Here’s how KC Royals owner John Sherman responded to key questions about stadium, team

Nearly two years after publicizing their exploration of relocating to a new stadium, the Kansas City Royals on Tuesday will reveal the new venue’s potential appearance.

With location — and other key details — still to be determined.

The Royals will release renderings of the two potential projects still under consideration: a site at East Village downtown and one north of the river in Clay County. The team previously said it plans to select a site by the end of September.

The renderings will include “a fairly detailed picture of the two sites,” including proposed ballpark districts at each location, majority owner John Sherman told The Star in an exclusive half-hour interview last week.

In the meeting with Sherman, we sought specific details regarding essential components of the $2 billion-plus project — particularly, a clearer picture of the total public cost and potential benefits to the surrounding community.

What’s most clear, though, is that much remains to be resolved.

Here is the interview, minimally edited for brevity and clarity:

McDowell: We know the financial ask from Jackson County for an East Village site would be the renewal of the 3/8-cent sales tax. What are the specific financial asks you’ll make of the city and the state?

Sherman: We’re still discussing that. In Jackson County, it was easy to be real specific: simple extension of the tax. … We have discussions underway with both the governor’s office and with the mayor’s office, as well. We certainly have a target, but in both those cases it’s really more how do we kind of do a construct on raising capital. There are different buckets that each of them can find ways to help us. It’s more of a discussion, I would say, a negotiation, than a really hard ask right now.

McDowell: If you choose East Village, what is your confidence level that in Jackson County you can secure the state and city funding that you would need?

Sherman: I feel pretty good about it.

McDowell: Is that based on conversations you’ve had with the city?

Sherman: Yeah, I would just say it’s based on conversations. I would just tell you that the governor wants to be helpful; he wants to be helpful for both franchises here. And that’s regardless (of county selection). I would say that Mayor (Quinton) Lucas has been very engaged with us. … We had a series of meetings (that included) some outside parties as well — kind of rolling-up-our-sleeves types of meetings.

Gregorian: If I remember the term right, I think you said private investment would pay for the bulk of the stadium? Is that properly stating that point?

Sherman: I think I said certainly a bulk of the stadium. I think there’s some moving parts here. But we’re going to make a meaningful investment in the stadium and, I would say, at least a billion dollars in private investment (in the ballpark district). Part of the moving part is infrastructure. There may be a little bit different costs in Clay County versus Jackson County. The stadium itself is the same. But (there) could be more or less, I guess theoretically, infrastructure depending upon where we land.

McDowell: Does the infrastructure cost factor into the stadium total of $1 billion, or is that a separate cost?

Sherman: That’s probably additional to. … Some of it’s in there, but then there’s some of it on top of that depending on the egress and ingress, freeway, highway, interchange modifications, things like that. You know, there could be other things too — street, sidewalks, utilities. There’s lots of stuff in all those categories.

Gregorian: At this stage, what do you need to learn from each site to make a decision?

Sherman: There’s quite a bit, actually. There’s quite a bit of information that we’re still waiting on. And part of it is financial, but it is the political; it’s the relative political support. It is the relative value of the respective real estate businesses that we’ll own and operate. And we don’t have all those facts yet.

McDowell: Do you have the support from Jackson County, as it stands now, to put it on the ballot?

Sherman: I think we do. It’s not all buttoned up yet, but I think we’ll get there.

McDowell: Is (Jackson County executive) Frank White supportive of putting it on the ballot?

Sherman: I think he will be. I talked to him last week. We had a pleasant conversation. I think we’ll get him there.

McDowell: But he’s not there yet?

Sherman: I don’t know if he’s there yet.

McDowell: Have you all asked him if he would put this on the ballot as it stands now?

Sherman: We’ve certainly been talking to him about that for about, let me think here, certainly almost two years. He certainly has indicated at points along the way that he was willing to be supportive of putting that on the ballot.

McDowell: Are there things that you still need to do to secure that support from the county?

Sherman: I couldn’t tell you that. We’re exchanging information right now. … I wouldn’t say it’s moving at the (ideal) pace. I would go back to what I said before: No one’s waiting on us. I would tell you that. They know where we are. And I think it’s more (that) these are complex deals. You know you have a new legislature; that’s also changed since we began talking about that … They’re getting to know each other and working on their structure, and I think kind of evaluating their own leadership. That stuff just happens, right, in politics, so there certainly has been some of that.

McDowell: What do you need in place from your end before you’re comfortable putting it on a ballot?

Sherman: I think what we would need and (the Chiefs) would need is a pretty well-detailed — doesn’t have to be a final lease agreement — but certainly a detailed term sheet or memo of understanding on what the major terms are. And the full financing package in place, and then the ballot language.

McDowell: Do you still the same timeline for a potential ballot date in April — and then 2027 or 2028 for the stadium opening?

Sherman: Yeah, I think April would be our target in Jackson County, and I would say it’s ‘28 (for the stadium). Theoretically, you could break a land-speed record and get it done by ‘27, but I think it’s probably more realistically ‘28. And we can do that since our lease runs through 2030.

Gregorian: It seems like you’re pretty confident in the ability to break the lease before then. Why?

Sherman: We certainly wouldn’t break the lease. We’ll live up to our obligations under the lease and (there) shouldn’t be any misunderstanding of that. I think it would be part of a bigger picture negotiation that would have to be win-win. It would have to be a win for Jackson County, for us and the Chiefs. We have this most-favored nations clause, right? So neither one of us can alter or even amend our lease, even in a minor way, without all three parties agreeing. That’s a negotiation, but whatever it is we do, I would certainly hope that it would be something that is in the best interests of everybody and our community.

McDowell: What do you foresee being included as part of the ballpark district —whether it’s in East Village or Clay County?

Sherman: We’ll have an event (Tuesday) that will disclose renderings and economic impact data. And I think you’ll get a fairly detailed picture of the two sites.

But just in general, if you look at East Village, it’s going to be high density, more vertical, probably a higher percentage of corporate office space — with residential, with retail, with mixed use. A hotel, you’ll have that too. But higher density, vertical and with a bigger percentage of corporate office space right there. …

Really, it will be an iconic symbol of the downtown skyline, and it would create tremendous image opportunities for corporate partners, for a naming-rights partner, just because of that high visibility. It will really be pretty dramatic.

If you went up north, it would be different, right? It would be more lateral and still have a good mix of commercial, residential and retail — but probably more weighted toward residential than corporate. But there would be plenty of corporate space, but probably not the same square footage.

In East Village, we really complement Power & Light. In fact, I think our presence down there would really drive business to Power & Light.

McDowell: There is a concern about siphoning off the (business) traffic from Power & Light.

Sherman: Oh, I think we’d drive traffic to Power & Light. Particularly in baseball, it’s 81 nights a year, bringing all those people down there. We couldn’t create enough right around the ballpark. So I think that’s a benefit to the city. So you get up north, and it’s different. One thing (is) we would probably control more of the entertainment dollar up there.

Gregorian: If you are in North Kansas City, does that affect your ability to make this project be more about the underserved as you stressed early on?

Sherman: That’s part of what you think about. In any of these projects, you do think about (that) it’s not just economic, (and) it’s not just financial. It’s about community impact, community benefit. I would tell you that wherever we go, we will continue to do those things to impact the community. … We’ve done a lot of things in the inner city, a lot of things in education, both through Royals Charities but also personally. So those values are things that are personal, both for me personally but also for the organization. So we would certainly intend to have impact in those areas regardless of where we land.

Gregorian: How much of a driving force is that in this project?

Sherman: I think that’s a byproduct of a project like this. … There’s lots of examples of that, even (with) minor-league ballparks. I’m involved in minor-league governance now, and I’ve just seen even in medium-sized towns where a minor-league ballpark can just transform an area. That byproduct, I think, is very important to me.

But we have an old building here. … It’s not competitive from an amenity standpoint. We’re 50 percent below the MLB average in eating space and club space. We lack those common areas for young people, in addition to being in the wrong place, where there’s really no opportunity around here. We talked about this before.The Chiefs have a different — really it’s a different model. This kind of works for them.

So we’re confronted with those realities. But I do believe that when any community is going to have a project of this magnitude, you ought to think about how to lift everybody’s boat while you’re doing it. That doesn’t mean we can solve all of the challenges that we have.

McDowell: Can you offer specifics about providing community benefits?

Sherman: You mean like affordable housing and low-wage? … We will. I think it’s still premature. We’re in conversations with the people that it’s important to. It’s important to the politicians that they can represent to their constituents. And they’ll want specifics. But we would aspire to be — I think we’ve said it before — we aspire to be top tier in Major League Baseball as it relates to minority (and) women-owned businesses. All those things that are really important in the community.

McDowell: We hear from a lot of people who aren’t necessarily baseball fans. They don’t go downtown that frequently. What’s your message for why they should support this project and what benefit that person is going to get out of this?

Sherman: I would just say that this really is bigger than baseball. It’s about the community. We’d love to have all of them come out to a game. I think if we get them out to a game, they might like it a little bit more. But this is about doing something special for a community, creating that vibrancy. You know it’s not just 81 nights a year. … We want 365 days a year of activation and both the community benefits and the economic activity that I think helps all of us long term….

I understand that. And it’s not just non-baseball fans. I think you have baseball fans that look at projects like this and they feel like they don’t have access, or they get left behind. So I hope that we can do things to create more opportunities for more people for access and other things. But I also hope that people take pride in their region. … I think we have great momentum and, again, all of those things: the World Cup and the NFL Draft, the Chiefs and the Royals. I hope that we can all be proud of that and that makes us feel better as a community in that there’s something in it for everybody. It’s hard to get specific about that.

And it’s certainly beyond sports, right? I think we have this great portfolio of cultural assets — the Kauffman Center for the Performing Arts, the Nelson-Atkins (Museum), the National World War I Museum, the Harry Truman Presidential Library and, of course, the Negro Leagues Museum, to name a few. And all this stuff, sports and culture, really add to the fabric of a community. …

Maybe that’s beyond the question you asked if you’re not a baseball fan. But I think major-league teams, major-league franchises, make sure you’re a major-league city. And I would hope that that at some point helps everybody.

McDowell: Something the commissioner (Rob Manfred) said stuck with me — that small markets need this in order to be competitive. To me, that sounds like baseball’s problem. Do you view it as problematic that this is the way to help balance the inequities that baseball has?

Sherman: I think there’s some things we can do in baseball to help competitive balance — forget about development, new stadiums and all that. I think there are some things that we should try to work on to make more markets and their fan bases excited every year. There’s different models out there. The Rays and Guardians have proven an ability to churn players and stay competitive, but it’s not easy for them, right? But they’ve shown that model. And then we have these other models that you go into a painful rebuild and you frustrate your fan base. And it takes time to get them back. This is a little bit autobiographical right now, right? I think we can do better than that long-term. I think we can find ways.

Now, the Mets, there’s a couple teams out there proving you can’t just go buy championships. It’s more than the size of the payroll.

But I’m not going to get frustrated about the current economics of baseball because it’s the rules we have. I’m going to try to do everything I can to be entrepreneurial, to be creative, to find ways to compete. … And this can help us be more competitive. But the current rules of baseball are what they are.

McDowell: So how much would you anticipate (a new stadium) would infuse your payroll? You just mentioned the Mets, who spent more than $350 million. I don’t anticipate you guys are going to be spending something like $200 million more per year off this project.

Sherman: That’s $100 million more than the Yankees, right? And the luxury tax. I think that’s going to be an aberration when we look back on it. I think if we do this right, we’ll have a stadium that will deliver more amenities to fans, to corporate partners, to media partners and we’ll get more revenue from the building itself. And then on top of that … (is) the ability to generate revenues outside of the ballpark. We’ll have partners in that, but we will be the owners. You know, we’ll have the rights to that cash flow stream. We’re going to look at it as part of the ballclub operation and enhance our ability to compete.

McDowell: Do you have an estimate on how much that would increase payroll?

Sherman: No, I can’t. First of all, it’s four or five years from now. We’re thinking about the 2024 payroll and where we are as a club right now.

Gregorian: Related to that, I’m sure you’re encouraged by the last few weeks, but I’m sure it’s not the season you wanted.

Sherman: No.

Gregorian: So what do you need to do to move forward faster?

Sherman: This year certainly has taught me that we did exactly the thing we needed to do this year. It’s been painful. But I own it. This process and where we are is exactly what we should have done. I think we were fooling ourselves. … This isn’t throwing anybody under the bus. I think we did not come to grips with where we are and were fooling ourselves. And now, we kind of know where we are. Perhaps I wish it was something else. But I feel really, really good about our processes. I feel good about our leadership — you know, (general manager) J.J. (Picollo) and Q (manager Matt Quatraro).

I’m not going to overreact to a couple of weeks here, but I think it’s really more indicative of a young core developing, and it’s something I’m actually getting pretty excited about. We obviously still have holes. You know, the infield looks great; we have some young guys starting to hit the ball. We need more pitching depth. But I’m actually pretty excited about where we are and really grateful that we’re going through the tough stuff that we’ve gone through.

McDowell: Related to that point, J.J. was part of the last regime here. Can you articulate that things are different under his leadership — or how it’s not just a continuation of the way things have been done in the past? Did that make a real change?

Sherman: No doubt. There’s no doubt that it’s different. And I’m not saying that we don’t need to continue to change and do things differently. But the processes are different — not just up here but the beginning stages throughout the system, particularly on the pitching side.

The draft, everybody says you feel good about the draft — we say yes. But all 30 teams feel good about the draft the day after. But talk to me in three or four years, right? But I do feel good about how they executed the draft.

But really, let’s think about the trade deadline. We all talk about the results and what happened. But I went down to that room a few times leading up to the deadline. I joke with those guys that I don’t go there too much, because I want to leave it to the experts. But I’m very interested in that process.

And I would just tell you that there were some deals on the board that would have hurt in the short term and in a very significant way, and that group was willing to do it. So I was very impressed by the willingness to take that risk. It was very dynamic, right? … There were deals on the board we were willing to do if we got the haul. But as that started to get diluted, because counterparties wanted to take this player maybe somewhere else, I was equally impressed that our guys didn’t chase those and they walked away from those deals.

That kind of discipline is, first of all, the willingness to take the risks — that’s different. And then the discipline not to chase — that’s just something you’ve got to have. That’s a business principle. I’ve been in business situations where you have to be willing to take risks, but you gotta know when to walk away. And I saw that and was very impressed by that. And that’s different than what I was seeing a year ago, two years ago.