Downtown Council, Mayor Barnes supporting TSC renovations?

[kcdcchef]

Or we could just be smarter in the first place and build downtown, within WALKING distance of all the convention space, hotels, businesses, and a more logical place within the metro area for a light-rail system. 

that is not smarter to destroy two of the best stadiums in professional sports to pacify some members of the kc forum and kevin kietzman.

[Maitre D]

Don't think either is among the upper 1/2 of stadiums in their respective leagues.

[kcdcchef]

Don't think either is among the upper 1/2 of stadiums in their respective leagues.

i do not think. i know. ballparks.com, and espn.com, rate them regularly. in 03, kauffman was in the top 5 they visited that summer, ahead of yankee and dodger stadiums. they put fenway and wrigley, as 1 and 2.

the most recent reading i have found on ballpark rankings, by espn, in 05, put kauffman at 10.

arrowhead is always the same.

so, no, i do not think it ppa. i know it.

[Burton]

Oh to live and die by ESPN.com's stadium ratings as a basis for saving the TSC.  I could glue a diamond necklace onto a portapotty, would the diamond necklace still be that desirable?

And at least those other stadiums you list, that Kauffman is supposedly "better than", actually draw crowds and economically benefit their cities and teams.
2005 MLB Attendance Figures
Rank Team Games Total Average
1 NY Yankees 81 4,090,440 50,499
2 LA Dodgers 81 3,603,680 44,489

29 Kansas City 79 1,371,181 17,356

[Maitre D]

i do not think. i know.

so, no, i do not think it ppa. i know it.

Well, then it is.  Settled. 

[KCMax]

How many freakin times do we need to have a back and forth on whether or not the TSC is considered beautiful by out of town people?

Like it would really change the minds of people that are pro-renovations or pro-downtown baseball. 

[Maitre D]

Especially when Cook can settle all the debates in one fell swoop.

[im2kull]

Oh to live and die by ESPN.com's stadium ratings as a basis for saving the TSC.  I could glue a diamond necklace onto a portapotty, would the diamond necklace still be that desirable?

And at least those other stadiums you list, that Kauffman is supposedly "better than", actually draw crowds and economically benefit their cities and teams.
2005 MLB Attendance Figures
Rank Team Games Total Average
1 NY Yankees 81 4,090,440 50,499
2 LA Dodgers 81 3,603,680 44,489

29 Kansas City 79 1,371,181 17,356

The royals finished last in the leage, we have had 3/4 100 loss seasons...what the hell do you expect?  Id go see the Tbones before the royals..

[Burton]

The royals finished last in the leage, we have had 3/4 100 loss seasons...what the hell do you expect?  Id go see the Tbones before the royals..

That's a terrible point. The Cubs have always been awful, but they don't have any issues filling Wrigley. Seattle finished last in their division last year, but they finished 12th in attendance, averaging 33,619. If KC was such a great baseball town, why aren't the fans so passionate about the team and Kauffman between April and September, no matter what their record is, instead of only during the offseasons when the ownership uses the "we'll move if you don't do this and that" scare tactics.

And why are you for spending 220 million or whatever on a stadium that you wont go to because you'd rather see the Tbones? What makes you think that the 220 million in renovations is going to make the Royals more money in return to invest in better players? Or is it you just don't want them to move because you like watching them from the comfort of your home on MetroSports or 38 the Spot?

[kcdcchef]

  The Cubs have always been awful, but they don't have any issues filling Wrigley. 

they have better fans. that is a fact. most cities that appreciate their teams, win or lose, do not have a problem filling their stands, like, say, baltimore, who, never had a problem in memorial OR camden, getting support, and have not won a ws in 23 years, and have 2 playoff trips in that span. so do the royals, and a more recent ws win, and our fans will not show up UNLESS we win the series.

If KC was such a great baseball town, why aren't the fans so passionate about the team and Kauffman between April and September, no matter what their record is, instead of only during the offseasons when the ownership uses the "we'll move if you don't do this and that" scare tactics.

kc is a passionate baseball town when the team is winning. attendance started to fall from the 2m mark in the early 90's, not even 2 years removed from our 2nd place, 92 win season of 1990. 87, 88, and 89 were all 3 years that kc competed, however, as soon as we had a last place, and a 6th place year, wow. the fans ran like cockroaches when a light came on. in 90, the fans sustained it, but in 91, it went down, and the royals have not had 2m since. even in 93 when we were winning again, and within 8 games of first, nope, not 2m. because to royals fans, unless the team is winning the division, there is no reason to show up.

[im2kull]

.....
And why are you for spending 220 million or whatever on a stadium that you wont go to because you'd rather see the Tbones? What makes you think that the 220 million in renovations is going to make the Royals more money in return to invest in better players? Or is it you just don't want them to move because you like watching them from the comfort of your home on MetroSports or 38 the Spot?

Because its about the length of life of this stadium, not the team. 
I'd rather invest 200 mil now than 800 mil in 8 years and skip the 200 altogether because they were designing some new stadium because this vote failed.  This puts another 20 years at least onto kauffman.  If we make a new stadium, and its that "prefab crap" like some members have suggested, then according to them we'll need another in 20 years when that stuff falls apart.  Talka bout a double whammy.

[shaffe]

hey, if you want to think the stadiums will last another 25 years then be my guest...

[kcdcchef]

hey, if you want to think the stadiums will last another 25 years then be my guest...

they will. that was part of the negotiations, the county already spoke at some of the taxpayer forums to that extent, will re refurb kauffman and arrowhead, and the team will want new stadiums in 10 years, and the teams have both agreed that neither would want to leave the tsc before 2031, if even then.

[Burton]

because to royals fans, unless the team is winning the division, there is no reason to show up.

So why should the taxpayers pay 220 million dollars to David Glass for a stadium, when he has clearly shown no commitment to winning? The new K might be all shiney and nice, but if what you say is true about Royals fans, they're not going to go to the new shiney K no matter what. Can you point me to anything or anywhere that shows what economic benefits a newly renovated K will give to the Royals so that they can invest in better talent?

they will. that was part of the negotiations, the county already spoke at some of the taxpayer forums to that extent, will re refurb kauffman and arrowhead, and the team will want new stadiums in 10 years, and the teams have both agreed that neither would want to leave the tsc before 2031, if even then.

You seem way too trustworthy of the County that has already defaulted on their current lease agreements.

[kcdcchef]

So why should the taxpayers pay 220 million dollars to David Glass for a stadium, when he has clearly shown no commitment to winning? The new K might be all shiney and nice, but if what you say is true about Royals fans, they're not going to go to the new shiney K no matter what. Can you point me to anything or anywhere that shows what economic benefits a newly renovated K will give to the Royals so that they can invest in better talent?

what would you do that glass has not done? he has never made more then 3m in a season on the kansas city royals. not once. he has lost money 3 times. so, what would you do, to show a commitment to winning? dye, beltran, ibanez, and damon, did not want to play in kansas city. in the last 10 years, the team has had only a couple superstars that wanted to stay, sweeney and appier. that is IT. so, he cannot be blamed for their departure.

according to you ( and a lot of this board too ) glass could more clearly demonstrate his passion for winning by being willing to underwrite 20m losses on the team like the ownership of the twins, and marlins. the royals made money in 2005, by 3.0m. the payroll has went up by 15m this season, so, if the attendance is the same, you do the math from there.

[Burton]

I'd take the 55 million dollars I recieved from the revenue sharing program and spend it on good free agents, and signing the young talent we have in place to long term deals.
Can you explain, or justify this???
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascit ... 722385.htm
"According to two sources with knowledge of the numbers, the Royals received about $55 million last year — more than $30 million coming from a central fund that distributes money to all 30 teams, and another $20 million-plus in revenue-sharing dollars given to teams with local revenues below the game’s average."
"Since baseball’s first revenue-sharing plan in 1997, the Royals have ranked in the bottom one-third of the league for payroll each season. In five of the last seven years, they were among the bottom five teams. The Royals have declined to share financial records showing how they have used revenue-sharing dollars..."
"Low payrolls haven’t stopped the Royals’ value from nearly doubling since Glass officially purchased the team on April 17, 2000 for $96 million. Entering last season, Forbes appraised the Royals at $187 million."

the payroll has went up by 15m this season, so, if the attendance is the same, you do the math from there.

Wow, they spent 15 million on washed up veterans, just like they did in 2004. What do they do with their young talent though? Refuse to sign them to long term deals when they are young, and run them out of town. (See your above mentioned players, and Zack Grienke this year)
Don't you think part of the reason of the Royals not being able to make money (other than from the huge amounts they get from revenue sharing) is because they play in an out of date stadium, in the middle of a giant parking lot? Tiger Stadium in Detroit had a hell of a lot more history and charm than the K, but playing there was no longer an economic benefit to the team, so they did what was best and moved.

[kcdcchef]

I'd take the 55 million dollars I recieved from the revenue sharing program and spend it on good free agents, and signing the young talent we have in place to long term deals.
Can you explain, or justify this???
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascit ... 722385.htm
"According to two sources with knowledge of the numbers, the Royals received about $55 million last year — more than $30 million coming from a central fund that distributes money to all 30 teams, and another $20 million-plus in revenue-sharing dollars given to teams with local revenues below the game’s average."
"Since baseball’s first revenue-sharing plan in 1997, the Royals have ranked in the bottom one-third of the league for payroll each season. In five of the last seven years, they were among the bottom five teams. The Royals have declined to share financial records showing how they have used revenue-sharing dollars..."
"Low payrolls haven’t stopped the Royals’ value from nearly doubling since Glass officially purchased the team on April 17, 2000 for $96 million. Entering last season, Forbes appraised the Royals at $187 million."
Wow, they spent 15 million on washed up veterans, just like they did in 2004. What do they do with their young talent though? Refuse to sign them to long term deals when they are young, and run them out of town. (See your above mentioned players, and Zack Grienke this year)
Don't you think part of the reason of the Royals not being able to make money (other than from the huge amounts they get from revenue sharing) is because they play in an out of date stadium, in the middle of a giant parking lot? Tiger Stadium in Detroit had a hell of a lot more history and charm than the K, but playing there was no longer an economic benefit to the team, so they did what was best and moved.

i am thrilled to death you do not run the royals burton. what young player on the kansas city royals is ready for a long term deal? can you name ONE PLAYER THAT IS READY? i mean, you tried, with grienke, so, you would have given a long term deal to a 17 game loser with an era of 6?? they already gave the kid a 2m signing bonus, so, save that shit.

with regards to tiger stadium, old comiskey, parks of that nature, sure, their time had come and gone, AFTER 80 YEARS, NOT 34!!!!!!!!!

and the 55m, ummmmmm...............justify that. ok, sure. you do understand that the kansas city royals, like ALL clubs in the major leagues, have to run 5 levels of the minor leagues, yes?? you do understand they have to pay travel for 25 players, 15 coaches and trainers, 3 doctors, 5-8 team executives, you get that, right?? then, they pay all the ticket tearers, ushers, parking lot attendants, parking lot money takers, security, they have to book the aforementioned 50 people in hotel rooms, they have to feed them, they have to make contributions to the pension plan, they have to give each player meal money EVERY DAY, all that. the average mlb club spends over 60m a year on non payroll expenses. 60. add that to the 47m payroll, see where you end up. the royals, get about 17m on their gate, so, do not get crazy on that. and their annual payout on the tv deal is only 13m. so, they have to make up the other 30m on radio, merchandise, parking, food, etc.

so, we have debated that topic here on the forum before, and everyone understands that the royals, like any other team, spend millions upon millions, way more then payroll in any season, on those type of expenses.

last year, do not know if you noticed. it took 4 million dollars up front to sign alex gordon. 4 million. you have to look beyond the payroll burton.

[Burton]

yes i'm glad you made a long answer detailing the royals financial woes but you continue to sidestep the question of how playing at kauffman improves their economic situation. and grienke is what, 22? you know very well that his talent and future are going to be far better than one lousy year. Do you not remember Jeremy Bonderman going 6-19 with the Tigers in 2003, then winning 11 in 2004 and 14 in 2005? is dejesus not ready either, how about sisco? so you're basically saying that overpaying a new batch of washed up veterans is better than investing what little money the Royals have into their young talent? Why do you think we keep having these so-called youth movements all the time? Because your attitude, along with Glass's is to put the money into over 35 year old journeymen, which is why they continue to lose over 100 games every year. I'm thrilled to death you don't work for John Schuerholz and the Braves, the team I do root for.

also, if kauffman's time has not come and gone, then why do you have such a hardon for spending 250 million to renovate it???

[kcdcchef]

yes i'm glad you made a long answer detailing the royals financial woes but you continue to sidestep the question of how playing at kauffman improves their economic situation. and grienke is what, 22? you know very well that his talent and future are going to be far better than one lousy year. Do you not remember Jeremy Bonderman going 6-19 with the Tigers in 2003, then winning 11 in 2004 and 14 in 2005? is dejesus not ready either, how about sisco?

also, if kauffman's time has not come and gone, then why do you have such a hardon for spending 250 million to renovate it???

yankee stadium required 200m in upgrades 31 years ago, and their time HAD NOT COME AND GONE.

they are in contract negotians with dejejus right now, unfortunately, they can ONLY lock him up for 5 seasons, he is going to jet after that, just like his buddy beltran.

now, sisco, i hope you are kidding. remember miguel ascensio? went 4-7 as a rule 5 draft pick, with an era of 4.00, and was dominant in spring training in 2003, went on to start the season 2-1, and was pitching excellently that season, then, blew out his elbow and has not pitched in the majors since. so, you would have signed him to a long term deal? you have to prove you can do it for 2 seasons or more to even get considered for a long term deal, it is the primary reason buck could not get a deal this year, even though he wanted one, or teahen, who, is open to talking on the matter, but sisco, no way. the only player the royals can warrant giving a long term deal to is dejesus, and, they are talking to him about it now. grienke, save it.

did bonderman get a long term deal after losing 20? no. they are, however, speaking with him about it now. and if grienke can take his immature head out of his ass, and pitch anywhere near 2004, then yes, he gets a deal, even though 2004 was not that great.

renovating kauffman, will not reverse the royals financial woes, nor will playing downtown. the truth is, both options will merely add a few million to revenues ( more suites, that, are all sold out ) and, in the initial year of the renovations, there will be an attendance bounce. so, what you will get, is less then 10m more, which, is what david glass has said all along he wanted 

renovated kauffman equals 8-10m more annually
better cba, kicks in 70-100m  annually, 2002 was the first phase, this year, as they negotiate a new cba, hopefully, it will improve
closer to a salary cap, they are inching closer.

so, again, to compete with newer stadiums, they have to renovate. to trash kauffman, for no reason other then to get a new park, is dumb.

burton, we can do this every night til the 4th of april, i have no prob going toe to toe with you, beleive it.

[schugg]

you two go get a room!