Rob_not_Rian_Lindell Posted May 7, 2010 Posted May 7, 2010 We are #5 http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/lists/top-10-...;photo=11191288
nucci Posted May 7, 2010 Posted May 7, 2010 I don't think the stadium is as much of an issue as the ownership after Ralph is gone. I understand they are related but .....
Just Jack Posted May 7, 2010 Posted May 7, 2010 Bills - Ralph Wilson Stadium A stadium with one of the NFL’s largest seating capacities (73,967) is also among the smallest in overall square feet. The Bills would benefit from a stadium with fewer traditional seats and more club/luxury areas. Such a project wouldn’t be considered while 91-year-old Ralph Wilson still owns the team. There is a chance new ownership would consider leaving Buffalo for a more lucrative market. Which would price the average fan out of the stadium, causing less attendance, and better chance of the Bills leaving.
bills_fan Posted May 7, 2010 Posted May 7, 2010 Bills - Ralph Wilson StadiumA stadium with one of the NFL’s largest seating capacities (73,967) is also among the smallest in overall square feet. The Bills would benefit from a stadium with fewer traditional seats and more club/luxury areas. Such a project wouldn’t be considered while 91-year-old Ralph Wilson still owns the team. There is a chance new ownership would consider leaving Buffalo for a more lucrative market. Which would price the average fan out of the stadium, causing less attendance, and better chance of the Bills leaving. Yep. Gotta have a market for the luxury boxes. To my knowledge, our luxury box seating has been filled, but there is scant additional demand. If there was more demand, my guess is the Bills and county/state would add those seats. RWS is rather genius in that it is 2/3 underground and can be refurbished rather easily.
DanInUticaTampa Posted May 7, 2010 Posted May 7, 2010 actually, we aren't number 5. We are number 7. We are improving already
Ghost of Rob Johnson Posted May 7, 2010 Posted May 7, 2010 Bills - Ralph Wilson StadiumA stadium with one of the NFL’s largest seating capacities (73,967) is also among the smallest in overall square feet. The Bills would benefit from a stadium with fewer traditional seats and more club/luxury areas. Such a project wouldn’t be considered while 91-year-old Ralph Wilson still owns the team. There is a chance new ownership would consider leaving Buffalo for a more lucrative market. Which would price the average fan out of the stadium, causing less attendance, and better chance of the Bills leaving. That is idiotic, who is going to buy seats/boxes in the club/luxury areas. They obviously don't understand the demographics of Buffalo?
CountDorkula Posted May 7, 2010 Posted May 7, 2010 That is idiotic, who is going to buy seats/boxes in the club/luxury areas. They obviously don't understand the demographics of Buffalo? This +1 I dont need a luxury box, i don't need some chef to cook me prime rib. What i need is a seat, a foot long broiled hot dog, and a couple of brewskies to get me through the game... Some times more on the brewski part when we play the Browns...
MarkyMannn Posted May 7, 2010 Posted May 7, 2010 So here are 10 teams that could go to better cities with better stadiums. Yeah? Who are those 10 cities? It is all NFL gesturing. Lastly, in these times, good luck getting public money
K Gun Special Posted May 7, 2010 Posted May 7, 2010 Bills - Ralph Wilson StadiumA stadium with one of the NFL’s largest seating capacities (73,967) is also among the smallest in overall square feet. The Bills would benefit from a stadium with fewer traditional seats and more club/luxury areas. Such a project wouldn’t be considered while 91-year-old Ralph Wilson still owns the team. There is a chance new ownership would consider leaving Buffalo for a more lucrative market. Which would price the average fan out of the stadium, causing less attendance, and better chance of the Bills leaving. Not really bc you would more than make up the lost seat revenue by the luxury boxes take, which is why newer stadiums have more boxes and less seats. This is of course, assuming Buffalo could fill the extra boxes, which is hard to begin with, and harder now bc of the lack of on field success.
Offside Number 76 Posted May 7, 2010 Posted May 7, 2010 Not really bc you would more than make up the lost seat revenue by the luxury boxes take, which is why newer stadiums have more boxes and less seats. This is of course, assuming Buffalo could fill the extra boxes, which is hard to begin with, and harder now bc of the lack of on field success. As I've posted before, football luxury boxes are very difficult to fill in Buffalo. The fans who want to go already have tickets. My company never was able to fill its box with customers (so employees always got tix), so we got rid of it. (But we seem to fill a box at HSBC 20 times per year, and those are a LOT nicer, so maybe it is the amenities.)
dwight in philly Posted May 7, 2010 Posted May 7, 2010 So here are 10 teams that could go to better cities with better stadiums. Yeah? Who are those 10 cities? It is all NFL gesturing. Lastly, in these times, good luck getting public money yea really, after L A and possibly san antonio, where will all these franchises go? let these billionaires make it with what is in place!give L A a freakin team (other than the bills) and be done with it!, how much do these owners want to bleed fans and taxpayers?
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted May 7, 2010 Posted May 7, 2010 The fan photos in that slideshow are hilarious. i disagree, they are ripping off the saints fans. you wanna make a statement? plastic is he new paper.
eball Posted May 7, 2010 Posted May 7, 2010 i disagree, they are ripping off the saints fans. you wanna make a statement? plastic is he new paper. I was not referring to the Bills fans. Jacksonville and Minnesota, in particular, made me chuckle.
Cornerville Posted May 7, 2010 Posted May 7, 2010 That is idiotic, who is going to buy seats/boxes in the club/luxury areas. They obviously don't understand the demographics of Buffalo? You are right...but the NFL teams arent worried about 98 percent of us, they are more concerned with the 2% who would go and outspend us ten fold.
BuffaloBill Posted May 7, 2010 Posted May 7, 2010 It would seem that large government subsidies of exclusive use stadiums has to dry up. Even as we emerge from the last economic crisis it seems hard to believe that the public will have appetite for building stadiums when other public infrastructure needs abound.
metzelaars_lives Posted May 7, 2010 Posted May 7, 2010 yea really, after L A and possibly san antonio, where will all these franchises go? let these billionaires make it with what is in place!give L A a freakin team (other than the bills) and be done with it!, how much do these owners want to bleed fans and taxpayers? Dwight in Philly, for once we agree. I've been asking the same question for years. They're not going to move the Chargers to Little Rock for the sake of moving them, there will be compromises made in almost all of these situations.
dwight in philly Posted May 7, 2010 Posted May 7, 2010 Dwight in Philly, for once we agree. I've been asking the same question for years. They're not going to move the Chargers to Little Rock for the sake of moving them, there will be compromises made in almost all of these situations. i think the owners want the L A "card" to play as long as they can. once its played(and its not the bills), people in buffalo should be able to exhale, providing attendance and revenues stay competitive, regardless of the stadium situation. the climate of subsidizing billionaire owners is probably the same as the how the public feels about wall st. but, with these greedy pri-ks, you never know what they will do next to squeeze the fans.
Las Vegas Calling... Posted May 7, 2010 Posted May 7, 2010 yea really, after L A and possibly san antonio, where will all these franchises go? let these billionaires make it with what is in place!give L A a freakin team (other than the bills) and be done with it!, how much do these owners want to bleed fans and taxpayers? Excellent point! Most cities that can support the NFL have a team in place. LA has a history of not supporting the NFL, and the Raiders have rights to LA. That leaves San Antonio, which can easily support the NFL. However, San Antonio already has the NBA, MLB, and college teams in place. Would they support the crap that Mr. Wilson gives us? That is the question.
Recommended Posts