🏀 KuBuckets Archive

@approxinfinity not yet, but probably only watch about half the games

Oh this is a good topic! 1. KU football 2. KU basketball 3. NASCAR 4. St. Louis Cardinals 5. Chicago Bears

Last point on this, Kansas has a tax credit for residents that pay taxes in other states. So if a bunch of people relocate across the state line and work on away games, Kansas refunds a nice chunk of their income taxes paid elsewhere. So again it’s more millionaires getting a nice subsidy while we pay for it. Twice.

@rockchalkjayhawk I can add a little color there. When I was in government we tried to get those numbers but Commerce would never provide them, citing NDAs and such nonsense (why revenue figures should be kept from the public when the public is financing the project should raise a hell of a lot of questions but alas). Same restrictions apply to this deal. We taxpayers can't see inside the Chiefs or Royals books, or in a very recent example, we weren't allowed to know the state was even in discussions with Panasonic until the bill passed and the deal was signed. Aside from the bad economics, the public should be livid about that.

@dylans ok, that's still about the same income tax revenue as a shopping mall, but for billions in new debt. I'm not a Chiefs fan so I won't, never been to Arrowhead, never will go to a stadium in Kansas because it's just not my scene. I'm a huge Bears fan and they're trying to fleece the city of Chicago too. I oppose all public subsidies for stadiums and corporate welfare. I'm a free market, work for and buy what you want with your own money guy what can I say

@dylans that’s a whole drop in the bucket in terms of SGF, which in 30 years will be well over $100 billion. And cut that number in half unless the NFL lets the Chiefs play every game at home. If it is a dome then we’re looking at $2.4ish billion in bonds. So both your revenue and expense figures are wrong. Weirdly both in the direction that make it look like a good deal. Assuming that growth when participation in football is going down (7% the last 5 years) in favor of other sports is a nice touch too.

There’s also no evidence a new stadium will produce significant additional development given what’s already there. See current Arrowhead. People don’t go out to bars and restaurants for NFL games. They sit in the parking lot and drink beer they likely bought in Missouri. Or Kansas, but that’s not new spending. Just reallocating from couch beers to parking lot beers. And of course it’s taxed, that’s what the ST stands for lol.

Consumers are paying for both the infrastructure via taxes and the privilege of being there. That’s the whole point. Where normally you’d have a developer pay for the building and such and if the product or service was good it would easily pay for itself.

That article is fun because it doesn’t cite the state audit that reported the STAR bond program overall a failure at driving tourism given the metrics in statute. But I’m sure the law is just wrong.

@dylans well, if we must. Arrowhead in KC would bring in about 195 people per day of the year. That's about the same as a small shopping mall. Is it worth billions of incentives to bring in a... mall?

Yeah, but what about the income taxes? Well, chop that number in half. You're looking at 10ish income generating events per year. The top state income tax rate will be 5.8%. 5.8% of $2 billion is... $116 million. If you spread that over the life of the bonds it can fund a rural school district for a while I guess?

And sure, people will spend to go to them. But budgets are relatively fixed. How many people come from outside the area? And from those here, do they already spend their entertainment budget in Kansas? If so, that sales tax revenue goes to the state to fund things we all want: roads, hospitals, etc. If they spend additional money, cool. But it'll come at the expense of other things in the state (again, budgets are fixed) because the sales tax revenue has to go to debt service, and will be from other parts of the family budget.

Let's look at the Braves stadium as an example. That development got about $300m in subsidies. What happened? Well, the stadium sure generated a bunch of sales tax revenue. Beer is expensive! Unfortunately, it was at the expense of other businesses in the community so it was basically a wash except for the taxpayers were on the hook for tens of millions in annual debt service.

The Chiefs math here is pretty simple. Moving about 20 miles will generate over $900 million in annual economic activity. Which, to put mildly, is INSANE. It more or less assumes ALL Chiefs related activity would move across the border, e.g. all players, coaches, and staff would not spend a nickel in Missouri. And each dollar invested here would generate on the order of $40 in additional economic benefits. It's extraordinarily rare to find post hoc estimates of this multiplier over FIVE.

@dylans good then Clark should have no problem writing the check himself if it’s such a great investment

@dylans seriously, what math? You cite a single project. And some vagaries about how my entire field is a fraudulent enterprise and something something sample size. Do the studies not have sufficient statistical power? Are their error terms wrong in their models? I can tell you the Chiefs study model is stunningly bad. It’s bad press release, nothing more.

Clearly putting the Chiefs over here will work because of all the development that current Arrowhead has generated. After all who doesn’t love a good vacation in Raytown?

Yes I’ve cited such fancy metrics as “return on investment” and “but for analysis.” Absolutely far beyond anyone with a room temperature IQ to understand.

And I love the NFL, watch RedZone every Sunday. But there are good reasons both governors said shutting down the Border War was good policy. Moving a few enterprises a few miles for billions in taxpayer funds was a giant waste of money and put both states at financial risk. I was in the same room with a former Secretary of Commerce that warned if we started it again it could ruin the state’s financial position given their horrendous record of performance.

@dylans this is apples and oranges. Arrowhead would move about 10 miles. It would generate no additional economic activity outside that narrow space, just redistribute it. They aren't even leaving the metro. Businesses in LFK will be fine, they survived for years when nobody came out for games. One year won't kill them. Maybe Black Stag but that place runs at a loss anyway.

@dylans I've made substantive arguments and cited a ton of sources, none of which you critiqued except to say they're all rigged. The evidence for which you had none. You also didn't address the LPA audits that found significant underperformance of Kansas's economic incentive programs. I can give you chapter and verse on why the Chiefs estimates are bought and paid for propaganda and economic malpractice if you'd like.

@dylans I’m sure having better than 50% lower (or no) business taxes has nothing to do with it and yep it’s all incentive packages and definitely not the broader policy climate no sir.

@dylans big difference. The track wasn’t 10 miles away. 2/16 STAR projects have met their stated goals. There are good reasons almost no other states use them.

Hey look I just want Clark to pull himself up by his bootstraps and pay for his own hobby. If he can’t afford it maybe get a second job.

Kansas not doing a lot of corporate welfare is good. Many audits of those programs have shown a real lack of effectiveness and even outright fraud. Everyone agreed the Border War was dumb so we stopped doing it. Our economic struggles have much more to do with demographics and other long term factors, not how much taxpayer money we throw at companies that don’t need it. https://www.kslpa.org/audit-report-library/evaluating-the-department-of-commerces-major-economic-development-incentive-programs/ ↗

https://www.kslpa.org/audit-report-library/economic-development-initiatives-fund-evaluating-the-states-accountability-over-the-use-of-edif-funding/ ↗

@dylans what do you mean by that? Decades of work showing convulsively that these incentives aren’t good investments? Again, read what I’ve cited. This holds for all sorts of locales. But sure there’s something unique about KC that will wildly change things. It’s like that scene in Arrested Development where they’re like yeah it’s never worked for other people, but maybe this time lol.

Oh I have. Troy has long known my feelings about these things. He got a kick out of my “it’s not socialism if it’s going to sports!” line when I texted him the other day. Big KU fan, super nice guy, good friend, but he’s simply wrong here.

@dylans again, I ask. Do you know the methodology and data necessary to do a rigorous economic impact study? Do you have any real critiques of the studies I’ve cited? Or just vague generalities?

Data almost never come from universities, it’s up to individual researchers to collect and analyze. Shouldn’t researchers have no skin in the game? That sounds like a recipe for bias. Which is why if we’re given any money for research it has to be disclosed on page 1 of the paper. This ethics stuff isn’t complicated. If there’s a small mountain of evidence pointing in the same direction and almost none the other way, there’s definitely something to it.

@Crimsonorblue22 there’s no threat the Chiefs are going anywhere but KC. Owners would never approve of them going to the metroplex. Voters are increasingly rejecting incentives for stadiums. I have no problem if Clark wants to buy some land over here and build it. SoFi in LA was privately funded, so I would support that for sure. Busch in St. Louis was 90% private money.

@dylans because I know the methodology and data required to estimate economic impact. Do you? Or are you just shooting the messenger? There’s no money behind a lit review, my dude. I’ve done a bunch of academic studies and have only been contracted for one. There was a clause in the contract it was going to be published no matter the results. And that’s standard. Go find an economist who thinks these are good deals for taxpayers. It’s totally non-ideological and is taught in undergrad micro and public finance classes.

If you’re concerned about bought and paid for studies look at the economic impact “studies.” Go ask them for their data and methods and see if they give them to you (they’ll laugh). If they do it’ll be like Scoop and Score’s $900 million number. They’re counting estimated impact to the metro as a whole as impact to just Kansas. Which, that impact estimate was a Chiefs commissioned study. So if you’re following the money, look at that. And do they have training in economics? Probably not. They wouldn’t know what a regression was if it slapped them in the face and called them mommy.

And the figure I cite is from state auditors, who are tasked by the legislature with rigorously studying state programs. And ask why other state legislatures don’t use STAR bonds. It’s not exactly a secret.

I was also a senior staffer in the legislature at one point and know a couple former Secretaries of Commerce. They all agreed the Border War was bad policy and we shouldn’t do it anymore. This is insanity.

Forgot to post this earlier but the record of public investments in stadiums is absolutely dismal. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4340483 ↗

So at the end of the day we’re going to use a program batting .125 for a type of project with no record of success. BANG UP JOB

@Woodrow yes. If you go to a game or anywhere in the STAR district you pay for the infrastructure plus the price of admission. Where typically a business would pay for its own buildings and such and you'd just pay for a good or service and sales tax on top. It would be like putting in a garden at your house where you could charge people to come see it. The sales tax, instead of remitting to the state, goes right in your pocket for building the garden.

@Crimsonorblue22 yeah, the sales taxes from the new district pay off the bonds. So the Hunts get all this guaranteed revenue from a new stadium at really no cost to them. And if there's a default at the end of the day it's not ideal. The state forgoes all that revenue just to pay off the debt. And they have a horrific record. Only 2/16 STAR projects have met their tourism goals and are still around. It's one of these things that we teach in basic Econ and public finance that the record is that public money for stadiums doesn't work but politicians loooooove ribbon cuttings and sitting in the owners box.

Taxpayers pay for 75% of the project plus tickets, Clark gets lots of money from working folks when he could write the check himself if it was a great investment. (It’s not)

I hope they do so Kansas doesn't have to finance this boondoggle.

Details are out now on the bill. Taxpayers (via bonds) pay for 75% of the project but we can't see any of the revenue projections that allegedly make it a great deal. Doesn't seem sketchy in the slightest

Counting Foster we’re at 6 commits this weekend is that good

We're up to 3 credible accusations of violence against women by Morris. Hopefully the new DA prosecutes for this one. Shame on anyone who takes him on at this point.

@Gorilla72 saw some KSU types mention playing Hawkins at the 3. Which... lolz please do especially when we play

@dylans said in 2024 NFL Offseason - FAs, Trades, Draft:

Did a lot of Kansas folks get a text asking for support in funding the chiefs move to Kansas?

https://act.newmode.net/action/scoop-and-score-inc/keep-chiefs-kansas-city ↗

Yep, I got it. Horrible idea but shills gonna shill

@nuleafjhawk it’s well known that Wilt’s recruitment was hardly moral or scrupulous

@nuleafjhawk said in I Know it's Pointless, but what if. . .:

@FarmerJayhawk Ahhh - that was true before we abandoned morals and scruples and started recruiting professional athletes.

So like 1890?

@BShark bruh don’t get me started. I did some consulting for Uncork back in the day. The mom and pop liquor store lobby is the worst in the state. Right up there with dentists

@BeddieKU23 I had Reklis last fall and it was terrific. It’s across the border in New Hampshire but still

@jayballer67 center from A&M

Bryce Foster ✅

We got Juju Marks

Doesn’t seem like this is at all about the state of college hoops. If you more than triple someone’s salary and they can run the show at the highest profile franchises on the planet and coach one of the greatest to ever do it, seems pretty easy.

@BShark KJ/Flory at the 4/5? Idk.

This move also makes me feel better about the defense. Moore is a super defender. You could have play he and Juan together when you just flat need a stop.

@jayballer67 he’s not coming here. Honestly wouldn’t want him as a full time PG anyway. He’s talented, but not good enough to come in and run the show.

Makes getting an elite PG in 25 paramount though.

That’s brutal. Looked ok yesterday but knees are weird like that

The staff took out all the camp staff for drinks tonight on Bill’s tab. Nice gesture

Ok being able to use numbers above 5 threw me 🐦 View Tweet?s=46&t=c0LiaNrxev6XfT7LIH8dAQ

Be great, kid

Decisions are starting to trickle out. If I had to guess right now, Furph stays in and Robinson doesn’t

Travis gets a new 7 year deal. Huge for AD stability (plus Lance had almost no buyout if Travis left)

@jayballer67 said in College Sports about to change.:

@FarmerJayhawk said in College Sports about to change.:

@jayballer67 said in College Sports about to change.:

@FarmerJayhawk said in College Sports about to change.:

Happy for the SA’s getting at least some compensation for all they’ve done to entertain us over the years. Probably will help a lot of them out who, like most, never sniff opportunities beyond college.

I understand where your coming from with that but on the other hand it's kind of a double edge sword .

It's like so are you going to pay a student who is on a Scholi for a non revenue sport the same amount you pat a revenue kid ? - -Basketball, Football , athlete compared to a swimming or cross country athlete - -that's not going to happen.

What is going to happen is now that with this , the kids in some of these non revenue that was on Scholi not only is not going to get any money , very good chance that the sport th
at are here on a Scholi for is not going longer exist , so they lose that Scholarship because the sport is no longer there.

These Universities are going to have to cut some of these non revenue to be able to pay the kids that ARE REVENUE, like Girod said it's not like we have an extra 20 Million laying around---they don't have the Money for that It's not gonna be good, cause in the long run a lot of these kidds in the end lose , because of this

You’re conflating issues here. I’m just talking about the House settlement, not future revenue sharing.

ok I'm talking about revenue sharing , not house settlement

Yeah, and that had nothing to do with my post. I’ve said previously how important it is to get into the P2 to get sufficient revenue to be able to afford the sharing piece

@jayballer67 said in College Sports about to change.:

@FarmerJayhawk said in College Sports about to change.:

Happy for the SA’s getting at least some compensation for all they’ve done to entertain us over the years. Probably will help a lot of them out who, like most, never sniff opportunities beyond college.

I understand where your coming from with that but on the other hand it's kind of a double edge sword .

It's like so are you going to pay a student who is on a Scholi for a non revenue sport the same amount you pat a revenue kid ? - -Basketball, Football , athlete compared to a swimming or cross country athlete - -that's not going to happen.

What is going to happen is now that with this , the kids in some of these non revenue that was on Scholi not only is not going to get any money , very good chance that the sport th
at are here on a Scholi for is not going longer exist , so they lose that Scholarship because the sport is no longer there.

These Universities are going to have to cut some of these non revenue to be able to pay the kids that ARE REVENUE, like Girod said it's not like we have an extra 20 Million laying around---they don't have the Money for that It's not gonna be good, cause in the long run a lot of these kidds in the end lose , because of this

You’re conflating issues here. I’m just talking about the House settlement, not future revenue sharing.

@dylans said in College Sports about to change.:

So does that mean tax dollars will be used to pay basketball players? If so yuck. If the athletic departments have to fund themselves that’s fine by me.

At least in KU’s case, no public money goes to the AD

Happy for the SA’s getting at least some compensation for all they’ve done to entertain us over the years. Probably will help a lot of them out who, like most, never sniff opportunities beyond college.

Definitely a pinch your sphincter time