erynthered Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Buffalo-taxpayers-will-be-paying-the-Bills-to-no?urn=nfl-wp946 Didnt see this posted yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 Eh. If you think that is a lot of money, try to lure a new NFL franchise to replace the Bills. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloRebound Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 The only thing this is subsidizing is Ralph's pockets. He clearly hasn't made enough money off his $25,000 investment. Sell the team to a guy like the Sabres' owner who cares more about winning and isn't pre-occupied how much more money some other franchises are making than his. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloATL Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 (edited) This is a story that, well, isn't a story. Some things need to be maintained, even if the facility doesn't get used. The Buffalo News article (link within the story) says that the Bills get reimbursed for other actual gameday expenses only if they play games. No story here. Edited April 14, 2011 by BuffaloATL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwight in philly Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 The only thing this is subsidizing is Ralph's pockets. He clearly hasn't made enough money off his $25,000 investment. Sell the team to a guy like the Sabres' owner who cares more about winning and isn't pre-occupied how much more money some other franchises are making than his. I AGREE.. ralph keeping the team here and being lauded for it unrealistically so much is getting old. i dont want them to leave , but feeling like we continually have to kiss his proverbial ring frosts my a$$. enough, sell it then! IF YOU FEEL IT IS NOT FINANCIALLY VIABLE! yea right! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Rob Johnson Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 That's not alot of money at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thoner7 Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 They always talk about the lease the team has with the city. Well, lease implies rent. Does anyone know what they pay? do they pay rent at all? I sure hope they do, and if they do, it should be more than any maintenance costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 They always talk about the lease the team has with the city. Well, lease implies rent. Does anyone know what they pay? do they pay rent at all? I sure hope they do, and if they do, it should be more than any maintenance costs. Interesting questions that I did not know the answers to, so I decided to see what I could find. Turns out that as a result of a three way deal between the County, the State and the Bills in 1998, there are several related documents, including the Stadium Lease, available at this Erie County website: http://www.erie.gov/billslease/stadium.phtml Based on a very quick review - - the documents are lengthy - - it looks like the County leased the stadium to the Empire State Development Corporation (the "ESDC"), and the ESDC in turn sub=leased the stadium to the Bills. The ESDC doesn't pay rent to the County, but provided $63,250,000 to refurbish and renovate the stadium, which the County owns. The Bills' obligation to pay rent to ESDC is described below. The copy of the Stadium Lease has a few unfilled blanks, but my guess is that it is otherwise accurate. The text of the document includes a requirement at Article 30.13 that it be recorded in the real property records of Erie County, so if that provision survived in the document that was actually signed, there should be a copy of the fully signed lease available to the public at the Erie County Recorder's office just like recorded property deeds are. I can't think of any reason why the County would post an inaccurate copy of the lease on its website. The rent provision is at Article 3. It requires that the Bills pay 1/2 of "Net Ticket Revenue" (as defined in the Stadium Lease) to the ESDC, but only if and to the extent that "Net Ticket Revenue" exceeds "NFL Average Net Ticket Revenue" (as also defined in the Stadium Lease). The County website has no info about what the "NFL Average Net Ticket Revenue" is, but based on the chart in this link recently posted by papazoid: http://www.bloggingtheboys.com/2011/2/21/2005431/nfl-lockout-2011-the-haves-and-have-nots-of-the-nfl it seems likely that the Bills have never had to actually pay any rent under the terms of this Stadium Lease. BTW, there's some interesting stuff at Articles 6.3, 6.4 and 6.5 of the Stadium Lease about what would happen if RW sold the franchise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hplarrm Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 Interesting questions that I did not know the answers to, so I decided to see what I could find. Turns out that as a result of a three way deal between the County, the State and the Bills in 1998, there are several related documents, including the Stadium Lease, available at this Erie County website: http://www.erie.gov/billslease/stadium.phtml Based on a very quick review - - the documents are lengthy - - it looks like the County leased the stadium to the Empire State Development Corporation (the "ESDC"), and the ESDC in turn sub=leased the stadium to the Bills. The ESDC doesn't pay rent to the County, but provided $63,250,000 to refurbish and renovate the stadium, which the County owns. The Bills' obligation to pay rent to ESDC is described below. The copy of the Stadium Lease has a few unfilled blanks, but my guess is that it is otherwise accurate. The text of the document includes a requirement at Article 30.13 that it be recorded in the real property records of Erie County, so if that provision survived in the document that was actually signed, there should be a copy of the fully signed lease available to the public at the Erie County Recorder's office just like recorded property deeds are. I can't think of any reason why the County would post an inaccurate copy of the lease on its website. The rent provision is at Article 3. It requires that the Bills pay 1/2 of "Net Ticket Revenue" (as defined in the Stadium Lease) to the ESDC, but only if and to the extent that "Net Ticket Revenue" exceeds "NFL Average Net Ticket Revenue" (as also defined in the Stadium Lease). The County website has no info about what the "NFL Average Net Ticket Revenue" is, but based on the chart in this link recently posted by papazoid: http://www.bloggingtheboys.com/2011/2/21/2005431/nfl-lockout-2011-the-haves-and-have-nots-of-the-nfl it seems likely that the Bills have never had to actually pay any rent under the terms of this Stadium Lease. BTW, there's some interesting stuff at Articles 6.3, 6.4 and 6.5 of the Stadium Lease about what would happen if RW sold the franchise. Once again thanks for the links to and interpretation of reality on what is often a fact-free rant that tends to populate this board (for example, one constant poster claims that the players only receive 40% of the total take of the NFL when someone else was nice enough to provide links to documents which show the take to be in the mid- 50%s year after year this decade and I have clearly referenced numeric based public claims by the players that any salary cap agreement must start with a 6 in the newest CBA(. The facts such as it is the owners who are disatisfied with the current CBA as they exercised and optional re-opener is a clear imdication they are dissed about the deal which seems unlikely if they are getting 60% of the take given the NFLPA is historically on record demanding 52% in the pre- current CBA times. However. I digress. At any rate, if this is a "mere" quick read I would love to see what you do with a thorough one. The big point which I think scouring this document looking for proof of taxpayer subsidy for the Bills and the NFL is that without regard to whether it is here, the biggest taxpayer subsidy to the welfare queens in the NFL is actually likely found elsewhere in this racket. Other major professional sports leagues like MLB and the NHL lay out beaucoup bucks for the identification, speculation, training and development of athletes. 16 year olds are routinely scouted (which means that these leagues pay scouts to look at 12 and 14 year olds getting into the pipeline) and signed to teams the pro sports pay for speculative contracts signed by the parents of these minors and then they are sent to team owned or contracted minor leagues to train and develop them as players. Yet, in pro football, all of these training and development costs are borne by outside parties, namely the colleges, who not only train these athletes, but also actively participate in a series of pro days and feed the combines so these players can get detailed logistical assessments. The NFL with the partnership of the NFLPA then eliminates the rights of these individuals to sell their services to the highest bidder as most Americans can do when they choose to apply to IBM. Microsoft or Apple (or Ford, GM, or Chrysler if they do not have athletic talent and can only work on a manufacturing line) but restricts them to one and only one employer through the draft. Where is the taxpayer subsidy in this denial of basic rights to individuals (even adults are banned from the NFL draft until their birth year reaches 21). Taxpayers like you and me subsidize this player development and training through our support of state run universities. For example, under William Greiner, UB spent tons of my money to qualify as a Division I school and has a strategy of attracting top quality athletes to UB with exorbitant expenditures on a weight room and other player facilities. They are publicly trying to turn UB into a pro attractive effort as a WR factory much like schools like Stanford and USC have become NFL QB factories and taxpayer funded schools like U Nebraska have become NFL OL factories, You, me, and other taxpayers pay a massive subsidy to the NFL to provide this service. The main thing which makes this funny however, is that the NFL profits from a system where they do not pay much for training, development, and speculation on minors. However, they do not buy the loyalty of these athletes until they are adults. Most athletes are coddled lemmings who have not even made decisions for themselves beyond whether to get the steak or the chicken at the training table. They are told when to sleep, when to work, and even when they are allowed to play with curfews their entire lives. However, there is a talented tenth represented by me such as Gene Upshaw, Troy Vincent and recently by Drew Brees and the men who have stood up for individual freedom in the Brady et al. lawsuit who are a talented tenth who provide the player union leadership. These adults recognize that there is a partnership between the NFL and NFLPA and most impressively have pursued strategies like decertification to make themselves arguably the majority partner in this relationship. Unlike other pro leagues taxplayers subsidize a significant part of training and development of athletes and this effort likely makes the likely individual stadium subsidy provided by the County for the Ralph pale in significance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shibuya Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 the tax revenue the Bills create via ticket / concession sales and local businesses are greater then the tax revenue we use to keep the Erie County owned stadium up to date. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 As much as people like to complain, civic authorities give deals to businesses every day hoping what is spent is made back several times in tax revenue. I doubt any major commercial project in any community would exist if the local authorities didn't do something to attract the business. But like anything it's a gamble. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Direhard Fan Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 They get it all back in beer sales. The state, county and city all make out. State tax on the players pay is how much? Employee pay is how much? It's mega bucks. Stop slicing and dicing and lets play football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 the tax revenue the Bills create via ticket / concession sales and local businesses are greater then the tax revenue we use to keep the Erie County owned stadium up to date. As much as people like to complain, civic authorities give deals to businesses every day hoping what is spent is made back several times in tax revenue. I doubt any major commercial project in any community would exist if the local authorities didn't do something to attract the business. But like anything it's a gamble. They get it all back in beer sales. The state, county and city all make out. State tax on the players pay is how much? Employee pay is how much? It's mega bucks. Stop slicing and dicing and lets play football. These. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted April 16, 2011 Share Posted April 16, 2011 It's business for them. It's personal for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hplarrm Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 As much as people like to complain, civic authorities give deals to businesses every day hoping what is spent is made back several times in tax revenue. I doubt any major commercial project in any community would exist if the local authorities didn't do something to attract the business. But like anything it's a gamble. PTR Unfortunately, many civic authorities hand out these deals everyday not necessarily because they are good business investments but because of bribery ocassionally in the illegal form of baksheesh but primarily in the legalized bribery known as campaign contributions. It is simply naive to assume that the handing out of these gifts is due to them being more than justifiable rather than flat out sound investments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 Littman's office is in Michigan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts