apuszczalowski Posted April 12, 2012 Posted April 12, 2012 You have to think about it from the point of view of the new owner that will come in when Ralphs gone. The new owner is going to be paying pretty close to a billion for the franchise, I don't know of many in this world that just have that kind of cash laying around that they can drop to own a franchise without having to have some kind of debt they will need to repay. The new owner will have to turn a nice profit to make the investment worthwhile. Can they do that in the current stadium? Can they do that in a refurbished stadium? Is the government going to be ok with paying money out to refurb RWS (or build a new stadium)if it isn't multi use and only used 8 times a year? Is the new owner going to turn down a new stadium downtown cause the fans won't be able to tailgate drinking their own beer and eating their own food? As a fan its easy to say they shouldn't do this cause it might "ruin" your experience that you are accustomed to and enjoy, but if you want to keep it that way, you better save your pennies and buy the team yourself, cause normally the people with the kind of money to buy NFL teams aren't the kind of guys looking to just throw money away without it bringing more in for them
eball Posted April 12, 2012 Posted April 12, 2012 If the difference between keeping and losing the Buffalo Bills means putting a multipurpose stadium downtown, it's a no-brainer.
RTW2012 Posted April 12, 2012 Posted April 12, 2012 The two biggest mistakes made in Buffalo in my lifetime were the decision to build the main UB campus in Amherst instead of downtown on the tnen vacant waterfront, and the failure to build the Bills stadium in Cheektowaga as a domed stadium. That being said, the ships have long left the dock, and it is way too late to rectify either situation. Fix the Ralph and move on. If the proposed Lancaster dome had been built, it would've have been outdated and most likely replaced years ago. I believe the seating capacity for football was somewhere around 60,000, and it was going to be configured for baseball as well as football, making sightlines less than ideal.
buffalobillsfootball Posted April 12, 2012 Posted April 12, 2012 If the proposed Lancaster dome had been built, it would've have been outdated and most likely replaced years ago. I believe the seating capacity for football was somewhere around 60,000, and it was going to be configured for baseball as well as football, making sightlines less than ideal. Does anyone have a link to what the proposed Lancaster dome would have looked like?
Bruce Posted April 12, 2012 Posted April 12, 2012 Even though my wife and I have moved from WNY, we still visit regularly and I fork over lots of cash every year to watch the Bills and Sabres on DirecTV. I don't understand why the Bills were not built in downtown Buffalo to begin with. It makes no sense to be in Orchard Park, Niagara Falls, or anywhere else. Like UB being in Amherst. Makes no sense. Bulldoze those brown fields immediately south of the City, and put the stadium right there. Plenty of space for parking. Will get rid of those eye sores of old factory/ plants at the same time. I've always said that WNY is too small to have sprawl. There is no attraction to WNY, besides the Sabres and Bills, and the Falls. Let the Falls become Las Vegas East. But Buffalo should be consolidated with the Bills, Sabres, Bisons, zoo, UB, etc all in the downtown area. Forcing people into the area will force creative entrepreneurs to open restaurants, taverns, and other venues to keep the money in WNY. It would really help the City and region out by consolidating resources, and I think it should have been done a long time ago. I think of teams like Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Baltimore, Jacksonville, San Fran, KC, and Cincinnati with their stadiums right in the heart of their downtown area. Seems like a no brainer to me.
OCinBuffalo Posted April 12, 2012 Posted April 12, 2012 (edited) Does no one understand proper problem solving methodology? Hint: First we start with defining the problem(s)....properly. We don't jump to conclusions, or solutions, or debate about either, before we have agreement on what the problems are, whether they even exist, and their scope, scale, dependencies, etc. So, here we are, 6 pages later, and I have yet to hear a quantifiable definition of the problem(s). Are there problems with the Ralph as is? If so, what are they...using real #s, not what somebody thinks/may have said? Honestly. In of all places WNY, and NYS in general, have none of you learned what happens when clowns insist that we deliver "solutions", without trying them directly to properly defined problems, without any way to accurately measure the success of these "solutions" going forward, and no mechanism for shutting failing non-solutions down without a massive political fight? How many more monorails do you clowns want to buy? (Edit: or trains on Main Street for that matter? Clowns) How many more times do NYS people need to learn this the hard way? "Hey look, somebody said that's a fire! Well, it could be! .....what to do? What to do? I know, let's try to put it out by throwing big bags of money at it! It didn't work last time, but that means it will this time...because...because of the law of averages! We can't be wrong every time! No, we don't need to bother with how the fire started, or if it even is a fire, we have tons of money, so here, take a bag and throw! Better still let's hire a bunch of state employees we can never fire to throw the bags of money. We created jobs!" Enough. Show me the problem(s) in a quantifiable manner or STFU. Then, show me the solution, and how we will know it's working, or STFU. Also, show me why other solutions, if you have even considered them, are not as good. And finally, tell me what our exit is out of the solution if it doesn't work, or how we can mitigate losses and recoup some of our investment, or seriously, STFU. Again we see what happens when "solutions" don't come from people who do solutions for a living: We end up having a debate over whether a dome is "cool" or not. Edited April 12, 2012 by OCinBuffalo
San Jose Bills Fan Posted April 13, 2012 Posted April 13, 2012 Even though my wife and I have moved from WNY, we still visit regularly and I fork over lots of cash every year to watch the Bills and Sabres on DirecTV. I don't understand why the Bills were not built in downtown Buffalo to begin with. It makes no sense to be in Orchard Park, Niagara Falls, or anywhere else. Like UB being in Amherst. Makes no sense. Bulldoze those brown fields immediately south of the City, and put the stadium right there. Plenty of space for parking. Will get rid of those eye sores of old factory/ plants at the same time. I've always said that WNY is too small to have sprawl. There is no attraction to WNY, besides the Sabres and Bills, and the Falls. Let the Falls become Las Vegas East. But Buffalo should be consolidated with the Bills, Sabres, Bisons, zoo, UB, etc all in the downtown area. Forcing people into the area will force creative entrepreneurs to open restaurants, taverns, and other venues to keep the money in WNY. It would really help the City and region out by consolidating resources, and I think it should have been done a long time ago. I think of teams like Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Baltimore, Jacksonville, San Fran, KC, and Cincinnati with their stadiums right in the heart of their downtown area. Seems like a no brainer to me. Yeah my vision is very similar to yours. I always thought that they should have put the stadium on the vacant land south of the Skyway. I always thought that between the Lake, the Buffalo skyline, the factories and grain elevators (plus a good lens could capture the mist from Niagara Falls) that it would be the best place to put a stadium to really show people the kind of place Buffalo is.
Kiwi Bills fan Posted April 13, 2012 Posted April 13, 2012 (edited) You couldn't understand the point I was trying to convey? OK, I'll type this a little slower for you. Take a look at a sample of some of the newer stadiums and arenas that have been built around the US. Feel free to include some of the older venues that have been recently remodelled. I would wager to bet that you'll find that the majority, if not all, of these venues have a lot more "luxury" or "corporate" boxes, or suites than what The Ralph has. (didn't even The Ralph have a remodel in recent years that took away seats for these types of boxes?) You may personally not believe that WNY has the corporate power to buy these such suites, but I guarantee you that this logic won't stop RW Jr and the NFL from trying to suck as much profit from the local community as possible . It's the American way. What is your point? Edited April 13, 2012 by Kiwi Bills fan
tennesseeboy Posted April 13, 2012 Posted April 13, 2012 If the proposed Lancaster dome had been built, it would've have been outdated and most likely replaced years ago. I believe the seating capacity for football was somewhere around 60,000, and it was going to be configured for baseball as well as football, making sightlines less than ideal. I agree with you that the proposed stadium at that time was not the one that should have been built. I do think that that area would have been better for a stadium. In my ideal world maybe putting the UB campus on the waterfront and the Bills stadium where the Amherst campus is might have been the best of all worlds. The Amherst location would be more convenient for the Rochester market and for the Canadians. Oh well...spilt milk.
CodeMonkey Posted April 13, 2012 Posted April 13, 2012 If the difference between keeping and losing the Buffalo Bills means putting a multipurpose stadium downtown, it's a no-brainer. If Mr. Wilson and/or the NFL is paying for it then I agree with you.
PromoTheRobot Posted April 13, 2012 Posted April 13, 2012 The best plan is rebuild RWS for now but plan for a new stadium in 10-15 years.. I have no idea what $100M in renovation buys today. Hopefully more than a coat of paint. Wider concourses? How about a "party deck" in the west end zone next to the scoreboard? PTR
CodeMonkey Posted April 13, 2012 Posted April 13, 2012 (edited) The best plan is rebuild RWS for now but plan for a new stadium in 10-15 years.. I have no idea what $100M in renovation buys today. Hopefully more than a coat of paint. Wider concourses? How about a "party deck" in the west end zone next to the scoreboard? PTR I thought you are your mates in the Rockpile were the party deck PTR! Edited April 13, 2012 by CodeMonkey
PromoTheRobot Posted April 13, 2012 Posted April 13, 2012 I thought you are your mates in the Rockpile were the party deck PTR! Yes it does get crazy. But I'm talking about a standing-room section with a bar, food and tables...a "club" for the common man, if you will. I'm seeing this in more new arenas. Like a sports bar with other games on TV and a view of the field. PTR
Chandemonium Posted April 13, 2012 Posted April 13, 2012 The best plan is rebuild RWS for now but plan for a new stadium in 10-15 years.. I have no idea what $100M in renovation buys today. Hopefully more than a coat of paint. Wider concourses? How about a "party deck" in the west end zone next to the scoreboard? PTR Why do we need to plan for a new stadium in 10-15 years? even in 15 years, the Ralph will only be 54 years old. Other buildings last for hundreds of years with proper maintenance, and those buildings were built hundreds of years ago, with the technology and engineering and architectural knowledge available then. Why wouldn't a comparatively modern structure such as the Ralph be able to last just as long or longer with regular maintenance? This question doesn't just apply to the Ralph, but sports stadiums in general. It seems like people call for all but the most historic ones to be torn down and rebuilt once they reach 30-40 years old. Is this just a reflection of our culture of consumerism and always wanting the latest and greatest, or are there actual architectural elements of stadiums that require them to be replaced more often than other buildings?
eball Posted April 13, 2012 Posted April 13, 2012 I like what OCinBuffalo is saying. Can we first define exactly what the "problem" is with RWS? Or as PTR put it, "what can $100M buy in renovations?" We don't know what we don't know in the evaluation of whether RWS is still viable, or if other options need to be considered to keep the Bills franchise healthy and prosperous going forward.
weehawk Posted April 13, 2012 Posted April 13, 2012 This is just a ploy to take people's minds off of the $100+ million the taxpayers are about to be hit up for for RWS renos. It's pretty basic mind games. Get everyone worked up over a $1 billion stadium that of course is never going to happen anyway. Then when the RWS reno bill comes in, everyone says... "Well that's a lot less than $1 billion for a new building. Sounds like a good deal." Since this keeps coming up, I'll keep saying the same thing... Until the future ownership issues are resolved, taxpayers should ONLY pay the bare minimum needed to keep the stadium safe. The team has no real leverage. They have no where to move to now or in the next five years at least. BUF is not getting a new stadium and until the future ownership issue is addressed, the taxpayers should be investing only the bare minimum in RWS. It could be empty in a few years, so why put $100 million into it if you only need to spend $25 million to keep it safely operating as it currently exists?
Bufcomments Posted April 13, 2012 Posted April 13, 2012 Yeah my vision is very similar to yours. I always thought that they should have put the stadium on the vacant land south of the Skyway. I always thought that between the Lake, the Buffalo skyline, the factories and grain elevators (plus a good lens could capture the mist from Niagara Falls) that it would be the best place to put a stadium to really show people the kind of place Buffalo is. Me Too. I would like to see the Skyway gone myself. It would give you a chance to widen the roads to a 3 way lanes, and you would have to open up more lanes closer to the stadium on game days so traffic would get in and out quicker. The Stadium would have to be open air if they did it. I hate the idea of losing the weather advantage. Then build a modern Convention Center almost right next door. Doubt that I would see it happen but its a good idea to move the staduim back to the city.
Mr. WEO Posted April 13, 2012 Posted April 13, 2012 You couldn't understand the point I was trying to convey? OK, I'll type this a little slower for you. Take a look at a sample of some of the newer stadiums and arenas that have been built around the US. Feel free to include some of the older venues that have been recently remodelled. I would wager to bet that you'll find that the majority, if not all, of these venues have a lot more "luxury" or "corporate" boxes, or suites than what The Ralph has. (didn't even The Ralph have a remodel in recent years that took away seats for these types of boxes?) You may personally not believe that WNY has the corporate power to buy these such suites, but I guarantee you that this logic won't stop RW Jr and the NFL from trying to suck as much profit from the local community as possible . It's the American way. No need to type slower--I was just checking to see if that was really the point you going to try to make. However, you made my argument in your final paragraph. There is no market for even more (and more expensive) luxury boxes suites in Buffalo. It does not matter what the business climate is in more affluent cities. They can't force local businesses to buy these new luxury spaces so how will the Bills suck more profit from the community? Keep typing at your "full speed" brother...
PromoTheRobot Posted April 13, 2012 Posted April 13, 2012 Why do we need to plan for a new stadium in 10-15 years? even in 15 years, the Ralph will only be 54 years old. Other buildings last for hundreds of years with proper maintenance, and those buildings were built hundreds of years ago, with the technology and engineering and architectural knowledge available then. Why wouldn't a comparatively modern structure such as the Ralph be able to last just as long or longer with regular maintenance? This question doesn't just apply to the Ralph, but sports stadiums in general. It seems like people call for all but the most historic ones to be torn down and rebuilt once they reach 30-40 years old. Is this just a reflection of our culture of consumerism and always wanting the latest and greatest, or are there actual architectural elements of stadiums that require them to be replaced more often than other buildings? I agree. As long as the Ralph is viable and up to date. PTR
CodeMonkey Posted April 13, 2012 Posted April 13, 2012 I agree. As long as the Ralph is viable and up to date. PTR Fixed. Up to date is irrelevant in my opinion. It just needs to be viable.
Recommended Posts