Chiefs and Royals Decide to Fight Dirty?

[Simplex3]

Here's a little background article on what's being spent by the pro-stadium tax guys and the anti-tax guys. It seems the pro-tax guys are now filing a complaint of some sort with some Missouri election ethics board to find out, once and for all, the ever burning question, "where did the $501 used against us come from and was it gathered and spent legally". In other words, they're getting their asses kicked and they'd like those people to spend the rest of their time and money fighting the govt. instead of fighting the tax.

If this is how they want to act then they can both leave IMO. Sicking the govt. on a few citizens who hold an opinion that might keep you from making more money from things they'll be forced to buy for you? I expect that kind of crap from Mr. Wal-Mart, but not cool Lamar.

http://www.kmbz.com/listingsEntry.asp?ID=423265&PT=Local+Headlines

Who's Spending What on Stadium Issue ?
Tuesday March 28 2006 7:31

KANSAS CITY, Mo. (AP) - Backers of a Jackson County election to fund millions of dollars in stadium improvements at the Truman Sports Complex might have a tough fight ahead at the polls.

But they have come out ahead in one area: campaign spending.

Supporters of the April 4 ballot measures - one for stadium improvements and one for a rolling roof that would land Kansas City the 2015 Super Bowl - have raised $1.55 million and spent $1.3 million in advance of the April 4 election.

Opponents have spent all of $501, according to the latest campaign finance reports filed with the Missouri Ethics Commission.

That's a 2,613-to-1 spending advantage for the Save Our Stadiums campaign, which dominates the television airwaves with pleas to "save our teams.'' But opponents say the Internet, where they have concentrated their efforts, has leveled the field.

"I don't know if we'll win or lose, but we have all these alternative sources of information on our side, and that makes this election different,'' said Terrence Nash, whose Neighborhood Action Group of Kansas City opposes the measures.

Craig Davis, who founded the No I Can't Afford It Committee, agreed.

"They have given us an opportunity to spread the word,'' he said. "People's e-mail boxes are virgin territory, and to me it's the best direct-marketing tool ever.''

The campaign reports do not take into account anti-proposal Web sites or the time and money put into opponents' e-mail campaigns.

The NFL's Kansas City Chiefs and baseball's Kansas City Royals have been the biggest donors to the pro-stadium campaigns, with the Royals giving $600,000 and the Chiefs $800,000.

Heavy Constructors Association and the Greater Kansas City Chamber of Commerce each gave $50,000 to the campaign.

Pat Gray, a strategist for the pro-stadium campaign, said the latest polls show that the media blitz is beginning to sway voters - although many remain undecided.

"There's no question that television advertising is a driving force,'' Gray said. "It moves (polling) numbers.''

Backers of the stadium proposals also are hitting the speaking tour and sending out campaign teams to sports bars to hand out flyers and take questions from potential voters.

"Obviously, the sports-fan base is an important base to get and to get out'' to vote, Gray said.

(Copyright 2006 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

[Saulbadguy]

I sure hope it passes!

[Eleazar]

I believe the law says that if you are pushing an agenda on the issue, such as through a website, you have to disclose who is behind it.

[jspchief]

I'll just be glad when it's done so I can stop reading Simplex's bitching rants about it.

[Simplex3]

I'll just be glad when it's done so I can stop reading Simplex's bitching rants about it.
Yeah, I'm tired of holding a gun to your head and making you click on the link and read it too.

[Saulbadguy]

Yeah, I'm tired of holding a gun to your head and making you click on the link and read it too.
I laughed out loud at this statement, just because of your avatar.

[Kylo Ren]

Chiefs and Royals decide to fight dirty? It sounds like they have decided to fight cleanly. They want the debate to be legal and above board. They are wanting to clarify what the law is and be sure that both sides are obeying those laws. There should be a fair playing field for both sides. How is this fighting dirty? It sounds like the OTHER side is possibly fighting dirty and cheating. Simplex3, don't you believe in election laws being obeyed?

[Simplex3]

Chiefs and Royals decide to fight dirty? It sounds like they have decided to fight cleanly. They want the debate to be legal and above board. They are wanting to clarify what the law is and be sure that both sides are obeying those laws. There should be a fair playing field for both sides. How is this fighting dirty? It sounds like the OTHER side is possibly fighting dirty and cheating. Simplex3, don't you believe in election laws being obeyed?
You're afraid $501 dollars, all of which was declared throught the Board of Elections, might be a problem. However, you're convinced that $1.55M, $1.3M of which has been spent, was all cool?

Here's a comparison for you. Let's say you and I both open lemonade stands. I'm selling it for $2,000 a glass, you're selling it for $1 a glass. You're kicking my ass. Do I lower prices or find ways to convince customers mine is worth 2000x more? Nope. I call the INS to investigate your workforce. I call the IRS anonymously and tell them I have knowledge that you've cheated on your taxes. I call the health dept. and tell them you aren't up to code. Is any of this true? How the hell should I know? What I do know is that you're going to be spending a lot of time and money fighting the govt. and it only cost me 4 phone calls.

You're right though. Really I'm just a concerned citizen, making sure my competition is complying with all the laws. It's no big deal.

[jspchief]

Yeah, I'm tired of holding a gun to your head and making you click on the link and read it too.True. No one is forcing me to read it. Something about a slow morning on the planet and your whiny bitch stadium rants that just starts the day right for me.

[DJJasonp]

Man....800,000 spent by the chiefs....

Could have been spent on a TO bonus....or maybe a decent DT or DE.

Dammit Carl.

[Simplex3]

True. No one is forcing me to read it. Something about a slow morning on the planet and your whiny bitch stadium rants that just starts the day right for me.
Happy to oblige. :)

[Kylo Ren]

You're afraid $501 dollars, all of which was declared throught the Board of Elections, might be a problem. However, you're convinced that $1.55M, $1.3M of which has been spent, was all cool?

Here's a comparison for you. Let's say you and I both open lemonade stands. I'm selling it for $2,000 a glass, you're selling it for $1 a glass. You're kicking my ass. Do I lower prices or find ways to convince customers mine is worth 2000x more? Nope. I call the INS to investigate your workforce. I call the IRS anonymously and tell them I have knowledge that you've cheated on your taxes. I call the health dept. and tell them you aren't up to code. Is any of this true? How the hell should I know? What I do know is that you're going to be spending a lot of time and money fighting the govt. and it only cost me 4 phone calls.

You're right though. Really I'm just a concerned citizen, making sure my competition is complying with all the laws. It's no big deal.

Your example makes no sense. But I'm glad that you agree that both sides should obey the law and play by the rules no matter how much they've spent.

[Simplex3]

Your example makes no sense. But I'm glad that you agree that both sides should obey the law and play by the rules no matter how much they've spent.
I find it very hard to believe that $501 was gathered OR spent illegally. I'd bet you money you could find some infractions in $1.5M, though. As archane and retarded as some of our campaign finance laws are you just about can't comply with all of them.

And I still think sicking the state on a few individuals, loosely organized but kicking your ass on a major issue, is dirty pool.

BTW, my example makes perfect sense. It also parallels the actual dollars being spent by the two sides. I'm having a hard time competing so I'll just use the govt. to keep you so busy you can't focus on your business (their campaign). In fighting the govt. to prove your innocence you're going to blow cash on lawyers, accountants, etc. Money a campaign with $501 doesn't have, but one with $1.5M does.

[dirk digler]

I don't know about getting their asses kicked from what I understand the polling info is showing that this is going to pass.

[Eleazar]

I find it very hard to believe that $501 was gathered OR spent illegally. I'd bet you money you could find some infractions in $1.5M, though.

Don't you find it suspect that the opposition has ONLY spent $501 dollars?

I would definitely throw the BS flag on that one.

[Eleazar]

I don't know about getting their asses kicked from what I understand the polling info is showing that this is going to pass.

I would be genuinely surprised, I haven't seen any polling but the people I know in person around the city just whine about how they don't like the proposal and the teams should put up all the money... as if that happens anywhere.

[Simplex3]

Don't you find it suspect that the opposition has ONLY spent $501 dollars?

I would definitely throw the BS flag on that one.
I haven't seen a single TV spot, not a single radio ad, nothing. Their entire "campaign" has been emails and web sites, mostly done by volunteers. The Internet is the great equalizer. It's a real bitch for those who used to be able to get their way by spending advertising dollars.

[Fish]

I finally move to Jackson Co. and have a chance to see my Chiefs.... and now this horseshit....

Pass the bill and let's get to tailgating already..........

[Simplex3]

I don't know about getting their asses kicked from what I understand the polling info is showing that this is going to pass.
I haven't seen any polls that show them winning outside of the margin of error. I also haven't seen any of the poll questions. Any poll where they don't show the questions with the results is to be taken with a mine full of salt IMO. For all we know the question was "Do you want the Chiefs and the Royals to leave KC?".

[Fire Me Boy!]

I don't know about getting their asses kicked from what I understand the polling info is showing that this is going to pass.
The polls I have seen, on whether or not people would vote for issue #1, has it failing miserably...

My personal opinion, based on what I've read and seen and people I've spoken to, says this has no chance.

[Ozarks-Chiefs-Fan]

if it takes fighting dirty to get this thing passed, so be it.

[Fire Me Boy!]

I think it's gonna fail, then JaxCo is going to turn around and put the $90 million it will cost to get them up to contract stipulations (which will lock them up until 2015)... consequently, it will REALLY piss both teams off.

[dirk digler]

I haven't seen any polls that show them winning outside of the margin of error. I also haven't seen any of the poll questions. Any poll where they don't show the questions with the results is to be taken with a mine full of salt IMO. For all we know the question was "Do you want the Chiefs and the Royals to leave KC?".

I asked this question in another thread last week because I haven't seen any polling data anywhere and BRC told me it was 52-48 but in the margin of error. IMO that is not getting their asses kicked, people naturally don't like their taxes raises so it is probably where it should be and I believe it will be a close vote.

[dirk digler]

The polls I have seen, on whether or not people would vote for issue #1, has it failing miserably...

My personal opinion, based on what I've read and seen and people I've spoken to, says this has no chance.

Can you point me to where you saw the poll numbers because I haven't seen any? Thanks.

[Mr. Laz]

Chiefs and Royals Decide to Fight Dirty?
since when did they ever fight clean?

the chiefs have been full of crap for as long as i can remember.

[jspchief]

My gut tells me this is going to get voted down. Not because the majority is against it, but rather because the opposition will have a stronger showing at the polls.

[Bowser]

I haven't seen a single TV spot, not a single radio ad, nothing. Their entire "campaign" has been emails and web sites, mostly done by volunteers. The Internet is the great equalizer. It's a real bitch for those who used to be able to get their way by spending advertising dollars.

Keitzman and the 810 crew crying like a bunch of third grade girls daily on this issue doesn't count?

[HemiEd]

My gut tells me this is going to get voted down. Not because the majority is against it, but rather because the opposition will have a stronger showing at the polls.

my sources tell me you are right. I hope they are wrong.

[Fire Me Boy!]

Can you point me to where you saw the poll numbers because I haven't seen any? Thanks.
I'm trying to find them again -- it's been two or three weeks and I'm drawing a blank as to where I saw them.

[gblowfish]

Man....800,000 spent by the chiefs....

Could have been spent on a TO bonus....or maybe a decent DT or DE.

Dammit Carl.

Yeah...and where did the Royals get $600,000 to piss away? That's a third starter right there!!

Let's peek into the mind of David Glass: "Hmm...$600 large or a third starter?.....Hmm....aw screw it. Another 100 losses it is!! Call the billboard company!"

I'm starting to hate baseball season.

http://www.saveourowners.com

[HemiEd]

http://www.saveourowners.com


ROFL
Kansas Citians are reaping the benefits, however.

“This new cop car gets wicked pickup,” Lon Gribble, the $800-bid winner of a 2004 Ford Police cruiser, said. “I can totally waste my friends’ Civics with this carriage. I just need to get a paint job.”
ROFL Funny reading

[Simplex3]

ROFL
Kansas Citians are reaping the benefits, however.

“This new cop car gets wicked pickup,” Lon Gribble, the $800-bid winner of a 2004 Ford Police cruiser, said. “I can totally waste my friends’ Civics with this carriage. I just need to get a paint job.”
ROFL Funny reading
The best one is the one about Jesus promising a second coming in KC if we pass the stadiums.

[Eleazar]

Yeah...and where did the Royals get $600,000 to piss away? That's a third starter right there!!

Uhhh... I hate to snipe at your witty banter, but starting pitchers who make close to the league minimum are the reason why the team has lost 100 games 3 years in a row.

[HemiEd]

The best one is the one about Jesus promising a second coming in KC if we pass the stadiums.

Some pretty creative stuff for $501!

[Halfcan]

They can spend millions on promotion, but still can't show us a budget, or a plan that will work.

I am leaning toward voting "NO"!

[chiefqueen]

I haven't seen any polls that show them winning outside of the margin of error. I also haven't seen any of the poll questions. Any poll where they don't show the questions with the results is to be taken with a mine full of salt IMO. For all we know the question was "Do you want the Chiefs and the Royals to leave KC?".

There's a reason for that. About 4 weeks ago I overheard someone say the vote could be as high as 4-1 against. Some who are big downtown development proponents are voting no because they think that may force the Royals and the county to build a DT stadium.

The Star has already endorsed the issue. If a measure looks like it could go down BIG do you think they would publish polls showing this?

[Simplex3]

Some pretty creative stuff for $501!
That web site cost $18. However, it is privately funded, no donations are taken. Since it isn't taking donations it doesn't have to register.

The site was set up and is operated completely by two teen age boys who thought the "saveourstadiums.com" site was a joke.

[HemiEd]

That web site cost $18. However, it is privately funded, no donations are taken. Since it isn't taking donations it doesn't have to register.

The site was set up and is operated completely by two teen age boys who thought the "saveourstadiums.com" site was a joke.


Well it is very funny, but I hope it is not effective! I wish there was someway that us "out of towners" could help chip in. I know, come to a game and spend money in Jackson county. I have done plenty of that, but I am concerned that if this does not pass that opportunity may disapear.

[Halfcan]

Sorry but the Royals have been a joke for decades, and I don't see spending any money on the K at all. Yes Arrowhead needs some work but 200 mil on a roof??? No budget, no working plan= NO!

[jidar]

I personally have been lobbying the Chiefs and Royals to tax Simplex3 more than they tax everyone else.

[Lurch]

Fighting dirty? I don't see it.

[Valiant]

I am not voting for it.. I would rather spend that much coin on a new stadium... That and the fact that it is proven that the owners have been ponying up at least half the money... Hell we are not even getting that...

Or..

If they just put in the paperwork that the teams must have a competive upgrade clause like they are doing to us to get the damn luxury boxes...

[tk13]

I am not voting for it.. I would rather spend that much coin on a new stadium... That and the fact that it is proven that the owners have been ponying up at least half the money... Hell we are not even getting that...

Or..

If they just put in the paperwork that the teams must have a competive upgrade clause like they are doing to us to get the damn luxury boxes...
Most of these new stadiums are not being 50% funded by the teams...

[Valiant]

Most of these new stadiums are not being 50% funded by the teams...


From the stat I saw on cost.. 7/10 of the stadiums were funded by at least 50% or more of the owners money...

We are going to throw all this money at two stadiums every 5-10 years??? Just build new stadiums it will be cheaper in the long run..

[Calcountry]

Yeah, I'm tired of holding a gun to your head and making you click on the link and read it too.Oh yeah? Then change your avatar bitch.

:p

[tk13]

From the stat I saw on cost.. 7/10 of the stadiums were funded by at least 50% or more of the owners money...

We are going to throw all this money at two stadiums every 5-10 years??? Just build new stadiums it will be cheaper in the long run..
Where did you get that stat at? That number sounds pretty high.

[tk13]

Percentage of public funding for the last 10 NFL stadiums built... 7 out of the 10 were higher than 50%. And that doesn't mean the owners pay the rest, either. The NFL will hand out loans based on market size which keeps the owners' cost down.

http://www.ukiahdailyjournal.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E33%257E2846961,00.html

Reliant Stadium (Houston) 73%

Qwest Field (Seattle) 73%

Lincoln Financial Field (Philadelphia) 39%

Ford Field (Detroit) 30%

Gillette Stadium (Foxboro, Mass.) 0%

Tennessee Coliseum (Nashville, Tenn.) 100%

Paul Brown Stadium (Cincinnati) 94%

Cleveland Browns Stadium 81%

Invesco Field (Denver) 75%

Heinz Field (Pittsburgh) 56%

[jidar]

From the stat I saw on cost.. 7/10 of the stadiums were funded by at least 50% or more of the owners money...

We are going to throw all this money at two stadiums every 5-10 years??? Just build new stadiums it will be cheaper in the long run..

Man this campaign of disinformation has worked so well on the average Joe.

[tk13]

Man this campaign of disinformation has worked so well on the average Joe.
I was really thinking we need to make a "Stadium FAQ" thread and sticky it at the top for the next week. Wade through all the disinformation and list facts and let people make their own decisions... although those are hard to find sometimes.

[cdcox]

We are going to throw all this money at two stadiums every 5-10 years???

No, its every year! I mean look at history. Ever since Arrowhead opened in 1970, regular as clockwork, Lamar has come with his hand out demanding a new stadium. As soon as the season is over they blow up a perfectly good stadium and build another one! Each citizen of Jackson County has paid $30K out of their own pocket to finance this boondoggle. Its time to put a stop to it!!

[Logical]

I am on the build a new stadium for the Chiefs and F the Royals. With the way MLB is structured the Royals are doomed anyway gettting them out of town is probably the best for the long run.

[Valiant]

Percentage of public funding for the last 10 NFL stadiums built... 7 out of the 10 were higher than 50%. And that doesn't mean the owners pay the rest, either. The NFL will hand out loans based on market size which keeps the owners' cost down.

http://www.ukiahdailyjournal.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E33%257E2846961,00.html

Reliant Stadium (Houston) 73%

Qwest Field (Seattle) 73%

Lincoln Financial Field (Philadelphia) 39%

Ford Field (Detroit) 30%

Gillette Stadium (Foxboro, Mass.) 0%

Tennessee Coliseum (Nashville, Tenn.) 100%

Paul Brown Stadium (Cincinnati) 94%

Cleveland Browns Stadium 81%

Invesco Field (Denver) 75%

Heinz Field (Pittsburgh) 56%

And how much are they helping with the Chiefs??? Taxpayers are getting ****ed...

No, its every year! I mean look at history. Ever since Arrowhead opened in 1970, regular as clockwork, Lamar has come with his hand out demanding a new stadium. As soon as the season is over they blow up a perfectly good stadium and build another one! Each citizen of Jackson County has paid $30K out of their own pocket to finance this boondoggle. Its time to put a stop to it!!

I am talking about the improvements we make every 5-10 years for the stadiums, hell not even counting the money they rake in on parking and ticket price increases...

No one said anything about building a new stadium every ten years... Why spend that much money when a new stadium costs a little bit more in regards...

[cdcox]

I am talking about the improvements we make every 5-10 years for the stadiums, hell not even counting the money they rake in on parking and ticket price increases...

No one said anything about building a new stadium every ten years... Why spend that much money when a new stadium costs a little bit more in regards...

When have any significant structural or infrastructure improvements to either stadium ever been made? I'm not talking about cosmetic stuff like turf, scoreboards or extra seats. The stadiums have been in use for 36 years without major upgrades. This one renovation will guaratee the team for another 20 years. Where do you get the 5-10 year crap?

A new stadium is not a choice at present. Right now it is up or down on rennovations to the existing complex and the guarantee of keeping the teams in KC for the next 20 years.

[Valiant]

When have any significant structural or infrastructure improvements to either stadium ever been made? I'm not talking about cosmetic stuff like turf, scoreboards or extra seats. The stadiums have been in use for 36 years without major upgrades. This one renovation will guaratee the team for another 20 years. Where do you get the 5-10 year crap?

A new stadium is not a choice at present. Right now it is up or down on rennovations to the existing complex and the guarantee of keeping the teams in KC for the next 20 years.


We just spent money on upgrades what in 98??? That was suppose to keep the teams for 20years.. Now its time agian, sorry but me and 1000's of others are voting no on this shit...

I will vote yes for a new stadium though...

[Coach]

We just spent money on upgrades what in 98??? That was suppose to keep the teams for 20years.. Now its time agian, sorry but me and 1000's of others are voting no on this shit...

I will vote yes for a new stadium though...

Not sure when you got that 98 from, since the last lease was in 1990.

The 1990 lease required taxpayers to keep the stadiums in a "state-of-the-art" condition, with no cap on the public's liabilities to pay for those upgrades.

As these leases did not contain cost estimates for improvements, did not provide funds for the upgrades and required too little from the teams to pay for better stadiums.

This new lease (2006) cap the public's contribution for basic stadium repairs through a three-eighths-cent sales tax.

The two clubs must pay for cost overruns, just as some other teams have done in recent stadium deals.

Its cheaper than building new stadiums but at the same time we will be repairing the infrastructures of both so they will last as long as any new stadium would. Just like what they did in Green Bay.

The tax will cost about an extra penny for $2.67 you spend and if the Chiefs are not worth that to some people, then that is ridiculous.

Not to mention by the end of the tax, its estimated that visitors from outside of Jackson County will have been responsible for about 30% of the tax.

[HemiEd]

The tax will cost about an extra penny for $2.67 you spend and if the Chiefs are not worth that to some people, then that is ridiculous.

Not to mention by the end of the tax, its estimated that visitors from outside of Jackson County will have been responsible for about 30% of the tax.

Amazing stat, what is all the hubbub about? bunch of cheap bastiches!


Just do it!

[Valiant]

From 96-98 Jackson County paid 150million to improve TSC to extend the lease to 2015.. That included all the seats, scoreboard, food and bathrooms being redone...

Now they want a refurbished stadium so they can make more money?? **** that, it is useless to throw that much money at a stadium that will be rebuilt in 10 years more then likely... We were told in 98 if we did not do the tax increase the teams could leave, now we bave been hearing about it since 04 that they need better stadiums to be competive and make more money..

We will take the Royals, the money they recieve from the top teams alone pays for thier rosters salary... Everything else Glass gets is profit.. Hell the Royals are one of the few teams to make a profit in the last four years straight.. But you want to go ahead and give him more money to make...


It would be cheaper and better in the long run to build new stadiums and then have the leagues give us money for doing it... It is always going to be cheaper to build now then wait til future...Would you rather spend 550+million upgrading or just get a new stadium for 800million(deduct whatever the league gets us)???




Hey, if it passes great for you guys... We will be doing it agian in 10 years as we need to get so-called more competive..

[Valiant]

Not sure when you got that 98 from, since the last lease was in 1990.

The 1990 lease required taxpayers to keep the stadiums in a "state-of-the-art" condition, with no cap on the public's liabilities to pay for those upgrades.

As these leases did not contain cost estimates for improvements, did not provide funds for the upgrades and required too little from the teams to pay for better stadiums.

This new lease (2006) cap the public's contribution for basic stadium repairs through a three-eighths-cent sales tax.

The two clubs must pay for cost overruns, just as some other teams have done in recent stadium deals.

Its cheaper than building new stadiums but at the same time we will be repairing the infrastructures of both so they will last as long as any new stadium would. Just like what they did in Green Bay.

The tax will cost about an extra penny for $2.67 you spend and if the Chiefs are not worth that to some people, then that is ridiculous.

Not to mention by the end of the tax, its estimated that visitors from outside of Jackson County will have been responsible for about 30% of the tax.


No we increased the lease in 98 to 2015 with the last improvements.. I remember because I voted yes for those improvements..
We are not getting shit for these improvements...

[cdcox]

Valiant: everything done in the past was in accordance with the old lease as Coach described.

The new lease would prevent the very thing you are concerned about, again as described by Coach.

Do you not understand the leagally binding nature of a lease?

[Valiant]

Valiant: everything done in the past was in accordance with the old lease as Coach described.

The new lease would prevent the very thing you are concerned about, again as described by Coach.

Do you not understand the leagally binding nature of a lease?


I would not had to vote for the thing if it was in accordance to the old lease.. Those improvements were not in the old lease, kinda the reason they were not fixed in the 80's.. They threaten to leave if we did not improve the concourses(sp?) after the current lease was up, that is why we did it and got the extension on the lease.. I remember reading about it in the papers all the time... You can believe what ever you want.. Remember they are doing the improvements to help you...

Just like now, we have them here until 2015 regardless of what happens on this next vote..

Tell me why you guys want to fix a 30+ yearl old facility when cost wise in the long run it is cheaper to build new... Compare the cost of a stadium today to build new compared to 1995??? Why waste 550+ million.. We have 5-6 more years to get tax money to just build new...

[alnorth]

Woah, everyone back up a second. Why are we all buying Simplex's original thread premise?

He's basically argueing that the stadium tax supporters are complaining to the state government, demanding an investigation into their opponent's campaign spending. The article he links does not support this claim at all.

All it says is that the latest campaign finance reports show the opponents spent $501. This report was likely voluntarily filed by those who raised and spent the money, there is absolutely no mention of any complaint or demand for investigation whatsoever.

I dont live in KC, so maybe this is a breaking headline in the local radio, but if not, then Simplex's arguement is lacking in support. Aside from that, his arguement is stupid on the face of it. If the opponents raised 5 million dollars illegally, thats when you complain. If your opponents raise 500 bucks, you thank your good fortune that you have the field tilted your way as much as it can be tilted.

[Simplex3]

I dont live in KC, so maybe this is a breaking headline in the local radio, but if not, then Simplex's arguement is lacking in support. Aside from that, his arguement is stupid on the face of it. If the opponents raised 5 million dollars illegally, thats when you complain. If your opponents raise 500 bucks, you thank your good fortune that you have the field tilted your way as much as it can be tilted.
It was on the radio this morning that the stadium backers had filed a complaint against the other side. The reason that makes sense for the backers is at least two-fold:

1. In the final days of the campaign the opposition will be fighting the govt audit rather than the backers.

2. The next group who is thinking about opposing them will think twice about having to deal with the govt.

[alnorth]

It was on the radio this morning that the stadium backers had filed a complaint against the other side.

Fair enough, I'll believe it when I see it in print. If there is a complaint, I would assume that it would probably not be about the 500 bucks, but that the opponents are spending a lot of money under the table without following election law.

[cdcox]

Just like now, we have them here until 2015 regardless of what happens on this next vote..



The Chiefs contend that Jackson county will be in violation of the lease as of Jan 1, 2007 if they have not definitive, funded plan in place to improve the stadium.

But you already know that. Why do you find it necessary to present an incomplete set of facts?

I guarantee you that the Chiefs will not be sitting in Arrowhead in 2010 waiting for some one to come up with a solution to the staidum problem. I'll also guarantee you the Chiefs won't put a significantly larger share into the pot. This is most likely Jackson County's last chance. I think the Chiefs will give Kansas a shot at retaining them in the metro area, but there are no guarantees. Take the sure thing.

[Coach]

The Chiefs contend that Jackson county will be in violation of the lease as of Jan 1, 2007 if they have not definitive, funded plan in place to improve the stadium.

But you already know that. Why do you find it necessary to present an incomplete set of facts?

I guarantee you that the Chiefs will not be sitting in Arrowhead in 2010 waiting for some one to come up with a solution to the staidum problem. I'll also guarantee you the Chiefs won't put a significantly larger share into the pot. This is most likely Jackson County's last chance. I think the Chiefs will give Kansas a shot at retaining them in the metro area, but there are no guarantees. Take the sure thing.

Just am curious, where did ya hear that? Is there a link, or some source of this?

Would like to read that article if that where it came from that is.

[cdcox]

Just am curious, where did ya hear that? Is there a link, or some source of this?

Would like to read that article if that where it came from that is.

Here is an article that gives the 2015 and 2007 deadlines:

http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/stories/2005/12/19/daily34.html

As far as the final chance for Jackson County, that is part conjecture based on the following: the Chiefs have indicated that this the deal they want. I remember reading a quote from the Chiefs that this is a "final" deal or best offer, or something to that effect. I couldn't find a linkm though. Furthermore, a NO vote next tuesday would be at least the third NO from MO: bi-State, the MO legislature, and now Jackson county voters. Why would you ask a 4th time? A third NO vote would send a pretty clear message that MO does not want to use public funds to keep the Chiefs.

The idea of giving KS a chance to fund a new stadium is also conjecture based on the stated desire of the Hunts to keep the Chiefs in KC.

[Coach]

Here is an article that gives the 2015 and 2007 deadlines:

http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/stories/2005/12/19/daily34.html

As far as the final chance for Jackson County, that is part conjecture based on the following: the Chiefs have indicated that this the deal they want. I remember reading a quote from the Chiefs that this is a "final" deal or best offer, or something to that effect. I couldn't find a linkm though. Furthermore, a NO vote next tuesday would be at least the third NO from MO: bi-State, the MO legislature, and now Jackson county voters. Why would you ask a 4th time? A third NO vote would send a pretty clear message that MO does not want to use public funds to keep the Chiefs.

The idea of giving KS a chance to fund a new stadium is also conjecture based on the stated desire of the Hunts to keep the Chiefs in KC.

Cool. Thanks for the link.

I can see that KC Kansas could get a shot at this, but I'm not so confident that will happen, considering that there are larger markets out there, like LA/Anaheim.

And not to mention, that the NFL is all hell-bent on trying to get a NFL team in the LA area, no matter what. So.... yeah.

[Valiant]

Here is an article that gives the 2015 and 2007 deadlines:

http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/stories/2005/12/19/daily34.html

As far as the final chance for Jackson County, that is part conjecture based on the following: the Chiefs have indicated that this the deal they want. I remember reading a quote from the Chiefs that this is a "final" deal or best offer, or something to that effect. I couldn't find a linkm though. Furthermore, a NO vote next tuesday would be at least the third NO from MO: bi-State, the MO legislature, and now Jackson county voters. Why would you ask a 4th time? A third NO vote would send a pretty clear message that MO does not want to use public funds to keep the Chiefs.

The idea of giving KS a chance to fund a new stadium is also conjecture based on the stated desire of the Hunts to keep the Chiefs in KC.


So why do the Chiefs and Royals not honor their lease???, the extension they agreed to im 98 had them here till 2015, now they want more money for upgrades outside the last agreement??? Do you see a trend...

They will find ways to break leases any chance they get to get us to pay for improvements in their pockets...