So Just What Do We All Want Stadium-Wise?

[GabyKeepsMeWarm]

This is a Chiefs board, so I know and expect to see some obvious bias toward the Chiefs over the Royals in this forum. This is weighted even moreso towards the Chiefs favor due to their incredible run over the past six years.

I know we all love the Chiefs, but there are a lot of Royals fans too. KC has historically been a very, very good sports town, and great host for the Chiefs and Royals. Weird that the teams never seem to be good at the same time, though maybe that will change if BWJr and the boys in blue can get something going during what is now the Mahomes Era.

But I digress... sorry, I get long-winded sometimes. What do we all want stadium-wise going forward? Enough of this sky is falling horseshit where both teams are getting their ducks in a row to get the hell out of KC. I don't buy that for a second. Maybe you don't agree, that's fine. But I really want to know what the people of this board would like to see happen, because there will be another vote within the next year or two with future proposals. So what do we want these proposals to ideally be?

[cmh6476]

For them to be close enough for me to take grandkids who are yet to be born to games. (both teams)

[Molitoth]

I hope:
Royals move to Johnson County and they pay the taxes.

Chiefs stay where they are and expand (with better plans than the current bullshit)

[wazu]

Originally Posted by Molitoth

Chiefs stay where they are and expand (with better plans than the current bullshit)

Serious question: What do you want in these plans? Because to me Arrowhead is pretty much perfect as-is.

[ChiefsFanatic]

Originally Posted by wazu

Serious question: What do you want in these plans? Because to me Arrowhead is pretty much perfect as-is.

I would love for the Royals to move wherever, downtown, or by the speedway, etc. and then I want the K taken down, and a brand new version of Arrowhead built where it stood.

I would like to use the original plans for Arrowhead, and make all the desired upgrades, with a retractable roof.

I wonder if with foldable panels, they could use the retractable roof as advertising, like the sphere, but on a much smaller scale.

I think Arrowhead is iconic, so nice we built it twice, and we need a retractable roof at a minimum.

[Raiderhater]

Originally Posted by ChiefsFanatic

I would love for the Royals to move wherever, downtown, or by the speedway, etc. and then I want the K taken down, and a brand new version of Arrowhead built where it stood.

I would like to use the original plans for Arrowhead, and make all the desired upgrades, with a retractable roof.

I wonder if with foldable panels, they could use the retractable roof as advertising, like the sphere, but on a much smaller scale.

I think Arrowhead is iconic, so nice we built it twice, and we need a retractable roof at a minimum.

My understanding is that legally this cannot be done because stadiums are no longer allowed to be built at the extreme angles Arrowhead was built with.

A new stadium means a new design, and that likely means it won’t be as loud as the current design.

A new stadium means serious changes. And you might as well start preparing yourself for those changes, because they are sadly coming.

[ptlyon]

What we got

[Hoover]

Originally Posted by ptlyon

What we got

That answer just doesn't work. I understand that's how you feel and its legitimate, but from a team (ie business perspective) it just doesn't work that way.

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

I love Arrowhead and the gameday experience. And I'm not a Jackson County taxpayer.

But I'm also realistic and Arrowhead is on borrowed time. That being the case, there's no sense in limping along here. The stadium was built in such a way that it just cannot continue to keep pace with other franchises through renovation. And if we are going to be (and should be) a crown jewel franchise for the next 10-15 years (and hell, we weren't dogfood before Mahomes), that's not tenable.

So I think I'm ready for a new stadium. And if that stadium is going to be done well, it's not going to be in Jackson County. So if that means a move to Wyandotte, I'll set my anti-Kansas bias aside because it's probably best for the Chiefs long-term.

So include me in the 'new stadium near the Legends' crowd. Or wherever it will need to go to get the kind of revenue that would make building a true state of the art stadium worthwhile for Hunt and the residents of wherever it's gonna go...

I expect that means a dome for a future SB or other events. And I hate that. So my compromise would be one where there are rules in place for when the roof can be used. I can't recall which stadium did that, but there's a baseball stadium somewhere that has it written into the lease that the roof cannot be closed on days where the weather is between X and Y degrees and there's no rain.

Would I miss the snow games? Yeah. Would I miss rain and frigid cold? No, not really. And again, that's going to mean a hell of a lot more revenue and thus more willingness by Hunt to pull out some of the stops and make this a stadium worthy of replacing an icon.

What I don't want to see is what the Cardinals did in STL. They tore down Busch II and replaced it with a generic retro ballpark that just isn't special in any way because they did it on the cheap. Man I'd hate to see that (and I worry that's what's in store for Kaufman, which is just an incredible place to catch a baseball game to this day. They're going to replace it with something that isn't as good)

This is a really good post.

Here is my my take on all of this.

1. The public has do decide if they want a piece of the action or not. I get the argument that the tax payer shouldn't have foot the bill for a new baseball stadium downtown when they love the existing one. And why are we building stadiums for rich owners anyway.

On the other hand, by not extending an existing tax that helps fund the stadiums, both teams will explore their options and they are going to do what's in their best financial interest. While I think the Chiefs are locked into the area, baseball is a different story, what if Oklahoma City really wants a baseball team? It wouldn't surprise me at all if they would bend over backwards to build a downtown stadium. Another option would be Nashville. Both of those cities would love to bring another sports franchise to their cities, and if I were them I'd be aggressive as hell. Going to either city makes sense for both the city and team.

2. As someone mentioned here the other day the Chiefs are now in a power position. If they did decided to leave the Truman Sports complex, people will rightly point to this vote as the reason why it didn't work.

If I'm the Chiefs, I can't justify sinking hundreds of millions of dollars into facilities that they public no longer wants to support and the team doesn't own. So the only option for the Truman Sports Complex is for the county to sell it to Hunt and the Chiefs. Its a great piece of property, but you are going to sell it for pennies on the dollar (like the Snead trade) because you are getting the Hunt family to permanently stay and invst there and in return you get to property tax revenue from the property.

The Chiefs owning the Truman Sports Complex allows them to totally reimagine it. I'm sure local governments would give the team some tax incentives (TIF) to help with the cost of redevelopment. You could also give the team a sales tax rebate which would allow them to keep a chunk of the sales tax generated on the grounds for period of time.

Such incentives would encourage the team to build a new stadium, build new state of the art facilities, and probably an entertainment district (Hotels, Restaurants, and Bars), which is what I want to see done.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by Hoover

That answer just doesn't work. I understand that's how you feel and its legitimate, but from a team (ie business perspective) it just doesn't work that way.




This is a really good post.

Here is my my take on all of this.

1. The public has do decide if they want a piece of the action or not. I get the argument that the tax payer shouldn't have foot the bill for a new baseball stadium downtown when they love the existing one. And why are we building stadiums for rich owners anyway.

On the other hand, by not extending an existing tax that helps fund the stadiums, both teams will explore their options and they are going to do what's in their best financial interest. While I think the Chiefs are locked into the area, baseball is a different story, what if Oklahoma City really wants a baseball team? It wouldn't surprise me at all if they would bend over backwards to build a downtown stadium. Another option would be Nashville. Both of those cities would love to bring another sports franchise to their cities, and if I were them I'd be aggressive as hell. Going to either city makes sense for both the city and team.

2. As someone mentioned here the other day the Chiefs are now in a power position. If they did decided to leave the Truman Sports complex, people will rightly point to this vote as the reason why it didn't work.

If I'm the Chiefs, I can't justify sinking hundreds of millions of dollars into facilities that they public no longer wants to support and the team doesn't own. So the only option for the Truman Sports Complex is for the county to sell it to Hunt and the Chiefs. Its a great piece of property, but you are going to sell it for pennies on the dollar (like the Snead trade) because you are getting the Hunt family to permanently stay and invst there and in return you get to property tax revenue from the property.

The Chiefs owning the Truman Sports Complex allows them to totally reimagine it. I'm sure local governments would give the team some tax incentives (TIF) to help with the cost of redevelopment. You could also give the team a sales tax rebate which would allow them to keep a chunk of the sales tax generated on the grounds for period of time.

Such incentives would encourage the team to build a new stadium, build new state of the art facilities, and probably an entertainment district (Hotels, Restaurants, and Bars), which is what I want to see done.

I understand why TIFs exist, but I really dislike them. The government essentially is saying, "You're big and important, so we'll give you a lower tax rate than we will for small businesses and individuals." They're inherently unfair and tilted toward rich people. And then those rich people retain the option to just move on to the next city when the TIFS expire and repeat the process. [Glance toward Kroenke here.]

[KCUnited]

Welcome to the next 7 years of threads

Thanks Jackson County

[GabyKeepsMeWarm]

Originally Posted by KCUnited

Welcome to the next 7 years of threads

Thanks Jackson County

Apologies if it seems like I'm going down that road. For all the threads and thoughts I've seen get thrown around over the past week and months, I've never seen something where we say what we actually want. Was hoping this might be a bit more positive than the back and forth ugliness. It's probably wishful thinking.

[smithandrew051]

Blackjack and hookers

[cabletech94]

Originally Posted by smithandrew051

Blackjack and hookers

And a mother ****ing rolling roof!!! That’s right!! I said it!!

[Couch-Potato]

A dome.

[Chief Pagan]

Originally Posted by smithandrew051

Blackjack and hookers

Um, I'll take hookers and blow for 1000, Alex,