mead107 Posted March 3, 2012 Posted March 3, 2012 Albany will help. Gave a billion to Globalfoundries in Malta. Gave GE 300 million for Schenectady batterie plant. What is a few million more?
San Jose Bills Fan Posted March 4, 2012 Posted March 4, 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. So Russ Brandon is delaying the release of the report? Thanks for the update.
Joe W Posted March 4, 2012 Posted March 4, 2012 Yes Brandon is an absolute tool. This report has been put together since Oct and the $ amount will be staggering. Unfortunately it will be the first salvo which will lead to the Bills leaving Buffalo. .
CodeMonkey Posted March 4, 2012 Posted March 4, 2012 (edited) Albany will help. Gave a billion to Globalfoundries in Malta. Gave GE 300 million for Schenectady batterie plant. What is a few million more? There is a huge difference between trying to encourage businesses to come to an area or grow larger, and funding improvements to a football stadium used by one tenant 8 or 9 days a year. Edited March 4, 2012 by CodeMonkey
mead107 Posted March 4, 2012 Posted March 4, 2012 1330874784[/url]' post='2394688']There is a huge difference between trying to encourage businesses to come to an area or grow larger, and funding improvements to a football stadium used by one tenant 8 or 9 days a year. It is the only football team in New York.
BillnutinHouston Posted March 4, 2012 Posted March 4, 2012 How hard would it be for the local media to shed some light on the status of the stadium study? Make a call or two, get Radecic's firm on the record, get Brandon on the record, and report it.
Joe W Posted March 4, 2012 Posted March 4, 2012 You're absolutely correct the Buffalo News is dropping the ball on this They should be calling Brandon continuously as to where it is This is a huge issue and the clock is ticking
Hammered a Lot Posted March 4, 2012 Posted March 4, 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. State wide or will it be NY City cause they got theirs and screw the rest of the state!
CodeMonkey Posted March 4, 2012 Posted March 4, 2012 It is the only football team in New York. And???
Joe W Posted March 4, 2012 Posted March 4, 2012 State wide just look at the Albany editorials against it as well as the resistance Cuomo got in Rochester regarding his proposed $1 billion investment These improvement report has to be published so we can see whether they'll actually get funded It really is reaching the critical stage
CodeMonkey Posted March 4, 2012 Posted March 4, 2012 State wide just look at the Albany editorials against it as well as the resistance Cuomo got in Rochester regarding his proposed $1 billion investment These improvement report has to be published so we can see whether they'll actually get funded It really is reaching the critical stage Brandon is no idiot when it comes to business matters. If he is delaying the release of the information, there almost certainly is a good reason why he is doing so.
Joe W Posted March 4, 2012 Posted March 4, 2012 If Tim Graham is talking to Brandon it shouldn't be about bounties from 10 years ago it should be about these stadium improvements and what the status of lease talks are ! It's scary to think of Wilson dying and there is no lease tying this team to Buffalo.
jahnyc Posted March 4, 2012 Posted March 4, 2012 A few points: 1. I know that $100 million plus is a lot of money, but the reality is that stadium costs for the Bills over the years have been very low compared to almost every other NFL city. There is no demand for a new stadium, rather improvements to an old stadium that would not be sufficient for the needs of most NFL communities, even if renovated. 2. If RW stadium is not improved, the Bills will leave. The combination of an old stadium, an expiring lease and uncertainty with ownership after RW is fatal. 3. At some point, irrespective of the lease situation or the ownership situation, the NFL will eventually force the issue. Minneapolis is a good example of this. Incredibly loyal fans in Minny, but the NFL would have been okay with a move if the stadium situation was not resolved. 4. If not used for RW stadium, the $100 million plus will not be directed to improve the City of Buffalo. This money would not otherwise be spent by the state, at least not all on Buffalo. 5. No community in the country (other than possibly Green Bay) needs to keep an NFL team more than Buffalo in terms of psyche and community well being. 6. Cuomo is an idiot if he does not recognize the importance of this to the local community and the state overall.
Joe W Posted March 4, 2012 Posted March 4, 2012 The problem is it's not just Cuomo making the decision It's the legislature as well as state wide opinion there is going to be tremendous resistance to $100 million + that is why the release of this report is absolutely critical
JohnC Posted March 4, 2012 Posted March 4, 2012 If Tim Graham is talking to Brandon it shouldn't be about bounties from 10 years ago it should be about these stadium improvements and what the status of lease talks are ! It's scary to think of Wilson dying and there is no lease tying this team to Buffalo. The best scenario for the 93 yr old owner is not to have a long term lease. A year to year lease would add to the attractiveness to out of town bidders. It is certainly in his interest for his estate to have more bidders than less. Not being encumbered with a long term and costly lease makes his asset much more appealing. Isn't it odd that the Bills are the one conducting an engineering study of the stadium when that function should be a government responsibility? The county and state are in very weak positions. How does it justify spending possibly hundreds of millions of $$$ on a facility that is currently used for 7regular season games. What makes even less sense is that the owner currently controls the stadium usage. Ralph, not the county, receive rent for the few additional events held at the faciltiy. To make matters worse the owner with his outdated and stubborn mentality refuses to sell the naming rights to the stadium because he simply doesn't like it. In my view the county should have the naming rights and not the owner who didn't pay for the facility. I'm an ardent Bills fan. But the situation with the Bills and the local and state authorities is out of whack. If the costs of rehabbing the very outdated facility is high then I don't see an ethical justification for the government to pay for a benefit that goes primarily to a private citizen.
Hammered a Lot Posted March 4, 2012 Posted March 4, 2012 State wide just look at the Albany editorials against it as well as the resistance Cuomo got in Rochester regarding his proposed $1 billion investment These improvement report has to be published so we can see whether they'll actually get funded It really is reaching the critical stage I wonder if the Albany Editorials where against all the goverment money that went to the area that former 3 men in the room member Brono represented got. I saw an editorial a couple of weeks ago that was in a paper from the southern tier, Corning, I think. It made a lot of sense. Why would the New York City and Albany coalition care if the rest of the New York State got treat fairly with egual goverment support and help those other areas grow. If the rest of the state grew, meaning more people outside the coalition areas, then the coalition would have less power. So the Albany Editorials against it is really no surprise.
RealityCheck Posted March 4, 2012 Posted March 4, 2012 I am not a proponent of any government spending in the private sector in any way shape or form.
JohnC Posted March 4, 2012 Posted March 4, 2012 I wonder if the Albany Editorials where against all the goverment money that went to the area that former 3 men in the room member Brono represented got. I saw an editorial a couple of weeks ago that was in a paper from the southern tier, Corning, I think. It made a lot of sense. Why would the New York City and Albany coalition care if the rest of the New York State got treat fairly with egual goverment support and help those other areas grow. If the rest of the state grew, meaning more people outside the coalition areas, then the coalition would have less power. So the Albany Editorials against it is really no surprise. Without a doubt the NYC and Albany coalition have much more influence than the downstate region. The issue isn't being treated fairly or not. The real issue comes down to whether there is a good economic justification for spending a large amount of taxpayer money that benefits a sole private entity and person. I'm not even sure that the 93 yr old owner wants to engage in a arduous political battle to secure the necessary funds to upgrade a very outdated and ramschackle facity. The owner might simply be more interested in running out the clock and having his asset unencumbered with a more long term lease. Don't you think that would be a more attractive situation for his estate when in the not too distant his asset sale will take place? When the time soon comes when the government is asked to pay a lot of public money for something that will primarily benefit a private entity then what is the argument to be made to make that case? Lamenting one's weak political hand doesn't change the fact that there is a weak economic argument for securing a large amount of funds for a stadium in which tbere is no guarantee that the franchise will still be located there in the not too distant future?
Hammered a Lot Posted March 4, 2012 Posted March 4, 2012 Without a doubt the NYC and Albany coalition have much more influence than the downstate region. The issue isn't being treated fairly or not. The real issue comes down to whether there is a good economic justification for spending a large amount of taxpayer money that benefits a sole private entity and person. I'm not even sure that the 93 yr old owner wants to engage in a arduous political battle to secure the necessary funds to upgrade a very outdated and ramschackle facity. The owner might simply be more interested in running out the clock and having his asset unencumbered with a more long term lease. Don't you think that would be a more attractive situation for his estate when in the not too distant his asset sale will take place? When the time soon comes when the government is asked to pay a lot of public money for something that will primarily benefit a private entity then what is the argument to be made to make that case? Lamenting one's weak political hand doesn't change the fact that there is a weak economic argument for securing a large amount of funds for a stadium in which tbere is no guarantee that the franchise will still be located there in the not too distant future? I think you meant to say upstate not downstate. We will have to see if there are causes in the lease for repayment of improvemnt to the stadium if the team is sold before the end of the future lease. I know of NO NFL stadium that has not gotten some goverment help either directly or indirectly.
Mr. WEO Posted March 4, 2012 Posted March 4, 2012 A few points: 1. I know that $100 million plus is a lot of money, but the reality is that stadium costs for the Bills over the years have been very low compared to almost every other NFL city. There is no demand for a new stadium, rather improvements to an old stadium that would not be sufficient for the needs of most NFL communities, even if renovated. 2. If RW stadium is not improved, the Bills will leave. The combination of an old stadium, an expiring lease and uncertainty with ownership after RW is fatal. 3. At some point, irrespective of the lease situation or the ownership situation, the NFL will eventually force the issue. Minneapolis is a good example of this. Incredibly loyal fans in Minny, but the NFL would have been okay with a move if the stadium situation was not resolved. 4. If not used for RW stadium, the $100 million plus will not be directed to improve the City of Buffalo. This money would not otherwise be spent by the state, at least not all on Buffalo. 5. No community in the country (other than possibly Green Bay) needs to keep an NFL team more than Buffalo in terms of psyche and community well being. 6. Cuomo is an idiot if he does not recognize the importance of this to the local community and the state overall. Ugh. More of this? The best scenario for the 93 yr old owner is not to have a long term lease. A year to year lease would add to the attractiveness to out of town bidders. It is certainly in his interest for his estate to have more bidders than less. Not being encumbered with a long term and costly lease makes his asset much more appealing. Isn't it odd that the Bills are the one conducting an engineering study of the stadium when that function should be a government responsibility? The county and state are in very weak positions. How does it justify spending possibly hundreds of millions of $$$ on a facility that is currently used for 7regular season games. What makes even less sense is that the owner currently controls the stadium usage. Ralph, not the county, receive rent for the few additional events held at the faciltiy. To make matters worse the owner with his outdated and stubborn mentality refuses to sell the naming rights to the stadium because he simply doesn't like it. In my view the county should have the naming rights and not the owner who didn't pay for the facility. I'm an ardent Bills fan. But the situation with the Bills and the local and state authorities is out of whack. If the costs of rehabbing the very outdated facility is high then I don't see an ethical justification for the government to pay for a benefit that goes primarily to a private citizen. I'm with John. Good post. I think you meant to say upstate not downstate. We will have to see if there are causes in the lease for repayment of improvemnt to the stadium if the team is sold before the end of the future lease. I know of NO NFL stadium that has not gotten some goverment help either directly or indirectly. Well you certainly can count "Ralph Wilson Stadium" among those that have received this. It was created purely with "government help" and has been upgraded, expanded and renovated time after time since it was first built--all with "government help" exclusively.
Recommended Posts