But the San Antonio taxpayers might be more amenable than KC taxpayers to pay for it.My guess is they’d consider that stadium out of date and in need of renovations too.
Heck the greater St Louis area would probably want them and cover all costs.
NFL Chiefs eye new home after voters reject renovation tax
- Thread starter Nitt1300
- Start date
Heck the greater St Louis area would probably want them and cover all costs.
seems to me the system is working. The ownership of the team wants a new stadium and feels as if the citizens of Kansas city benefit from their use of it. The citizens don't agree....so the team ownership hunts around for some other city willing to provide a place for the chiefs to play...don't blame the chiefs for looking and don't blame the taxpayers for saying no.
Its no different than any other business relocating for a better deal.
Yeah, but it took him a while to get there.
Probably due to poor cell phone reception.
Last edited:
The city does not own the football team (nor does anyother government). https://www.profootballnetwork.com/who-owns-the-green-bay-packers/
This assumes taxpayers should foot the bill for private companies. Sure, most companies get tax breaks and/or other incentives to move to an area, but how many get half a billion dollars on the taxpayers back? Maybe Amazon.
Well taxpayer do foot the bill for some business rebates activities.
But my point -which i thought was clear-is that any private business can move for whatever reasons they see fit.
Except you're wrong; the NFL has a process for franchise relocation, and it's not a unilateral decision by the owner. They must first exhaust all reasonable options to stay where they are, and if that fails, must get approval by 75% of NFL owners. Relocation is strongly discouraged if the team is well supported and profitable. Whining for a new stadium and threatening to move if you don't get one might not qualify, especially since their options appear to be Kansas City, MO and maybe somewhere in Texas. Also note the Rams had to pay St. Louis $790mm to settle their relocation issue. So, not very clear I think since the NFL does what is best for the 'league' first and is very different than a regular privately owned business/company.
Do you think if this situation became more widespread, and more owners started footing the bill and taking a hit to the bottom line, the NFL might change its relocation discouragement policy?
Do the taxpayers get any of the revenue from the TV contracts, ticket sales, merchandise sales, etc.? Do they go to games for free? What is their incentive to support the hobbies of billionaires? There are only so many cities in America that can support an NFL team. I don't think they'll change their policy because really, it's unlikely any owner would want to block the move of another. Still, my point was that owners can't just do whatever they want, and they can't.
And my point was that owners can decide to let each other do whatever they want.
It is only the decisions of the owners that keep the owners from doing whatever they want. If the owners decide that it is in their best interests to have 32 teams in Fairbanks, Alaska there is nothing stopping that from happening. Or if they decide a franchise can move every 24 hours that could be agreed on too.
I agree that there are only so many cities that can support an NFL team. That is why all the cities should stop giving the teams incentives to build stadiums and call some city "home". The marketplace would find the best spots for all the teams. If that is in Alaska, so be it.
In the 1990s, there was an architectural competition to design a new football stadium for Los Angeles. One of the entries was a stadium that was built on several cargo ships clustered together. The theoretical design was such that the ships could be separated and moved to any port on the west, east or gulf coasts.
The Hunt Family has very little in the way of income outside of the Chiefs. They’re one of the last franchises that’s like that. They have to lean on local and state government helping out with things like stadium upgrades and practice facilities.
I sometimes wonder what would happen if pro franchises had to operate like colleges do. Taking out absurd loans hoping that enrollment holds steady and they can keep attracting high end students who’ll pay the full boat or leaning on “boosters” to pony up big amounts of cash to fund their building sprees.
I sometimes wonder what would happen if pro franchises had to operate like colleges do. Taking out absurd loans hoping that enrollment holds steady and they can keep attracting high end students who’ll pay the full boat or leaning on “boosters” to pony up big amounts of cash to fund their building sprees.
Yeah, life sucks when your net worth is north of $2bn.
Enough on which to more than comfortably live. He can put up the remainder as collateral for any capital projects he contemplates.
NOTE: the $2n is a number that's commonly thrown around. Examining the numbers at which NFL teams have recently changed hands, it's considerably more.
Last edited:
What's wrong with you guys?! How can you have a Kansas City Chiefs thread without a photo or two of Gracie Hunt?
Jacksonville seems to be reaching a different decision. Though it's not something that requires a vote by the local population.
Nothing in that article discussing the most pressing need - good cell phone reception.
Nothing in that article discussing the most pressing need - good cell phone reception.
And they didn't say what time the gates open?
This is exactly how the Pittsburgh Penguins got their new arena. Ironically they were threatening to leave for Kansas City. It was all just a gambit to force the city to do something about paying for a new arena and everybody knew it at the time. Then Mario Lemieux stepped in and bought the team, kept them in Pittsburgh and the city built him a new arena because you cannot say no to Mario Lemieux if you're the city of Pittsburgh.