Current Events > KC Chiefs billionaire owners threaten to leave unless tax payers pay for them

(+) Yeah! (+)

Billionaire family who owns the Chiefs wants the taxpayers to foot the bill for renovations worth $500 million as they themselves will not pay more than $300 million despite being worth billions.

https://twitter.com/tylermwebb/status/1769056188501545412?t=Y_KXHBgeHwLgY9UkD4KA1A

In total, these renovations would cost an estimated $800 million. However, the teams owners have said they'll only be contributing $300 million to the project. FWIW, the Hunt Family has an estimated net worth of $25 billion. 3/8

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/chiefs-might-explore-option-of-leaving-kansas-city-if-upcoming-sales-tax-vote-doesnt-go-their-way/
https://www.foxnews.com/sports/chiefs-president-leaving-kansas-city-option-stadium-tax-vote

Should the public foot the bill?

WingsOfGood posted...

Should the public foot the bill?

Fuck no.

If taxpayers are going to foot 70% of the bill, then taxpayers should get 70% of the revenue it generates.

This should unironically be a capitol crime. The team and stadium should now publically owned as a result as well.

All his money should be distributed equally among all non rich families in the area.

The Kansas legislature has been salivating at the chance to give them hundreds of millions in welf.. I mean incentives to move to the Kansas side for a few years now.

Put that money into helping people, not into a stadium.

Then leave lmao

Hunt family? Moar like the ............. nevermind.

Fuck that. Too bad government officials are too greedy and too many people care too much about "muh football" to just lay down and accept billionaires being cheap and mooching off of taxpayers. Funny how certain folks get constantly enraged over poor people on benefits, but are fine with this.

I thought Taylor Swift owned all of football now.

Seriously though: It's like they are a massive corporation that wants to soak up public funds at every opportunity while privatizing as much of the profits as possible.

Like every other corporation.

texanfan27 posted...

Put that money into helping people, not into a stadium.

This is the wrong perspective. That stadium will employ a lot of people for a long time, not just at the level of the stadium but all the surrounding businesses for...probably 100 square miles. It may seem like the owners are trying to get an investment for free, but if they are putting up almost half of it then that seems to me to be generous.

That being said, if they funded the entire thing they'd still recoup their investment and make tons of money more...but in any case, it's not so simple as choosing to help vs choosing to make a stadium, and it's also not as simple as the owners here being greedy and wanting free taxpayer dollars.

I think it's a reasonable compromise, I'd say that if they are willing to put up half then the public covering the other half means everyone wins.

what a fucking clown.

obliteratus posted...

This is the wrong perspective. That stadium will employ a lot of people for a long time, not just at the level of the stadium but all the surrounding businesses for...probably 100 square miles. It may seem like the owners are trying to get an investment for free, but if they are putting up almost half of it then that seems to me to be generous.

That being said, if they funded the entire thing they'd still recoup their investment and make tons of money more...but in any case, it's not so simple as choosing to help vs choosing to make a stadium, and it's also not as simple as the owners here being greedy and wanting free taxpayer dollars.

I think it's a reasonable compromise, I'd say that if they are willing to put up half then the public covering the other half means everyone wins.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/9/978224c9.jpg

obliteratus posted...

and it's also not as simple as the owners here being greedy and wanting free taxpayer dollars.

false

LeCh0nk posted...

If taxpayers are going to foot 70% of the bill, then taxpayers should get 70% of the revenue it generates.

Nope. We gotta socialize the costs and privatize the profits. That's how we do things in this country apparently.

Unsuprised_Pika posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/9/978224c9.jpg

I'm stealing that. Thanks.

UnsteadyOwl posted...

Nope. We gotta socialize the costs and privatize the profits. That's how we do things in this country apparently.

then whine about no one wants to work cause they got a stimmy and lived off of it for 3 years

Lmao you guys still haven't grown beyond surface-level CEmanery yet? Regardless, reality is reality and grown-ups will dabble in the reality of things which is much more complex than the zaney one-liners posted here.

obliteratus posted...

Lmao you guys still haven't grown beyond surface-level CEmanery yet? Regardless, reality is reality and grown-ups will dabble in the reality of things which is much more complex than the zangy one-liners posted here.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/b/b7db6d1b.jpg

Private business wants the public to pay for their expenses and the public gets no equity stake in the business nor any of the profits in return.

And they arent leaving Kansas City. What a stupid pointless threat that this.

WingsOfGood posted...

Should the public foot the bill?

No

Block_that_Kick posted...

Private business wants the public to pay for their expenses and the public gets no equity stake in the business in return.

Did you see those renderings of the facility? That is the equity stake. You can't lift-and-shift the infrastructure after it has been built. That facility will generate revenue for the city and state for many decades.

obliteratus posted...

Lmao you guys still haven't grown beyond surface-level CEmanery yet? Regardless, reality is reality and grown-ups will dabble in the reality of things which is much more complex than the zaney one-liners posted here.

You admitted their profit will surpass every penny spent yet you still want to say:

and it's also not as simple as the owners here being greedy and wanting free taxpayer dollars.

It is 100% the owners being greedy and wanting free taxpayers dollars. Now, are they the only team that does this? No. But normalizing this greedy behaviour is dumb and why cities bend over backwards and raise your taxes.

They are not sharing the profit with the city. You can try to bend your brain to say "bwhtut the stadium employs people...." but no, that isn't sharing the profit.

obliteratus posted...

This is the wrong perspective. That stadium will employ a lot of people for a long time, not just at the level of the stadium but all the surrounding businesses for...probably 100 square miles. It may seem like the owners are trying to get an investment for free, but if they are putting up almost half of it then that seems to me to be generous.

That being said, if they funded the entire thing they'd still recoup their investment and make tons of money more...but in any case, it's not so simple as choosing to help vs choosing to make a stadium, and it's also not as simple as the owners here being greedy and wanting free taxpayer dollars.

I think it's a reasonable compromise, I'd say that if they are willing to put up half then the public covering the other half means everyone wins.

It's still privately owned. Idc what jobs it could potentially create, if the public has to pay for it then it shouldnt be privately owned by this billionaire.

Block_that_Kick posted...

And they arent leaving Kansas City. What a stupid pointless threat that this.

You don't think if the public says NO
that they will leave?

obliteratus posted...

Did you see those renderings of the facility? That is the equity stake. You can't lift-and-shift the infrastructure after it has been built. That facility will generate revenue for the city and state for many decades.

And theyll be generating revenue for decades even if the public refuses to pay, because the Chiefs are not leaving Kansas City.

Sure, but the taxpayers own the stadium and get the profits.

Oh, you don't like that? Well pay for it yourself.

obliteratus posted...

Did you see those renderings of the facility? That is the equity stake. You can't lift-and-shift the infrastructure after it has been built. That facility will generate revenue for the city and state for many decades.

To offset the costs associated with increased traffic, EMS, maintenance, and security?

WingsOfGood posted...

You admitted their profit will surpass every penny spent

Nobody is "admitting" anything, that is how it has to work. If it doesn't work like that, then nobody will ever invest anything anywhere. The public would benefit the same way. They would recoup far more than was spent over time.

WingsOfGood posted...

It is 100% the owners being greedy and wanting free taxpayers dollars. Now, are they the only team that does this? No. But normalizing this greedy

You have the burden of justifying the change, since the status quo works and is based on simple logic and principles. If you want to characterize it as being greedy and wanting "free" taxpayer dollars, by all means, but that doesn't mean it's true no matter how many times you just repeat it.

WingsOfGood posted...

They are not sharing the profit with the city. You can try to bend your brain to say "bwhtut the stadium employs people...." but no, that isn't sharing the profit.

They pay taxes and a lot of people will be employed who also pay taxes as a result, and the surrounding businesses will all get a lift as well.

Cephalopods posted...

It's still privately owned. Idc what jobs it could potentially create, if the public has to pay for it then it shouldnt be privately owned by this billionaire.

The public enjoys the facility and the taxes and the jobs. The alternative is that potentially an upgraded and modern stadium won't be enjoyed by people because of types like AOC who are purists on these matters to the point where...all of a sudden no hot Amazon HQ employing New Yorkers. Etc.

If someone is saying "hey I'm right on this purity aspect or principle" and "I don't care what jobs are created" then they are effectively saying they don't actually care about the nuance or reality of things.

obliteratus posted...

The public enjoys the facility

By...paying high ticket prices?

LeCh0nk posted...

If taxpayers are going to foot 70% of the bill, then taxpayers should get 70% of the revenue it generates.

the real solution

Block_that_Kick posted...

And theyll be generating revenue for decades even if the public refuses to pay, because the Chiefs are not leaving Kansas City.

Maybe, but at some point if stadiums aren't upgraded then they won't be enjoying modern things like they could be. The experience for the people who like the sport will not be as good as it could be, and thus foot traffic would decline reducing the viability of the existing infrastructure to continue generating revenue. Since all parties win from these projects, it's not so simple a matter as saying that it's a matter of owner greed.

I would not take them up on threats to leave. Those threats may not manifest into a reality right now, but if the stadium ends up no longer being stewarded well and cared about for the future then that affects the people of KC far more than some tax breaks.

WingsOfGood posted...

By...paying high ticket prices?

By paying ticket prices to enjoy state of the art facilities and by even becoming employed there in many cases, or in surrounding businesses that get propped up by the foot traffic of people wanting to enjoy a state of the art facility.

obliteratus posted...

Maybe, but at some point if stadiums aren't upgraded then they won't be enjoying modern things like they could be. The experience for the people who like the sport will not be as good as it could be, and thus foot traffic would decline reducing the viability of the existing infrastructure to continue generating revenue. Since all parties win from these projects, it's not so simple a matter as saying that it's a matter of owner greed.

I would not take them up on threats to leave. Those threats may not manifest into a reality right now, but if the stadium ends up no longer being stewarded well and cared about for the future then that affects the people of KC far more than some tax breaks.

why doesn't the profit go into this? where does it go?

The public enjoys the facility

90% of the public cant afford to enter the facility they are paying for.

Were_Wyrm posted...

The Kansas legislature has been salivating at the chance to give them hundreds of millions in welf.. I mean incentives to move to the Kansas side for a few years now.

Don't both states have bankrupt governments?

User Since: Jul 2023
Karma: 58

Dark_Arbron posted...

User Since: Jul 2023
Karma: 58

good catch

In any other reality, putting money into a business means getting to directly reap in some of the profits. I hope the citizens of Kansas are at least smart enough to threaten their politicians if they green light this.

obliteratus posted...

They pay taxes and a lot of people will be employed who also pay taxes as a result, and the surrounding businesses will all get a lift as well.

Some.

And it will be bad or show no change for others. A burger shack will probably have boom periods and big days... mostly it's going to be the same corporate chains running motels, fast food and chain diners (Olive Garden, Chilis), gas stations marts, etc...

Essentially all serving the largely out of town crowd and pulling most of that money right back out into their internationally located tax shelters on a remote island in the Caribbean.

If taxpayers pay for it taxpayers get to own it. Which means the city and state get to pocket the profits, not the owners. Otherwise, fuck off and leave then.

As for this clown defending it? There are decades of studies that show the citizens do not benefit from paying for billionaire's stadiums.

John Oliver covered this eight years ago:

https://youtu.be/xcwJt4bcnXs

Sports teams should not be franchises. They should be tied to their community. No team should be allowed to move wherever the fuck they want in search of handouts.

Block_that_Kick posted...

90% of the public cant afford to enter the facility they are paying for.

If it is staffed and throughput to the facility is filling a good enough number of seats, it is productive for the entire city and state. Where are you getting your 90% figure from? It's coming across as more of an AOC-ism and a purity thing. What percentage of access would absolve the institution of moral guilt? Why is it not enough that it be driven by a market price and by whatever throughput is natural owing to the market? If the pricing dynamics are known to be a net gain for the city and the state, then moralizing about what percentage of people are believed to be able to afford the facility makes no sense. Especially since each individual's contribution from amongst that percentage is...in that case not likely to be a noticeable, or even existing, amount of tax from their check since a lot of this is funded in the form of tax breaks, is it not?

ai123 posted...

John Oliver covered this eight years ago:

https://youtu.be/xcwJt4bcnXs

Sports teams should not be franchises. They should be tied to their community. No team should be allowed to move wherever the fuck they want in search of handouts.

Capitalism is all about welfare for billionaires while mocking the poor

this is just so on the nose because the Chiefs made out like a bandit profit wise from the last year didn't they?
where did all those profits go? into a black hole? another dimension?
it can more than pay for this probably 3x over

this is just greed but billionaires in Capitalism gonna greed

Billionaires don't become billionaires by spending their own money. They can kick rocks.

ai123 posted...

Sports teams should not be franchises. They should be tied to their community. No team should be allowed to move wherever the fuck they want in search of handouts.

It's especially egregious because the politician that brings in the contract gets lauded as the hero and deal-maker bringing family entertainment to the community while pleasing a big donor.

But then the politician leaves office and the community is stuck with the bill and maintenance and any other potential issues - or the team decides Las Vegas or Houston has more money to throw around and move there leaving you with an overly large venue in need of the same security and upkeep.

Torgo posted...

It's especially egregious because the politician that brings in the contract gets lauded as the hero and deal-maker bringing family entertainment to the community while pleasing a big donor.

But then the politician leaves office and the community is stuck with the bill and maintenance

Working as intended.

Well, where's he going to go, Detroit?

If it is a community thing then, and not about private investment, then communities can voluntarily fund an entire project like this without there being any concept of private ownership or private investment. Because nothing is holding back the construction of entirely publicly-owned stadiums that people choose over the privately-funded ones. So a city can create its own renderings and then put it on a ballot to see if there are more votes for that than not.