KC already hospitable to teams
 

From the Star

They aren't going anywhere. They might not get their stupid roof but they're staying put.

why doesn't whoever wrote this article shut the **** up.

You sound pretty sure. Here's a snippet from a larger article in the Boston Globe

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.

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

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.

Pay up,and they'll stay. Have fun in L.A, Clarkie.

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

Isn't Jackson County the Chiefs landlord?

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

Can't you build a new modern facility with 750 million bucks?

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

I heard a rumor they'll end up in San Antonio.

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?

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?

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).

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. :)

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.

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?

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.

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%.

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.

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.

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.

yep, LA Metrosexuals works

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.

afraid of a little reality?

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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

I don't.

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.

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.

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

FAX

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.

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.

L.A. fans do not deserve ANY team.

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 agree.

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

damn you winder

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.