New Chiefs Stadium

[aknowledgeableperson]

Close to zero. This ownership group is very committed to urban baseball. They are in the phase of figuring out "how" not "if".

And if they can't figure out how then what?

[AlkaliAxel]

Close to zero. This ownership group is very committed to urban baseball. They are in the phase of figuring out "how" not "if".

And if they can't figure out how then what?

Then they'll go private.

The biggest reason the Royals team valuation is so shitty is because of the stadium & location.

[FlippantCitizen]

Close to zero. This ownership group is very committed to urban baseball. They are in the phase of figuring out "how" not "if".

And if they can't figure out how then what?

In regards to GRID's comment about possibly rebuilding a new Kauffman at TSC... that does not seem to be in the scope of the conversation. I think there are plans A, B, and C developing on how to move downtown. Anything else is a very, very distant plan D.

[phuqueue]

The biggest reason the Royals team valuation is so shitty is because of the stadium & location.

[citation needed]

[GRID]

Close to zero. This ownership group is very committed to urban baseball. They are in the phase of figuring out "how" not "if".

And if they can't figure out how then what?

In regards to GRID's comment about possibly rebuilding a new Kauffman at TSC... that does not seem to be in the scope of the conversation. I think there are plans A, B, and C developing on how to move downtown. Anything else is a very, very distant plan D.

That's good I guess since they seem to have a plan and a goal. I still don't see how a new stadium is built without significant public subsidies including a public vote though. I know there are a few privately funded NFL stadiums, but I don't think any MLB stadiums have been built with all private money.

[GRID]

Close to zero. This ownership group is very committed to urban baseball. They are in the phase of figuring out "how" not "if".

And if they can't figure out how then what?

Then they'll go private.

The biggest reason the Royals team valuation is so shitty is because of the stadium & location.

I'm sure a new stadium might have some impact especially if it was built and backed by public money. I seriously doubt location matters one bit. If anything, a downtown park might cause a slight decrease in value due to lost parking revenue. But that's pennies compared to other issues like market size and media market which defines how much teams get from broadcast rights and revenue sharing.

The driving factor of a team's worth is media market size probably followed by the size of the fanbase and corporate support.

[AlkaliAxel]

The biggest reason the Royals team valuation is so shitty is because of the stadium & location.

[citation needed]

The Royals stadium is worth $136 mil on Forbes. The Rangers & Braves new stadiums that opened recently are both worth $415-430 mil.

If the Royals added that extra $300 mil to their team valuation from a new stadium/district...then they're the 18th or 19th most valuable franchise in MLB. Pretty amazing.

[GRID]

The Royals might jump a few spots, but not much. The KC market is just too small and the Royals have never really drawn well. They drew well back when the league average was much lower in the 80's but as MLB averages went up, KC's went down. Even during the WS run, the Royals average attendance was only above average, nothing crazy. That and KC's lack of corporations willing to buy season tickets. KC has to depend on regular people for nearly all their ticket sales and that won't change much with a downtown stadium.

It's the same reason the Chiefs are ranked relatively low even though they actually draw very well in the NFL. KC's market size, media market size and corporate community are all just relatively small. But at least KC is ranked a little higher in the NFL since there are about 4-6 teams in NFL markets that are smaller than KC.

[AlkaliAxel]

The Royals might jump a few spots, but not much. The KC market is just too small and the Royals have never really drawn well. They drew well back when the league average was much lower in the 80's but as MLB averages went up, KC's went down. Even during the WS run, the Royals average attendance was only above average, nothing crazy. That and KC's lack of corporations willing to buy season tickets. KC has to depend on regular people for nearly all their ticket sales and that won't change much with a downtown stadium.

It's the same reason the Chiefs are ranked relatively low even though they actually draw very well in the NFL. KC's market size, media market size and corporate community are all just relatively small.

This has nothing to do with market size and is directly from the pie chart on the Forbes valuation page. Adding $300 mil to the valuation with a new stadium would put them at either 18th or 19th most valuable team at around $1.41 bil.

[GRID]

The Royals might jump a few spots, but not much. The KC market is just too small and the Royals have never really drawn well. They drew well back when the league average was much lower in the 80's but as MLB averages went up, KC's went down. Even during the WS run, the Royals average attendance was only above average, nothing crazy. That and KC's lack of corporations willing to buy season tickets. KC has to depend on regular people for nearly all their ticket sales and that won't change much with a downtown stadium.

It's the same reason the Chiefs are ranked relatively low even though they actually draw very well in the NFL. KC's market size, media market size and corporate community are all just relatively small.

This has nothing to do with market size and is directly from the pie chart on the Forbes valuation page. Adding $300 mil to the valuation with a new stadium would put them at either 18th or 19th most valuable team at around $1.41 bil.

It's going to depend on if a new stadium translates into more revenue or not and if it does how long the honeymoon lasts. Will KC average 33-35k a game for the first few years like what has happened in other cities? Will KC gain a ton of season tickets holders and corporate sponsors? Those are the things that I'm not sure anybody knows. I mean look at Milwaukee, a city much smaller than KC with a suburban park who consistently averages well over 30k and then look at Miami, a huge market with a new urban stadium and they can't draw shit. A stadium alone won't necessarily increase value by specific amount. The new stadium in Texas caused a major increase in attendance which is the main reason their value went up, not necessarily the new stadium. If their attendance drops back down, so will their valuation.

How accurate is Forbes anyway. Their lists are always suspect.

[AlkaliAxel]

The Royals might jump a few spots, but not much. The KC market is just too small and the Royals have never really drawn well. They drew well back when the league average was much lower in the 80's but as MLB averages went up, KC's went down. Even during the WS run, the Royals average attendance was only above average, nothing crazy. That and KC's lack of corporations willing to buy season tickets. KC has to depend on regular people for nearly all their ticket sales and that won't change much with a downtown stadium.

It's the same reason the Chiefs are ranked relatively low even though they actually draw very well in the NFL. KC's market size, media market size and corporate community are all just relatively small.

This has nothing to do with market size and is directly from the pie chart on the Forbes valuation page. Adding $300 mil to the valuation with a new stadium would put them at either 18th or 19th most valuable team at around $1.41 bil.

It's going to depend on if a new stadium translates into more revenue or not and if it does how long the honeymoon lasts. Will KC average 33-35k a game for the first few years like what has happened in other cities? Will KC gain a ton of season tickets holders and corporate sponsors? Those are the things that I'm not sure anybody knows. I mean look at Milwaukee, a city much smaller than KC with a suburban park who consistently averages well over 30k and then look at Miami, a huge market with a new urban stadium and they can't draw shit. A stadium alone won't necessarily increase value by specific amount. The new stadium in Texas caused a major increase in attendance which is the main reason their value went up, not necessarily the new stadium.

I'm bullish we'll hit the upper echelon in attendance.

[GRID]

I'm bullish we'll hit the upper echelon in attendance.

It's quite possible with a new stadium. You never know. One thing is for sure. All the people saying they won't go to games anymore if the stadium moves downtown need to shut up. KC doesn't go to the games now. A new downtown stadium might be the one thing that gives the team a fresh new fan base.

However once the honeymoon is over, things could actually get worse especially if KC's stadium is not surrounded by a really nice thriving area where people feel safe. See Cleveland, Baltimore, Pittsburgh etc.

[DColeKC]

Royals are always near the bottom in concession revenue because royals fans tailgate. Why? I’m not sure. That’s a football thing but None the less, any downtown stadium should include parking but minimal surface lots to discourage tailgating.

[phuqueue]

Even if you're going off of the Forbes numbers, which are at best a rough estimate (none of these franchises publish their books, so everything you see from Forbes is made up), Forbes attributes only 12.2% of the team's value to the stadium. I looked at six or seven other teams too, and in no case -- even for teams like Atlanta and Texas with new stadiums -- did value attributed to stadium ever come in at much more than half (and usually much less) of value attributed to market size. So to rewind to the earlier statement that the stadium is the "biggest reason" for the Royals' valuation, it seems like even your (questionable) source doesn't support that.

[GRID]

Royals are always near the bottom in concession revenue because royals fans tailgate. Why? I’m not sure. That’s a football thing but None the less, any downtown stadium should include parking but minimal surface lots to discourage tailgating.

Yeah. Not sure why a MLB game has to feel like a college football game. Even half the flags flying on the backs of pickup trucks are for colleges that have nothing to do with KC.

Tailgating is fun and part of the Chiefs experience but it really doesn't make a lot of sense for the Royals.

Also, there are many other reasons to discourage surface lots. The city needs to make sure those are gone before the stadium ever opens or they will never go away.

[AlkaliAxel]

Even if you're going off of the Forbes numbers, which are at best a rough estimate (none of these franchises publish their books, so everything you see from Forbes is made up), Forbes attributes only 12.2% of the team's value to the stadium. I looked at six or seven other teams too, and in no case -- even for teams like Atlanta and Texas with new stadiums -- did value attributed to stadium ever come in at much more than half (and usually much less) of value attributed to market size. So to rewind to the earlier statement that the stadium is the "biggest reason" for the Royals' valuation, it seems like even your (questionable) source doesn't support that.

Phuque, I will amend the statement to say "biggest reason within their control" because they can't make the market bigger.

[AlkaliAxel]

Royals are always near the bottom in concession revenue because royals fans tailgate. Why? I’m not sure. That’s a football thing but None the less, any downtown stadium should include parking but minimal surface lots to discourage tailgating.

Yeah. Not sure why a MLB game has to feel like a college football game. Even half the flags flying on the backs of pickup trucks are for colleges that have nothing to do with KC.

Tailgating is fun and part of the Chiefs experience but it really doesn't make a lot of sense for the Royals.

Also, there are many other reasons to discourage surface lots. The city needs to make sure those are gone before the stadium ever opens or they will never go away.

GRID, that's a testament to how boring Kauffman is. There's nothing to do around it and once you go inside you're stuck in there, so people tailgate to the 3rd inning out of sheer boredom from everything else.

Which means tailgating should be obsolete downtown, since there's things to do around it. That's why it's stupid to "keep the tailgaiting!" when they're downtown.

[Cratedigger]

And if they can't figure out how then what?

In regards to GRID's comment about possibly rebuilding a new Kauffman at TSC... that does not seem to be in the scope of the conversation. I think there are plans A, B, and C developing on how to move downtown. Anything else is a very, very distant plan D.

That's good I guess since they seem to have a plan and a goal. I still don't see how a new stadium is built without significant public subsidies including a public vote though. I know there are a few privately funded NFL stadiums, but I don't think any MLB stadiums have been built with all private money.

San Francisco Giants ballpark was - more or less. The Oakland A's are pursuing a privately financed stadium.

That said, both factor in a significant infrastructure investment from the city. KC would as well

[AlkaliAxel]

We also need to stop assuming they're not gonna be able to pass a vote

[DColeKC]

We also need to stop assuming they're not gonna be able to pass a vote

I'm not worried about this getting struck down by a public vote. Here's how it will go:

Royals decide on location, design and budget.
Royals make this announcement along with the note that Kauffman stadium has surpassed it's lifespan, can no longer keep up with modern demands and must be replaced.
18 month campaign to convince the "fix Kauffman, build new in TSC and anti-subsidies" crowd to support.
If this campaign isn't working, bust out backup plan. Every MLB owners favorite, the "relocate" threat.

End of the day, I just don't see how we don't have a downtown baseball stadium by 2030ish.