The Top Most Valuable NFL franchises & what makes them rich

[ChiefsKing]

#1) The Washington Redskins have the largest football stadium in professional footbal.
To reduce the massive debt he incurred when he bought the team in 1999, Daniel Snyder sold a 20% stake in the Washington Redskins for $200 million and increased revenue significantly by making his FedEx Field the largest football stadium in professional football. For this season, the Redskins have added the Touchdown Club, whereby fans waiting to vault over the 75,000 names on the waiting list for season tickets can obtain prime seats for $7,500. The Touchdown Club includes mid-field lower bowl seats as well as a catered pre-game party, pre-game field passes, parking and a trip to a Redskins game in either Philadelphia or New York.





#2) The Dallas Cowboys will be getting the most lucrative stadium in the history of sports.
Jerry Jones' Super Bowl run ended a long time ago. But his team's run for riches continues. In 2008 the Cowboys should be moving into what will likely be the most lucrative stadium in the history of sports. The $650 million will be financed half with taxpayer money and half by the Cowboys, with Jones holding the operating keys. Meanwhile, the Dallas Cowboys have begun an alliance with Mexican sports apparel maker Atletica that will result in the team's merchandise being sold in that company's 16 stores in Mexico, and the Cowboys selling Atletica's soccer jerseys in the 35 Cowboys-owned stores in the U.S.




#3) The New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft risked over $300 million of his own fortune when he privately financed Gillette Stadium, which opened for the 2002 season. But the timing couldn't have been better as the Patriots won the first of three Super Bowls the year before they moved into their new stadium and have since won two more championships. The team's success on the gridiron has helped turn the Patriots into a gold mine for sponsors and advertisers, who pumped over $20 million into the team last year.




#4) The Philadelphia Eagles. With Terrell Owens causing havoc at training camp by protesting the team's reluctance to renegotiate his contract, it's doubtful the Philadelphia Eagles will return to the Super Bowl this year. But the Eagles are guaranteed to remain among the NFL's richest franchises for a long time because of their stadium deal. The Eagles operate the stadium, and with corporate sponsors like Sunoco and Staples locked in and its 172 suites accounted for, the team should pull in over $60 million in sponsorship and premium seat revenue annually. Now if only someone can talk some sense into TO.


#5) The Houston Texans have yet to have a winning season since joining the NFL in 2003. But the team has experienced nothing but victory on its profit and loss statement. Forbes 400 member Robert McNair has quickly taken advantage of the league dropping its restrictions on team marketing, limited to a 75 mile radius around their home city, by hiring a marketing director to take on the Dallas Cowboys throughout Texas. Houston has the second largest amount of Forbes 500 headquarters in the U.S., which enabled the team to rake in over $20 million in sponsorship and advertising revenue last year.


#6) The Denver Broncos are still paying the price for skirting the league's salary cap rules during the franchise's glory years. This year the team lost their third-round pick in the draft and will pay a $950,000 fine for undisclosed salary agreements made with select players from 1996 to 1998. The Broncos also had to surrender a third-round pick and pay a fine of slightly less than $1 million in 2001 under similar circumstances for contracts that were awarded for former Bronco quarterback John Elway and running back Terrell Davis.


#19) The Kansas City Chiefs. Last November Kansas City area voters struck down a sales-tax proposal that would have provided the bulk of the revenue for a much-needed renovation for antiquated Arrowhead Stadium, which opened in 1972. The Chiefs, who operate the stadium for football games and some non-football events like soccer, need more revenue from suites and club seating to remain among the financial elite in the NFL. Look for wealthy Lamar Hunt to build a new stadium.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/30/300988.html

[jynni]

Okay - I'm curious - just how much is Lamar worth? Could he finance his own stadium? From looking at the top of the list, it appears that at least partially owning our own facility is financially worth the $$$.

[Dr. Johnny Fever]

I thought it would say look for weathy son-of-the-boss Clark Hunt to take over and build a new stadium... in Los Angelas.

[htismaqe]

The top 6 has nothing to do with who owns the stadium...it has everything to do with timing.

All of those stadiums have been built in the last five years.

[ChiefsKing]

Here is a list of each team:


Rank Team (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/30/Team_1.html) Current Value1 ($mil) (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/30/Value_1.html) 1-Yr Value Change (%) (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/30/Change_1.html) Debt/Value3 (%) (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/30/Debt_1.html) Revenues4 ($mil) (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/30/Revenues_1.html) Operating Income5 ($mil) (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/30/Income_1.html) 1 Washington Redskins (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/30/300925.html) 1,264 15 19 287 53.8 2 Dallas Cowboys (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/30/300988.html) 1,063 15 19 231 54.3 3 New England Patriots (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/30/307338.html) 1,040 21 29 236 50.5 4 Philadelphia Eagles (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/30/301623.html) 952 14 35 216 24.5 5 Houston Texans (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/30/302019.html) 946 5 45 215 41.3 6 Denver Broncos (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/30/308211.html) 907 11 22 202 49.4 7 Cleveland Browns (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/30/307074.html) 892 12 11 203 41.1 8 Carolina Panthers (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/30/309456.html) 878 16 14 195 24.3 9 Tampa Bay Buccaneers (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/30/306470.html) 877 13 16 195 45.4 10 Chicago Bears (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/30/301335.html) 871 11 22 193 40.1 11 Baltimore Ravens (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/30/309106.html) 864 11 32 192 32.7 12 Miami Dolphins (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/30/303017.html) 856 12 23 190 15.8 13 Green Bay Packers (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/30/302814.html) 849 12 4 189 35.4 14 Tennessee Titans (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/30/308897.html) 839 14 15 186 35.1 15 Seattle Seahawks (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/30/309349.html) 823 16 14 183 14.4 16 Pittsburgh Steelers (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/30/305046.html) 820 14 12 182 36.5
Rank Team (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/30/Team_1.html) Current Value1 ($mil) (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/30/Value_1.html) 1-Yr Value Change (%) (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/30/Change_1.html) Debt/Value3 (%) (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/30/Debt_1.html) Revenues4 ($mil) (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/30/Revenues_1.html) Operating Income5 ($mil) (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/30/Income_1.html) 17 New York Giants (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/30/304328.html) 806 17 8 175 26.7 18 Detroit Lions (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/30/300486.html) 780 4 39 186 15.4 19 Kansas City Chiefs (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/30/309072.html) 762 7 16 181 31 20 St Louis Rams (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/30/307693.html) 757 7 13 176 39.8 21 New York Jets (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/30/304841.html) 739 8 14 172 12 22 New Orleans Saints (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/30/309939.html) 718 15 17 175 42.6 23 Cincinnati Bengals (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/30/306869.html) 716 6 14 171 45.6 24 Indianapolis Colts (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/30/309104.html) 715 17 22 166 16.4 25 Buffalo Bills (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/30/301765.html) 708 11 10 173 36.1 26 San Francisco 49ers (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/30/307075.html) 699 10 14 171 43.6 27 Jacksonville Jaguars (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/30/306892.html) 691 1 18 169 34.6 28 Atlanta Falcons (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/30/300786.html) 690 14 40 168 26.8 29 San Diego Chargers (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/30/308205.html) 678 9 15 165 32.8 30 Oakland Raiders (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/30/300874.html) 676 8 8 169 7.8 31 Arizona Cardinals (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/30/309893.html) 673 22 12 153 16.2 32 Minnesota Vikings (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/30/309201.html) 658 9 48 164 15.6

[Simplex3]

"Team value" has very little to do with yearly earnings and even less to do with fan loyalty, etc.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: If the Hunts move the Chiefs out of KC one of the teams with low attendance will be here in 3 years or less. Sellling out every game and not even having to get to the playoffs (and God forbid win a game) is too damn attractive to be overlooked.

[ChiefsKing]

How does a team like the Cardinals who suck every year and are almost last in revenue, get a new stadium?

KC needs a new stadium just to keep up with the rest of the league. They need to build a stadium that is over the top, like arrowhead was 30 years ago.

[Simplex3]

How does a team like the Cardinals who suck every year and are almost last in revenue, get a new stadium?

KC needs a new stadium just to keep up with the rest of the league. They need to build a stadium that is over the top, like arrowhead was 30 years ago.
I'm all for it as long as the guy making all the money pays for it.

PS. The Cards didn't have a stadium at all. They played in a a college stadium and it took at least two ballots to get the new one approved.

[BigRedChief]

How does a team like the Cardinals who suck every year and are almost last in revenue, get a new stadium?

KC needs a new stadium just to keep up with the rest of the league. They need to build a stadium that is over the top, like arrowhead was 30 years ago.

Fuk a new stadium

Fuk a retractable roof

Renovate Arrowhead.

[Katipan]

How does a team like the Cardinals who suck every year and are almost last in revenue, get a new stadium?

KC needs a new stadium just to keep up with the rest of the league. They need to build a stadium that is over the top, like arrowhead was 30 years ago.

We tax tourism. Hotels... Car rentals... etc. to pay for it.

Plus, one of the horrible things about attending Cardinals games wasn't necessarily just the Cardinals.

Sun Devil Stadium is great when you're 20 and drunk before dawn. But I'm getting too old to be grafted to a metal bleacher in 120 weather. *shrug* At least without having a starting quarterback on top of me.

edit: I forgot that we also wanted to make sure we got the SUperbowl back. We even pushed our drinking hours back for it.

[ChiefsKing]

"Team value" has very little to do with yearly earnings and even less to do with fan loyalty, etc.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: If the Hunts move the Chiefs out of KC one of the teams with low attendance will be here in 3 years or less. Sellling out every game and not even having to get to the playoffs (and God forbid win a game) is too damn attractive to be overlooked.



Its not an easy thing to do that is for sure. It is because even though the Chiefs have not won very many playoff games, they also haven't had very many losing seasons, and are usually in the "hunt" for the playoffs each year. The Chiefs have won more regular season games in the last 10 years than most teams. Hard to duplicate that with any team.

[Simplex3]

Its not an easy thing to do that is for sure. It is because even though the Chiefs have not won very many playoff games, they also haven't had very many losing seasons, and are usually in the "hunt" for the playoffs each year. The Chiefs have won more regular season games in the last 10 years than most teams. Hard to duplicate that with any team.
Woohoo! We're the best mediocre team in the league! Thank God, I would hate to be the Bucs and win a Super Bowl in there somewhere.

If your goal is to be better than 8-8 you'll never win it all. Just look in the dictionary under "Chiefs".

[ChiefsKing]

Arizona Cardinals:

"Next season the Arizona Cardinals will move into their new $448 million stadium in Glendale, Arizona. The Cardinals are only responsible for $104 million of the stadium's financing, plus any cost overruns. Despite the fact the Cardinals have stumbled on the gridiron since moving from St. Louis to Tempe in 1988 (one winning season during the past 20 years), the team stands to move out of the league's financial cellar next season. New sponsors like IT systems provider Insight Enterprises will add several million dollars in sponsorship revenue, as will the stadium's 88 luxury suites."

[Saulbadguy]

Need a new stadium in KCK, where we know how to get things done.

[ChiefsKing]

Woohoo! We're the best mediocre team in the league! Thank God, I would hate to be the Bucs and win a Super Bowl in there somewhere.

If your goal is to be better than 8-8 you'll never win it all. Just look in the dictionary under "Chiefs".


I agree with you. Most teams have up and down seasons. The Chiefs seem to win over 10 games every other year and still not able to win in the playoffs. It is the success in the regular season though that keeps the loyal fan base. Anyone who was able to attend a game in the early '80's when winning was few and far between, didn't have to worry about any waiting lists for tickets.

[ChiefsKing]

Does this sound familiar? This could easily be the Chiefs if taxpayers aren't carefull.

"After years of trying and failing to get taxpayers to build him a new stadium, Red McCombs, who purchased the Vikings in 1998, sold the team in June to a partnership led by New Jersey-based real estate developer Zygmunt Wilf. McCombs' pretax profit: $350 million. During the McCombs era the Vikings sold out every home game and became an offensive powerhouse, making the playoffs in four of his seven seasons and twice advancing to the NFC championship game."



Yes, the person making all the money on it should pay for it. Afterall, no one is going to share the profit, so why share the expense? What other buisness gets taxpayers to foot the bill?
That being said, the Chiefs need a new stadium. There are 32 teams who have had to deal with this at one time or another. Whoever has to pay for it, just get it done!

[Simplex3]

IMO you'll never get the KC area voters to approve a bi-state that goes almost entirely to Jackson County, MO. After the Science City debacle we all know full well half that money would be laundered to their buddies. You'll notice only one county voted for the last one; just so happens that county was the one that would get all of the money. Shocking, really.

There are only two smart ways to get this done IMO:

1. Give the deed to Arrowhead to the Chiefs and Kaufman to the Royals. Now they own them. People take better care of stuff they own than they do stuff then rent.

2. Move the Chiefs to KS. where money is spent more intelligently and there is no StL to fight with. Let's face it, as long as you MO people keep voting StL loving reps to state seats KCMO will continue to suffer.

[cdcox]

Yes, the person making all the money on it should pay for it. Afterall, no one is going to share the profit, so why share the expense? What other buisness gets taxpayers to foot the bill?



Not picking on you, just using your quote to make a point that many on the board and in KC still haven't comprehended.

It matters not one iota who can afford it, or who will get the profits. NFL teams are getting brand-new publically-funded staidums. It is the price of admission for having an NFL team in your city. If KCMO or the state of MO doesn't want to pay for it (or upgrades to Arrowhead) then the Hunts will take the team to Kansas, or if Kansas doesn't come through, to some other place. It would do every one a world of good to just forget the idea of the Hunts paying for their own stadium. It ain't gonna happen. Why? Because they don't have to.

[htismaqe]

"Team value" has very little to do with yearly earnings and even less to do with fan loyalty, etc.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: If the Hunts move the Chiefs out of KC one of the teams with low attendance will be here in 3 years or less. Sellling out every game and not even having to get to the playoffs (and God forbid win a game) is too damn attractive to be overlooked.

No other team will move here if they have to finance the stadium themselves.

There are plenty of cities who will use tax money to pay for stadiums if KC won't.

Sorry you don't like it, but that's reality. Should Lamar foot the bill? That's debatable. Will Lamar foot the bill? Not a chance in hell.

[Simplex3]

It would do every one a world of good to just forget the idea of the Hunts paying for their own stadium. It ain't gonna happen. Why? Because they don't have to.
Someone is going to be the first to finance their own stadium. Might as well be the Chiefs.

Keep in mind these gigantic stadiums were all passed during a period of economic bliss. We don't live there right now and probably won't for a long time.

If Hunt is dumb enough to take his team from a place that sells out every game to a place that hasn't been able to keep a team (with how many chances?) then good ridance. An owner that dumb can't win it all anyway.

[jidar]

Hell yeah it might as well be the Chiefs. I mean that makes total sense that a small market team is going to be the place you would take a big financial risk.

Simplex3, more like just plain Simple.

[htismaqe]

Someone is going to be the first to finance their own stadium. Might as well be the Chiefs.

Keep in mind these gigantic stadiums were all passed during a period of economic bliss. We don't live there right now and probably won't for a long time.

If Hunt is dumb enough to take his team from a place that sells out every game to a place that hasn't been able to keep a team (with how many chances?) then good ridance. An owner that dumb can't win it all anyway.

FYI, Robert Kraft was the first to finance his own stadium. Gillette Stadium was paid for entirely by the team.

Second, you're wrong about "economic bliss". Indianapolis just broke ground on they're new stadium, having passed it last year. I would hardly call last year a period of economic bliss. Their stadium, the newest in the NFL, was 100% financed by taxpayers. The ownership kicked in ZILCH.

Finally, as it pertains to the Chiefs, what is the incentive for Hunt to take the risk when any number of cities will pay for it for him? You want to talk about dumb, shelling out $400M of your own money when multiple parties would pay for it for you is the very definition of dumb.

[the Talking Can]

If Missouri won't help pay for a stadium/improvements then Kansas will...in a heartbeat...I'd vote for it almost no questions asked...

[Simplex3]

Hell yeah it might as well be the Chiefs. I mean that makes total sense that a small market team is going to be the place you would take a big financial risk.

Simplex3, more like just plain Simple.
Ok then genious (cps), you be the first to explain to me how the Chiefs benefit you fiscally. Prove all of the economists wrong and explain how a pro sports franchise is actually a benefit to the economy when the local taxpayers have to pay for the stadium. Come on, you know you can do it. You're the man.

You and those like you need to realize that the money spent on sports teams comes from the pool economists consider entertainment spending. The most important "feature" of entertainment spending is that, by and large, the money will be spent in the community regardless of whether a sports team is there or not. So basically you're paying hundreds of millions of dollars to be allowed to spend your entertainment dollars on a football team. Smart move.

Keep in mind there is nothing stopping all of you from setting up a fund, taking donations, raising the money, and handing a check to the Hunt family for a the new stadium. If you're so hell bent that it's a good idea then that should be a no-brainer. Hell, I'll even build and host the web site for you. After all, it will never see any traffic. Once people actually see the money leaving their pocket they usually get a different view on the whole thing. That's why those magical "tax dollars" work so well for the average American idiot. They don't understand that's their money.

[Simplex3]

FYI, Robert Kraft was the first to finance his own stadium. Gillette Stadium was paid for entirely by the team.

Second, you're wrong about "economic bliss". Indianapolis just broke ground on they're new stadium, having passed it last year. I would hardly call last year a period of economic bliss. Their stadium, the newest in the NFL, was 100% financed by taxpayers. The ownership kicked in ZILCH.

Finally, as it pertains to the Chiefs, what is the incentive for Hunt to take the risk when any number of cities will pay for it for him? You want to talk about dumb, shelling out $400M of your own money when multiple parties would pay for it for you is the very definition of dumb.
Having a kick ass new stadium with tons of luxury boxes and nobody buying isn't smart. These stadiums don't add revenue, they add opportunity for revenue. If he goes somewhere that isn't selling out he's taking it up the ass.

[the Talking Can]

Ok then genious (cps), you be the first to explain to me how the Chiefs benefit you fiscally. Prove all of the economists wrong and explain how a pro sports franchise is actually a benefit to the economy when the local taxpayers have to pay for the stadium. Come on, you know you can do it. You're the man.

You and those like you need to realize that they money spent on sports teams comes from the pool economists consider entertainment spending. The most important "feature" of entertainment spending is that, by and large, the money will be spent in the community regardless of whether a sports team is there or not. So basically you're paying hundreds of millions of dollars to be allowed to spend your entertainment dollars on a football team. Smart move.

Keep in mind there is nothing stopping all of you from setting up a fund, taking donations, raising the money, and handing a check to the Hunt family for a the new stadium. If you're so hell bent that it's a good idea then that should be a no-brainer. Hell, I'll even build and host the web site for you. After all, it will never see any traffic. Once people actually see the money leaving their pocket they usually get a different view on the whole thing. That's why those magical "tax dollars" work so well for the average American idiot. They don't understand that's their money.

have fun rooting for the Los Angeles Chiefs....then you and your economist friends have "Chess Sundays" during the football season.....yea

[htismaqe]

Ok then genious (cps), you be the first to explain to me how the Chiefs benefit you fiscally. Prove all of the economists wrong and explain how a pro sports franchise is actually a benefit to the economy when the local taxpayers have to pay for the stadium. Come on, you know you can do it. You're the man.

You and those like you need to realize that the money spent on sports teams comes from the pool economists consider entertainment spending. The most important "feature" of entertainment spending is that, by and large, the money will be spent in the community regardless of whether a sports team is there or not. So basically you're paying hundreds of millions of dollars to be allowed to spend your entertainment dollars on a football team. Smart move.

Keep in mind there is nothing stopping all of you from setting up a fund, taking donations, raising the money, and handing a check to the Hunt family for a the new stadium. If you're so hell bent that it's a good idea then that should be a no-brainer. Hell, I'll even build and host the web site for you. After all, it will never see any traffic. Once people actually see the money leaving their pocket they usually get a different view on the whole thing. That's why those magical "tax dollars" work so well for the average American idiot. They don't understand that's their money.

Nice to see that you're completely missing the point.

This is not about what is right and wrong. This is about what IS.

If KC won't pay for a new stadium, some city WILL. It's as simple as that.

It doesn't matter if it's right, popular, or smart. It's a FACT.

[Simplex3]

have fun rooting for the Los Angeles Chiefs....then you and your economist friends have "Chess Sundays" during the football season.....yea
So you want to run the website that takes stadium donations?

WTF is it with people who are willing to shell out cash just so a team will have the name of their city on it? I just do not get that at all. I can watch the games on TV no matter where they team calls home.

[htismaqe]

Having a kick ass new stadium with tons of luxury boxes and nobody buying isn't smart. These stadiums don't add revenue, they add opportunity for revenue. If he goes somewhere that isn't selling out he's taking it up the ass.

The luxury suites will sell, period, regardless of location. He'd be taking it up the ass if he paid for his own stadium.

[jynni]

WTF is it with people who are willing to shell out cash just so a team will have the name of their city on it? I just do not get that at all. I can watch the games on TV no matter where they team calls home.
WTF?

[Simplex3]

Nice to see that you're completely missing the point.

This is not about what is right and wrong. This is about what IS.

If KC won't pay for a new stadium, some city WILL. It's as simple as that.

It doesn't matter if it's right, popular, or smart. It's a FACT.
The only fact is that there is someone, somewhere dumb enough to let the Hunts jam a new stadium up their ass without so much as a reach-around. You appearantly are willing to be that guy.

I get that someone will. I understand that. I get that it will be attractive to the Chiefs to move somewhere that they don't have to pay for their own stadium. I get all of those points.

My point is "who gives a s**t" for any reason other than stupid pride? I've had two business partners run two perfectly good companies into the ground because of pride. Pride should never be brought along when you're going to be discussing money, and monitarily there is no good reason to build them a new stadium.

Now, you MIGHT convince me to loan them the money with some sweetheart interest rate. Come up with something creative to help them out without us taking the brunt of it and I'm all ears.

[Simplex3]

WTF?
What a well formed response to my question. You'll be voting *for* the tax increase I see.

[htismaqe]

WTF?

He obviously doesn't care about the city, but rather the team. The example would be the Cardinals moving from St. Louis to Arizona -- it's still the Cardinals.

[the Talking Can]

So you want to run the website that takes stadium donations?

WTF is it with people who are willing to shell out cash just so a team will have the name of their city on it? I just do not get that at all. I can watch the games on TV no matter where they team calls home.

I'm happy to pay for the Kansas City Chiefs.

You're happy to root for the Los Angeles Chiefs. I'll pass.

[beavis]

have fun rooting for the Los Angeles Chiefs....then you and your economist friends have "Chess Sundays" during the football season.....yea
The LA Chiefs thing is cute and all, but it isn't going to happen.

[beavis]

The only fact is that there is someone, somewhere dumb enough to let the Hunts jam a new stadium up their ass without so much as a reach-around. You appearantly are willing to be that guy.

I get that someone will. I understand that. I get that it will be attractive to the Chiefs to move somewhere that they don't have to pay for their own stadium. I get all of those points.

My point is "who gives a s**t" for any reason other than stupid pride? I've had two business partners run two perfectly good companies into the ground because of pride. Pride should never be brought along when you're going to be discussing money, and monitarily there is no good reason to build them a new stadium.

Now, you MIGHT convince me to loan them the money with some sweetheart interest rate. Come up with something creative to help them out without us taking the brunt of it and I'm all ears.
Charity for millionaires is a great idea isn't it?

[Simplex3]

He obviously doesn't care about the city the team is in, but rather the team. The example would be the Cardinals moving from St. Louis to Arizona -- it's still the Cardinals.
With one modification, EXACTLY! Phew, I didn't think anyone would ever get that.

It's not that I don't care about the city. I own a business here, I care a great deal about the city and it's financial future. That's why I'm so opposed to dumping even more of the city's revenues into something that only a couple of construction companies (likely from another state) and the Hunt family (from another state) will benefit from.

[htismaqe]

The only fact is that there is someone, somewhere dumb enough to let the Hunts jam a new stadium up their ass without so much as a reach-around. You appearantly are willing to be that guy.

I get that someone will. I understand that. I get that it will be attractive to the Chiefs to move somewhere that they don't have to pay for their own stadium. I get all of those points.

My point is "who gives a s**t" for any reason other than stupid pride? I've had two business partners run two perfectly good companies into the ground because of pride. Pride should never be brought along when you're going to be discussing money, and monitarily there is no good reason to build them a new stadium.

Now, you MIGHT convince me to loan them the money with some sweetheart interest rate. Come up with something creative to help them out without us taking the brunt of it and I'm all ears.

Well, I live in Iowa, so I'm not "willing" to do anything.

I do know that with the Chiefs in KC, I can attend a handful of games every year. If they moved elsewhere, that would likely not be a possibility.

And again, you can call it dumb, stupid, or anything else you want. It really doesn't matter.

Some city WILL pay for a stadium.

[Eleazar]

I thought it would say look for weathy son-of-the-boss Clark Hunt to take over and build a new stadium... in Los Angelas.

:rolleyes:

I don't doubt that we will lose the Chiefs to Crimendotte Co. or something else on the KS side due to Jackson County ineptitude but come on.

[the Talking Can]

The LA Chiefs thing is cute and all, but it isn't going to happen.

if simplex had his way, it would....we're dealing in hypotheticals

[Simplex3]

Some city WILL pay for a stadium.
And some owner, who's team is getting 50% attendance, will recognize that KC is a great football town and has no team.

Since you're from Iowa I think you should really be on board with my plan to set up somewhere that you can donate money to the new stadium fund. That way you can be involved, too. After all, it's such a fantastic idea to buy the Chiefs a new stadium, why wait around for a ballot initiative to pass when we can get started tomorrow?

Remember folks, the Hunt family shouldn't have to sell a couple of their homes to buy the new stadium when they can get you to do it instead.

[htismaqe]

With one modification, EXACTLY! Phew, I didn't think anyone would ever get that.

It's not that I don't care about the city. I own a business here, I care a great deal about the city and it's financial future. That's why I'm so opposed to dumping even more of the city's revenues into something that only a couple of construction companies (likely from another state) and the Hunt family (from another state) will benefit from.

Yeah, didn't mean to imply you don't care about KC.

It just doesn't matter to you what city a team plays in.

[the Talking Can]

Charity for millionaires is a great idea isn't it?

ever heard of tax breaks?

every city in the nation....

[Simplex3]

Yeah, didn't mean to imply you don't care about KC.

It just doesn't matter to you what city a team plays in.
True 'nuff.

I might actually give a few bucks to a volunteer stadium fund. I'm completely serious that I'd set up the web site and host it for free. I'm completely opposed to doing it through the govt, though. It's proven time and time again that the new stadium/team never pay the community back anywhere near what they put into it.

[htismaqe]

And some owner, who's team is getting 50% attendance, will recognize that KC is a great football town and has no team.

Since you're from Iowa I think you should really be on board with my plan to set up somewhere that you can donate money to the new stadium fund. That way you can be involved, too. After all, it's such a fantastic idea to buy the Chiefs a new stadium, why wait around for a ballot initiative to pass when we can get started tomorrow?

Remember folks, the Hunt family shouldn't have to sell a couple of their homes to buy the new stadium when they can get you to do it instead.

Some owner who is going to have to finance his own stadium? Don't kid yourself. The state of the NFL today dictates otherwise.

And the reason I wouldn't is because I DON'T HAVE TO. I never said it was a fantastic idea to buy the Chiefs a new stadium. It's a simple fact - SOMEONE will buy them a new stadium.

[Simplex3]

ever heard of tax breaks?

every city in the nation....
Yet somehow the wealthy STILL pay 90% of the taxes.

If you're talking about letting corporations skate, those deals are almost always done to get them to build a new facility. Those dollars aren't money spent, it's money not collected for a few years that would have never otherwise existed. It also provides jobs to more than a handfull of people 8 days a year.

Apples and oranges.

[ChiefsKing]

Nice to see that you're completely missing the point.

This is not about what is right and wrong. This is about what IS.

If KC won't pay for a new stadium, some city WILL. It's as simple as that.

It doesn't matter if it's right, popular, or smart. It's a FACT.



This hits the nail on the head. I think owners should have to pay for it too, but the fact is that they won't, because they don't have too. Some other city would love to have a team like the Chiefs and would be willing to pay for it.

[jidar]

It's proven time and time again that the new stadium/team never pay the community back anywhere near what they put into it.

I don't think that's been proven but all indications are that the dollar amount doesn't offset the taxes spent.

That measureable dollar amount isn't the bottom line though.
Do you think Libraries have a measurable that show an increase in city revenue? Do city parks? Why in the hell do we pay for these things then as taxpayers? Because we realize that there is more to life than just economic gain, sometimes you have to stop and smell roses, or in this case watch football.

And anyway, the cost is negligible to the individual if everyone pitches in. Hell if everyone would put in $10 the issue would be taken care of.. now if only there was a way to reliably collect a bit of money from each person.. OH WAIT, TAXES! Yay!

You know what I think, I think you hate taxation on principle and even when it's something worth spending the money on you're going to bitch about it.

[jidar]

This hits the nail on the head. I think owners should have to pay for it too, but the fact is that they won't, because they don't have too. Some other city would love to have a team like the Chiefs and would be willing to pay for it.

Right. And the reason cities are willing to do it even though it's a financial wash is becaues the taxpayers want it, and the taxpayers want it for reasons other than money. ****ing amazing that there are things besides money that are important.

[Eleazar]

Yeah, it's great and all to jeer public financing for stadiums, but if your city won't do it then another city will.

[the Talking Can]

Yet somehow the wealthy STILL pay 90% of the taxes.

If you're talking about letting corporations skate, those deals are almost always done to get them to build a new facility. Those dollars aren't money spent, it's money not collected for a few years that would have never otherwise existed. It also provides jobs to more than a handfull of people 8 days a year.

Apples and oranges.

no, it's exactly the same thing...whether we fund 10% or 80% of the stadium...the Chiefs pay taxes and employee people...we - taxpayers - give money away to millionaires all the time...

[Area 51]

Does anyone seriously think that the Hunts would move the Chiefs out of the KC area?

Worst case they will stay in Arrowhead. Best case a new stadium would be built in Missouri, next best case a new stadium will be built in KCK or in one of the burbs.

The Kansas City Chiefs are a team that I doubt the NFL would allow to move. What makes anyone think that LA could support an NFL franchise? They have lost every team that has ever been there because of fan apathy (apathy schmapathy, they just don't give a shit!!). The Chargers left LA, the Rams left LA and the Raiders came and went. The people in LA are just too fickle.

My bet is for a stadium on the Kansas side of the river.

[Simplex3]

And anyway, the cost is negligible to the individual if everyone pitches in. Hell if everyone would put in $10 the issue would be taken care of.. now if only there was a way to reliably collect a bit of money from each person.. OH WAIT, TAXES! Yay!

You know what I think, I think you hate taxation on principle and even when it's something worth spending the money on you're going to bitch about it.
1. You do realize you contribute to thousands of "negligible" projects, right?
2. If everyone paid $10 into a private fund and turned it over to Hunt the issue would be taken care of much sooner and the govt. wouldn't be scraping a bunch off of the top.
3. You actually believe taxes are a reliable way to collect money? ROFL Yeah, the the KS Turnpike will be paid for and open for free in just a few more years.

[Simplex3]

no, it's exactly the same thing...whether we fund 10% or 80% of the stadium...the Chiefs pay taxes and employee people...we - taxpayers - give money away to millionaires all the time...
The Chiefs employ almost noone in KC except for 10 days a year when they employ a handful of people for games.

Without conceeding anything, your other argument appears to be "we give money to millionairs all the time so instead of recognizing that and stopping it let's just add the Hunt family to the list". Am I wrong?

[Area 51]

The Chiefs employ almost noone in KC except for 10 days a year when they employ a handful of people for games.

Without conceeding anything, your other argument appears to be "we give money to millionairs all the time so instead of recognizing that and stopping it let's just add the Hunt family to the list". Am I wrong?

You need to buy a media guide, available on kcchiefs.com/store, or something like that.

They have a great number of people in KC that work for the Chiefs. I'm sure you are talking about the "vendors" that invade the stadium on game days. I don't believe those people are employees of the franchise. I've worked at sports venues and there are more people employed than you might realize.

Exactly how many people make up noone?

[cdcox]

Does anyone seriously think that the Hunts would move the Chiefs out of the KC area?



If they don't get public funds for upgrading Arrowhead or building a new stadium somewhere in the metro area, absolutely. No question.

If you don't think it could happen, explain to me what happened in Cleveland. Browns fans are great. They were selling out every game. Yada Yada.

Clark's first preference will definitely be to keep the team in the KC area. But it appears to me that his loyalties to the city don't run as deep as his father's.

[Simplex3]

You need to buy a media guide, available on kcchiefs.com/store, or something like that.

They have a great number of people in KC that work for the Chiefs. I'm sure you are talking about the "vendors" that invade the stadium on game days. I don't believe those people are employees of the franchise. I've worked at sports venues and there are more people employed than you might realize.

Exactly how many people make up noone?
For $400M or more in corporate welfare they better be opening a couple of freaking factories and employing a somewhere over 10,000 people in KC.

As for the vendors, I recognize most of them are contractors. However, it's obvious those people have a job that day because of the game and no other reason regardless of who signs the check.

As for Chiefs employment I'd be shocked if more than 100 KC citizens are on their payroll year round. Companies that employ 1,000 people don't get $400M in taxes to build a new office.

[cdcox]

Without conceeding anything, your other argument appears to be "we give money to millionairs all the time so instead of recognizing that and stopping it let's just add the Hunt family to the list". Am I wrong?

You seem to think Kansas City is in a contest of wills against the Hunts. I guarantee you that the Hunts don't see it that way. They see it as "We will have a new (or improved) stadium in 10 years. It is just a question of where."

Kansas City's only competition is other cities. They have have a huge lead over their competition. The only way they can lose is if they think they cannot lose. But that is exactly what they are doing.

[jspchief]

While there may not be concrete economic gains from pro sports franchises, there are less tangible benefits. Why else would other cities be clamoring for sports franchises?


A pro team puts your city on the map. Without the Chiefs (and Royals to a lesser extent) Kansas City becomes Omaha. Viewed as some dumpy city surrounded by corn. A city that no one wants to move to, and all the young "brain power" wants to move out of.

The Chiefs move out of KC, and that city starts disappearing, while some other city like Louisville suddenly becomes noticeable.

[Katipan]

In the last 10 years, Arizona got a brand new ballpark, football stadium, and hockey arena.

And we've only had one world championship. The Dbacks.

Tell me again why public funds aren't being used to help rennovate Arrowhead?

[cdcox]

While there may not be concrete economic gain form pro sports franchises, there are less tangible benefits. Why else would other cities be clamoring for sports franchises?


A pro team puts your city on the map. Without the Chiefs (and Royals to a lesser extent) Kansas City becomes Omaha. Viewed as some dumpy city surrounded by corn. A city that no one wants to move to, and all the young "brain power" wants to move out of.

The Chiefs move out of KC, and that city starts disappearing, while some other city like Louisville suddenly becomes noticeable.

:clap:

[StcChief]

How does a team like the Cardinals who suck every year and are almost last in revenue, get a new stadium?

KC needs a new stadium just to keep up with the rest of the league. They need to build a stadium that is over the top, like arrowhead was 30 years ago.

Bill 'bowtie' Bidwell Cards owner, left STL because they were moving to slow on building him a new stadium to compete in NFL. Despite putting a questionable product on the field yearly.

Part of his deal was new stadium and piece of the parking/concession where ever he went. In this case Az.

The fact that it has taken this long to get Bill a new stadium.....Not Sundevil stadium is another story. Guess he didn't have anywhere else to go.

KC needs to modernize Arrowhead some. Not sure building a new one in Kansas is the answer.

[Bob Dole]

Someone should just figure out a way to build a new Arrowhead that looks the same but is twice the size and holds 140,000 people, and then build some really cool overhead tram-buses that run out 50 miles in every direction to transport people to the stadium.

[Area 51]

For $400M or more in corporate welfare they better be opening a couple of freaking factories and employing a somewhere over 10,000 people in KC.

As for the vendors, I recognize most of them are contractors. However, it's obvious those people have a job that day because of the game and no other reason regardless of who signs the check.

As for Chiefs employment I'd be shocked if more than 100 KC citizens are on their payroll year round. Companies that employ 1,000 people don't get $400M in taxes to build a new office.

I don't believe that you are comparing apples to apples. The Chiefs payroll is definately not to the level of a company the needs to build offices. We are talking about a stadium here, completely different set of circumstances that drive the funding of a stadium.

The contractors that service the ticket buying public are more than likely fans themselves, but they do not get to watch the game with the intensity of the general public. I would hope they have "day jobs", the vendors employees do not make great money, they live off of volumn.

The money involved in a stadium has little to do with the direct payroll of whoever is using the facility, it has to do with the impact of the service businesses in the area that take on the people coming into town. Motels, resturants and other businesses like those.

To make a stadium worthwhile in todays NFL market place they need a second "business" interest to make it work. Attached Mall and resturants might be an addin that would get people into the building. I've been to one stadium that has a pretty good sized retail area for those that arrive to the game early as well as being open on all other days other than those that have games.

A store like Sports Nutz would go over pretty big in a place like that.

[jynni]

I'd really prefer a rennovated Arrowhead over a new stadium.

Since the city owns the current stadiums, I feel it is their (taxpayers) jobs to upgrade the current facilities - to at least within the lease agreement.

However, a whole new stadium is another question. If the team wants to insist on new over rennovated then they should at least front the difference in cost.

[Area 51]

Someone should just figure out a way to build a new Arrowhead that looks the same but is twice the size and holds 140,000 people, and then build some really cool overhead tram-buses that run out 50 miles in every direction to transport people to the stadium.

You mean like The Oakland Alameda Colliseum and the Bay Area Rapid Transit system? I don't think KC has the money to build the stadium let alone spend the money on the rapid transit system. Good idea though.

BTW,Oakland does not always sell out with the transit system!!

[jspchief]

Here's a few dumb questions...

Why does the county own the current complex? Why did they think it was a good idea to build it on their own and lease it? And what has changed to make those reasons no longer suitable?

[Area 51]

I'd really prefer a rennovated Arrowhead over a new stadium.

Since the city owns the current stadiums, I feel it is their (taxpayers) jobs to upgrade the current facilities - to at least within the lease agreement.

However, a whole new stadium is another question. If the team wants to insist on new over rennovated then they should at least front the difference in cost.

If the team is going to go to that extent they might build it themselves elsewhere. Just a thought.

[Bob Dole]

You mean like The Oakland Alameda Colliseum and the Bay Area Rapid Transit system? I don't think KC has the money to build the stadium let alone spend the money on the rapid transit system. Good idea though.

BTW,Oakland does not always sell out with the transit system!!


No...not like BART at all. Something like those overhead trams you used to see in amusement parks, but on a much larger scale, so the whole thing looks like a giant daddy longlegs spider.

http://www.arachnology.org/Arachnology/Pages/Pictures/opilionid.jpg

[ChiefsKing]

If the team is going to go to that extent they might build it themselves elsewhere. Just a thought.


I wish I had the money, I would build them a new stadium with my own money. Hell they could throw in a % of ownership for that. Now thats a good deal right there! :thumb:

[Area 51]

For those that think that the only draw for anyone to be in KC is the Chiefs, you couldn't be more wrong.

The Chiefs are a pleasand diversion for 20 games a year. There are very few businesses that would be impacted to the point that they would close their doors.

I would never want to see the Chiefs leave KC, but if they do life will go on. The new arena downtown will have an Arena Football team and the "Old Chiefs" will still be somewhere and I would bet that a majority of those that support them in KC would still support them where ever they land, even LA.

I do think that if the Chiefs ever decide to leave KC they need to leave the name behind.

[ChiefsKing]

To even consider the Chiefs leaving KC is blasphemy.

[Bob Dole]

No...not like BART at all. Something like those overhead trams you used to see in amusement parks, but on a much larger scale, so the whole thing looks like a giant daddy longlegs spider.

http://www.arachnology.org/Arachnology/Pages/Pictures/opilionid.jpg

To expand:

The whole "new stadium" movement has pushed toward creating a somewhat self-contained "entertainment district" that features other types of entertainment, shopping and dining. While we're fantasizing, why not take it one step further and design a transportation system that allows the journey itself to be a stand-alone event.

Like great big cruise ships in the sky that depart on Saturday afternoon and feature live entertainment, dining 500 feet above the city, sleeping quarters, etc and arrive at the stadium/entertainment district 2 hours before any scheduled event.

[Area 51]

No...not like BART at all. Something like those overhead trams you used to see in amusement parks, but on a much larger scale, so the whole thing looks like a giant daddy longlegs spider.

http://www.arachnology.org/Arachnology/Pages/Pictures/opilionid.jpg

I think they would just bug out later in that event.

[Simplex3]

I wish I had the money, I would build them a new stadium with my own money. Hell they could throw in a % of ownership for that. Now thats a good deal right there! :thumb:
See: Washington Redskins.

[Simplex3]

Here's a few dumb questions...

Why does the county own the current complex? Why did they think it was a good idea to build it on their own and lease it? And what has changed to make those reasons no longer suitable?
Jackson County owned the complex because they thought they'd make money on the deal. Through the wonders of govt waste, abuse, mismanagement, and redirected funds they lose money on it.

Take govt. owned grazing lands. The feds lease land on govt. parks, etc to ranchers for grazing (or at least they used to). There was a huge problem with the ranchers basically letting the herd totally destroy a piece of land and then move on. However, that same rancher took excellent care of the grazing land they owned privately. The moral of the story is simple; people take better care of things they own.

That's why I've said just give the title to Arrowhead to the Chiefs tomorrow on the condition that they don't leave for X years. Owned by the Chiefs Arrowhead would be very profitable. A few leeches and parasites in Jackson County would go broke but I don't think any of us really give a crap about those people anyway.

[jspchief]

That's why I've said just give the title to Arrowhead to the Chiefs tomorrow on the condition that they don't leave for X years. Owned by the Chiefs Arrowhead would be very profitable. A few leeches and parasites in Jackson County would go broke but I don't think any of us really give a crap about those people anyway. That sounds like a good idea. I don't know what the value of ownership is, or if the team and the county could agree on the value of it, but it seems like a reasonable starting point.

It rids the government of a drain and gives the team an anchor that makes it very hard to consider ever leaving.

[Red Dawg]

Arrowhead should not be replaced until we win the SB. Then we will deserve a new one.

[Simplex3]

That sounds like a good idea. I don't know what the value of ownership is, or if the team and the county could agree on the value of it, but it seems like a reasonable starting point.

It rids the government of a drain and gives the team an anchor that makes it very hard to consider ever leaving.
I'm talking about handing them the title, free and clear. Nothing in return but a gaurantee that they'll stay X years. How can the Chiefs say no?

That in conjuction with everyone pitching in privately at stadiumdonations.com (it is available, I just checked) and the Chiefs are good to go, right?

[jspchief]

I'm talking about handing them the title, free and clear. Nothing in return but a gaurantee that they'll stay X years. How can the Chiefs say no?

I don't know if it would be the Chiefs that said no, or the county. But you can bet your ass the two parties would have a hard time agreeing on the "value". Not neccessarily monetary value, but value in terms of how long the team is contracted to remain in town.

When it comes to deals like this, when everyone else in the world recognizes it as a fair deal, you can bet one of the parties will be stubborn and want more out of it.

[Simplex3]

I don't know if it would be the Chiefs that said no, or the county. But you can bet your ass the two parties would have a hard time agreeing on the "value". Not neccessarily monetary value, but value in terms of how long the team is contracted to remain in town.

When it comes to deals like this, when everyone else in the world recognizes it as a fair deal, you can bet one of the parties will be stubborn and want more out of it.
Oh, the powers that be in Jackson Co. would never do this deal. They have too many friends and family making good money off the deal. That would be the hangup.

[Bob Dole]

You guys are going to realize how petty and small everything is when Bob Dole's spider-like complex and transportation entertainment system becomes a reality.

It won't be in KC, mind you...

[Simplex3]

You guys are going to realize how petty and small everything is when Bob Dole's spider-like complex and transportation entertainment system becomes a reality.

It won't be in KC, mind you...
So how do I get my grill to and from the game on this tram?

[Bob Dole]

So how do I get my grill to and from the game on this tram?

The same way you do now.

The spider doesn't preclude or replace existing infrastructure. It just allows the additional 70k capacity to get there and get back to the outlying areas.

[htismaqe]

I'm talking about handing them the title, free and clear. Nothing in return but a gaurantee that they'll stay X years. How can the Chiefs say no?

That in conjuction with everyone pitching in privately at stadiumdonations.com (it is available, I just checked) and the Chiefs are good to go, right?

In essense, you've just built the Hunt's a stadium on the taxpayers' dime. :D

:thumb:

[Skip Towne]

Spiders are overrated.

[NaptownChief]

Ole Greasy Al is a hell of a business man. Not only are the Faiders dead last in operating income but about half of the second worst.

[Simplex3]

In essense, you've just built the Hunt's a stadium on the taxpayers' dime. :D

:thumb:
Yes, but it was all money that was already spent (stadium) and money that was given voluntarily. It was also done entirely by private enterprise so the costs were lower and the quality higher.

[Simplex3]

Spiders are overrated.
Not the monster that has been building a web in my front yard at night this week. That fugger's web stretches a 10ft span and is a good 8ft in the air, connected on three sides between a bush, a tree, and the ground. He's serious.