Jump to content

Deadspin: Bills Fleecing Taxpayers


Bills1218

Recommended Posts

Interesting analysis from Deadspin of the sweetheart deal Uncle Ralph got - http://deadspin.com/5971468/the-bills-blackmailed-new-york-taxpayers-into-covering-84-percent-of-stadium-renovations?post=55612239

 

Don't get me wrong - I am thrilled that the Bills are staying for at least seven years. But it sure would be nice for the team to finally pay it forward and invest in a real GM and head coach instead of spending another couple years on Russ Brandon's marketing gimmicks to sell season tickets.

 

We deserve better than this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 81
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The deal is FAR cheaper than most. And the tax revenue will more than make up for the "paltry" amount the city/state have to pay. The team could've demanded a new stadium like other teams are doing - but they didn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm Canadian and come to several games a year. I come early, always do some shopping and I know I'm not alone. There is no way to tell what the true economic impact of the Bills is in the area, but I'm sure it's a capital investment for the County and State. This article appears to be written by nothing more then victimhood and entitlement mentalities.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WHO IS THIS BARRY GUY? IF THE BILLS WERE TO MOVE THE LOST REVENUES FROM SALARIES ALONE. WOULD BE MORE THAN WHAT THE STATE KICKED IN,,THIS IS A SWEETHEART DEAL FOR ERIE COUNTY AND BILLS FANS,AND THIS GUY COMPLAINS WHAT A JACK***!

 

You should take a math class. If the revenues for the county exceeded the taxes, then they wouldn't have to levy the tax.

 

Otherwise, do your homework, it's been disproven many times over that pro sports teams do not bring in money to their states/municipalities.

 

All I know is that anyone that agrees with this kind of stuff, for us, for them (downstaters), etc., should clam up when it comes to overspending governments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should take a math class. If the revenues for the county exceeded the taxes, then they wouldn't have to levy the tax.

 

Otherwise, do your homework, it's been disproven many times over that pro sports teams do not bring in money to their states/municipalities.

Have any facts/links/research to back that up with? Seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand the frustration of the author. No doubt he displayed the same frustration with Yankee Stadium. I think the article is pretty well written and supported by facts. But these public financing deals are the ransom we "fans" pay to keep our teams in town. Pro sports has gotten way out of hand and I think will struggle more in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i dont keep a spreadsheet of author opinions or anything, but im pretty sure hes strongly against stadium funding across the board.

 

He says this early in the piece. But let these guys rant on...

 

The deal is FAR cheaper than most. And the tax revenue will more than make up for the "paltry" amount the city/state have to pay. The team could've demanded a new stadium like other teams are doing - but they didn't.

 

What extra tax revenue will be generated by the renevations to "more than" pay for the renovations?

 

 

Anyway, this guy's main point is the tiny amount the team is paying. You guy scan go off on him if it feels good, but referencing the Yankees or the Mets or the Nets (or Jerry Jones, for that matter) ignores the vast amounts of money those stadium owners put up for thier palaces. Pechesky is saying it's wrong that the Bills put up essentially nothing. He's right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What extra tax revenue will be generated by the renevations to "more than" pay for the renovations?

Team moves to [Toronto|Los Angeles|London|Wherever], county/city/state receive no more tax revenue... Seems pretty straight forward to me.

 

If the team was building a billion dollar stadium (like they're doing in Minnesota), and the taxpayers were on the hook for $800+M (like they're doing in Minnesota), then I'd agree that you'll never make that money up in tax revenue. But a "paltry" $150M over seven years? Shouldn't be a big deal I wouldn't think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...