HopefulFuture Posted June 11, 2014 Posted June 11, 2014 You are creating a standard that no other new stadium can live up to. Will a new western NY facility get a return on the dollars spent to get it built? Probably not. So what? The revenue generated by the current convention including its multiple upgrades will not be enough to solely pay off its construction costs. But that doesn't mean that it wasn't worth building. If a reasonably priced covered facility could be built for the Bills and the facility could be used for an updated and larger sized convention facility then it would be a reasonable expenditure. If the new facility in conjunction to other waterfront development stimulate additional investment in that area of town then it would be worth the investment. Do the events in the arena that the Sabres play in generate enough revenue to totally pay off the building bonds for its construction? I doubt it. But if the facility didn't exhist then the Sabres would be relocated. There comes a time where one has to make tough choices. If a new facility is not built then the viability of the franchise will in the not too distant future will be an issue again. Is it worth spending another $350-450 M for another Orchard Park facility upgrade that will be used less than a dozen times a year? Or is it better to spend in the $1 B range for a multi-purpose facility that will include a new convention center and have a greater economic spill-over effect for area? I believe your living back in an era where tax revenue was stable and growth was not only expected, it was projected. Those days are gone. When you say So what? to the ROI situation, your throwing tax payers at the local and state level under the bus. Thats what.
purple haze Posted June 11, 2014 Posted June 11, 2014 (edited) That is a really good point about soccer that I had not thought of before. The playing surface of most NFL stadiums is too small to comfortably fit a regulation soccer field so If the Bills do get a new stadium then hosting a future MLS team should be considered in the design. A MLS team would be another good tenant and if the playing size is proper, if the US ever hosts the world cup or women's, or junior's world cups again Buffalo could be a viable venue. I don't think that will work. MLS is going toward stadiums that are 25-30,000 seats. The United are getting a new, soccer size stadium. I think after them the only teams playing in NFL football stadiums would be New England and the new NYC team in Yankee Stadium. Football stadiums are a terrible look for MLS or any soccer outside of national matches. I don't think Buffalo needs to account for this at all in a new stadium. A potential MLS team would be more apt to be at UB stadium and the Bulls move into the new Bills stadium. MLS would get an MLS sized stadium, campus enthusiasm and the Bulls get to build a bigger platform for their program. I think folks will have to get their head around and accept that if a new stadium is built it will mainly be for that 10-12 games a year the Bills play between pre-season, regular and post-season and probably UB games. What is being developed near to the stadium is what residents should focus on; infrastructure changes: rail and subway, roadways, entertainment offerings like theaters, restaurants, shopping, museums. Edited June 11, 2014 by purple haze
Kirby Jackson Posted June 11, 2014 Posted June 11, 2014 (edited) We need to clarify what public funds will entail. Typically when stadiums are built they try to avoid the "taxpayers" footing the bill. I keep reading on here how the state can't afford it, yada, yada, yada. Public funds will be generated from those using the facility. This comes in the form of a jock tax (basically taxing the players for working in that stadium). In addition, you often see a bed tax implemented that passes the cost to out of town visitors using the hotels. They can also use a portion of concession revenue. I am not sure how the Bills concession deal is structured but there is ample opportunity there as well I am sure. The private source of money often comes from PSLs or from those that will use the facility. I just am reading a lot of people giving a million reasons why a new stadium is impossible without really having an understanding of creative financing options that have taken place in other markets. There are just a few mentioned above but you get the idea. Edited June 11, 2014 by Kirby Jackson
bbb Posted June 11, 2014 Posted June 11, 2014 Soccer should never be considered. They would make the seats too far away from the field by adding extra room on the field. I've never seen a great football stadium with a track around a field like you with say a multi purpose Olympic type of stadium. Soccer and our Football don't mix. At least not here! And because it's, you know, soccer.
Original Byrd Man Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 Looking for some insight into this comment. If taken in context it seem ridiculous, since I'm not sure the Bills would or could stop the process now, and would have needed to know Mr. Wilson would pass when he did, not to have started at all. I hope this has not been discussed already. If so I apologize.
PromoTheRobot Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 (edited) Looking for some insight into this comment. If taken in context it seem ridiculous, since I'm not sure the Bills would or could stop the process now, and would have needed to know Mr. Wilson would pass when he did, not to have started at all. I hope this has not been discussed already. If so I apologize. I dont think it's a waste. The Bills need a functional stadium to play in and RWS had structural issues that had to be dealt with. And since they are at it they throw in some improvements that will generate income. $130M spread out over 10 years is $13M per year. They will probably make a good chunk of that back with the improved concessions and retail. Edited June 12, 2014 by PromoTheRobot
YoloinOhio Posted June 12, 2014 Author Posted June 12, 2014 I don't know what it is costing taxpayers since I don't live there but I don't think the Bills feel they need a new stadium yet which would be closer to a billion than 130 mill, and the Ralph needed updates until then. I know 130 mill is nothing to sneeze at, but if we don't get a new stadium in the next 7-10 years I think it was necessary.
SmokinES3 Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 (edited) I can't deny, besides the bathrooms, that the reno being a band aid on a bullet wound was my first reaction. Granted, I'm not an engineer... With due respect to Ralph, the timing seemed odd considering his age and health. I can certainly see how a spendthrift like Golisano could view it as a poor investment. Edited June 12, 2014 by SmokinES3
YoloinOhio Posted June 12, 2014 Author Posted June 12, 2014 I can't deny, besides the bathrooms, that the reno being a band aid on a bullet wound was my first reaction. Granted, I'm not an engineer... With due respect to Ralph, the timing seemed odd considering his age and health. I can certainly see how a spendthrift like Golisano could view it as a poor investment. So here's my question about the stadium issue... IF an owner like Golisano or Pegula who we believe would not move the team even after 2020 buys the Bills, does it matter what Goodell and the other owners think about the Bills needing a new stadium? Can the NFL force a team owner to build a new stadium if they don't want to?
Buftex Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 I don't think he is wrong. Not sure how his comments could have been taken out of context. One would have to assuem, given Mr Wilson's age (and recent health) that his days were not long. My theory: Goodell has gone on record (after Mr Wilson passed away) that the Bills would need a new stadium to ensure their long-term future in WNY. We dont know if Goodell meant that as a threat, or was just passing along "conventional" wisdom amongst NFL owners. Was it a threat? Golisano makes some comments confirming that he is going to make a bid on the Bills. He is rumoured to be working in partnership with Scott Congel, whose family owns a substantial amount of land in West Seneca. Rumors of a West Seneca stadium start to float out there...as the story of a Golisano/Congel partnership marinades, a fair amount of the negative information comes out about Congel, making a Golisano/Congel ownership seem a little shakey. Golisano (remember, this is all my theory) is still wants to make a bid on the Bills, but knows now, Congel can't be part of his plan...so he won't be getting any free, or discoutned land to build a new stadium for the Buffalo Bills. But, he still wants ownership.... realizing the NFL very much wanting a new stadium, and being wise to the financial enviorment in WNY, Golisano realizes that a tax-payer funded, brand new stadium is not likely to fly... he looks at the Ralph, and asks the obvious question...if the area can't afford to build and support a brand new stadium, but the NFL is sincere in saying they want the team to stay, why are the requiring a new stadium? If the rennovations being done, currently, at the Ralph are not sufficient, why is the money being wasted on the project? Now, it seems to me, Golisano is trying to warm people (by "people" I mean NFL officials) up to the notion that a rennovated Ralph Wilson Stadium shoule be a sufficient home for the Buffalo Bills for years to come. The notion seems to be gaining some traction, at least on a local level. The governor has since, openly questioned whether a brand new, tax payer funded stadium is really in the best interest of WNY, when the team already has a stadium... who knows what the rennovations will actually translate to...but the PR coming from the Bills, and people covering them, sure make it seem like the conversation has shifted from "lets keep the Bills in Buffalo" to "lets keep the Bills in Orchard Park".
SmokinES3 Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 So here's my question about the stadium issue... IF an owner like Golisano or Pegula who we believe would not move the team even after 2020 buys the Bills, does it matter what Goodell and the other owners think about the Bills needing a new stadium? Can the NFL force a team owner to build a new stadium if they don't want to? It's an interesting question. My first thought is the market would react accordingly to the decay and sales would wane on their own, but I think most of us enjoy the charm and tradition behind the Ralph being a POS. It's endearing to me anyway, it's OUR POS.
l< j Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 We need to clarify what public funds will entail. Typically when stadiums are built they try to avoid the "taxpayers" footing the bill. I keep reading on here how the state can't afford it, yada, yada, yada. Public funds will be generated from those using the facility. This comes in the form of a jock tax (basically taxing the players for working in that stadium). In addition, you often see a bed tax implemented that passes the cost to out of town visitors using the hotels. They can also use a portion of concession revenue. I am not sure how the Bills concession deal is structured but there is ample opportunity there as well I am sure. The private source of money often comes from PSLs or from those that will use the facility. I just am reading a lot of people giving a million reasons why a new stadium is impossible without really having an understanding of creative financing options that have taken place in other markets. There are just a few mentioned above but you get the idea. Can you clarify that? Only a couple of stadiums have worked to avoid passing costs to taxpayers that I am aware of. New England and the Meadowlands, I think. Working from memory here. Costs can be passed to taxpayers in a number of ways. Jerry Jones got a big boost with the stadium being financed by tax-free bonds issued by both the county and city. Cleveland just passed a sales tax to fund maintenance and upgrades to their 3 downtown facilities (plus the city is giving away use of parking lots to the Browns and letting the team sell naming rights to a stadium it doesn't own). Lots of stadiums are taxpayer supported, probably most. kj
YoloinOhio Posted June 12, 2014 Author Posted June 12, 2014 I don't think he is wrong. Not sure how his comments could have been taken out of context. One would have to assuem, given Mr Wilson's age (and recent health) that his days were not long. My theory: Goodell has gone on record (after Mr Wilson passed away) that the Bills would need a new stadium to ensure their long-term future in WNY. We dont know if Goodell meant that as a threat, or was just passing along "conventional" wisdom amongst NFL owners. Was it a threat? Golisano makes some comments confirming that he is going to make a bid on the Bills. He is rumoured to be working in partnership with Scott Congel, whose family owns a substantial amount of land in West Seneca. Rumors of a West Seneca stadium start to float out there...as the story of a Golisano/Congel partnership marinades, a fair amount of the negative information comes out about Congel, making a Golisano/Congel ownership seem a little shakey. Golisano (remember, this is all my theory) is still wants to make a bid on the Bills, but knows now, Congel can't be part of his plan...so he won't be getting any free, or discoutned land to build a new stadium for the Buffalo Bills. But, he still wants ownership.... realizing the NFL very much wanting a new stadium, and being wise to the financial enviorment in WNY, Golisano realizes that a tax-payer funded, brand new stadium is not likely to fly... he looks at the Ralph, and asks the obvious question...if the area can't afford to build and support a brand new stadium, but the NFL is sincere in saying they want the team to stay, why are the requiring a new stadium? If the rennovations being done, currently, at the Ralph are not sufficient, why is the money being wasted on the project? Now, it seems to me, Golisano is trying to warm people (by "people" I mean NFL officials) up to the notion that a rennovated Ralph Wilson Stadium shoule be a sufficient home for the Buffalo Bills for years to come. The notion seems to be gaining some traction, at least on a local level. The governor has since, openly questioned whether a brand new, tax payer funded stadium is really in the best interest of WNY, when the team already has a stadium... who knows what the rennovations will actually translate to...but the PR coming from the Bills, and people covering them, sure make it seem like the conversation has shifted from "lets keep the Bills in Buffalo" to "lets keep the Bills in Orchard Park". I agree it does seem this way
CodeMonkey Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 My theory: Goodell has gone on record (after Mr Wilson passed away) that the Bills would need a new stadium to ensure their long-term future in WNY. We dont know if Goodell meant that as a threat, or was just passing along "conventional" wisdom amongst NFL owners. Was it a threat? Golisano makes some comments confirming that he is going to make a bid on the Bills. He is rumoured to be working in partnership with Scott Congel, whose family owns a substantial amount of land in West Seneca. Rumors of a West Seneca stadium start to float out there...as the story of a Golisano/Congel partnership marinades, a fair amount of the negative information comes out about Congel, making a Golisano/Congel ownership seem a little shakey. Golisano (remember, this is all my theory) is still wants to make a bid on the Bills, but knows now, Congel can't be part of his plan...so he won't be getting any free, or discoutned land to build a new stadium for the Buffalo Bills. But, he still wants ownership.... realizing the NFL very much wanting a new stadium, and being wise to the financial enviorment in WNY, Golisano realizes that a tax-payer funded, brand new stadium is not likely to fly... he looks at the Ralph, and asks the obvious question...if the area can't afford to build and support a brand new stadium, but the NFL is sincere in saying they want the team to stay, why are the requiring a new stadium? If the rennovations being done, currently, at the Ralph are not sufficient, why is the money being wasted on the project? Now, it seems to me, Golisano is trying to warm people (by "people" I mean NFL officials) up to the notion that a rennovated Ralph Wilson Stadium shoule be a sufficient home for the Buffalo Bills for years to come. The notion seems to be gaining some traction, at least on a local level. The governor has since, openly questioned whether a brand new, tax payer funded stadium is really in the best interest of WNY, when the team already has a stadium... who knows what the rennovations will actually translate to...but the PR coming from the Bills, and people covering them, sure make it seem like the conversation has shifted from "lets keep the Bills in Buffalo" to "lets keep the Bills in Orchard Park". I saw an interview on the local news with Golisano and he denied any business discussions with Congel regarding the Bills at all. It seemed to be a media inference that he denied. He did question the whole renovations thing like you are saying. The way he said it he was questioning the due diligence (or competence) of Erie County. He was questioning why renovations were being done on the Ralph at the same time the NFL was stating a new stadium was necessary. In his opinion based on what the NFL was saying, the county was flushing money down the toilet.
Kelly the Dog Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 I saw an interview on the local news with Golisano and he denied any business discussions with Congel regarding the Bills at all. It seemed to be a media inference that he denied. He did question the whole renovations thing like you are saying. The way he said it he was questioning the due diligence (or competence) of Erie County. He was questioning why renovations were being done on the Ralph at the same time the NFL was stating a new stadium was necessary. In his opinion based on what the NFL was saying, the county was flushing money down the toilet. That seemed to me like it was a stupid thing for Golisano to say. 1] The lease had the improvements contingent in, and that was done a couple years ago. 2] While Ralph was in his 90s, no one in the NFL, or with the Bills, or county, or anywhere, rightfully, is going to do something while he is still alive and owned the Bills (as far as seriously discussing a new stadium). 3] When Ralph passed and a new owner is imminent, that is when, and only when the NFL did and should have said that a new stadium is likely needed to keep the Bills here long term. In essence, two years ago, the new lease had to be done. Something had to be done to the old stadium. No one could talk about a new stadium while Ralph still owned the team. As soon as Ralph would no longer own the team, the discussion of a new stadium had to be forefront.
CodeMonkey Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 (edited) That seemed to me like it was a stupid thing for Golisano to say. 1] The lease had the improvements contingent in, and that was done a couple years ago. 2] While Ralph was in his 90s, no one in the NFL, or with the Bills, or county, or anywhere, rightfully, is going to do something while he is still alive and owned the Bills (as far as seriously discussing a new stadium). 3] When Ralph passed and a new owner is imminent, that is when, and only when the NFL did and should have said that a new stadium is likely needed to keep the Bills here long term. In essence, two years ago, the new lease had to be done. Something had to be done to the old stadium. No one could talk about a new stadium while Ralph still owned the team. As soon as Ralph would no longer own the team, the discussion of a new stadium had to be forefront. Right but the question beckons as to why they (they being the Bills as well as the county) would write stadium improvements into a lease knowing (or at least they should have known had they looked into it privately if not publicly) a new stadium would almost certainly be required in the near future. It's not stupid at all in my opinion. Any good businessman would have the same question. I suppose you could argue that it was stupid, or at least politically incorrect. for him to make that statement to the press instead of just thinking it himself Edited June 12, 2014 by CodeMonkey
Kelly the Dog Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 (edited) Right but the question beckons as to why they (they being the Bills as well as the county) would write stadium improvements into a lease knowing (or at least they should have known had they looked into it privately if not publicly) a new stadium would almost certainly be required in the near future. It's not stupid at all in my opinion. Any good businessman would have the same question. I suppose you could argue that it was stupid, or at least politically incorrect. for him to make that statement to the press instead of just thinking it himself It was just a matter of timing. Ralph could have lived another five years or more. The lease had to be done then, and there needed to be improvements at some point in the more than ten years before a new stadium is up and ready to be used. Ralph, and the Bills insisted on a lot of this stuff or they wouldn't sign the lease. It was a way for Ralph and the county to make the Bills stay in Buffalo, as well as keep the league at bay for a decade or more about the stadium being inadequate. Put it this way. A stadium costs say, 750m - 1b, but its lifespan is only 30-40 years. Most times a lot less. 130m for 10 more years is not a waste. Edited June 12, 2014 by Kelly the Dog
Mr. WEO Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 It was just a matter of timing. Ralph could have lived another five years or more. The lease had to be done then, and there needed to be improvements at some point in the more than ten years before a new stadium is up and ready to be used. Ralph, and the Bills insisted on a lot of this stuff or they wouldn't sign the lease. It was a way for Ralph and the county to make the Bills stay in Buffalo, as well as keep the league at bay for a decade or more about the stadium being inadequate. Put it this way. A stadium costs say, 750m - 1b, but its lifespan is only 30-40 years. Most times a lot less. 130m for 10 more years is not a waste. A new stadium is still 8 more years away? That was the driving conclusion behind the agreement to fund renovations? Because two years ago, I can't imagine there was a single person on either side of that lease agreement who believed Wilson would, even at that point, live another 5 years.
Kelly the Dog Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 A new stadium is still 8 more years away? That was the driving conclusion behind the agreement to fund renovations? Because two years ago, I can't imagine there was a single person on either side of that lease agreement who believed Wilson would, even at that point, live another 5 years. It's still eight years away, what's your point? It will be a year before the new owner is here and completely immersed. It will be another year or two before they decide on a site. Another year to haggle over who will fund the thing. Another year for environmental issues and political wrangling. Another year before the plans are done. Another two years before the groundbreaking and the thing is built and ready for play.
Recommended Posts