Dr. Trooth Posted December 22, 2012 Posted December 22, 2012 Several ways to look at this. First thing I'll say is this... LA has demonstrated NOT to be a viable NFL market... not once, but twice. They can build a stadium if they want. And all the Hollywood crowd can buy lux suites and the game cameras can always cut to the stars waving in their cushy suites. But at the end of the day the stadium will not have been filled and fan interest just aint there. If LA wants a team, they don't need to wait for the Bills. Oakland or SanDiego...can stake their claim now. And, you want to talk about teams that are ripe for moving... why has everyone stopped talking about the Jaguars? Jax is about as low as it gets on the totem pole for fan base. Even when Coughlin was coaching and the Jags were good, they couldn't sell out. Now a new owner... and he wants to make a buck Go move to LA Shad... go get that gold. As far as any other venue besides LA... where are the Bills gonna go? San Antonio? Nyet! Toronto? Right... great football town, eh? Just where are the Bills gonna garner more interest? Within the next three years, WNY will be humming, or at least beginning to hum economically. Why would I say something stupid like that? Frack baby Frack! Hydrofracking is coming to a place near you. It is a done deal and the natural gas boom will be 'game on'..; and as early as this year. Oh, you can argue of all the bans that the local communities have placed on fracking, but it doesn't mean squat. State Law trumps all that... and right now the state law is going to win out. So, by 2015, a few years into the new lease and new ownership looming. Why would a a new owner want to bolt and leave all that economic viability on the table and move to some other venue? Doesn't make sense. The fan base is there and always has been... the money just hasn't been right because of the economics. Well, when the WNY economy gets going again shortly and the new owner makes a bank deposit of $150M for the the old Ralph to be named "NYSEG FIELD" or some othe natural gas company, those pundits that have been spewing for years about the Bills moving can kiss my big fat ass.
Captain Hindsight Posted December 22, 2012 Posted December 22, 2012 I take it as Erie County and New York State have seven years to plan for a new stadium. As the County Executive stated on WGR yesterday, (I am paraphrasing) the planning for a new stadium in the next ten years should make the team more attractive to a potential owner with plans to keep the team here. I would not mind a multi use complex with a new convention center and a domed stadium in Downtown Buffalo. Thats how i read it
Dan Posted December 22, 2012 Posted December 22, 2012 This was like the 96-year-old buying a new kitchen range because all the burners on his ancient one won't light anymore because they're gummed up with junk or connections have failed. It doesn't mean that he's going to start fixing up the entire house so it's a primo place and sells for a lot of coin after he's gone. All it means is that he has to have a stove so his home aide can have something to cook on so he doesn't starve. This simply kicked the can far enough down the road so we can keep walking, but short enough that the next guy isn't encumbered to kicking it more if s/he doesn't want to or if it's not profitable (enough). In many ways, I agree. This lease is in essence kicking the can down the road. However, I don't view that negatively; rather its a necessity. With a 94yr old owner and no clear new owner on the horizon, you don't want the team tied to a facility for 20 or 30 years. Yet, you need a lease on the current stadium - you can't operate without some agreement. The time seems appropriate to me. In 7 years, we're very likely to have a new owner, unfortunately; and that owner will want a new stadium or at the very least negotiate a lease to suit his/their interests without the baggage of an existing 30year lease they have to break. I think the push will be to build a new stadium with funding from the NFL which is exactly what the Bills and Buffalo need. Does this all mean that the Bills are guaranteed to stay in Buffalo? Of course not. The ONLY way to do that is to have Ralph live another 50 years. But I see this as the first step in the transition to a new ownership. It ensures the Bills will not be going to LA in the near term, and allows for the next owner to negotiate a new lease or stadium deal that will secure the franchise here for the long term. Whether or not that happens will depend upon a number of variables, not the least of which is the City's ability to get a new, modern facility built for the team.
mrags Posted December 22, 2012 Posted December 22, 2012 What is the point of any thread? Come on, Promo, you know better than that. It's about discussion. I'm just struck how everyone is patting themselves on the back over this, when it strikes me as neither long term nor any type of guarantee, as its being sold. I think that is deserving of discussion, particularly if there are those who can intelligently argue otherwise. I'm generally not the typical doomsday poster, but you can either lump me into that category and blow it off, or you can engage in a dialogue. If its the former, then I would ask you the same question: what's the point of your post? ill play the other side for a minute but I really have no basis on my arguments or factual evidence really. But hey, neither do you, so... From what I've heard, there is a separate portion in the lease agreement, that uses some of the $94million of the tax payers money to fund a group to search avenues for long term involvement of the Bills in Buffalo, specifically looking into new stadium options in the downtown area to help the city become more viable. There is no proof that a new owner couldn't come in and swoop the team up and move them to another city at the end of the lease, or even during if they are willing to pay all the fees involved. But then again there wasn't any of this in place before so it sounds like its much better now. The lease could seem set up for what you propose, a new owner to come in, an move them immediately following the 7th year of the lease. However, it also almost assures that the Bills will be here at least those 7 years even if Ralph were to die tomorrow and the day after a new owner took over. Again, there's no proof that any of this can't happen. But then again there's no evidence that it will either. In the end, were better off with this deal in place than without. If the deal wasn't in place, and Ralph does tomorrow, it would be much easier for any future owner to come in, buy the team and move them without any problems or fees to the county, state, or city. It also changes the LA team issue. If the Bills are solid for another 7-10 years here in Buffalo, then any LA group might look elsewhere as they will most likely want a team before that time. It also proves many of the doubters wrong when they claim that Jim Kelly or anyone else when they say the Bills aren't going anywhere. There seems to be a plan in place. Kelly, Brandon, and any other person involved or in "the know" have stated many times we won't be losing them. This just helps prove them more right than wrong. Again, I'm no lawyer, I'm just a Bills fan. I like to believe they will be here for my kids some day. And this helps me believe they will be more so than it did the day before yesterday. It's always possible things could change, but for now, this is good news.
Big Turk Posted December 22, 2012 Posted December 22, 2012 No contract is 100% "iron clad". Plus for a group of billionaires in a large market, 400 million is not necessarily a deal breaker. Bottom line is as it always has been. We will see when we see. No but that would be on top of the 250+ million the NFL would charge them to relocate. I don't care who you are, 650+ million dollars just to move a team is not easily recoupable and is a pretty strong deterrant considering they will have close to a billion in debt service from purchasing the team...
purple haze Posted December 22, 2012 Posted December 22, 2012 (edited) I'm as happy as anyone that there is a new lease. That gives me comfort, at least for the next seven years. But allow me to play Sully for a moment. But you know what? As Sully said today, seven years will go by real fast, and before you know it, we'll be right back where we started. Even if LA gets a team in the meantime, of which there is no guarantee. To me, this is a lease that guarantees the Bills will stay in Buffalo until Ralph is no longer the owner. But you know what? They were staying that long anyway. The politicians like to point out that the Bills could have moved for a pittance these last few years, and look, they didn't, so they're committed to Buffalo, right? Sure, but Ralph has always intended to keep the Bills here as long as he is the owner. This lease, especially the seven year clause, guarantees that they stay in Buffalo for what are likely the few remaining years for Ralph, which they were already going to do. But the only thing the seven year clause (and even beyond that, the relatively short ten year overall term of the lease) guarantees is that the team will have options to renegotiate or leave once a new owner comes along, and they won't have to wait very long to do so. Unless Ralph goes in the next year or two, but even then, they'd only have to wait what, five or six years at most to get out of town? The prospect of a new stadium, to me at least, only raises concern that it can be used against Buffalo when a new owner comes around and has the option to get out of town early. Like everywhere else, it becomes a bargaining chip that will be used either to hold us hostage, or to show that the city is not committed enough to the team to keep them around. I'm happy with the comfort of the next seven years, but that's hardly a long term lease. Even ten years isn't long term to me. If the Bills were truly committed to Buffalo for the long haul, we would have seen a twenty year lease, or longer. The current lease just seems like a very temporary thing designed specifically to give a new owner the ability to quickly negotiate a new lease, or to get the heck out of Dodge, without having to wait very long. Enough cynicism for one day. Back to holiday cheer! Please. Some Bills fans have become like women. Not happy even when they're happy. If you all are so cynical, so pessimistic about any and everything, why not go support another organization? Then you don't have to constantly whine and complain. Go somewhere else and be happy. Edited December 22, 2012 by purple haze
PromoTheRobot Posted December 22, 2012 Posted December 22, 2012 (edited) In many ways, I agree. This lease is in essence kicking the can down the road. However, I don't view that negatively; rather its a necessity. With a 94yr old owner and no clear new owner on the horizon, you don't want the team tied to a facility for 20 or 30 years. Yet, you need a lease on the current stadium - you can't operate without some agreement. The time seems appropriate to me. In 7 years, we're very likely to have a new owner, unfortunately; and that owner will want a new stadium or at the very least negotiate a lease to suit his/their interests without the baggage of an existing 30year lease they have to break. I think the push will be to build a new stadium with funding from the NFL which is exactly what the Bills and Buffalo need. Does this all mean that the Bills are guaranteed to stay in Buffalo? Of course not. The ONLY way to do that is to have Ralph live another 50 years. But I see this as the first step in the transition to a new ownership. It ensures the Bills will not be going to LA in the near term, and allows for the next owner to negotiate a new lease or stadium deal that will secure the franchise here for the long term. Whether or not that happens will depend upon a number of variables, not the least of which is the City's ability to get a new, modern facility built for the team. Well if this is kicking the can down the road, then what lease isn't? Seriously?? We haven't been to the playoffs in 13 years. You have one hell of a memory. I've followed the team since 1968, so yes I do. Trust me, we were happy for a week after the win over Oakland in '91. That's about it. PTR Edited December 22, 2012 by PromoTheRobot
Rubes Posted December 22, 2012 Author Posted December 22, 2012 Please. Some Bills fans have become like women. Not happy even when they're happy. If you all are so cynical, so pessimistic about any and everything, why not go support another organization? Then you don't have to constantly whine and complain. Go somewhere else and be happy. Honestly, if you're so boorish and blind as to only see a discussion like this as "just another jerk Bills fan who can never be happy and can only whine and complain," please take it elsewhere. You're just as simplistic as you're making everyone else out to be. Like I said, I'm happy about the new lease. It does provide a measure of security. I just don't think it's a "yay, the Bills will be here forever" deal like it seems to be sold as. Some people have made some very insightful and useful comments here that have broadened my understanding of the deal. I'm still a little unsure of it, but I have a better view of it. Comments like yours, on the other hand, are just as useless, ridiculous, and pointless as you claim this thread to be. Thanks for contributing!
mrags Posted December 22, 2012 Posted December 22, 2012 Honestly, if you're so boorish and blind as to only see a discussion like this as "just another jerk Bills fan who can never be happy and can only whine and complain," please take it elsewhere. You're just as simplistic as you're making everyone else out to be. Like I said, I'm happy about the new lease. It does provide a measure of security. I just don't think it's a "yay, the Bills will be here forever" deal like it seems to be sold as. Some people have made some very insightful and useful comments here that have broadened my understanding of the deal. I'm still a little unsure of it, but I have a better view of it. Comments like yours, on the other hand, are just as useless, ridiculous, and pointless as you claim this thread to be. Thanks for contributing! i hope I contributed ;-)
uncle flap Posted December 22, 2012 Posted December 22, 2012 No contract is 100% "iron clad". Plus for a group of billionaires in a large market, 400 million is not necessarily a deal breaker. No but that would be on top of the 250+ million the NFL would charge them to relocate. I don't care who you are, 650+ million dollars just to move a team is not easily recoupable and is a pretty strong deterrant considering they will have close to a billion in debt service from purchasing the team... The other thing is, it's not a $400 mil fee as in "You have to pay $400 mil if you want to move the Bills." That is what an owner would have to pay if they won a legal decision to break the lease. So, really there would be lengthy court proceedings before that "penalty" comes into effect. The $400 mil is an insurance policy set in place by the State to recoup the $ that they've invested in the Bills over the years. Yes, it's a deterrent. And yes, it is a substantial figure. Some may argue that any case brought against the County and State would be easily won, but it certainly isn't guaranteed. But I think it is important to note that $400 mil isn't simply an associated cost- there are other protections in place before that money even becomes a factor. The lease could have been signed for 50 years and people would still B word. YEAH
Rubes Posted December 22, 2012 Author Posted December 22, 2012 i hope I contributed ;-) You did, thanks!
jcbillsfan Posted December 22, 2012 Posted December 22, 2012 7 years should steer them past the la mess and into new ownership
Dan Posted December 22, 2012 Posted December 22, 2012 Well if this is kicking the can down the road, then what lease isn't? Seriously?? Sure, in the strictest of sense, nothing is permanent and will have to be reworked again at some future point. But, I think of "kicking the can down the road" solutions as being more short-term oriented. That is, solutions that need to be re-addressed in a couple of years. With a potential back out in 7yrs, I would call this somthing that needs to be re-adressed in a couple years. Again, however, I don't think that's negative or bad in any way. In fact, I see it as exactly what the team needed. They've ensured that the Bills aren't an option for a relocation to LA while laying the groundwork and timeframe for a new stadium to be built, with a new owner. Maybe I'm wrong, but I would think having a newly signed 20-30yr lease is just another hurdle to cross in trying to get a new stadium - something I would bet money a new owner will want.
plenzmd1 Posted December 22, 2012 Posted December 22, 2012 You did, thanks! You call yourself a Bills Fan????? You Suck!!!!!!
dwight in philly Posted December 22, 2012 Posted December 22, 2012 Honestly, if you're so boorish and blind as to only see a discussion like this as "just another jerk Bills fan who can never be happy and can only whine and complain," please take it elsewhere. You're just as simplistic as you're making everyone else out to be. Like I said, I'm happy about the new lease. It does provide a measure of security. I just don't think it's a "yay, the Bills will be here forever" deal like it seems to be sold as. Some people have made some very insightful and useful comments here that have broadened my understanding of the deal. I'm still a little unsure of it, but I have a better view of it. Comments like yours, on the other hand, are just as useless, ridiculous, and pointless as you claim this thread to be. Thanks for contributing! well at least you arent "boorish"
OvrOfficiousJerk Posted December 22, 2012 Posted December 22, 2012 Well if this is kicking the can down the road, then what lease isn't? Seriously?? PTR A lease that lasts longer than 10yr, for one. However, this lease is part "kick can down the road" and part hard commitment. I see this lease as that one year bandaid (which I knew was never going to happen but still was reported as fact up until this week) with teeth and a bigger cushion to keep the team here. Something had to happen with the Ralph in the short-term, but its utility a decade down the road certainly is questionable. So to lock an owner for >15yr may hurt the team's profitability in the long-term. Ultimately, the lease lets the team maintain leverage for that new stadium in the future while demonstrating a strong commitment
Direhard Fan Posted December 22, 2012 Posted December 22, 2012 I started thanking all my friends today for them paying for our new deal. Most were not pleased as they live in the Albany area. I am having a great time doing this as I live on SS and Retirement. I am a happy camper. Go Bills.
mrags Posted December 22, 2012 Posted December 22, 2012 You did, thanks! Yay!!! I helped change someone's mind. Woohoo. FIRST!!!
TSNBDSC Posted December 22, 2012 Posted December 22, 2012 (edited) ... the Bills are going anywhere ... ... from Russ Brandon ... ''Guaranteed,'' Brandon said at a hastily called news conference, announcing the Bills had agreed to sign a new 10-year lease with the state and county to continue playing at Ralph Wilson Stadium. ''This is a monumental day for us,'' he added. ''The Buffalo Bills are right here in western New York, where we're going to be for many decades to come.'' ... decades .... decades ... decades ... can we stop now please ... the Bills are not going anywhere ... decades ... yes, decades ... Edited December 22, 2012 by tsnbd
spartacus Posted December 22, 2012 Posted December 22, 2012 7 years should steer them past the la mess and into new ownership Up until now, it has been conjecture that the Bills would leave The buy-out in year 7 for $28M essentially puts a stake in the ground If the new owners have not extorted a new stadium from the public by then, the team is gone. And to expect the yokels that have been dicking over a new Peace Bridge for 30 years to move that quickly is pure fantasy. Enjoy the last 7 years of the Bills in Buffalo.
Recommended Posts