

They have a concentrated adult entertainment distrcit (bars, casinos, and girly shows) that is within walking distance of all the hotels and all the 4-star resutrants and the SB venue.

FAX
03-12-2006, 04:15 PM
They are one of the top ten convention cities in America; therefore, they have hotel facilites for a gabillion out of town visitors.

They have dozens of 4-star resturaunts.

They have a concentrated adult entertainment distrcit (bars, casinos, and girly shows) that is within walking distance of all the hotels and all the 4-star resutrants and the SB venue.

They are also the chocolate milk city. Just bring your own grahams.

FAX

Brock
03-12-2006, 04:22 PM
Frankly, I don't know why they don't just build a stadium in Las Vegas and just have it there every year.

cdcox
03-12-2006, 04:23 PM
Frankly, I don't know why they don't just build a stadium in Las Vegas and just have it there every year.


Ding! Great idea.

BigRedChief
03-12-2006, 06:06 PM
Indoor football in the abomination that brings desolation.

Carl won't be there forever. The first monsoon game in October or the first below 15 degree game in December and all the pusses will be calling for it to be used.

I'm not sold on the benefit to KC of hosting a Super Bowl. The Sports Guy reemed Jacksonville as a terrible place to have a Super Bowl cause there was nothing to do. Are people going to start rushing to Detroit as a great January vacation destination? Watching KC's hotels, resturaunts and transportation system struggle under the load will only reinforce the perception of outsiders that KC is a cowtown.

No, its a one time infusion of cash. Maybe a little bump in the long term but not much.

But back to the bottome line......We spend $200 million we get $400-500 million in return.

SoCalBronco
03-12-2006, 06:14 PM
L.A. fans do not deserve ANY team.

Valiant
03-12-2006, 07:08 PM
You mean this whole roof/upgrade thing? Sure it would. I'm for it.

As for needing a new stadium to lure potential franchises back to KC, well, let's just hope we never have to find out what it'll take.


I would rather do the Cleveland plan, then redo arrowhead... It is pure crap to spend all that money on renovations when it is cheaper to build new stadiums..

milkman
03-12-2006, 07:15 PM
L.A. fans do not deserve ANY team.

I agree.

chiefs4me
03-12-2006, 07:17 PM
L.A. fans do not deserve ANY team.










this needs to be said again...:clap:

chiefs4me
03-12-2006, 07:18 PM
damn you winder

jspchief
03-12-2006, 08:52 PM
I would rather do the Cleveland plan, then redo arrowhead... It is pure crap to spend all that money on renovations when it is cheaper to build new stadiums..I don't think you understand what 400 million in renovations can accomplish.

After seeing the renovated Lambeau, I'm sold on the idea of renovating Arrowhead. We get to keep the history, and get the equivalent of a brand new stadium.