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 IowaHawkeyeChief:
and that sucks... I love arrowhead for that reason. I am in the 2nd row of the upper deck and love my seats and wouldn't move down if the price was the same.
Originally Posted by Pinchshot:
Arrowhead is outdated anyway. Get a new stadium with a roof, host a Superbowl and y'all will be happy.
Yes. Would absolutely love a rolling roof. I literally will not consider going to a game past Oct 31st. With a rolling roof...I would and we could get a SB and more events. I know plenty of ppl who cancelled on the Billy Joel concert because it was 110 heat index. [Reply]
Originally Posted by comochiefsfan:
I wonder if people here who claim they want a dome have ever been to a game in a dome.
I’ve been to the Dome in St Louis and JerryWorld. They suck. They’re big and fancy but watching football indoors is horrible. The lighting and sound is strange and everything feels “off”
Football just looks better played outdoors.
I couldn’t care less about the temperature aspect. It’s an advantage for us on the field and if you can’t stand to go to a game that’s below freezing then stay home and watch it on television.
Nobody is saying they want a dome. They want a retractable roof. [Reply]
Originally Posted by comochiefsfan:
A new stadium also means that many longtime STH can kiss their tickets goodbye as they won’t be able to afford the PSL and massive price hike that Clark will implement.
Just look at what’s going on in Buffalo. Tons of people who have been STH since the early days of the franchise are being priced out of their seats and have to give up their tickets.
There is nothing about a new stadium that will be good for the common fan like us. We’ll all be priced out for the most part and the Arrowhead atmosphere will be a distant memory. It sure will be nice for the rich folks who want to be seen and Clark’s wallet though.
Originally Posted by DRM08:
$500M of taxpayer money for relatively minor upgrades. There’s a large chunk of the population who don’t care about sports. Even the people who care about sports don’t want taxpayer money to help fund these stadium projects.
IDK, if 3/8 cent in 2007 is approved to keep the teams here until 2031, it is not a crazy ask to keep it there on a new lease for a couple more decades.
For current times, it is an anamoly that it is county owned stadiums that one team prefers to stay in and the other teams wants to move but needs a deal with the county to move before 2031, and they just assumed that required continued relationship with county on new stadium.
If the Royals or Chiefs end up in new stadiums, they should seek to own the buildings and the only public ask is for Star bonds in Kansas or TIF in KCMO. Possibly another public ask could be deal on land or a 100 year lease like KC Current has.
I think those could be ways to get development financing incentives that do not require voters approving a new tax. The value of those incentives would end up being more dollars than the ask on extending the 3/8ths and teams would own their building. Use the tax collections from the venues to repay the financing for a couple decades.
Chiefs or KCMO taking ownership of Arrowhead from County might be the best move for Arrowhead. County would look pretty stupid owning Arrowhead as a concert venue and possibly a UFL team. County would probably have to rename the place.
TBH, Considering that the NFL team salary cap for players is $255 million and the players do not even get half of the earned team revenue. The Chiefs probably could build and own their own venue and remain profitable, especailly if the only public ask was the same incentives available to developers. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BWillie:
Nobody is saying they want a dome. They want a retractable roof.
The public doesn't want it. They voted overwhelmingly no in the last renovation that was on a separate ballot. Only candy asses want it. it's a good thing KCMO predominantly does not have sugar asses. [Reply]
Originally Posted by srvy:
The public doesn't want it. They voted overwhelmingly no in the last renovation that was on a separate ballot. Only candy asses want it. it's a good thing KCMO predominantly does not have sugar asses.
Yeah, KC weather isn't great by any means, but it's not nearly shitty enough for a dome. It's nice here for those 110° days and I'd never want to go to Lambeau during a cold front in January.... but, one -30° windchill night doesn't mean Arrowhead should have a dome (even if you could argue moving that one game). [Reply]
Originally Posted by srvy:
The public doesn't want it. They voted overwhelmingly no in the last renovation that was on a separate ballot. Only candy asses want it. it's a good thing KCMO predominantly does not have sugar asses.
The roof was a great engineering dream that later turned into an ingenious sacrificial compromise. Just like this latest vote the prior one was also debated with a lot of similar vote no arguments. What the roof vote did was give people their chance to vote no and tell the owners to shove it while feeling slightly better about voting yes on the extortion tax for their beloved team... a compromise. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BWillie:
Yes. Would absolutely love a rolling roof. I literally will not consider going to a game past Oct 31st. With a rolling roof...I would and we could get a SB and more events. I know plenty of ppl who cancelled on the Billy Joel concert because it was 110 heat index.
Yeah, it is well known you are a pussy. That’s been established over and over. Football is made to be played outdoors. The elements are part of what makes the game great. [Reply]
Originally Posted by vonBobo:
The roof was a great engineering dream that later turned into an ingenious sacrificial compromise. Just like this latest vote the prior one was also debated with a lot of similar vote no arguments. What the roof vote did was give people their chance to vote no and tell the owners to shove it while feeling slightly better about voting yes on the extortion tax for their beloved team... a compromise.
So if 70% of fans say no to a dome and 30% of fans say we won't go to games in bad weather... Would the 70%, actually boycott a dome? I would guess, most would not.
As an owner you just write off 30% of potential sales?
And as already mentioned, the usefulness for things besides football the rest of the year.
But I do think outdoor teams, get a slight edge, so stay outside. [Reply]
