KCRag Forum

KCPowercat wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 10:20 am https://twitter.com/KCCrossroads/status ... 54182?s=19

If they’ve worked out a CBA they like, why would they stay neutral on the vote instead of encouraging a Yes vote?

bricknose wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 10:33 am

KCPowercat wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 10:20 am https://twitter.com/KCCrossroads/status ... 54182?s=19

If they’ve worked out a CBA they like, why would they stay neutral on the vote instead of encouraging a Yes vote?

Because they're spineless and bowing to the likes of Coxxxon and such.

bricknose wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 10:33 am

KCPowercat wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 10:20 am https://twitter.com/KCCrossroads/status ... 54182?s=19

If they’ve worked out a CBA they like, why would they stay neutral on the vote instead of encouraging a Yes vote?

Because their members and neighbors are very much still split on the issue. Not coming out against is pretty strong. That's my guess

https://x.com/madisonflitch/status/1769 ... ncU5iHr37Q

Hopefully we see more statements like this from Madison Fitch in the next few weeks

We were one of the groups that provided feedback for the CBA. We affirm the CCA’s statement and we’re thankful for their work.

Even as a huge supporter of this vote, I maintain that if the vote fails, the blame is squarely on Sherman and his team.

Frank White certainly made this more difficult but I don’t think I can point to a single step the Royals didn’t botch

DColeKC wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 9:35 am
Besides 50+ years of history and both teams having “Kansas City” in their official names… the loss of tax revenue. The loss of synergy with KC etc.

Shooting for gold, which is downtown baseball and ending up with suburban baseball- Travesty.

Trying to extend the life of one of the most iconic NFL stadiums in existence but ending up with some cookie cutter, modern stadium that will never achieve the same status in nfl history- travesty

NY Jets and NY Giants play in New Jersey so the team(s) could still be called by Kansas City. The two newest MLB stadiums are located away from the central city in areas considered suburban and were built as suburban development plans. So being downtown isn't really considered necessary for the financial success of the team. Loss of tax revenue will happen when the city has to provide tax support for the new stadium downtown.

If shooting for gold is a downtown stadium then I guess the newest MLB stadiums in Texas and Atlanta are complete failures.

This is a first attempt to extend the life of Arrowhead, I seriously doubt the Chiefs would give up after just one try. Besides are the newest NFL stadiums really cookie cutter?

aknowledgeableperson wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 12:27 pm

DColeKC wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 9:35 am
Besides 50+ years of history and both teams having “Kansas City” in their official names… the loss of tax revenue. The loss of synergy with KC etc.

Shooting for gold, which is downtown baseball and ending up with suburban baseball- Travesty.

Trying to extend the life of one of the most iconic NFL stadiums in existence but ending up with some cookie cutter, modern stadium that will never achieve the same status in nfl history- travesty

NY Jets and NY Giants play in New Jersey so the team(s) could still be called by Kansas City. The two newest MLB stadiums are located away from the central city in areas considered suburban and were built as suburban development plans. So being downtown isn't really considered necessary for the financial success of the team. Loss of tax revenue will happen when the city has to provide tax support for the new stadium downtown.

If shooting for gold is a downtown stadium then I guess the newest MLB stadiums in Texas and Atlanta are complete failures.

This is a first attempt to extend the life of Arrowhead, I seriously doubt the Chiefs would give up after just one try. Besides are the newest NFL stadiums really cookie cutter?

You're comparing Kansas City to large market cities who don't even need pro sports teams to survive. Our sports teams are far more important to us than those cities listed. We are the 7th smallest market to have a NFL team. We are the 2nd smallest market to have a MLB team.

We have been working towards downtown baseball for 20 years. It is imperative to its financial success because unlike large markets that have the demand, we can't build a stadium in the burbs here and assume it's going to spur up economic development anytime soon. By placing the stadium downtown, near other areas that have already laid the groundwork for economic development, the chances or the village portion and other development happening is multiplied greatly.

Once again on Arrowhead, we won't get a Las Vegas or SoFi 2.5 billion dollar stadium. We will get something far less amazing and it will not be transformative or iconic like Arrowhead. Once again, due to our market size.

I'm not suggesting that the teams will change to the NKC Royals or anything, of course they'll keep the names. The point is it would be very disappointing if either team didn't play in Kansas City, Missouri. Especially the Chiefs.

The city will more than make up for the tax incentives with the various economic impacts.

aknowledgeableperson wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 12:27 pm

DColeKC wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 9:35 am
Besides 50+ years of history and both teams having “Kansas City” in their official names… the loss of tax revenue. The loss of synergy with KC etc.

Shooting for gold, which is downtown baseball and ending up with suburban baseball- Travesty.

Trying to extend the life of one of the most iconic NFL stadiums in existence but ending up with some cookie cutter, modern stadium that will never achieve the same status in nfl history- travesty

NY Jets and NY Giants play in New Jersey so the team(s) could still be called by Kansas City. The two newest MLB stadiums are located away from the central city in areas considered suburban and were built as suburban development plans. So being downtown isn't really considered necessary for the financial success of the team. Loss of tax revenue will happen when the city has to provide tax support for the new stadium downtown.

If shooting for gold is a downtown stadium then I guess the newest MLB stadiums in Texas and Atlanta are complete failures.

This is a first attempt to extend the life of Arrowhead, I seriously doubt the Chiefs would give up after just one try. Besides are the newest NFL stadiums really cookie cutter?

It'd be pretty weird to call a team in Nashville, "Kansas City"

dnweava wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 1:05 pm

aknowledgeableperson wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 12:27 pm

DColeKC wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 9:35 am
Besides 50+ years of history and both teams having “Kansas City” in their official names… the loss of tax revenue. The loss of synergy with KC etc.

Shooting for gold, which is downtown baseball and ending up with suburban baseball- Travesty.

Trying to extend the life of one of the most iconic NFL stadiums in existence but ending up with some cookie cutter, modern stadium that will never achieve the same status in nfl history- travesty

NY Jets and NY Giants play in New Jersey so the team(s) could still be called by Kansas City. The two newest MLB stadiums are located away from the central city in areas considered suburban and were built as suburban development plans. So being downtown isn't really considered necessary for the financial success of the team. Loss of tax revenue will happen when the city has to provide tax support for the new stadium downtown.

If shooting for gold is a downtown stadium then I guess the newest MLB stadiums in Texas and Atlanta are complete failures.

This is a first attempt to extend the life of Arrowhead, I seriously doubt the Chiefs would give up after just one try. Besides are the newest NFL stadiums really cookie cutter?

It'd be pretty weird to call a team in Nashville, "Kansas City"

The NFL and MLS teams tried to build in Manhattan before eventually settling on locations outside the island.

KC Current: zero incentives from city, county or state. Sold out the entire season and ticket prices starting at $150/ea. someone explain to me how $1.7B in incentives for the new Royals is a better deal than lowly women’s soccer?

DColeKC wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 12:48 pm

aknowledgeableperson wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 12:27 pm

DColeKC wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 9:35 am
Besides 50+ years of history and both teams having “Kansas City” in their official names… the loss of tax revenue. The loss of synergy with KC etc.

Shooting for gold, which is downtown baseball and ending up with suburban baseball- Travesty.

Trying to extend the life of one of the most iconic NFL stadiums in existence but ending up with some cookie cutter, modern stadium that will never achieve the same status in nfl history- travesty

NY Jets and NY Giants play in New Jersey so the team(s) could still be called by Kansas City. The two newest MLB stadiums are located away from the central city in areas considered suburban and were built as suburban development plans. So being downtown isn't really considered necessary for the financial success of the team. Loss of tax revenue will happen when the city has to provide tax support for the new stadium downtown.

If shooting for gold is a downtown stadium then I guess the newest MLB stadiums in Texas and Atlanta are complete failures.

This is a first attempt to extend the life of Arrowhead, I seriously doubt the Chiefs would give up after just one try. Besides are the newest NFL stadiums really cookie cutter?

The city will more than make up for the tax incentives with the various economic impacts.

You know there is not one economist that has ever made this math work right? Even expanding it ancillary as you can imagine. the pure dollar and sense does not math out. I'm not at all saying it's not worth it (to me) for a quality of life of a metro (and for many in major league cities) and that's not something you can put a number on but don't ever try and make this with "various economic impacts" alone.

im2kull wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 12:14 pm

bricknose wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 10:33 am

KCPowercat wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 10:20 am https://twitter.com/KCCrossroads/status ... 54182?s=19

If they’ve worked out a CBA they like, why would they stay neutral on the vote instead of encouraging a Yes vote?

Because they're spineless and bowing to the likes of Coxxxon and such.

Fuck you. It's called consensus. And it's hard. I've been in every conversation and this shit is literally ripping the neighborhood apart. Again, fuck you and your 10-cent internet trolling.

He's not wrong

dnweava wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 1:05 pm
It'd be pretty weird to call a team in Nashville, "Kansas City"

Of course if the team played in the KC metro.

After talking with some small business owners this weekend (who admittedly will not be impacted by this) I'm all in on a yes vote.

KCPowercat wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 7:18 pm

DColeKC wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 12:48 pm

aknowledgeableperson wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 12:27 pm

NY Jets and NY Giants play in New Jersey so the team(s) could still be called by Kansas City. The two newest MLB stadiums are located away from the central city in areas considered suburban and were built as suburban development plans. So being downtown isn't really considered necessary for the financial success of the team. Loss of tax revenue will happen when the city has to provide tax support for the new stadium downtown.

If shooting for gold is a downtown stadium then I guess the newest MLB stadiums in Texas and Atlanta are complete failures.

This is a first attempt to extend the life of Arrowhead, I seriously doubt the Chiefs would give up after just one try. Besides are the newest NFL stadiums really cookie cutter?

The city will more than make up for the tax incentives with the various economic impacts.

You know there is not one economist that has ever made this math work right? Even expanding it ancillary as you can imagine. the pure dollar and sense does not math out. I'm not at all saying it's not worth it (to me) for a quality of life of a metro (and for many in major league cities) and that's not something you can put a number on but don't ever try and make this with "various economic impacts" alone.

Is it possible to actually even map the ancillary impacts? Increase in hotel stays and rental car utilization? Extended trips than would otherwise have happened. Exploring more area in the downtown or close to transit so as to get the the game come game time. An increase in utilization of services on already existing infrastructure reducing long term maintenance liability of services and infrastructure.

I’m not saying general ancillary impacts can’t be calculated, surrounding business can easily track sales increases, and hotels can track occupancy rates for home-stands, but at the end of the day, the knock on economic effects for what a downtown stadium can generate seem onerously difficult to truly calculate until you do a broad before & after of the entire City, and exclusively Downtown.

Anthony_Hugo98 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 17, 2024 11:27 am

KCPowercat wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 7:18 pm

DColeKC wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 12:48 pm

The city will more than make up for the tax incentives with the various economic impacts.

You know there is not one economist that has ever made this math work right? Even expanding it ancillary as you can imagine. the pure dollar and sense does not math out. I'm not at all saying it's not worth it (to me) for a quality of life of a metro (and for many in major league cities) and that's not something you can put a number on but don't ever try and make this with "various economic impacts" alone.

Is it possible to actually even map the ancillary impacts? Increase in hotel stays and rental car utilization? Extended trips than would otherwise have happened. Exploring more area in the downtown or close to transit so as to get the the game come game time. An increase in utilization of services on already existing infrastructure reducing long term maintenance liability of services and infrastructure.

I’m not saying general ancillary impacts can’t be calculated, surrounding business can easily track sales increases, and hotels can track occupancy rates for home-stands, but at the end of the day, the knock on economic effects for what a downtown stadium can generate seem onerously difficult to truly calculate until you do a broad before & after of the entire City, and exclusively Downtown.

Even "pro" pro sports economists haven't published anything showing this math works. I get what you are saying I'm not sure either but I'm not an economist. Wish I could find the article someone sent me awhile back on this. It did the best job of trying to extrapolate those ancillary benefits.

I'm pro spending money on this as I think it's good for the community and adds quality of life but I'm a sports bro. I'm saying there isn't an economist out there that can make the math work, if there were you'd see that study everywhere when public money is proposed for pro sprots.

^ especially in such a regional and isolated metro like KC.

Even as bad as the Royals are, every time they play the Twins, several thousand people drive in for games. And lots of people travel to KC for Royals games from across the country.

If KC didn't have the stadiums, it wouldn't have other major events like college games, major concerts, major world soccer games etc. I mean what was the impact of the Taylor Swift concerts alone?

Think about all the players that have made the metro their home after playing for local teams. From George Brett to Patrick Mahomes. KC would not have this downtown soccer stadium if the Chiefs were not in town.

I just don't buy the idea that having pro teams does not give your city an economic boost. "people just go bowling instead" lol.

GRID wrote: ↑Sun Mar 17, 2024 11:45 am ^ especially in such a regional and isolated metro like KC.

Even as bad as the Royals are, every time they play the Twins, several thousand people drive in for games. And lots of people travel to KC for Royals games from across the country.

If KC didn't have the stadiums, it wouldn't have other major events like college games, major concerts, major world soccer games etc. I mean what was the impact of the Taylor Swift concerts alone?

Think about all the players that have made the metro their home after playing for local teams. From George Brett to Patrick Mahomes. KC would not have this downtown soccer stadium if the Chiefs were not in town.

I just don't buy the idea that having pro teams does not give your city an economic boost. "people just go bowling instead" lol.

Hey I'm not arguing against it and I everybody agrees there is an economic boost with pro sports, the math doesn't work when you try and make the public subsidies a pure math problem. If it did you'd see studies everywhere right now promoting that point. Every economic study says exactly the opposite. My only point was DCole shouldn't be trying to make this a pure economy play, it doesn't work. This is from someone who gathers quite a bit of income from the hospitality industry and stuff like this is critical to my pocket.

Yeah, I get that. The studies don't take into account the intangible and quality of life effects though.

Honestly don't get why team owners can't just take out loans to pay for stadiums, but that's just how it is and KC alone can't change it.