Chiefs expected to move from Arrowhead to Kansas state

[Glasgow Seahawk]

https://thespun.com/nfl/chiefs-expected-to-announce-move-out-of-missouri-on-monday

Sounds like it was being quietly done in the background. Arrowhead is a cool stadium but old.

Sounds like the Royals are close to moving to Overland Park in Kansas but getting more push back from that neighborhood

 

[RedAlice]

I will so laugh if KC also leaves Missouri.

F StL.

 

[flv2]

I will so laugh if KC also leaves Missouri.

F StL.

There goes your application to re-join ramsondemand.

 

[IndyHawk]

It's kind of the Bears, looking to move to Gary, Indiana.
These teams want zero property taxes, roads done for their
stadiums and some side deals with shopping/restaurants
built near the stadium to prop up their venue which they will
pay for and collect every penny from it including parking ect.

 

[OneLofaTatupu]

It's kind of the Bears, looking to move to Gary, Indiana.
These teams want zero property taxes, roads done for their
stadiums and some side deals with shopping/restaurants
built near the stadium to prop up their venue which they will
pay for and collect every penny from it including parking ect.

Why make more money than you can ever spend when you can make even more money that you’ll never spend?

 

[flv2]

Why make more money than you can ever spend when you can make even more money that you’ll never spend?

Sadly NFL owners are obligated under the terms of the CBA to do exactly that and maximise NFL income. The NFL owners all 'chip in' to a new stadium fund every year. To get money from the fund an owner has to demonstrate the local community significantly contributing financially to the new stadium.

 

[IndyHawk]

Sadly NFL owners are obligated under the terms of the CBA to do exactly that and maximise NFL income. The NFL owners all 'chip in' to a new stadium fund every year. To get money from the fund an owner has to demonstrate the local community significantly contributing financially to the new stadium.

Sounds about right, the local contributing would be the roads and tax abatements
on property taxes ect..
When the city and or state resists, they lose the team.
TBF - It's not just the NFL that does this, as we know the NBA and MLB do the same
dirty deal (s).

 

[flv2]

Sounds about right, the local contributing would be the roads and tax abatements
on property taxes ect..
When the city and or state resists, they lose the team.
TBF - It's not just the NFL that does this, as we know the NBA and MLB do the same
dirty deal (s).

I can see it from both sides. In a free market economy the owner should be free to move his business where he wants and pick the best financial deal. People in the location feel that they've already made a financial and emotional investment in the team. In a country as capitalist as the US I tend to side more with the owner on this.

 

[flv2]

For those less familiar with the Rams move back to Los Angeles there were issues with the St Louis financing. Basically St Louis couldn't afford a financial package that was put in place in Vegas, Buffalo and other NFL locations that have re-upped to keep their team. St. Louis needed financial help from the rest of Missouri and that financial help was not forthcoming. Kansas City is now in a similar situation and St. Louis folk will likely see this as their anticipated opportunity for payback.

 

[Glasgow Seahawk]

Still think the raiders should have went to LA instead of the chargers and brand wise would have competed with the rams. There are still raiders fans in LA from the previous move. Chargers might have done better in Vegas being in their own market.

 

[RiverDog]

Still think the raiders should have went to LA instead of the chargers and brand wise would have competed with the rams. There are still raiders fans in LA from the previous move. Chargers might have done better in Vegas being in their own market.

The other owners didn't want Mark Davis in LA. The preferred option was Rams and Chargers.

Multiple reports note that Davis lacked the financial strength and stadium plan sophistication that other owners wanted in the LA market. The Carson project (Raiders + Chargers) was seen as less attractive than Inglewood.

 

[Hollandhawk]

I can see it from both sides. In a free market economy the owner should be free to move his business where he wants and pick the best financial deal. People in the location feel that they've already made a financial and emotional investment in the team. In a country as capitalist as the US I tend to side more with the owner on this.

It is really socialism for the rich. They get tax money to build a stadium and then you get to buy tickets to go to a game. It’s bullshit.

The economics of taxpayer-subsidized stadiums

Shiny new stadiums can end up costing taxpayers billions

theweek.com

 

[flv2]

It is really socialism for the rich. They get tax money to build a stadium and then you get to buy tickets to go to a game. It’s bullshit.

The economics of taxpayer-subsidized stadiums

Shiny new stadiums can end up costing taxpayers billions

theweek.com

I don't want to get into a discussion of economic/political systems. Essentially there are 2 choices: People can pay for a stadium that they won't own and for massive amounts of tickets...or...they can watch on tv when the re-branded team plays in their new location.

 

[Hollandhawk]

I don't want to get into a discussion of economic/political systems. Essentially there are 2 choices: People can pay for a stadium that they won't own and for massive amounts of tickets...or...they can watch on tv when the re-branded team plays in their new location.

Sure, but the problem would be a lot of people pay taxes for the stadium who don’t give a sh*t about football while the owner gets richer and richer.

 

[flv2]

Sure, but the problem would be a lot of people pay taxes for the stadium who don’t give a sh*t about football while the owner gets richer and richer.

I don't think i've ever met anyone who agreed with where every tax dollar they'd ever contributed ended up being spent. The bottom line is KC folk will pay tax dollars for KC and Missouri stuff based as negotiated by their elected officials. The question for KC is will the people of St. Louis actively try to scupper KC choices out of spite. My guess is they will.

 

[Glasgow Seahawk]

 

[Glasgow Seahawk]

 

[chris98251]

I suspect the Missouri side was smug about things thinking they would never leave and come back and accept what they offered, Kansas was convincing and accepting of terms to the Chiefs liking.

This seems to be what happens, we seen it here, City and State officials to full of themselves to take what a ownership says as a bottom line or come off as insulting and arrogant. The same can happen from an Owner, we had the worst case here with Nichols, Stern, and Bennett with Schultz not being concerned about the History or the Fans.

 

[Dolomight12]

Sure, but the problem would be a lot of people pay taxes for the stadium who don’t give a sh*t about football while the owner gets richer and richer.

Rich assholes LOVE socialism when it benefits them.

And, mods, pmedic engaged me in a convo about socialism's pros/cons before and it was fine. So I hope I'm not stepping outta bounds.

 

[Dolomight12]

It is really socialism for the rich. They get tax money to build a stadium and then you get to buy tickets to go to a game. It’s bullshit.

The economics of taxpayer-subsidized stadiums

Shiny new stadiums can end up costing taxpayers billions

theweek.com

I didn't see this before my post. But you're spot on (as always, on topics in this vein).