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.

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

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. :)

i dont know wtf id do if there was no chiefs football in kc, there would be major hell if the team was moved.

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

"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

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.

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.

lets see what happens when a couple of the games get blacked out this year

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.

Agreed.

On the other hand, there's always NASCAR.

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.