So, Kansas Reinstated the Border War (for the Chiefs)
-
@Texas-Hawk-10 said in So, Kansas Reinstated the Border War (for the Chiefs):
If these stadiums provided the ROI claimed to swindle the public to vote for them, then the owners of these teams would have zero issues building and paying for everything themselves because they would make a nice profit from those deals.
Excellent point, PHOF-worthy by my reckoning!
-
@Texas-Hawk-10 Just so I’m 100% sure - you’re not a huge fan of Bud Adams?
-
@nuleafjhawk said in So, Kansas Reinstated the Border War (for the Chiefs):
@Texas-Hawk-10 Just so I’m 100% sure - you’re not a huge fan of Bud Adams?
The man pulled the same shit that John Fisher pulled in Oakland with the A’s. Adams devalued the franchise by gutting a Super Bowl contender and negotiated in bad faith with Houston for a new stadium a few years after Houston taxpayers spent a lot of money to renovate the Astrodome (that was finally paid off in 2014, 15 years after the Astrodome quit hosting pro sports). The negotiations were so bad that the city of Houston never even put it to a vote, that’s how bad the deal Adams was pushing was for Houston because he already had the Nashville deal worked out.
-
@bskeet said in So, Kansas Reinstated the Border War (for the Chiefs):
@dylans said in So, Kansas Reinstated the Border War (for the Chiefs):
Data coming from universities is often flawed by methodology in my many of my experiences, flawed by work ethic in others, and further flawed by the researchers biases
Wow. Please don’t tell me you favor data generated by corporations and associations over academic institutions.
Bias is possible with any study, any institution. But if the source is corporations and associations, which have potential conflict of interest, you just have to be more skeptical.
… I have never heard that there is a difference in research rigor from private vs public sources. If that’s true, it would be interesting.
In this specific application, the public studies are far superior for a couple reasons. First, the private studies are all bought and paid for. They don’t publish their data or methods (or actually any of the study except for topline findings). Here’s an example. If you follow the link to the consultant’s site, they aren’t exactly shy about it, “ESI helps you answer the big questions and make your case through insights, ideas, and thoughtful analysis. We apply our expertise in economic development, real estate, transportation, and public policy to improve the urban environments where we work and live.”
Where what we do has to go through review from independent, external experts who, in all but very specific cases, can examine our data and methods, provide substantive critiques, and then we revise if we made a mistake or didn’t explain something correctly or whatever. Even though I’m in the private sector now I still do some peer review when it makes sense.
-
@Texas-Hawk-10 Stan Kroenke did the same thing with the Rams. He and the NFL screwed St Louis over and then had to pay a lot of money to the city for the shady dealings. I only watch the Super Bowl now since they left. I am still bitter about what happened.
-
@patoh3 It’s crazy that they took a money pit like an nfl team away from a city and had to pay $790 million in damages. Seems like St Louis should be happy according to the studies.
-
@dylans they settled in order to not have to show St. Louis their books. Totally voluntary
-
@patoh3 seems to have worked out pretty well for both parties. Stan got to move the team on his own dime and St. Louis got more money than they ever would’ve gotten for plowing almost $1 billion into a new stadium
-
@FarmerJayhawk spot on, the private studies will favor who the money says to. Same as internal investigations, “We investigated ourselves and found we did very little or nothing wrong!” Shocking development.
-
St Louis came out OK, but the local fans who had spent millions of dollars on tickets, PSL’s, and merchandise were given a huge FU.
-
@Texas-Hawk-10 I lived in Houston from the late 70’s to the late 80’s. I was a big fan of the Oilers (and Astros) and attended many games in the Astrodome. I’d heard the name Bud Adams, but didn’t know about these shenanigans.
-
@FarmerJayhawk you wild Spinmeister!
The lawsuit was originally filed by the city of St. Louis, St. Louis County and the Regional Convention and Sports Complex Authority all the way back in 2017. The lawsuit was filed because the plaintiffs felt that the Rams “violated the obligations and standards governing team relocations” by moving the franchise. Basically, the city of St. Louis and the other plaintiffs felt that the Rams broke the NFL’s relocation guidelines when they left town and that the other 31 teams were at fault because they voted to let the Rams move.
St. Louis interests sued the league and Rams owner Stan Kroenke after NFL owners approved the team’s move to Los Angeles in 2016. They sought more than $1 billion in damages.
A $790 million settlement was reached in November 2021. About $275 million went to attorney fees. That left $512 million, and interest brought the total to around $519 million.
https://www.espn.com/espn/story/_/id/35149258/deal-finalized-divide-rams-settlement-money-st-louis
The suit claimed the NFL violated its own relocation guidelines, and that the league and the Rams enriched themselves at the expense of the community they abandoned.
-
@dylans it’s right there, not exactly groundbreaking journalism, “ The settlement, reached in mediation, ends a 4½-year-old lawsuit filed in the wake of the Rams’ departure. Kroenke and the NFL had failed in bids to have the lawsuit dismissed or at least moved out of St. Louis, and courts were sympathetic to the St. Louis side’s effort to disclose financial information of team owners – rulings that hastened the push for a settlement.” https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/32706415/source-nfl-settles-st-louis-lawsuit-rams-relocation-los-angeles-790m
-
@dylans @FarmerJayhawk they really did screw over the community and state in that situation. I’m not sure Hunt would move the team anywhere besides Dallas-Fort Worth area where is from but not sure it would work with the cowboys.
-
@kjayhawks any threat to relocate is pure posturing to get more public subsidy. Just like Jacksonville was never going to London or the Titans were never leaving Nashville or the Bills were never leaving Buffalo but they all got nice (for ownership) deals from their cities
-
@FarmerJayhawk Raiders are serial relocators, as are the A’s. How’d they both have controversies with Oakland, and designs on new stadia in Las Vegas in common?
-
@FarmerJayhawk The case and settlement had nothing to do with financial disclosures. That was just the whip that got the job hastened. Like your spin job though.
-
They quote @FarmerJayhawk in this article!
just kidding there is a mention of the economic impact of a building a new stadium in a new city. Unfortunately it’s a blanket statement that doesn’t account for the stadium being built in the same economic area of impact that it currently exists in, but shifts the income to different coffers.
-
@dylans of course it did. The city would’ve gotten discovery to look into the Rams books and the NFL is absolutely paranoid about anyone seeing how much teams make. That’s a heck of a motivator to settle instead of have this all public at trial
-
@mayjay it’ll be interesting to see if the A’s move actually happens. As far as I can tell pretty much everyone but the A’s owner wants them to stay in Oakland. They’re supposed to start there in 2028 but don’t even have land yet. The whole thing is quite the cluster.
-
@mayjay I always think of the Baseketball opening “The raiders moved to LA and then back to Oakland. No in LA seemed to notice” lol
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ivzrbp_WR8w&pp=ygUYYmFzZWtldGJhbGwgdGVhbXMgbW92aW5n
-
@FarmerJayhawk Spin spin spin. It’s why the numbers are completely untrustworthy. Human bias is incredibly blinding.
This is the deception. https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/st-louis-lawsuit-exhibits-expose-that-rams-and-nfl-lied-about-planned-l-a-move
This is the reason behind the lawsuit.
https://www.si.com/nfl/2021/10/13/business-of-football-understanding-st-lous-rams-lawsuit
The city of St. Louis—along with St. Louis County, and the St. Louis Regional Convention and Sports Complex Authority (I will refer to all of them here as “St. Louis”)—sued NFL owners in 2017 with a kitchen sink full of legal claims: breach of contract, fraud, illegal enrichment and tortious interference, all resulting in substantial financial losses for the city of St. Louis. The suit has been in the City of St. Louis Circuit Court (22nd judicial circuit).
The basis of the suit, from my reading, is that the NFL owners breached an enforceable contract among themselves in the relocation of the Rams to L.A., a breach to which St. Louis is a third-party beneficiary, by not complying with their own relocation policy guidelines (the “Policy”). The through line of the plaintiff’s argument is that despite the fact that St. Louis met the contractual guidelines and protocols of the Policy, the owners disregarded the Policy when it stood in their way of their desired result: getting the Rams to LA.
-
@dylans uh none of that has anything to do with what I said
-
https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/45592658/chiefs-seek-extension-kansas-stadium-financing
Also https://ballparkexperience.athletics.com/
Looks nice for a park that’s not happening.
-
@dylans They also rented construction equipment to be in the background of a fake groundbreaking photo at the Tropicana site. Lots of theater going on in their PR about a stadium for which financing doesn’t exist but which they claim will be magically done in 3 years. This site fell for it hook, line, and sinker: https://ballparkdigest.com/2025/06/24/athletics-mark-new-las-vegas-ballpark-construction-launch-with-groundbreaking/
Maybe A’s games will be created by AI also?
-
I’ve wondered what the cause of poor attendance at A’s games is. They had a great run with the Bash Brothers and attendance peaked all time high for them. The 3 in a row dynasty of Reggie, Vida, Rollie and Catfish was barely supported by fans. Incredibly low under a million those years. Most years in their history well under 2 million and many under a million fans.
The link between a very bad stadium for viewing as fans must be something. I think it influences White Sox attendance as much as their bad teams has. Colorado is on record losses pace and averaging almost 30,000 fans this year. Nice park with nice views I think from some seats and fans attend. Oakland has a bad park, and a location that just screams ‘go do something else today’ by virtue of the myriad #'s of outdoors opportunities in the Bay area. Playing 2nd fiddle to the Giants, is interesting because SF fans have myriad options of other things to do, except they have a great, like maybe the best stadium in all of baseball so they attend games.
I feel sorry for the Oakland fan to have their minds played with like this for so many years now. I can relate because there’s been rumors for decades here that the Sox are going to move. If they left town, I’d cease being a baseball fan. Always been my #1 sport and since adulthood they’ve been the team I follow, and there’s really no team on the side for me.
-
As a guy who lives in the Bay Area, and has been to countless A’s games…
Fans absolutely detest ownership, with a passion. Dude is so cheap. Cheap isn’t even the word. So, they protest by not attending. I mean, they hate John Fisher so much they wear “Sell” T-shirts en masse. Their payroll is consistently near the bottom of the league.
They hold parking lot protests screaming for Fisher to sell.
They grow good players, then sell good players before they have to pay them. Sooo many fan favorites have been sent packing.
Plus their stadium is a giant, urine stained pit in bad area of Oakland, which is a giant, urine stained violent crime waiting to happen. Well, their old stadium. I’m sure you’re aware they now play in Sacramento, in a minor league stadium.
-
@rockchalkjayhawk A bit less to the extreme but that explains the Sox situation. Not sure how long you’ve dealt with your owner but since 1980 when he bought the team from beloved Sox owner Bill Veeck, tore down our great old stadium for the last of the 70’s/80’s mallparks, let Hawk Harrelson fire Tony Larussa, let the labor strike of 1994 happen despite the Sox having their best chance to win a world series slip by, oh and trading away key pieces in 97 of a team that was 3 games out of first at the beginning of August saying that team couldn’t win it all anyways. So I can relate for sure.
-
@wissox ‘94 White Sox were hot. So were the Braves as I recall. That strike ruined baseball for me for years. Prima Dona’s not playing the World Series!!!
-
Hmmm, is Tony LaRussa the common denominator?
-
@rockchalkjayhawk Well he didn’t ruin the Sox in the early 80’s when he managed. And then the way he came back to bite us as Reinsdorf wanted to make up for his mistake in 86 and hired him out of the nursing home in 21 when he was clearly past his time.
-
Poor Tony LaRussa. He’s had some great runs with multiple teams for sure. He’s beloved in the Bay Area for his success (mostly) with the A’s, and for his animal foundation as well. Maybe a string of bad luck being hired by ding-a-ling owners.
-
Tony LaRussa has the 2nd most all time wins of any manager with a .536 win percentage (not bad). He also won the big one twice with the Cardinals. Did fine with a solid franchise.
