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

Yeah I was going to point that out but intelligent response doesn't reign in this thread - just pontification. The old Barca-UNICEF deal had Barca paying UNICEF to wear their name on their shirts, that died when Barca found themselves a half billion or so in the hole and opted for a Qatar based 'charity' that paid them hundreds of millions ... Barca have little relevance in this discussion anymore.

Aston Villa also gave away their jersey sponsorship to Acorn Children's Hospice for a year a few seasons back -- at a cost of $3-$4m in lost revenue but really Sporting are talking $7.5 over 6 years. $1.25 a year? Its a lot but its not a devastating amount depending on how profitable the stadium is in terms of events.

People keep banging on about tax write offs as well. They are only potential -- they can only happen if the organization is profitable which remains to be seen at a time when we are not 100% sure who actually owns the stadium. There was no hint of Sporting Kansas City on the launch graphics, Robb himself was wearing Sporting Club gear with Sporting Club logos. If it indeed turns out that Sporting Club is an entity that is indeed real, owns the stadium and makes money off of concerts then we have yet to see the financial arrangement between the two entities and cannot draw any real conclusions about the profitability of Sporting Club, Sporting Kansas City or OnGoal (the ownership group) other than to say we really know very little about the money side of the organization.

 

I'm going to give the owners the benefit of the doubt. Smart people will structure the organization(s) to get the tax advantage.

 

A couple thoughts here:

1) Re: No sponsor ITTET, I'm doubtful. First, it strikes me as the old historical tautology fallacy (A thing was inevitable, and my main evidence for this is that it happened).

Second, TTET are actually not as T as they were a couple years ago, especially for this sort of thing. The stock market has nearly doubled since the crash, and unemployment, a notorious lagging indicator compared to the business climate, has even started to creep down a bit.

Third, in addition to SKC having dropped hints that this deal was probable months ago, Livestrong has admitted that the proposal sat on their desk for months before that more or less collecting dust, and that SKC had to convince the foundation that they were serious. I don't think Livestrong had any motivation to make that up.

Fourth, "they didn't pay what we would have accepted" and "we only got negligible offers" actually are different statements. One is a two-way street, one isn't. Strangely, the example used (Cowboys Stadium) is what I'd have used as the counter-example--there, you can be virtually certain the money on offer would be nothing to sneeze at, and yet Jones has so far declined.

If SKC had been offered $10M from an aggressive company, I assume that, even if Livestrong had always been Plan A, SKC would have chucked Plan A and taken the dough. I assume that just because they'd be crazy not to do so. But I don't think it follows from there that a $2M deal couldn't have been out there if SKC had been 'working the issue', or failing that a $1M deal (which still isn't negligible revenue to an MLS team). I think the assumption that it isn't tends to run against the performance we've seen from MLS in recent years.

Andy Mead's interpretation--that SKC's owners (and they could be right or wrong in their judgement) have calculated that the long-term consequences of increased relevance and/or more positive vibe in the market will eventually be worth more than the cash you're giving up--just makes more sense.

2) Now, does this mean "MLS is profitable"? That strikes me as a leap. But I will say that it means that the owners of one team see little pressing need for short-term cash, and that's usually a good sign for that team, at least.

 

It's always nice when someone who knows a bit about business responds.

It is a very good sign for the team, and what truly is a wonderfully committed, long term, local ownership group.

I keep saying it .... fantastic people. What they have done since they took over is fantastic. Always amused how folks clamor for these types of owners, yet some can't even see top notch owners when they hit them in the face.

The jokes about KC over the years were non stop, even after the stadium was approved ignorant clowns were calling for them to move.

The way they are making KC relevant, making them visible is truly impressive.


RSL mach II. I wish we had a few more like them. We are getting there.

 

Again, I ask...Has this actually been stated anywhere? I haven't seen it stated that money paid for use of the stadium will directly go to charity. It may be true, but I just haven't seen it anywhere. It is a huge assumption to make these statements unless it has been stated by the owners.

There is a big difference between a company saying they are going to "raise" money for charity vs. them giving their actual revenue to charity.

Massive difference.

 

Check it out:
http://www.sportingkc.com/news/2011/03/sporting-club-partners-livestrong

 

Cool, that's great. I never said that it wasn't true. I was inquiring. It just sounded like a lot people were making assumptions.

I wonder if this includes concert ticket sales? I am guessing it does.

 

We have 9000 season ticket holders for the first time in our history. If we have 9000 next season I'll be pleasantly surprised. I think we'll be in the very low teens if not sub 12,000 by the end of the season if the team sucks in terms of actual butts in seats. Of course they will announce 9000 sold tickets + single game tickets sold rather than actual attendance but I think the players will really need to step up to repeat this.

 

Count me as someone who thinks its great they won't allow smoking anywhere in the facility or even outside. A nice message to convey (sorry smokers). It always makes me wonder when I've ever been to a hospital and they have staff outside lighting up.

Hopefully this place will be a raging success or average at least a solid 15K for the season with that supporters' pub doing fantastic business.

 

Even if attendance flattens out, they are pretty well set up for the long term so they can build up a base over time if they don't have a strong one already. They control the revenue streams, they can make up any deficits from concerts and other events, like they do in Frisco, and they have a much better stadium than Frisco has. And it's only 18K seats. It's really kind of a modest stadium under all that cool elegance.

Another reason why I think it'll be a hit is because it's just a place I would want to be, for whatever event is playing there, because it is so nice. It has the look and I'm sure will have the feel of being a place where I would feel really content and happy. I think they got the "feng shui" workin' for them.

 

Perhaps - it's possible, but I think that the experience will capture more than that... along with, you know, actually advertising and pursuing customers - which may seem normal to some of you but is not something we've consistently had in KC throughout the years.

Of course, if the Chiefs are doing well and SKCW is doing awful, that might hamper things... but otherwise I don't think KC has gotten too used to playoff bound teams or winning seasons.

Though all of that is BS, really, since I don't think anyone (here, at least) has a really good grasp on how the city will respond to a proper venue. A lot has changed since the last time we could sit more than 10k consistently. Could be great, could be disappointing - though I will say I will probably lurk in the attendance prediction thread a lot more this year, at June and beyond.

 

AND, from what our KC fans tell us, it is in a high traffic zone that people know, with other activities around it, so it is maybe as close to "downtown" as you can get in that kind of town.

 

As close you could get to "downtown" in Kansas City would be...if it were downtown.

 

what's the mailing address for the new venue?

is "Kansas City" the correct location, as long was we remember the "KS" suffix to that name, and not the "MO" that most outsiders would assume?

is Kansas City, KS (and Livestrong Sporting Park location) most comparable to a Frisco, Bridgeview, Sandy or Carson type location?

 

Are sending donations ?.. Good for you.

 

not yet.

Just trying to figure out how "not-downtown" the venue is (or how "distant" it is from the population center for the market).

 

Don't have the exact address, but it's right across Village West Parkway from Nebraska Furniture Mart. And across another street from the Kansas Speedway.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sou...434,-94.819586&spn=0.010687,0.019205&t=h&z=16

Yes it's in KCK.

KCK is literally right across the state line from KCMO, but the stadium site is on the west side of the city. It's on the west side of the 435 loop that goes around KC.

 

gotcha. thanks.

so it's about 23 miles west of where the Chiefs and Royals play (in stadiums on the east side of that 435 loop).

and it is correct to say that all of those venues are out on the highway loop, and none of them are "downtown."

 

If you want the actual mailing address, it's 1600 Village West Pkwy, Kansas City, KS 66111.

Technically it's nowhere near "downtown" Kansas City, MO or KS, but for a city like Kansas City it's not a huge deal. First, it never would've happened downtown - not after the Sprint Center and related development was put in, especially. It also would've taken longer, cost more, been 'less' and generally harder to get to (esp. for a city who seems to hate the concept of public transit)

That said, the place it's located makes the place that the Royal's and Chief's stadiums are at (Truman Sports Complex) look like rural KS/MO. Since everyone drives in KC, and drives a lot (though not so much in traffic as opposed to relatively long distances), being as 'far' as it is from downtown isn't a problem... esp. since it's a fast enough drive from many of the city's population centers.