The Kansas City Wizards really do need a new soccer stadium to play in. I do hope that they wind up staying in KC, ant not being relocated.

B.O., if they need a new soccer stadium, is there some reason Lamar Hunt can't build one?

Try the Indianapolis Star. This morning's lead editorial, concerning the alleged "balanced budget" at the legislature. The final sentence is: "Those moves, however, won't come without costs - to schools, universities and to the poor and sick." Meanwhile the same paper is supporting a $12 million annual contribution from the state towards a new stadium for the poverty stricken Colts.

Lamar won't build one cause he's selling the team. That's a pretty good reason. He's never flat out asked for one either. His reasons for selling might have a LOT to do with the voters not approving money for the Chiefs. Besides he owns 2 other teams and the league is moving towards one team per owner.------Lamar did build one himself in Columbus and now is having trouble with property tax appraisal (Columbus doesn't agree that stadiums depreciate)------ Also, Lamar got one in the Dallas area that only cost him about $5 of 60 million (US soccer putting in $5 million too). One's going up now in the Chicago area with 100% public funds and San Antonio is sitting there offering a rent-free, full operation deal. So there's a lot of reason why Lamar won't build one. He could, but he has better options and it'll be a different investor in KC anyways that'll be asking for one (assuming local investors buy the team).

There are a couple of different issues here. If Hunt is having trouble making money on the privately built Columbus stadium, as you imply, then that's an indication that it's not a *stadium* the Wizards want, but a stadium *subsidy*. (Since unsubsidized stadiums have trouble paying for themselves.) As for the "all the other kids are doing it" argument, the main issue here isn't what Dallas did for the Burn, but what other prospective homes for the Wizards would be offering - San Antonio is offering free rent, but on the Alamodome, which isn't exactly what MLS wants. K.C. needs to make sure it isn't bidding against itself - and then needs to further weigh the value of a subsidy to the Wizards vs. the value of subsidizing something else, like schools or roads or what have you. (You could build a lot more youth soccer fields if you used the Wizards stadium money, too.)

Lamar could build the Wizards a stadium. In fact, he was well into the "due diligence" phase when the process was stopped last June. At that time, Hunt Sports Group (HSG) put their eggs in the BiState II tax measure which would've resulted in a couple hundred million of taxpayer upgrades for Arrowhead and Kaufman Stadiums. After the failure of the measure in November, the process was restarted, then suddenly stopped in early December when Hunt announced he was selling the team. Lamar is going to hold KC's feet to the fire to get a new Arrowhead built. If he shells out $30-60 million of his own money for the Wizards while claiming poverty and need when trying to get $500-800 million for new Arrowhead, you begin to see the problem. In the end, the Wizards are being sacrificed by HSG to show KC that if they don't shell out for the Chiefs, the team might just leave. As it stands, however, it looks like new local ownership is on board, and the original HSG/NSCAA stadium plan in Lenexa, KS is going to happen. But the funny business with the Wizards has less to do with soccer or the Wizards or HSG's ability to pay for a stadium, and everything to do with the Chiefs.

Hunt isn't having trouble making money in Columbus. What I'm implying (or actually stating) is that if there's 0% public involvement then the franchise is at the full mercy of the property tax apprasier, not smart business. MLS will take the Alamodome deal, the commisioner was there today pushing season ticket sales. So KC is actually bidding against San Antonio, like it or not. But back to my main point, Lamar won't build one himself cause he doesn't plan to keep the team.

"If there's 0% public involvement then the franchise is at the full mercy of the property tax appraiser, not smart business." Isn't this how 99% of most private businesses operate? In any case, if property-tax worries are really the issue, then there's a simple solution: Have the Wizards pay for the stadium and the government own it, with the team paying agreed-upon payments in lieu of property taxes to lock in an acceptable rate. But somehow I don't think either Hunt or the new owners would go for that.

We don't even know who the new owners are much less what they'll do. But feel free to speculate.