Hadn't heard that. Sounded like everything was just "dome" from what I read and heard. Glad to hear this at least, although as stated I wish it were just open air. Force the decision to play games in cold weather which I think is a significant advantage for the Chiefs.

I admit that I'm skimming but there isn't a person in Kansas, including those that live in Topeka or Wichita or any other meaningless city west of Clinton Lake or south of Olathe that believes for one nano second that the Chiefs would move there.




First, this isn't happening. Second, why would they? Last season people lost fingers and toes. **** that.

And they won. They then went on the road and won 2 more cold weather games. People that lost fingers need to be less stupid. I was at the game and even tailgated before with my family. We were all fine. The Dolphins stood zero chance in that weather and it was awesome.

They don't "owe" anything to JaCo. Their responsibility is to make money and they are now a free agent.

JaCo has been very good to the Chiefs for 60 years. If the Chiefs want to turn around and say **** you to the largest county in KC and the state off Missouri overall they obviously have that choice. But it would be pretty shitty.

Is it even a question anymore that they sandbagged the proposal? Everything they've done and said recently indicates they want a new stadium.

Voters said they were fine with the team leaving the county.

Elections have consequences.

I wish they hadn't. But if voters turn around and give the Chiefs exactly what they asked for a few months later, only cutting out the Royals, why would the Chiefs reject that? If they just wanted out no matter what they already knew Kansas would build them a dome.

I think it's a question. There was a general belief that the measure was going to pass in April until right before the election when it became clear it was a fight. If the Chiefs for sure wanted out, they took a pretty big risk.

Really stupid people lost fingers and toes and it was a microscopic number compared to the number of people who attended that game. You don't need to take away what football is supposed to be (a game played in the elements with wind, rain, snow, cold, and heat) to appease the few dumb ****s that don't know how to dress for extremely cold temperatures.

This is some truefan nonsense, I'm sorry to say. Winters aren't going to get LESS extreme moving forward.


It isn't even a question by the way. Roof=Superbowl end of argument.




And we would have kicked the shit out of the Dolphins no matter what. Cold weather didn't win that game, Mahomes and the defense did.


Just let this go. Freezing your ass off for some kind of advantage is going away. Get used to it.

Yes let's wreck the game experience so we can host a Super Bowl once every quarter century. "End of argument" my ass. If the Packers can play without a roof in Green Bay ****ing Wisconsin we can sure as hell do it in KC.

Wreck the game experience lmao

Eh, I may be a little extreme on that, but I've been to a football game in a dome and the atmosphere was not as good as outdoors.

To be clear when I say the argument is over, I don't mean the argument of whether the dome ruins the gameday experience. If you think freezing your ass off is part of it, I'm not arguing that.

What I'm saying is if Clark is faced with the option of "have a Super Bowl in KC" vs. "keep the game day experience of Jackson County residents getting absolutely blasted so they don't feel the cold anymore and/or doing a piss luge in the bathroom" well you can go ahead and bet your last dollar the Chiefs will have a new stadium with a retractable roof.

Don't worry you can still lose fingers and toes in the parking lot and they can also open the roof to make Dolphins players uncomfortably below 60 degrees.