Toggle sidebar

OT: I guess fans have their limits

D

DrMickeySC

Active member
Sep 19, 2010
338
452
63
It has always seemed weird to me that billionaire team owners expect the public to pay for stadiums and renovations. I know the community benefits from having games and a facility, but do they really benefit hundreds of millions of dollars worth? Especially when 15 years later the team will threaten to move if they don’t want to do it all over again. Oh well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Backyard Archer, Myrtlecock, Uscg1984 and 1 other person
Uscg1984

Uscg1984

Well-known member
Mar 9, 2006
1,868
2,484
113
DrMickeySC said:
It has always seemed weird to me that billionaire team owners expect the public to pay for stadiums and renovations. I know the community benefits from having games and a facility, but do they really benefit hundreds of millions of dollars worth? Especially when 15 years later the team will threaten to move if they don’t want to do it all over again. Oh well.
Click to expand...
The economic development forecasts used to get approval to build public facilities like stadiums, arenas, convention centers, etc. are almost always exceedingly optimistic. That's not to say they are always bad deals for cities, but more of them are bad deals than good.

This plan had significant private investment pledged ($1b from the Royals and $300m from the Chiefs), but $2b for a downtown ballpark and $800m for renovations to Arrowhead? That probably seems a little steep to the average Kansas City resident, especially considering that tickets to the new stadiums are almost certainly going to be more expensive than the current tickets. I'd have a hard time voting to subsidize stadium construction for a team I felt I couldn't afford to see in person.
 
CockyNChicago

CockyNChicago

New member
Nov 25, 2022
29
15
3
Uscg1984 said:
The economic development forecasts used to get approval to build public facilities like stadiums, arenas, convention centers, etc. are almost always exceedingly optimistic. That's not to say they are always bad deals for cities, but more of them are bad deals than good.

This plan had significant private investment pledged ($1b from the Royals and $300m from the Chiefs), but $2b for a downtown ballpark and $800m for renovations to Arrowhead? That probably seems a little steep to the average Kansas City resident, especially considering that tickets to the new stadiums are almost certainly going to be more expensive than the current tickets. I'd have a hard time voting to subsidize stadium construction for a team I felt I couldn't afford to see in person.
Click to expand...
I don't know the specifics of this proposal but there are funding vehicles now where ownership belongs to and the profits from the stadium flow to the municipal agency that funds it - thus making much more palatable to the tax-paying public. Buffalo's new stadium was financed that way and took advantage of the new NFL G4 Financial loans program.

However, even the above has its fair share of critics too and we won't know exactly how palatable it is until the stadium operates for a few years.

Chicago is building a new stadium along the lakefront with the majority (2bn) being privately financed.
 
G

gamecock stock

Well-known member
Jan 21, 2022
2,632
2,353
113
18IsTheMan said:
Jackson County Missouri voters overwhelmingly vote against sales tax to fund new Royals stadium and renovations of Arrowhead. You would think with 3 Super Bowls since 2020, the Chiefs would pretty much be able to get whatever they want.

Glad to see it.

Click to expand...
I wonder if that has to do with the fact that the "Baby Boomer" generation, one of the largest generations ever, are at the age where sports are less and less important in their lives, compared to the times in their youth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom