My best guess 39°07'25"N 94°50'50"W https://share.google/Chzj41pe6QWIVI9r3
New Arrowhead?
- Thread starter JP4CY
- Start date
They're worth north of $25 billion and they're asking tax payers for at least $2 billion and then they're going to raise ticket prices and add in seat licenses, if that's not greedy then we are on two different planets.
I mean I hate the Chiefs as much as the next guy, but I'd think it was ******** if the Broncos did this too, their billionaire owner is paying for the new stadium as far as I know though. The argument is always well if we don't give them billions then someone else will, and yeah, that's exactly the problem.
Why would the owner pay for everything? Its his business. If the city wants it there bad enough they should help pay.
That's a weird couple of sentences.
Sure it's going to hurt the Missouri side, people that were coming in for Chiefs games and spending money in Missouri will now be spending that money in Kansas. St. Louis was hurt when they lost the Rams, the amount of money a professional team brings into the city is enormous when you factor in the increase in hotels, eating establishments, bars and the rest of it. Just look at here in Ames and the price difference between when there is a home football game compared to non football weekend on the price of a hotel. Many double the price and you have to purchase a two night stay. A lot of that money will be going to Kansas now. If you are the governor of Missouri or the major of KCMO, you should be doubling down now and making sure the Royals do not follow the Chiefs to Kansas. Give them anything they want to stay in the state.
Not really when you figure there are plenty of other cities that would love a team. He's doing the metro a favor by even staying in there. He could probably make more money being the San Antonio Chiefs. How bad do you want a team? There are plenty of cities that would kill to have NFL.
Normalize not giving billions to billionaires.
Key word NEW. They just raise taxes that are there, don’t create a new one.
The Kansas deal is using STAR bonds. Those are paid for on the sales tax generated by the development.
Most of that generated income is from property taxes, earnings taxes on salaries, and taxes on game day items like tickets, health fees, etc, which is all going to Kansas now. This is a huge economic loss for Jackson County and KCMO. Even the KC Zoo will lose hundreds of thousands annually by this move.
Semantics. Voters approved it for 25 years, so I would argue any extension beyond that is a new tax.
You can find study after study after study showing these economic benefits do not exist.
Taxpayers Shoulder a Heavy Burden for Sports Stadium Subsidies
Sports stadium subsidies are salient political gimmicks designed to appear as if politicians are providing tangible benefits to taxpayers. The empirical evidence shows repeatedly that stadium subsidies fail to generate new tax revenue and new jobs or attract new businesses.
taxfoundation.org
A recent literature review surveyed the past 50 years of stadium construction. The authors found that the promised tangible economic benefits—economic growth, income growth, wage growth, employment growth, and higher tax revenues—do not occur the way that sports teams claim. Often, the only economic benefits occur near the stadium—and fall far short of expectations. State and city governments are subsidizing development within a single neighborhood, with no tangible benefits for the rest of the city or state.
This is why you’re seeing all of these owners building stadiums with stuff around them. Most of the economic benefits are flowing to areas directly around the stadium. So the hunts are going to get most of the benefit and get the taxpayers to fund it. Sorry I just don’t blame anybody for not buying into this hype.
Last edited:
And you don’t have all that long to recoup costs. In about 20 years they’ll be coming back and saying “we need hundreds of millions for renovations (or a new stadium), and if we don’t get that we’ll probably have to move.” So it never ends.
How much are Chiefs and Royals stadiums worth? Their taxes give at least some hint
Verifiable numbers are hard to come by in the bidding war for the Royals and Chiefs. Last year, the two teams generated nearly $70 million in city, county and state taxes, but it would take decades to generate enough revenue to make up the price tag of new stadiums.www.kcur.org
You could look at it that way, or you could look at it as the community needing to pay $2,000,000,000 to keep the chiefs. And your claims about being anti-billionaire are kind of undercut by saying why should the team have to pay for the stadium and that the team is doing Kansas City “a favor” by keeping the team there.
I don’t think so. Especially when it comes to the Chiefs he seems to lose his mind.
Your billionaire owner is getting subsidize by the government in a different way. There probably isn't a billionaire in this country that isn't directly or indirectly benefitting from government dollars.
Well that is definitely true, and I’d definitely love to stop giving billions to billionaires.
- Mar 27, 2006
- 43,012
- 34,521
- 113
Well said. And, not to be repetitive, but does the average Chiefs fan really care if they're across the border? You can make the trickle down argument, but by the time those benefits trickle down to Joe Lunchbox, not much impact is going to be felt. They're still in the metro. The owners aren't threatening to take the team to a different region of the country, so the stakes to the average fan are a lot lower.You can find study after study after study showing these economic benefits do not exist.
Taxpayers Shoulder a Heavy Burden for Sports Stadium Subsidies
Sports stadium subsidies are salient political gimmicks designed to appear as if politicians are providing tangible benefits to taxpayers. The empirical evidence shows repeatedly that stadium subsidies fail to generate new tax revenue and new jobs or attract new businesses.
A recent literature review surveyed the past 50 years of stadium construction. The authors found that the promised tangible economic benefits—economic growth, income growth, wage growth, employment growth, and higher tax revenues—do not occur the way that sports teams claim. Often, the only economic benefits occur near the stadium—and fall far short of expectations. State and city governments are subsidizing development within a single neighborhood, with no tangible benefits for the rest of the city or state.
This is why you’re seeing all of these owners building stadiums with stuff around them. Most of the economic benefits are flowing to areas directly around the stadium. So the hunts are going to get most of the benefit and get the taxpayers to fund it. Sorry I just don’t blame anybody for not buying into this hype.
There is always a tremendous amount of creative accounting in these projects. I'm been involved in several conceptuals and one that got built (never an NFL) and the most substantial thing the munis and taxpayers get is a shiny, fun new thing. The dollars bleed on infrastructure, maintenance, etc. Plus, as someone said, you better get a nice long contract and prepare to get bullied at the end.
