KCRag Forum

GRID wrote:
I also came away thinking that KC is just screwed right now and this might be our only real chance to save what we have.  I don’t know if the teams are going to leave or not, but I believe the threat is real and I don’t have enough faith in this town and this town’s residents to get on the same page if this fails.

Grid - do you honestly believe the teams would leave?

My $.02:

It's hard to fathom the Chiefs ever leaving. Think of it as if you were the owner: they have a *sure thing* in KC, with a very healthy profit. They don't even have to be very good to do so. Anywhere else they would move is a risk. Plus, the NFL will oppose them moving. And, even in a worst case scenario where they did move, we would be 1st on the list for an expansion team b/c of our consistent support.

For the Royals, I do think it's a possibility they could move at some point, but that point is not now. The Glass family has been consistent in reiterating their support for KC, and that they have no intentions of moving or selling. If we reject 2 or 3 more stadium deals, that could happen. But the Marlins and Twins have both had far worse dealings with their cities over the last decade, and both are still not moving. MLB does not want teams moving.

And frankly, even as someone who has been a Royals fan my whole life, and went to games in the 70's & 80's when they were great, I'm sad to say I'm not sure I'd even care that much if they left town. The organization is a national embarrassment, and the future does not look encouraging. I'm guessing that for the vast majority of Kansas Citians, baseball has stopped being anything more than a passing interest in their lives. That's obviously not true for the Chiefs, despite their own lack of on-field success.

Just some notes on my part:

-Yes, "State of the Art" was discussed, quite heatedly actually, but as was everything else.

-The "Yes"-side did appeared to be represented by a greater number of people, or perhaps just a more vocal number of people. The opposing side seemed to be a little bit more reserved in their reactions to the panelists statements, but this does not imply a lack of concern or passion about the issue.

-Summary of the two opposing views of the panelists, which were repeatedly stressed: No- the stadium tax is immoral; Yes- the stadium tax would only cost Jackson County taxpayers a cup of Quik Trip coffee a month (enough with the coffee already!!!!).

-Very few minorities were present at the forum, however, each discussion panel did have their "token black guy".

warwickland wrote: i was there in spirit


it started hailing as i was supposed to leave



and stuff

I don't buy it, warwickland.

kevink wrote:   Plus, the NFL will oppose them moving.

yet, they would be powerless to do a damn thing. baltimore, cleveland, and la were as established as kc if not more when their teams bolted.

kcdcchef wrote: yet, they would be powerless to do a damn thing. baltimore, cleveland, and la were as established as kc if not more when their teams bolted.

STFUA

kcdcchef wrote: yet, they would be powerless to do a damn thing. baltimore, cleveland, and la were as established as kc if not more when their teams bolted.

Classic Chef - argue and jump all over a guy who prefaced his entire post with "my $.02".  It's his opinion chef; your arguing over the accuracy of his opinion does nothing to further the dialogue. 

There are no opinions.  Only chef's facts.

LenexatoKCMO wrote: Classic Chef - argue and jump all over a guy who prefaced his entire post with "my $.02".  It's his opinion chef; your arguing over the accuracy of his opinion does nothing to further the dialogue. 

hey lenexatokcmo. how are ya? nice weather today, no?? well, have a nice day, friend.

oh, by the way, i read his whole post, good passion in it too. however, when someone offers that the nfl will never let a team move, you have to be informed of the other 3 cities that have said that about their teams. his opinion, was about profits, and being established in kc, his fact, was that the nfl would not let them move. i corrected that.

lock&load wrote: There are no opinions.  Only chef's facts.

hey buddy, how is everything?? good day? ummm, chef's facts, well, i did supply the fact that 3 teams have moved in the last 20 years, who, were as established as the chiefs, if not moreso. i figured you would be happy that i had facts. guess you need a link to prove those teams moved. here ya go.

www.nfl.com

Attendance in Baltimore the year before they moved:  37,411 per game.  Hardly comparable to the Chiefs currently.

http://www.kenn.com/sports/football/nfl ... dance.html


Rams final two years in LA:  42k, 45k
Raiders final two years in LA: 51k, 49k
Cleveland:  64k, 70k.  They had a team back in three years.

lock&load wrote: Attendance in Baltimore the year before they moved:  37,411 per game.  Hardly comparable to the Chiefs currently.

http://www.kenn.com/sports/football/nfl ... dance.html


Rams final two years in LA:  42k, 45k
Raiders final two years in LA: 51k, 49k
Cleveland:  64k, 70k.  They had a team back in three years.

Good points. And, the situation in the NFL is different now - they want an expansion franchise in LA, so the owners can share in the franchise fee. That fee won't be as high in KC. The business side of the game is different than when the others moved, and they will be very reluctant, if not downright against a successful franchise in KC moving.

lock&load wrote: Attendance in Baltimore the year before they moved:  37,411 per game.  Hardly comparable to the Chiefs currently.

http://www.kenn.com/sports/football/nfl ... dance.html


Rams final two years in LA:  42k, 45k
Raiders final two years in LA: 51k, 49k
Cleveland:  64k, 70k.  They had a team back in three years.

yeah, but 50,000 in l.a. makes the same amount as 79,000 does in k.c.

now, with regards to baltimores attendance before they lost their team, that was pretty much average back then.

www.kenn.com

If that's the case, then it seems to me that nothing we do, even voting yes on April 4th, will guarantee that the Chiefs will stay. Laws are made to be broken, and ballot language is made to be reinterpreted. That's what expensive lawyers(that we pay for, btw) are for.

They have expressed no interest whatsoever, in leaving. Hunt has even said that they have no interest in leaving KC, yet you're still convinced they might, and probably will? Why? Are you honestly taken in by the inconsistent FUD being spread by the SOS campaign?

bahua wrote: Are you honestly taken in by the inconsistent FUD being spread by the SOS campaign?

He isn't taken in by it, he just needs it to crutch his position. 

"I love TSC so much that it should be saved at any cost to taxpayers or downtown" just isn't as convincing as spending weeks trying to "factually" show the liklihood of something we all really know is never going to happen.

LenexatoKCMO wrote:  

"I love TSC so much that it should be saved at any cost to taxpayers or downtown" just isn't as convincing as spending weeks trying to "factually" show the liklihood of something we all really know is never going to happen.

i agree with akp, you are finally talking sense here lately. make that your signature, then go vote yes on tuesday.

kcdcchef wrote: i agree with akp, you are finally talking sense here lately. make that your signature, then go vote yes on tuesday.

I guess you didn't get my comment. 

Yeah, I found that kind of contradictory to what you've already been saying, chef.

LenexatoKCMO wrote:
"I love TSC so much that it should be saved at any cost to taxpayers or downtown" 

just this part. and further, there is no cost to downtown kc, this is a win win. downtown already has 4b plus the east village project, and all that dst already has on the table planned, so, the cost to downtown is nothing.

make it your sig lenexa.