Kansas City donates naming rights to Lance Armstrong's Livestrong Foundation

You're flattering yourself.

 

Yeah, the guy who thinks that helping to save lives is not as important as turning a profit (and pretends that they are mutually exclusive) is calling someone ELSE a "hater." I guess that's why you had to ask why nobody else wanted to post that.

 

Word from KC FO this morning is that Bravo was not involved in the brawl...

 

Re: Kansas City sells naming rights to Lance Armstrong's Livestrong Foundation

Sorry. 7 or 8 times a year that it gets national TV attention.

All the concerts are good for local pub, but it doesn't cause someone watching on TV in Florida to rush out and look at Sprint products.

 

You do realize that they could have done this without "donating" the stadium naming rights. A team can still donate millions to cancer research and sell their stadium naming rights to another company.

You act as if though this was their only option to help out cancer research.

 

I would have to assume that if a company had come along and offered millions to name the stadium they would not have turned them away.

I do think this is a good option with the absence of the first.

 

But they wouldn't have gotten the exposure that this has given them.

And that's just it, you're making assumptions

Heineman said on the radio today that they'd basically been wanting Livestrong as the sponsor basically since they broke ground and while in negotiations over jersey sponsors the stadium sponsorship would be inquired about, but the team directed them to the jersey instead.

 

Has it been stated that is how the relationship will work?

All I saw is that they would "raise" money for them.

 

I don't think it is a bad decision. I agree.

Of course I am....that is why I said "I assume".

You are also assuming he is telling the truth. These guys say whatever they want you to hear. It by no means, means it is true.

 

I don't know if I disagree or agree with your personal conclusion, but I would note that it is one very interesting piece of evidence in having us understand the case.

again, note that the Livestrong (and Lance Armstrong) tie-in is apparently heavily geared toward getting this new stadium to be a more-successful concert venue. (will be interesting to see how many soccer and non-soccer events are held at the stadium in the years ahead.)

MLS continues to operate as a portion of a broader business enterprise of venue management, marketing and entertainment options.

 

It by no means, means he's lying either...

 

You could use the same line of thinking to make the case that nobody should give to charities (well, not cash anyway... perhaps old clothes and whatnot). Sure, if this decision was the deciding factor as to why SKC or MLS has to fold in the future then it was definitely a bad decision... but if SKC is making money, or even if they're losing money and the owners are OK with continually dumping money into the club/stadium/etc., isn't it their prerogative to do so?

Businesses only looking after their bottom line is what makes a lot of people unhappy with businesses in general. Sure, it's one thing when a public company makes a decision which costs its shareholders in dividends or stock price - not that I even agree that this decision will end up ultimately costing SKC, but we could only hope that private companies (and the shareholders of public ones) would be so interested in actually bettering their community and not just lining their pockets.

Heck, it's one of the reasons I really love being a KCian - the businesses, their owners and other big business people here do tend to be very generous in their giving. I'm proud to say that we built our performing arts center without any public assistance, along with many other centers, programs and charities that have names of prominent KCians attached to them.

From a different perspective, one could say that it's the least that the team could do considering that the stadium was built with tax incentives in the first place. The reason that those tax incentives were given were because the city/county/state all felt that having a stadium would be a net positive impact on the community. The fact that they took the opportunity to give back to the community, small and large, pretty much assures that it will be. From a cynical, self-interest point-of-view you could say that this builds political capital and makes it easier for the club to get concessions from the city/county/state in the future.

When it comes down to it, it's a risky but unbelievable good business move. No, not necessarily in terms of their bottom line, but if you hold to the belief that the bottom line isn't the only thing that matters, there's no question that they hit a home run with this one. I don't expect that every stadium and sports club in the country is going to follow suit - which is a perfectly acceptable thing to do (or, really, not do, in this case). It takes a little moxy to do something like this, and I'm sure that many people will keep a close eye on whether this does cause the club troubles financially, but we can only hope that this isn't the last time a deal like this is struck.

 

Agreed.

 

Barca loses money hand over fist. What the hell are you talking about.

 

Just asking - how does Livestrong affect concerts?

 

More directly (according to the article ion the KC paper today) Armstrong is friends with a number of big-name performers. They're hoping that friendship will help direct those performers to LSP instead of some other venue.

 

So, Sheryl Crow won't play there any time soon, then...?