Tcali Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 We deserve at the very least a few hundred mil for a top-notch renovation. (One that includes a roof, though that might not be realistic.) The Bills are being pretty reasonable here. They will commit if the stadium is brought up to a level where it will be viable for the next 20 years. A good chuck of this can be paid for with bonds and user fees anyway so all the taxpayers can unwad their panties. RWS will be 40 years old in 2013. Stuff gets old and needs upkeep. Totally reasonable. Cheap out now and wind up with no team and a pile of rubble in a few years. PTR User fees OK---that makes sense. Bonds???--thats New york State(and /or erie county) getting deeper into debt.NYS/E countie deeper in debt means the poor slob taxpayer will get hit for the $ again in one form or another.I'd just like to see it done another way if possible. I live in CA where these magical 'BONDS' paid for everthing..until CA got so in debt that they started proposing BONDS just to pay off present debt obligations and other current expenses. Talk about a state sanctioned ponzie scheme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsVet Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 We deserve at the very least a few hundred mil for a top-notch renovation. (One that includes a roof, though that might not be realistic.) The Bills are being pretty reasonable here. They will commit if the stadium is brought up to a level where it will be viable for the next 20 years. A good chuck of this can be paid for with bonds and user fees anyway so all the taxpayers can unwad their panties. RWS will be 40 years old in 2013. Stuff gets old and needs upkeep. Totally reasonable. Cheap out now and wind up with no team and a pile of rubble in a few years. PTR Why is the state and/or local governments responsible for subsidizing sports teams ? I'm hitting at a hornet's nest here, but the government is most likely going to be asked to pony up 100M+ now with more each year to keep the Bills. That sounds like Buffalo once again leveraging the threat of moving to get money this state doesn't really have. Or at least money that they need to raise taxes/fees to pay for it. NYS already has one of the worst business climates in the county, features some of the highest property taxes versus property values in the nation, and shows no sign of improving economically, particularly in WNY. Everyone wants the Bills to remain here for the long haul. The question remains, is there a cost too high for the taxpayers, and if so, how high is it? And does the receipt of additional income taxes from players and increased revenue on 7 game days a year truly off-set or even pay for this? And does a team that takes in 40M per, sells a game to Toronto, and benefits from not owning the stadium deserve more subsidies? I guess we have to do it because they'll leave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 "A few years ago, ... we signed a guy and paid him a lot of money, and he lived in Florida," Wilson said. "And there was a very large bonus attached to the contract, and he wanted us to say the contract was signed in Florida so that he would not have to pay taxes to the state of New York. We held out and I said, 'No, this fellow is going to play in New York, he's going to pay New York.' We had a long hard fight on it. He wanted to sign in Florida. He wound up signing in New York." Who was this guy, anybody know? McGahee? Probably 1/3 of the team lives in Florida - between the weather and taxes it's the obvious choice unless there is a family/hometown tie elsewhere. Could be mcgahee TO signed toooooo quick for this issue. Id guess it's either a first rounder or someone resigning (would never know if it took an extra week to sign) Maybe a big FA deal that took a few days after opening day. Also depends on how long Ralph means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 (edited) Why is the state and/or local governments responsible for subsidizing sports teams ? It started when governments built stadiums in the first place. Both War Memorial and Rich Stadium were built by government. Same with the Aud. User fees OK---that makes sense. Bonds???--thats New york State(and /or erie county) getting deeper into debt.NYS/E countie deeper in debt means the poor slob taxpayer will get hit for the $ again in one form or another.I'd just like to see it done another way if possible. I live in CA where these magical 'BONDS' paid for everthing..until CA got so in debt that they started proposing BONDS just to pay off present debt obligations and other current expenses. Talk about a state sanctioned ponzie scheme. Bonds are essentially loans that are guaranteed by taxpayers. In this case bonds would be paid by the revenues generated by a renovated stadium with new amenities. Sometimes they work as planned and sometimes they don't. I can't comment on CA since I don't know what bonds you are referring to. But I do think renovating RWS would generate revenue. The question is can we trust NYS to use that money for what its intended for. But that's okay. Let's save NYS a couple hundred mil on the Bills. That way the state can use that money to buy New York city teams new arenas, etc. PTR Edited October 30, 2011 by PromoTheRobot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsVet Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 It started when governments built stadiums in the first place. Both War Memorial and Rich Stadium were built by government. Same with the Aud. PTR Sure, there's a precedent. Doesn't mean it's good one. War Memorial and the Aud in 2011 dollars cost a pittance compared to what it'll take for RWS to undergo renovations and yearly upkeep. We're talking about paying out probably 100M or more for renovations now and perhaps 3M+ per year for maintenance. Panem et circenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Gianelli Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 (edited) We deserve at the very least a few hundred mil for a top-notch renovation. (One that includes a roof, though that might not be realistic.) The Bills are being pretty reasonable here. They will commit if the stadium is brought up to a level where it will be viable for the next 20 years. A good chuck of this can be paid for with bonds and user fees anyway so all the taxpayers can unwad their panties. RWS will be 40 years old in 2013. Stuff gets old and needs upkeep. Totally reasonable. Cheap out now and wind up with no team and a pile of rubble in a few years. PTR Hard to believe, isn't it, that WMS was only 36 years old when the Bills moved out of it! It truly was crumbling, and deserved the moniker "Old Rockpile." The place seemed ancient (maybe because I was a teenager at the time, and "ancient" is relative). RWS is 38, and seems to be in much better shape than the Rockpile was way back when. Edited October 30, 2011 by John Gianelli Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJ (not THAT RJ) Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 Hard to believe, isn't it, that WMS was only 36 years old when the Bills moved out of it! It truly was crumbling, and deserved the monkier "Old Rockpile." The place seemed ancient (maybe because I was a teenager at the time, and "ancient" is relative). RWS is 38, and seems to be in much better shape than the Rockpile was way back when. Yes, though the Ralph is only 13 years removed from a substantial remodel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 that is for sure PTR!.. i have been saying that. citifield and yankee stadium, we deserve our slice of the taxpayer , state pie! To quote Tonto: "who's "we", Kemo Sabe". Don't you live in Philly? We deserve at the very least a few hundred mil for a top-notch renovation. (One that includes a roof, though that might not be realistic.) The Bills are being pretty reasonable here. They will commit if the stadium is brought up to a level where it will be viable for the next 20 years. A good chuck of this can be paid for with bonds and user fees anyway so all the taxpayers can unwad their panties. RWS will be 40 years old in 2013. Stuff gets old and needs upkeep. Totally reasonable. Cheap out now and wind up with no team and a pile of rubble in a few years. PTR Your memory is, as usual, selective. The "Ralph" has been renovated on a regular basis since it was built ('84, '92, '94, '99, '03)--including in the the late 90's when Ralph declared he would not sin a long term lease unless his demands for renovation were met. And how do you conceive the stadium renovations will pay for the bond return? In order to raise the Bills income tax revenue to the state, he would have to significantly raise ticket prices. Is that how you see this going? Here's a question for the Ralphers--if, as many claim, there is already a "succession plan" for the post-mortem ownership of the Bills--wouldn't that imply that Ralph knows who his team will be sold to and therefore he knows they won't be leaving WNY? And if so, why should the state give in to demands for free renovations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillnutinHouston Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 In re-reading this article, I realize it is no small thing that Ralph is open to paying back the State (possibly hundreds of millions) if the team leaves before the end of the lease. With this relocation fee in place, PLUS the fee the NFL will collect for any franchise relocation, we are talking about a lot of financial disincentives for any prospective new owner looking to buy and move this team. To the extent that all of this discourages full and open bidding on the Bills, it means that Ralph IS WILLING TO TAKE LESS THAN THE MAX FOR HIS ESTATE FROM THE SALE OF THE BILLS. If we do not appreciate this as fans, we really have our eyes shut tight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthGeorgiaBillsFan Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 I do understand the argument here, but let's at least keep in mind that the Yankees have won 27 more titles than the Bills - its understandable that there would be at least some discrepancy between how much tax payer money would be allocated to each respective stadium project. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRH Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 "A few years ago, ... we signed a guy and paid him a lot of money, and he lived in Florida," Wilson said. "And there was a very large bonus attached to the contract, and he wanted us to say the contract was signed in Florida so that he would not have to pay taxes to the state of New York. We held out and I said, 'No, this fellow is going to play in New York, he's going to pay New York.' We had a long hard fight on it. He wanted to sign in Florida. He wound up signing in New York." Who was this guy, anybody know? McGahee? Regardless of who it was, if he thought that the state of New York was going to exempt him from taxes just because "the contract was signed in Florida"...well, maybe it WAS McGahee because only someone from the U could have thought something so ridiculous was true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaryPinC Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 Definitely an interesting article, particularly that the Bills seem so interested in tying up a long term lease deal quickly. Also that Mr. Wilson and the Bills are actively doing PR for it. Definitely a QTIP sounds like a great fit for this situation. It was also interesting that we just signed our franchise QB without appearance or comment from Mr. Wilson (though I do expect him to issue some kind of statement). I do believe plans are being made to keep the Bills here and assuming the new lease helps those plans I hope the state and county move quickly when the Bills are ready. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 Has it hit anyboday that the Bills are just like a free agent to be in a contract year..last time this happened Flutie came to the rescue and the Bills had a great, magical year. Looks like it is happeniing again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Senator Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 How would such a clause affect ICanSleepWhenI'mDead's imaginary deal that RW made with the dead Toronto businessman? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts