New Arrowhead?

jdoggivjc

Well-Known Member
Sep 27, 2006
59,536
21,051
113
Macomb, MI
Royals and Chiefs are both incredibly stupid for looking to move away from their current locations

First, they're probably not actually looking to move away; they're looking for ammunition to use to hold the KC market hostage to give them what they want (new stadiums).

Second, fan support is incredibly overrated in this era of professional sports. Just look at the LA Rams - they probably have fewer fans now in LA than they did when they were in St. Louis, certainly in fan attendance. Hell - they had a home field disadvantage in the NFC Championship game when they played the 49ers. But they make a hell of a lot more in revenue in LA than they did in STL. And to a team owner, what do you think they want more - more fans in the stands, or more money in their bank account, even if that comes at the expense of fans in the stands?
 

JP4CY

I'm Mike Jones
Staff member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Dec 19, 2008
64,940
78,699
113
Testifying
I think the new money grab is for the teams to also own surrounding hotels and restaurants and entertainment districts.
Tom Ricketts basically owns all of Wrigleyville now.
A lot of people now actually call it Ricketsville.
 

coolerifyoudid

Well-Known Member
Feb 8, 2013
16,313
24,410
113
KC
The idea of a downtown stadium for the Royals isn't a horrible idea. Outside of losing attendance due to baseball's declining popularity, they lose out of a chunk of attendance based on proximity to half of the Kansas City population.

If you bring it downtown, you will likely see an up-tick of JOCO money and also casual fans that work downtown and catch a game after work. Granted, that number is currently reduced due to the higher work-from-home numbers, but an increase would undoubtedly happen regardless.

There isn't a ton of tailgating for Royals games as it is, so there's not a big loss from a parking/tailgating standpoint. This move would likely increase foot traffic into downtown businesses as well.

Personally, living on the west side of the loop and working downtown, I would catch a few more games a year if I knew my drive home after a weekday game would get cut in half.
 

JM4CY

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Aug 23, 2012
33,796
65,233
113
America
The idea of a downtown stadium for the Royals isn't a horrible idea. Outside of losing attendance due to baseball's declining popularity, they lose out of a chunk of attendance based on proximity to half of the Kansas City population.

If you bring it downtown, you will likely see an up-tick of JOCO money and also casual fans that work downtown and catch a game after work. Granted, that number is currently reduced due to the higher work-from-home numbers, but an increase would undoubtedly happen regardless.

There isn't a ton of tailgating for Royals games as it is, so there's not a big loss from a parking/tailgating standpoint. This move would likely increase foot traffic into downtown businesses as well.

Personally, living on the west side of the loop and working downtown, I would catch a few more games a year if I knew my drive home after a weekday game would get cut in half.
They should be more worried about the crappy product they put out on the field than a new stadium when their current one is still pretty cool.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EnkAMania

TitanClone

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Dec 21, 2008
2,556
1,686
113
I’d be thrilled with it. Shortens drive time and less interactions with toothless Hoosiers.
Toothless hossiers make the experience that much better, The difference between Chiefs and ISU games can be summed up in that and helps me justify having tickets for both.
 

KnappShack

Well-Known Member
May 26, 2008
20,357
26,281
113
Parts Unknown
The idea of a downtown stadium for the Royals isn't a horrible idea. Outside of losing attendance due to baseball's declining popularity, they lose out of a chunk of attendance based on proximity to half of the Kansas City population.

If you bring it downtown, you will likely see an up-tick of JOCO money and also casual fans that work downtown and catch a game after work. Granted, that number is currently reduced due to the higher work-from-home numbers, but an increase would undoubtedly happen regardless.

There isn't a ton of tailgating for Royals games as it is, so there's not a big loss from a parking/tailgating standpoint. This move would likely increase foot traffic into downtown businesses as well.

Personally, living on the west side of the loop and working downtown, I would catch a few more games a year if I knew my drive home after a weekday game would get cut in half.

I thought the White Sox and the Angels really missed out on opportunities to put a stadium close to downtown. A Sox game after work or a midday game would be something I would do.

Same with the Angels in downtown LA. Wrigley can burn to the ground and that would be an improvement to the neighborhood.

The original Arrowhead concept had a sliding roof. Would be interesting if a concept something like that could live again.
 

houjix

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2021
1,553
1,582
113
I thought the White Sox and the Angels really missed out on opportunities to put a stadium close to downtown. A Sox game after work or a midday game would be something I would do.

Same with the Angels in downtown LA. Wrigley can burn to the ground and that would be an improvement to the neighborhood.

The original Arrowhead concept had a sliding roof. Would be interesting if a concept something like that could live again.
They tried to revive that idea when they bilked the taxpayers for renovations about 15 years ago. KC was promised a SB if they got the rolling roof thing, but voters didn't approved the separate tax to pay for it.
 

JP4CY

I'm Mike Jones
Staff member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Dec 19, 2008
64,940
78,699
113
Testifying
They tried to revive that idea when they bilked the taxpayers for renovations about 15 years ago. KC was promised a SB if they got the rolling roof thing, but voters didn't approved the separate tax to pay for it.
I thought the roof was supposed to always be stored over one of the stadiums, then roll over to the other one when needed?
Does that sound right?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: SEIOWA CLONE

deadeyededric

Well-Known Member
Dec 12, 2009
14,655
12,450
113
Parts Unknown
I thought the roof was supposed to always be stored over one of the stadiums, then roll over to the other one when needed?
Does that sound right?
I think it was just a roof though. Still would have been cold as hell in the winter and hot in the summer.
 

JP4CY

I'm Mike Jones
Staff member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Dec 19, 2008
64,940
78,699
113
Testifying
I thought the White Sox and the Angels really missed out on opportunities to put a stadium close to downtown. A Sox game after work or a midday game would be something I would do.

Same with the Angels in downtown LA. Wrigley can burn to the ground and that would be an improvement to the neighborhood.

The original Arrowhead concept had a sliding roof. Would be interesting if a concept something like that could live again.
As much as I hate Navy Pier they could have put a new Sox stadium on the West end of it where that new building is.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: KnappShack

coolerifyoudid

Well-Known Member
Feb 8, 2013
16,313
24,410
113
KC
They should be more worried about the crappy product they put out on the field than a new stadium when their current one is still pretty cool.
The Twins fan in me agrees with this statement.

After living here as long as I have, I've adopted the Royals as my second team. I still love going to the ballpark, regardless of the product on the field. I would go to more games if I lived closer. It's pretty close to an hour by the time I leave my seat until I get home as it is.
 

cycloneML

Well-Known Member
Mar 5, 2008
4,980
1,994
113
Toothless hossiers make the experience that much better, The difference between Chiefs and ISU games can be summed up in that and helps me justify having tickets for both.
Years ago some buds came down for the Vikes chiefs pre season game. I needed a jersey to wear to the game. I wore an ISU jersey to the game. I had 8 guys that wanted to mix it up with me over the jersey. It wasn’t a Broncos or a Raiders jersey. It was an ISU jersey.
 
  • Creative
Reactions: Macloney

coolerifyoudid

Well-Known Member
Feb 8, 2013
16,313
24,410
113
KC
I thought the White Sox and the Angels really missed out on opportunities to put a stadium close to downtown. A Sox game after work or a midday game would be something I would do.

Same with the Angels in downtown LA. Wrigley can burn to the ground and that would be an improvement to the neighborhood.

The original Arrowhead concept had a sliding roof. Would be interesting if a concept something like that could live again.

Arrowhead's location is pretty ideal for fans and tailgating. The crowds will still follow if it moves to KCK or JOCO, but it should remain in KCMO. It feels like a football venue. As often as it gets mentioned, a light rail out there seems like a waste of money to me. A vast majority of people will drive and tailgate still and you'd be better off using those funds somewhere else.

As far as baseball, there's something kinda cool to riding a subway or train to a downtown baseball game. It's a fan experience before and after the game. Having gone to games at Target Field, Oracle Park, and especially Fenway, I'm glad I didn't drive into a big parking lot before going to the game.
 

houjix

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2021
1,553
1,582
113
I thought the roof was supposed to always be stored over one of the stadiums, then roll over to the other one when needed?
Does that sound right?
Something like that. The space in between the stadiums could also have been covered and used event space.
 

houjix

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2021
1,553
1,582
113
I think it was just a roof though. Still would have been cold as hell in the winter and hot in the summer.

Blocking the sun in the summer would have a rather large impact on conditions in the baseball stadium, plus no rainouts. Not sure the football stadium would have seen as much of an improvement outside of cutting some wind and blocking any potential snow.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: deadeyededric

dahliaclone

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Mar 4, 2007
13,765
20,386
113
Minneapolis
As long as the Chiefs find a way to keep the new stadium one of the, if not THE, biggest home field advantages and loud as ****....do whatever.
 

cyIclSoneU

Well-Known Member
Apr 7, 2016
3,255
4,481
113
Royals and Chiefs are both incredibly stupid for looking to move away from their current locations

Royals moving downtown is a great move. Baseball stadiums belong in cities. Live downtown and walk or use public transit for 80+ games a year with like 30,000 people.

Football on the other hand is probably better in a suburb surrounded by a huge parking lot. Fewer events and double or more the number of people at each. So the Chiefs could stay out for a while and they’re doing just fine
 

cyIclSoneU

Well-Known Member
Apr 7, 2016
3,255
4,481
113
I think the new money grab is for the teams to also own surrounding hotels and restaurants and entertainment districts.

The Cardinals are doing this in St Louis. The ballpark village there is a pretty nice area with hotel, a few bars/restaurants, and a high-rise apartment building that the team developed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SEIOWA CLONE