Re: 12/6/07: 60-90 Hours Please read this post again. And learn that fact before posting stuff you don't know about.
Re: 12/6/07: 60-90 Hours Factually correct....but for this kind of thinking to be true then one has to assume that nothing but the proposed development would ever be built on that plot of land. If the city thinks that someone else would come along later and develop that land without TIF funds then they are, in fact, surrendering future tax revenue.
Re: 12/6/07: 60-90 Hours Well, I must agree that Kansas City hasn't, overall, showed itself to be capable of supporting a Major League Soccer team to the standard we should expect. Having said that, it is possible, with a new stadium and committed ownership who care more about the sport than their purses, Kansas City can be a fine market for soccer. The squads have done fairly well since the inception of the league and, it seems a good organization. I used to want Kansas City to prove they could attract fans or get out. Now, I'm not focused on that. The owners that came in seem to care about the club and the game. But, I really hope that Red Bull's seeming commitment to doing the game 'right' and the way it is intended (as evidenced by their approach to this stadium), will make for some rich man posturing in which future owners want to try and show them up by displaying their own commitment to the game and not the money.
Re: 12/6/07: 60-90 Hours I actually feel that this isn't what is the issue here. This area will probably not be redeveloped without some sort of TIF assistance. Perhaps the next people who come by will not want as much, but there is far too much space in Kansas City on which to build which does not carry the stigma that is associated with this area currently... in which case developers will probably consider redeveloping it too risky. Not to mention the costs to simply remove the old structures, and I seriously doubt that any attempted use of the existing structures will meet with any success - not because the building can't necessarily handle it (which may be the case, I don't know), but because those building have represented the epitimy of "look both ways before crossing the street, don't talk to strangers and avoid places which look like that (pointing at the Benjamin Plaza/Bannister Mall area)". Instead, there might be some fear that existing business will be diverted to this area, sucking that tax revenue away from the city. While a valid point, this plan targets both Johnson County folk (Kansas side), Raytown/Grandview/Lees Summit folk and South Kansas Citians. Since there are no major retail in Southern Kansas City outside of a Walmart and Lowes to the extreme South West, these people wouldn't be spending their money in Kansas City anyways. I suppose the other question mark would be if business relocated their offices to this development, but that seems unlikely as well (since the business wouldn't profit from moving into a TIF area and the cost to move would minimize any possible interest). We'll see how it goes - I'm interested to see how the economic impact study comes back after the city and developer meet. This whole scenario makes me think more of a negotiation than anything else - the city/Mayor isn't pushing back because they don't want it (everyone involved has said they're extremely interested in getting this place redeveloped) but because they want to put up the least amount of support that they can get away with - probably so that they can come back at election time and say "we were tough on that new TIF project (since the city has a bad image when it comes to giving out TIF too easily) but we still managed to clean up that part of town..."
Re: 12/6/07: 60-90 Hours get some common sense, son. tha STL ain't gonna get the Kansas City Wizards.
Re: 12/6/07: 60-90 Hours Since you have a time machine, could you let me know who this year's Super Bowl winner is? And 2009 and 2010 if it's not too much trouble. I honestly don't know how you can build an argument around this statement.
Re: 12/6/07: 60-90 Hours don't get me wrong, I still consider KC a solid market, and I think they could do well with a 18K or so SSS, but at this point, that seems even more unlikely. The mayor is pretty much throwing the team under the bus with this. Should KC be unable to secure a permanent, SSS home, I see no reason that MLS shouldn't push On-Goal to sell the team to Philly or St. Louis. and actually, let's be honest. The team has preformed pretty well, still, the fans have not come out. KC attendence makes NYRB look like the jewel of the league. The attendence last year was downright pitiful, and is simply not acceptable for a team performing so well. Should we really say "well, at 13K they'll make a profit, so no problem!!!"? Toronto and Seattle have shown one thing, there are multiple markets that could produce much better crowds with a MLS side. Portland, Montrael (IIRC their USL team almost matches KC's attendence), Philly, St. Louis and NYC#2 all seem much better cities for MLS. I want the league to have passion, good crowds, good supporters groups, etc. I don't see this happening, even with a SSS, in KC. It just doesn't seem like KC is the place for MLS when we have to worry about dillution of talent/rapid expansion. NYC, St. Louis, Philly, Montreal and Portland are better soccer markets, all of which seem willing and able to build a SSS. Montreal could just expand theirs, Portland can transform PGE park.
Re: 12/6/07: 60-90 Hours A reminder for those that haven't been following stadiums since the beginning: Crew Stadium failed at least twice before it was finally passed and built. It's been long enough that I can't even remember whether it was two or three failures. This hurts to see, as it looked like such a sure thing. And negotiations are still going on. Then again, I can understand the mayor's opinion. It seems as if the owners put one proposal in front of the TIF committee, then came to the City Council with a different, much more costly one.
Re: 12/6/07: 60-90 Hours I'm not KC's biggest fan, but (a) I don't have to be-- OnGoal has to be, and (b) have you folks completely forgotten how hard it is to build stadiums? Those of you who are ready to raise the white flag at this stage probably shouldn't go into business. This is bad news. So what?
Re: 12/6/07: 60-90 Hours Hey, great news guys - OnGoal has been reading all of your posts and decided to let you know what they think. Thing is, they forgot their password so they emailed me their response so I could put it up... Well, here it goes: OnGoal, LLC:We don't care what you think Ouch, that hurts... well, at least you can skip OnGoal and go straight to MLS, right? Oh, wait, they just sent me a message to pass on to you guys as well... Major League Soccer: Well, OnGoal does kinda own the team, so there's not too much we can do, even if we wanted to... P.S. Kansas City is the shit! Wow.... well... anything to add Mr. Garber? Don Garber: No, that's pretty much it Really? All of it is accurate? Don Garber: Yes, everything said above is 100% accurate, especially the part about Kansas City. Well, there you have it folks! Guess that ends that discussion, now back to your scheduled programming.
Re: 12/6/07: 60-90 Hours You seem to forget that our attendance steadily improved up until Lamar Hunt announced the sale and cut marketing budgets to next to nothing. This last season we didnt know where we were going to play until less than two months before the kickoff and got stuck with weekday and noon Saturday games. In regards to our Mayor, he is recently elected and one of his top platforms in the race for mayor was buckling down on the use of TIFs because of there abuse in our city. If he were to let this pass without challenging it, he would appear to be a liar. I think the main reason he is challenging it is because he promised to do so during his campaign. I think this will pass, he just wants to challenge it for appearance purposes more than anything. I think he also wants the proposal to be cleaned up a little before the final vote. While I am frustrated, I can understand his viewpoint a little. Also, why do fans on this board think that the MLS moves teams or decides where they are based? The owners decide. We have LOCAL owners who just built a multi-million dollar training facility and are committed to keeping this team here. The Wizards arent going anywhere and if something were to happen to this stadium plan, I am sure they have a contigency plan. Any smart business owner always does. They didnt buy this team just to give up in under 2 years.
This a no brainer! You have a developer that is taking all the risk. In today's market it might be years before someone else has the combination of money and balls to even touch that area. Most people just don't realize the risk involved to take on a project this size in today's real estate climate. These MLS owners who undertake these projects are risking alot more than an expansion fee to get into MLS! We need to support them , The KC mayor is just an idiot or a closet basher. Cities nickle & dime us on taxes, KC will benefit in other ways and collect related taxes from all the activity that will come into that area. REMEMBER LOCATION,LOCATION,LOCATION.
Re: TIF approval for KC Wizards moves forward Perfect size (15k seats) and ideal stadium with covered seating.
Re: 12/6/07: 60-90 Hours Well better soccer markets all which seem to be willing to build SSS... I wonder where you get those facts.. Portland can transform PGE park? Well could be but don't you think you should get the city of Portland behind that? There is a firestorm of protest their about using public money to fix up PGE, after fixing it up for baseball... NYC.. now where are they going to build a SSS without any public resistence? That doesn't make sense... Philly.. they haven't got backing for it yet, they keep wanting to build it in different areas.... Montreal doesn't have an owner who wants to be in the MLS right now, and they just built their stadium.. you don't get money to add to it right away... St Louis doesn't have all it's ducks in a row either.... So to make simple statements like move team A to city B,C,D, or E.. because I *know* they can build a stadium no sweat.. forgets everywhere has issues and resistance........ when public money is concerned...... It's like having a baby, there is alot of pain, sweat, and swearing before it gets done....
Re: 12/6/07: 60-90 Hours dime a dozen. he is for this project. he's said it numerous times, one time even using the word "excited." can you imagine the onslaught on this mayor if he allows this to go through every level uncontested? not only would he be showing his constituents that he basically told them lies during his campaign about TIF reform, but it would open the floodgates for newer projects that might not be so beneficial. actually, i'm almost proud to say how well the politics has worked on this. the process is working exactly like it's supposed to. you can't see it, though, because you have a blanket that says "move kc" over your eyes. maybe it'll start restricting your air flow next. see my response goldenstick. actually, let me go ahead and repeat it. the mayor wants this project and is excited about the possibilities of this development. things just need to be tweaked. what part of being the last team in the playoffs this year and missing the playoffs the two years before that is confusing you into thinking the team has "performed well?" don't tell me, you and blackjack are bosom buddies and like to get under the same blanket.
Re: 12/6/07: 60-90 Hours I don't think they have unlimited discretion or time. In a very literal sense, MLS -- and by extension the other teams -- are their partner and share in the financial consequences of these decisions. The Wizards pay a percentage of their gate to MLS, after all, and if they continue to under perform, it isn't simply their problem, it is a league problem. If Goff's numbers are correct, the Wizards payroll last year was about $2.6 million. Even if they (generously) sold 12,000 tickets a game at $20 a ticket, they returned just under $1.1 million to MLS. With comps, they may not have even done that, and they face next year at a small stadium where they won't get as much of a bounce from their Beckham game. I think we need to be clear that a lot is at stake here for Kansas City. They have already misfired in Johnson County, and if this fails I think it would be very serious. They have what appears to be a good site and a good plan. They need to get this done.
Re: 12/6/07: 60-90 Hours What is it about new mayors that make them want to "make a mark" by denying projects that are about to go through. First in DC and now in KC..ugh.
Re: 12/6/07: 60-90 Hours You'd have a point if the 30% of the gate was the only source of revenue for league HQ. But right now league HQ is probably profitable, and are not in the kind of position to have to view this as an emergency. Look, whatever the league loses on KC, the owners will lose a lot more, and have paid a lot more for that privilege. They also know more about the ground situation than league HQ does. The league should not, will not, and probably can not under the terms of operatorship, force a move. My point is not necessarily to that. At some point any ownership group is going to give up. The point is you don't do that at the first sign of opposition.
Funkhouser’s stand disappoints backers of Three Trails project A little bit more on this. Posted last night on kc star website.
Re: 12/6/07: 60-90 Hours Well, as you know, in a single entity, the league hasn't sold them a team, but essentially sold them the rights to operate a team owned by the league. Since MLS technically owns the team, I believe MLS can re-purchase those operating rights (at a cost no doubt derived by some some formula), which isn't a power most leagues have. It is a critical difference between MLS and the NFL, or any other league that has conventional franchises. Years ago Al Davis won the right to move his team where he wanted despite the objections of the NFL because he owned the Raiders lock, stock and barrel. In MLS, the league itself must technically move the team, because they own it. (In other words, despite the vilification of AEG, MLS itself could have stopped the relocation of San Jose). The best description of all of this was in the court case Fraser v. MLS, which held MLS exempt from Anti-trust laws because if its single entity structure: Link: http://www.sportslawnews.com/archive/Court Rulings/MLSDecision.htm I agree with you that stadium building isn't for the faint of heart, and people shouldn't get to worked up over every twist and turn. But MLS can't leave this team in a small minor league baseball park indefinitely either, and I think they do have the ability to do something about it.
Re: 12/6/07: 60-90 Hours Slightly annoying, minor correction: MLS isn't "exempt" from anti-trust laws-- because it's a single entity, there are no other entities that it can collude with. If MLS and USL got together to impose a salary cap, you can bet that they'd be hauled back to court. What's this mean for your point? Well it actually underscores exactly what you were saying: teams in MLS are like corporate divisions of any large corporate and HQ can decide to do what it wants with them. But practically speaking, is MLS HQ, at this stage in its development, really going to do anything to KC while it has solid ownership in KC? Everyone here is drunk with possibilities because of the success of Toronto and the season ticket deposits in Seattle, but there is value in an established club where you know precisely what challenges lay ahead. There is great value in having someone who's already paid their $30m compared to someone who might. And are MLS owners going to set a precedent that they'll overrule an owner's wishes? What would that do to interest in new ownership?
A great quote from the case: "Nonetheless, unlike competition in most markets, where the value of an enterprise would usually be enhanced if its competitors grew weaker, the value of the rights to operate an MLS team would be diminished, not enhanced, by the weaknesses of other teams, their operators and the league as a whole. Management fees and operational rights notwithstanding, every operator-investor has a strong incentive to make the league-and the other operator-investors-as robust as possible. Each operator-investor's personal stake is not independent of the success of MLS as a whole enterprise." So, yeah, we are all affected by any weakness in KC. But that said, as long as we've got ownership in KC that's trying to build a stadium and make the market work, I don't think it's hurting the league or the value of operating rights. Relocating or contracting teams-- that may hurt the value of operating rights.