Mr. WEO

Snead has to be number 1. Nobody is doing like he is and it resulted in a ring. Colbert at 3 really makes no sense--what year is this? Plus, their despite his long slow road to retirement, their post Big Ben plan is.......Mitch Trubisky!

A great read. But it's certainly true that Davidson's ABA and even the WHL were more influential and successful than the WFL, which far from "nearly bringing the NFL to its knees" was a complete disaster. It did provide colorful stories for those who can remeber it. The original USFL was an actual threat to the NFL. As with every other "pro" football league since, these fail because the owners, who are purchasing teams that have yet to accrue any intrinsic value, won't tolerate or can't afford the losses that ownership in such wildly speculative leagues have to absorb for a few years. Look no further than the last iteration of the XFL. Despite getting spanked in it's first incarnation in 2001, Vince McMahon floated 250 million of his own capital to fund XFL2. Many assumed there was no way he would risk his money if he wasn't in it for the long haul. Some of us said there's no way he will take huge losses and hang in there for the first few seasons. When the pandemic suspended all sports in March, the XFL had played only 5 games. Instead of waiting it out and continuing the plan for a 2021 season, McMahon, the boldest of businessmen, no doubt looked at the pre pandemic 5 game TV ratings freefall and said "pull the plug, I'm out".

True, but had Robert I not merged (illicitly) with spawn of furriers Herleva (whom he initially spotted in the leather dyeing trenches from his perch on the castle rooftop) to produce William the Bastard/Conqueror, there may not have been a Norman England.

SD was so upset at the possibility that they could lose the Chargers over public funding for a stadium (even via a hotel tax), that they voted against it anyway. The Raiders have come and gone from several cities. Oakland doesn't seem to be whining after they lost the team (again). 5.8 billion vs 10.7 billion is an interesting hair to split, lol. No one has suggested that either billionaire should spend 5 billion on a new stadium. Strange point to make. Certainly Pegula could afford to pay and should have paid more than the few hundred million he is now obligated to. His net worth growth is "Peg'd" to the ever increasing value of the franchise he bought--at this rate at least a billion every 10 years. Yeah, Kroenke put his money where his mouth is and went all in on LA. He left St. Louis on spec. Bidwell left because of the stadium issue and dwindling fan interest. Pegula held out for a free stadium in Buffalo, where he makes risk free money as his main income stream. He's certainly no fool. The state didn't play ball (hard or otherwise) at all, which is my point--this nonsense by PSE and now the Governor (Austin! no, wait--it was SD!), not withstanding. Certainly the *50 mill on the stadium is not gonna do it, that much is obvious. As for "owning the stadium"...since it is a single use facility (spare us the concerts, Bowl games, etc) it is a very limited value asset. Without it's lone tenant, it has no value. It cannot, if the team was to break it's lease and move, be used for anything else. In fact doesn't the lease include language to the effect that if the team moves, the Bills have to pay for the demolition of the stadium on their way out. Since you don't care in the least, you have no standing to comment at all as to how NYS residents tax dollars are spent. Anyone in NY is free to be happy the Bills will stay, while at the same time being convinced that the state clearly put up little fight for the tax payers--that much should be obvious. The size of (8) game day temp workers salaries and tax revenue would be hard to match with a similar number of "regular workers" to match ? That makes no sense. Regular jobs generate tax revenue year round. I'm not sure how 2.85 billion of public money would be "ideal". 2 billion in "infrastructure"? "In NYC", a city of 8.5 million and a metro of 20 million where 4.5 million people work and another 1 million commute into the city to work each day, and which is visited by 66 million per year.....a 2 billion dollar investment in infrastructure can have a massive positive public impact. In Buffalo, a town of a quarter of a million and a metro of just over a million, a 2 billion infrastructure expenditure would be absurd--especially if tied to a usually empty stadium. You describe the findings of economists (public funding of pro stadiums are a bad deal for the taxpayer) as "crap" at the same time your are making your argument by noting that every new stadium built was "as significantly worse deal than a previous deal". The economists will appreciate your seconding their findings. If Buffalo were to lose its team, I'm betting it will survive. No city is only it's NFL (or any sports) team's identity. It would be a blow to many who live in the city and it's surroundings, but the city wouldn't crumble (I haven't been, but I hear St. Louis is still standing). People will still move to or leave the area for the same reasons they do so today (not Bills related). These are the stadiums that are studied, since they are publicly funded stadiums. The studies conclusions demonstrate that politicians don't really care about the public cost of the stadium. That's the whole point of all that research. The "much bigger benefit" isn't financial. It's political, emotional, etc....

Brady is 24-12 v. Dolphins. Google is correct. You might have been thinking of The Battle of Castle, wherein Robert I ("the Frisian") defeated his sister-in-law Richilde (widow of Baldwin VI) and her nephew Arnulf III for the County of Flanders. Ultimately, Robert is appointed Count by King Philip I (The Amorous).

The studies don't look at the impact of a team leaving a city (no team that got the new stadium left). A team that doesn't move doesn't (re)pay for a new stadium with the taxes they have always been paying playing in the old stadium. It's not new revenue for the state, it is a new expense for the state.

St Louis is kind of crying I guess. But then again, they fronted a stadium to take the Rams from LA. When their citizens refused to buy yet another Rams stadium, the owner took the team back to LA--and built a 5 billion palace with his own money. Not quite what's going on here.... Also, St. Louis lost a team and got another one...then lost that team as well. It's an NFL dead zone--why would a team move there at this point? As for the second, the new stadium will create a lot of temporary new jobs perhaps--assuming the workers building it are currently unemployed or from out of state. Once it's done, it will not have a significantly larger staff working there on game days (or with a skeleton maintenance crew for the other 350 or so days it's empty). Not sure what a nebulous job is but let's just look at a recent example: The public commitment for the stadium is about 1.1 billion. For a public commitment of 1.52 billion (1.2 billion tax credit, 350 million cash, based on actual performance/job numbers), the state had an agreement to subsidize (not build) "H2" in LIC bringing 25,000 jobs averaging (per Amazon) $150K per year. This deal would have generated 27 billion in income tax revenue over 25 years------and it was OPPOSED by downstate politicians! Easily one of the worst political/fiscal decisions in the city's history. Let all of the posters whining about "downstate" ruminate on that for a bit. Obviously Amazon isn't coming to Buffalo, but such incentives, if competently vetted (sorry Erie County!) can bring actual new jobs, not just wrap existing jobs in expensive new clothes. As for what I should "worry" about, out of staters like you really have no legitimate skin in this game so your opinions should be given weight proportional to that.

Everyone assumed Pegula wanted a freebie. That wouldn't be news. The topic of discussion is whether NYS could have negotiated a better deal for the State. Also, why do you say you "have to read this"? Just a guy stating well known research on stadium funding--stuff you already knew as a TSW reader. Who made you read it? That's assuming the Bills would have moved if they had to pay a penny more than they now will have to pay for a new stadium. It also assumes that 850 million could not have been used to produce more jobs that produce an equal amount of tax revenue from business and employee income. Both aren't solid assumptions.

NYS is already making all that tax money from the team/players without the new stadium……

Like AB interested?

he didn’t make his academic field of study as an economist for the clicks (perhaps for the chicks, though?) Anyway, all internet articles are made for the clicks—in this case it’s yahoo, not the Economics Professor, who is getting them

It's a sports economist who has studied stadium deals for years for whom you provided a link to his academic employer email address. That's who.

Outside of....Buffalo? The information regarding the impact of new stadiums on their surroundings isn't going to be suddenly different for Buffalo as it has been everywhere else. This makes no sense. The article you cited discusses only the County's obligations under the new contract, not the states. All told, including the 600 milliom state, 250 million county, 6 million capital improvement fund per year for 30 years, 6.7 million per year times 15 for maintenance, 4 million a year for capital improvement (from Erie) and 900k a year to capital improvements from Bills lease payments. Total public costs 1.13 billion upfront +ongoing.

It's 383 million. It's income EBITDA.

Hmmm....where have I read this before? "The Bills and their owners, Terry and Kim Pegula, don’t need a handout. With a net worth of $5.8 billion, Terry Pegula ranks as the ninth-richest owner in the NFL. The generous revenue-sharing structure of the NFL means that even playing in one of the league’s smallest markets, the Bills have earned over $300 million in operating income since the Pegulas purchased the team for $1.4 billion just seven years ago. And since then, the value of the Bills has risen by another $900 million. The Pegulas have earned enough on their investment in just seven years to pay for the entirety of a new stadium on their own." Dude should cite his TSW sources...

Why would a business owner want to build (or at least significantly contribute the building of) the facility that will house his business? You're right--that would just be silly. Business owner just do not build buildings. Anyway, that silly question aside....the Pegula's aren't treating me or anyone else to a stadium (hence, this thread). The topic of this discussion is should they not soak the season ticket holders for the balance of their portion of the "privately funded" construction costs. They certainly don't need to. After the state, county and NFL/G4 contributions, they are on the hook for about $350 million. They can swing that easily and it is a small amount to pay for the financial benefits they (alone) will reap from the new stadium. It would be a hardship for many season ticket holders

Absolutely untrue. They could simply choose not to charge PSLs and cough up that small % of the cost of the stadium from their vast personal wealth.

Why would he care? These decisions are run by him. He got paid. All that other stuff was nonsense.

The Lord: "you're a liability out there. I'm sending you to Pittsburgh. Go Bills"

San Diego right now: "huh?" Austin: "I know, right?"

Wait, there's another 5 page thread saying it could (and Should?) be Daxton Hill...

If Hochul was a reporter and posted this on twitter, she would get roasted here. She "indicates" "larger cities, like San Diego that would love to have a team" and this becomes " San Diego was interested in taking the Bills away from Buffalo". She only throws this whopper out there as here ship suddenly is taking on water and sinking and the sharks are circling downstate.

he's not going to line up everywhere on this team. For the value and impact he will have, a similar guy can be had in a later round.

remember that 9 OT Penn State game? It wasn't even football. As for the chip. be prepared for the replay to show the tip of the ball cross the plane and no TD indicated by the chip. Gambling addicts will rend their clothing....