ChiefsPlanet

ChiefsPlanet (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Nzoner's Game Room (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=1)
-   -   The Buck stops here : Stadium / tax vote. (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=138393)

ROYC75 04-04-2006 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefnj
If the tax passes how pissed off are people going to be when the organization institutes PSL's? I personally find the rolling roof idea to be idiotic, but I'm a purist and like footbal played outdoors in inclimate weather.

I'm not sure how many times it's been mentioned, but I'm positive it's been mentioned at least once, if not 10 - 20 times now. The roof will not be used for football, except for the SB and any college bowl game .

way2kalm 04-04-2006 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyton75
Here's what I don't get about those opposing a downtown stadium.. this line about "well, we don't want some radio annoucer to get rich.."

well, if its true that moving the stadium downtown increases property values so much in the area, aren't they just admitting its a good idea; but they hate Keitzman so much that they dont' wanna do it just to ***** him?!

Personally, I could give a rats ass about what Keitzman has to say, I stopped listening to 810 about 2 years ago. I oppose a downtown baseball stadium becuase of the following reasons:

1) I hate driving downtown. I don't go down there unless I have to and all a downtown baseball stadium would do is add to the congestion, primarly on day games. I know some will say, "well what about the Sprint Center!" Well, 18,000 people coming out of downtown is better that 35,000+ people coming out of downtown on top of rush hour traffic. Most events happening at the Sprint center will be occuring at night anyway.

2) Public transportation in this city is absolue S**T!! There will be no reliable CITY bus service, El Train, or Subway headed downtown for a baseball game. City's like NY, Boston, LA, Chicago, etc can handle a downtown ball park because their public transportation system is far superior to anything we have in this city.

3) A downtown stadium would cost so much more. If people are complaining about this improvements tax, wait unitl they see a tax for a new stadium. Improving Kuaffmann Stadium makes good sense economical sense.

4) The Royals have already expressed that they want to stay where they are at. That should be the most important point.

So you see, none of opinions have to do with a talk show host, whom of which I haven't listened to in a long time.

Eleazar 04-04-2006 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bowser
I get what you're saying - I'm a Northlander as well. And I'm not proposing a Zona Rosa South or anything, just some places to meet up before the game, or go to after the game. It wouldn't take much to shut the people up about having no amenities around the stadiums.

I understand what you're saying. I just don't know how much that area, which is not exactly the most affluent, would be able to support those kinds of things.

I mean, if you think about it you have pretty much 90-100 days a year where there are major events at the K + Arrowhead, right? Where's the money for those restaurants and such going to come from for the rest of the year?

It would be cool for there to be something to do besides firing your grill back up after the game for more tailgating, but I don't see it. The area is delapidated and the problem is a lot bigger than the truman sports complex.

way2kalm 04-04-2006 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ROYC75
I'm not sure how many times it's been mentioned, but I'm positive it's been mentioned at least once, if not 10 - 20 times now. The roof will not be used for football, except for the SB and any college bowl game .

If you haven't noticed by now, some people don't like to look at ALL of the facts be for they make a decision.

Chiefnj 04-04-2006 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ROYC75
I'm not sure how many times it's been mentioned, but I'm positive it's been mentioned at least once, if not 10 - 20 times now. The roof will not be used for football, except for the SB and any college bowl game .

There was an article by Rand (I believe) that said it would be used for football in bad weather.

ROYC75 04-04-2006 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefnj
There was an article by Rand (I believe) that said it would be used for football in bad weather.

He's a writer, CP was joking around and said it would not be used unless they were playing the Packers and it was snowy and icy, then he would cover it, as for Miami, it would not be covered. Carl and Lamar likes football outside in the elements.

Dartgod 04-04-2006 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ROYC75
I'm not sure how many times it's been mentioned, but I'm positive it's been mentioned at least once, if not 10 - 20 times now. The roof will not be used for football, except for the SB and any college bowl game .

That's what I thought too, but then there was this in the Star today:

Quote:

Would the new roof be used in the winter with cold weather at Chiefs games, without obvious rain or snow?
The roof could be used for that. Chiefs officials indicate that a policy would be developed if voters approve the rolling roof, but it could be a game-by-game decision.

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/14242743.htm
So you tell me? :shrug:

Bowser 04-04-2006 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dartgod
That's what I thought too, but then there was this in the Star today:


So you tell me? :shrug:

The way it sounds, the really shitty weather games will be covered - no more Flood Bowl games like against Seattle, or no more -25 wind chill games, like against the Colts in '95.

Can't say that hurts my feelings.

Dartgod 04-04-2006 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bowser
The way it sounds, the really shitty weather games will be covered - no more Flood Bowl games like against Seattle, or no more -25 wind chill games, like against the Colts in '95.

Can't say that hurts my feelings.

Read it again...

Quote:

Would the new roof be used in the winter with cold weather at Chiefs games, without obvious rain or snow?
The roof could be used for that. Chiefs officials indicate that a policy would be developed if voters approve the rolling roof, but it could be a game-by-game decision.

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/14242743.htm

ROYC75 04-04-2006 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dartgod
Read it again...

Many people have fears about it.... This is directed to them....


It takes a couple of days to heat the stadium after it has been moved, IMHO I don't see football being an issue with the roof.

It would be good for the major events that KC could draw.

As for the giant flying roof from an F-5 tornado, doomsday( F-25 ) destruction that so many people have harped on..... it's not different than any other stucture in KC. Besides, it will be insured as any other structure.... Arrowhead, the K, etc.

To build new is more costly than it is to repair, which will be good for another 25 - 30 years.

Look around and see who has built new stadiums twice since the sports complex was built ?

MahiMike 04-04-2006 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Dole
Tell Buck Bob Dole said he needs to get his own schtick.

funny ROFL

Dartgod 04-04-2006 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ROYC75
Many people have fears about it.... This is directed to them....


It takes a couple of days to heat the stadium after it has been moved, IMHO I don't see football being an issue with the roof.

It would be good for the major events that KC could draw.

As for the giant flying roof from an F25 tornado, doomsday destruction that so many people have harped on..... it's nor different than any other stucture in KC. Besides, it will be insured as any other structure.... Arrowhead, the K, etc.

To build new is more costly than it is to repair, which will be good for another 25 - 30 years.

Look around and see who has built new stadiums twice since the sports complex was built ?

FTR, I'm not against it. In fact, I can't even vote on it. I'm just pointing out what was printed in the paper today about it.

ct 04-04-2006 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ROYC75
...
To build new is more costly than it is to repair, which will be good for another 25 - 30 years.

Look around and see who has built new stadiums twice since the sports complex was built ?

OK I'll bite. Who? Denver? St. Louis?

ROYC75 04-04-2006 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dartgod
FTR, I'm not against it. In fact, I can't even vote on it. I'm just pointing out what was printed in the paper today about it.


It wasn't directed towards you....... I knew better. :D

MahiMike 04-04-2006 11:11 AM

Well done Buck. I had no idea you could write so well.

I live outside of KC but I'm just as affected by this vote as people in Clay county. I've always thought it was stupid to have Jackson County control everything but when I saw haw little tax they're actually paying, I was shocked.

If this doesn't pass, they deserve what they get - nothing and lots of it.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:11 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.