The Roof was destined to Fail.

teedubya · 04-04-2006, 11:25 PM

Ok... I want to know whose brainchild this is... to put the stadium renovations AND the roof at the same time?

Seriously, You most likely going to vote FOR or AGAINST for renovations.

Now, if you voted yes FOR the renovations... you may be for or against the roof...

however, if you voted NO for renovations, there is ZERO chance you are gonna vote YES for the roof.

So, by this logic, if only ONE person wanted the renovations but thought the roof idea was gay... the roof would have failed.

Now, you have to ask, was the roof just a diversion to insure that the renovations got passed?

philfree · 04-05-2006, 02:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ali Chi3fs

Ok... I want to know whose brainchild this is... to put the stadium renovations AND the roof at the same time?

Seriously, You most likely going to vote FOR or AGAINST for renovations.

Now, if you voted yes FOR the renovations... you may be for or against the roof...

however, if you voted NO for renovations, there is ZERO chance you are gonna vote YES for the roof.

So, by this logic, if only ONE person wanted the renovations but thought the roof idea was gay... the roof would have failed.

Now, you have to ask, was the roof just a diversion to insure that the renovations got passed?

No it was a test to see how receptive the idea was the the people of Jackson County. After recieving 49% of the vote they now know that there is a pretty good chance that it can indeed happen. All they have to do is persuade 2% of those voter to change their mind. I believe they'll do it. All Lamar has to do is toss a little more of his own cash and IMO the vote will swing.

PhilFree

DaWolf · 04-05-2006, 03:15 AM

Also they need to know pretty soon because as one of the articles pointed out, the planning of the configuration of the stadium changes a bit with a roof vs without a roof...

**007** · 04-05-2006, 03:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaWolf

Also they need to know pretty soon because as one of the articles pointed out, the planning of the configuration of the stadium changes a bit with a roof vs without a roof...

If they want it that bad then they had better pay up then.

Yeah, that'll happen.

Chief Chief · 04-05-2006, 04:56 AM

Ali Chi3fs, your logic abolutely sucks...but to answer your question:

Yes, it definitely was a so-called "diversion" (kind of like asking somebody, "Would you rather have your ass beaten and kicked or just your ass beaten?"). As you remember, the rolling roof was the brainchild of the Chiefs. Glass, owner of the Royals, was initially adamantly against having a roof over the "K". But after the Chiefs clued him in on their gameplan, lo and behold!, he then became a big advocate of the roof.

cookster50 · 04-05-2006, 05:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chief Chief

Ali Chi3fs, your logic abolutely sucks...but to answer your question:

Yes, it definitely was a so-called "diversion" (kind of like asking somebody,

Agreed. They knew that if only the renovations were talked about, people would realize they were being bent over a barrel and the Chiefs and Royals were sodomizing the people. By having the roof, the focus was away from the details of the renovation plan.

jspchief · 04-05-2006, 06:40 AM

I think the reason they wanted it to be on the same ballot is they don't want to look like they are coming back asking for even more money here in just a short time after they got the stadium deal passed.

Personally, I think the roof is a bad idea. It's a gimmick and impractical in relation to it's cost. A city that needed 3 tries just to get neccessary stadium funding isn't the type of city you should expect that kind of progressive vision from.

epitome1170 · 04-05-2006, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jspchief

I think the reason they wanted it to be on the same ballot is they don't want to look like they are coming back asking for even more money here in just a short time after they got the stadium deal passed.

Personally, I think the roof is a bad idea. It's a gimmick and impractical in relation to it's cost. A city that needed 3 tries just to get neccessary stadium funding isn't the type of city you should expect that kind of progressive vision from.

I personally loved the idea of the rolling roof. I have heard quite a few people question the reliability of the idea, but being an engineer, I would have to trust that a well known firm such as HOK would not suggest the idea without having the capability of it working. Engineers careers are ruined very easily with any sort of mistake so I do not think they would risk that.

In addition to the pure engineer in me liking the idea, the sports fan in me loves the idea of the final four and the superbowl possibly coming to KC. Obviously I would rather have one of my teams be in those respective championships, but if I cant have that then having the chance to be near such an event would have to suffice.

greg63 · 04-05-2006, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ali Chi3fs

The Roof was destined to Fail.

I think so too.

**Old Dog** · 04-05-2006, 08:15 AM

What I don't understand (and maybe it's because I didn't fully understand the roof issue) is why vote for renovations and not the roof.

#1 Wasn't the rolling roof supposed to be primarily with "user fees" (not taxing the residents of Jackson Co) and

#2 The cost of the roof itself was (if I'm thinking clearly) somewhere in the proximity of $250 million. A Super Bowl (a sure thing if the roof passed) would bring in >$300 million to the county, so in my thinking it would pay for itself in time (especially adding in revenues from large conventions/Finals Four etc...)

Am I wrong in either of those thoughts? I'm just trying to figure it out.

jspchief · 04-05-2006, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by epitome1170

I personally loved the idea of the rolling roof. I have heard quite a few people question the reliability of the idea, but being an engineer, I would have to trust that a well known firm such as HOK would not suggest the idea without having the capability of it working. Engineers careers are ruined very easily with any sort of mistake so I do not think they would risk that.

In addition to the pure engineer in me liking the idea, the sports fan in me loves the idea of the final four and the superbowl possibly coming to KC. Obviously I would rather have one of my teams be in those respective championships, but if I cant have that then having the chance to be near such an event would have to suffice.

I don't hate the idea. I just think it was impractical to try and get this roof, when they are having a hard enough time convincing the city to even pay for the stadium upgrades. It's like trying to sell someone a car that they don't want, and expecting them to buy a boat too. KC is just too conservative to expect them to support something as progressive as this.

The Superbowl isn't much of a selling point for me. Only about 5% of Superbowl tickets are made available to the host city, so it's unlikely that I would be able to attend anyway. For the large majority of Kansas Citians, a Superbowl just means a week's worth of headaches and bad press.

The Final Four would be cool, but if I ever decide to attend a Final Four, the location is going to have very little impact on that decision.

Brock · 04-05-2006, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jspchief

For the large majority of Kansas Citians, a Superbowl just means a week's worth of headaches and bad press.

That's the truth. I viewed it as just a giant invasion of a-holes.

cmh6476 · 04-05-2006, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by truebigdog

What I don't understand (and maybe it's because I didn't fully understand the roof issue) is why vote for renovations and not the roof.
#1 Wasn't the rolling roof supposed to be primarily with "user fees" (not taxing the residents of Jacskon Co) and
#2 The cost of the roof itself was (if I'm thinking clearly) somewhere in the proximity of $250 million. A Super Bowl (a sure thing if the roof passed) would bring in >$300 million to the county, so in my thinking it would pay for itself in time (especially adding in revenues from large conventions/Finals Four etc...)

Am I wrong in either of those thoughts? I'm just trying to figure it out.

yep, if you voted for the improvements you might as well have voted for the roof.

epitome1170 · 04-05-2006, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jspchief

I don't hate the idea. I just think it was impractical to try and get this roof, when they are having a hard enough time convincing the city to even pay for the stadium upgrades. It's like trying to sell someone a car that they don't want, and expecting them to buy a boat too. KC is just too conservative to expect them to support something as progressive as this.

Perhaps, I am mistaken on my facts, but I thought that if question 1 passed then question 2 was just to find out how they wanted to spend the money, i.e. the rolling roof. Now that the roof failed that just means that they will still be taxed the same but will have renovations just no roof. Is that correct? If so, then I guess I would think of it as someone buying a car and then the salesman to ask if they wanted a convertible for the same price.

However, I could be mistaken on the whole thing... some clarification on the exact wording of question 2 would help.

**Old Dog** · 04-05-2006, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by epitome1170

However, I could be mistaken on the whole thing... some clarification on the exact wording of question 2 would help.

You can find the wording here:http://kcchiefs.com/news/2006/04/05/gretz_yes_and_no/

about 2/3 of the way down the page.

04-04-2006, 11:25 PM
teedubya Most Valuable Poster Join Date: Oct 2003 Casino cash: $9470002	The Roof was destined to Fail. Ok... I want to know whose brainchild this is... to put the stadium renovations AND the roof at the same time? Seriously, You most likely going to vote FOR or AGAINST for renovations. Now, if you voted yes FOR the renovations... you may be for or against the roof... however, if you voted NO for renovations, there is ZERO chance you are gonna vote YES for the roof. So, by this logic, if only ONE person wanted the renovations but thought the roof idea was gay... the roof would have failed. Now, you have to ask, was the roof just a diversion to insure that the renovations got passed?
Posts: 36,659

04-05-2006, 03:15 AM	#3
DaWolf Cry havoc... Join Date: Aug 2000 Casino cash: $10007725	Also they need to know pretty soon because as one of the articles pointed out, the planning of the configuration of the stadium changes a bit with a roof vs without a roof...
Posts: 6,798

04-05-2006, 04:56 AM	#5
Chief Chief Veteran Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Kansas City MO Casino cash: $10004900	Ali Chi3fs, your logic abolutely sucks...but to answer your question: Yes, it definitely was a so-called "diversion" (kind of like asking somebody, "Would you rather have your ass beaten and kicked or just your ass beaten?"). As you remember, the rolling roof was the brainchild of the Chiefs. Glass, owner of the Royals, was initially adamantly against having a roof over the "K". But after the Chiefs clued him in on their gameplan, lo and behold!, he then became a big advocate of the roof.
Posts: 3,072

04-05-2006, 06:40 AM	#7
jspchief BAMF Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Your Face Casino cash: $9998710	I think the reason they wanted it to be on the same ballot is they don't want to look like they are coming back asking for even more money here in just a short time after they got the stadium deal passed. Personally, I think the roof is a bad idea. It's a gimmick and impractical in relation to it's cost. A city that needed 3 tries just to get neccessary stadium funding isn't the type of city you should expect that kind of progressive vision from. __________________ Courage is not the absence of fear but rather the judgment that something is more important than fear. The brave may not live forever but the cautious do not live at all.
Posts: 27,207

04-05-2006, 08:15 AM	#10
Old Dog Supporter Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: North Central Kansas Casino cash: $4565131	What I don't understand (and maybe it's because I didn't fully understand the roof issue) is why vote for renovations and not the roof. #1 Wasn't the rolling roof supposed to be primarily with "user fees" (not taxing the residents of Jackson Co) and #2 The cost of the roof itself was (if I'm thinking clearly) somewhere in the proximity of $250 million. A Super Bowl (a sure thing if the roof passed) would bring in >$300 million to the county, so in my thinking it would pay for itself in time (especially adding in revenues from large conventions/Finals Four etc...) Am I wrong in either of those thoughts? I'm just trying to figure it out. Last edited by Old Dog; 04-05-2006 at 08:22 AM..
Posts: 10,675