urbanSTL

^ Yes, Kansas bet the farm for the Chiefs and Royals. Some KCMO supporters are celebrating that they’re “off the hook” but as more details come out, KCKS undercut the entire MSA.

This significantly reduces the available financial capacity and flexibility of Kansas, 45% of the MSA economy. Excluding the emotional or political blow of the border war, this makes it less likely that Kansas will be willing to extend itself to participate in any bi-state projects (highways, transit, parks/greenways, national business attraction, airline incentives)

Jackson County will regain some capacity as the sales tax ends in 2031, but they’ll still have to resolve Truman Sports Complex. Not to mention the Royals may want the sales tax renewed and receive 100% for a new stadium.

Blurb from Joe Pompliano’s blog.

After reading through the 33-page term sheet for the Chiefs' new stadium in Kansas, I think it's one of the most lopsided stadium deals in NFL history.

Kansas is essentially giving the Chiefs $3 billion (stadium funding + mixed-use development funding + tax incentives), yet getting virtually nothing in return.

The Chiefs get to keep 100% of the revenue from all stadium activities, including ticket sales, concessions, sponsorships, naming rights deals, personal seat licenses, and more. That applies to NFL games and all other events (concerts, basketball games, etc.).

Kansas will own the stadium, with the Chiefs paying $7 million in rent annually. But that money doesn't go back to the state; it goes into an account the Chiefs can use for renovations, repairs, and operational expenses.

That means the Chiefs can use their own rent money to hire stadium security, parking staff, and concession vendors throughout the season.

I know Kansas had to offer a great deal to get the Chiefs to leave Arrowhead, but this is worse than I expected.

It seems like if the Chiefs can get such a deal I’m sure Kansas may be willing to do the same for the Royals…. KC & Missouri have one bullet left to hit the bullseye to keep the Royals in the state.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

STLAPTS wrote:Blurb from Joe Pompliano’s blog.

After reading through the 33-page term sheet for the Chiefs' new stadium in Kansas, I think it's one of the most lopsided stadium deals in NFL history.

Kansas is essentially giving the Chiefs $3 billion (stadium funding + mixed-use development funding + tax incentives), yet getting virtually nothing in return.

The Chiefs get to keep 100% of the revenue from all stadium activities, including ticket sales, concessions, sponsorships, naming rights deals, personal seat licenses, and more. That applies to NFL games and all other events (concerts, basketball games, etc.).

Kansas will own the stadium, with the Chiefs paying $7 million in rent annually. But that money doesn't go back to the state; it goes into an account the Chiefs can use for renovations, repairs, and operational expenses.

That means the Chiefs can use their own rent money to hire stadium security, parking staff, and concession vendors throughout the season.

I know Kansas had to offer a great deal to get the Chiefs to leave Arrowhead, but this is worse than I expected.

This is an unbelievably bad deal for Kansas. Not surprising the Chiefs are going there, especially considering KS is where the growth is.

Can you imagine if the Royals leaked that they’re considering proposals in Nashville, Raleigh, Charlotte, or Portland. KCK did something stupid to get the Chiefs. Will KCMO do something desperate and stupid to keep the Royals?

I think the chiefs on the backside of all their success will do more to lose STL fans than the move to Kansas. It was easy to jump on board when the Rams left because they were good for all these years since. If that changes support on this side of the state will wane

KS is a small rural state with declining population. It doesn't have tourist attractions, f500 companies, it doesn't have a big four sports team. It's no wonder they threw everything they had at the Chiefs. All they have is the KS side of the KC metro and all they know is poaching business and attractions from Missouri.

The Kansas City Chiefs Have Landed The Most Lopsided Stadium Deal In NFL History
https://huddleup.substack.com/p/the-kansas-city-chiefs-have-landed

Home for the holidays in Northeast Missouri. I’m surprised how clear the message already is. The Chiefs are dead up this way. Something I wasn’t expecting. Reasons range from “not Missouri, not mine” to “greedy bastards”.

Is the key to building a stadium not letting the public vote? I don’t think there was a public vote in Nashville or Kansas. Or Vegas?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

gary kreie wrote: ↑

Dec 25, 2025

Is the key to building a stadium not letting the public vote? I don’t think there was a public vote in Nashville or Kansas. Or Vegas?

It seemed like neither team wanted to go through a second public vote on the manner, but for the Chiefs, the news getting out that they had Olathe officials under an NDA for nearly 2 years raises questions about whether they were actually going to stay or leave depending on the outcome of that April 2024 3/8 cent sales tax vote in Jackson County. Many said their planned renovations were half assed back then and looking back, it’s pretty obvious they were.

Some in my circles over here are thinking that the Chief’s poor renovation plans for Arrowhead cost the Royals more support for their East Crossroads stadium (which itself was rushed as a result of pressure from the Mayor’s office, Cordish, and the Privitera Family).

An NFL franchise playing footsie while they worked on their true desire to move? Never heard of that before.

Suburban Sprawl wrote: ↑

Dec 24, 2025

KS is a small rural state with declining population. It doesn't have tourist attractions, f500 companies, it doesn't have a big four sports team. It's no wonder they threw everything they had at the Chiefs. All they have is the KS side of the KC metro and all they know is poaching business and attractions from Missouri.

Kansas' population has gone up ever census except 1940.

Kansas is pouring all of its resources into the KC suburbs do they even know Wichita or their own state capital exist? IMO I don’t think them moving to Kansas is even a big deal it’s not like they moved completely out of the metro but it’s crazy how KCRaggers seem to perceive St.Louis is Missouri’s preference city. It’s always blame the city in Eastern Missouri yet they talk trash about us every chance they get. I’m usually not ruthless nor petty but I kinda hope the Royals move to Kansas since they always seem to wish bad on us & I’m sure they didn’t shed any tears when the Rams left St.Louis they were probably hoping St.Louis sink further into irrelevance…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

PlatinumBlues wrote:Kansas is pouring all of its resources into the KC suburbs do they even know Wichita or their own state capital exist? IMO I don’t think them moving to Kansas is even a big deal it’s not like they moved completely out of the metro but it’s crazy how KCRaggers seem to perceive St.Louis is Missouri’s preference city. It’s always blame the city in Eastern Missouri yet they talk trash about us every chance they get. I’m usually not ruthless nor petty but I kinda hope the Royals move to Kansas since they always seem to wish bad on us & I’m sure they didn’t shed any tears when the Rams left St.Louis they were probably hoping St.Louis sink further into irrelevance…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

1) Kansas City is Kansas' largest MSA. At ~916k, it is larger than Wichita's ~652k and Topeka's ~232k combined. On top of that, it is the 2nd fastest growing after Lawrence at 1.26% since 2020, and in the 2010s it was by far the fastest growing at over 10%. It makes total sense for Kansas to be focusing on its continued growth and development.

2) St. Louis is definitely Missouri's preferred city. Up until this year, the leadership in both the House and Senate were STL-based, Eric Schmidt is from STL, and Mike Kehoe is also from STL. It's just a simple reality that STL is much more important to the state and has more representation in state politics than KC, regardless if you disagree with the political views of those leaders. I think the only powerful-KC based leader is the new House Speaker? And that was seen as a major shift for him to be elected Speaker. With that being said, the state did literally go all out to try and keep the Chiefs in-state, so I feel this isn't really an example of preference.

3) The Royals leaving would be very funny. Part of why KCRag has been so upset is because 1) The border war bullsh*t that we don't have because we don't hate Illinois the way they hate Kansas and 2) It is probably pretty emasculating in a way for a city to lose its teams to soulless suburbia in a different state, even moreso for a city as suburban and bleak (from an urbanist perspective) as KC already is. I feel like for them a downtown Royals stadium would show real urban development that they don't see particularly often and it would be a massive gut punch to lose out on that opportunity, a gut punch that probably would make some of them realize how bad KC's outlook actually is.

I’m glad the MO taxpayer isn’t subsidizing this. What a bad deal for the KS taxpayer and all so they can say they won a pissing contest against MO and Jackson County. Yikes.

JaneJacobsGhost wrote:I’m glad the MO taxpayer isn’t subsidizing this. What a bad deal for the KS taxpayer and all so they can say they won a pissing contest against MO and Jackson County. Yikes.

Biggest reason the Royals leaving would be good is that MO won't be paying for them. That's our last big string, we aren't out of it yet.

I don’t think neither city is the states preference they just tolerate them enough to make it seem like they care I would think Springfield aligns more with what the state prefers. I don’t find it hard to believe that Kansas was willing to give free money to a billionaire while the average person continues to struggle but hey as they say the rich gets richer & the poor gets poorer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

StlAlex wrote: ↑

Dec 26, 2025

PlatinumBlues wrote:Kansas is pouring all of its resources into the KC suburbs do they even know Wichita or their own state capital exist? IMO I don’t think them moving to Kansas is even a big deal it’s not like they  moved completely out of the metro but it’s crazy how KCRaggers seem to perceive St.Louis is Missouri’s preference city. It’s always blame the city in Eastern Missouri yet they talk trash about us every chance they get. I’m usually not ruthless nor petty but I kinda hope the Royals move to Kansas since they always seem to wish bad on us & I’m sure they didn’t shed any tears when the Rams left St.Louis they were probably hoping St.Louis sink further into irrelevance…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

1) Kansas City is Kansas' largest MSA. At ~916k, it is larger than Wichita's ~652k and Topeka's ~232k combined. On top of that, it is the 2nd fastest growing after Lawrence at 1.26% since 2020, and in the 2010s it was by far the fastest growing at over 10%. It makes total sense for Kansas to be focusing on its continued growth and development.

2) St. Louis is definitely Missouri's preferred city. Up until this year, the leadership in both the House and Senate were STL-based, Eric Schmidt is from STL, and Mike Kehoe is also from STL. It's just a simple reality that STL is much more important to the state and has more representation in state politics than KC, regardless if you disagree with the political views of those leaders. I think the only powerful-KC based leader is the new House Speaker? And that was seen as a major shift for him to be elected Speaker. With that being said, the state did literally go all out to try and keep the Chiefs in-state, so I feel this isn't really an example of preference.

3) The Royals leaving would be very funny. Part of why KCRag has been so upset is because 1) The border war bullsh*t that we don't have because we don't hate Illinois the way they hate Kansas and 2) It is probably pretty emasculating in a way for a city to lose its teams to soulless suburbia in a different state, even moreso for a city as suburban and bleak (from an urbanist perspective) as KC already is. I feel like for them a downtown Royals stadium would show real urban development that they don't see particularly often and it would be a massive gut punch to lose out on that opportunity, a gut punch that probably would make some of them realize how bad KC's outlook actually is.

On #3, StL city and county don’t have a border war with metro east because Illinois has mostly chosen to abandon it, particularly the historically black cities close to the riverfront, so there is not competition ever from that side of the river for business and attractions and tax producers. Illinois would rather bail out Chicago every time it misbalances a budget. No state gets more of a pass for giving up on an urban area like Illinois does for metro east

IL builds plenty of roads on the east side. It misspent $100M in transit spending on the Mid America extension.

These ways IL thinks it's supporting the east side. What isn't clear?