Time to talk about the stadium [Archive]

View Full Version : Time to talk about the stadium

Marada

03-26-2006, 08:13 AM

I've been surprised that I haven't seen much discussion on the upcoming stadium renovation vote. Lets discuss it. As many of you know I work at Arrowhead during the Chiefs games and have to deal with a lot of the stadium issues. So are obvious like widening the concourses. Many is the time I've had to try to move from point A to point B and just wasn't able to in a timely fashion. This has included medical calls. A fact of life is that with 80,000 fans filling the stadium at some point someone will need assistance rapidly. A wider concourse makes delivery of that assistance so much easier. The restroom situation is another area that that women would agree would be a big help.
In regards to the rolling roof I have been at games such as the Seattle monsoon game. Tell me a roof would not have been a blessing. For those that throw out that the game is made to be played outside in the elements I contend that not many of you would be disappointed to be sitting out of the rain in September of not slidding on the ice in December.
I have heard WHB strongly pushing for a towntown Baseball stadium to the and advising voting against this measure. I for one like the the location of the complex. Arrowhead is definitly one of the easiest stadiums to get in and out of. Using WHB's reasoning, why didn't we just build a new airport back downtown instead of remodeling the existing one? I answer because like in Green Bay, the infrastucture and experiance is such that it should be enhannced, not vacated. So like Green Bay and Chicago, renovate the stadiums.
I look forward to seeing your comments. Lets keep them civil, arguments about the price of tickets and such are irrelevent. KC will always be in the middle of the pack in those matters. Whats relevent is whats good for the fans and for KC.

JimNasium

03-26-2006, 08:20 AM

So like Green Bay and Chicago, renovate the stadiums.
I look forward to seeing your comments.
I don't get to vote but I'm hopeful that the issue passes as long as it is done right. What they did to Soldier Field is just wrong.

http://www.cjart.net/image/New%20Soldier%20Field.JPG
:Lin:

BigRedChief

03-26-2006, 08:22 AM

I'm a Chiefs season ticket holder, a resident of Jackson County and work in the city of KC. So I'm always in the tax mans sights. I'm voting for it.

Not the best plan but I don't like to gamble with losing the teams to a different city or having the Chiefs move out to Dotte county or build a new stadium. I love Arrowhead as it is. I don't want a new stadium. I don't like the roof but King Carl has promised it won't be used for Chief games.

cdcox

03-26-2006, 08:37 AM

cdcox

03-26-2006, 08:39 AM

I don't like the roof but King Carl has promised it won't be used for Chief games.

Carl will be gone at some point. I guarantee you that if the roof is built it will be used for Chiefs games.

BigRedChief

03-26-2006, 08:49 AM

I don't get to vote but I'm hopeful that the issue passes as long as it is done right. What they did to Soldier Field is just wrong.

http://www.cjart.net/image/New%20Soldier%20Field.JPG
:Lin:
Doesn't look so bad to me.
http://www.soldierfield.net/images/parkingAndDriving02.jpg

Marada

03-26-2006, 08:51 AM

A roof would not be a blessing at Arrowhead.

Football is meant to be played in the elements. Some of the most memorable games ever in the History Of The National Football League were played in inclement weather. The Ice Bowl, The Snow Plow Game, The Fog Bowl. I went to a fair number of Chiefs games when I lived in KC during the Levy and Mackovic eras. Some of the most memorable involved severe weather. I remember one pre-season game when they pulled the players off the field due to lightening. My dad and I were still in the stands at that point, drenched to the bone. I'll remember that game forever. Another indellible memory is going to the game in the bitter cold. The ritual of dressing extra warmly, packing extra food, and passing the peach brandy down the row a couple time a quarter. Stamping your feet just to keep the blood flowing. Talk about true fans, sitting in the stands in bitter cold to watch your 6-10 team play out the string.

Why do you think people remember the monsoon game? Because it was different. We 21st century Americans go to such extremes to sanitize and homoginize our lives that we end up missing out on the extrodinary.

A strong YES on stadium renovation. A strong NO a rolling roof.

If I felt that the majority of the fans felt that way I would understand. However and evidenced by the number of fans seeking refuge in the warm restrooms during cold days, or the number of fans leaving in the 1st and 2nd quarter on stormy days I would say that your argument is more an emotional response rather then a realistic assessment. I myself like the idea of being able to choose the best of both worlds. Under the sun or stars or protected from the elements. One more way we can show the good citizens of St Louis that we have a better idea.

Simplex3

03-26-2006, 08:57 AM

First, I haven't heard one person say they don't agree the stadium needs improving. However, to be coaxed into buying a horrific payment plan just because it sucks less than the last plan they offered you doesn't make much sense. Hunt can get an interrest free loan from the NFL to do this, why exactly is it that the politicians in Jackson County want so desperately to take this loan from their buddy that charges interrest?

As for the roof, at the speed it will move it will have to be put in place the day before if not earlier. SOOooo, it's either going to be over the stadium for games it isn't needed or it isn't going to save you from weather anyway.

I was at the Monsoon game. That rocked. Best damn sporting event I've ever attended.

BigRedChief

03-26-2006, 09:02 AM

First, I haven't heard one person say they don't agree the stadium needs improving. However, to be coaxed into buy a horrific payment plan just because it sucks less than the last plan they offered you doesn't make much sense. Hunt can get an interrest free loan from the NFL to do this, why exactly is it that the politician in Jackson County want so desperately to take this loan from their buddy that charges interrest?

As for the roof, at the speed it will move it will have to be put in place the day before if not earlier. SOOooo, it's either going to be over the stadium for games it isn't needed or it isn't going to save you from weather anyway.

I was at the Monsoon game. That rocked. Best damn sporting event I've ever attended.
Lamar is not going to pay for the upgrades. Ever.

Waiting for a better plan is gambling that the Chiefs won't get a better offer. Like from dotte county and a new stadium. I don't want a new stadium. It's a gamble I'm not willing to take.

StcChief

03-26-2006, 09:02 AM

One more way we can show the good citizens of St Louis that we have a better idea.
The 'Eddie' is bad. IT is really an America's center' convention center add on. 10 fg games a year.

Terrible place to see football. Ask any Rams fan,
they like football,they hate the dress up show off fans and the dome.

I want a renovated Arrowhead.
The Roof should be option.
Get the concourse, bathrooms etc done.

I wouldn't invest in the K for now. Royals will be gone in 5 years

jspchief

03-26-2006, 09:08 AM

I hope the renovation gets passed.

I'm indifferent on the roof. I don't think it will be used for regular games, and I don't care if the Superbowl ever comes to KC (I think it will be more bad PR for the city than economic boom).

As for Simplex sitting around waiting for Lamar to pay for it, it's not going to happen. Lamar doesn't have to and won't.

Simplex3

03-26-2006, 09:11 AM

Bearcat

03-26-2006, 09:12 AM

In regards to the rolling roof I have been at games such as the Seattle monsoon game. Tell me a roof would not have been a blessing. For those that throw out that the game is made to be played outside in the elements I contend that not many of you would be disappointed to be sitting out of the rain in September of not slidding on the ice in December.

Perhaps if someone came up with some real numbers, I'd change my mind, but I don't see the roof giving the tax payers a positive return on investment any time soon. As far as Chiefs games, you picked out one in the past 5 years where we really could have used a roof. As for the Royals, there's only a handful of games each year that are rescheduled, and the vast majority get rescheduled.

Any real value would be in the Super Bowl and All Star game, and the numbers the media throw out are ludicrous.

There's an article in the KC Star that said each taxpayer would get $110/year (or something like that) as a ROI for the roof, not including the $25 in extra taxes...... so that'll pay for parking for 4 games ;)

jspchief

03-26-2006, 09:13 AM

Hell, let the taxpayer pay the NFL loan. It would save them millions in interrest.Is that even an option?

Sully

03-26-2006, 09:23 AM

Bearcat

03-26-2006, 09:29 AM

I'm for the renovation of the stadium. It obviously needs help.
But that eyesore wing that they want to build over it... just inviting a wind storm, needs to go. I don't give a damn about a Super Bowl in KC, and Hunt won't even be alive when that happens, so it's not like my vote against it is taking it away from him.

That and the fact our hotels fill up for the Big 12 tournament... we might be worse off than Jacksonville in trying to find room for all the people.

POND_OF_RED

03-26-2006, 09:36 AM

IMO a rolling roof would ruin the mystique of arrowhead, however I am still voting for it for the simple fact that I don't want to take the risk of the Hunts moving the team. I know Lamar deserves to host a super bowl and I don't want to be the one to deny him that after all hes done for KC. I heard on the radio the predicted vote right now was dead even at 50% which surprised me because I thought it would fail miserably until they work out some kinks in the plan. I think it will fail a couple more times, then work into a better plan and pass within the next year....

Marada

03-26-2006, 09:38 AM

I was at the Monsoon game. That rocked. Best damn sporting event I've ever attended.

This is an emotional response where you are saying that the way you felt applies to the vast majority and that is simply wrong. The reality is that is if most fans and teams felt your way there would be no covered stadiums at all for us to bicker about the pro's and con's of. As seen by the number of covered stadiums and evidenced by even Arizona building a new stadium with a retractable roof, it must be something that is desired by the majority. You may consider that a weak arguement but it is a valid one. Why else would Arizona need a retractable roof?

BigChiefFan

03-26-2006, 09:45 AM

alanm

03-26-2006, 09:50 AM

Why else would Arizona need a retractable roof? Basketball ect.

jspchief

03-26-2006, 09:59 AM

I don't think you all are seeing the big picture with the Super Bowl coming to Kansas City. Knowing it will eventually being coming here, many projects will start to pop up and construction will take place building alot more hotels, places to eat, shopping, ect...The Super Bowl would have a MAJOR impact in Kansas City.Then what happens to all those hotels and restaraunts when the Superbowl is gone?

Either they go out of business, or they put their older competition out of business. A short term boom in a city that doesn't need the growth isn't going to have many long term positives.

I'm not saying it will be bad for the city. I just doubt it will be that big of a windfall. And I think the negative PR the city will get from the whiny media will be damaging.

Simplex3

03-26-2006, 09:59 AM

Is that even an option?
I'm betting the barrier there is that the NFL would want Lamar to personally guarantee the loan and Lamar isn't dumb enough to put his finances in the hand of the Jackson County govt.

jspchief

03-26-2006, 10:01 AM

I'm betting the barrier there is that the NFL would want Lamar to personally guarantee the loan and Lamar isn't dumb enough to put his finances in the hand of the Jackson County govt.That's kind of what I was thinking.

I don't blame Lamar either. Everything about this is too big of a risk for Hunt.

Simplex3

03-26-2006, 10:04 AM

This is an emotional response where you are saying that the way you felt applies to the vast majority and that is simply wrong. The reality is that is if most fans and teams felt your way there would be no covered stadiums at all for us to bicker about the pro's and con's of. As seen by the number of covered stadiums and evidenced by even Arizona building a new stadium with a retractable roof, it must be something that is desired by the majority. You may consider that a weak arguement but it is a valid one. Why else would Arizona need a retractable roof?
A decision on this devoid of any emotion is a strong "NO" vote. Jackson County's residents will never make up the difference on this tax. It will not be a net positive gain. Stadiums never are for anyone except the owner of the team. This stadium bill passing requires that people become emotionally involved.

Simplex3

03-26-2006, 10:04 AM

jspchief

03-26-2006, 10:07 AM

A decision on this devoid of any emotion is a strong "NO" vote. Jackson County's residents will never make up the difference on this tax. It will not be a net positive gain. Stadiums never are for anyone except the owner of the team. This stadium bill passing requires that people become emotionally involved.I have to disagree. The money may not be recovered in hard financial terms, but this has every bit as much to do with the health of the city as it does any tangible financial gain.

KC will rot away if it loses these teams.

Deberg_1990

03-26-2006, 10:09 AM

. Why else would Arizona need a retractable roof?

The most honest answer ive heard is that the fans there dont want to sit in 100 degree heat for a crappy team in September and October.

BigRedChief

03-26-2006, 10:26 AM

For those who think the teams will never move...Ought to read this.

Posted on Sun, Mar. 26, 2006
the stadium situation

Others eye KC's prizes
Cities would line up to woo Chiefs, Royals
By RANDY COVITZThe Kansas City Star

Imagine the Portland Royals. Or the Charlotte Royals. What about the Los Angeles Chiefs? Or Anaheim Chiefs?
Those are among the cities that have their eyes on Kansas City's major-league teams if Jackson County voters do not approve an April 4 sales-tax measure that would help fund renovations at the Truman Sports Complex.

Without the improvements at Arrowhead and Kauffman stadiums, the county is expected to default on the leases in 2007, freeing the Royals and Chiefs to leave town.
Neither the Royals nor the Chiefs have threatened to move from the Kansas City area, but cities such as Charlotte; San Antonio; Las Vegas; Portland, Ore.; and Norfolk, Va., are eager to bring major-league baseball to their communities.
And outgoing NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue last week reiterated his desire to place a team in Los Angeles by the end of the decade. The NFL, in concert with an owner, would build a new stadium on either the site of the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum or adjacent to Anaheim's major-league baseball park, Angel Stadium.

So in a mirror image of how Kansas City is monitoring distressed arena situations in the NBA and NHL in hopes of discreetly attracting a basketball or hockey team to the Sprint Center when it opens in 2007, other cities are whispering about the availability of the Royals and Chiefs for new stadiums they have on their drawing boards.
Portland and Norfolk are so serious about getting a baseball team that they commissioned HOK Sport of Kansas City to design proposed stadiums when they tried attracting the Montreal Expos, who moved to Washington, D.C., in 2005.

San Antonio, Portland and Norfolk have expressed interest in the Florida Marlins, who have received permission from Major League Baseball to relocate if the Marlins are unable to strike a new stadium deal in south Florida, and San Antonio appears to have the inside track.
San Antonio is proposing a $300 million open-air stadium that would include $200 million in public funding if voters extend a current hotel tax that helped build the $200 million AT&T Center.
Meanwhile, Portland and Norfolk even have active organizations dedicated to bringing a big-league team to their communities, much as NHL21 is determined to bring major-league hockey to Kansas City.
"We have always said we are not out to steal any other city's team, and we don't wish ill for the Royals or anyone else," said Steve Kanter, president of the Portland Baseball Group. "But, of course, we would like to be a major-league baseball city and hope to be in position to be a solution if somebody can't get it fixed in their market and has to move.
"We feel this is the window of opportunity for us."

Kevin Gray, president of the Greater Kansas City Sports Commission, is keenly aware other cities are ready to pounce on the Royals or the Chiefs.
"The reality is these two Kansas City treasures will be able to leave at the end of the year, and other cities will want to take them from us," Gray said. "If we lose the teams, we lose a lot more than major-league sports and our pride. Who will make up for the lost millions of dollars in tax revenue when the teams leave for better stadiums in other cities?"
Going after baseball

The Portland/Vancouver, Wash., area, with a metropolitan population of about 2.3 million, is the largest community in the country with just one major-league team, the Portland Trail Blazers of the NBA. Norfolk, which encompasses Virginia http://www.chiefscoalition.com/Forums/style_emoticons/default/beach.gif, Hampton and Newport News for a metropolitan population of 1.6 million, matches Las Vegas as the largest markets without any major-league franchises.

"Baseball is the best economic model for our area," said Will Somerindyke Jr., CEO of The Norfolk Baseball Co. "Any opportunity that comes up, if we have any realistic chance, we're definitely going to pursue it."
Two years ago, HOK designed a $303 million stadium with a 35,000-to-38,000-seat capacity, including 60 to 70 suites for Norfolk. The site is on city-owned property on the Elizabeth River, next to Harbor Park, the community's Class AAA baseball stadium that could be expanded to 18,000 seats on an interim basis.
The stadium would be funded primarily through legislation renewed in the last general assembly that captures state taxes derived from the ballpark to pay off stadium debt; and through a hotel and restaurant tax created in 1998 that has accumulated $5 million annually and placed it in escrow. This, of course, does not include revenues from naming rights, suites, concessions and parking.

Portland, thanks to a bill approved by the Oregon legislature, already has a way to secure $150 million worth of stadium funding in the form of income-tax collections from home and visiting players and top management salaries.

Until a new stadium is built, Portland also has a suitable interim facility with its Class AAA stadium, PGE Park, which recently underwent $40 million of renovations, seats 19,000 and with some outfield bleachers could accommodate nearly 25,000. PGE Park is sold out for a Friday exhibition game between the Seattle Mariners and the Portland Beavers, who are the San Diego Padres' top farm club.
"Baseball has a long tradition in Portland. We were one of the original members of the Pacific Coast League," said Drew Mahalic, chief executive officer of the Oregon Sports Authority, referring to former league members Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, San Diego and Seattle. "We're probably the last bastion of the Pacific Coast League that doesn't have a major-league baseball franchise.

"We've taken notice of what's going on in Kansas City."
Charlotte, which just prevailed over Kansas City and three other communities in attracting the NASCAR Hall of Fame, plans on building a new stadium for its Class AAA team downtown near the Hall of Fame. But Jerry Reese, a prominent attorney who specializes in commercial real estate, is spearheading an attempt to build a privately financed 38,000-seat, retractable-roof stadium that could not only house a major-league team but also be host to Atlantic Coast Conference and NCAA regionals as well as Final Fours.

Some would say Charlotte, with a metropolitan population of 1.6 million, has enough on its plate with the NFL's Carolina Panthers, NBA's Charlotte Bobcats, three Nextel Cup events at Lowe's Motor Speedway and college basketball, but the city's Chamber of Commerce estimates its booming area will have 2.2 million by 2015. And the area has a passion for baseball. The Carolinas boast 13 minor-league clubs in organized baseball.

"Charlotte has unlimited potential," Reese said. "You don't have a huge city, but North Carolina is the 11th-largest state in population, and you've got a lot of smaller towns and 7 million people within 100 miles of Charlotte."

Seeking an NFL team

San Antonio auditioned as an NFL city by housing the New Orleans Saints last season when the Louisiana Superdome and Saints training facility were damaged by Hurricane Katrina. Although the Saints averaged 62,665 for three regular-season games at the Alamodome, Tagliabue made it clear the NFL was not in interested in bringing the Saints back to San Antonio or putting an expansion team in the nation's 37th television market, saying, "We're going to be moving up in market size."

That, of course, meant Los Angeles, the nation's second-largest television market, which has been without an NFL franchise since both the Raiders and Rams left following the 1994 season.
Last November, Tagliabue stood on the steps of Los Angeles City Hall between meetings with the mayors of Los Angeles and Anaheim and announced a preliminary agreement on terms to bring a team back to the Coliseum, although he didn't rule out a team playing in Anaheim.

A progress report on Los Angeles will be discussed at this week's NFL owners meeting in Orlando, Fla., and Tagliabue said last week that he plans to visit Los Angeles next month in hopes of reaching a decision on where to build the stadium.
"With the television (contract) and collective-bargaining agreement behind us, getting a team or teams back into the Los Angeles area rises right to the top of the list," Tagliabue said.

To that end, the NFL is down to the final details on lease negotiations with both the officials of the Coliseum, an 83-year-old structure on city-owned land that would be razed and rebuilt; and the Anaheim site.
The league would build a luxurious $600 million stadium. Then the NFL would sell the facility — with all of the lucrative revenue streams, including suites that go for $300,000 — to an owner.
Until a new stadium is built in Los Angeles or Anaheim, a team could play in the 102,000-seat Rose Bowl on an interim basis.

The Chiefs would not be the only candidate to move to Los Angeles. The San Diego Chargers, who spent their inaugural 1960 season in Los Angeles, are unhappy with antiquated, 37-year-old Qualcomm Stadium and have been frustrated in attempts to get a new facility built. Some believe Saints owner Tom Benson, who had one foot out the door before Hurricane Katrina struck, eventually will move his franchise if New Orleans is unable to support the club adequately.

Those in Los Angeles aren't particular whether it's the Chiefs, Chargers or an expansion club.
"When you don't have a team," said Pat Lynch, general manager of the Coliseum, "any team will do. Just give us a good ownership group and things should be OK."

Marada

03-26-2006, 10:29 AM

The most honest answer ive heard is that the fans there dont want to sit in 100 degree heat for a crappy team in September and October.

Which goes to my point that the majority of fans don't want to sit outside when the temp is -5. Or that it's raining so hard your beer is watered down before you drink it.
I also have to agree that the benefit to KC involves more then financial gain. Preception is everything and the concept of KC being a major league town will have the indirect result of financial gain in ways we can not comprehend.

Skip Towne

03-26-2006, 10:30 AM

I think NW Arkansas would be a good place for the Chiefs to go. It is the 2nd fastest growing region in the US behind Las Vegas. And they have a guy named Tyson and one named Walton either of whom could build a new stadium out of their petty cash. Not to mention it would be closer for me.

BigRedChief

03-26-2006, 10:30 AM

http://www.cjonline.com/stories/032606/chi_losesportsc.shtml (http://www.cjonline.com/stories/032606/chi_losesportsc.shtml)

KC in danger of losing Chiefs, Royals?
By Doug Tucker
The Associated Press

KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- Is Kansas City in danger of losing the Chiefs and Royals?

That seems to be the subtle but clear threat the two teams are giving the region.

As voters in Jackson County, Mo., consider a proposal on sales and business taxes that would raise about half a billion dollars for extensive renovations to Kauffman and Arrowhead stadiums, radio and TV ads are saying, "Keep the teams ..."

Opponents of the measures -- and there are many -- accuse Chiefs founder Lamar Hunt and Royals owner David Glass of "playing the fear card." They insist there is nowhere for owners to take the teams if the measure is defeated on April 4.

When pressed, the owners back away somewhat from saying they might move the teams if the vote does not go their way. But neither do they promise to stay.

http://img54.imageshack.us/img54/2769/367062700pl.jpg
The Associated Press
Royals owner David Glass, left, and president Dan Glass talk this week after discussing stadium renovation plans that would bring the All-Star game to Kansas City between 2010 and 2014.

"If for some reason this wouldn't pass, we would have to examine our options," Glass said. "To be real honest, we haven't looked at our options. And there's no point in thinking about anything right now other than getting it passed."

Hunt, who moved the Chiefs from Dallas in 1963 and is one of the most honored owners in all of professional sports, says the same.

"I have consistently said I am not going to answer questions about failure. I'm an optimist at heart and I believe the referendum, both of them, will pass," he said. "If it does not pass, we'll address it at that time."

Without immediate repairs to the stadiums, which opened in 1972 and 1973, the Jackson County Sports Authority will violate a lease agreement mandating that the stadiums be maintained in "state of the art" condition -- meaning the teams would no longer be bound to the lease.

With the renovations, the teams have already signed new leases keeping them in Kansas City through 2031.

The owners are being criticized for what some are calling their paltry contributions to the extensive projects. Glass, who built his fortune as CEO of Wal-Mart and bought the Royals for $96 million in 2000, has agreed to put up $25 million. Hunt, scion of one of the nation's wealthiest oil families, is on the hook for $100 million.

The state of Missouri would issue $50 million in tax credits and the rest -- about $425 million -- would be generated by a three-eighths-cent sales tax over 25 years. In a separate ballot issue, a business tax would raise $200 million to pay for a rolling roof that could make both stadiums climate-controlled.

If everything including the rolling roof gets done, the NFL has promised Hunt the Super Bowl in 2015. Glass announced last week that baseball commissioner Bud Selig had assured him the renovations at Kauffman would land Kansas City an All-Star game between 2010 and 2014.

The pending election has sparked emotional debate among fans and media. WHB, the town's influential top-rated sports talk station, is leading the charge against the idea.

"It's just a bad plan," said mid-morning host Soren Petro, who favors building a new baseball stadium in downtown Kansas City.

Many Kansas Citians fear history could repeat itself in a small-market city that's already lost the NHL to Denver, the NBA to Sacramento, the NCAA to Indianapolis and the Big 12 office to Dallas.

"If we don't have the Chiefs and Royals, then what have we got?" said Kevin Gray, president of the Kansas City Sports Commission. "Voting yes is the only way of making sure we keep our teams."

Jack Steadman, Hunt's point man on the project, believes voters will "do the right thing."

"When (the renovations) are completed, people will look at those stadiums and say they are like new," he said. "It's not a Band-Aid fix. It's half the cost of replacing them with new stadiums."

Besides issues such as economics and the value of a downtown ballpark, many opponents don't want to be taxed to support something they care nothing about.

"I'm sorry, but these teams don't deserve this kind of public subsidy," said Craig Davis, a retired salesman who has formed a political action committee against the measures.

Davis makes familiar arguments against the public financing of stadiums based on economics and public trust. But he also admits he hasn't been to a football or baseball game in more than 10 years and disapproves of the way many athletes conduct themselves.

The projects are ambitious, even without the separate issue of the rolling roof. Concourses would be widened, restrooms added, particularly for women, and amenities such as restaurants and team halls of fame would be built.

Both stadiums would also include money-making suites and luxury boxes. The Royals would have an open-air pavilion that would seat almost 10,000 behind center field.

There would also be new offices for team executives as well as new training rooms and team facilities.

The owners insist the revamped stadiums are needed to generate new revenue streams to help them stay competitive with franchises in bigger towns and newer venues.

But opponents say the plan is flawed. Build a new baseball stadium downtown and revitalize that entire area, some say. There have also been persistent rumors that another plan, scaled-down to about $80 million-$90 million, will be brought forward if the sales taxes are voted down. This, say opponents, would pay for necessary repairs to things like plumbing and wiring and bring the aging stadiums into compliance with the original lease.

"If there's another plan, I wish somebody would show it to me," Steadman said. "I don't know anything about another plan."

Steadman also says people shouldn't rely on Hunt's loyalty to Kansas City.

Without making a big deal of it publicly, Hunt has transferred almost the entire ownership equally to his four grown children. He and wife, Norma, each hold only 1 percent of the Chiefs.

"Is Lamar going to move the team? No," Steadman said. "But the kids, I don't know what to think. If this doesn't pass, the family's going to have to deal with that issue."

Davis, appearing to echo many disgusted non-fans, also just doesn't want his money going to spoiled athletes.

"That's another issue altogether, the anti-social behavior of some of these athletes. I don't think that needs our support. That's not the kind of role model I want my children or grandchildren to have."

Deberg_1990

03-26-2006, 10:33 AM

I could root for the "San Antonio Chiefs" !

JBucc

03-26-2006, 10:36 AM

Mr. Laz

03-26-2006, 10:38 AM

Skip Towne

03-26-2006, 10:38 AM

I beleive that is an excellent idea
I thought you might approve. Herzig and New Chief would be agreeable as well I suspect.

jspchief

03-26-2006, 10:43 AM

1. how in the world you gonna spend 800 million to renovate when 800 million should be enough to build 2 new stadiums?
Isn't the 800 mil for both stadiums and the roof?

I thought the Arrowhead renovation was going to be about 400 mil. Which is still a lot, but Arrowhead will look like a new stadium when they are done. I saw they did to Lambeau, and after seeing that, I'm convinced that renovating is the best of both worlds...updated stadium, with the history of the old venue.

BigRedChief

03-26-2006, 10:43 AM

i don't live in Jackson county so i'm not voting but...

1. how in the world you gonna spend 800 million to renovate when 800 million should be enough to build 2 new stadiums?

2. royals paying 7% .... chiefs paying 17% ....... the lowest amount paid by teams that i have ever seen.

3. keeping the teams is the most important thing
I don't want new Chiefs stadium. I love Arrowhead. There is no way a stadium could duplicate the sight lines and atmosphere.

If you think Lamar or Glass is going to kick in more of their own money than $100 million you are wrong. Thats the most we will ever get out of them.3. keeping the teams is the most important thing
Lets not forget that. This doesn't pass no one knows what could happen to the teams.

Mr. Laz

03-26-2006, 10:46 AM

Isn't the 800 mil for both stadiums and the roof?

I thought the Arrowhead renovation was going to be about 400 mil. Which is still a lot, but Arrowhead will look like a new stadium when they are done. I saw they did to Lambeau, and after seeing that, I'm convinced that renovating is the best of both worlds...updated stadium, with the history of the old venue.

hmm.. i thought it was 800 million with possibly another 100 million for the roof.

they have tons of room out there ... if nothing else you could build a new stadium right next to the other one and then tear down the old one once it's finished.

i don't know ... a revonated stadium still has the old structure as the basis.

just doesn't make sense .... 400 million should be enough to build a brand schpankity stadium. :shrug:

Mr. Laz

03-26-2006, 10:48 AM

If you think Lamar or Glass is going to kick in more of their own money than $100 million you are wrong. Thats the most we will ever get out of them. .

that doesn't make it right

Sully

03-26-2006, 11:01 AM

Is there really an argument that throwing a glorified tarp over Arrowhead will make us a major-league city?

dirk digler

03-26-2006, 11:07 AM

If I lived in Jackson CO I would vote for it. What is the cost increase per person in Jackson Co if it is passed?

Also has anyone heard of any polling info just trying to gauge if this is going to pass.

htismaqe

03-26-2006, 11:20 AM

2. royals paying 7% .... chiefs paying 17% ....... the lowest amount paid by teams that i have ever seen.

Indy was 100% funded by taxpayers...ownership kicked in zero.

BigRedChief

03-26-2006, 11:51 AM

Also has anyone heard of any polling info just trying to gauge if this is going to pass.

I know a guy thats an intergral part of the drive to get this passed. He's in on all the discussions and appears in public to represent the www.saveourstadiums.com (http://www.saveourstadiums.com) group. He says the private polling #'s have it passing 52% -48% but with a margin of error of +- 4 points. So to close to call. People don't like willingly raising their taxes.

whoman69

03-26-2006, 12:06 PM

I don't mind the rolling roof idea, I just hate how most franchises use them. If there is a drizzle are they going to close it down? Will they close it down every time the temperature gets below 40? Do they close it every time the wind is more than 10 mph?
Most franchises that I see with a retractable stadium will simply close it when the weather isn't perfect.

Mr. Laz

03-26-2006, 12:15 PM

Indy was 100% funded by taxpayers...ownership kicked in zero.
hmmm ... hadn't heard about that

HemiEd

03-26-2006, 12:49 PM

I don't get to vote but I'm hopeful that the issue passes as long as it is done right. What they did to Soldier Field is just wrong.

http://www.cjart.net/image/New%20Soldier%20Field.JPG
:Lin:

I agree, but Lambeau is very nice now, except for the seats.

Demonpenz

03-26-2006, 01:05 PM

what the hell is the deal with the ampatheatre. Can't we spend money on the product on the field first before we get the back street boys preforming in centerfield

cdcox

03-26-2006, 01:32 PM

If I felt that the majority of the fans felt that way I would understand. However and evidenced by the number of fans seeking refuge in the warm restrooms during cold days, or the number of fans leaving in the 1st and 2nd quarter on stormy days I would say that your argument is more an emotional response rather then a realistic assessment. I myself like the idea of being able to choose the best of both worlds. Under the sun or stars or protected from the elements. One more way we can show the good citizens of St Louis that we have a better idea.

The whole idea of sport is an emotional response. To strip sport of its emotion is to obliterate its existance. Bringing football indoors is rational. Investing hundreds of dollars and hundreds of hours following football is purely emotional and absolutely irrational.

HemiEd

03-26-2006, 01:33 PM

Lets not forget that. This doesn't pass no one knows what could happen to the teams.

It is not like it has not happened before. NHL, NBA and NCAA all used to be in KC.

blueballs

03-26-2006, 01:40 PM

that giant greenhouse could grow alot of post game calm for the ride home

jspchief

03-26-2006, 01:49 PM

what the hell is the deal with the ampatheatre. Can't we spend money on the product on the field first before we get the back street boys preforming in centerfieldI think the idea is to make the stadium a destination for other than gamedays.

To go back to the Lambeau reference, they have at least one restaraunt/sports bar that's open everyday, a huge pro shop (unlike anything KC has) that's open every day, a history/musuem area, and areas that can be rented out for weddings, meetings, etc.

Go to Lambeau on a Saturday afternoon (non gameday), and you're likely to find several hundred visitors there for various reasons.

It makes it a building that used more than 10 times per year.

Bob Dole

03-26-2006, 03:03 PM

As for the roof, at the speed it will move it will have to be put in place the day before if not earlier. SOOooo, it's either going to be over the stadium for games it isn't needed or it isn't going to save you from weather anyway.

The new design can move the roof over Arrowhead in about 30 minutes and turn the stadium into a weather-tight Arrowhead Dome in about two days.

Bearcat

03-26-2006, 03:14 PM

I'm confused... we're talking about two seperate issues... You can say yes to renovations and no to a rolling roof, right?

I'm all for renovating and keeping the teams... it would be one step forward and two back to build the Sprint Center for an NHL or NBA team and then lose the most popular sport in the city. However, I'm not sold on the roof.

gblowfish

03-26-2006, 03:20 PM

I have very mixed emotions about this vote, and I'm going to speak primarily about the Chiefs side of things:

The Against Side: The amount of money the teams themselves are kicking in is weak. They could and should do better, especially because the bulk of the improvements are for things that won't affect the average fan that much. Wider concourses are just to have more room to sell you crap. I usually only buy one Coke at the game, because I've had plenty to eat and drink while tailgating before. The vast money at Arrowhead is going for stuff like plush offices for the Chiefs administration and staff, more fat cat luxury boxes, a better stadium club (that YOU won't be invited to) more revenue generation, basically. The only thing that will help the fans is more bathrooms and better scoreboards. That's really about it. And a Chiefs HOF that would be nice. I just got a letter from "Lamar Hunt" asking me to be a "special ambassador" and talk all my friend into voting yes, as I actually live in Jackson County. Guess what? In 1993 when the Chiefs made it to the AFC Championship game against Buffalo, the Chiefs acted as if they never heard of me. They sent me a nasty letter saying even though my family had season tickets since 1965, I WOULD NOT be eligible for Super Bowl tickets from the Chiefs, DON"T CALL, DON"T ASK, PISS OFF!!

So I know where I stand with them when the rubber hits the road.

The For Side: It's a lot more fun to talk about the Seatlle Monsoon game, or the Denver five below zero game, or the Lightning hitting the stadium exhibition game, then actually living through it. Believe me, since we're now paying about $100 a pop for seats (when you count parking) it would be nice to be comfortable and actually enjoy the game. Sports is a business now, so if its a business, why not control the environment when weather is bad? People have laughed at me for years for sitting in cold and rain or extreme heat (93 degree night exhibiton games in August) and say, "Hey, I'll just watch it on my big screen TV in my living room." I'm all for comfort. And think how loud Arrowhead would be with a roof? Man...

I do have some fear that a good tornadic storm could blow that roof to Grandview. Remember, KC has a storied history of collapses: The Hiatt and the Kemper Arena Roof come to mind.

All in all, I'm leaning towards voting "Yes." I have a great emotional attachment to Arrowhead, it's very close to where I live, and I love the place. I'd hate to see a new Wyandotte County stadium. Arrowhead is sacred ground for football, as far as I'm concerned. It could be another Lambeau Field if we save it now.

VonneMarie

03-26-2006, 03:23 PM

Here's my take, quick and simple...

I'm voting yes for the renovations and undecided for the roof.

Psyko Tek

03-26-2006, 04:29 PM

Why else would Arizona need a retractable roof?

cause it's 110 game time in september and some of october

I voted against the az staduim,
because bidwell and thew cards suck and need to move on

but I would hate to see Arrowhead gone, been a fan since he '70s and still haven't been there

roof or no roof the Chiefs need to stay in KC

redbrian

03-26-2006, 04:48 PM

Two points that are often overlooked;

1) The county owns the stadiums and has a responsibility to keep them up to date; they have sat on their asses for too long without doing anything to keep the stadiums up to date.
2) The sales tax is paid by everyone who purchases something in Jackson Co. the folks in Jackson County are not paying for this all by themselves. People outside of the county will be paying 30% to 40% of the bill on this. The roof is to be funded by a use tax, which means that people who go to the stadiums will help pay for this.

Nzoner

03-26-2006, 05:22 PM

I was at the Monsoon game. That rocked.

Add me to this list as well.

This is an emotional response where you are saying that the way you felt applies to the vast majority and that is simply wrong. The reality is that is if most fans and teams felt your way there would be no covered stadiums at all for us to bicker about the pro's and con's of. As seen by the number of covered stadiums and evidenced by even Arizona building a new stadium with a retractable roof, it must be something that is desired by the majority. You may consider that a weak arguement but it is a valid one. Why else would Arizona need a retractable roof?

I have to disagree here,when I lived in Minnesota I heard nothing but bitching and moaning about their dome from the real fans.Their take was that it was the wine and cheesers who got the dome built because they didn't want to be out in the elements.What made them angrier was that their arch rivals the Packers & Bears played in whatever mother nature dealt them.

As for my own take,I want football outside in the elements,whatever they may be.I've also been to two Super Bowls and one of them was in a dome,and Super Bowl or not it didn't have the same feel being played inside.

As for Arrowhead,I would love to see the stadium renovated but am totally against a roof of any kind,of course now that I'm not a "real" fan anymore my opinion probally doesn't matter.

cdcox

03-26-2006, 05:52 PM

Add me to this list as well.

I have to disagree here,when I lived in Minnesota I heard nothing but bitching and moaning about their dome from the real fans.Their take was that it was the wine and cheesers who got the dome built because they didn't want to be out in the elements.What made them angrier was that their arch rivals the Packers & Bears played in whatever mother nature dealt them.

As for my own take,I want football outside in the elements,whatever they may be.I've also been to two Super Bowls and one of them was in a dome,and Super Bowl or not it didn't have the same feel being played inside.

As for Arrowhead,I would love to see the stadium renovated but am totally against a roof of any kind,of course now that I'm not a "real" fan anymore my opinion probally doesn't matter.

The Vikings are a great example. They won 11 division championships in their old outdoor stadium. Teams used to hate to go there in Nov, Dec, January. Who can forget the Vikings standing on their sideline in short sleeve jersies, while their opponents were huddled around the space heaters. They've won 5 division championships since 1982, the year they moved in to the Metrodome. They gave up their natural homefield advantage for a "nice place" to watch the game.

ChiefsCountry

03-26-2006, 05:54 PM

Wasnt for that damn construction strike we would have had a rolling roof already. I think it would be a good idea. Put this way for us outside of the KC area - I come up to visit KC for the major league events ie (Chiefs, Royals, concerts, etc.) I know alot of people who do, its a reason for us to come to KC that might not for other reasons.

cdcox

03-26-2006, 05:57 PM

Logical

03-26-2006, 06:17 PM

Lamar is not going to pay for the upgrades. Ever.

Waiting for a better plan is gambling that the Chiefs won't get a better offer. Like from dotte county and a new stadium. I don't want a new stadium. It's a gamble I'm not willing to take.

As much as I love Arrowhead for the money they are talking about they should just build a new stadium. It does not make sense to renovate a 33+ year old structure so 20 years down the road you are going to have to replace it anyway. For this 500 million plus they can build a hell of a nice new stadium. Replace not renovate.

Logical

03-26-2006, 06:20 PM

As to a roof, as long as it is retractable like the one in Houston I am all for it.

redbrian

03-26-2006, 06:38 PM

As much as I love Arrowhead for the money they are talking about they should just build a new stadium. It does not make sense to renovate a 33+ year old structure so 20 years down the road you are going to have to replace it anyway. For this 500 million plus they can build a hell of a nice new stadium. Replace not renovate.

1)The notation that the upgrade is only good for 20 years is bs
2)A new stadium would not equal Arrowhead, they don’t build bowls like Arrowhead, the bowl shape is what gives the character and noise level to Arrowhead.

In a nutshell don’t throw the baby out with the water, Arrowhead has excellent bones and will be around for a long time.

kcmaxwell

03-26-2006, 07:53 PM

I live in St. Joe, so can't vote for this issue, but I would if I could... Could be a better deal I s'pose, but I can live with this.
maxwell

Logical

03-26-2006, 10:24 PM

...
2)A new stadium would not equal Arrowhead, they don’t build bowls like Arrowhead, the bowl shape is what gives the character and noise level to Arrowhead.

In a nutshell don’t throw the baby out with the water, Arrowhead has excellent bones and will be around for a long time.
I don't know what you are talking about with number two:

Carolina 1996 is a bowl

http://www.stadiumsofnfl.com/nfc/bankmain2.jpg

Fedex Field Redskins 1997 is a bowl.

http://www.stadiumsofnfl.com/nfc/fedmain2.jpg

Reliant Stadium is basically a bowl stadium

http://www.stadiumsofnfl.com/afc/reliant850.jpg

Cardinals new park (next year) with retractable roof and rolling turf (bowl)

http://www.stadiumsofnfl.com/future/cardsmain2.jpg

Dallas Cowboys new retractable roof stadium is supposed to be a bowl shape but they have not revealed the inside design yet as far as I know.

Lucas Oil Field (Colt's new stadium) bowl (picture configured for final four basketball)

http://www.stadiumsofnfl.com/future/colts102.jpg

Proposed new New York Giants Stadium (bowl)
http://www.stadiumsofnfl.com/future/giantsmain.jpg

beer bacon

03-26-2006, 10:31 PM

Bugeater

03-26-2006, 11:17 PM

Lucas Oil Field (Baltimore's new stadium) bowl (picture configured for final four basketball)

http://www.stadiumsofnfl.com/future/colts102.jpg

Um, why would Baltimore's new stadium say "Welcome to Indianapolis" in it?

Logical

03-26-2006, 11:33 PM

Um, why would Baltimore's new stadium say "Welcome to Indianapolis" in it?Because I am old and still think of the Colts together with Baltimore, sorry old habits die hard. I fixed it.