Chiefs Offseason 2024

[TDub]

It is ridiculous. But there are more cities willing to pay for it than there are teams. I would love to see a city say no…but I wouldn’t want that to be my city.

I just don't understand the logic in making people with sub 100k family incomes pay for a stadium owned by billionaires and used exclusively by multimillionaire athletes.

Then, on top of that, charging those same people $100s to watch millionaires play and $10 for beer.


They've modified the bread and circus logic and somehow made it worse.

The owner doesn't own the stadium and it isn't used exclusively be multimillionaire athletes.

you should make a big donation then. They need it, the Chiefs community needs it.

Thanks twocoach!

[hartjack8]

It is ridiculous. But there are more cities willing to pay for it than there are teams. I would love to see a city say no…but I wouldn’t want that to be my city.

I just don't understand the logic in making people with sub 100k family incomes pay for a stadium owned by billionaires and used exclusively by multimillionaire athletes.

Then, on top of that, charging those same people $100s to watch millionaires play and $10 for beer.


They've modified the bread and circus logic and somehow made it worse.

I think that leaves out a lot of what the public gets out of a city/region having a team.

I don’t have a problem at all with cities/regions putting these things (to be clear: billionaire subsidies) to votes and letting people decide.

Take the recent ballot measure that failed in Kansas City, where county taxpayers were asked to shoulder a 3/8 cent sales (not income) tax for an additional few decades.

One can derive how much that means their family would be spending on the subsidies, and decide whether the “soft” benefits are worth it to them.

We’re absolutely in agreement on the bigger picture, but that’s a take-it-to-the-Pols-bored discussion about the concentration of wealth at the extreme right end of the curve.

So stadiums have a shelf life that is around thirty years and both the KC's are around 50 years old. You either play at and operate the glorified museum stadium, which is a tourist attraction, or you need the new one complete with an assortment of new amenities. The funny thing is our most celebrated venues are the old ones; L.A..’s Rose Bowl (1922), Chicago’s Wrigley Field (1914), Boston’s Fenway Park (1912). Those are ancient ruins compared to our others, such as Dodgers Stadium (1955), Lambeau Field (1957), Allen Fieldhouse (1955). Hope these last forever.

There are economic benefits to having pro arenas. The recent trend is going against taxpayer money. San Diego said no to Chargers, Oakland no to A's. The Wizards got a no. Kc said no. The LA RAMS just built a stadium with no taxpayer money. The KC deal was crafted decades ago and was just trying to reup the old deal. The failure was the old deal had the locals paying the tax.

These deals can be beneficial to all parties. The Dallas Mav's and Star's are in a stadium that has worked out really really well. Now it has less than 10 years to expiration. The original deal was like a third of the money paid by taxpayers and was financed by raising taxes on hotels and car rental. It was paid off early. The locals benefited by billions of private money pumped into that area that was a industrial hazard site before construction all paid for by tourist coming to town. That was the flaw in the KC deal trying to get the locals to pay for it.

I bring this up because recently Mark Cuban sold a majority stake of the Mav's to the Adelson's Las Vegas Sands. The Sands own the site of the old cowboys stadium. They want to build a casino/stadium on the site but Texas would have to approve gambling. On the other side is Vegas just got a NBA team.

Now we could get in to how Illinois and Chicago fund their stadiums but having lived there a couple years and my belief that it is the most corrupt land in the US I will leave it to Gutter to handle.

[twocoach]

I just don't understand the logic in making people with sub 100k family incomes pay for a stadium owned by billionaires and used exclusively by multimillionaire athletes.

Then, on top of that, charging those same people $100s to watch millionaires play and $10 for beer.


They've modified the bread and circus logic and somehow made it worse.

The owner doesn't own the stadium and it isn't used exclusively be multimillionaire athletes.

you should make a big donation then. They need it, the Chiefs community needs it.

Thanks twocoach!

I already pay an extra 2.5% restaurant tax here in Omaha that helps fund my local arenas, I'm good.

[jfish26]

I just don't understand the logic in making people with sub 100k family incomes pay for a stadium owned by billionaires and used exclusively by multimillionaire athletes.

Then, on top of that, charging those same people $100s to watch millionaires play and $10 for beer.


They've modified the bread and circus logic and somehow made it worse.

I think that leaves out a lot of what the public gets out of a city/region having a team.

I don’t have a problem at all with cities/regions putting these things (to be clear: billionaire subsidies) to votes and letting people decide.

Take the recent ballot measure that failed in Kansas City, where county taxpayers were asked to shoulder a 3/8 cent sales (not income) tax for an additional few decades.

One can derive how much that means their family would be spending on the subsidies, and decide whether the “soft” benefits are worth it to them.

We’re absolutely in agreement on the bigger picture, but that’s a take-it-to-the-Pols-bored discussion about the concentration of wealth at the extreme right end of the curve.

So stadiums have a shelf life that is around thirty years and both the KC's are around 50 years old. You either play at and operate the glorified museum stadium, which is a tourist attraction, or you need the new one complete with an assortment of new amenities. The funny thing is our most celebrated venues are the old ones; L.A..’s Rose Bowl (1922), Chicago’s Wrigley Field (1914), Boston’s Fenway Park (1912). Those are ancient ruins compared to our others, such as Dodgers Stadium (1955), Lambeau Field (1957), Allen Fieldhouse (1955). Hope these last forever.

There are economic benefits to having pro arenas. The recent trend is going against taxpayer money. San Diego said no to Chargers, Oakland no to A's. The Wizards got a no. Kc said no. The LA RAMS just built a stadium with no taxpayer money. The KC deal was crafted decades ago and was just trying to reup the old deal. The failure was the old deal had the locals paying the tax.

These deals can be beneficial to all parties. The Dallas Mav's and Star's are in a stadium that has worked out really really well. Now it has less than 10 years to expiration. The original deal was like a third of the money paid by taxpayers and was financed by raising taxes on hotels and car rental. It was paid off early. The locals benefited by billions of private money pumped into that area that was a industrial hazard site before construction all paid for by tourist coming to town. That was the flaw in the KC deal trying to get the locals to pay for it.

I bring this up because recently Mark Cuban sold a majority stake of the Mav's to the Adelson's Las Vegas Sands. The Sands own the site of the old cowboys stadium. They want to build a casino/stadium on the site but Texas would have to approve gambling. On the other side is Vegas just got a NBA team.

Now we could get in to how Illinois and Chicago fund their stadiums but having lived there a couple years and my belief that it is the most corrupt land in the US I will leave it to Gutter to handle.

You make a lot of good points.

I think the biggest macro problem with these discussions is that - and of course this is what happens with everything everywhere all the time always - people go to their corners. You have Team Magic Beans and Team Not-a-Dime. And, as always, it’s not so binary as that.

I think teams bring substantial economic benefit to cities and regions. I do not think that economic benefit, even indirect, is dollar-for-dollar on investment. Or even $0.75 or $0.50.

So the question for cities/regions is, are you willing to eat that gap for the soft or tenuous benefits? And “yes” and “no” are both reasonable answers.

[twocoach]

So stadiums have a shelf life that is around thirty years and both the KC's are around 50 years old. You either play at and operate the glorified museum stadium, which is a tourist attraction, or you need the new one complete with an assortment of new amenities. The funny thing is our most celebrated venues are the old ones; L.A..’s Rose Bowl (1922), Chicago’s Wrigley Field (1914), Boston’s Fenway Park (1912). Those are ancient ruins compared to our others, such as Dodgers Stadium (1955), Lambeau Field (1957), Allen Fieldhouse (1955). Hope these last forever.

There are economic benefits to having pro arenas. The recent trend is going against taxpayer money. San Diego said no to Chargers, Oakland no to A's. The Wizards got a no. Kc said no. The LA RAMS just built a stadium with no taxpayer money. The KC deal was crafted decades ago and was just trying to reup the old deal. The failure was the old deal had the locals paying the tax.

These deals can be beneficial to all parties. The Dallas Mav's and Star's are in a stadium that has worked out really really well. Now it has less than 10 years to expiration. The original deal was like a third of the money paid by taxpayers and was financed by raising taxes on hotels and car rental. It was paid off early. The locals benefited by billions of private money pumped into that area that was a industrial hazard site before construction all paid for by tourist coming to town. That was the flaw in the KC deal trying to get the locals to pay for it.

I bring this up because recently Mark Cuban sold a majority stake of the Mav's to the Adelson's Las Vegas Sands. The Sands own the site of the old cowboys stadium. They want to build a casino/stadium on the site but Texas would have to approve gambling. On the other side is Vegas just got a NBA team.

Now we could get in to how Illinois and Chicago fund their stadiums but having lived there a couple years and my belief that it is the most corrupt land in the US I will leave it to Gutter to handle.

"San Diego said no to Chargers, Oakland no to A's. The Wizards got a no. Kc said no."

The problem with that? The Chargers left San Diego. The A's are leaving Oakland. The Wizards are a little different in that a new city's bid to build an arena to pull the Wizards out to Alexandria, VA got voted down, so the Wizards chose to stay where they are.

Does this end up costing KC the Chiefs? I hope not but I wouldn't be surprised at all if some other city is willing to pay to lure them away.

[jfish26]

So stadiums have a shelf life that is around thirty years and both the KC's are around 50 years old. You either play at and operate the glorified museum stadium, which is a tourist attraction, or you need the new one complete with an assortment of new amenities. The funny thing is our most celebrated venues are the old ones; L.A..’s Rose Bowl (1922), Chicago’s Wrigley Field (1914), Boston’s Fenway Park (1912). Those are ancient ruins compared to our others, such as Dodgers Stadium (1955), Lambeau Field (1957), Allen Fieldhouse (1955). Hope these last forever.

There are economic benefits to having pro arenas. The recent trend is going against taxpayer money. San Diego said no to Chargers, Oakland no to A's. The Wizards got a no. Kc said no. The LA RAMS just built a stadium with no taxpayer money. The KC deal was crafted decades ago and was just trying to reup the old deal. The failure was the old deal had the locals paying the tax.

These deals can be beneficial to all parties. The Dallas Mav's and Star's are in a stadium that has worked out really really well. Now it has less than 10 years to expiration. The original deal was like a third of the money paid by taxpayers and was financed by raising taxes on hotels and car rental. It was paid off early. The locals benefited by billions of private money pumped into that area that was a industrial hazard site before construction all paid for by tourist coming to town. That was the flaw in the KC deal trying to get the locals to pay for it.

I bring this up because recently Mark Cuban sold a majority stake of the Mav's to the Adelson's Las Vegas Sands. The Sands own the site of the old cowboys stadium. They want to build a casino/stadium on the site but Texas would have to approve gambling. On the other side is Vegas just got a NBA team.

Now we could get in to how Illinois and Chicago fund their stadiums but having lived there a couple years and my belief that it is the most corrupt land in the US I will leave it to Gutter to handle.

"San Diego said no to Chargers, Oakland no to A's. The Wizards got a no. Kc said no."

The problem with that? The Chargers left San Diego. The A's are leaving Oakland. The Wizards are a little different in that a new city's bid to build an arena to pull the Wizards out to Alexandria, VA got voted down, so the Wizards chose to stay where they are.

Does this end up costing KC the Chiefs? I hope not but I wouldn't be surprised at all if some other city is willing to pay to lure them away.

And that's the issue.

Both of these things are true: (1) public investment in stadiums (billionaire subsidies) are not even close to break-even, and also (2) there are fewer teams than there are cities willing to eat the gap, and so if you are not willing to eat the gap, you'll probably lose the team(s).

[Sparko]

But they call it ownership when it comes to profits. 30-percent of all the nation's wealth is tied up in these wealthy characters who could easily afford to finance these stadiums based on the franchise value alone.

[jfish26]

But they call it ownership when it comes to profits. 30-percent of all the nation's wealth is tied up in these wealthy characters who could easily afford to finance these stadiums based on the franchise value alone.

Of course they can.

But the only way to MAKE them is for cities and regions to stop paying for it. And that's just not happening any time soon; if the Chiefs were to openly seek suitors, there would be dozens of offers inside of two weeks.

[Sparko]

I see lawsuits and restraining orders where others see opportunity.

[jfish26]

I see lawsuits and restraining orders where others see opportunity.

On what grounds exactly? If they breach the lease, I guess, but not sure that's anything to the level that could keep them here.

Other than that, you're getting into fairly arcane causes of action that ... well, they exist. But they're almost never winners - they're the sorts of things that (best case for the plaintiff) result in the Rams' ownership group having to pay out a lot of money to St. Louis...but not nearly enough money to have kept them from leaving.

[Sparko]

Maybe its time to stop extortion as an acceptable team owner behavior. I realize they'll have our legs broken

[jfish26]

Maybe its time to stop extortion as an acceptable team owner behavior. I realize they'll have our legs broken

But again, how do you do that aside from cities/regions simply stopping paying the ransom? The take-it-to-the-Politics-bored answer lies in tax policy, but that's just a whole different ball of wax.

[jhawks99]

Arrest warrant for Rice issued.

[pdub]

So are we thinking Rice can plead out of this so there's no jail time?
I know we were originally thinking 4 games - we still thinking that?
My under/over has risen to 6 -- Willie Gay got 6 for throwing around a vacuum ( meanwhile Alvin Kamara got 3 for almost beating a man to death - Von Miller nothing for assaulting his pregnant girlfriend - Dalvin Cook nothing for assaulting his girlfriend ).

[jfish26]

So are we thinking Rice can plead out of this so there's no jail time?
I know we were originally thinking 4 games - we still thinking that?
My under/over has risen to 6 -- Willie Gay got 6 for throwing around a vacuum ( meanwhile Alvin Kamara got 3 for almost beating a man to death - Von Miller nothing for assaulting his pregnant girlfriend - Dalvin Cook nothing for assaulting his girlfriend ).

Still feels like the O/U is at 4. I think the aggressiveness of the charges signals a plea deal will be reached.

Another question is when exactly a suspension would be handed down/served. Probably in Rice's personal interest to navigate the plea agreement piece quickly enough for it to be a 2024 thing.

[pdub]

Yea, in terms of having the suspension down the road when he is looking to max his contract.
Regardless, all those rookie game checks will be going to pay this mistake off.

I'm setting it at 6 so let's mark you under - to me this seems like this will be one Roger will make an example out of.

[twocoach]

Justyn Ross got a 6 game suspension for domestic battery. I don't see Rice getting that much. Maybe a 4 game suspension. Based on the charges, I would be surprised to see him face a felony.

[jhawks99]

Trade him to Cleveland.

[pdub]

Cleveland doesn't have a 1st rounder this year.
That's what it'd take ( for me ).

[jhawks99]

Trade him to the fucking jets then. Just trade him.