So, Kansas Reinstated the Border War (for the Chiefs)
-
Star Bonds, is that Trumps latest hooker? Oh, nm.
Clearly, I’m rusty at playing peacekeeper. Thanks guys.
-
I think it’s been an interesting discussion.
-
@stoptheflop I do that every week haha
-
@approxinfinity she’s in love with his massive… bankruptcies
-
@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.
-
So i have done a ton of reading on STAR bonds after reading the two combatants above!
There’s no simple answer. They are both right, with some chaos by both thrown in as well.
The good: It brings new and exciting things to the community. I imagine lots of people in Kansas are happy that these new things exist in their communities. That’s hard to put a price tag on. You can argue it doesn’t cost the tax payer a thing if successful. It eventually brings in a new taxable base for the city/county.
The not so good: You’re basically for free publicly financing work that a gazillionaire could do privately. Depending on the STAR bond, most if not all of the taxes collected after the project opens go directly to pay back the bond. So none of that taxable base would go toward city/county coffers for other use. And if it works out, the payback for the bonds could be 30 years for the Chiefs project. So you’re losing out on tax money for a long ass time. If there’s a default, that’s a problem.
So i dunno. I like nice things. There’s lots of not so good in there, but if the bonds are eventually paid off as promised, no harm no foul?
-
“The reason we started on it so early is that we studied those cities that had problems with their teams,” Lamping said. "Unfortunately there have been cities that have lost their NFL teams and they generally all have the same thing in common. It’s a smaller market. The team doesn’t have a lease tying them to the city and they have an unresolved stadium problem.”
-
@rockchalkjayhawk said in So, Kansas Reinstated the Border War (for the Chiefs):
So i have done a ton of reading on STAR bonds after reading the two combatants above!
There’s no simple answer. They are both right, with some chaos by both thrown in as well.
The good: It brings new and exciting things to the community. I imagine lots of people in Kansas are happy that these new things exist in their communities. That’s hard to put a price tag on. You can argue it doesn’t cost the tax payer a thing if successful. It eventually brings in a new taxable base for the city/county.
The not so good: You’re basically for free publicly financing work that a gazillionaire could do privately. Depending on the STAR bond, most if not all of the taxes collected after the project opens go directly to pay back the bond. So none of that taxable base would go toward city/county coffers for other use. And if it works out, the payback for the bonds could be 30 years for the Chiefs project. So you’re losing out on tax money for a long ass time. If there’s a default, that’s a problem.
So i dunno. I like nice things. There’s lots of not so good in there, but if the bonds are eventually paid off as promised, no harm no foul?
Our local billionaire funded tons of amazing projects - stuff that would never happen otherwise like a dance studio. Unfortunately Cecil passed away and they don’t grow billionaires on trees in western Kansas. Hell, trees barely grow.
As for the two water parks in western Kansas that are labeled failures - the money is mostly local (thus the “failure”), but it’s keeping the money local (so it’s a net positive for the area). There is no similar place locally you’d have to travel 3-6 hours away to blow that money before. On occasion one of the parks will entice us into to that town and we’ll do a Walmart pickup order (small town living $500 per trip for 2-3 weeks worth of supplies) while there, minor stimulus. Success or failure depends upon the lenses you view it with - retaining local money is important too!
With the Chiefs stadium - it would likely be 60% Kansas people that would be spending money there, locals that make the numbers look bad in the study. However 100% of those dollars were going to another state before so it’s all new income not just the 40% or so from out of state. -as is the employee income and if Clark moves the Chiefs headquarters to Kansas as well his roughly half of the pie too.
-
Oddly enough we just got back Sunday from KC, we did a private tour of arrowhead not knowing how much longer it would be there. I hope the chiefs move to Kansas for sure but it has to be the right situation. I don’t want higher taxes, if that’s what it takes I’m out. You don’t want me to get going on the tax situation in this country. The Hunt family is worth Billions of dollars they could probably pay for a large chunk of it and fundraise the rest if they really wanted a new stadium. The cheaper suites in that place are north of a 100k a year and have to be reserved for a 5 year span. Most of them were nicer then houses. It was a pretty cool experience. The top of that place is super sketchy about like climbing a ladder and you feel like you’re gonna fall down while sitting.
-
I have no skin in the game, but do know the feeling of losing an NFL team due to a city refusing to bend the knee to a billionaire owner that didn’t want to pay for his own stadium. I don’t give a shit that Bud Adams was a Jayhawk, fuck him and I hope he’s rotting in he’ll for what he pulled with the Oilers here in Houston.
With the recent player ratings of team facilities and such that recently came out, we all found out how much of a cheapskate Clark Hunt really is. I’d say if he wants a new stadium, either pay up to renovate Arrowhead or buy land out by Legends and build a new stadium himself with his own money. Taxpayers in the KC metro area, regardless of which county and side of the border they are on, should not give Clark Hunt one cent of public funding for a stadium or renovations.
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. Since owners don’t do that, that should be a big red flag to people that these kinds of deals aren’t money makers.
-
@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
