Page 5 of 9
Re: Question 1
Posted: Mon Mar 27, 2006 7:26 pm
by LenexatoKCMO
Almost as humorless as the lame "saveourdowntown" thread.
Re: Question 1
Posted: Mon Mar 27, 2006 10:12 pm
by aknowledgeableperson
To Bahua:
You can dish it out but you can't take it.
Better go home and cry on your momma's lap. That is, if she will let you.
PS To Lenexa also.
Re: Question 1
Posted: Mon Mar 27, 2006 10:22 pm
by LenexatoKCMO
aknowledgeableperson wrote:
To Bahua:
You can dish it out but you can't take it.
Better go home and cry on your momma's lap. That is, if she will let you.
PS To Lenexa also.
I can only dream of keeping up with such a razor fine wit.
Re: Question 1
Posted: Mon Mar 27, 2006 10:40 pm
by kcdcchef
LenexatoKCMO wrote:
I can only dream of keeping up with such a razor fine wit.
i agree. you can only dream of that.
Re: Question 1
Posted: Mon Mar 27, 2006 11:08 pm
by DaveKCMO
interesting statement from tonight's panel discussion at the library: the chiefs' portion of the NFL broadcast rights pays the salaries for the entire team ($95m cap and they get $120m from NFL). i want to know where the hell the rest of that money is going when you throw down all that money for tickets? it ain't going to the paltry $450,000/year rent!
Re: Question 1
Posted: Mon Mar 27, 2006 11:14 pm
by kcdcchef
DaveKCMO wrote:
interesting statement from tonight's panel discussion at the library: the chiefs' portion of the NFL broadcast rights pays the salaries for the entire team ($95m cap and they get $120m from NFL). i want to know where the hell the rest of that money is going when you throw down all that money for tickets? it ain't going to the paltry $450,000/year rent!
the chiefs get 120m a year? something sounds fishy here, that means, that the nfl gets 3.3b annually? i thought it was a 1b package. your numbers are off dave.
Re: Question 1
Posted: Mon Mar 27, 2006 11:27 pm
by DaveKCMO
i did say "statement", not "fact". has anyone heard other figures? this article from the washington times isn't complete clear on when the new 8-yr, $24b deal takes effect. however, assuming it eventually takes effect and 24 divided by 8 is 3, then 32 teams split $3b each year, that's about $94m for each team.
http://washingtontimes.com/sports/20060 ... -6052r.htm
Re: Question 1
Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2006 6:58 am
by aknowledgeableperson
DaveKCMO wrote:
interesting statement from tonight's panel discussion at the library: the chiefs' portion of the NFL broadcast rights pays the salaries for the entire team ($95m cap and they get $120m from NFL). i want to know where the hell the rest of that money is going when you throw down all that money for tickets? it ain't going to the paltry $450,000/year rent!
Well, let's see. Training Camp costs. Travel costs. Stadium operation costs. Coaches salaries. Scout costs. Etc and etc.
Do the Chiefs turn a profit, yes. But from what I can remember from past news articles they are not in the upper levels of profits. Lower 3rd if correct.
Re: Question 1
Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2006 7:27 am
by kcdcchef
aknowledgeableperson wrote:
Well, let's see. Training Camp costs. Travel costs. Stadium operation costs. Coaches salaries. Scout costs. Etc and etc.
Do the Chiefs turn a profit, yes. But from what I can remember from past news articles they are not in the upper levels of profits. Lower 3rd if correct.
doesnt matter. kansas city fans are unhappy unless owners are willing to underwrite tremendous losses, ewing kauffman set a kind of high standard on that one.
Re: Question 1
Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2006 7:53 am
by aknowledgeableperson
With this non-scientific poll at this time with 91 votes:
Yes 52 votes
No 39 votes
Pretty amazing.
Re: Question 1
Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2006 7:53 am
by kcdcchef
aknowledgeableperson wrote:
With this non-scientific poll at this time with 91 votes:
Yes 52 votes
No 39 votes
Pretty amazing.
yes, but after it fails on tuesday, of course a downtown stadium will break ground later this year.
Re: Question 1
Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2006 5:26 pm
by bahua
As most probably know, I'd love to see a downtown ballpark, but that's not why I voted no to both questions today.
Re: Question 1
Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2006 5:35 pm
by kcdcchef
bahua wrote:
As most probably know, I'd love to see a downtown ballpark, but that's not why I voted no to both questions today.
what did you vote on today? election is a week off.
Re: Question 1
Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2006 5:42 pm
by lock+load
kcdcchef wrote:
yes, but after it fails on tuesday, of course a downtown stadium will break ground later this year.
You are the only one that has even hinted that we should immediately build a downtown stadium if this fails. Most here would rather see the basic renovations needed to complete the current leases. Why must every post of yours be a distortion of either the truth or the facts?
Re: Question 1
Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2006 5:43 pm
by bahua
kcdcchef wrote:
what did you vote on today? election is a week off.
I voted on the stadium ballot questions today. I will be helping my sister move from Cleveland to Boston on election day. I'm missing opening day too.
Re: Question 1
Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2006 7:03 pm
by KCMax
Alright, which one of you put up the giant "VOTE NOW ON THE STADIUMS! DEMAND A BETTER PROPOSAL" sign in their yard on Ward Parkway next to all those SOS signs?
Re: Question 1
Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2006 7:10 pm
by lock+load
KCMax wrote:
Alright, which one of you put up the giant "VOTE NOW ON THE STADIUMS! DEMAND A BETTER PROPOSAL" sign in their yard on Ward Parkway next to all those SOS signs?
Vote Now or Vote NO?
Re: Question 1
Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2006 7:11 pm
by kcdcchef
lock&load wrote:
You are the only one that has even hinted that we should immediately build a downtown stadium if this fails. Most here would rather see the basic renovations needed to complete the current leases. Why must every post of yours be a distortion of either the truth or the facts?
so you would support spending 100m now, then 1b later?
Re: Question 1
Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2006 7:14 pm
by lock+load
kcdcchef wrote:
so you would support spending 100m now, then 1b later?
The 1b would be in the future, so in current dollars, it may be only 600-700 million.
Re: Question 1
Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2006 7:16 pm
by kcdcchef
lock&load wrote:
The 1b would be in the future, so in current dollars, it may be only 600-700 million.
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?