flv2
Well-known member
SoFi stadium was part funded by significant tax breaks. Los Angeles was also given a Super Bowl to generate income as part of the deal. The stadium financing is complex, but it isn't 100% funded by Mr. Kroenke and the NFL.
Bears, Chicago at Loggerheads Over Proposed Stadium
- Thread starter RiverDog
- Start date
OP
OP
RiverDog
Well-known member
Here's an interesting article about the Chiefs attempts to blackmail the taxpayers into building them a $3B stadium:
I hate to say it, but we all know how this is going to turn out in the end. Hunt loves to not spend money. He gets to have his family sit in the nicest suite in whatever Kansas Chiefs-sponsored stadium those bonds can provide. I mean, the man won't even pay for halfway decent facilities for his players. His team doesn't even get good places to sit in the locker room. He won't even run the A/C half the time.
This comes down to a matter of will. Will Kansas front the bill since the Hunts are clearly not going to do that? The really sad part in all of this is if Kansas isn't on-board with doing this and joins the fine folks of Jackson County, what is going to stop the Hunts from going to another metropolis to satisfy their financial needs living a life atop the lap of luxury? Keep in mind that they still call Dallas home.
All I know is once the winning stops, Chiefs fans are going to turn on the Hunts almost immediately.
fansided.com
But they'll probably pass a hotel tax so the locals don't have to pay for it, so who cares if the Chiefs don't pay a dime, right?
Kansas makes first steps in trying to get Chiefs to come play in their state
The proposal says it will be a combination of a sales tax increase, as well as a 30-year bonds to help finance the new stadium in Kansas. Florio estimates that it will cost at least $3 billion to get a new stadium built in either state. This is the going rate for something state-of-the-art. The big sticking point in this proposal would be the 30-year bonds to front the entire bill, and the Chiefs ... nothing!I hate to say it, but we all know how this is going to turn out in the end. Hunt loves to not spend money. He gets to have his family sit in the nicest suite in whatever Kansas Chiefs-sponsored stadium those bonds can provide. I mean, the man won't even pay for halfway decent facilities for his players. His team doesn't even get good places to sit in the locker room. He won't even run the A/C half the time.
This comes down to a matter of will. Will Kansas front the bill since the Hunts are clearly not going to do that? The really sad part in all of this is if Kansas isn't on-board with doing this and joins the fine folks of Jackson County, what is going to stop the Hunts from going to another metropolis to satisfy their financial needs living a life atop the lap of luxury? Keep in mind that they still call Dallas home.
All I know is once the winning stops, Chiefs fans are going to turn on the Hunts almost immediately.
Potential Chiefs move over stadium issues heats up with latest posturing
For as great as the Kansas City Chiefs are on the football field, the amenities at antiquated Arrowhead Stadium are becoming increasingly outdated. We are in th
fansided.com
But they'll probably pass a hotel tax so the locals don't have to pay for it, so who cares if the Chiefs don't pay a dime, right?
I read that Kansas will have a hard time selling these bonds, because they won’t have a high credit rating, and may default if there isn’t enough sales tax revenue to pay the bond holders.Here's an interesting article about the Chiefs attempts to blackmail the taxpayers into building them a $3B stadium:
Kansas makes first steps in trying to get Chiefs to come play in their state
The proposal says it will be a combination of a sales tax increase, as well as a 30-year bonds to help finance the new stadium in Kansas. Florio estimates that it will cost at least $3 billion to get a new stadium built in either state. This is the going rate for something state-of-the-art. The big sticking point in this proposal would be the 30-year bonds to front the entire bill, and the Chiefs ... nothing!
I hate to say it, but we all know how this is going to turn out in the end. Hunt loves to not spend money. He gets to have his family sit in the nicest suite in whatever Kansas Chiefs-sponsored stadium those bonds can provide. I mean, the man won't even pay for halfway decent facilities for his players. His team doesn't even get good places to sit in the locker room. He won't even run the A/C half the time.
This comes down to a matter of will. Will Kansas front the bill since the Hunts are clearly not going to do that? The really sad part in all of this is if Kansas isn't on-board with doing this and joins the fine folks of Jackson County, what is going to stop the Hunts from going to another metropolis to satisfy their financial needs living a life atop the lap of luxury? Keep in mind that they still call Dallas home.
All I know is once the winning stops, Chiefs fans are going to turn on the Hunts almost immediately.
Potential Chiefs move over stadium issues heats up with latest posturing
For as great as the Kansas City Chiefs are on the football field, the amenities at antiquated Arrowhead Stadium are becoming increasingly outdated. We are in th
But they'll probably pass a hotel tax so the locals don't have to pay for it, so who cares if the Chiefs don't pay a dime, right?
OP
OP
RiverDog
Well-known member
OMG! That would be a disaster if the Hunts had to pay money out of their own pockets! Say hello to the Oklahoma City Chiefs!
I don’t know what the Chiefs and Royals would do, but the state of Kansas would be in a world of hurt with their credit rating.
I suppose I shouldn't have been surprised when the Chiefs were voted 29th out of 32 teams in terms of quality training facilities for their players. The Hunts are pretty ungratefully awful.
OP
OP
RiverDog
Well-known member
As the article states, the Hunts have very little allegiance to the Kansas City area and would move the team in a heartbeat if the league will let them.
In this situation, Kansas City has some leverage over the team in that it would be a huge black eye for the league if the team that has had the most current on field success were to move. So for all you conspiracy theorists out there, watch out for a plot like in the movie "Major League", where the team intentionally tries to lose so they'll create enough fan apathy so as to make relocation easier.
sc85sis
Well-known member
i think what she has keeps growing/earning at a faster rate than she can manage to give it away - though she seems to be trying.
chrispy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2011
- Messages
- 1,290
- Reaction score
- 1,444
It's a worthwhile discussion to argue what should happen and theoretical moral factors.
However, the reality is that most of the time a vote ends up with the public rejecting publicly funding a stadium. The public doesn't want to pay for all the reasons stated above. It's not universal, but the vast majority of the time.
Once that happens (a few times), the expense can still be funded publicly with the support of a majority of the relevant governing body; City Council, State Legislature, Hotel & Tourism Board.... A vote can be taken to call it a regular/ongoing expense and include it in the yearly budget. That's not really above board but it happens all the time... the majority of the time. Then those politicians don't get re-elected but somehow end up working for the Team or the Stadium. Everyone wins except the majority of voters that rejected the expense.
Chicago is pretty well-known for creative political maneuvers so there's no doubt this stadium will be built, and with public funds. It's just a matter of how long the lobbying takes.
Jacksonville has come up a few times in this thread. Jacksonville only has about 700,000 people and it's the third team in the State. The last time they sold out a game was 2 years ago. The idea that Jacksonville "should" have a team is hard to defend. That team would win a lot more games if they were somewhere else. BTW, majority of Jacksonville residents oppose using public funds but the City Council agreed to the previously mentioned deal anyway.
However, the reality is that most of the time a vote ends up with the public rejecting publicly funding a stadium. The public doesn't want to pay for all the reasons stated above. It's not universal, but the vast majority of the time.
Once that happens (a few times), the expense can still be funded publicly with the support of a majority of the relevant governing body; City Council, State Legislature, Hotel & Tourism Board.... A vote can be taken to call it a regular/ongoing expense and include it in the yearly budget. That's not really above board but it happens all the time... the majority of the time. Then those politicians don't get re-elected but somehow end up working for the Team or the Stadium. Everyone wins except the majority of voters that rejected the expense.
Chicago is pretty well-known for creative political maneuvers so there's no doubt this stadium will be built, and with public funds. It's just a matter of how long the lobbying takes.
Jacksonville has come up a few times in this thread. Jacksonville only has about 700,000 people and it's the third team in the State. The last time they sold out a game was 2 years ago. The idea that Jacksonville "should" have a team is hard to defend. That team would win a lot more games if they were somewhere else. BTW, majority of Jacksonville residents oppose using public funds but the City Council agreed to the previously mentioned deal anyway.
IndyHawk
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2013
- Messages
- 8,974
- Reaction score
- 2,633
Check out the sweet deals these teams got from their city ..
sports.yahoo.com
Jacksonville City Council approves $775M in public funds to upgrade Jaguars stadium
The deal comes with a 30-year lease and a target date in 2028 for the renovations to be complete.
sports.yahoo.com
Neither of these deals were the result of public referendum, were they? I get a little annoyed that the Panthers owner gets such a deal when he's worth over 20 billion dollars, and it's not like the value of the franchise is going down.
