KC Downtown Baseball

[CBJason]

Does something like this give new life to a North KC stadium? Or are the Royals just not gonna move?

Theoretically, all options are on the table for stadium sites. The mayor just issued a statement admitting defeat of the measure, stating he looks forward to working with both teams on plans and ideas that are more open, inclusive, etc. I never saw anything in regards to the royals leading up to this but I had seen the chiefs making comments about really looking at relocating if this didn’t pass.

How about Rod Yates talk with John Sherman about bringing the royals to Omaha!!

[Coyote]

Extension of stadium sales tax fails for Chiefs, Royals in Jackson County



A sales tax that will help pay for renovations at Arrowhead Stadium, new downtown ballpark for the Royals failed in Jackson County, Missouri.

[omaha79]

Does something like this give new life to a North KC stadium? Or are the Royals just not gonna move?

They have flat out said they will not be playing in Kauffman after 2030. So, expect a ton more saber rattling about them leaving KC entirely. Expect another ballot initiative for KC voters to vote on in the fall. Expect them to engage other suburbs and counties in the KC metro area looking for a sucker, I mean, interested party to host them.

If they want to threaten leaving KC, I say good luck. Oakland is struggling to find any real interest and Vegas barely wants them. Would be just as happy if they don't move there. Not many cities all that excited about building an almost billion dollar MLB stadium in this economy.

[omaha79]

This seems like a Grand Slam Home Run for downtown KC as well as the Power and Light and Crossroads entertainment districts. And I like the idea that absolutely no public parking will be included as part of this $2 billion development. The city and Royals are counting on a combination of existing parking options as well as mass transit (it’s adjacent to their street car) to provide adequate options for attendees.

But is it a grand slam home run for families that take their kids to games on a school night? Is it a Grand Slam Home Run for fans that tailgate?

Local community opposition to this project has run about 70%, from what I'm seeing online. Will be interesting how the actual vote goes. I don't think many are too excited about it and the additional costs and time it will take to go to a game downtown vs. out East.

Is there a lot of tailgating at Royals games? Also it seems like the downtown stadium is more centralized for the rest of the metro area than where it is currently.

There is a ton of tailgating at Royals games. I take it you've not been to a Royals game in years? The parking lot is full of grills, coolers, yard games. It's a community feel. MLB is market specific. The vibe that works near Wrigley with bars, or St. Louis being downtown doesn't necessarily work in a place like KC or Milwaukee where people value the ability to grill and party. The Royals gameday experience will lose something and I think they will struggle to gain back some fans they lose if they move to a more sterile downtown environment.

And, centralized doesn't always mean more convenient. Look at discussion from actual fans in comment sections. Almost no one is interested in a downtown stadium. They don't want to pay $50+ parking. They don't want to have to ride public transit with a gaggle of children. They don't want to have to go downtown on a school night. They don't want to battle downtown traffic. They want to be able to tailgate. The value of a new, shiny stadium isn't moving the needle for KC residents. They want convenience and cost containment and none of that will be provided with a new stadium. I don't blame them. Outside of a 3 year span in the last decade, the Royals have been a horrific franchise on the field. No one down there wants to pay premium prices for bottom of the barrel product. A Royals game has the feel of a backyard BBQ. If you can't do that, the losing becomes more glaring. I have no confidence in any Royals owner to invest in a winning product, new stadium or not.

I'm even more confident on how the actual residents feel about this after last nights results. This is being roundly rejected.

[Busguy2010]

This seems like a Grand Slam Home Run for downtown KC as well as the Power and Light and Crossroads entertainment districts. And I like the idea that absolutely no public parking will be included as part of this $2 billion development. The city and Royals are counting on a combination of existing parking options as well as mass transit (it’s adjacent to their street car) to provide adequate options for attendees.

But is it a grand slam home run for families that take their kids to games on a school night? Is it a Grand Slam Home Run for fans that tailgate?

Local community opposition to this project has run about 70%, from what I'm seeing online. Will be interesting how the actual vote goes. I don't think many are too excited about it and the additional costs and time it will take to go to a game downtown vs. out East.

Is there a lot of tailgating at Royals games? Also it seems like the downtown stadium is more centralized for the rest of the metro area than where it is currently.

There is a ton of tailgating at Royals games. I take it you've not been to a Royals game in years? The parking lot is full of grills, coolers, yard games. It's a community feel. MLB is market specific. The vibe that works near Wrigley with bars, or St. Louis being downtown doesn't necessarily work in a place like KC or Milwaukee where people value the ability to grill and party. The Royals gameday experience will lose something and I think they will struggle to gain back some fans they lose if they move to a more sterile downtown environment.

And, centralized doesn't always mean more convenient. Look at discussion from actual fans in comment sections. Almost no one is interested in a downtown stadium. They don't want to pay $50+ parking. They don't want to have to ride public transit with a gaggle of children. They don't want to have to go downtown on a school night. They don't want to battle downtown traffic. They want to be able to tailgate. The value of a new, shiny stadium isn't moving the needle for KC residents. They want convenience and cost containment and none of that will be provided with a new stadium. I don't blame them. Outside of a 3 year span in the last decade, the Royals have been a horrific franchise on the field. No one down there wants to pay premium prices for bottom of the barrel product. A Royals game has the feel of a backyard BBQ. If you can't do that, the losing becomes more glaring. I have no confidence in any Royals owner to invest in a winning product, new stadium or not.

I'm even more confident on how the actual residents feel about this after last nights results. This is being roundly rejected.

I have to agree here. I've been to a handful of games at the Kauffman complex, and although it's got to be the most atrocious example of suburban dystopia, so is the whole of KC. You take away the parking lot, you take away the heart of the gameday experience. Tailgating is at least half the reason to go there. I don't think a downtown stadium will work for them.

[CBJason]

Not many cities all that excited about building an almost billion dollar MLB stadium in this economy.

Regardless of economy, Charlotte, Nashville, Salt Lake City, Portland and Sacramento all want teams! And yes, Vegas does want them, especially the business community.

[omaha79]

Not many cities all that excited about building an almost billion dollar MLB stadium in this economy.

Regardless of economy, Charlotte, Nashville, Salt Lake City, Portland and Sacramento all want teams! And yes, Vegas does want them, especially the business community.

wanting and willing to pay for are another thing. We would see how excited these cities really are if the rubber really hit the road. Vegas "wanted" a team, and now they don't really. Apathy has already set in and local officials and residents are between shrugging their shoulders and flat out telling the A's to stay home.

Many people want a million dollar house. Not many can afford the payment. Wanting and actually committing are typically two very different things.

Typically, lots of saber rattling on moving a MLB team, but how often does it really happen? So many say, "10 cities would line up for your team." Yet, only one franchise has moved in 20 years and that was Montreal. The myth of team relocation greatly outweighs the reality and that is proven fact. The A's would only be the second in a generation, and that's if it even happens.

And new stadiums are no longer the cure all they once were. Do you think Miami is happy with all the money they spent on that atrocity? Do you think a new stadium will fix all of Tampas attendance woes? Not where they want to put it, that's for sure. Even if the White Sox get a new stadium, they will always be little brother to the Cubs.

[CBJason]

Not many cities all that excited about building an almost billion dollar MLB stadium in this economy.

Regardless of economy, Charlotte, Nashville, Salt Lake City, Portland and Sacramento all want teams! And yes, Vegas does want them, especially the business community.

wanting and willing to pay for are another thing. We would see how excited these cities really are if the rubber really hit the road. Vegas "wanted" a team, and now they don't really. Apathy has already set in and local officials and residents are between shrugging their shoulders and flat out telling the A's to stay home.

Many people want a million dollar house. Not many can afford the payment. Wanting and actually committing are typically two very different things.

I’d be willing to bet the fans in those cities are also willing to pay for it.

The only people in Vegas that have a problem with the A’s coming in are the teachers union and the mayor. That’s not a lot.

[OmahaRedWing]

Not many cities all that excited about building an almost billion dollar MLB stadium in this economy.

Regardless of economy, Charlotte, Nashville, Salt Lake City, Portland and Sacramento all want teams! And yes, Vegas does want them, especially the business community.

wanting and willing to pay for are another thing. We would see how excited these cities really are if the rubber really hit the road. Vegas "wanted" a team, and now they don't really. Apathy has already set in and local officials and residents are between shrugging their shoulders and flat out telling the A's to stay home.

Many people want a million dollar house. Not many can afford the payment. Wanting and actually committing are typically two very different things.

I’d be willing to bet the fans in those cities are also willing to pay for it.

The only people in Vegas that have a problem with the A’s coming in are the teachers union and the mayor. That’s not a lot.

Most likely candidates (though I don't think it will come to that) are Salt Lake City and Nashville. Both cities seem to be an aggressive mode to add new sports franchises. If they don't get expansion teams, they will definitely target existing ones.

[omaha79]

Not many cities all that excited about building an almost billion dollar MLB stadium in this economy.

Regardless of economy, Charlotte, Nashville, Salt Lake City, Portland and Sacramento all want teams! And yes, Vegas does want them, especially the business community.

wanting and willing to pay for are another thing. We would see how excited these cities really are if the rubber really hit the road. Vegas "wanted" a team, and now they don't really. Apathy has already set in and local officials and residents are between shrugging their shoulders and flat out telling the A's to stay home.

Many people want a million dollar house. Not many can afford the payment. Wanting and actually committing are typically two very different things.

I’d be willing to bet the fans in those cities are also willing to pay for it.

The only people in Vegas that have a problem with the A’s coming in are the teachers union and the mayor. That’s not a lot.

We will see. the talk of franchise relocation is mostly always just talk. The A's have been pushing for years. If there were so many ready and willing cities, it wouldn't have taken this long and they wouldn't be fighting to get a stadium passed in Vegas. It would be a slam dunk. Sacramento, Portland, Vegas have all had chances at the A's for years and it hasn't happened. Many reasons only one team has moved since the dawn of the new Millenium. And, that was Montreal which had a host of issues.

If it was so easy, Oakland and Tampa would have been gone long ago. Arizona would have found a new stadium somewhere else as they aren't happy. The Angels don't have a great situation. The White Sox have threatened in the past. Yet, everyone except one Canadian team and now maybe a team in one of the most downtrodden cities in the US are the only ones to move.

Good luck to many of these cities if they try. Ask Miami if they are happy with their investment. No one thinks a new stadium will help the Rays attendance woes either. Courting MLB is always risky since you have to fill up 81 home dates.

[omaha79]

Not many cities all that excited about building an almost billion dollar MLB stadium in this economy.

Regardless of economy, Charlotte, Nashville, Salt Lake City, Portland and Sacramento all want teams! And yes, Vegas does want them, especially the business community.

wanting and willing to pay for are another thing. We would see how excited these cities really are if the rubber really hit the road. Vegas "wanted" a team, and now they don't really. Apathy has already set in and local officials and residents are between shrugging their shoulders and flat out telling the A's to stay home.

Many people want a million dollar house. Not many can afford the payment. Wanting and actually committing are typically two very different things.

I’d be willing to bet the fans in those cities are also willing to pay for it.

The only people in Vegas that have a problem with the A’s coming in are the teachers union and the mayor. That’s not a lot.

Most likely candidates (though I don't think it will come to that) are Salt Lake City and Nashville. Both cities seem to be an aggressive mode to add new sports franchises. If they don't get expansion teams, they will definitely target existing ones.

But, MLB wants expansion, not relocation. They want that sweet sweet entrance fee money. They don't want to lose exisiting markets if they can help it unless the situation is beyond repair. Why the situations in Tampa and Oakland have gone on this long. And, if the Vegas deal falls through, KC would be behind Oakland to get moved again. The Tampa deal still hasn't gone through either, from what I'd read. So, I'd expect them to start saber rattling again as well. MLB would likely be loathe to allow the Royals to move. The owners would have to approve it and I don't see the will.

[omaha79]

For reference. These are the last 5 MLB relocations. Please tell me how easy it will be for KC to make this happen beyond saber rattling...

1. Montreal Expos>>> Washington Nationals (2004)
2. Washington Senators >>> Texas Rangers (1971)
3. Seattle Pilots >>> Milwaukee Brewers (1969)
4. KC Athletics >>> Oakland Athletics (1967)
5. Milwaukee Braves >>> Atlanta Braves (1965)

So, one approved relocation in 53 years. Another maybe happening. A flurry in the LBJ/Nixon era.

The myth of MLB relocation is overhyped. I'd call that bluff all day, every day.

[Greg S]

For reference. These are the last 5 MLB relocations. Please tell me how easy it will be for KC to make this happen beyond saber rattling...

1. Montreal Expos>>> Washington Nationals (2004)
2. Washington Senators >>> Texas Rangers (1971)
3. Seattle Pilots >>> Milwaukee Brewers (1969)
4. KC Athletics >>> Oakland Athletics (1967)
5. Milwaukee Braves >>> Atlanta Braves (1965)

So, one approved relocation in 53 years. Another maybe happening. A flurry in the LBJ/Nixon era.

The myth of MLB relocation is overhyped. I'd call that bluff all day, every day.

Yeah it hasn't been that uncommon as cities saw those and worked with their teams and built new stadiums. Obviously the one you are referring to is Oakland, and for all intents and purposes, that's happening. They are shutting down the Tropicana as we speak. Baseball also negated some moves by expanding. From everything we've heard, any further expansion is on hold until things get settled with Oakland (and that's headed to the finish line with a move to Vegas) and Tampa.

Franchise relocation has been more prevalent in other sports. Including some that were seemingly unthinkable.

Greg

[omaha79]

For reference. These are the last 5 MLB relocations. Please tell me how easy it will be for KC to make this happen beyond saber rattling...

1. Montreal Expos>>> Washington Nationals (2004)
2. Washington Senators >>> Texas Rangers (1971)
3. Seattle Pilots >>> Milwaukee Brewers (1969)
4. KC Athletics >>> Oakland Athletics (1967)
5. Milwaukee Braves >>> Atlanta Braves (1965)

So, one approved relocation in 53 years. Another maybe happening. A flurry in the LBJ/Nixon era.

The myth of MLB relocation is overhyped. I'd call that bluff all day, every day.

Yeah it hasn't been that uncommon as cities saw those and worked with their teams and built new stadiums. Obviously the one you are referring to is Oakland, and for all intents and purposes, that's happening. They are shutting down the Tropicana as we speak. Baseball also negated some moves by expanding. From everything we've heard, any further expansion is on hold until things get settled with Oakland (and that's headed to the finish line with a move to Vegas) and Tampa.

Franchise relocation has been more prevalent in other sports. Including some that were seemingly unthinkable.

Greg

It's just a bad precedent. Sure, if they somehow get Oakland and Tampa's situations settled, then that might open up other teams to saber rattle more. However, do you want to open that pandoras box? I do think MLB wants expansion money more than relocation. Once you put a team in the few remaining viable markets, you lose that expansion money forever. So, it has to be a dire situation. Who truly has the worst situaton? If you let KC talk true relocation, you're going to have the White Sox, Diamondbacks, and maybe even the Angels, Marlins, or Guardians maybe making similar threats. Different reasons in different markets from stadium unhappiness, fanbases that aren't engaged, etc. But, moving someone elses team to a city like Salt Lake, Sacramento, Portland, Montreal, or Nashville isn't necessarily a guarantee for success. Out of all of those cities, the only one that I'd consider probably a true slam dunk is probably Nashville. The rest have similar market size issues, untested fanbases, etc. In any one of these cities, you could end up with a 5 year honeymoon period like Denver, and then just seeing it become somewhat low level support. In a city without 50 years of tradition, you better have an ownership group primed to spend and win, and baseball is losing market share all the time. Kids aren't into it like they used to be. You don't have 30 year old dads taking 5 year old boys to baseball games as much and if they do, they head straight to the playground, not the stands.

I say good luck, but if I were KC, I'd call the Royals owners bluff on true relocation all day.

[Greg S]

For reference. These are the last 5 MLB relocations. Please tell me how easy it will be for KC to make this happen beyond saber rattling...

1. Montreal Expos>>> Washington Nationals (2004)
2. Washington Senators >>> Texas Rangers (1971)
3. Seattle Pilots >>> Milwaukee Brewers (1969)
4. KC Athletics >>> Oakland Athletics (1967)
5. Milwaukee Braves >>> Atlanta Braves (1965)

So, one approved relocation in 53 years. Another maybe happening. A flurry in the LBJ/Nixon era.

The myth of MLB relocation is overhyped. I'd call that bluff all day, every day.

Yeah it hasn't been that uncommon as cities saw those and worked with their teams and built new stadiums. Obviously the one you are referring to is Oakland, and for all intents and purposes, that's happening. They are shutting down the Tropicana as we speak. Baseball also negated some moves by expanding. From everything we've heard, any further expansion is on hold until things get settled with Oakland (and that's headed to the finish line with a move to Vegas) and Tampa.

Franchise relocation has been more prevalent in other sports. Including some that were seemingly unthinkable.

Greg

It's just a bad precedent. Sure, if they somehow get Oakland and Tampa's situations settled, then that might open up other teams to saber rattle more. However, do you want to open that pandoras box? I do think MLB wants expansion money more than relocation. Once you put a team in the few remaining viable markets, you lose that expansion money forever. So, it has to be a dire situation. Who truly has the worst situaton? If you let KC talk true relocation, you're going to have the White Sox, Diamondbacks, and maybe even the Angels, Marlins, or Guardians maybe making similar threats. Different reasons in different markets from stadium unhappiness, fanbases that aren't engaged, etc. But, moving someone elses team to a city like Salt Lake, Sacramento, Portland, Montreal, or Nashville isn't necessarily a guarantee for success. Out of all of those cities, the only one that I'd consider probably a true slam dunk is probably Nashville. The rest have similar market size issues, untested fanbases, etc. In any one of these cities, you could end up with a 5 year honeymoon period like Denver, and then just seeing it become somewhat low level support. In a city without 50 years of tradition, you better have an ownership group primed to spend and win, and baseball is losing market share all the time. Kids aren't into it like they used to be. You don't have 30 year old dads taking 5 year old boys to baseball games as much and if they do, they head straight to the playground, not the stands.

I say good luck, but if I were KC, I'd call the Royals owners bluff on true relocation all day.

I'll be honest, I am completely lost at the point you are trying to make here on relocation and expansion.

[CBJason]

You’re so way off base, just to saber rattle yourself! No one ever said it was quick or easy to get a team. This stuff takes time. It’s controlled by the commissioner and other owners. The A’s would have moved to San Jose a long time ago but Bud Selig nixed that. MLB gives every last second for team to work it out in their current city. Like Greg said, Vegas is basically done but if that falls through look for them to try Sacramento next. St. Pete and Pinellas county councils vote on the rays in May, likely getting approved. Yes, more money is made by expanding but that won’t happen until all other teams are settled first. If KC or one of its suburbs doesn’t deliver, they will get the approval to look elsewhere to one of those cities that will pay for it.

[CBJason]

I'll be honest, I am completely lost at the point you are trying to make here on relocation and expansion.

I know, right

[Candleshoe]

Kansas actually has a "Sports relocation fund" in place through earmarks from licensed sports betting taxes. Unfortunately, it's in it's infancy and only has accumulated $10 million so far. I think they were thinking a lot further down the road before this would come into play. But it's a baby step...

https://casetext.com/statute/kansas-sta ... bligations

https://www.ksn.com/news/state-regional ... t-we-know/

[CBJason]

Yep, and let’s not act as if these cities are paying everything, the teams are paying for part of it also, and they don’t even get ownership of it! As long as there are 2 willing parties willing to share, teams will move.

[TitosBuritoBarn]

This seems like a Grand Slam Home Run for downtown KC as well as the Power and Light and Crossroads entertainment districts. And I like the idea that absolutely no public parking will be included as part of this $2 billion development. The city and Royals are counting on a combination of existing parking options as well as mass transit (it’s adjacent to their street car) to provide adequate options for attendees.

But is it a grand slam home run for families that take their kids to games on a school night? Is it a Grand Slam Home Run for fans that tailgate?

Local community opposition to this project has run about 70%, from what I'm seeing online. Will be interesting how the actual vote goes. I don't think many are too excited about it and the additional costs and time it will take to go to a game downtown vs. out East.

Is there a lot of tailgating at Royals games? Also it seems like the downtown stadium is more centralized for the rest of the metro area than where it is currently.

There is a ton of tailgating at Royals games. I take it you've not been to a Royals game in years? The parking lot is full of grills, coolers, yard games. It's a community feel. MLB is market specific. The vibe that works near Wrigley with bars, or St. Louis being downtown doesn't necessarily work in a place like KC or Milwaukee where people value the ability to grill and party. The Royals gameday experience will lose something and I think they will struggle to gain back some fans they lose if they move to a more sterile downtown environment.

And, centralized doesn't always mean more convenient. Look at discussion from actual fans in comment sections. Almost no one is interested in a downtown stadium. They don't want to pay $50+ parking. They don't want to have to ride public transit with a gaggle of children. They don't want to have to go downtown on a school night. They don't want to battle downtown traffic. They want to be able to tailgate. The value of a new, shiny stadium isn't moving the needle for KC residents. They want convenience and cost containment and none of that will be provided with a new stadium. I don't blame them. Outside of a 3 year span in the last decade, the Royals have been a horrific franchise on the field. No one down there wants to pay premium prices for bottom of the barrel product. A Royals game has the feel of a backyard BBQ. If you can't do that, the losing becomes more glaring. I have no confidence in any Royals owner to invest in a winning product, new stadium or not.

I'm even more confident on how the actual residents feel about this after last nights results. This is being roundly rejected.

I went to one last year. I didn't notice much tailgating, however I don't doubt you.

The convenience factor though, that's just silly. Downtown has as many access combinations as there are streets leading to the stadium. Kauffman Stadium parking lots have at most four entries, if they're each open. Downtown event parking, regardless of city, has wildly different parking rates depending on the facility. I haven't paid to park at a Cardinals game ever. We park on the street about a half mile away, full family in tow. There's also multiple garages and parking lots to choose from all with different rates depending on convenience and if its covered or open parking. No one charges $50 for a baseball game, at least not here. Kauffman has two pricing options, $20 general, or $30 reserved. There's no parking alternative that I'm aware of. Also, I'm not sure what going downtown on a school night has to do with convenience. That sounds like more of a familiarity issue.

I do like Kauffman as a stadium and I understand how tailgating is part of the experience and maybe there's a compromise for that, but I can't find a valid argument for entrenched autocentricism and how that could add to the experience. I also don't see how downtown is sterile comparatively. When I went last year I was expecting a full house given the line to the parking lot on a Saturday evening but the attendance figure they read off during the and the number of empty seats proved that the stadium was like 3/4 full.

Not that I have a say one way or another.

[omaha79]

For reference. These are the last 5 MLB relocations. Please tell me how easy it will be for KC to make this happen beyond saber rattling...

1. Montreal Expos>>> Washington Nationals (2004)
2. Washington Senators >>> Texas Rangers (1971)
3. Seattle Pilots >>> Milwaukee Brewers (1969)
4. KC Athletics >>> Oakland Athletics (1967)
5. Milwaukee Braves >>> Atlanta Braves (1965)

So, one approved relocation in 53 years. Another maybe happening. A flurry in the LBJ/Nixon era.

The myth of MLB relocation is overhyped. I'd call that bluff all day, every day.

Yeah it hasn't been that uncommon as cities saw those and worked with their teams and built new stadiums. Obviously the one you are referring to is Oakland, and for all intents and purposes, that's happening. They are shutting down the Tropicana as we speak. Baseball also negated some moves by expanding. From everything we've heard, any further expansion is on hold until things get settled with Oakland (and that's headed to the finish line with a move to Vegas) and Tampa.

Franchise relocation has been more prevalent in other sports. Including some that were seemingly unthinkable.

Greg

It's just a bad precedent. Sure, if they somehow get Oakland and Tampa's situations settled, then that might open up other teams to saber rattle more. However, do you want to open that pandoras box? I do think MLB wants expansion money more than relocation. Once you put a team in the few remaining viable markets, you lose that expansion money forever. So, it has to be a dire situation. Who truly has the worst situaton? If you let KC talk true relocation, you're going to have the White Sox, Diamondbacks, and maybe even the Angels, Marlins, or Guardians maybe making similar threats. Different reasons in different markets from stadium unhappiness, fanbases that aren't engaged, etc. But, moving someone elses team to a city like Salt Lake, Sacramento, Portland, Montreal, or Nashville isn't necessarily a guarantee for success. Out of all of those cities, the only one that I'd consider probably a true slam dunk is probably Nashville. The rest have similar market size issues, untested fanbases, etc. In any one of these cities, you could end up with a 5 year honeymoon period like Denver, and then just seeing it become somewhat low level support. In a city without 50 years of tradition, you better have an ownership group primed to spend and win, and baseball is losing market share all the time. Kids aren't into it like they used to be. You don't have 30 year old dads taking 5 year old boys to baseball games as much and if they do, they head straight to the playground, not the stands.

I say good luck, but if I were KC, I'd call the Royals owners bluff on true relocation all day.

I'll be honest, I am completely lost at the point you are trying to make here on relocation and expansion.

The Royals can threaten all they want, but the likliehood they move out of KC, if they can't get a new stadium locally, is extremely low.

[omaha79]

This seems like a Grand Slam Home Run for downtown KC as well as the Power and Light and Crossroads entertainment districts. And I like the idea that absolutely no public parking will be included as part of this $2 billion development. The city and Royals are counting on a combination of existing parking options as well as mass transit (it’s adjacent to their street car) to provide adequate options for attendees.

But is it a grand slam home run for families that take their kids to games on a school night? Is it a Grand Slam Home Run for fans that tailgate?

Local community opposition to this project has run about 70%, from what I'm seeing online. Will be interesting how the actual vote goes. I don't think many are too excited about it and the additional costs and time it will take to go to a game downtown vs. out East.

Is there a lot of tailgating at Royals games? Also it seems like the downtown stadium is more centralized for the rest of the metro area than where it is currently.

There is a ton of tailgating at Royals games. I take it you've not been to a Royals game in years? The parking lot is full of grills, coolers, yard games. It's a community feel. MLB is market specific. The vibe that works near Wrigley with bars, or St. Louis being downtown doesn't necessarily work in a place like KC or Milwaukee where people value the ability to grill and party. The Royals gameday experience will lose something and I think they will struggle to gain back some fans they lose if they move to a more sterile downtown environment.

And, centralized doesn't always mean more convenient. Look at discussion from actual fans in comment sections. Almost no one is interested in a downtown stadium. They don't want to pay $50+ parking. They don't want to have to ride public transit with a gaggle of children. They don't want to have to go downtown on a school night. They don't want to battle downtown traffic. They want to be able to tailgate. The value of a new, shiny stadium isn't moving the needle for KC residents. They want convenience and cost containment and none of that will be provided with a new stadium. I don't blame them. Outside of a 3 year span in the last decade, the Royals have been a horrific franchise on the field. No one down there wants to pay premium prices for bottom of the barrel product. A Royals game has the feel of a backyard BBQ. If you can't do that, the losing becomes more glaring. I have no confidence in any Royals owner to invest in a winning product, new stadium or not.

I'm even more confident on how the actual residents feel about this after last nights results. This is being roundly rejected.

I went to one last year. I didn't notice much tailgating, however I don't doubt you.

The convenience factor though, that's just silly. Downtown has as many access combinations as there are streets leading to the stadium. Kauffman Stadium parking lots have at most four entries, if they're each open. Downtown event parking, regardless of city, has wildly different parking rates depending on the facility. I haven't paid to park at a Cardinals game ever. We park on the street about a half mile away, full family in tow. There's also multiple garages and parking lots to choose from all with different rates depending on convenience and if its covered or open parking. No one charges $50 for a baseball game, at least not here. Kauffman has two pricing options, $20 general, or $30 reserved. There's no parking alternative that I'm aware of. Also, I'm not sure what going downtown on a school night has to do with convenience. That sounds like more of a familiarity issue.

I do like Kauffman as a stadium and I understand how tailgating is part of the experience and maybe there's a compromise for that, but I can't find a valid argument for entrenched autocentricism and how that could add to the experience. I also don't see how downtown is sterile comparatively. When I went last year I was expecting a full house given the line to the parking lot on a Saturday evening but the attendance figure they read off during the and the number of empty seats proved that the stadium was like 3/4 full.

Not that I have a say one way or another.

I'm going off of the complaints locals are making in comment sections. without fail, it's complaines about not wanting to go downtown, parking cost going up, ticket cost going up, inability to tailgate, not wanting to take public transit to the stadium, and a more difficult gridlocked drive going downtown vs. the K. Look at any comments section for the KC star.

And, that could be taken as anecdotal, but the market spoke yesterday and the stadium and associated cost, is proving wildly unpopular. Most just want them to renovate the K. If you can have a 100 year old stadium in Chicago and another in Boston, you can make the K workable for another 50 years easily.

[CBJason]

And, that could be taken as anecdotal, but the market spoke yesterday and the stadium and associated cost, is proving wildly unpopular. Most just want them to renovate the K. If you can have a 100 year old stadium in Chicago and another in Boston, you can make the K workable for another 50 years easily.

The cost arguments are trash like Tito said and baseball is mostly a summer sport…when kids are out of school. You’re right KC has spoken and now we’ll see what comes of it.

Please don’t compare the K to 2 historical landmarks.

[omaha79]

And, that could be taken as anecdotal, but the market spoke yesterday and the stadium and associated cost, is proving wildly unpopular. Most just want them to renovate the K. If you can have a 100 year old stadium in Chicago and another in Boston, you can make the K workable for another 50 years easily.

The cost arguments are trash like Tito said and baseball is mostly a summer sport…when kids are out of school.
Please don’t compare the K to 2 historical landmarks.

and yet, the new women's soccer stadium is charging $50 a game for parking, literally more than the cost of a ticket to the game itself because there are no other options that are that great within walking distance. And, it's a guarantee that ticket prices will go up. Parking will most certainly cost more. You won't be able to tailgate, so you'll have to eat at a restaurant or buy their food, more cost.

And, when does something become a landmark? The K is often ranked in the top 10 of ballparks. It's considered unique and of a more space age design when stadiums were not being built for baseball. It's in a "last of its kind" category and truly unique. Had they torn down Wrigley in the 60's and moved out to the suburbs or to a multi use facility with the Bears, as so many did during that time frame (Philly, St. Louis, Cincy, Pittsburgh), the cultural significance of that facility that mostly hit its stride in the WGN era of the 1980's would never have really happened. Bottom line, the K is now the 6th oldest ballpark in baseball and will likely be the 5th oldest by the end of its lifespan when Oakland goes away. It will trail only Fenway, Wrigley, Dodger, and Angel. 3 of the 4 of those are considered cultural icons. Many fanbases tend to regret getting rid of their history for new and modern. KC may look back wishing they'd never taken the wrecking ball to Kaufmann.

It's about a half summer sport, half school season. Depending on the market and how the summer break and season falls, all of Late March/April, May, and September/Oct can be during the school season leaving June, July, and August as the out of school months. Saying it's mostly a summer sport is somewhat hyperbole. It's about 50/50.

Again, the market disagrees with all of your assessments on this and that's all I'm going by. KC is opposing this, and that's all that really matters here. If this was such an economic slam dunk, the team should just fund the whole thing themselves. problem solved.

[CBJason]

Had they torn down Wrigley in the 60's and moved out to the suburbs or to a multi use facility with the Bears, as so many did during that time frame (Philly, St. Louis, Cincy, Pittsburgh), the cultural significance of that facility that mostly hit its stride in the WGN era of the 1980's would never have really happened. Bottom line, the K is now the 6th oldest ballpark in baseball and will likely be the 5th oldest by the end of its lifespan when Oakland goes away. It will trail only Fenway, Wrigley, Dodger, and Angel. 3 of the 4 of those are considered cultural icons. Many fanbases tend to regret getting rid of their history for new and modern. KC may look back wishing they'd never taken the wrecking ball to Kaufmann.

Again, the market disagrees with all of your assessments on this and that's all I'm going by. KC is opposing this, and that's all that really matters here. If this was such an economic slam dunk, the team should just fund the whole thing themselves. problem solved.

Well they didn’t move back then and did become culturally significant and along with Fenway they were placed on national register of historic places. Who votes The K in the top 10, it’s just a bowl just like all the others of its time, I’d place many of the newer parks ahead of KC.
Yes, I said the KC market voted irrationally and because owners don’t pay for everything we’ll see who will. At this point, I doubt it’s in KC’s limits.

[omaha79]

Had they torn down Wrigley in the 60's and moved out to the suburbs or to a multi use facility with the Bears, as so many did during that time frame (Philly, St. Louis, Cincy, Pittsburgh), the cultural significance of that facility that mostly hit its stride in the WGN era of the 1980's would never have really happened. Bottom line, the K is now the 6th oldest ballpark in baseball and will likely be the 5th oldest by the end of its lifespan when Oakland goes away. It will trail only Fenway, Wrigley, Dodger, and Angel. 3 of the 4 of those are considered cultural icons. Many fanbases tend to regret getting rid of their history for new and modern. KC may look back wishing they'd never taken the wrecking ball to Kaufmann.

Again, the market disagrees with all of your assessments on this and that's all I'm going by. KC is opposing this, and that's all that really matters here. If this was such an economic slam dunk, the team should just fund the whole thing themselves. problem solved.

Well they didn’t move back then and did become culturally significant and along with Fenway they were placed on national register of historic places. Who votes The K in the top 10, it’s just a bowl just like all the others of its time, I’d place many of the newer parks ahead of KC.
Yes, I said the KC market voted irrationally and because owners don’t pay for everything we’ll see who will. At this point, I doubt it’s in KC’s limits.

I'd say they voted intelligently. They have a facility that their fans see as fitting their needs, holds their history, and doesn't warrant replacing at their cost. Again, if this were an economic slam dunk, the owners should just fund the entire thing 100%. Owners never do that as they know it's really not a slam dunk and all of the economic projections are based on best case scenarios along with simply shifting around jobs that already exist or creating short term construction jobs. If the billionaires want it, open up the wallet. There has never been a proposed ballpark as unpopular in its local market than this. Others have passed a new ballpark financing act, but the citizens have generally wanted it, not in KC.

I think you are overlooking the charms of Kaufmann. It has the fountains. The scoreboard is still unique. It has great sight lines. Roomy concourses. It is architecturally different from the explosion of red brick ballparks built in the 90's and is the last standing of its era. The tailgate scene is also unique and family friendly compared to most ballparks being in the same typical downtown setting (nothing wrong with downtown, but this is just a different and refreshing experience).

I looked at some national rankings and outlets like Yahoo and USA today have it around 12th. I have it around 8th or 9th. For what it's worth, I've been to all 30 ballparks, completing that journey in September 2022 and roughly 35 total with retired ballparks. Kaufmann definitely could use a facelift, but it still ranks pretty highly and is unique in a sea of "retro" from the 90's.

[Garrett]

I agree that governments should generally avoid spending huge amounts of money on stadiums, especially ones owned by multi billion dollar franchises. It’s been found many times that people will consistently spend the same amount of money on entertainment, whether there’s a pro sports team in their city or not.

[CBJason]

I'd say they voted intelligently. They have a facility that their fans see as fitting their needs, holds their history, and doesn't warrant replacing at their cost. Again, if this were an economic slam dunk, the owners should just fund the entire thing 100%. Owners never do that as they know it's really not a slam dunk and all of the economic projections are based on best case scenarios along with simply shifting around jobs that already exist or creating short term construction jobs. If the billionaires want it, open up the wallet. There has never been a proposed ballpark as unpopular in its local market than this. Others have passed a new ballpark financing act, but the citizens have generally wanted it, not in KC.

I think you are overlooking the charms of Kaufmann. It has the fountains. The scoreboard is still unique. It has great sight lines. Roomy concourses. It is architecturally different from the explosion of red brick ballparks built in the 90's and is the last standing of its era. The tailgate scene is also unique and family friendly compared to most ballparks being in the same typical downtown setting (nothing wrong with downtown, but this is just a different and refreshing experience).

I looked at some national rankings and outlets like Yahoo and USA today have it around 12th. I have it around 8th or 9th. For what it's worth, I've been to all 30 ballparks, completing that journey in September 2022 and roughly 35 total with retired ballparks. Kaufmann definitely could use a facelift, but it still ranks pretty highly and is unique in a sea of "retro" from the 90's.

Firstly, that’s awesome what you accomplished visiting all those stadiums, I’m envious.
Second, they can vote however they want. Unless he has a change of heart or is convinced to stay in the stadium renovated, or somewhere else in the metro gives him what he wants then everyone there is at risk of losing the team. Owners usually get what they want regardless of how long it takes. Also, I keep wondering how much the chiefs are involved with this? Do they want the royals land so bad that maybe they convinced Sherman of a new stadium or was it something he always wanted from the beginning and chiefs see the benefit for themselves and are doing what they can to make it happen?

[omaha79]

Had they torn down Wrigley in the 60's and moved out to the suburbs or to a multi use facility with the Bears, as so many did during that time frame (Philly, St. Louis, Cincy, Pittsburgh), the cultural significance of that facility that mostly hit its stride in the WGN era of the 1980's would never have really happened. Bottom line, the K is now the 6th oldest ballpark in baseball and will likely be the 5th oldest by the end of its lifespan when Oakland goes away. It will trail only Fenway, Wrigley, Dodger, and Angel. 3 of the 4 of those are considered cultural icons. Many fanbases tend to regret getting rid of their history for new and modern. KC may look back wishing they'd never taken the wrecking ball to Kaufmann.

Again, the market disagrees with all of your assessments on this and that's all I'm going by. KC is opposing this, and that's all that really matters here. If this was such an economic slam dunk, the team should just fund the whole thing themselves. problem solved.

Well they didn’t move back then and did become culturally significant and along with Fenway they were placed on national register of historic places. Who votes The K in the top 10, it’s just a bowl just like all the others of its time, I’d place many of the newer parks ahead of KC.
Yes, I said the KC market voted irrationally and because owners don’t pay for everything we’ll see who will. At this point, I doubt it’s in KC’s limits.

I'd say they voted intelligently. They have a facility that their fans see as fitting their needs, holds their history, and doesn't warrant replacing at their cost. Again, if this were an economic slam dunk, the owners should just fund the entire thing 100%. Owners never do that as they know it's really not a slam dunk and all of the economic projections are based on best case scenarios along with simply shifting around jobs that already exist or creating short term construction jobs. If the billionaires want it, open up the wallet. There has never been a proposed ballpark as unpopular in its local market than this. Others have passed a new ballpark financing act, but the citizens have generally wanted it, not in KC.

I think you are overlooking the charms of Kaufmann. It has the fountains. The scoreboard is still unique. It has great sight lines. Roomy concourses. It is architecturally different from the explosion of red brick ballparks built in the 90's and is the last standing of its era. The tailgate scene is also unique and family friendly compared to most ballparks being in the same typical downtown setting (nothing wrong with downtown, but this is just a different and refreshing experience).

I looked at some national rankings and outlets like Yahoo and USA today have it around 12th. I have it around 8th or 9th. For what it's worth, I've been to all 30 ballparks, completing that journey in September 2022 and roughly 35 total with retired ballparks. Kaufmann definitely could use a facelift, but it still ranks pretty highly and is unique in a sea of "retro" from the 90's.

I've been following this for a while and it's interesting to see how it's progressed. The moment the Royals got a new owner, he immediately moved to talk of a new stadium. He's been laser focused on it since he got the keys to Kauffman Stadium. Everything he has done since has been a push towards a new ballpark including things like bringing Patrick Mahomes in as a minority owner/face of the franchise to try to increase public goodwill as there isn't really much going for the team itself since 2016.

As things have progressed, the Hunt family has taken a liking to the idea of having all that land. But, it has all been done in a slimy way that hasn't endeared the local citizens to their cause. First, they released the findings from their own bought and paid for study saying that Kaufmann isn't safe and is literally falling apart. Supposedly, it got "bad concrete" when it was built, but Arrowhead got "good concrete." It's the darndest things, Clark Hunt said...but, don't ask us to see the study, because we aren't releasing it. just trust us. Then, they released their renderings of what they would do with the land and underwhelmed everyone. People were hoping for gameday bars and restaurants on the land...they released an interactive playing field and some upgrades to parking. A total nothing burger. That got people questioning why they needed the land and would the citizens be asked again to chip in on their total dud of a project?

Overall, yes, I agree, owners will eventually get what they want. I don't see either the Royals or Chiefs leaving the KC metro area. But, the terms of any deal matter. In cities like San Francisco and St. Louis, the owners initially asked for the moon from the populace, but ended up having to fund way more for a baseball stadium themselves. Both clubs threatened moves, San Fran to Florida and St. Louis to the suburbs or East St. Louis. Neither happened. These negotiations are appropriate. They also need to listen to the citizens as to whether they want a downtown stadium, or something that suits their needs in the suburbs, etc.

And, when I look at the Royals options, the less exciting they look. Sacramento and Charlotte might actually be the best with a closer to top 20 media market, but they'd probably be better as expansion targets. Portland is decent sized, but another city loathe to use public money on sports facilities. Nashville and Salt Lake would just be trading one small market town for another. Sure, you might get your stadium, but will you be better off there than in KC in 20-30 years? It's not a slam dunk. And, you could have other franchises driving down your negotiating power as White Sox, Diamondbacks, and maybe even Oakland/Tampa still don't have stadium situations figured out.

Overall, I think the citizens of KC are in far less "danger" of losing their team than people think. Moving MLB teams just rarely happens and only in the direst of situations. Something will get worked out, but just grabbing your ankles for the owners of the Royals so they get exactly what they want is not appropriate. The fans have a right to speak and get what they want. They have literally voted and said no.

[Coyote]

Crossroads businesses left wondering what's next after failed stadium sales tax vote

[Coyote]

Following rejection of Question 1, Clay County hoping to restart negotiations with the Royals



Leaders in Clay County, Missouri have expressed their willingness to revive discussions with the Kansas City Royals. Initially, the Royals narrowed down their search for a new stadium location to North Kansas City and the East Village of downtown Kansas City.

[Greg S]

Had they torn down Wrigley in the 60's and moved out to the suburbs or to a multi use facility with the Bears, as so many did during that time frame (Philly, St. Louis, Cincy, Pittsburgh), the cultural significance of that facility that mostly hit its stride in the WGN era of the 1980's would never have really happened. Bottom line, the K is now the 6th oldest ballpark in baseball and will likely be the 5th oldest by the end of its lifespan when Oakland goes away. It will trail only Fenway, Wrigley, Dodger, and Angel. 3 of the 4 of those are considered cultural icons. Many fanbases tend to regret getting rid of their history for new and modern. KC may look back wishing they'd never taken the wrecking ball to Kaufmann.

Again, the market disagrees with all of your assessments on this and that's all I'm going by. KC is opposing this, and that's all that really matters here. If this was such an economic slam dunk, the team should just fund the whole thing themselves. problem solved.

Well they didn’t move back then and did become culturally significant and along with Fenway they were placed on national register of historic places. Who votes The K in the top 10, it’s just a bowl just like all the others of its time, I’d place many of the newer parks ahead of KC.
Yes, I said the KC market voted irrationally and because owners don’t pay for everything we’ll see who will. At this point, I doubt it’s in KC’s limits.

I'd say they voted intelligently. They have a facility that their fans see as fitting their needs, holds their history, and doesn't warrant replacing at their cost. Again, if this were an economic slam dunk, the owners should just fund the entire thing 100%. Owners never do that as they know it's really not a slam dunk and all of the economic projections are based on best case scenarios along with simply shifting around jobs that already exist or creating short term construction jobs. If the billionaires want it, open up the wallet. There has never been a proposed ballpark as unpopular in its local market than this. Others have passed a new ballpark financing act, but the citizens have generally wanted it, not in KC.

I think you are overlooking the charms of Kaufmann. It has the fountains. The scoreboard is still unique. It has great sight lines. Roomy concourses. It is architecturally different from the explosion of red brick ballparks built in the 90's and is the last standing of its era. The tailgate scene is also unique and family friendly compared to most ballparks being in the same typical downtown setting (nothing wrong with downtown, but this is just a different and refreshing experience).

I looked at some national rankings and outlets like Yahoo and USA today have it around 12th. I have it around 8th or 9th. For what it's worth, I've been to all 30 ballparks, completing that journey in September 2022 and roughly 35 total with retired ballparks. Kaufmann definitely could use a facelift, but it still ranks pretty highly and is unique in a sea of "retro" from the 90's.

I've been following this for a while and it's interesting to see how it's progressed. The moment the Royals got a new owner, he immediately moved to talk of a new stadium. He's been laser focused on it since he got the keys to Kauffman Stadium. Everything he has done since has been a push towards a new ballpark including things like bringing Patrick Mahomes in as a minority owner/face of the franchise to try to increase public goodwill as there isn't really much going for the team itself since 2016.

As things have progressed, the Hunt family has taken a liking to the idea of having all that land. But, it has all been done in a slimy way that hasn't endeared the local citizens to their cause. First, they released the findings from their own bought and paid for study saying that Kaufmann isn't safe and is literally falling apart. Supposedly, it got "bad concrete" when it was built, but Arrowhead got "good concrete." It's the darndest things, Clark Hunt said...but, don't ask us to see the study, because we aren't releasing it. just trust us. Then, they released their renderings of what they would do with the land and underwhelmed everyone. People were hoping for gameday bars and restaurants on the land...they released an interactive playing field and some upgrades to parking. A total nothing burger. That got people questioning why they needed the land and would the citizens be asked again to chip in on their total dud of a project?

Overall, yes, I agree, owners will eventually get what they want. I don't see either the Royals or Chiefs leaving the KC metro area. But, the terms of any deal matter. In cities like San Francisco and St. Louis, the owners initially asked for the moon from the populace, but ended up having to fund way more for a baseball stadium themselves. Both clubs threatened moves, San Fran to Florida and St. Louis to the suburbs or East St. Louis. Neither happened. These negotiations are appropriate. They also need to listen to the citizens as to whether they want a downtown stadium, or something that suits their needs in the suburbs, etc.

And, when I look at the Royals options, the less exciting they look. Sacramento and Charlotte might actually be the best with a closer to top 20 media market, but they'd probably be better as expansion targets. Portland is decent sized, but another city loathe to use public money on sports facilities. Nashville and Salt Lake would just be trading one small market town for another. Sure, you might get your stadium, but will you be better off there than in KC in 20-30 years? It's not a slam dunk. And, you could have other franchises driving down your negotiating power as White Sox, Diamondbacks, and maybe even Oakland/Tampa still don't have stadium situations figured out.

Overall, I think the citizens of KC are in far less "danger" of losing their team than people think. Moving MLB teams just rarely happens and only in the direst of situations. Something will get worked out, but just grabbing your ankles for the owners of the Royals so they get exactly what they want is not appropriate. The fans have a right to speak and get what they want. They have literally voted and said no.

OK, Mahomes in no way shape or form has been the "face of the franchise" for the Royals. I will be honest it's hard to take your points seriously if that is one of them. Mahomes is one of many, owners that have a minority stake in the franchise.

And Mahomes has done with others franchies. He's a minority owner in Sporting KC and an owner with his wife for the KC Current.

[omaha79]

Had they torn down Wrigley in the 60's and moved out to the suburbs or to a multi use facility with the Bears, as so many did during that time frame (Philly, St. Louis, Cincy, Pittsburgh), the cultural significance of that facility that mostly hit its stride in the WGN era of the 1980's would never have really happened. Bottom line, the K is now the 6th oldest ballpark in baseball and will likely be the 5th oldest by the end of its lifespan when Oakland goes away. It will trail only Fenway, Wrigley, Dodger, and Angel. 3 of the 4 of those are considered cultural icons. Many fanbases tend to regret getting rid of their history for new and modern. KC may look back wishing they'd never taken the wrecking ball to Kaufmann.

Again, the market disagrees with all of your assessments on this and that's all I'm going by. KC is opposing this, and that's all that really matters here. If this was such an economic slam dunk, the team should just fund the whole thing themselves. problem solved.

Well they didn’t move back then and did become culturally significant and along with Fenway they were placed on national register of historic places. Who votes The K in the top 10, it’s just a bowl just like all the others of its time, I’d place many of the newer parks ahead of KC.
Yes, I said the KC market voted irrationally and because owners don’t pay for everything we’ll see who will. At this point, I doubt it’s in KC’s limits.

I'd say they voted intelligently. They have a facility that their fans see as fitting their needs, holds their history, and doesn't warrant replacing at their cost. Again, if this were an economic slam dunk, the owners should just fund the entire thing 100%. Owners never do that as they know it's really not a slam dunk and all of the economic projections are based on best case scenarios along with simply shifting around jobs that already exist or creating short term construction jobs. If the billionaires want it, open up the wallet. There has never been a proposed ballpark as unpopular in its local market than this. Others have passed a new ballpark financing act, but the citizens have generally wanted it, not in KC.

I think you are overlooking the charms of Kaufmann. It has the fountains. The scoreboard is still unique. It has great sight lines. Roomy concourses. It is architecturally different from the explosion of red brick ballparks built in the 90's and is the last standing of its era. The tailgate scene is also unique and family friendly compared to most ballparks being in the same typical downtown setting (nothing wrong with downtown, but this is just a different and refreshing experience).

I looked at some national rankings and outlets like Yahoo and USA today have it around 12th. I have it around 8th or 9th. For what it's worth, I've been to all 30 ballparks, completing that journey in September 2022 and roughly 35 total with retired ballparks. Kaufmann definitely could use a facelift, but it still ranks pretty highly and is unique in a sea of "retro" from the 90's.

I've been following this for a while and it's interesting to see how it's progressed. The moment the Royals got a new owner, he immediately moved to talk of a new stadium. He's been laser focused on it since he got the keys to Kauffman Stadium. Everything he has done since has been a push towards a new ballpark including things like bringing Patrick Mahomes in as a minority owner/face of the franchise to try to increase public goodwill as there isn't really much going for the team itself since 2016.

As things have progressed, the Hunt family has taken a liking to the idea of having all that land. But, it has all been done in a slimy way that hasn't endeared the local citizens to their cause. First, they released the findings from their own bought and paid for study saying that Kaufmann isn't safe and is literally falling apart. Supposedly, it got "bad concrete" when it was built, but Arrowhead got "good concrete." It's the darndest things, Clark Hunt said...but, don't ask us to see the study, because we aren't releasing it. just trust us. Then, they released their renderings of what they would do with the land and underwhelmed everyone. People were hoping for gameday bars and restaurants on the land...they released an interactive playing field and some upgrades to parking. A total nothing burger. That got people questioning why they needed the land and would the citizens be asked again to chip in on their total dud of a project?

Overall, yes, I agree, owners will eventually get what they want. I don't see either the Royals or Chiefs leaving the KC metro area. But, the terms of any deal matter. In cities like San Francisco and St. Louis, the owners initially asked for the moon from the populace, but ended up having to fund way more for a baseball stadium themselves. Both clubs threatened moves, San Fran to Florida and St. Louis to the suburbs or East St. Louis. Neither happened. These negotiations are appropriate. They also need to listen to the citizens as to whether they want a downtown stadium, or something that suits their needs in the suburbs, etc.

And, when I look at the Royals options, the less exciting they look. Sacramento and Charlotte might actually be the best with a closer to top 20 media market, but they'd probably be better as expansion targets. Portland is decent sized, but another city loathe to use public money on sports facilities. Nashville and Salt Lake would just be trading one small market town for another. Sure, you might get your stadium, but will you be better off there than in KC in 20-30 years? It's not a slam dunk. And, you could have other franchises driving down your negotiating power as White Sox, Diamondbacks, and maybe even Oakland/Tampa still don't have stadium situations figured out.

Overall, I think the citizens of KC are in far less "danger" of losing their team than people think. Moving MLB teams just rarely happens and only in the direst of situations. Something will get worked out, but just grabbing your ankles for the owners of the Royals so they get exactly what they want is not appropriate. The fans have a right to speak and get what they want. They have literally voted and said no.

OK, Mahomes in no way shape or form has been the "face of the franchise" for the Royals. I will be honest it's hard to take your points seriously if that is one of them. Mahomes is one of many, owners that have a minority stake in the franchise.

And Mahomes has done with others franchies. He's a minority owner in Sporting KC and an owner with his wife for the KC Current.

They trot him out when they need a face out there. PR 101. There is no way they would have even let him buy in without some benefit to the current ownership group. You see him make a statement about wanting to win, wanting to give the fans a world class new stadium. They put him in commercials advocating for a yes vote. I stand by my statement.

Which other minority owner did they put in commercials? Which other minority owner are the royals featuring in a bobblehead giveaway this year?

[Coyote]

Comparing costs and discussing the fallout after Kansas City voters reject stadium tax



Charlie Keegan of our sister station KSHB in Kansas City joined 7 Voices to discuss the fallout after Kansas City voters rejected the stadium tax and compare it to the Buffalo Bills stadium deal.

[Greg S]

Had they torn down Wrigley in the 60's and moved out to the suburbs or to a multi use facility with the Bears, as so many did during that time frame (Philly, St. Louis, Cincy, Pittsburgh), the cultural significance of that facility that mostly hit its stride in the WGN era of the 1980's would never have really happened. Bottom line, the K is now the 6th oldest ballpark in baseball and will likely be the 5th oldest by the end of its lifespan when Oakland goes away. It will trail only Fenway, Wrigley, Dodger, and Angel. 3 of the 4 of those are considered cultural icons. Many fanbases tend to regret getting rid of their history for new and modern. KC may look back wishing they'd never taken the wrecking ball to Kaufmann.

Again, the market disagrees with all of your assessments on this and that's all I'm going by. KC is opposing this, and that's all that really matters here. If this was such an economic slam dunk, the team should just fund the whole thing themselves. problem solved.

Well they didn’t move back then and did become culturally significant and along with Fenway they were placed on national register of historic places. Who votes The K in the top 10, it’s just a bowl just like all the others of its time, I’d place many of the newer parks ahead of KC.
Yes, I said the KC market voted irrationally and because owners don’t pay for everything we’ll see who will. At this point, I doubt it’s in KC’s limits.

I'd say they voted intelligently. They have a facility that their fans see as fitting their needs, holds their history, and doesn't warrant replacing at their cost. Again, if this were an economic slam dunk, the owners should just fund the entire thing 100%. Owners never do that as they know it's really not a slam dunk and all of the economic projections are based on best case scenarios along with simply shifting around jobs that already exist or creating short term construction jobs. If the billionaires want it, open up the wallet. There has never been a proposed ballpark as unpopular in its local market than this. Others have passed a new ballpark financing act, but the citizens have generally wanted it, not in KC.

I think you are overlooking the charms of Kaufmann. It has the fountains. The scoreboard is still unique. It has great sight lines. Roomy concourses. It is architecturally different from the explosion of red brick ballparks built in the 90's and is the last standing of its era. The tailgate scene is also unique and family friendly compared to most ballparks being in the same typical downtown setting (nothing wrong with downtown, but this is just a different and refreshing experience).

I looked at some national rankings and outlets like Yahoo and USA today have it around 12th. I have it around 8th or 9th. For what it's worth, I've been to all 30 ballparks, completing that journey in September 2022 and roughly 35 total with retired ballparks. Kaufmann definitely could use a facelift, but it still ranks pretty highly and is unique in a sea of "retro" from the 90's.

I've been following this for a while and it's interesting to see how it's progressed. The moment the Royals got a new owner, he immediately moved to talk of a new stadium. He's been laser focused on it since he got the keys to Kauffman Stadium. Everything he has done since has been a push towards a new ballpark including things like bringing Patrick Mahomes in as a minority owner/face of the franchise to try to increase public goodwill as there isn't really much going for the team itself since 2016.

As things have progressed, the Hunt family has taken a liking to the idea of having all that land. But, it has all been done in a slimy way that hasn't endeared the local citizens to their cause. First, they released the findings from their own bought and paid for study saying that Kaufmann isn't safe and is literally falling apart. Supposedly, it got "bad concrete" when it was built, but Arrowhead got "good concrete." It's the darndest things, Clark Hunt said...but, don't ask us to see the study, because we aren't releasing it. just trust us. Then, they released their renderings of what they would do with the land and underwhelmed everyone. People were hoping for gameday bars and restaurants on the land...they released an interactive playing field and some upgrades to parking. A total nothing burger. That got people questioning why they needed the land and would the citizens be asked again to chip in on their total dud of a project?

Overall, yes, I agree, owners will eventually get what they want. I don't see either the Royals or Chiefs leaving the KC metro area. But, the terms of any deal matter. In cities like San Francisco and St. Louis, the owners initially asked for the moon from the populace, but ended up having to fund way more for a baseball stadium themselves. Both clubs threatened moves, San Fran to Florida and St. Louis to the suburbs or East St. Louis. Neither happened. These negotiations are appropriate. They also need to listen to the citizens as to whether they want a downtown stadium, or something that suits their needs in the suburbs, etc.

And, when I look at the Royals options, the less exciting they look. Sacramento and Charlotte might actually be the best with a closer to top 20 media market, but they'd probably be better as expansion targets. Portland is decent sized, but another city loathe to use public money on sports facilities. Nashville and Salt Lake would just be trading one small market town for another. Sure, you might get your stadium, but will you be better off there than in KC in 20-30 years? It's not a slam dunk. And, you could have other franchises driving down your negotiating power as White Sox, Diamondbacks, and maybe even Oakland/Tampa still don't have stadium situations figured out.

Overall, I think the citizens of KC are in far less "danger" of losing their team than people think. Moving MLB teams just rarely happens and only in the direst of situations. Something will get worked out, but just grabbing your ankles for the owners of the Royals so they get exactly what they want is not appropriate. The fans have a right to speak and get what they want. They have literally voted and said no.

OK, Mahomes in no way shape or form has been the "face of the franchise" for the Royals. I will be honest it's hard to take your points seriously if that is one of them. Mahomes is one of many, owners that have a minority stake in the franchise.

And Mahomes has done with others franchies. He's a minority owner in Sporting KC and an owner with his wife for the KC Current.

They trot him out when they need a face out there. PR 101. There is no way they would have even let him buy in without some benefit to the current ownership group. You see him make a statement about wanting to win, wanting to give the fans a world class new stadium. They put him in commercials advocating for a yes vote. I stand by my statement.

Which other minority owner did they put in commercials? Which other minority owner are the royals featuring in a bobblehead giveaway this year?

You know he still plays for the Chiefs, right? Travis Kelce was in those commercials too. Those commercials weren't just about the new DT stadium, but also the $800 million renovation for Arrowhead and the TSC. And some guy named Bobby Witt Jr. was in them as well. And Bobby Witt Jr is the face of the franchise....

[omaha79]

Had they torn down Wrigley in the 60's and moved out to the suburbs or to a multi use facility with the Bears, as so many did during that time frame (Philly, St. Louis, Cincy, Pittsburgh), the cultural significance of that facility that mostly hit its stride in the WGN era of the 1980's would never have really happened. Bottom line, the K is now the 6th oldest ballpark in baseball and will likely be the 5th oldest by the end of its lifespan when Oakland goes away. It will trail only Fenway, Wrigley, Dodger, and Angel. 3 of the 4 of those are considered cultural icons. Many fanbases tend to regret getting rid of their history for new and modern. KC may look back wishing they'd never taken the wrecking ball to Kaufmann.

Again, the market disagrees with all of your assessments on this and that's all I'm going by. KC is opposing this, and that's all that really matters here. If this was such an economic slam dunk, the team should just fund the whole thing themselves. problem solved.

Well they didn’t move back then and did become culturally significant and along with Fenway they were placed on national register of historic places. Who votes The K in the top 10, it’s just a bowl just like all the others of its time, I’d place many of the newer parks ahead of KC.
Yes, I said the KC market voted irrationally and because owners don’t pay for everything we’ll see who will. At this point, I doubt it’s in KC’s limits.

I'd say they voted intelligently. They have a facility that their fans see as fitting their needs, holds their history, and doesn't warrant replacing at their cost. Again, if this were an economic slam dunk, the owners should just fund the entire thing 100%. Owners never do that as they know it's really not a slam dunk and all of the economic projections are based on best case scenarios along with simply shifting around jobs that already exist or creating short term construction jobs. If the billionaires want it, open up the wallet. There has never been a proposed ballpark as unpopular in its local market than this. Others have passed a new ballpark financing act, but the citizens have generally wanted it, not in KC.

I think you are overlooking the charms of Kaufmann. It has the fountains. The scoreboard is still unique. It has great sight lines. Roomy concourses. It is architecturally different from the explosion of red brick ballparks built in the 90's and is the last standing of its era. The tailgate scene is also unique and family friendly compared to most ballparks being in the same typical downtown setting (nothing wrong with downtown, but this is just a different and refreshing experience).

I looked at some national rankings and outlets like Yahoo and USA today have it around 12th. I have it around 8th or 9th. For what it's worth, I've been to all 30 ballparks, completing that journey in September 2022 and roughly 35 total with retired ballparks. Kaufmann definitely could use a facelift, but it still ranks pretty highly and is unique in a sea of "retro" from the 90's.

I've been following this for a while and it's interesting to see how it's progressed. The moment the Royals got a new owner, he immediately moved to talk of a new stadium. He's been laser focused on it since he got the keys to Kauffman Stadium. Everything he has done since has been a push towards a new ballpark including things like bringing Patrick Mahomes in as a minority owner/face of the franchise to try to increase public goodwill as there isn't really much going for the team itself since 2016.

As things have progressed, the Hunt family has taken a liking to the idea of having all that land. But, it has all been done in a slimy way that hasn't endeared the local citizens to their cause. First, they released the findings from their own bought and paid for study saying that Kaufmann isn't safe and is literally falling apart. Supposedly, it got "bad concrete" when it was built, but Arrowhead got "good concrete." It's the darndest things, Clark Hunt said...but, don't ask us to see the study, because we aren't releasing it. just trust us. Then, they released their renderings of what they would do with the land and underwhelmed everyone. People were hoping for gameday bars and restaurants on the land...they released an interactive playing field and some upgrades to parking. A total nothing burger. That got people questioning why they needed the land and would the citizens be asked again to chip in on their total dud of a project?

Overall, yes, I agree, owners will eventually get what they want. I don't see either the Royals or Chiefs leaving the KC metro area. But, the terms of any deal matter. In cities like San Francisco and St. Louis, the owners initially asked for the moon from the populace, but ended up having to fund way more for a baseball stadium themselves. Both clubs threatened moves, San Fran to Florida and St. Louis to the suburbs or East St. Louis. Neither happened. These negotiations are appropriate. They also need to listen to the citizens as to whether they want a downtown stadium, or something that suits their needs in the suburbs, etc.

And, when I look at the Royals options, the less exciting they look. Sacramento and Charlotte might actually be the best with a closer to top 20 media market, but they'd probably be better as expansion targets. Portland is decent sized, but another city loathe to use public money on sports facilities. Nashville and Salt Lake would just be trading one small market town for another. Sure, you might get your stadium, but will you be better off there than in KC in 20-30 years? It's not a slam dunk. And, you could have other franchises driving down your negotiating power as White Sox, Diamondbacks, and maybe even Oakland/Tampa still don't have stadium situations figured out.

Overall, I think the citizens of KC are in far less "danger" of losing their team than people think. Moving MLB teams just rarely happens and only in the direst of situations. Something will get worked out, but just grabbing your ankles for the owners of the Royals so they get exactly what they want is not appropriate. The fans have a right to speak and get what they want. They have literally voted and said no.

OK, Mahomes in no way shape or form has been the "face of the franchise" for the Royals. I will be honest it's hard to take your points seriously if that is one of them. Mahomes is one of many, owners that have a minority stake in the franchise.

And Mahomes has done with others franchies. He's a minority owner in Sporting KC and an owner with his wife for the KC Current.

They trot him out when they need a face out there. PR 101. There is no way they would have even let him buy in without some benefit to the current ownership group. You see him make a statement about wanting to win, wanting to give the fans a world class new stadium. They put him in commercials advocating for a yes vote. I stand by my statement.

Which other minority owner did they put in commercials? Which other minority owner are the royals featuring in a bobblehead giveaway this year?

You know he still plays for the Chiefs, right? Travis Kelce was in those commercials too. Those commercials weren't just about the new DT stadium, but also the $800 million renovation for Arrowhead and the TSC. And some guy named Bobby Witt Jr. was in them as well. And Bobby Witt Jr is the face of the franchise....

still trot him out for publicity for the baseball team. They aren't using other minority owners to throw out first pitches. They aren't doing bobbleheads of other minority owners. There is purpose to having him on the ownership group. That is plainly apparent.

[Coyote]

What happens now? Chiefs, Royals regroup after failed stadium tax vote

[omaha79]

It was interesting to see just how much Frank White, who is on the City Council in KC, is opposing the stadium tax. Telling. Says it's not been done with the best interest of the citizens in mind and hasn't been done with any transparency or integrity. Very telling. Said it would take a lot more transparency and willingness from ownership to come to the table willing to work with the city before he'd ever support it. I say good for him. This has just been the Royals and Chiefs ownership trying to fleece the city for a while now. just a pure cash grab/wealth transfer.

[Greg S]

Had they torn down Wrigley in the 60's and moved out to the suburbs or to a multi use facility with the Bears, as so many did during that time frame (Philly, St. Louis, Cincy, Pittsburgh), the cultural significance of that facility that mostly hit its stride in the WGN era of the 1980's would never have really happened. Bottom line, the K is now the 6th oldest ballpark in baseball and will likely be the 5th oldest by the end of its lifespan when Oakland goes away. It will trail only Fenway, Wrigley, Dodger, and Angel. 3 of the 4 of those are considered cultural icons. Many fanbases tend to regret getting rid of their history for new and modern. KC may look back wishing they'd never taken the wrecking ball to Kaufmann.

Again, the market disagrees with all of your assessments on this and that's all I'm going by. KC is opposing this, and that's all that really matters here. If this was such an economic slam dunk, the team should just fund the whole thing themselves. problem solved.

Well they didn’t move back then and did become culturally significant and along with Fenway they were placed on national register of historic places. Who votes The K in the top 10, it’s just a bowl just like all the others of its time, I’d place many of the newer parks ahead of KC.
Yes, I said the KC market voted irrationally and because owners don’t pay for everything we’ll see who will. At this point, I doubt it’s in KC’s limits.

I'd say they voted intelligently. They have a facility that their fans see as fitting their needs, holds their history, and doesn't warrant replacing at their cost. Again, if this were an economic slam dunk, the owners should just fund the entire thing 100%. Owners never do that as they know it's really not a slam dunk and all of the economic projections are based on best case scenarios along with simply shifting around jobs that already exist or creating short term construction jobs. If the billionaires want it, open up the wallet. There has never been a proposed ballpark as unpopular in its local market than this. Others have passed a new ballpark financing act, but the citizens have generally wanted it, not in KC.

I think you are overlooking the charms of Kaufmann. It has the fountains. The scoreboard is still unique. It has great sight lines. Roomy concourses. It is architecturally different from the explosion of red brick ballparks built in the 90's and is the last standing of its era. The tailgate scene is also unique and family friendly compared to most ballparks being in the same typical downtown setting (nothing wrong with downtown, but this is just a different and refreshing experience).

I looked at some national rankings and outlets like Yahoo and USA today have it around 12th. I have it around 8th or 9th. For what it's worth, I've been to all 30 ballparks, completing that journey in September 2022 and roughly 35 total with retired ballparks. Kaufmann definitely could use a facelift, but it still ranks pretty highly and is unique in a sea of "retro" from the 90's.

I've been following this for a while and it's interesting to see how it's progressed. The moment the Royals got a new owner, he immediately moved to talk of a new stadium. He's been laser focused on it since he got the keys to Kauffman Stadium. Everything he has done since has been a push towards a new ballpark including things like bringing Patrick Mahomes in as a minority owner/face of the franchise to try to increase public goodwill as there isn't really much going for the team itself since 2016.

As things have progressed, the Hunt family has taken a liking to the idea of having all that land. But, it has all been done in a slimy way that hasn't endeared the local citizens to their cause. First, they released the findings from their own bought and paid for study saying that Kaufmann isn't safe and is literally falling apart. Supposedly, it got "bad concrete" when it was built, but Arrowhead got "good concrete." It's the darndest things, Clark Hunt said...but, don't ask us to see the study, because we aren't releasing it. just trust us. Then, they released their renderings of what they would do with the land and underwhelmed everyone. People were hoping for gameday bars and restaurants on the land...they released an interactive playing field and some upgrades to parking. A total nothing burger. That got people questioning why they needed the land and would the citizens be asked again to chip in on their total dud of a project?

Overall, yes, I agree, owners will eventually get what they want. I don't see either the Royals or Chiefs leaving the KC metro area. But, the terms of any deal matter. In cities like San Francisco and St. Louis, the owners initially asked for the moon from the populace, but ended up having to fund way more for a baseball stadium themselves. Both clubs threatened moves, San Fran to Florida and St. Louis to the suburbs or East St. Louis. Neither happened. These negotiations are appropriate. They also need to listen to the citizens as to whether they want a downtown stadium, or something that suits their needs in the suburbs, etc.

And, when I look at the Royals options, the less exciting they look. Sacramento and Charlotte might actually be the best with a closer to top 20 media market, but they'd probably be better as expansion targets. Portland is decent sized, but another city loathe to use public money on sports facilities. Nashville and Salt Lake would just be trading one small market town for another. Sure, you might get your stadium, but will you be better off there than in KC in 20-30 years? It's not a slam dunk. And, you could have other franchises driving down your negotiating power as White Sox, Diamondbacks, and maybe even Oakland/Tampa still don't have stadium situations figured out.

Overall, I think the citizens of KC are in far less "danger" of losing their team than people think. Moving MLB teams just rarely happens and only in the direst of situations. Something will get worked out, but just grabbing your ankles for the owners of the Royals so they get exactly what they want is not appropriate. The fans have a right to speak and get what they want. They have literally voted and said no.

OK, Mahomes in no way shape or form has been the "face of the franchise" for the Royals. I will be honest it's hard to take your points seriously if that is one of them. Mahomes is one of many, owners that have a minority stake in the franchise.

And Mahomes has done with others franchies. He's a minority owner in Sporting KC and an owner with his wife for the KC Current.

They trot him out when they need a face out there. PR 101. There is no way they would have even let him buy in without some benefit to the current ownership group. You see him make a statement about wanting to win, wanting to give the fans a world class new stadium. They put him in commercials advocating for a yes vote. I stand by my statement.

Which other minority owner did they put in commercials? Which other minority owner are the royals featuring in a bobblehead giveaway this year?

You know he still plays for the Chiefs, right? Travis Kelce was in those commercials too. Those commercials weren't just about the new DT stadium, but also the $800 million renovation for Arrowhead and the TSC. And some guy named Bobby Witt Jr. was in them as well. And Bobby Witt Jr is the face of the franchise....

still trot him out for publicity for the baseball team. They aren't using other minority owners to throw out first pitches. They aren't doing bobbleheads of other minority owners. There is purpose to having him on the ownership group. That is plainly apparent.

So here's the commercial spots they were running in KC on regular TV and doing Royals games. I don't see how anyone could view these and say that Mahommes is the face of the Royals. Or see him in these commercials and think of him as being a minority owner of the team. They see him the Chiefs Super Bowl winning quarterback. Obviously if he is the face of a franchise, it's the Chiefs, not the Royals.

[Greg S]

It was interesting to see just how much Frank White, who is on the City Council in KC, is opposing the stadium tax. Telling. Says it's not been done with the best interest of the citizens in mind and hasn't been done with any transparency or integrity. Very telling. Said it would take a lot more transparency and willingness from ownership to come to the table willing to work with the city before he'd ever support it. I say good for him. This has just been the Royals and Chiefs ownership trying to fleece the city for a while now. just a pure cash grab/wealth transfer.

Actually not. Either you are being misleading in what you are trying to portray or you don't know the full story here. Frank White has been in a feud with the Royals for over 10 years. Started when they didn't promote him to manager, and then when he got fired a couple years later for feuding with the previous owners. Either way, Frank being a roadblock throughout this process surprised no one and it wasn't telling at all.....