Stadium Watch 2024 -Jackson County Residents: How Are You Voting?

[Pablo]

Vote in this poll if you actually live in Jackson county.

We've all shared our opinions in the other thread. But who gives a shit what somebody in Platte County or Johnson County or Phoenix or NYC thinks. We're all just noise.

[Mr. Plow]

Originally Posted by vonBobo

Remember this business is only open about 12 days out of 365.

Which is why they want a dome. So that they can have more open days through out the year with a wide variety of events.

[Woogieman]

[QUOTE=vonBobo;17600463]Bragging rights? Childish but that's about all a city gets from having pro sports...

As for tax revenue, no. It's well documented that cities struggle to break even on pro sports deals. Remember this business is only open about 12 days out of 365. And, most of the money spent at the stadium would have been spent in the metro anyway, it's not new money, it's just siphoning money from other businesses like the local pub or bowling alley.

This is patently false. Specifically when it comes to fall/winter discretionary income. The money spent on tailgating, booze, parking, tickets, and local mechandise/apparel is SIGNIFICANT. Assume the Chiefs moved to Nashville: there is NO local venue, or venue type in the city that can attract dollars from 70,000 pockets. There would be a small uptick in casino activity, some folks would have lunch and a few pitchers at sports bars to track their $50 football bet, but if people felt compelled to just spend the $ burning a hole in their pockets (most are strapped just to set aside Chiefs money because they are passionate Chiefs fans), they aren't spending $500 at the "bowling alley" or on blooming rings, they are leaving the cold midwest and taking long weekends or using vacation time to go to Fla or Cancun. That's millions in lost tax revenue/yr.

The study you refer to was performed on Chicago...ever been to a Bears game? I have...no tailgating, no parking. Cubs? No tailgating, no parking. White Sox? No fans. Do you know how much Chiefs tailgating has affected the composite culinary habits and skills of our 2 million+ population? Do you think 20 yrs ago, more than 100 Chiefs fans would spend $1,000 on a grill? Just read the BBQ topics in this forum...CPers alone have $100k wrapped up in pellet grills, mostly due to long-term exposure to the bi-weekly BBQ cooking championship we call "tailgating". I invest in real estate, and I've seen THOUSANDS of homes in KC, do you know how many spend $10k to $80k finishing their basements JUST to have a place to act a fool w/ their friends for Chiefs games AND show off their signed, framed jerseys and memorabilia? There is NO ****ING WAY that same money gets spent locally without the PASSION required to make questionable purchase decisions. A lot of it may get spent, but most of it goes to Mexico, Florida, Las Vegas, or Spain and Italy.

[Woogieman]

"I know there are financial studies that generally show stadium funding is neutral at best for the area. But Kansas City has some unique factors."

I've seen non-thinkers from many fan bases cite this study a hundred times over the past year, and they have ZERO ability to consider the nuances...imagine the sociological impact on a city like Green Bay if they lost the Packers. It's literally what binds them and is the major influence of their social behavior. Take that experience away, the hometown, underdog pride and why would you stay?

I would argue Arrowhead denizens are the same. I'm not arguing that the Chiefs moving to Strip Mall, Ks is akin to losing the team to San Antonio, but ks would NOT float the star bond if there was no hope for profit...this would be by FAR their biggest Star BOnd offering, and Prairie Fire has already defaulted, so the smart money strongly believes there is more than a "zero effect" of a stadium in KC.

[GloryDayz]

Originally Posted by Mr. Plow

Which is why they want a dome. So that they can have more open days through out the year with a wide variety of events.

Agree, they need to do a dome with natural grass inside.

[loochy]

Originally Posted by Woogieman

The study you refer to was performed on Chicago...ever been to a Bears game? I have...no tailgating, no parking. Cubs? No tailgating, no parking. White Sox? No fans. Do you know how much Chiefs tailgating has affected the composite culinary habits and skills of our 2 million+ population? Do you think 20 yrs ago, more than 100 Chiefs fans would spend $1,000 on a grill? Just read the BBQ topics in this forum...CPers alone have $100k wrapped up in pellet grills, mostly due to long-term exposure to the bi-weekly BBQ cooking championship we call "tailgating". I invest in real estate, and I've seen THOUSANDS of homes in KC, do you know how many spend $10k to $80k finishing their basements JUST to have a place to act a fool w/ their friends for Chiefs games AND show off their signed, framed jerseys and memorabilia? There is NO ****ING WAY that same money gets spent locally without the PASSION required to make questionable purchase decisions. A lot of it may get spent, but most of it goes to Mexico, Florida, Las Vegas, or Spain and Italy.

You think KC men are unique in that they like to BBQ? People do that here in Texas too. EVERYONE has a smoker and it has NO connetion to the Chiefs or the Cowboys or whoever.

[GloryDayz]

Originally Posted by Woogieman

"I know there are financial studies that generally show stadium funding is neutral at best for the area. But Kansas City has some unique factors."

I've seen non-thinkers from many fan bases cite this study a hundred times over the past year, and they have ZERO ability to consider the nuances...imagine the sociological impact on a city like Green Bay if they lost the Packers. It's literally what binds them and is the major influence of their social behavior. Take that experience away, the hometown, underdog pride and why would you stay?

I would argue Arrowhead denizens are the same. I'm not arguing that the Chiefs moving to Strip Mall, Ks is akin to losing the team to San Antonio, but ks would NOT float the star bond if there was no hope for profit...this would be by FAR their biggest Star BOnd offering, and Prairie Fire has already defaulted, so the smart money strongly believes there is more than a "zero effect" of a stadium in KC.

You may be right, but I doubt seriously the Chiefs will leave the KC metro area, if they do they had made their minds up a long time ago and just needed confirmation from the region that the region isn't willing to play ball.

The state of Missouri is, as always, being very stupid by not flexing it's considerable comparative financial muscle against Kansas, but that's nothing new - it's not STL!!!! Where in Jeff City only St. Louis matters, in Topeka their #1 concern is JOCO and WYCO, so I can't blame JACO for losing the Chiefs, the state did, it was never a fair fight.

[loochy]

Originally Posted by Woogieman

"I know there are financial studies that generally show stadium funding is neutral at best for the area. But Kansas City has some unique factors."

I've seen non-thinkers from many fan bases cite this study a hundred times over the past year, and they have ZERO ability to consider the nuances...imagine the sociological impact on a city like Green Bay if they lost the Packers. It's literally what binds them and is the major influence of their social behavior. Take that experience away, the hometown, underdog pride and why would you stay?

I would argue Arrowhead denizens are the same. I'm not arguing that the Chiefs moving to Strip Mall, Ks is akin to losing the team to San Antonio, but ks would NOT float the star bond if there was no hope for profit...this would be by FAR their biggest Star BOnd offering, and Prairie Fire has already defaulted, so the smart money strongly believes there is more than a "zero effect" of a stadium in KC.

But KC wouldn't be losing the Chiefs. It's still the KC metro. This makes no sense.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by wazu

I think it would pass. The first ballot measure had a lot of people voting against it specifically because they hated the Royals stadium plan.

The Missouri/Kansas thing is a major flashpoint for this area. This would be a very clear "last chance" to keep the Chiefs from moving to Kansas. It also probably funds a much better stadium plan than what was on the table for Arrowhead last time.

It still makes no logical sense to say, "I'd love to spend the same amount but only get half the benefit."

[LoneWolf]

Originally Posted by DaFace

It still makes no logical sense to say, "I'd love to spend the same amount but only get half the benefit."

Is it really half the benefit if it is a much better stadium plan than what was previously communicated. The thing that makes this entire process hilarious is that it is a pretty insignificant amount of money per household.

[vonBobo]

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho

1. Most cities don't have a 1% earnings tax that hits the game check of literally every single player who plays in a game in their jurisdiction, either. So every game, the city gets 1% of every game check for players on BOTH teams. For the upcoming year, the cap is $255M. The city is pulling in between $2M and $2.5M in earnings tax alone per season. This doesn't take into account coaching staffs for the Chiefs or any of the administrative employees or other employees.

2. If the Chiefs move across state line, the money spent at the Chiefs game is still going to be spent at the Chiefs game. Which means all that revenue is now being generated in Wyandotte County or Johnson county, rather than Jackson county. That money isn't going to go from the Chiefs to the bowling alley or local pub, unless the Chiefs completely move out of the metro.

The state of MO also has a jock tax, that I think is 2% of earnings. So it has incentive to keep tax revenue there, too.

I know there are financial studies that generally show stadium funding is neutral at best for the area. But Kansas City has some unique factors.

The tax revenue lost when the stadium leaves is offset by no longer paying the extortion tax. So now every Zman sold or hotel rented downtown MO is no longer leveraged against the extortion tax either. But yeah, nothing solves the problem of siphoning unless the city is already a destination itself and tourism is hot, which KC will never compete against mountains or casinos or the Pacific ocean.

I appreciate your insight and I want to know more. When the JaCo stadium folks announced that last year they lost money, is that not also accounting for the player tax you are talking about?

[Pablo]

Originally Posted by loochy

You think KC men are unique in that they like to BBQ? People do that here in Texas too. EVERYONE has a smoker and it has NO connetion to the Chiefs or the Cowboys or whoever.

He invests in real estate so he’s got his finger on the pulse of everything from home renovations to cooking competitions. Dangerous skill set

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by GloryDayz

You may be right, but I doubt seriously the Chiefs will leave the KC metro area, if they do they had made their minds up a long time ago and just needed confirmation from the region that the region isn't willing to play ball.

I'd argue that's exactly what just happened.

[Woogieman]

Originally Posted by loochy

You think KC men are unique in that they like to BBQ? People do that here in Texas too. EVERYONE has a smoker and it has NO connetion to the Chiefs or the Cowboys or whoever.

Work on your reading comprehension skills. Stop building straw men, it makes for more interesting discussions.

[Woogieman]

Originally Posted by Pablo

He invests in real estate so he’s got his finger on the pulse of everything from home renovations to cooking competitions. Dangerous skill set

Still an ignoramus I see...

[Woogieman]

Originally Posted by loochy

But KC wouldn't be losing the Chiefs. It's still the KC metro. This makes no sense.

That's exactly what I said...I'm referring to the "study" that downplayed the financial effect of pro sports venues, not the financial effect of moving across town.