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. [Reply]
Originally Posted by KimbleAnders4ever:
Partially correct. The vote passed 5 to 3 (1 abstention) which would already be enough to pass the entire legislature. If they vote within the next 2 weeks then they have enough time to override a veto and still get on the Nov. ballot. They could also wait and put it on the ballot at a later time.
Frank White never shows up to Jackson County meetings because he is the 1st base coach for the Monarchs (formerly T-Bones). Who knows what he is thinking? He seems to have little communication with other legislators.
State $$ from Missouri is partially dependent on who wins the 8/6 GOP primary for governor. Kehoe will play ball with the teams. Ashcroft says he is a no. Eigel is a hell no. If one of the latter 2 wins, then Parson will have to pull some strings on the way out the door. Some have floated a special session, some think Parson can give them economic development on the way out the door.
Overall, rumor I've heard is that the Chiefs prefer being in Jackson County because the taxpayer $$ is their golden goose. a 3/8 cent for 40 years is roughly the same amount as a KS STAR bond with a lot less complications. That factored with potential MO state money means the ceiling for $ is the highest in Jackson County by far. That is probably why its harder to get money out of those jurisdictions
I'm gonna need you to post in this thread more. [Reply]
Originally Posted by KimbleAnders4ever:
Yesterday at the Jackson County Legislative Meeting a proposed 3/8 cent sales tax for the Chiefs only for 40 years passed through committee and could be put on the Jackson County ballot for this November.
So everyone said no to 3/8 for both teams, but now they think people will want to pay the same amount for only the Chiefs? That seems... optimistic. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DaFace:
So everyone said no to 3/8 for both teams, but now they think people will want to pay the same amount for only the Chiefs? That seems... optimistic.
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. [Reply]
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.
Clark Hunt's wife isn't running around town, and online, flaunting her ignorance and entitlement to taxpayers either. On top of that, no one is concerned about Hunt selling the team for a fat profit as soon as the stadium get's built.
I am curious how the property tax issue will have an affect this time. Those people were a hard core fuck anything involving a tax and Frank White's crooked ass was fire to the flames. Some more time will have passed, but dumping the Royals may not be enough for them to forget about that ordeal. [Reply]
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.
Idk, the plans the Chiefs had put out there were completely terrible and I don't blame people for voting that dumb shit down. Bunch of renovations to improve the game day experience of the VIPs, gtfo.
Clark Hunt addressed the media this week and to me it seemed like they are gonna do a rebuild instead of a renovation. Every time he talked before it seemed like he was leaning towards a renovation, but it definitely sounds like they're steering away from that now. [Reply]
Originally Posted by duncan_idaho:
Bragging rights.
Tax revenue.
Sales tax on money spent at the stadium
Billions of reasons over 40 years.
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.
It makes a lot more sense to have your neighbor pay for the stadium while you sell a few plane tickets and some bbq. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DanT:
Both teams that ended up in LA either started there (the Chargers) or were otherwise significantly associated with LA (the Rams started in Cleveland in 1936, joined the NFL in 1937, and moved to LA in 1946, making them the first major league sports franchise not just in LA but on the Pacific Coast. The Rams remained in LA through the 1993 season, before moving to St. Louis).
The Chiefs haven't exhausted their options in the KC metro region, yet. It would look horrible for them and for the league for them to go shopping themselves around until they get further along in the process, especially given that they'd be courting mid-major cities, not somewhere like LA.
The commercials I saw during the vote made it clear they were threatening to move out of state, even Patrick had a line about "keeping the team in the city". If the NFL is worried about optics then threatening the voters was an odd choice.
And the NFL got numerous contract deals during the LA extortion. They were clear a new team was headed to LA and the Rams were one of the last teams to get a deal done. The league moved them even though the city voted yes, then the NFL had to pay st Louis 800 million. I can't imagine worse optics than that. [Reply]
Originally Posted by vonBobo:
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.
It makes a lot more sense to have your neighbor pay for the stadium while you sell a few plane tickets and some bbq.
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. [Reply]
