Rochesterfan

I am not sure I understand this. You are upset because the Bills have clearly set up a process whereby as a club member you are given a chance to get comparable seats (and that is all they are selling at the moment) - You then tell that Rep that is selling specific areas for now that you are not interested. Then you get upset that they move you to a different rep that doesn’t know what you want and you have to explain it again. What exactly are you looking for? Why was this a surprise to you? I am really just trying to understand the expectations that you had in this process. The team has made it pretty clear that they are moving section by section and offering specific packages. You have a choice to look at the various sections they have available or pass and move in later for different sections, but those will be sold later - most likely by a different set of reps. Maybe I am missing something - it sounds like you are not interested in a comparable seat - are you looking for something cheaper or in a different section that is not yet available or where you hoping to get seats in a section being sold for a cheaper price. I just feel like there is a massive part of this story that is missing and it feeds the misunderstanding of the process. Several of us have had a perfectly fine experience going through the process and managing the expectations and several have even stepped back with a no and a request for an upcoming section that may be cheaper and have been accommodated. I just see things posted that I feel have additional information that would make it understandable and maybe we can see your side and the Bills side. I did not have an annoying process other than I wish things would have gone quicker - it met my expectations based upon what I had read here and what I had been told. They did not have nor provide information for areas that are not for sale yet. I would appreciate a better understanding to see why your experience was so different than mine. Thanks in advance.

IDK how overall true it is. The NFL had an agreement in place with the XFL and the Rock to test certain things before coming to the NFL - so I am not sure how that agreement transferred to the UFL and how much the NFL really cares as long as the UFL stays a podunk league with little to no attention - I just don’t think the NFL cares about it and that goes for both players and coaches. I also do not think they see it as a pseudo farm team, but just another minor place to pick up some preseason roster fillers - similar to the arena league in years gone by. As for a college player - if I am on the bench - I am 99 out of a hundred using the transfer window and staying in college over the UFL at this point. The combined spring leagues last year with 2x the players saw several guys get try-out and I think only 2 made active rosters. A few made practice squads, but if you compare that to the college draft and UDFA rate - it is still significantly lower. This year we may see a few additional kickers make NFL rosters - especially as they have experience with the new kick-off rules, but I still think the number of position players that make actual NFL rosters will be very low compared to other avenues. There is also the pay scale - which the UFL actually lowered compared to the XFL with the lack of competition - it was especially noticeable with QBs and the terrible QB play in the UFL. Players actually have a much better chance to make more money with a limited licensing deal in college than the up to $5500 a week in the UFL for 10 games potentially - where you still have to find living accommodations and some meals - with a small stipend. There may be a few guys that get kicked out of college and need a second chance, but until the UFL can expand and actually get some talent - those types of stories will be limited. I honestly think the biggest problem with the UFL is actually the same thing that keeps it afloat. The UFL exists because the TV networks want the product. Fox, NBC, ABC, and ESPN basically fund the league which is the only reason they have survived, but only provide enough to ensure it is able to function. The league itself had less than adequate attendance at games and unless the numbers go up - the networks are not going to have a bidding war over a product they own - so financially they are in a limbo - surviving on what they are given, but unable to financially grow significantly so they will struggle to compete with college ball for players that are in good standing. If the UFL was independent of the networks - they could force a bidding war and maybe make some money to really grow, but they could not afford the production costs as that has doomed other leagues and needed the networks to survive the early years.

It was discussed at the time of the event - everything that happened was occurred before Matt became a part of the league and the NFL was not allowed to punish him for conduct prior to becoming an NFL player. If he was convicted after becoming an NFL player they could enact punishment based on the findings, but the NFL was not able to put him on the restricted list for college issues. This goes back to the Reggie Bush days when the league looked at punishing him and Pete Carroll for transgressions at USC and the NFLPA argued they could not punish them because they were not part of the NFL. Therefore there were no options for the Bills in that regard based upon the reports. Would the contract have been onerous- I don’t know, but as the Bills had no option to place him on any list what do you suggest they do. - should the Bills have kept him on the 53 man roster and not dressed him? That was 1 option and can you imagine the distraction with questions every week that would cause. The other option was to cut him - which based upon allowing him to focus on the trial and not being a distraction was the obvious choice. I just do not understand what you wanted them to do. The Bills were screwed with either choice because they could not trot him out to punt with the allegations hanging over him. Keeping him on the 53 man roster and not playing him for nearly 2 years also was not an option as spots are precious and fans already complain about the fringe guys that the Bills cut (see every WR/RB cut after a decent preseason against 5th stringers). Now imagine you are cutting an additional player to keep a punter that is not going to play - it just is not worth it. Unfortunately based upon the options available the Bills took the one that covered their butt the best, freed Matt to focus on what he needed to, and created the least questions, distractions, and problems for the team.

I think you were roasted because “administrative leave” is not a thing. The Bills could not do what you suggested as it is not an option. The only leave would be if the NFL put him on leave and the NFL was not allowed to do that because the transgression occurred in college not the NFL. Therefore - the Bills had very limited options. Cut him, Keep him on the roster, or work with the player and the NFLPA to get him on a reserved non-football list - which based upon the timing would have blocked him out for the season and would have left the NFL money on the table in the lawsuit. In the end he sat out the 2 years while the various lawsuits fell away and without the NFL contract in place there was not a lot of money for the others lawyer to go after. The understanding at the time was the Bills (Beane) talked with the player and the agent about the options they had - either cutting him or getting the player to step away so they could use the Reserve list and keep him away for the year. The agreement between the sides was for him to go away and handle the lawsuits and keep the other lawyers from using his contract as a bargaining chip. The problem with your suggestion is that there is nothing like what you suggested that the Bills could do. They explored options and talked with the NFL, the player and his agent, and the NFLPA and had limited options of either keeping him on the roster or cutting him. Really a no brainer at that point with that team.

We will see, but I totally disagree with this take. Matt was great at punting the ball in college, but they were low, long, and returnable - especially a potential problem in the NFL. Maybe even more importantly - he struggled mightily with high short punts - for example punting from near Mid-field where good teams like the Bills and Chiefs tend to punt from - lots of touchbacks and he showed little touch. Lastly in no world should a good team like the Bills or Chiefs need/want a weapon at punter. He is on the Chiefs because he is CHEAP - if he is good - that is a bonus, but if they are punting enough that he is a weapon - that is a very bad sign. If he is also punting and getting an average like in college - that is also a bad sign for the Chiefs as it means the offense is not moving the ball. We will see, but my greatest hope is that he has a career year punting for the Chiefs. I hope against all hope he leads the league in number of punts, etc. because if your punter is your best weapon - your offense sucks - so please Matt - punt 150+ times this year and I will be happy.

So - I am going to agree with many others. Based upon your descriptions of the grades - I had to grade him as an A. There is really no other choice as he has easily shown himself to be a top 10 and typically a top 5 GM in this league. Based upon a standard grading curve - I would typically give him an upper B level - somewhere in the mid/upper 80s on a 100 point scale. He checks the right boxes for me - he drafts well (maybe not always what we want and sometimes over values or undervalues positions), he brings in adequate FAs and ensures the Bills consistently have quality depth to cover their issues, he brings in high quality staff to surround himself and seems to let them grow and learn so there is a constant pipeline of talented staff, and most importantly he speaks well and is not afraid to be real - he goes on things like Pat McAfee show and provides excellent talking points and is not afraid to spill a bit of behinds the scene info. Could you have a better GM - yep there are a couple out there - maybe 2 or 3 that are better on both draft and FA combined (some are better at 1 or the other) and even then they all have “wart” picks and get bailed out. To me he is a perfect “Buffalo” man and although you may be able to find better - there is significantly more likelihood that you will do worse - see the majority of teams in the NFL and the Bills for 17 years as they flail time after time.

Yeah - no kidding, but you stated that he had won 2 SB with Ben and that was incorrect. He did not win 2. So the first point was to correct the stuff you got wrong. If you had gotten your facts correct - I wouldn’t have had to even post, but you could not even count to 1 correctly. Of course every Bills fan wants a SB, but what defines a great HC. What makes Tomlin great and McDermott a flop - because as I look at the 2 they are very similar overall. McDermott has won a higher % of regular season games by a small margin 0.644 to 0.633 for their careers. McDermott has won at a better clip in the playoffs for their career - 0.455 to 0.440. Tomlin is praised as a defense coach who has won with both Offense and Defense in an Offensive heavy NFL yet the Bills are consistently top 5 in the NFL in both Offense (points and yards) and Defense (points and yards) - so obviously McDermott is also balanced. The difference is the 1 SB that Tomlin won in 2008 with a team that Bill Cower had won a SB with only a few years before - and that is a huge difference, but it is not like he has repeated that success since. In fact it has been 7 years - this will be year 8 - since he has even won a playoff game. Even legendary coaches like Andy Reid - now considered one of the best of all time - was on par with McDermott in his coaching stint in Philadelphia. McDermott has a better regular season win % than Reid in Philly (0.640 to 0.583). Reid had a slightly better win % in the playoffs (0.526 to 0.455). Neither had won a SB during that stint. Reid then goes to KC and wins at about the same clip as McDermott for his first 5 years and goes 1 - 4 in the playoffs so less of a post season win % than McDermott. Finally in his 7th year in KC and 21st year coaching overall he wins a SB and suddenly that propels them to a couple of more. So yes we want a SB win and yes we want a coach to lead us there, but if it was easy to do - Tomlin in 17 years would have more than 1 and it would not have taken Reid 21 years to figure it out. It takes great coaching, great players, lots of luck, lots of health, lots of depth, and sometimes it takes a bit of fate having someone knock out a team that beats you - like when both KC and Pittsburgh won - neither had to go through NE who had knocked them out during other playoff runs.

1st Tomlin has only 1 SB win not 2. 2nd Tomlin won in a year NE got beat by someone else. It would be no different than if Miami had knocked KC out - it opens up a path that was unavailable prior. 3rd - Yes the Bills are just as good as Pittsburgh - which is why the Bills have 1 of the 2 best records in the entire NFL over the McDermott/Josh time and the best point differential. McDermott is every bit as good as Tomlin over the last little bit. Mike Tomlin is a superb coach that in 17 years has won 1 SB and has an overall 8-10 record in the playoffs. He won the SB in a year the dynasty team was knocked out by another team and they had a bye as a #2 seed to rest - both advantages/luxuries the Bills have not had. Sean McDermott in 7 years has a better career regular season record (.640 to .633) and a better career playoff win % (.455 to .440) and has not benefited from the #2 team getting a bye as Tomlin did and has not had their arch nemesis knocked out early yet. I think Pittsburgh was smart to stick with Tomlin just as the Bills are smart to stick with McDermott. As long as the Josh and the players support McDermott and play and win for him - the Bills are in a great situation.

I think it shows what a Sabres atmosphere could be like if they were good again. It used to rock like that when the Sabres went to the finals - the lack of any kind of winning has killed the vibe. Bandits games are amazing. Being in Rochester - I enjoy the Knighthawks, but love the Bandits. I am so thrilled for Banditland. Congrats Buffalo 🦬!!! That was amazing - I rewound that play like 10 times during the broadcast - just unbelievable.

The KC trade - they got pick 95 for their later 4th round pick.

After the trades - they have 2 2nds, a 3rd, and a 4th - plus a bunch of 5ths - 7ths.

The idea seems fine, but who is SF so enamored with that they have to move up 3 spots and give us another top 100 pick? I would assume based upon the team and the draft that they would be moving up for a WR - so I am not sure that works in our favor. I also am not sure that Atl would really want to drop back 50+ picks for a 3rd next year when they have a veteran QB they acquired and are not in build mode, but in win now mode. My guess is that if we move back from 28 - you are acquiring a 2nd round pick from a team wanting a QB with a 5th year option and that would most likely mean dropping back a bit and watching several teams pick up the higher ranking WRs. We will see - I am not going to hold my breath that the Bills get 4 top 100 picks. I am much more inclined to believe the Bills will move up slightly from 28 to get a WR and move up slightly from 60 to get their player there and then use some additional picks to get a third rounder as their top 3 picks.

And for people complaining about how much NYS covered at 1.4 billion it was 60%, but current costs show it to be running close to 1.7 Billion or a nice 50/50 mix. The final cost is going to end up probably over 2 Billion when done and the Pegula’s covering 60% and over 1 Billion of their own money. The stadium is going to cost them nearly as much as the team did and the PSLs are only covering the initial fraction. This most likely has nothing to do with the PSLs and everything to do with future plans and lack of buyers for other pieces like Sabres, Bandits, Rochester teams and the lack of health of poor Kim - all playing into some decisions that need to be planned for.

And then you have people all worked up over something they don’t know and a certain poster that then makes up things like the PSLs are not selling and spreads the manure across multiple threads with no proof. He is the equivalent of the fake Mahomes interception thread. If you make up something and post it - it must be true. 🤦‍♂️ So no evidence - yet you have stated it as fact in multiple threads.

You are absolutely correct that they don’t need to change anything, but I disagree with the they are figuring it out part. The only reason the XFL and the USFL survived the first and second years is that TV providers (Fox, NBC, and ESPN) are part of the groups and are providing coverage for the leagues at little to no cost compared to the past leagues. The USFL saw a healthy drop in viewers from year 1 to year 2 and had average ratings of 600,000 lower than the XFL last year. The XFL last year averaged around 650,000 viewers, but week 1 was between 1.3 - 1:4 million for an average. The UFL was formed because both the USFL and XFL saw that they were failing and needed to pool resources and hopefully get a better pool of players by combing the 2 leagues. Week 1 for the UFL was an average of 1 million viewers - which is well down from what both the XFL and USFL did for week 1 last year. They seem to be hoping that the decrease is due to March madness, but if as in past seasons, they hemorrhage viewers weekly - the average for the UFL will be below 600,000 viewers on a weekly basis by seasons end. I expect the UFL will survive another year and may continue solely due to the networks having a stake in the league, but they have to be worried that the viewership for week 1 was down so much compared to last year and that the typical trend is a loss of viewers week to week until the championship game which draws back a % of viewers. They really need to see the fan base stabilize. The unfortunate thing is that it shows that the XFL and USFL were probably watched by the same pool of NFL fans as their ratings were very similar and the UFL is pulling a percentage of those fans, but it is not bringing in newer fans.

Agreed, but you may also see a nice percentage of former club seat holders saying the clubs were to expensive, but the lower bowl is more in line with my thoughts and price range and the new amenities make those seats worth it - so they move down a group and that continues as we expand the stadium.

it will not be 63,000 STH. The percentage will be most likely be similar with no more than 56-57,000 STH - most likely capped at or below 54,000 or so. They will need a % for the other team and the NFL, they need an internal group of seats for groups/ charities as they provide that as part of the overall county agreement, they tend to have some seats for the halftime group - be it kids flag football teams or a band or color guards/troops. They will also want a contingency of tickets in the club areas to offer out to stadium sponsors to provide out each game - especially with fewer actual boxes for these groups. There will most likely be about 10,000 fewer STH in the new stadium - which is why the renewal rate of 75% is so important because if the renewal rate pushes up closer to 85-90% they have more renewals than seats for them once everyone gets a chance to pick seats.

I really can not figure out what your deal is. You argue this is bad, but admit the stadium and PSLs will sell out. You argue that it is a bad investment, and then admit no one is talking about using it as an investment - including the team. You argue about Stockholm Syndrome and admit it has been used across the league and successfully for the team. You complain about the 75% announced rate of renewal and say that is a sign of failure - when the reality is with a stadium that is only 80% in size and a large waiting list and no pricing outside of clubs - it seems they are most likely right where they want to be. You complain about the “timeshare” aspect and how horrible the approach is - when you admit to not having seasons and not having been to the presentation and the couple of people with experience have said it was no/low pressure and they got lots of information and could take info to their lawyers and will have an opportunity if they pass up club seats to move elsewhere. You complain about the resale value of the PSLs (that you do not and won’t own), but that in reading articles - lots of people have found sales in certain sections (end zones, inside the 20’s, upper decks’s) that were lower PSL areas to not lose their value and that is the areas that PSL vendors go after because they can make profits on tickets with individual game tickets and then profit when something positive happens - like the trade for Rodgers in NY last year. You quote numbers of 25-40% resale after several years - fine, but how different is that from a 5 year old car that you spent $50,000 on and put 120000 miles on. Basically what I see is that you are just in this thread to argue. You spit out a bunch of garbage and then admit the Bills are doing exactly what others have done and that the stadium will sell out and you are not a part of the buyers. Ok - we get it - you want to argue against reality and you like everyone else don’t like PSLs - the rest is you just pissing into a windstorm and wondering why you are getting wet.

You are correct for the data we have there is a margin of error and it is correct - if nothing changes - yes we could expect the same 75% across the new stadium - which may or may not happen. This is like using 1930’s life expectancy models in 2024 and expecting the predictive model to be accurate. The problem is as you move to other sections the variables change significantly as I stated. 1) First the PSL cost are expected to drop dramatically based upon the original survey reports. If based upon the first section the PSL cost is about double what came from the survey - then the PSL cost in end zone and upper deck areas will be $1000 - 2000 or more per seat. 2) The pool of people changes as you move around sections - The end zones with lower PSL may see a similar 75% renewal rate, but with the extra people available 100% of the seats will be purchased by STH. 3) There is an additional pool outside the normal pool of people - if they decide to purchase tickets at a similar 75% rate (which they will not) - that creates a pool of 7500 additional new season ticket holders. The predictive model works great when the variables do not change, but until you know the impact of the variables in each area - your data is faulty. It is why insurance companies group people by age and sex - the variables change the data. In addition - as I stated 75% may still be higher than they expected for the new stadium - we do not know the expectations or goals. With a decrease of 16% in size and a waiting list of about 15% of capacity - if everyone purchased at only 75% you have 57,000 season ticket holders in a 61,000 seat stadium and that is 100% without any of the 25% changing sections or moving down. That is to many people. The Legends team are 100% hoping in the cheaper areas - the renewal rate drops - opening up more seats for the 25% of more well off STH from the club seats to move to those areas. The goal is to drive a percentage of the STH population that eat and drink 100% in the parking lot and spend nothing in the stadium away - to replace them with with people that will spend additional money in the stadium increasing their revenue. They are not worried about selling the season tickets in the new stadium - the 75% rate has already shown with super high pricing that they should be able to hit 100% of their goal as those club holders move out to less expensive areas.

I am very sorry, but as I have said before - I am only going to post when there is real information that is being glossed over or missed. I do not need to add the exact same info to an argument when someone is wrong because one additional person saying the same thing will not change anyone mind. With nothing to add - more people would be advised to just use both positive and negative reactions rather than just spewing incorrect information.

I am sorry, but this is 100% wrong and if you are truly a CEO/upper level leader - you should be ashamed. The 1.6% is not predictive because the variability of the test subject - in this case the PSLs cost and section are going to vary as they move around the stadium. Therefore trying to use bull**** numbers as concrete values means very little. You also totally are ignoring the fact that the 25% that are declining will have a chance to purchase in a different section if they find that those PSLs are more agreeable. So for example if they stay at a 75% renewal rate in this section - which is predictive. Going to the next area to sell - they now have 125% of the fans to offer tickets to rather than 100% and the 25% that declined earlier are now getting a price closer to their current cost. So if the predictive value of 75% holds - that would leave 25% of section 2 unsold and about 25% of the initial buyers to purchase those seats. So now group 2 sells closer to 90-95% sold or more. Now you move to the third tier of pricing and you have the 100% of current holders, the 25% from the section 2 and all remaining people from the club seats vying for this section. So again if they get 75% of the initial group - you now have 30% vying for 25% of available seats. And this will continue and each subsequent area will have an abundance of current season ticket holders trying to pick up tickets because saying no to your current area does not lock you out. Finally in the end if there are open seats - which will be limited - there are 10,000 people on a waiting list to begin to fill in the different sections. so what you end up with is limited open seats in the most expensive area - which as @Kirby Jackson said can be packaged to other clients for advertising or offered to businesses that had suites, but with fewer suites are priced out or even certain ticket vendors to have a supply on the secondary market, but as they move out of the club seats - more and more seats will be filled by current season ticket holders and people on the waiting list. The predictive nature of your math begins to immediately fall apart because of the assumption built into it because a non renewal does not mean they can’t get tickets later - something a good CEO and leader would understand and something Kirby has tried to explain to you. You have no idea what the expectations were for renewal on this first set. They know that many of the “No’s” in the first pass become people happy to get a seat in a different section closer to their current rates and people from subsequent sections will also downgrade and thus the Bills decreased the capacity to cover that eventuality as some fans may be priced out or opt out. Additionally- it would be very, very bad for the Bills - if they had 100% of people renewing because the new stadium is 16% smaller than the current stadium and if 100% tried to renew they would be overcapacity. They need about 25% renewal failure in each section to allow people to drop sections to different areas and not have a percentage of people that could not be moved due to all seats being sold. Basic math says they are probably right on their goal so far, but you be you and come up with a different formula that is just used in the wrong context. 🤦‍♂️

The argument is because he does not want to accept the facts that this is business as usual across many sectors. That would reduce the fake outrage over nothing. You can find examples across tons of business models - everyday things like Amazon, Costco, Sam’s Club, BJs, and places like Movie theaters, Barnes and Nobles, Gaming places and indoor kids bouncy centers. Most companies - especially large places like Amazon - build facilities in communities on the back of tax breaks, salary tax cuts, and funding from small business groups that all come from the taxpayer. I mean look at all the hoops cut when Amazon even mentioned a Warehouse potentially getting built in NYS. Everyone was throwing taxpayer money just for a shot - including gifting them huge amounts of property that was state and county owned. Then the consumer - be it an Amazon subscriber or a Costco member - pays a fee typically yearly for the right to purchase items from these shops - with limited return or discounts. There are gas stations that were built and received large payroll breaks - especially during Covid - to maintain employment levels and they have monthly and annual fees. You still pay for gas, but get a 20 cent decrease compared to a non member. There are tons of city/state owned Golf courses that were purchased with tax payer money, you still need a membership to guarantee tee times and you still need to pay for your round. The model is all over - not just the NFL or European Football - they use different terms and in some cases slightly different tweaks, but it is not new nor exclusive to this situation. The membership and pay model is common and most new construction be it a bar, a restaurant, a bookstore, a gas station, a football stadium, a event center - all get funding or reduced taxes, payroll breaks for a certain time, low cost or free loans from the city/state, etc. the funding is not as open as the funding provided to the Bills, but there is money from the taxpayers involved in most builds. There are plenty of reasons to be angry, but the misplaced anger and the anger over perceived slights is just so overwhelming in this thread. The Bills could have done a better job, but at this point we know next to nothing and people are making up things to create anger. @Kirby Jackson has talked and given insight from actually going through this process as an insider/employee and people try to argue minor semantics. I will wait for my section to be called before I worry if my PSL is going to be $500, $1000, or $10,000 or anyplace in between. My outrage can wait until there is actually something to be upset about.

Although I do not disagree that a timeout or runoff makes sense - the actual architecture of this occurring is a very small and limited example. Literally the only time it has a slight impact is on a play like in the Bills game where the foul occurred and the Bills got the first down anyway with a lead and the ball. All other cases it is a huge negative to commit the foul. If Wilkins makes the tackle short - the penalty gives an automatic first down. If a defense jumps Offside to stop the clock the offense gets 5 yards and the down over. You could do that once, but a second time is a first down. A personal foul is 15 yards and a first down. All stopping the clock, but providing yards and downs that the defense is trying to stop. My guess is like the Belichick punt issue of a few years ago - it occurs so infrequently that it has gone unnoticed and it will get presented in the off season for review. It is not like Miami did it on purpose to gain the advantage because it could have cost them dearly if they had stopped Josh short. It was a bad play on their part that happened in this case to provide a small amount of help.

In addition, you have the college schedule to consider. If teams want to interview and hire a college coach as a HC or coordinator and you push the NFL hire window until mid February - you screw your college recruiting windows and transfer portal windows and then national signing day. All for a stupid request to keep a coach from doing a couple of hour interview during the playoffs that has never shown to be a huge deal and they already have rules around the process. Could they do it - sure with lots of other manipulation and issues and for almost no reward or reason.

Agreed and Teller has thrived in a run first - heavy run offense - which the Bills would not have been. Teller still struggles when the Browns are forced to throw and teams don’t respect the run. His pass blocking is not great and although he might be a slight improvement here - I doubt he is anywhere near the same player on a pass heavy - pass first team.