Metrics would say that half would be mad both ways. When I read the boards, it seems the same. I think we will wind up in Kansas IF the Secretary of Commerce removes his sales tax revenue limitation. The state is making this far more difficult than it should be. We've been working with our financial consultants this week and what's been offered won't allow us to sell bonds to build the project. It will be remarkable if Kansas says "no" based on a random cap on the sales tax that has no relation to the project economics. No other STAR application in the history of the state has the restrictions we do. No other STAR application in the history of the state has the potential economic impact we do. Currently, the Secretary of Commerce is saying, "no." In a down economy who is supportive of saying "no" to this proposal. rh
Re: Close on Both Has KCMO approached with any attempt to sweeten the Bannister/Three Trails deal? I somewhat doubt it considering that the city is probably not in the position to do so, but I thought I'd ask. Of course, if that's not something you want to talk about, just ignore
Re: Close on Both Well I think the thread title kind of answers your question. If they're close on both KCK and KCMO, then I would surmise that KCMO has sweetened the pot in some way.
Re: Close on Both Sounds good, lets let both sides build a stadium and have to teams! Euro style, nice little KC Derby!
Re: Close on Both attendance for every other game would be mediocre, i'm sure, but i really can't imagine an american derby that would instantly be as intense.
Re: Close on Both if the funk manages to steal this back, it would be the single greatest thing he's done as mayor.
Re: Close on Both And if KCMO steals this back, how soon would actual CONSTRUCTION start? We are into opening in mid-2011 if KCK seals the deal within the next couple of weeks....I can't imagine how much later it would be for KCMO if the financial structure is similar to the first deal. 2012? 2013 maybe? *sigh* This is getting really old..............a signed stadium deal may make the difference on whether I renew my season tickets. I would like to keep my place in line for picking seats at the new palace, but if I can watch every game on TV, I would probably limit my CAB visits if we are still looking at 2 or 3 years down the line. I hope something happens before the first deposit is due. I sure as hell am not paying anything this early.
Re: Close on Both AWESOME! The KCK team could keep the Blue, and the KCMO team could pick some other random color - like black and gold! JUst kidding... I'd settle for one - started this year!
Re: Close on Both This makes me very happy. Even if nothing comes of it, the fact that OnGoal and KCMO have continued to work at a deal goes a long way to restoring the faith and good will I lost a while back. May the best deal win.
Re: Close on Both What can we do to make him change his mind and say "yes"? More emails, sustained campaign, protests at his office? Say the word... the natives are restless and making our voices heard is our thing.
Re: Close on Both Thanks for the update Robb ......... although somehow its done nothing but make me worry about this all falling through again. I don't trust MO to be competent.
Re: Close on Both I kinda thought so, but it's good to get confirmation. I figured that, after the exclusivity period expired, KCMO would at least be talking to OnGoal about it... but I'm happy to hear that they've actually made progress. Well, if Bannister/Three Trails becomes viable again - I'd still love to see that happen. I even try to figure out how to get that to happen even after the Legends thing gets done... (but alas, I have not figured this out just yet)
Re: Close on Both Yup. Just get some dirt moving before 2009 ends, please. That would be the best Christmas present OnGoal could give us at this point.
Re: Close on Both I thought people were saying as recent as last week that my hopes of a Missouri Resurrection were flat out DEAD? Count me in the half that will be mad with the club playing out west near the nascar thingie.
Re: Close on Both All of those words tell me the decision making process is purely about money on all sides and OnGoal wants more. More, more, more. Kansas is trying not to give a hundred million to OnGoal. OnGoal is trying to receive $100M. No judgement, me too. Financial consultants are paid-for analysts, sometimes not far removed from lobbiests. Caps are never random. Prior abuse and/or size may well be the factor as to why current restrictions exist. Many of and in the public would consider any gift of this nature as abusive to public coffers. Time and inflation dwarfs all numbers eventually. Potential is a word that doesn't make many unqualified appearances in legal documents for good reason. A down economy is precisely why a state wouldn't want to be left holding a multi-million dollar bag. Cons that graft Seniors, the greedy, and downtrodden who ignore this principle have run successfully for centuries. Not saying OnGoal is a con job, just that skepticism is healthy. OnGoal isn't trying to better either state, they are trying to make money. The stadium is important to the team. No argument. If it is really important than build it with increased OnGoal financing. If the project is truly a money maker for people other than OnGoal, than issuing bonds isn't an issue. People will flock to the offering because it's unquestionably profitable. Anyone can issue bonds. As there is apparently some question as to the two interpretations of "potential", it's only natural for the politicos to have reservations. I thought that too, but I mostly pass over these threads. I want a stadium. Like many I don't want to pay for one as that's OnGoal's job, IMO. I'd rather it happened in MO. The above spin is, I don't know, mildly irritating. The phrase the state is making it harder than they should is a joke. Any state should make it close to impossible at this level of funding. Ask yourself, what if it was your $100M? More reasonably, what if your career and family depended on the succesful return of it to you with interest and other intangible benefits? Moreover that phrase is indicative of an overall slide of attitude towards the feeling that if you have money, all things should be given to you, just because. It's this same view that directly leads to lesser on-field performance and mistakes that affect fans off the field on gamedays. They are connected. Dropped details. That aside, if OnGoal is successful in finding a way to steal or rent public money for free then, good for them. I have no doubt their gain will be reflected in all manor of things like on-field performance, free parking, and cheaper ticket prices, right? I appreciate Robb's unchecked statements and willinness to make them. Still, at some point smart men and women begin to at least empathize with a fans' view before the view of their own wallet. Failure to do so has most often led to crappy teams, crappy products, and crappy results in every industry.
Re: Close on Both Fair points.....I'm sure you're correct that while we all share the common desire to get the stadium built, we may come at it from different angles. I'll try to lay off the personality and keep it to the facts. Sorry if it came off wrong....rh
Re: Close on Both I'm fairly certain that there would be 90% less bitching if the Wizards were a good team that were perennial contenders for the MLS Cup. Just sayin'.
Re: Close on Both Speaking only for myself, I wasn't attempting to "bitch", just to put another light on the spin offered. I can’t say my post would have been much different if KC was prepping for a road Game 1 next week. If I were an Owner, I'd be on a similar track. They are trying to shift risk and make free cash or at least free "float". I'm not blaming anyone; it's what should be a priority from their view. A priority, not the sole and only priority. I’m saying it's highly possible that details are being dropped, as the big money involved in the stadium issue is the focus. There's some math here. A single STH is worth something like $250 or so, more with game day purchases. That's an annuity of $250/year forever if things are done correctly. At a conservative 6% cost of capital that's a today value of roughly $3000, just from that one person. That's the value of one fan coming most game days and spending lightly and occasionally on not ticket items. Of course free rent on $100M for a year or years is more important. At even half the rate or 3%, the number is $3M annually...or the value of 1000 annual additional caldronites, not just fans, but the very best fans. Those fans that are there rain or cold, no matter the record, and that eat, drink, and buy blue things. No matter how the numbers truly slice - as obviously I'm guessing some - the stadium is the most important thing. However the fans are important too. Beyond a stadium, they are the revenue. They are the catalyst to larger TV deals and ancillary revenue. Whatever the stadium circumstances, fan details can't continue to be dropped, as it seems they have been. I've posted this before, but a major aspect of all retail is that a good experience is shared once or twice if at all and a bad one is shouted from the hilltops for all to hear. At some point people learn that KCW games are not what they should be doing on Saturday nights. At some point the team learns a culture. At some point the staff has an expectation of what maybe doesn't have to be done today. At some point all of this means 12K or less in an 18K building. At some point maybe it's a superstar choosing Chicago or somewhere else over KC. I don't believe KC can afford to be even the least bit cavalier or presumptive about any "small" detail and still have legitimate expectations about being a great franchise. So, all that frustrates me. It's all connected. At every point it's about lifting Cups. Nothing else should be acceptable. Trying isn't enough, everyone tries. We don't see everything, certainly I don't. Even worse, what we generally read here is mostly everything that goes wrong. Even taking that into account, it's easy to put together how fan service details have seemingly not been priority A. I appreciate Robb and his posts and wouldn't want them to stop. He didn't come off "wrong" as he mentioned. I felt there was some spin in there, so I added another viewpoint. I don't think we are diametrically opposed by any stretch.
Re: Close on Both Alright, I have been in Mexico for a week and apparently completely out of the loop. I read through the thread but seem to be missing something. What happened to the WyCo deal?