- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The Chiefs' new kansas stadium deal is historically lopsided
Posted on 12/24/25 at 9:19 am to Mingo Was His NameO
Posted on 12/24/25 at 9:19 am to Mingo Was His NameO
quote:
Your subjective opinion is rather irrelevant
Except for the fact that it is correct.
1
Posted on 12/24/25 at 9:21 am to Kansas City King
If you've ever been to Jerry World during a Cowboys game you will understand.
There's millions made outside the stadium every home game.
Plus they are building a dome so they can have Monster Trucks, Taylor Swift, Blah Blah Blah.
It's the entertainment mecca serving $15.00 beers/ $25.00 nachos to sellout crowds at every event.
There's millions made outside the stadium every home game.
Plus they are building a dome so they can have Monster Trucks, Taylor Swift, Blah Blah Blah.
It's the entertainment mecca serving $15.00 beers/ $25.00 nachos to sellout crowds at every event.
Posted on 12/24/25 at 9:27 am to wareaglepete
quote:
McDonald’s is a real estate company more than anything else. It happens more than people know.
Real estate then beverage really. The burgers are there for show.
Posted on 12/24/25 at 9:30 am to 0
quote:if you don’t think more people will be staying/spending money in Kansas as opposed to Missouri now I don’t know what to tell you.
The stadium is moving like 10 miles.
Posted on 12/24/25 at 9:33 am to grizzlylongcut
quote:
Except for the fact that it is correct.
Walk me through it
Irving was already charging the max statutory sales tax rate of 8.25%. What they did was they diverted a portion of the collected revenue to service the debt taken on to build the stadium. It was against the constitution of Texas to “raise” the sales tax rate.
By the way, AT&T stadium is already paid off by the city of Arlington so things like the World Cup next year will raise a shite ton of revenue for the city by nonresidents
Posted on 12/24/25 at 9:34 am to Mingo Was His NameO
quote:
Walk me through it
When’s the last time you drove around Arlington?
Posted on 12/24/25 at 9:35 am to grizzlylongcut
quote:
When’s the last time you drove around Arlington?
Do you want to make a point or just more useless drivel?
Posted on 12/24/25 at 9:44 am to Mingo Was His NameO
quote:
Do you want to make a point or just more useless drivel?
The point is the City of Arlington is still not that great a place to be. Even with the billions of dollars of boondoggles that the owners and government foisted upon the citizenry.
Which you knew exactly what the frick both me and the other poster meant, you’re just being your usual cocksucking self.
Posted on 12/24/25 at 9:47 am to grizzlylongcut
quote:
The point is the City of Arlington is still not that great a place to be.
That’s totally irrelevant
quote:
Even with the billions of dollars of boondoggles that the owners and government foisted upon the citizenry.
By foisted, you mean the billions of dollars the the citizens of the city voted to approve?
Retard
quote:
Which you knew exactly what the frick both me and the other poster meant, you’re just being your usual cocksucking self.
I have no clue what you mean. Because you’re making no point, other than you wouldn’t want to live there based on your own subjective criteria. And using factual inaccuracies as your backup
Posted on 12/24/25 at 10:14 am to Chucktown_Badger
quote:
How can this be true when they won't own the stadium?
Well the state is giving them $1.8 billion in public funding.
The Chiefs will have to pay 7 million in rent which goes into an account they the Chiefs control to pay for stadium upgrades and other costs. So they are paying rent to themselves.
The Chiefs will retain 100% of revenue from stadium operations (tickets, concessions, parking, suite sales), naming rights and sponsorships, personal seat license sales, mixed-use development operations, and team headquarters and practice facility operations.
Kansas is the landlord who paid for the building, but the tenant keeps all the rent, all the business income, and even controls how the landlord’s rent money gets spent.
Posted on 12/24/25 at 10:23 am to Byron Bojangles III
But you didn't answer the question of how the Chiefs are in the business of real estate. Everything you just posted indicates that's not what they're in. It would be more accurate to say the state of Kansas is getting into the big time real estate business.
This post was edited on 12/24/25 at 10:24 am
Posted on 12/24/25 at 10:34 am to Kansas City King
Economic benefit from.....
Wait, you mean to tell me those people are staying and spending money on the MO side.
It's just taxpayer money. Who Cares?
Wait, you mean to tell me those people are staying and spending money on the MO side.
It's just taxpayer money. Who Cares?
Posted on 12/24/25 at 10:46 am to Whataburger
Will be a historic fail for taxpayers.
Posted on 12/24/25 at 10:55 am to Mingo Was His NameO
quote:
If you live in a city with an NFL stadium, that franchise has raised more revenue (mostly from people that don’t live there and consume the services) than just about anything else
Great.
So where is my check for the revenue generated from the money forcefully taken from me to get all this started?
Posted on 12/24/25 at 11:07 am to SludgeFactory
quote:
Great.
So where is my check for the revenue generated from the money forcefully taken from me to get all this started?
Does it help to know that the vast majority of money the govt takes from you for who knows what you don't vote directly on?
At least with the stadium it's residents saying, yes, tax us for this particular thing.
This post was edited on 12/24/25 at 11:08 am
Posted on 12/24/25 at 11:22 am to Chucktown_Badger
quote:
At least with the stadium it's residents saying, yes, tax us for this particular thing.
kansas residents didn't get to vote on this stadium tax proposal. The governor and state representatives gave approval of the plan. The more I've read about this deal I'm not as upset about Missouri losing the Chiefs.
Posted on 12/24/25 at 11:25 am to bcoop199
Ah, got it. Did a little more digging. So I guess the KC folks at least had a say.
quote:
This funding mechanism does not require a statewide or local public vote in Kansas. The bonds are paid off by the tax revenue generated within the new stadium's development district itself, not from existing state taxes.
Posted on 12/24/25 at 11:32 am to Chucktown_Badger
quote:ok I'll concede this but the state is getting screwed on this deal overall.
But you didn't answer the question of how the Chiefs are in the business of real estate. Everything you just posted indicates that's not what they're in. It would be more accurate to say the state of Kansas is getting into the big time real estate business.
Posted on 12/24/25 at 11:46 am to Kansas City King
If the state of Missouri loses $30 million per year by not having the stadium, but avoids paying $1.8 billion to keep the team, it would take 60 years for Missouri to finally be in the red. NFL stadiums tend to only last 30 years, so this seems like a smart decision by Missouri and a massive financial boondoggle for Kansas taxpayers.
Posted on 12/24/25 at 12:32 pm to kingbob
quote:
If the state of Missouri loses $30 million per year by not having the stadium, but avoids paying $1.8 billion to keep the team, it would take 60 years for Missouri to finally be in the red.
Use your brain dude
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News