When you are a city, you need to make sacrifices to give your residents something to be proud of. A sports team, especially a successful one is a great thing for any city. It serves as a symbol. Something more than money. It produces solidarity for the city and brings people together.

But don't kid yourself, it does bring in a large amount of money to the city. How can it not? People stay at hotels, they buy gas, they go out to eat before or after the game, buy beer. Lots of people that go to Chiefs games are from Oklahoma, Iowa, Central Missouri, Wichita, Nebraska who would never come to Kansas City as often as they do otherwise.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: It's shocking that you attended college and have a degree.

Kay.

I didn't prove anything...it was a study on the impact of publicly funded stadiums and the local community. It was a few years ago so dont have a link..

I found the part interesting that if people dont spend at the stadium..that expendable money still goes back into the economy. People still eat out and do things...but it isn't a consolidated purge that goes into the hands of a few. 70,000 people dropping $150-200 at one place...

I agree that a team can give a city like KC an identity...it's hard to put a monetary value on civic pride. Does anyone really think "Chargers" or "49ers" when talking about San Diego or San Fransisco? I dont...I think weather, beach and tech industry. Forcing tax payers to fund a stadium in those environments..where tourism isn't dependent on their professional sports is a rip-off.

Glendale AZ is losing 25 million a year on the coyotes.

It was $9m last year. The problem is that the arena sits empty too much. Suns have their own arena and it is too far out for most concerts.

It was supposed to go in Scottsdale (Scottsdale Rd. and McDowell), but they balked at the $180M financing. And the rednecks.

University of Phoenix Stadium was supposed to go downtown, as voted for. But somehow it didn't. Which is a bummer.

It isn't just the stadium, it's dealing with the tenants.

yes, data and facts are very annoying, when one is talking out ones ass

they should seel it to the city, I would love all cities to have a decent ownership in the team, but this would probably blow up badly, when they do a sell off to raise money, or a buy lease back deal, yeah well **** that idea

.

The NFL doesn't allow cities (other than Green Bay) to own the city. Mike Brown, son of Paul Brown, the original owner of the Bengals, will never sell. They'll keep it in the family as long as they have heirs.

The issue isn't with the Bengals organization, which has been very good for the past several years and was very good when Carson Palmer was healthy and youthful, it's with the fans.

Much like St. Louis, it's more of a "Baseball Town" and they just don't have the area's interest like the Chiefs or Vikings or Packers, other smaller markets that have found a way to succeed, despite population.

I believe that the NFL is going to finally allow a team in LA so that they can have a nice shiny new stadium in SoCal to host Super Bowls in.

If Kroenke wants to build a $2 billion dollar stadium in Inglewood, the NFL won't stop him. Otherwise, it's not going to happen.

The Carson plan site is literally on top of a toxic waste site and the environmental reports will take years.

Sure, but they lose the biggest card they have to threaten cities with.

Yeah, we are probably quoting different calculations.

Leadership is dysfunctional and the location is awful. The whole thing is, and has been, a disaster. And Glendale is stuck with it. Suckers. But I gotta believe they ended up out there as Glendale is closer to the retirement communities. Those communities are East Coast. Tons from Chicago.

It's also closer to PIR, where the NASCAR rednecks live.

They should be a case study in how NOT to bring a franchise to your town. IF the Coyotes leave, there is nothing to do with that building.