PDA

View Full Version : Chiefs funkhouser is an idiot Chiefs moving?


KingPriest2
03-05-2009, 09:40 PM
Fool wanting to take away city funding? Feels its more important to fund city services then fund 2 mil a year to a 500 million biggest project in the county. He is violating the lease and then the teams can move.
Luckily the city council has to vote on it. That they see that this would be stupid

Someone please get this fool out of office
Posted via Mobile Device

Phobia
03-05-2009, 09:42 PM
I agree with him.

Putting more money in Clark Hunt's pocket should be LAST on his priority list.

kcfanXIII
03-05-2009, 10:03 PM
i think in normal times it could be a problem, but i don't think there's any city thats in a position to pay a nfl franchise to more there.

dirk digler
03-05-2009, 10:05 PM
WTF? Are you serious?

dirk digler
03-05-2009, 10:08 PM
What a fucking dumbass

Jackson County officials also cautioned that eliminating the city’s contribution to the sports complex would jeopardize the current leases with the sports teams, just as the county’s voters have invested a half-billion dollars in new improvements at Kauffman and Arrowhead stadiums.

If the city withheld the $2 million, the county would have to make up the difference, Chiefs attorney Ken Spain said. Otherwise, the 25-year leases signed in 2006 would be void and the teams would be free to leave town.

Leases that the county signed with the Royals and Chiefs promised $7 million in public subsidies each year for upkeep. The city has traditionally kicked in $2 million, and Mayor Kay Barnes pledged to continue that support in 2006 as she campaigned for the county sales tax to pay for the stadiums’ renovations.

“It’s mind-boggling to me, frankly, that he’d propose this,” said County Executive Mike Sanders, who also called the mayor’s proposal “a nightmare scenario.”

Sanders noted that the city and county had other “gentlemen’s agreements” that might be threatened if the city suddenly went back on its stadium-upkeep promise.

Councilwoman Cathy Jolly said she’d also be concerned.

“We can’t balance our own budget by pulling our commitments with other governments,” she said.
Funkhouser said, though, that he wasn’t the mayor who made the stadium pledge.

“Kansas City residents have for years paid a disproportionate share of the Jackson County sports complex,” he said in his memo. “If a choice has to be made about where to spend general-fund tax dollars, then it’s clear that we should spend it on police.”

Fruit Ninja
03-05-2009, 10:10 PM
lol, All the people with KC Chiefs tatoo's would mean nothing if they moved.

What would this board have to talk about during football season? That would be interesting if this board could withstand that.

Bugeater
03-05-2009, 10:20 PM
Pfft, $2M? That's nothing, the City of Omaha is getting ready to shell out $150M+ for a baseball stadium that's going to sit empty for 50 weeks out of the year.

Spicy McHaggis
03-05-2009, 10:24 PM
lol, All the people with KC Chiefs tatoo's would mean nothing if they moved.

What would this board have to talk about during football season? That would be interesting if this board could withstand that.

Poop threads can only take you so far.

And I think I speak for a lot of people when I say if the Chiefs move, they're dead to me.

wazu
03-05-2009, 10:25 PM
Yes, Funk. Let's buy a monorail, but lose the Chiefs. Great prioritization. I'm not a Funkhowser hater, but he went off the reservation with this idea.

Phobia
03-05-2009, 10:57 PM
Yes, Funk. Let's buy a monorail, but lose the Chiefs. Great prioritization. I'm not a Funkhowser hater, but he went off the reservation with this idea.

The Chiefs are going precisely nowhere.

wild1
03-05-2009, 10:58 PM
maybe there'd be more money if the city weren't paying off all the lawsuits from his crazy ass wife

J Diddy
03-05-2009, 11:02 PM
The Chiefs are going precisely nowhere.

Exactly.

Thig Lyfe
03-05-2009, 11:30 PM
Yes, Funk. Let's buy a monorail, but lose the Chiefs. Great prioritization. I'm not a Funkhowser hater, but he went off the reservation with this idea.

<object width="480" height="295"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/A3xGtjhZ_Yg&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/A3xGtjhZ_Yg&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="295"></embed></object>

tboss27
03-05-2009, 11:44 PM
Even if KC cuts off funding, I highly doubt Clark is gonna take his father's beloved team and leave town.

Thig Lyfe
03-05-2009, 11:52 PM
Even if KC cuts off funding, I highly doubt Clark is gonna take his father's beloved team and leave town.

But he would sell it in order to focus on his soccer team.

Fruit Ninja
03-05-2009, 11:53 PM
Poop threads can only take you so far.

And I think I speak for a lot of people when I say if the Chiefs move, they're dead to me.

Hey, i went through it in the early 90's with the L.A Rams. THey were my team. Soon as i heard they were leaving. They died. I had to find a new team, by that time i hated the rest of the California teams. NIners for obvious reaosns, they kicked the shit out of the Rams in the Montana/Rice days. Raiders were the X City Rivals. Chargers? who gives a shit about the Chargers. haha Anyways, I picked the Chiefs due to Okoye and DT. Though my All time Favorite player is possibly Erik Dickerson. Him and DT are close.

MadMax
03-05-2009, 11:53 PM
Fool wanting to take away city funding? Feels its more important to fund city services then fund 2 mil a year to a 500 million biggest project in the county. He is violating the lease and then the teams can move.
Luckily the city council has to vote on it. That they see that this would be stupid

Someone please get this fool out of office
Posted via Mobile Device



His name says it all...:)

MadMax
03-05-2009, 11:54 PM
Pfft, $2M? That's nothing, the City of Omaha is getting ready to shell out $150M+ for a baseball stadium that's going to sit empty for 50 weeks out of the year.



Lucky bastards! earmark?

The Buddha
03-06-2009, 12:06 AM
i think in normal times it could be a problem, but i don't think there's any city thats in a position to pay a nfl franchise to more there.

LA?

On a more serious note, its just bad politics and business to allow an opening in a contract like this.

Even if the Chiefs NEVER move, and I don't think they will, its a bad idea to allow them the option to. Next thing you know is they're playing hardball for all sorts of other things.

bowener
03-06-2009, 02:46 AM
Im going to guess with the recent renovations, and with the current economic climate, there is little chance of the Chiefs leaving. I dont see why it is bad of him to look out for the city as a whole rather than a billionaire and his 2nd (maybe 3rd, behind tennis) favorite sport.

htismaqe
03-06-2009, 08:08 AM
Im going to guess with the recent renovations, and with the current economic climate, there is little chance of the Chiefs leaving. I dont see why it is bad of him to look out for the city as a whole rather than a billionaire and his 2nd (maybe 3rd, behind tennis) favorite sport.

His predecessor committed to a contract. Breaking it is not "looking out for the city" it's looking for a quick fix because he and his politician buddies don't know how to control spending.

soundmind
03-06-2009, 08:23 AM
“If a choice has to be made about where to spend general-fund tax dollars, then it’s clear that we should spend it on police.”

Oh good f*cking christ, obviously we just need more police....to what, write another ticket, to stand idly at said Chiefs games, doing nothing....to eyeball city and westport-goers??? What are you preparing for the meltdown, and a rush of panic in the streets??? Or maybe Funk just doesn't like sports....

And seriously, I'm not the type to say $2M doesn't mean anything, but in the bigger picture, that contribution is far from the problem. I agree with the post that said he was looking for political duct tape. Of course he apparently knows nothing about KC, as this was political suicide - if he gets this passed, next time I see this guy, I will hit him with something - probably an empty mug or my shoe. Guarantee.

RINGLEADER
03-06-2009, 08:24 AM
I find it hard to believe that the Chiefs don't bring in many, many times the $2 million contribution the county makes in tax and other other revenue. That's $200,000 per game.

They would be stupid to reneg on the deal.

Then again, LA is soon going to be looking for a team and I live in LA now so...

htismaqe
03-06-2009, 08:26 AM
I find it hard to believe that the Chiefs don't bring in many, many times the $2 million contribution the county makes in tax and other other revenue.

This.

It's the typical knee-jerk reaction from a politician that thinks that these hard economic times will make an "entertainment" venue a convenient adversary.

Simplex3
03-06-2009, 08:31 AM
The Chiefs are going precisely nowhere.

Bingo. First, there is nowhere to go. Second, there are teams who aren't selling out their stadium who would love to play in KC.

People like the Hunt family count on emotional reactions like this to get hundreds of millions of your dollars from taxes on top of the millions upon millions they get from you directly.

It's time to open your eyes, folks. The Chiefs don't give a rat's ass about you. If you enjoy the game, great. But don't get emotionally invested.

Simplex3
03-06-2009, 08:31 AM
But he would sell it in order to focus on his soccer team.

ROFL

eazyb81
03-06-2009, 08:32 AM
I completely agree with him. Paying professional sports teams via stadium funding, tax breaks, etc while the owners pocket millions every year is one of the biggest cons going right now.

Don't get me wrong, I love the Chiefs and Royals, but I don't think we should be paying them to stay here for the right to put more money in their pocket when we go and watch them play.

The theory that pro teams benefit local economies is a bit of a myth as well.

gblowfish
03-06-2009, 08:32 AM
The Mayor is Funky, and his wife Squirty is BUTT UGLY!
She looks like Vince Lombardi with tits.

htismaqe
03-06-2009, 08:42 AM
The Chiefs don't give a rat's ass about you. If you enjoy the game, great.

That same could be said for the Mayor, and for most politicians in general.

htismaqe
03-06-2009, 08:42 AM
I completely agree with him. Paying professional sports teams via stadium funding, tax breaks, etc while the owners pocket millions every year is one of the biggest cons going right now.

Don't get me wrong, I love the Chiefs and Royals, but I don't think we should be paying them to stay here for the right to put more money in their pocket when we go and watch them play.

The theory that pro teams benefit local economies is a bit of a myth as well.

Then the city shouldn't have agreed to the lease.

wazu
03-06-2009, 09:10 AM
The Chiefs are going precisely nowhere.

Probably not. But I like knowing that is a statement of fact and not opinion. Nobody knows what the landscape will be like in 5 years.

eazyb81
03-06-2009, 09:26 AM
Then the city shouldn't have agreed to the lease.

Sure, that could be argued. My point is that I am not going to knock the guy for not falling over himself to hand millions more to the Chiefs organization. I just don't think it's necessary, especially when the economy is in such a struggle.

Demonpenz
03-06-2009, 09:33 AM
The chiefs are a large portion of my life, if they moved, I would move. Just gets in your blood. Gooo chiefs

CaliforniaChief
03-06-2009, 09:35 AM
I'm not familiar with the particulars of this situation so I can't comment much on that. But I can say this...for every town that stands up to it's team and it's "billionaire owners" there are 5 ready to give them whatever they want. That's why there's a vacant Sprint Center waiting in downtown KC.

At the end of the day I'm hopeful that common sense prevails over the posturing that causes politicians to grandstand and try to make issues out of things that shouldn't be exploited. After all, who needs more cops if you aren't going to have any victory parades downtown, right?

Al Bundy
03-06-2009, 09:47 AM
If he does get this passed he has to realize how much he will end up costing the city and the teams will move. Idle threats nothing. The Chiefs would be welcomed with open arms in Los Angeles. The Royals, who knows if anyone would want them. Las Vegas is out of the question due to the gambling, but who's to say that Portland wouldn't open up for them?

BigRedChief
03-06-2009, 09:55 AM
Then the city shouldn't have agreed to the lease.
Correct, but it did. The people voted in a fair election. It's a done deal. You don't like it? then put it before the people for a vote. the voters payed for it in the first place.

CaliforniaChief
03-06-2009, 09:58 AM
Los Angeles (where I live) is always talking big about what they're going to do to bring in a team. Industry, Carson, Irwindale, the Coliseum, the Rose Bowl, blah blah blah. We've been through this many times. You think you have a budget crisis in KC? Been to California lately? The idiots who run this state are going to raise taxes in a mini-depression, jack up fees, and still provide full services to illegal immigrants. I'm not worried about them bringing in a team.

This is completely in Kansas City's hands.

htismaqe
03-06-2009, 11:03 AM
Sure, that could be argued. My point is that I am not going to knock the guy for not falling over himself to hand millions more to the Chiefs organization. I just don't think it's necessary, especially when the economy is in such a struggle.

It's not millions "more".

He's suggesting that he doesn't want to pay the $2M the city ALREADY AGREED TO, therein is the problem.

Besides the fact that the teams, and the sports complexes are, and can be, used to generate revenue for the city. There's HUNDREDS of ways to save money, but this one:

1) provides a convenient adversary. Sports = entertainment = leisure $$$. I mean, look at what you've said above. There's lots of people that think the same way. There's nothing wrong with your opinion, but the Mayor picking on a sports team at a time like this is HIGHLY polarizing and provides a great distraction.

2) doesn't involve taking money out of the pockets of his buddies and cronies.

DaneMcCloud
03-06-2009, 11:04 AM
The chiefs are a large portion of my life, if they moved, I would move. Just gets in your blood. Gooo chiefs

'Penz in LA?

Katipan
03-06-2009, 12:28 PM
http://www.kmbc.com/money/18866748/detail.html

Chocolate Hog
03-06-2009, 12:35 PM
I made a thread about this a few weeks ago everyone said it was bullshit

StcChief
03-06-2009, 12:38 PM
I agree with him.

Putting more money in Clark Hunt's pocket should be LAST on his priority list. yep. 2M / year Clark won't move the team over it, this is a short term (hopefully) situation.

htismaqe
03-06-2009, 12:44 PM
I wonder how much taxpayer money has ALREADY been spent?

Makes sense to throw away tens of millions of dollars that have already been spent to save $2M a year.

ChiefsCountry
03-06-2009, 12:47 PM
I thought Jackson County owned the sports complex not the city.

sedated
03-06-2009, 12:51 PM
I made a thread about this a few weeks ago everyone said it was bullshit

well, when people started discussing the issue in your thread, you called them all stupid sheep, and then started rambling on about the power and light district (said it was a failure, and then said it sucks because its always too busy).

sedated
03-06-2009, 12:57 PM
The theory that pro teams benefit local economies is a bit of a myth as well.

I must disagree. they bring in out of town visitors, who spend their money on local businesses, hotels, restaurants, etc. plus it helps the image of a city, which brings in visitors even when it has nothing to do with the teams.

what percentage of those 80,000 do you think are from outside the KC metro area? 10,000? 5,000? If its 5,000, and each of them spends $200 while in KC, thats a million. multiply that by 8 home games.

and every sunday the locals raid price chopper and liquor stores like its fukn new years eve.

htismaqe
03-06-2009, 01:05 PM
I must disagree. they bring in out of town visitors, who spend their money on local businesses, hotels, restaurants, etc. plus it helps the image of a city, which brings in visitors even when it has nothing to do with the teams.

what percentage of those 80,000 do you think are from outside the KC metro area? 10,000? 5,000? If its 5,000, and each of them spends $200 while in KC, thats a million. multiply that by 8 home games.

and every sunday the locals raid price chopper and liquor stores like its fukn new years eve.

I spend about $300 in KC whenever I come to a game.

And that assumes the whole family doesn't come down on Friday night for a weekend BBQ pilgrimage.

Simplex3
03-06-2009, 01:05 PM
If he does get this passed he has to realize how much he will end up costing the city and the teams will move. Idle threats nothing. The Chiefs would be welcomed with open arms in Los Angeles.

...where they could fail like every other team that has been in LA.

Simplex3
03-06-2009, 01:09 PM
I must disagree. they bring in out of town visitors, who spend their money on local businesses, hotels, restaurants, etc. plus it helps the image of a city, which brings in visitors even when it has nothing to do with the teams.

what percentage of those 80,000 do you think are from outside the KC metro area? 10,000? 5,000? If its 5,000, and each of them spends $200 while in KC, thats a million. multiply that by 8 home games.

and every sunday the locals raid price chopper and liquor stores like its fukn new years eve.

This stuff has been studied a hundred times by real economists and almost every time it comes up that sports teams are break even or a net loss to the economy.

Mr. Flopnuts
03-06-2009, 01:11 PM
This stuff has been studied a hundred times by real economists and almost every time it comes up that sports teams are break even or a net loss to the economy.

If it's breaking even it seems like a good thing because it's helping the little guy. Making some money is better than making none. I would say it's a good thing even if it's a nominal loss, better they work for it than collect food stamps with it.

htismaqe
03-06-2009, 01:12 PM
This stuff has been studied a hundred times by real economists and almost every time it comes up that sports teams are break even or a net loss to the economy.

They're a status symbol more than anything.

That being said, private citizens can't sign leases/contracts and then just decide not to pay monies owed because we've now got different priorities.

This is more government bullshit.

ottawa_chiefs_fan
03-06-2009, 01:15 PM
What the fuck are you people doing down there? Vote those motherfuckers out!

Simplex3
03-06-2009, 01:18 PM
If it's breaking even it seems like a good thing because it's helping the little guy. Making some money is better than making none. I would say it's a good thing even if it's a nominal loss, better they work for it than collect food stamps with it.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1998/12/21/252668/index.htm
...Allan Sanderson of the University of Chicago, who studies the economics of stadiums, figures that on average it takes $100,000 of government money to create a single stadium-connected job...

...Surely, though, stadiums can help regenerate distressed areas by bringing free-spenders into the city...right? Sorry. Phoenix likes to credit its ballpark with boosting downtown tax revenues by 34%. But even if the wretched Diamondbacks were responsible for every penny of that, the increase still doesn't come close to paying back taxpayers' $238 million investment...

...In Chicago, the five pro teams generate less than 1% of the personal income of the city. Thus, the current NBA lockout may be a tragedy for Bulls fans, but it has had roughly zero effect on the Chicago economy. Those who would have gone to a game are taking their dates to dinner or the movies or blues clubs instead: There is a transfer rather than a net loss of economic activity...

Simplex3
03-06-2009, 01:23 PM
They're a status symbol more than anything.

That being said, private citizens can't sign leases/contracts and then just decide not to pay monies owed because we've now got different priorities.

This is more government bullshit.

The government can't just do what it wants? What era are you living in? ;)

Micjones
03-06-2009, 01:27 PM
My God. The city has bigger fish to fry and the Chiefs aren't going anywhere anyway.
Hype the fuck down.

Everything gets CP posters going anymore.

eazyb81
03-06-2009, 01:31 PM
I must disagree. they bring in out of town visitors, who spend their money on local businesses, hotels, restaurants, etc. plus it helps the image of a city, which brings in visitors even when it has nothing to do with the teams.

what percentage of those 80,000 do you think are from outside the KC metro area? 10,000? 5,000? If its 5,000, and each of them spends $200 while in KC, thats a million. multiply that by 8 home games.

and every sunday the locals raid price chopper and liquor stores like its fukn new years eve.

There's tons of research out there that shows pro sports do not have a net positive on local economies. It's an old myth that teams and leagues use, but the money people are now spending on sports will not simply go into a black hole if the teams are no longer here.

Seriously, do a google search on the subject and I bet you can't find one legit economic study that agrees with your viewpoint.

I got into a huge argument with pete a few months ago on here where I listed numerous studies. I'm too lazy right now but you could probably do a search and find it.

htismaqe
03-06-2009, 01:40 PM
The government can't just do what it wants? What era are you living in? ;)

I realize this argument probably belongs in DC, but to me that's what this is about.

It's not about the teams, it's not about lining the pockets of billionaires.

It's about the government - AGAIN - ignoring the rule of law and binding contracts and just doing whatever they want.

The sports teams are a GREAT advesary - just look at this thread. The mayor turned this INTO an argument about lining the pockets of billionaires. It's a bait and switch.

THIS TIME it's about the sports teams. Next time it will be something much more important that is getting stiffed, something that we NEED. But the precedent will already have been set.

These guys need to live up to the agreement they SIGNED. Period.

penguinz
03-06-2009, 01:41 PM
There's tons of research out there that shows pro sports do not have a net positive on local economies. It's an old myth that teams and leagues use, but the money people are now spending on sports will not simply go into a black hole if the teams are no longer here.

Seriously, do a google search on the subject and I bet you can't find one legit economic study that agrees with your viewpoint.

I got into a huge argument with pete a few months ago on here where I listed numerous studies. I'm too lazy right now but you could probably do a search and find it.
If the teams go away it will have a big impact on KC. MO has a law that when an athlete performs in this state (whether a local team or visiting) they have to pay income tax for the $ earned while here.

That adds up to a lot of income tax dollars generated.

kcfanXIII
03-06-2009, 01:50 PM
I completely agree with him. Paying professional sports teams via stadium funding, tax breaks, etc while the owners pocket millions every year is one of the biggest cons going right now.

Don't get me wrong, I love the Chiefs and Royals, but I don't think we should be paying them to stay here for the right to put more money in their pocket when we go and watch them play.

The theory that pro teams benefit local economies is a bit of a myth as well.

because they don't pay that money directly back to the ciity through sales tax on tickets, food, or drink sales. and if you don't think that the business' around the complex benefit from those teams being there, your and idiot. i live right there, and on chiefs sundays its a mad house anywhere you go around there. are they going to book over 2 million? prob not, but don't sit there and act like the teams don't make the city money. thats just absurd.

Valiant
03-06-2009, 02:15 PM
because they don't pay that money directly back to the ciity through sales tax on tickets, food, or drink sales. and if you don't think that the business' around the complex benefit from those teams being there, your and idiot. i live right there, and on chiefs sundays its a mad house anywhere you go around there. are they going to book over 2 million? prob not, but don't sit there and act like the teams don't make the city money. thats just absurd.

He the money will be transferred somewhere else..

Valiant
03-06-2009, 02:15 PM
If the teams go away it will have a big impact on KC. MO has a law that when an athlete performs in this state (whether a local team or visiting) they have to pay income tax for the $ earned while here.

That adds up to a lot of income tax dollars generated.

I did not think that got passed??

eazyb81
03-06-2009, 03:15 PM
because they don't pay that money directly back to the ciity through sales tax on tickets, food, or drink sales. and if you don't think that the business' around the complex benefit from those teams being there, your and idiot. i live right there, and on chiefs sundays its a mad house anywhere you go around there. are they going to book over 2 million? prob not, but don't sit there and act like the teams don't make the city money. thats just absurd.

So if I don't go to Chiefs games and spend money on Sunday, where does that money go? Do I just shred it? Seriously. Think about it. You may save some more, but you're going to spend the money somewhere - we had a negative savings rate the last couple years in this country for a reason. Add in the increased taxes from refurbished stadiums, etc, and there isn't a net positive for local economies.

Instead of arguing, find one legit economic report that agrees with your line of thinking. I can find many that support my side, Simplex already posted some stuff earlier.

KingPriest2
03-06-2009, 08:02 PM
So if I don't go to Chiefs games and spend money on Sunday, where does that money go? Do I just shred it? Seriously. Think about it. You may save some more, but you're going to spend the money somewhere - we had a negative savings rate the last couple years in this country for a reason. Add in the increased taxes from refurbished stadiums, etc, and there isn't a net positive for local economies.

Instead of arguing, find one legit economic report that agrees with your line of thinking. I can find many that support my side, Simplex already posted some stuff earlier.

Sports teams do bring in money. Think abt it
Posted via Mobile Device

alnorth
03-06-2009, 08:39 PM
So if I don't go to Chiefs games and spend money on Sunday, where does that money go? Do I just shred it? Seriously. Think about it. You may save some more, but you're going to spend the money somewhere - we had a negative savings rate the last couple years in this country for a reason. Add in the increased taxes from refurbished stadiums, etc, and there isn't a net positive for local economies.

Instead of arguing, find one legit economic report that agrees with your line of thinking. I can find many that support my side, Simplex already posted some stuff earlier.

I dont live in Kansas City. A lot of fans are the same. If the Chiefs and Royals dont exist, thats several hundreds of dollars saved or possibly spent... in Iowa.

alnorth
03-06-2009, 08:42 PM
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1998/12/21/252668/index.htm

regarding these 3 quotes...

...Allan Sanderson of the University of Chicago, who studies the economics of stadiums, figures that on average it takes $100,000 of government money to create a single stadium-connected job...

...Surely, though, stadiums can help regenerate distressed areas by bringing free-spenders into the city...right? Sorry. Phoenix likes to credit its ballpark with boosting downtown tax revenues by 34%. But even if the wretched Diamondbacks were responsible for every penny of that, the increase still doesn't come close to paying back taxpayers' $238 million investment...

...In Chicago, the five pro teams generate less than 1% of the personal income of the city. Thus, the current NBA lockout may be a tragedy for Bulls fans, but it has had roughly zero effect on the Chicago economy. Those who would have gone to a game are taking their dates to dinner or the movies or blues clubs instead: There is a transfer rather than a net loss of economic activity...

1) Creating jobs is irrelevant to the question of revenue.

2) We arent wondering if we should spend the money to bring a sports team here. It's done, they are here, its not a question of do we want to spend several hundred million to bring one in. If we were Portland, the answer could possibly be that its not worth it to spend the enormous amount of money to attract 2 teams.

Whatever has been spent, its a sunk cost, gone. The question NOW is, is it worth it to spend $2 million/year (not $238M) to keep two teams. Answer: given that they ARE now here, hell f***ing yes.

3) Irrelevant, we arent talking income tax from player salaries, we are talking about millions of out-of-town visitors.

alnorth
03-06-2009, 08:52 PM
Analogy: You have an investment opportunity, it costs $100M to start up, has $2M/year upkeep cost, and theoretically could bring in $5M/year. The $100M is not refundable, you are only buying an income stream. If you do not pay the upkeep, the investment lapses and you do not get your $100M back.

The first investor is considering whether to buy it, the second investor bought it last year and is wondering whether to pay the upkeep.

For the first investor, they may not live long enough to get their money back, and even if they do, they earn a laughably low return. Perhaps this investment gives you prestige or happiness, so maybe you dont buy it for the rate of return, but economically its not a good investment.

The second investor already paid the money and cant think about the $100M any longer, they are now essentially looking at some sort of fixed annuity contract they are stuck with, and they would be stupid to just let it lapse and get nothing.

KingPriest2
03-06-2009, 09:30 PM
So if I don't go to Chiefs games and spend money on Sunday, where does that money go? Do I just shred it? Seriously. Think about it. You may save some more, but you're going to spend the money somewhere - we had a negative savings rate the last couple years in this country for a reason. Add in the increased taxes from refurbished stadiums, etc, and there isn't a net positive for local economies.

Instead of arguing, find one legit economic report that agrees with your line of thinking. I can find many that support my side, Simplex already posted some stuff earlier.

Last months pro bowl generated 28.6 mil in spending and 2.9 in taxes also brought in tourists for the tourism economy.

Per espn
Posted via Mobile Device

Halfcan
03-06-2009, 11:02 PM
I agree with him.

Putting more money in Clark Hunt's pocket should be LAST on his priority list.

I agree with you agreeing with him. I guess we our all in agreement on this. :)

dallaschiefsfan
03-07-2009, 03:41 PM
Red herring...this is not going to happen. This is a "sky is falling" moment for a stupid mayor.

Simplex3
03-07-2009, 04:10 PM
because they don't pay that money directly back to the ciity through sales tax on tickets, food, or drink sales. and if you don't think that the business' around the complex benefit from those teams being there, your and idiot. i live right there, and on chiefs sundays its a mad house anywhere you go around there. are they going to book over 2 million? prob not, but don't sit there and act like the teams don't make the city money. thats just absurd.

You seem to be leaving off several hundreds of millions of dollars in renovations, tax cuts, etc.

It has been shown time and time again that people don't spend money on sports teams that they wouldn't have spent somewhere else anyway. Is it busy around Arrowhead on game day? Of course. Studies show, however, than every penny of that would have been spent at some other entertainment venue.

Simplex3
03-07-2009, 04:11 PM
Sports teams do bring in money. Think abt it
Posted via Mobile Device

Yes. For their owner. Not for the city as a whole.

Simplex3
03-07-2009, 04:15 PM
Last months pro bowl generated 28.6 mil in spending and 2.9 in taxes also brought in tourists for the tourism economy.

Per espn
Posted via Mobile Device

THEY DIDN'T BUILD THE STADIUM. THEY DON'T GIVE GIANT TAX CREDITS TO THE PRO BOWL.

Read the studies people. Every argument you have used is debunked. Every last one.

If you want to make the decision based on an emotional attachment to a corporate entity then by all means, do. Just don't pretend you have some lofty financial goal.

Brock
03-07-2009, 04:16 PM
Last months pro bowl generated 28.6 mil in spending and 2.9 in taxes also brought in tourists for the tourism economy.

Per espn
Posted via Mobile Device

IN HAWAII

dallaschiefsfan
03-07-2009, 04:24 PM
You seem to be leaving off several hundreds of millions of dollars in renovations, tax cuts, etc.

It has been shown time and time again that people don't spend money on sports teams that they wouldn't have spent somewhere else anyway. Is it busy around Arrowhead on game day? Of course. Studies show, however, than every penny of that would have been spent at some other entertainment venue.

Always like the "studies show" argument. It sounds so facts-based...even without the study to cite.

Simplex3
03-07-2009, 04:33 PM
Always like the "studies show" argument. It sounds so facts-based...even without the study to cite.

I cited 3 earlier. You cite one.

KCChiefsMan
03-07-2009, 05:11 PM
the probably shelled out more than that for the wal-marts in the area

chiefqueen
03-07-2009, 05:25 PM
If he does get this passed he has to realize how much he will end up costing the city and the teams will move. Idle threats nothing. The Chiefs would be welcomed with open arms in Los Angeles. The Royals, who knows if anyone would want them. Las Vegas is out of the question due to the gambling, but who's to say that Portland wouldn't open up for them?

I don't think the Marlins ever got a new stadium iniatitive passed before the economy went south, so contraction becomes a possibility with the Marlins as dance partner.

Bugeater
03-07-2009, 05:34 PM
You seem to be leaving off several hundreds of millions of dollars in renovations, tax cuts, etc.

It has been shown time and time again that people don't spend money on sports teams that they wouldn't have spent somewhere else anyway. Is it busy around Arrowhead on game day? Of course. Studies show, however, than every penny of that would have been spent at some other entertainment venue.
Oh, I believe that, but that venue wouldn't necessarily be located in Kansas City, people do come from out of town to go to games. With that said, I have no idea what % of them aren't local, and what financial impact they have on the city.

dirk digler
03-07-2009, 05:39 PM
Funkhouser is an idiot. In a press conference yesterday who ever represents the county on the stadium board said the Sports Complex generated $142 million in sales tax revenue.

So basically the mayor would rather save $2 million than receive $142 million.

Brillant

Reerun_KC
03-07-2009, 06:12 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,506325,00.html

Maybe a repost?

JASONSAUTO
03-07-2009, 06:13 PM
Funkhouser is an idiot. In a press conference yesterday who ever represents the county on the stadium board said the Sports Complex generated $142 million in sales tax revenue.

So basically the mayor would rather save $2 million than receive $142 million.

Brillant

but...but... but...studies show cities lose money on sports teams:rolleyes:

ChiefMojo
03-07-2009, 06:27 PM
Anyone saying not having the Chiefs or Royals in KC is ok are freaking IDIOTS!!!!

Simplex3
03-07-2009, 06:32 PM
Funkhouser is an idiot. In a press conference yesterday who ever represents the county on the stadium board said the Sports Complex generated $142 million in sales tax revenue.

So basically the mayor would rather save $2 million than receive $142 million.

Brillant

but...but... but...studies show cities lose money on sports teams:rolleyes:

JASONSAUTO, is English your second language? No fewer than a dozen posts in this thread have already pointed out that the $142M in sales tax revenue would have still been made, it just would have been made by other businesses in KC. It has been proven.

In your effort to generate $142M in sales taxes via the Chiefs and Royals you've sent probably a billion dollars to Dallas, TX and Bentonville, AR that could have been spent with companies actually owned in KC.

I'm not saying kick the teams out, but join us over here in reality for a minute. Giving the teams money is not going to improve KC's economy. Period.

Simplex3
03-07-2009, 06:33 PM
Anyone saying not having the Chiefs or Royals in KC is ok are freaking IDIOTS!!!!

A) Nobody said make them leave.

B) We're basing our opinion on the research of economists. You're basing yours on the fact that you love a sports team who only wants your money. Who's the idiot here?

JASONSAUTO
03-07-2009, 06:35 PM
JASONSAUTO, is English your second language? No fewer than a dozen posts in this thread have already pointed out that the $142M in sales tax revenue would have still been made, it just would have been made by other businesses in KC. It has been proven.

In your effort to generate $142M in sales taxes via the Chiefs and Royals you've sent probably a billion dollars to Dallas, TX and Bentonville, AR that could have been spent with companies actually owned in KC.

I'm not saying kick the teams out, but join us over here in reality for a minute. Giving the teams money is not going to improve KC's economy. Period.

really, it's been proven huh? when was the last time the chiefs or royals werent in kc? you are talking about other cities right? as long as the teams are here nothing about if they werent here is "proven"

Bugeater
03-07-2009, 06:42 PM
really, it's been proven huh? when was the last time the chiefs or royals werent in kc? you are talking about other cities right? as long as the teams are here nothing about if they werent here is "proven"
It doesn't need to be proven, it's common sense. People are going to spend what they have to spend on entertainment either way. If the teams aren't around, they'll go to a movie instead, or maybe to a bar to watch sports. The city still receives sales tax revenue off of that. It's an economic wash.

The only net gain to the local economy is from out-of-towners who attend games.

Simplex3
03-07-2009, 06:43 PM
http://www.livevideo.com/video/1EFA01743AB2491F99D063C46158820B/idiocracy-intro.aspx

Simplex3
03-07-2009, 06:44 PM
It doesn't need to be proven, it's common sense. People are going to spend what they have to spend on entertainment either way. If the teams aren't around, they'll go to a movie instead, or maybe to a bar to watch sports. The city still receives sales tax revenue off of that. It's an economic wash.

The only net gain to the local economy is from out-of-towners who attend games.

Assuming those people wouldn't have come into town anyway, to see the Plaza or something.

JASONSAUTO
03-07-2009, 06:47 PM
It doesn't need to be proven, it's common sense. People are going to spend what they have to spend on entertainment either way. If the teams aren't around, they'll go to a movie instead, or maybe to a bar to watch sports. The city still receives sales tax revenue off of that. It's an economic wash.

The only net gain to the local economy is from out-of-towners who attend games.

some of the football fans WILL go somewhere else to watch the NFL or mlb, which in turn will cost them more than if they could watch said games in KC, so in fact they would have LESS entertainment money to spend in kc. IMO, the main point is that it's 2 million dollars, not something totally off the wall. 2 mil as compared to the city budget is a drop in the bucket, surely the advertising of the teams (city name on jersey's hats etc.) offsets that much

Simplex3
03-07-2009, 06:50 PM
some of the football fans WILL go somewhere else to watch the NFL or mlb, which in turn will cost them more than if they could watch said games in KC, so in fact they would have LESS entertainment money to spend in kc. IMO, the main point is that it's 2 million dollars, not something totally off the wall. 2 mil as compared to the city budget is a drop in the bucket, surely the advertising of the teams (city name on jersey's hats etc.) offsets that much

:shake: For fuck's sake...

Hope you aren't one of the cops that is going to be fired to give more money to Clark Hunt.

JASONSAUTO
03-07-2009, 06:54 PM
:shake: For fuck's sake...

Hope you aren't one of the cops that is going to be fired to give more money to Clark Hunt.

well if said cops were actually doing their jobs rather than fucking off they would get more done, why do you think that the common percaption of a "city job"=cush fuck off job? because it's true. make the guys who get paid well actually do a porportionate amount of work for the pay they are receiving and some problems would take care of themselves(also see big three automakers) oh and the More money to hunt" thing isnt true, hunt doesnt get the money it goes to the stadiums which the county owns, yet the former mayor pledged the money so it should continue to go there

Bugeater
03-07-2009, 06:59 PM
Assuming those people wouldn't have come into town anyway, to see the Plaza or something.
Which is probably the case with the Royals games.

some of the football fans WILL go somewhere else to watch the NFL or mlb, which in turn will cost them more than if they could watch said games in KC, so in fact they would have LESS entertainment money to spend in kc. IMO, the main point is that it's 2 million dollars, not something totally off the wall. 2 mil as compared to the city budget is a drop in the bucket, surely the advertising of the teams (city name on jersey's hats etc.) offsets that much
Eh, I suppose some may travel elsewhere, but they would be the exception, not the rule. I doubt there would be floods of people traveling across the state to watch the Cardinals if the Royals left town. Either way, the economic impact is going to be minimal at best.

Saul Good
03-07-2009, 07:01 PM
some of the football fans WILL go somewhere else to watch the NFL or mlb, which in turn will cost them more than if they could watch said games in KC, so in fact they would have LESS entertainment money to spend in kc. IMO, the main point is that it's 2 million dollars, not something totally off the wall. 2 mil as compared to the city budget is a drop in the bucket, surely the advertising of the teams (city name on jersey's hats etc.) offsets that muchI don't want to see our teams leave any more than you do, but I've read the studies. A city having a professional sports team and claiming that it creates a net profit for the community is like me joining Hallbrook Country Club because it will save me money on greens fees. It's just not true.

I can argue that joining a country club is cool and has perks, but to say that it's a better financial decision than playing at the local municipal course is absurd. If I can justify the cost because of the enjoyment I receive, great, but it's not an investment.

The same goes for professional sports teams. If you want to argue that it's good for the city because it provides entertainment opportunities, status, civic pride, etc., great. Those things come at a price, though. The question to ask is whether or not those things are worth the millions of dollars that it costs the city.

JASONSAUTO
03-07-2009, 07:05 PM
I don't want to see our teams leave any more than you do, but I've read the studies. A city having a professional sports team and claiming that it creates a net profit for the community is like me joining Hallbrook Country Club because it will save me money on greens fees. It's just not true.

I can argue that joining a country club is cool and has perks, but to say that it's a better financial decision than playing at the local municipal course is absurd. If I can justify the cost because of the enjoyment I receive, great, but it's not an investment.

The same goes for professional sports teams. If you want to argue that it's good for the city because it provides entertainment opportunities, status, civic pride, etc., great. Those things come at a price, though. The question to ask is whether or not those things are worth the millions of dollars that it costs the city.

2 million dollars, and like i brought up before i wonder what the city spends every year in advertising. those 2 teams are probably the best advertisment for the city. this just reeks of a mayor who could give a shit less about sports and will cut funding just because sports mean nothing to him

Simplex3
03-07-2009, 07:12 PM
2 million dollars, and like i brought up before i wonder what the city spends every year in advertising. those 2 teams are probably the best advertisment for the city. this just reeks of a mayor who could give a shit less about sports and will cut funding just because sports mean nothing to him

Kaufman was $250M. Arrowhead was $375M. Hunt got $35M in tax breaks for the new training camp. This was just in the last two years.

Simplex3
03-07-2009, 07:18 PM
well if said cops were actually doing their jobs rather than fucking off they would get more done, why do you think that the common percaption of a "city job"=cush fuck off job? because it's true. make the guys who get paid well actually do a porportionate amount of work for the pay they are receiving and some problems would take care of themselves...

Wow.

...oh and the More money to hunt" thing isnt true, hunt doesnt get the money it goes to the stadiums which the county owns, yet the former mayor pledged the money so it should continue to go there

Give me a break. Hunt wanted stadium upgrades so he could charge more for the same product. He wanted you to pay for those upgrades because he didn't want to. "Passionate fans" such as yourself decided to cough up the dough.

I don't live in KCMO. It isn't my problem either way. But the KCMO budget is screwed up in a big way. Funkhouser didn't do it. His predecessor did (and many before her). It's your contention that the new guy should keep doing the same dumb shit as the old guy (or gal in this case) because that's what "everyone" expects. That makes no damned sense whatsoever.

You want to call the stadiums an asset. That *might* be true if you were able to sell them to anyone else. But you can't. They are giant concrete structures that are where they are and can't be moved. So, they are NOT an asset. They are a liability because they require upkeep whether there is a tenant or not and you cannot sell it.

Simplex3
03-07-2009, 07:29 PM
Also, for everyone saying "it's only $2M": I love how when people are talking about government spending it is "only" $2M, but if I wrote them a check for $2M right now they'd pass out and crap their pants.

Saul Good
03-07-2009, 07:30 PM
oh and the More money to hunt" thing isnt true, hunt doesnt get the money it goes to the stadiums which the county owns, yet the former mayor pledged the money so it should continue to go thereLet's be sensible here. If you own a business and rent your space, it still benefits you if the owner improves the building, the parking lot, the roads around it, etc. You don't own the building, but you reap the rewards of the improvements.

JASONSAUTO
03-07-2009, 07:37 PM
Kaufman was $250M. Arrowhead was $375M. Hunt got $35M in tax breaks for the new training camp. This was just in the last two years.


Give me a break. Hunt wanted stadium upgrades so he could charge more for the same product. He wanted you to pay for those upgrades because he didn't want to. "Passionate fans" such as yourself decided to cough up the dough.

I don't live in KCMO. It isn't my problem either way. But the KCMO budget is screwed up in a big way. Funkhouser didn't do it. His predecessor did (and many before her). It's your contention that the new guy should keep doing the same dumb shit as the old guy (or gal in this case) because that's what "everyone" expects. That makes no damned sense whatsoever.

You want to call the stadiums an asset. That *might* be true if you were able to sell them to anyone else. But you can't. They are giant concrete structures that are where they are and can't be moved. So, they are NOT an asset. They are a liability because they require upkeep whether there is a tenant or not and you cannot sell it.

Also, for everyone saying "it's only $2M": I love how when people are talking about government spending it is "only" $2M, but if I wrote them a check for $2M right now they'd pass out and crap their pants.

#1 660 million spent already yet they will let the team leave over 2 million more per year, yeah great investment strategy

#2 i dont live in KCMO either so no i didnt vote for it

#3 again 660 mil spent and you cant sell them so lets let the tenant(who is pretty irreplaceable right now IMO) leave and throw that money away

#4 people(such as myself) say "it's only 2 million dollars , because in the scheme of the KCMO budget it is "only 2 million dollars". comparing that to someone this board being given 2 million dollars is ignorant IMO. BIG DIRRERENCE. i see how you work now though:D

mnchiefsguy
03-07-2009, 08:13 PM
I don't like spending tax payer money on things such as this either, but that is the cost of being a big city. If the Chiefs and Royals leave, we become a second tier city, no better than Des Moines or Omaha. Second tier cities do not draw major conventions, sporting events, etc. No one seems to ever factor in the loss of prestige losing our teams would cause. 2 million is a small price to pay for a 25 year lease, the city made the agreement, and should live up to it. Perhaps if the Mayor quit working at home and try to employ his wife at City Hall and actually tried to do his job, rather than just cutting money from easily vilified targets, maybe something would actually get done.

Bugeater
03-07-2009, 08:49 PM
Second tier cities do not draw major conventions, sporting events, etc.
Huh? Omaha hosted an NCAA regional, the US Olympic swim trials and the College World Series all in the 2008 calendar year.

dirk digler
03-07-2009, 09:54 PM
JASONSAUTO, is English your second language? No fewer than a dozen posts in this thread have already pointed out that the $142M in sales tax revenue would have still been made, it just would have been made by other businesses in KC. It has been proven.

In your effort to generate $142M in sales taxes via the Chiefs and Royals you've sent probably a billion dollars to Dallas, TX and Bentonville, AR that could have been spent with companies actually owned in KC.

I'm not saying kick the teams out, but join us over here in reality for a minute. Giving the teams money is not going to improve KC's economy. Period.

I disagree because if they would leave then KC has nothing and then people will go over to Kansas to spend money not in KC.

Also wasn't Bi-state tax money going to the Royals and Chiefs? If they were gone then that tax would be gone as well which means lost revenue.

dirk digler
03-07-2009, 09:56 PM
The only net gain to the local economy is from out-of-towners who attend games.

The largest part of the tax revenue came from visiting teams and players because their game checks are taxed.

So in effect no that money wouldn't be spent else where in KC since it came from outside KC.

Sam Hall
03-07-2009, 10:00 PM
Mark Funkhouser looks like Count Dooku

Simplex3
03-08-2009, 08:21 AM
I don't like spending tax payer money on things such as this either, but that is the cost of being a big city. If the Chiefs and Royals leave, we become a second tier city, no better than Des Moines or Omaha. Second tier cities do not draw major conventions, sporting events, etc. No one seems to ever factor in the loss of prestige losing our teams would cause. 2 million is a small price to pay for a 25 year lease, the city made the agreement, and should live up to it. Perhaps if the Mayor quit working at home and try to employ his wife at City Hall and actually tried to do his job, rather than just cutting money from easily vilified targets, maybe something would actually get done.

Prestige? You're going to fire people for prestige? ROFL

You know what isn't prestigious? Having a city where the sewer system is falling apart. Having roads that have huge holes in them covered in metal plates.

KC doesn't land any major conventions now with the two teams.

If it's 'only' $2M and the teams are such a boost for the KC economy then local businesses should have no problem coughing up the $2M to secure the lease.

Simplex3
03-08-2009, 08:27 AM
I disagree because if they would leave then KC has nothing and then people will go over to Kansas to spend money not in KC.

Also wasn't Bi-state tax money going to the Royals and Chiefs? If they were gone then that tax would be gone as well which means lost revenue.

Johnson County got duped into a bi-state on Union Station but voted down the stadium bi-state. The only county that voted in favor of the stadium tax was Jackson County, which makes sense because they were the only ones who would stand to make anything from it.

The problem with bi-states is that they are nothing but all the surrounding counties giving a welfare check to the corrupt Jackson County government. Thankfully people are figuring that out. Of course now we're dumping money we don't have into other dumb crap like the 'research triangle'.

Bugeater
03-08-2009, 09:31 AM
The largest part of the tax revenue came from visiting teams and players because their game checks are taxed.

So in effect no that money wouldn't be spent else where in KC since it came from outside KC.
That's not sales tax revenue, that's income tax revenue, those are two completely different things. Income tax revenue goes to the state unless they have a local income tax there.

Al Bundy
03-08-2009, 10:49 AM
That's not sales tax revenue, that's income tax revenue, those are two completely different things. Income tax revenue goes to the state unless they have a local income tax there.

Which Kansas City, does.