KD in CA Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 ...very few can lead the TSW dual lifestyle of being cool in one forum, and a complete douche nozzle on "the dark side"... I try.
PromoTheRobot Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 (edited) Like dpberr said...RWS is county-owned and it's the county's responsibility to maintain it. Think of it as a bridge. If you don't spend money on maintenance it becomes unusable eventually. So even if we took the stand against spending the money, you may not have a tenant anymore. Then you have a hulking concrete structure that no longer generates tax revenue and will eventually have to be torn down...which costs money. Familiar with the phrase "penny-wise and pound-foolish?" PTR Edited February 7, 2012 by PromoTheRobot
Maddog69 Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 Given the extraordinary ability of teams to play off local and state governments for cash handouts, I think it's really an ideal place for federal legislation. I couldn't tell you what the shape of it should be, but it would do a lot of good and end these blackmail situations. I don't think the Federal Govt has the authority to tell the individual states that they cannot use their own money to help fund pro sports team, especially as it relates to stadiums which can be used for other things (concerts, HS Football Championship games, etc). The think the Federal Govt has a lot of other things to worry about.
GG Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 Bullsh--. What if all 32 cities refuse to do so? Every team is going to move.....to where? Using public money for pro sport arenas is a scam that ought to land every public official involved in prison. It's a disgusting waste of money. The NFL has established a fund for stadium construction/renovation. Tap that first. No reason Erie County & NYS taxpayers should be first in line for the costs. If they are, then Wilson should pay full rent or give up parking & concessions. Spending on sports franchises is a sentimental trope, as the games to not add that much to the local economies. Most of the spending is just shifting from other potential uses. If Erie County wanted to get serious about business development, it would lower taxes to attract businesses or build a mega shopping complex & a better bridge to lure the Canadian shoppers. Oh wait.
CodeMonkey Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 Like dpberr said...RWS is county-owned and it's the county's responsibility to maintain it. Think of it as a bridge. If you don't spend money on maintenance it becomes unusable eventually. So even if we took the stand against spending the money, you may not have a tenant anymore. Then you have a hulking concrete structure that no longer generates tax revenue and will eventually have to be torn down...which costs money. Familiar with the phrase "penny-wise and pound-foolish?" PTR You can also think of it as "cutting your losses". One could argue that the mistake was made in the past for the county to build and agree to maintain the stadium, that cannot be changed. However does the state continue to dump money into maintaining the stadium? Or do they cut their losses and eat the one time cost to tear it down or whatever? Or does it fall onto the county and not the state? Are the terms of the lease with the Bills renegotiated for them, as primary tenant, to cover at least some if not all of the cost? There are multiple options to explore before the state should blindly give in and just throw money at it.
SRQ_BillsFan Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 Noting some now gone stadiums are still in debt, is the Ralph even paid for? Good luck paying that debt off if the Bills were to leave, what does that leave the taxpayers on the hook for? At least Ralph understands that a new stadium is unaffordable and is not asking for that like some owners would.
PromoTheRobot Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 (edited) You can also think of it as "cutting your losses". One could argue that the mistake was made in the past for the county to build and agree to maintain the stadium, that cannot be changed. However does the state continue to dump money into maintaining the stadium? Or do they cut their losses and eat the one time cost to tear it down or whatever? Or does it fall onto the county and not the state? Are the terms of the lease with the Bills renegotiated for them, as primary tenant, to cover at least some if not all of the cost? There are multiple options to explore before the state should blindly give in and just throw money at it. I would like to see a profit/loss statement on RWS. Considering it only cost $23 Million to build and probably only $200+ Million to operate since 1973, I'll bet it actually generates positive income when you take in all the fees, sales and income taxes that facility helps generate. To say "cut your losses" implies that RWS bleeds red ink. Has that been established? And if you do blow up RWS and turn it into a weed-filled field does that actually save any money? You also lose one of the few 70K+ plus facilities in the USA, something you'll never build again, pretty much cementing Buffalo's position with the Toledos and Syracuses of the world. Buffalo....ever backward! Noting some now gone stadiums are still in debt, is the Ralph even paid for? Good luck paying that debt off if the Bills were to leave, what does that leave the taxpayers on the hook for? At least Ralph understands that a new stadium is unaffordable and is not asking for that like some owners would. Rich/RWS Stadium was built for $23 million dollars in 1973 so it's been paid off for years. There was that renovation in 1998 but I don't know what that cost. Either way I'm pretty sure RWS has no debt. PTR Edited February 7, 2012 by PromoTheRobot
Mr. WEO Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 Like dpberr said...RWS is county-owned and it's the county's responsibility to maintain it. Think of it as a bridge. If you don't spend money on maintenance it becomes unusable eventually. So even if we took the stand against spending the money, you may not have a tenant anymore. Then you have a hulking concrete structure that no longer generates tax revenue and will eventually have to be torn down...which costs money. Familiar with the phrase "penny-wise and pound-foolish?" PTR Very expensive bridges often have tolls which help pay for maintenance. I dont know anyone who has said the Ralph is structurally unsound or unsafe. Most of the work would be cosmetic and for "revenue-generating enhancements". I would like to see a profit/loss statement on RWS. Considering it only cost $23 Million to build and probably only $200+ Million to operate since 1973, I'll bet it actually generates positive income when you take in all the fees, sales and income taxes that facility helps generate. To say "cut your losses" implies that RWS bleeds red ink. Has that been established? And if you do blow up RWS and turn it into a weed-filled field does that actually save any money? You also lose one of the few 70K+ plus facilities in the USA, something you'll never build again, pretty much cementing Buffalo's position with the Toledos and Syracuses of the world. Buffalo....ever backward! Rich/RWS Stadium was built for $23 million dollars in 1973 so it's been paid off for years. There was that renovation in 1998 but I don't know what that cost. Either way I'm pretty sure RWS has no debt. PTR You left out these: Since the stadium's original construction, the facility has seen many changes. In 1984 the stadium's capacity was increased to 80,290 with the addition of 16 executive suites on the top floor of the administration building. Eight years later, 24 more suites were constructed in the west end zone and shared restrooms were added to the original suites. The Red Zone and Goal Line indoor clubs were added in 1994, offering fans a comfortable atmosphere as each of the two blocks of 500 seats are enclosed in glass. Also in 1994, 14 new suites were added, bringing the grand total to 88 luxury boxes. The 1994 expansion project also brought the team the largest JumboTron in the United States. In addition, a black and white Daktronics Scoreboard matrix system designed to complement the Sony JumboTron was installed. In 1999 crews completed a seven-month (57 million) stadium overhaul that included constructing 76 brand-new dugout suites and two new enclosed club sections each containing 500 seats. Fans in the dugout suites watch the action just 40 rows from the field. In addition, the Bills replaced 6,800 seats in the sideline club sections with revolutionary contoured heated seats, the first of their kind in North America. Renovations also included four new restroom towers, upgraded stadium lighting and a state-of-the-art sound system. In 2003 the stadium field was transformed from Astroturf to Astroplay - a rubber infilled synthetic surface.
Preston Ridlehuber Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 Trust me. It's all figured in. This subject has been researched to death by many leading economists who are not necessarily naysayers. They are economists that generally know what they are talking about. Read the *detailed* reports that the article refers to and then come back and say they didn't take certain things into account or are biased. I'm sure they could care less about NY State and the Bills. Numbers are numbers. I never said that there are no benefits to having a team. Keep the stadium safe on the taxpayers dime and that's it. Anything else, the owner pays for. Above and beyond a safe building, this is the wrong way to spend tax money. If we dont start with such blatant waste like this, there will never be any real change. In the case of NY State, I think it's probably too late anyway. No one can tell me that the City will shrivel up and die without the Bills. The City ( and State) is already a train wreck. The Bills leaving wont make any real difference, except to the Hammer guy that runs the parking lot and the concession guys that make some extra dough hawking beer. If Bills fans had any real balls, they'd lobby the State to call Ralph's bluff. Like I said, the man has nowhere to take the team, and a new owner wont be any better off. The NFL gravy train is slowing down big time. There are no more big (or medium) markets that can afford a team and a new stadium. Regardless of what the media says, the US economy will never recover to past levels. We shipped all of our middle class jobs overseas and they are not coming back. At least three other teams are trying to squeeze their cities and states for money with the threat that they will leave. They all cant leave and anyone that thinks that LA or Toronto is a viable market now or in the next five to ten years is not paying attention. CALL RALPH's BLUFF!! WHERE ARE THEY GONNA GO IF RALPH DOES NOT GET HIS $100+ MILLION UPGRADE? LA - read the news. LA is no closer to a stadium than it was when the Raiders left Toronto - The NFL would require a new stadium. Based on well-documented past events, the Canadian govt will not fund a new stadium and that's the only way new stadiums get built these days San Antonio - Probably the best case scenario for an NFL-ready city. I think MIN could end up there as OAK and SD will wait out the LA fiasco. Oklahoma City - No stadium-no govt money Portland - No stadium-no govt money So you basically have MIN, OAK, SD all trying to squeeze govt money for new buildings and they realistically only have one place to go and that's not going to change for many years. This is a farce. The Bills have no where to go and there is no logical reason to give them $100 million+ in upgrades. Simple question. Regardless of any other economic benefit or quality of life impact, if spending $100 million results in $120 million of state income tax, sales tax and property tax revenue(player and staff housing), is it worth the investment?
PromoTheRobot Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 (edited) Very expensive bridges often have tolls which help pay for maintenance. I dont know anyone who has said the Ralph is structurally unsound or unsafe. Most of the work would be cosmetic and for "revenue-generating enhancements". You left out these: Part of the study being done now is to determine if RWS is still sound, and for how much longer. Thank you for finding the other renovations. There are constant small projects like new turf but 1999 was when the tore our seats and built new suites. I don't have a number on that renovation but my guess is around $100M. That's why I guess-timated that $200M was spent on RWS/Rich since 1973. That averages to $4M a year. EDIT: This site says the 1999 renovation was $63M. PTR Edited February 7, 2012 by PromoTheRobot
CodeMonkey Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 (edited) I would like to see a profit/loss statement on RWS. Considering it only cost $23 Million to build and probably only $200+ Million to operate since 1973, I'll bet it actually generates positive income when you take in all the fees, sales and income taxes that facility helps generate. To say "cut your losses" implies that RWS bleeds red ink. Has that been established? And if you do blow up RWS and turn it into a weed-filled field does that actually save any money? You also lose one of the few 70K+ plus facilities in the USA, something you'll never build again, pretty much cementing Buffalo's position with the Toledos and Syracuses of the world. Buffalo....ever backward! I would like to see a profit/loss for the State as the result of RWS as well. I find it almost impossible to believe it is significant given the small amount of games per season. But I have no facts to back that up any more than anyone else does. There have been studies done but they usually are done by someone with an agenda and show whichever side they are paid to defend. It is my personal belief however that the overall economic impact to WNY is not significant, and the impact to the state negligible at best. The stadium just isn't used enough to generate much revenue for the state. And Bills related salaries generating income tax is overall not significant either. Particular if some of the players and coaches have primary residences outside of NY. Mr Wilson himself is not even a resident of NY, though I'm sure pays some amount of tax to NY every year. Even the Bills corporation is not registered in NY according to records on the internet. Buffalo Bills, Inc 99 Kercheval Avenue Grosse Pointe, MI 48236-3618 Buffalo Bills, Inc in Grosse Pointe, MI is a private company categorized under Football Clubs and was established in and incorporated in Michigan. Keeping the Bills in Buffalo would be a very good thing for a city that has seen better days. But trying to make a case that is a good thing economically for NYS these days doesn't work in my opinion. Edited February 7, 2012 by CodeMonkey
Preston Ridlehuber Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 I would like to see a profit/loss for the State as the result of RWS as well. I find it almost impossible to believe it is significant given the small amount of games per season. But I have no facts to back that up any more than anyone else does. There have been studies done but they usually are done by someone with an agenda and show whichever side they are paid to defend. It is my personal belief however that the overall economic impact to WNY is not significant, and the impact to the state negligible at best. The stadium just isn't used enough to generate much revenue for the state. And Bills related salaries generating income tax is overall not significant either. Particular if some of the players and coaches have primary residences outside of NY. Mr Wilson himself is not even a resident of NY, though I'm sure pays some amount of tax to NY every year. Even the Bills corporation is not registered in NY according to records on the internet. Buffalo Bills, Inc 99 Kercheval Avenue Grosse Pointe, MI 48236-3618 Buffalo Bills, Inc in Grosse Pointe, MI is a private company categorized under Football Clubs and was established in and incorporated in Michigan. Keeping the Bills in Buffalo would be a very good thing for a city that has seen better days. But trying to make a case that is a good thing economically for NYS these days doesn't work in my opinion. I am not an accountant, but I'm pretty sure money earned in New York State is taxable in New York State. According to a study in Minnesota, the Vikings generated over $10 million in state income tax per year. I'd be willing to bet that state tax in New York State is at least on par with Minnesota.
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 Even the Bills corporation is not registered in NY according to records on the internet. Buffalo Bills, Inc 99 Kercheval Avenue Grosse Pointe, MI 48236-3618 Buffalo Bills, Inc in Grosse Pointe, MI is a private company categorized under Football Clubs and was established in and incorporated in Michigan. Link? Not saying you're wrong, but here's a link to the official New York state corporate records about a corporation with the same name, that also lists the Kercheval Avenue address: http://appext9.dos.state.ny.us/corp_public/CORPSEARCH.ENTITY_INFORMATION?p_nameid=415664&p_corpid=355631&p_entity_name=%42%75%66%66%61%6C%6F%20%42%69%6C%6C%73&p_name_type=%41&p_search_type=%42%45%47%49%4E%53&p_srch_results_page=0 I am under the impression that when the New York state Department of State ("DOS") lists a company as a "domestic business corporation" that means the corporation is incorporated in New York, as opposed to a corporation that is merely qualified to do business in New York state but incorporated elsewhere. In addition, here's a copy of the Bills' current stadium lease: http://www.erie.gov/billslease/stadium.phtml It lists one of the parties as "BUFFALO BILLS, INC., a New York business corporation having an office and principal place of business at One Bills Drive, Orchard Park, New York 14127." It's possible that there is more than one corporation with the same name, so I would like to see the source of your info about the Michigan corporation if you still have a link. Thanks.
CodeMonkey Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 Here is one I think any company doing business in NYS needs some kind of filing with the state like your (considerably more official looking than mine) link shows. And I'm not sure was a "entity" is. But it shows principal executive office is in MI. I'm no lawyer, and after seeing both links I'm not sure now
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted March 3, 2012 Posted March 3, 2012 Update on how MN is trying to fund a new stadium for the Vikings - - article includes mention of an idea to "flag" future MN income taxes paid by the team and its players to help cover stadium costs: http://www.kare11.com/rss/article/965216/391/Top-lawmakers-still-tentative-on-Vikings-stadium Anybody seen anything yet about which law firm Erie County picked to handle the stadium lease renewal negotiations? My recollection is that we've passed a self-imposed deadline for making that choice but I have not seen anything about which firm got picked - - maybe I just missed it.
JohnC Posted March 3, 2012 Posted March 3, 2012 Update on how MN is trying to fund a new stadium for the Vikings - - article includes mention of an idea to "flag" future MN income taxes paid by the team and its players to help cover stadium costs: http://www.kare11.com/rss/article/965216/391/Top-lawmakers-still-tentative-on-Vikings-stadium Anybody seen anything yet about which law firm Erie County picked to handle the stadium lease renewal negotiations? My recollection is that we've passed a self-imposed deadline for making that choice but I have not seen anything about which firm got picked - - maybe I just missed it. The County is in the process of selecting a law firm. http://www.buffalonews.com/city/communities/erie-county/article727946.ece
Hammered a Lot Posted March 3, 2012 Posted March 3, 2012 The County is in the process of selecting a law firm. http://www.buffalonews.com/city/communities/erie-county/article727946.ece Remember this is WNY so they should have a firm picked by 2014.
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted March 3, 2012 Posted March 3, 2012 Thanks for the refresher. That article is why I thought the selection was supposed to have been made by now: His plan is to award a contract by Feb. 24 in preparation for formal lease talks over the county-owned Ralph Wilson Stadium to begin after the Bills complete an architectural study of stadium needs. I don't know if "awarding the contract" (i.e., selecting and hiring a specific law firm) got delayed, or just hasn't been announced. Anybody?
JohnC Posted March 3, 2012 Posted March 3, 2012 (edited) Thanks for the refresher. That article is why I thought the selection was supposed to have been made by now: I don't know if "awarding the contract" (i.e., selecting and hiring a specific law firm) got delayed, or just hasn't been announced. Anybody? The priority isn't hiring a quality legal team to represent the interests of the county. That can be easily done. The major issue is determining the structural rehabilitation needs for the facility. The Bills have hired the person who retired as the facility engineer for the county who was well acquainted with the needs of the stadium. Is there going to be a major overhaul or are there going to be superficial upgrades done to last for the current owner's tenure? The KC Chiefs did a three year major rehabilitation job on their facility that is similarly designed to the Ralph. The Chiefs payed for about a third of the cost. That type of contribution certainly isn't going to be agreeable to Ralph Wilson who prefers other entities paying for the costs. Edited March 3, 2012 by JohnC
Joe W Posted March 3, 2012 Posted March 3, 2012 There's going to be tremendous state wide opposition to Albany funding these improvements. Look for the price tag to be higher than expected, that's why Brandon is delaying the release of the report.
Recommended Posts