simpleman Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 (edited) The commissioner talks about a new stadium, fans talk about a new stadium, politicians talk about a new stadium. Do we really need one? What are the reasons the current stadium can't be renovated or retrofitted to meet the football needs of the new owner? If it can't be, is there space available for a new one to be rebuilt adjacent to the current stadium, and the current one ultimately torn down to provide space for parking or other needed facilities? Between the stadium site and the adjacent CC isn't there enough room? The infrastructure is already there and seems decent. Edited June 6, 2014 by simpleman
PromoTheRobot Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 It will be 50 years old in 2023. The upper decks are breaking down but the lower bowl should be fine. The biggest problem are the narrow concourses. No way to correct that. It has plenty of luxury boxes and club seats. They probably need updating. There is plenty of room the county already owns to build a new stadium.
Captain Hindsight Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 They and actual **** in the concourse for a game last year sooooooo plumbing?
Kirby Jackson Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 There are lots of reasons but I will try to keep it simple: -There is nowhere to play during a retrofit -There are structural issues -They want more high end entertaining options and it will be tough to change the culture there -The cost would not be that different
plenzmd1 Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 There are lots of reasons but I will try to keep it simple: -There is nowhere to play during a retrofit -There are structural issues -They want more high end entertaining options and it will be tough to change the culture there -The cost would not be that different Did the Chiefs and Packers play somewhere else while their retro fits occurred? I don't remember. I do remember the Bears playing at Illinois for at least a season. Your point on the culture change is one that had not occured to me...and it does make sense to me. (even if i love the current culture) But great points all around
Kirby Jackson Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 Did the Chiefs and Packers play somewhere else while their retro fits occurred? I don't remember. I do remember the Bears playing at Illinois for at least a season. Your point on the culture change is one that had not occured to me...and it does make sense to me. (even if i love the current culture) But great points all around I don't think that they all played elsewhere. They have said that if they were to do it the Bills would need to play elsewhere for at least a year.
Peter Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 I like the Ralph for watching a game. There are a lot of stadiums/arenas that were great for watching games for the core fan that no longer exist. The main problems with the Ralph for various reasons: 1. NFL wants a new stadium 2. New owner likely wants a new stadium 3. It is not located in a location that offers any synergy with anything else (e.g., downtown, NF, UB) 4. It would be great if it had a retractable roof.
mrags Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 They and actual **** in the concourse for a game last year sooooooo plumbing? the plumbing was being worked on last year. It was phase one of the remodel that we are finishing up now. And it was the only reason why there was an issue because they dug it up. There was never an issue before this.
Captain Hindsight Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 the plumbing was being worked on last year. It was phase one of the remodel that we are finishing up now. And it was the only reason why there was an issue because they dug it up. There was never an issue before this. I know. I just wanted to say something about actual **** flowing
mrags Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 I know. I just wanted to say something about actual **** flowing oh. Then ok. Crusade on. Lol
Dopey Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 Over the last 13-14 years? My answer: The performance of the team.
5 Wide Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 Location Location Location. Great for tailgating and gameday fan experience. Terrible for generating revenue and spinoff development. If you want to generate revenue outside of the 10 or 11 game days (including preseason) then you need a different style venue in a different location. It was suitable for its design and use in 1973. In today's environment, a stadium costing upwards of $750 million needs to be an economic stimulus for a region, not simply fancy new football digs.
chris heff Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 I like the Ralph for watching a game. There are a lot of stadiums/arenas that were great for watching games for the core fan that no longer exist. The main problems with the Ralph for various reasons: 1. NFL wants a new stadium 2. New owner likely wants a new stadium 3. It is not located in a location that offers any synergy with anything else (e.g., downtown, NF, UB) 4. It would be great if it had a retractable roof. This
Ted William's frozen head Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 (edited) Americans are fixated on "New". "New" is not nec. better. I'd rather see the present facility maintained,and expanded. The Packers did exactly that, and no one complains. Being able to afford going to the games is most important to me. The Ralph is a GREAT place to see a game. Edited June 5, 2014 by Ted William's frozen head
Mike in Horseheads Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 Americans are fixated on "New". "New" is not nec. better. I'd rather see the present facility maintained,and expanded. The Packers did exactly that, and no one complains. Being able to afford going to the games is most important to me. The Ralph is a GREAT place to see a game. Americans are fixated on "New". "New" is not nec. better. I'd rather see the present facility maintained,and expanded. The Packers did exactly that, and no one complains. Being able to afford going to the games is most important to me. The Ralph is a GREAT place to see a game. Did you have a "brain freeze" you said it twice?
Ted William's frozen head Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 Did you have a "brain freeze" you said it twice? The board froze for some reason. Can you spare some liquid Nitrogen?
Peter Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 Americans are fixated on "New". "New" is not nec. better. I'd rather see the present facility maintained,and expanded. The Packers did exactly that, and no one complains. Being able to afford going to the games is most important to me. The Ralph is a GREAT place to see a game. I agree with your central point. Yet, even Yankee Stadium was replaced. As far as the Packers are concerned, if only the Buffalo community could own the team (as is allowed with the Packers but no other team) . . . .
Kirby Jackson Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 Location Location Location. Great for tailgating and gameday fan experience. Terrible for generating revenue and spinoff development. If you want to generate revenue outside of the 10 or 11 game days (including preseason) then you need a different style venue in a different location. It was suitable for its design and use in 1973. In today's environment, a stadium costing upwards of $750 million needs to be an economic stimulus for a region, not simply fancy new football digs. The central point here is dead on. Revenue generation will take priority over game day experience. There will be much finer amenities with the new stadium for the fans to enjoy but the overall game day will look different than we have been accustomed to.
Mike in Horseheads Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 The commissioner talks about a new stadium, fans talk about a new stadium, politicians talk about a new stadium. Do we really need one? What are the reasons the current stadium can’t be renovated or retrofitted to meet the football needs of the new owner? If it can’t be, is there space available for a new one to be rebuilt adjacent to the current stadium, and the current one ultimately torn down to provide space for parking or other needed facilities? Between the stadium site and the adjacent CC isn’t there enough room? The infrastructure is already there and seems decent. IMHO, it's a get out of jail card for the NFL. Kind of like when the Dodgers moved to LA and the reason was Ebbets (sp) Field was old....As for the Ralph, it's old but has great sight lines (some say best in the league). I have to believe their is enough luxury seating (pry needs updating) and don't buy the BS that a retro-fit will kick them out for a year. Somehow Green Bay and KC did it.Fine put in temp seats at UB or play some at The Carrier Dome. It's the NFL TV is the money! ...Which leads me to huge new stadiums, look at MLB all new ones are smaller because as TV has improved to HD why pay a **** load of money to go to a game when you can stay home? NFL doesn't get it. The board froze for some reason. Can you spare some liquid Nitrogen? LOL...it was just too easy note.
Recommended Posts