KC Star: Hunt answers cynics on stadium funding (Murphy)

[FloridaChief]

Hunt answers cynics on stadium funding

By KEVIN MURPHY The Kansas City Star

Chiefs owner Lamar Hunt said Thursday that passing a sales tax to upgrade Arrowhead Stadium would require answering critics who think the team should pay for the work.

Voters in the Kansas City area will be asked Nov. 2 to approve a quarter-cent sales tax to pay for $180 million in construction at Arrowhead Stadium, with a similar amount for Kauffman Stadium. Arts projects also would be funded.

The Chiefs had a profit of $24 million last year and have a value of $709 million, according to a Forbes magazine report this month.

“I know there is a cynicism that says, ‘Oh, if the Chiefs are making money, why should we help?' ” Hunt said in an appearance Thursday before the Kansas City Rotary Club at the Arrowhead Club. “The fact is, this is a public facility. The Chiefs only play 10 games a year here.”

Arrowhead and Kauffman are owned by Jackson County. Hunt alluded to other events scheduled at Arrowhead this fall, such as Wizards soccer games, the Billy Graham crusade and the Big 12 Conference championship football game.

Hunt, who said he planned to take an active role in trying to pass the tax, urged Rotary members to explain to skeptics that Arrowhead's value goes beyond housing the Chiefs.

The tax would pay for new concession areas, restaurants, enlarged concourses, more rest rooms, utility upgrades, and a training and administrative building. The Chiefs would contribute $50 million.

Arrowhead opened in the early 1970s. “While this is a magnificent home and has been for 32 years, I think you can appreciate that a house needs refurbishing after 32 years,” Hunt said.

Hunt said the team was not about to move if the tax measure failed. The team has 12 years left on its lease.

In addition to the Chiefs profitability and value, ticket prices may also be an issue with people, Hunt said in an interview Wednesday. The team's average ticket price of $67.26 ranks third in the National Football League, according to a survey released last week in Team Marketing Report, a Chicago research publication.

Hunt said: “We need to step back and think about the Chiefs coming to the middle of the range in ticket price.'' Hunt said he wrote a memo to that effect this week to Carl Peterson, Chiefs general manager.

The sales tax measure would raise more than $1 billion over at least 12 years. Voters in Jackson, Clay and Johnson counties would have to approve the tax for it to take effect, but it also will be on ballots in Wyandotte and Platte counties.

[Logical]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

There are several NFL owners, including Irsay, who vehemently disagree. Signing bonuses can be pro-rated against the cap, but they must be paid to the player IMMEDIATELY. This is not about the cap, this is about actual money. Irsay had to SELL ASSETS to pay Peyton Manning. Daniel Snyder will NEVER have to do that -- he can re-invest profits in his team.

Until the Chiefs are no longer making a profit so could the Chiefs. This argument is silly for now.

One other thing Lamar's initial investment in the Chiefs was less than $50K, he has over $700 million in equity, he is a hell of a long way from spending any of his money based on a cash out position on the franchise. Dan Snyder on the other hand paid almost a billion for the Redskins, so he is a long way from no longer having a huge amount of cash sunk into the Redskins.

[tk13]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

HUH? Teh Yankees spend 181 million. The Royals spend 45 million. The Chiefs and Redskins get to spend the same exact amount every year. No more. They can spend less but not more. It's called a salary cap. Baseball should try it.

No, signing bonuses are paid up front. Snyder can spend 115-120 million easily every offseason paying people signing bonuses up front. I've talked about this all offseason. Snyder can sign an All-Star team on both sides of the football because he can put everything in signing bonuses that is guaranteed money... Snyder has much, much, much more room to screw around. If he makes a mistake here and there, it's no big deal. The Chiefs made 20 million dollars profit... that's practically one big FA, and like the Royals, if we screw up or something bad happens (look at all the injuries we've had), that's it, unless Lamar wants to take a loss of profit. I can understand people wanting him to do that, but personally, that's Lamar's decision, I don't expect him to not make a profit on his business.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Vlad Logicslav

Until the Chiefs are no longer making a profit so could the Chiefs. This argument is silly for now.

One other thing Lamar's initial investment in the Chiefs was less than $50K, he has over $700 million in equity, he is a hell of a long way from spending any of his money based on a cash out position on the franchise. Dan Snyder on the other hand paid almost a billion for the Redskins, so he is a long way from no longer having a huge amount of cash sunk into the Redskins.

Like I said, people that currently OWN NFL TEAMS disagree with you. Of course, I'm sure your own in-depth experience with owning an NFL team fuels your argument, right?

[whoman69]

I always think that the teams should have to put a portion of the funds for a new stadium, they are profiting from that new stadium. But on the other side of the coin, the Chiefs are not making as much profit as the sum being bantied about here.

[Logical]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Like I said, people that currently OWN NFL TEAMS disagree with you. Of course, I'm sure your own in-depth experience with owning an NFL team fuels your argument, right?

Most of those people bought in and do not have the huge positive equity position of the Hunts. The Hunts just want the seats full and more money came in. Lamar has never been all that vested in winning, the 80s are proof of that to me. I think Lamar is a great man, but he is not motivated towards winning and never has been beyond filling the seats and his pockets.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by Vlad Logicslav

Most of those people bought in and do not have the huge positive equity position of the Hunts. The Hunts just want the seats full and more money came in. Lamar has never been all that vested in winning, the 80s are proof of that to me. I think Lamar is a great man, but he is not motivated towards winning and never has been beyond filling the seats and his pockets.

I disagree. I don't think Lamar is just about winning. But supposely we have 6 mil on the table we could have used to bring someone in here and didn't. So on the surface it looks like they wanted to keep the 6 mil in their pocket instead of out on the field. I have disaggreed with some of their off season moves but at least they were making moves. Spending all of their cap dollars. This is the first time off season I felt that they were not trying their best. Another episode like this and I may be swayed to a "vlad" way of thought.