CodeMonkey Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 How many teams around the league charge "personal seat licences" for the honor of being able to buy your ticket ... ever hear of the Bills even entertaining the thought??? Won't happen while Mr. Wilson is the owner for 2 reasons: 1) The Bills have a low number of season ticket holders, Given the current Buffalo economy. a PSL would drive that number even lower. Probably considerably lower. 2) Everyone knows Mr. Wilson has not carried any debt on the team for a long time. A PSL would be viewed by the public as strictly a greedy money grab and nothing more. However, once new ownership takes over and they do have a (probably significant) debt load I'm sure they will consider everything, including PSL's if they think it would be profitable for them.
Coach Tuesday Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 Astute deduction considering only 14% of labor is done by unions anymore, and that number is projected to be in the single digits by the end of this decade. Where do you stand on material costs since that is typically in the range of 2-4 times adjusted labor costs for major commercial construction? Are you one of the many that thinks the 200 million renovation estimate is simply labor costs? What about the bloated rental costs on heavy equipment, cranes, and man lifts? What about the fuel costs alone? How about the cost for architectural drawings that are typically engineering swiss cheese on a job sight. I see China as a good country to emulate. When you look at what you get for the price and then what the workers earn it is a win win for a guy like me. The quality of life for the average Chinese worker is excellent. American workers, union or typically otherwise, want way to much money no matter how you cut it. For example, how much would you want to get paid per hour to be an ironworker for 30 years? What ever that number is, it's way to much when I can use an illegal that I don't even have to insure properly. My view of prevailing wage is that it should be what ever a day laborer on the street corner will charge for the day. If that is not good enough for you then that is yet another job that an American won't do. I love how that works. I am one of those who think that the $200 million is probably grossly and artificially inflated through a combination of: (i) artifically high labor costs; (ii) a politicized (and Progressive-ized) bidding process for government contracts (which requires, among other things, a portion of bids to include minority-owned businesses); and (iii) an extraordinary amount of added transaction costs associated with scores of permits, approvals, and other pay-to-play requirements imposed by the state for any project like this. In China, the labor costs are low but the pay-to-play costs are extraordinary (but the total costs remain well below what producers pay in the U.S.).
RealityCheck Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 I am one of those who think that the $200 million is probably grossly and artificially inflated through a combination of: (i) artifically high labor costs; (ii) a politicized (and Progressive-ized) bidding process for government contracts (which requires, among other things, a portion of bids to include minority-owned businesses); and (iii) an extraordinary amount of added transaction costs associated with scores of permits, approvals, and other pay-to-play requirements imposed by the state for any project like this. In China, the labor costs are low but the pay-to-play costs are extraordinary (but the total costs remain well below what producers pay in the U.S.). Thank you for the response. I understand how your mind works now.
Mr. WEO Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 Are you one of the many that thinks the 200 million renovation estimate is simply labor costs? "Many"? I can't imagine a single person actually thinks that.
Quester74 Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 As long as taxpayer money, now largely deficit spending, subsidizes the organization and therefore helps pay salaries and line Wilson's pockets, the team owes "from whence those monies came" something. Agree or disagree, that's a fact. IMO they owe it back. Everyone says that the NFL is a business. Well how many of us can start a business and draw money from the state or county to help run it? Very few, and the ones that do are the biggest and most corrupt. The NFL may be a business, but it's no different than the biggest and most corrupt corporations that are ruining this country in that way. It should be a self-contained business model but it is not. It should pay for its own stadiums, player and coach salaries, etc., but does not. Meanwhile, players, like Mario, make about $100M and a lot of it is coming from you if you live in Erie County or NYS. Support it or not, it's wrong. Do they owe us? Depends upon your POV. IMO they owe "us" meaning the taxpayers, money. We'll never see it, and our taxes are what they are because we are forced to pay them nevertheless or watch the country/state increase their debt. Government is out of control. And what is "government?" It's not even a person, they're corporations unto themselves registered in the state of Delaware. Wonder what that would do to the price of tickets and NFL licensed goods.. sky-rocket, I would think.
Coach Tuesday Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 Thank you for the response. I understand how your mind works now. I doubt that.
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 . . . 2) Everyone knows Mr. Wilson has not carried any debt on the team for a long time. . . Well, maybe not everyone: http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/130751-conventional-wisdom-bills-have-no-debt-service/page__p__2173076__hl__%2Bconventional+%2Bwisdom__fromsearch__1#entry2173076 But because the public believes that the team has no debt, I agree with your conclusion about how the public would react to imposition of PSLs.
macaroni Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 Won't happen while Mr. Wilson is the owner for 2 reasons: 1) The Bills have a low number of season ticket holders, Given the current Buffalo economy. a PSL would drive that number even lower. Probably considerably lower. 2) Everyone knows Mr. Wilson has not carried any debt on the team for a long time. A PSL would be viewed by the public as strictly a greedy money grab and nothing more. However, once new ownership takes over and they do have a (probably significant) debt load I'm sure they will consider everything, including PSL's if they think it would be profitable for them. I didn't mean to insinuate the Bills should or shouldn't have PSLs ... the PSL thingy was just part of my response to a poster who says the Bills should return some of their City/County/State subsidies back to the fans/community ... my point being that Ralph holding down ticket prices, lack of PSLs, and willingness to play in a stadium that has less "earning potential" than could be found elsewhere is in fact "giving" to the fans. He has been steadfast that the Bills will not move during his lifetime ... and they haven't. I agree the fans of western NY would not ... could not support funding a stadium (or upgrades) through PSLs ... the businesses in the area can not support bunches of luxury boxes ... the local economy can not support ticket/parking prices like the more expensive teams ... the local gov't can not afford to just hand him a zillion dollars for a new stadium, or even a quarter zillion for upgrades. But the fact is there were a number of cities that would have/could have over the years and he elected to not go for the fast pile of cash and didn't move. The sad fact is there are still cities out there than will/can offer these perks .... and don't give me that the Bills will never move stuff ... as much as I love my Bills, I'm not sure I could expect a "businessman" to keep them "home" with more potentially lucrative offers on the table.
TheFunPolice Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 what happened to all the "good news" on this front?
uncle flap Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 It's amazing how mauch this argument is repeated. It makes no sense. If youtax the same group making the same amount of money at the same rate this year as next year, or the year after that, you don't make any "extra money". You get the same tax revenue as you get today--without the extra 200 million required for the stadium renovation. Unless renovating the stadium itself results in a lot more taxable income from the Bills, there is no way the renoavation can "pay for itself". I have seen nowhere published any evidence that this would result in a ton more money for NYS to tax. First, I agree with what you're saying here, but we aren't talking about the same exact thing. While the $200 M is spent on renovations, it is a part of the lease that keeps the Bills in town. If the Bills are not in town, that $10 M (from player salaries) each year disappears. So directly, the renovation doesn't pay for itself. And indirectly, it seems like the tax revenue generated by player salaries isn't enough to make it worthwhile on it's own, strictly speaking financially. To be more clear on the original argument (which I don't argue myself now that I've done some more research): Suppose without the $200 M contribution from the state, the Bills do not renew the lease and the team moves. Therefore, the state loses the taxable income from the players' game checks. Even by a the most conservative estimates, it would be about $150 M over a 15 year lease, defraying the cost of the original $200 M. I originally thought there was more revenue generated by the taxes on the players' checks, which is how I arrived at the original premise. Unless I'm missing something, you're assuming the Bills stay either way, which is certainly a possibility. If that is the case, then yes, the state doesn't make any extra money simply by contributing to the renovations. But they do stand to lose out on that taxable income, plus whatever boost it has to the local economy (if any), if without the contribution from the state, the Bills decide to relocate. I don't think anyone is arguing that the renovations in and of themselves generate revenue, but that since the state's contribution could be a deciding or major factor whether or not the Bills stay in town, one may look at the $200 M (or whatever it winds up being) as the state's cost of keeping the Bills in town. Hope that makes more sense. And, personally, I'm not arguing that the income tax from the players justifies the renovation money now that I realize it is much less than I had previously thought.
Mr. WEO Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 (edited) Hoo boy---where to start? I didn't mean to insinuate the Bills should or shouldn't have PSLs ... the PSL thingy was just part of my response to a poster who says the Bills should return some of their City/County/State subsidies back to the fans/community ... my point being that Ralph holding down ticket prices, lack of PSLs, and willingness to play in a stadium that has less "earning potential" than could be found elsewhere is in fact "giving" to the fans. He has been steadfast that the Bills will not move during his lifetime ... and they haven't Hoo boy---where to start? Ralph is not holding ticket prices! You act like he's controlling prices to keep them artificially low. He's charging what the market will allow him to sell tham at. That'show it works--in fact you even admit this in your next paragraph (see bolded)! I agree the fans of western NY would not ... could not support funding a stadium (or upgrades) through PSLs ... the businesses in the area can not support bunches of luxury boxes ... the local economy can not support ticket/parking prices like the more expensive teams ... the local gov't can not afford to just hand him a zillion dollars for a new stadium, or even a quarter zillion for upgrades But the fact is there were a number of cities that would have/could have over the years and he elected to not go for the fast pile of cash and didn't move. The sad fact is there are still cities out there than will/can offer these perks .... and don't give me that the Bills will never move stuff ... as much as I love my Bills, I'm not sure I could expect a "businessman" to keep them "home" with more potentially lucrative offers on the table. Of course, none of those are "facts". What city offered Ralph a "fast pile of cash"? What city will/would/could do so now? I've not heard of one other than LA and that stadium will not exist until the builder finds a team willing to sell a significant part of the team to him. No, Ralph has stayed because as a businessman, he knew he could not duplicate the deal he currently has with Erie Co. Each time he has lamely mentioned moving the team, the County has immediately responded with a major building project--and has regularly upgraded the stadium throughout its existence. The Bills are consistently in the top 1/3 of teams in profits. Who would voluntarily leave this dream business setup?? Edited July 19, 2012 by Mr. WEO
macaroni Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 Hoo boy---where to start? Ralph is not holding ticket prices! You act like he's controlling prices to keep them artificially low. He's charging what the market will allow him to sell tham at. That'show it works--in fact you even admit this in your next paragraph (see bolded)! Of course, none of those are "facts". What city offered Ralph a "fast pile of cash"? What city will/would/could do so now? I've not heard of one other than LA and that stadium will not exist until the builder finds a team willing to sell a significant part of the team to him. No, Ralph has stayed because as a businessman, he knew he could not duplicate the deal he currently has with Erie Co. Each time he has lamely mentioned moving the team, the County has immediately responded with a major building project--and has regularly upgraded the stadium throughout its existence. The Bills are consistently in the top 1/3 of teams in profits. Who would voluntarily leave this dream business setup?? You mean to say that the deal the Rams got to move to St Louis, or the Raiders got to move to L.A. (and then back to Oakland), or the Browns to move to Baltimore, or the Colts to move to Indy, or the Oilers got to move to Tenn, or the expansion team got in Houston, or the expansion team got in Cleveland couldn't have been "parlyed" into a better financial situation Ralph has in western New York??? Maybe you are right, maybe Buffalo is the land of honey and untold wealth and easy pickins for an NFL owner... but I choose to believe that Ralph is holding down ticket prices because that's what the local economy can bear ... but that problem could have been solved a number of times in the past and he chose not to. After all is said and done our team is here for no matter what reason ... doesn't matter how one views the situation, it's going to be a fun year, one we will both enjoy ... GO BILLS!!!
Mr. WEO Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 (edited) You mean to say that the deal the Rams got to move to St Louis, or the Raiders got to move to L.A. (and then back to Oakland), or the Browns to move to Baltimore, or the Colts to move to Indy, or the Oilers got to move to Tenn, or the expansion team got in Houston, or the expansion team got in Cleveland couldn't have been "parlyed" into a better financial situation Ralph has in western New York??? Maybe you are right, maybe Buffalo is the land of honey and untold wealth and easy pickins for an NFL owner... but I choose to believe that Ralph is holding down ticket prices because that's what the local economy can bear ... but that problem could have been solved a number of times in the past and he chose not to. After all is said and done our team is here for no matter what reason ... doesn't matter how one views the situation, it's going to be a fun year, one we will both enjoy ... GO BILLS!!! This reply comes up occasionally. It ignores the fact that the only reason nearly all of those owners left town is because they couldn't get a new or better stadium from their city--few if any would had left if they were treated as well as Erie treats Ralph. When he wanted a new stadium, they built him one. When he wanted it renovated, they did it. There was absolutely no reason for him to leave. He has been debt free from the beginning. He earns more profit than 2/3 of the owners. Why on earth would he change his current business model?? Again, there was no time it made sense to risk his revenue stream by uprooting and gambling on another city. He's cleared 100 million in operating income inthe past 3 seasons alone!! Rams? Browns? Colts? Raiders? Titans? Ralph made more than any of those owners last year--and routinely does. Over '09 and '10, the Raiders LOST money. A move to Tennessee would have cost Ralph tens of millions in lower profits over that last decade. Ditto for a move to Cleveland--the Browns LOST money last year. Indy?--the Colts have had 3 big earning seasons in the past 10 (they LOST 17 million the year after they won the SB)--Jim Irsay had to sell personal realestate holdings to cover losses while playing in the RCA dome. And yes, you are correct--Ralph is "holding down ticket prices" because no one will pay more than he charges. If he could get 100 bucks a ticket he would charge that. That's how the economy works. Can you imagine?? There is no evidence that moving the Bills at any time would have resulted in more wealth for Raplh--in fact the opposite has been proven: it would have been a finacial loss for him to have moved. Edited July 19, 2012 by Mr. WEO
Ronin Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 They were trying to win football games and bring value to an entertaining product that brings revenue to the area ... It's beyond a proven fact that pro sports teams cost their communities money and do not add to it in a net fashion. It's one of the ugly truths of pro sports, particularly football, and one that is not talked about often for that very reason. Fans don't want to know that, the league and individual teams most certainly don't want to highlight it, and the sports media talks about what favors them, and that's not it. In these tough economic times however, numbers don't lie, and communities just don't have the money to cover the financing on stadiums and whatnot. That's typically the deal, that a community covers financing on stadiums plus/minus some other things. Think about that, even at 4 or 5%, if someone else covers the financing on your home over 20 or 30 years, that's no chump change and in fact actually costs more than the home itself. They don't give you the whole figure that the community will be paying, rather they state the finance/interest rate so that it appears to be an insignificant fraction of what it actually is. Here are some recent articles on the topic, but this notion that pro sports teams bring net revenue to a region or city is as bogus as a three-and-a-half dollar bill and a complete myth. Usually what it means is new or increased taxes of one variety or another meaning that the taxpayers and consumers in a region are actually directly picking up the tab. So unless they all get those tax increases back, it's a net loss for the citizens, and many of those citizens don't even watch the games much less attend them. http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/06/12/496136/foul-play-five-cities-that-want-taxpayer-money-to-finance-stadium-boondoggles/?mobile=nc http://www.cultofmoney.com/2012/02/14/new-stadiums-taking-from-the-old-and-sick-and-giving-to-millionaires/ In this article, the question is asked ... Ilya Shapiro asks, “If luxury stadiums were hugely profitable, why would the savvy businessmen who own the teams let the politicians in on the windfall?” The short answer is that they're not profitable. http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/public-financing-of-private-sports-stadiums/ As this article reveals, stadium financing often leads to lower wages in a region or the immediate area for several reasons. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-03/as-super-bowl-shows-build-stadiums-for-love-and-not-money-view.html Here's a really nice summary article; http://dontmesswithtaxes.typepad.com/No_Public_Money_for_Stadia.pdf
Recommended Posts