KCRag Forum

kcdcchef wrote: doubt it. stl stadium is 400m, dc is 621m, so, two brand new stadiums, if they break ground in 08 or beyond, will be 1b.

so, again, you support spending 100m now, and 1b later?

I support providing the necessary renovations to the stadiums now.  60-80 million is what I've heard that would cost.

We'll address the future when it is here.  I would still demand much higher contributions from the teams.

lock&load wrote: I support providing the necessary renovations to the stadiums now.  60-80 million is what I've heard that would cost.

We'll address the future when it is here.  I would still demand much higher contributions from the teams.

ok, so, say it is 80m, now, over the course of the life of those bonds, 25 year ones, it would REALLY cost what, 105m? 110??

VOTE NO NOW!

kcdcchef wrote: ok, so, say it is 80m, now, over the course of the life of those bonds, 25 year ones, it would REALLY cost what, 105m? 110??

What the hell is your problem?  80 million or 110 million, who cares?  The point is, it is a lot less than $425 million, $625 million or $1 billion, all reasonable approximations of what Questions 1 & 2 could cost us.

lock&load wrote: What the hell is your problem?  80 million or 110 million, who cares?  The point is, it is a lot less than $425 million, $625 million or $1 billion, all reasonable approximations of what Questions 1 & 2 could cost us.

right, but, questions 1 and 2, would not cost more then a bil. perhaps, right at a bil over 25 years.

now, if we fail them, get the band aid you want, it is 100-110m over 25 years, then on top of that, 1.4b over 25 years for 2 new ones. a lot more money.

kcdcchef wrote: right, but, questions 1 and 2, would not cost more then a bil. perhaps, right at a bil over 25 years.

now, if we fail them, get the band aid you want, it is 100-110m over 25 years, then on top of that, 1.4b over 25 years for 2 new ones. a lot more money.

No, it is not $110 million over 25 years.  A tax could be collected for a much shorter period of time, thereby reducing interest costs.

I believe everyone here are being nothing but hypocrites... You are saying the EXACT same things and using the exact same reasons the idiots who wanted to vote No against the arena used.

"Don't tax me!"
"We want a better plan!"
"It costs too much!"
"I'm a stupid voter!"

Well, now that they decided to not tax companies or businesses like car rentals, and decided to tax you, your crying your eyes out. Accept taxing, it's part of the USA and always will be. Someone will always get taxed for something of this size. First it was car rentals, and now it's you. You guys only care about things that will not get you taxed.

Better plan? Some people are so stupid... Your idea of a better plan is this:
Downtown Stadium + Chiefs in Kansas

My idea of a better plan is
Downtown Stadium + All-Star Game + Chiefs in TSC + Super Bowl

We have 4 more years to build a rolling roof and renovating Arrowhead, if we do neither, we will never ever get a Super Bowl. We won't get an All-Star Game because we will have a stadium equal to all the other Downtown Stadiums across the country and won't have anything really special.

May I also mention something?
Chicago has never had the Super Bowl
St. Louis has never had the Super Bowl
Denver has never had the Super Bowl
Dallas has never had the Super Bowl
New York City has never had the Super Bowl
Boston has never had the Super Bowl
Indianapolis has never had the Super Bowl
etc... etc...

However, the little tiny cowtown of Kansas City will be given the Super Bowl if we build a rolling roof and renovate the stadiums (mainly Arrowhead)

---

Also may I mention this:

Super Bowl XL was broadcast in more than 230 countries
The last Super Bowl in San Diego created an economic impact of nearly $300 million.

Devin one word..  "Ritalin"

KCDevin wrote: May I also mention something?
Chicago has never had the Super Bowl
St. Louis has never had the Super Bowl
Denver has never had the Super Bowl
Dallas has never had the Super Bowl
New York City has never had the Super Bowl
Boston has never had the Super Bowl
Indianapolis has never had the Super Bowl
etc... etc...

  This has been one of my main points.  I know just about all of us want a better plan, but voting NO doesn't guarantee the Super Bowl in KC.  I'm not sure if I am willing to take the chance of voting NO.  I know how great the Super Bowl would be for Kansas City.  Maybe, just maybe, if we got the Super Bowl, Chicago will see us the way we see Omaha, "That smaller town, able to compete with us."

Edit:  Not to mention an All-Star game, a possible Final Four, and who knows what else.  If we are able to host those events, it will be St. Louis and Chicago we'd be competing with, not Des Moines or Omaha.

Chicago doesn't care if we get a Super Bowl and would probably laugh at all of you salivating at the thought of a super bowl and ready to give your left testicle to get it.

Your such a freaking idiot, more than just the USA will be watching the Super Bowl and seeing Kansas City for the first time. The shots I saw of Detroit in Super Bowl XL impressed me greatly, though there were only some. Millions of people will watch the Super Bowl, and will see Kansas City for the first time.
You just care about your own greed and your own pocket. You could care less if this benefited the rest of the city. Your just happy with mediocrity and conformity. You would rather have KC follow the rest of the cities and build a DT Stadium that will not be special and will just be like all the others, and that would never get us an All-Star Game.

Good to see that the level of discourse has been raised to calling people "idiots."

KCDevin wrote: Your such a freaking idiot, more than just the USA will be watching the Super Bowl and seeing Kansas City for the first time. The shots I saw of Detroit in Super Bowl XL impressed me greatly, though there were only some. Millions of people will watch the Super Bowl, and will see Kansas City for the first time.
You just care about your own greed and your own pocket. You could care less if this benefited the rest of the city. Your just happy with mediocrity and conformity. You would rather have KC follow the rest of the cities and build a DT Stadium that will not be special and will just be like all the others, and that would never get us an All-Star Game.

1) Every new baseball stadium built will get the All-star game.  Please show me one that has not.

2) Yes, the world may see a bit of KC on the Super Bowl (mostly just Arrowhead), but they will not be envious, nor will New Yorkers, Chicagoians, etc. be clammoring to come to Kansas City.

3) "Mediocrity and conformity" describes your position perfectly.

l&l, your idiotic and flawed reasoning, pluss your idiocy is the reason I hate participating in this section... Also the reason why I cannot see your posts anymore.

Now come on, if a Super Bowl was here, KC would get more publicity than it could ever buy.....case in point, Detroit this year.

KCPowercat wrote: Now come on, if a Super Bowl was here, KC would get more publicity than it could ever buy.....case in point, Detroit this year.

Of coruse we would, but what does that exposure translate into?  No one knows for sure, but I am pretty certain larger cities like Chiacgo aren't going to lose any sleep over us having the Super Bowl, and consider us new competition.

Here is an interesting article.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5452776

Highlights:
Tagliabue would like to see the NFL closer to a deal in LA before he retires.
Cost extimate of new stadium $800M.
The three California teams are not in good stadiums and are seeking new homes.
A large chunk of municipal funding is expected.

Let's see.  Tagliabue retires this summer.  "No" crowd wins next week, lease probably would go into default, Chiefs announce going to LA as a retirement present to Tagliabue.

not at all.....no doubt many of the things stated that would happen with renovations are hard to get cold hard facts on...common sense though would tell you it would benefit business and community overall.

aknowledgeableperson wrote: Here is an interesting article.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5452776

Highlights:
Tagliabue would like to see the NFL closer to a deal in LA before he retires.
Cost extimate of new stadium $800M.
The three California teams are not in good stadiums and are seeking new homes.
A large chunk of municipal funding is expected.

Let's see.  Tagliabue retires this summer.  "No" crowd wins next week, lease probably would go into default, Chiefs announce going to LA as a retirement present to Tagliabue.

KC laughs at the Chiefs.....and does a Cleveland and gets a new team in 4 years.

KCPowercat wrote: not at all.....no doubt many of the things stated that would happen with renovations are hard to get cold hard facts on...common sense though would tell you it would benefit business and community overall.

Common sense would also tell you that three mega events over a 25 year period is not worth over $1 billion in addital taxpayer dollars.  Actually, two events, because the All-Star game would happen with a new ballpark or a renovated K.