Sanders said if the city pulls its $2 million annual contribution, it would break the lease and leave the city with no written guarantee keeping the Royals and Chiefs in Kansas City for the long term.
"The teams would then be, to use the sports phrase, free agents to do whatever they wanted to do. Re-negotiate the deal or to not honor any of the provisions of the lease they did not want to honor," Sanders told KMBC's Martin Augustine.
"I don't think it would jeopardize leases," Funkhouser said. "We're trying to focus on services that directly matter to Kansas Citians. For example, our city services, basic services like police. That is a core function. Operating a sports venue is not."
810's Kietzman did a long discussion about this yesterday and actually brought this up a couple of weeks ago.
This should be very concerning to all Chiefs and Royals fans. Kietz spoke to a number of folks on this regard, and it is true. If the city in essence "breaks" the lease by not paying the 2Mil. per year agreement, we've just jeopardized the $500 Million that the taxpayers fronted.
On top of that, there isn't anything binding the Chiefs to front the $200Mil. for the renovations stipulated in the agreement if the lease is broken by the city. Secondly, if naming rights are sold, the teams could keep from splitting the naming rights monies with the city as well since the agreement is null and void.
Win/win for the Chiefs and Royals owners.
Think about this:
It's unlikely the teams would move immediately after these improvements, but let's say 10 years down the road they get offered a new stadium by another city. We'd probably have to match the offer which means spending +$1 Billion after having spent $500 Million. And if that falls through, we'll have empty stadiums we'll have to pay the upkeep on...or bulldoze.
The Mayor's today:
via tbn2.google.comThe Mayor in his prior role: