TSNBDSC Posted June 22, 2014 Posted June 22, 2014 (edited) Does he have an agenda ? "Be afraid. Be very afraid." Really ? http://www.buffalone...wo-bills-drive. Seems to be anti Buffalo Bills under the guise of raising taxes, etc. Thoughts please. Stayin Edited June 23, 2014 by tsnbd
klos63 Posted June 22, 2014 Posted June 22, 2014 I'm not a big Esmonde fan, however this article makes a lot of sense.
Rubes Posted June 22, 2014 Posted June 22, 2014 Do you object to anything in particular that he says, or do you just object to his anti-new stadium stance?
plenzmd1 Posted June 22, 2014 Posted June 22, 2014 He does seem to me to be a tad bit of a negative nancy, however i agree the Bills do not need a new stadium. Count me in the retrofit crowd, but i fear some of that may come just from me loving the Ralph
bananathumb Posted June 22, 2014 Posted June 22, 2014 He's only saying what most taxpayers are thinking. Doesn't everyone feel rich owners should pay for their own damn stadiums? Is there anyone who is fine with giving Trump or his ilk their tax dollars to become richer?
Kirby Jackson Posted June 22, 2014 Posted June 22, 2014 (edited) I could destroy his column but I am going to give him a semi-pass; he is ignorant. When he refers to public funds he is assuming the state writes a check and it comes from our pockets. That isn't how it works. If they pass along along an 8% jock tax over 30 years, a bed tax in hotels, an airport tax and a % of concessions within the stadium you have funded an entire stadium with "public funds." You just pass the cost off to those that use it. This does not even go into owner contribution or PSL. His most misguided point is about people clamoring for "premium seats." While duh, who wants to pay double to sit in a corner section of the Jim Kelly Club instead of sitting 30 rows up at the 50 yard line? The reason that the premium seats haven't been more successful is because there are viable alternatives that are much less $. In the new stadium the best locations will have a PSL in my opinion ($5K paid over 5 years for example). The stadium will be scaled much differently from a pricing and benefits standpoint. The Bills haven't been able to do this. It isn't because they didn't think that it would work. It would have been far to risky to make that drastic of a change. Who knows how much revenue you would have lost doing it? The clean slate of a new stadium will solve this problem. The best locations will be offered by seniority at a higher price and everyone will "fall into place." The best seats will be filled 1st by who can afford them and 2nd by how long they have been there (not the other way around as it presently stands). They will have zero problem selling those. He uses some random example where the Bills raise the suite prices by $110k. You don't think that the Bills know what the market will bear? Of course they do!! This is just a weak attempt at scaring the masses. I am going to leave it at that but this column is way off base. I wouldn't take anything too seriously if written by those without a thorough understanding. Stick to the stuff written by JW, Kryk and TG. Those guys have a much better understanding of the situation. EDIT: I have said it before but I really wish someone would interview Dr. Shawn O'Rourke from Canisius on the topic. He is the Dean of the Sport Administration Masters program and knows this stuff inside and out. In addition, he knows the market. Edited June 22, 2014 by Kirby Jackson
Kellyto83TD Posted June 22, 2014 Posted June 22, 2014 Does he have an agenda ? "Be afraid. Be very afraid." Really ? http://www.buffalone...wo-bills-drive. Seems to anti Buffalo Bills under the guise of raising taxes, etc. Thoughts please. Stayin If you are referring to this article.. http://www.buffalonews.com/columns/donn-esmonde/is-a-new-bills-stadium-another-dreaded-silver-bullet-20140621?two-bills-drive The man is 100% spot on. WNY can NOT support a new stadium. There is no 'Agenda' other than TRUTH. The Bills do NOT need a new stadium period. It is nothing but BS in my opinion to give the new owner an out when the lease expires IF he waits that long ( I still stand by what I have been told by a couple attorneys that the lease is BS and can be beat in court). I could destroy his column but I am going to give him a semi-pass; he is ignorant. When he refers to public funds he is assuming the state writes a check and it comes from our pockets. That isn't how it works. If they pass along along an 8% jock tax over 30 years, a bed tax in hotels, an airport tax and a % of concessions within the stadium you have funded an entire stadium with "public funds." You just pass the cost off to those that use it. This does not even go into owner contribution or PSL. His most misguided point is about people clamoring for "premium seats." While duh, who wants to pay double to sit in a corner section of the Jim Kelly Club instead of sitting 30 rows up at the 50 yard line? The reason that the premium seats haven't been more successful is because there are viable alternatives that are much less $. In the new stadium the best locations will have a PSL in my opinion ($5K paid over 5 years for example). The stadium will be scaled much differently from a pricing and benefits standpoint. The Bills haven't been able to do this. It isn't because they didn't think that it would work. It would have been far to risky to make that drastic of a change. Who knows how much revenue you would have lost doing it? The clean slate of a new stadium will solve this problem. The best locations will be offered by seniority at a higher price and everyone will "fall into place." The best seats will be filled 1st by who can afford them and 2nd by how long they have been there (not the other way around as it presently stands). They will have zero problem selling those. He uses some random example where the Bills raise the suite prices by $110k. You don't think that the Bills know what the market will bear? Of course they do!! This is just a weak attempt at scaring the masses. I am going to leave it at that but this column is way off base. I wouldn't take anything too seriously if written by those without a thorough understanding. Stick to the stuff written by JW, Kryk and TG. Those guys have a much better understanding of the situation. Thanks for the pseudo intellect response. Facts and reality says the Bills do not need a new stadium, and they also support the FACT WNY really can't afford one. But hey, fantasy land is a much better place than reality.
Kirby Jackson Posted June 22, 2014 Posted June 22, 2014 (edited) Thanks for the pseudo intellect response. Facts and reality says the Bills do not need a new stadium, and they also support the FACT WNY really can't afford one. But hey, fantasy land is a much better place than reality. What about my post do you take issue with specifically? My master's degree in Sports Management makes me 100 times more qualified to speak on the topic than Donn Esmonde and the people at the Bills know it 200 times better than I do. Edited June 22, 2014 by Kirby Jackson
Green Lightning Posted June 22, 2014 Posted June 22, 2014 If you are referring to this article.. http://www.buffalonews.com/columns/donn-esmonde/is-a-new-bills-stadium-another-dreaded-silver-bullet-20140621?two-bills-drive The man is 100% spot on. WNY can NOT support a new stadium. There is no 'Agenda' other than TRUTH. The Bills do NOT need a new stadium period. It is nothing but BS in my opinion to give the new owner an out when the lease expires IF he waits that long ( I still stand by what I have been told by a couple attorneys that the lease is BS and can be beat in court). Thanks for the pseudo intellect response. Facts and reality says the Bills do not need a new stadium, and they also support the FACT WNY really can't afford one. But hey, fantasy land is a much better place than reality. Wow, if you've been told by a "couple of attorneys" ...well that settles that doesn't it? Incredible the connections you have...I mean couple, more than one attorney! Who are we to argue in the face of that?
purple haze Posted June 22, 2014 Posted June 22, 2014 (edited) If you are referring to this article.. http://www.buffalone...two-bills-drive The man is 100% spot on. WNY can NOT support a new stadium. There is no 'Agenda' other than TRUTH. The Bills do NOT need a new stadium period. It is nothing but BS in my opinion to give the new owner an out when the lease expires IF he waits that long ( I still stand by what I have been told by a couple attorneys that the lease is BS and can be beat in court). Thanks for the pseudo intellect response. Facts and reality says the Bills do not need a new stadium, and they also support the FACT WNY really can't afford one. But hey, fantasy land is a much better place than reality. A new stadium is probably going to be built. When it is are you not going to show up to any games? I will also say, no one knows how the new stadium would be paid for. Do we know the new owner/ownership group won't put up the money or a majority of it? A hundred thousand seat stadium? Nah, Buffalo couldn't support that. A 65,000 seat stadium? Why not? You don't think there are people who could afford the potential PSL's? I do. IF the atmosphere at the new stadium is different than at Rich/Ralph. I think many fans stay away because of the drunkards and the fights. Easier to watch the game at home for someone who feels that way. As a fan of the team, I like Rich/Ralph. Great sight-lines. I like the atmosphere for the most part too. I don't think they need a new stadium per se. But I'm not opposed to one being built either. The modern NFL is the modern NFL and, although the bottom line facet of that is, at times, disgusting, Buffalo has to step up and be a part of the modern NFL. If Buffalo wants to be a part of the NFL going forward. It is what it is. I also get tired of always hearing what Buffalo/WNY can't do. What can Buffalo/WNY do? At what point does the future become embraced and a vision set and built upon? And your couple attorneys don't mean much. You could find a couple more who would tell you the lease is what it's been said to be. Attorneys are like salesmen. They believe they can always make a case one way or the other that might be successful. Breaking that lease is unlikely. I think it's a moot issue at this point. Now if a new stadium is not built or a retrofit not done that could be a tipping point at a certain point in the lease. If Pegula or Golisano win the bid, that point is also moot. I would bet Pegula is going to win the bid; he's everything the league is said to want in terms of cash flow. He's a known entity to the trust. He's a known entity, reportedly, by league owners too. I don't believe we have anything to worry about at this stage of the game. Edited June 22, 2014 by purple haze
Peter Posted June 22, 2014 Posted June 22, 2014 Sometimes, I think the Buffalo News does not want the Bills to stay in Buffalo.
jupiterreef Posted June 22, 2014 Posted June 22, 2014 Donn Esmonde artice is spot on. Sorry BILLS fans, but the artice is true, but ugly.
l< j Posted June 22, 2014 Posted June 22, 2014 I could destroy his column but I am going to give him a semi-pass; he is ignorant. When he refers to public funds he is assuming the state writes a check and it comes from our pockets. That isn't how it works. If they pass along along an 8% jock tax over 30 years, a bed tax in hotels, an airport tax and a % of concessions within the stadium you have funded an entire stadium with "public funds." You just pass the cost off to those that use it. This does not even go into owner contribution or PSL. Informed opinions are good. Thank you. And this is exactly the kind of public funding that should be used to build stadiums and that I would favor. It should not be a part of the local or state government's obligation to fund. As you say, the users or those who directly benefit pay for it. A couple of follow-ups, though: Have we seen this model used elsewhere, without major goosing from government funds? Is there enough cash flow here to cover the debt? Is the jock tax established law, or likely to be challenged? I remember that some state somewhere was moving away from a jock tax because of a legal challenge (sorry about my memory). kj
Malazan Posted June 22, 2014 Posted June 22, 2014 (edited) The Buffalo News reporters people who write words will be the cast members for Grumpy Old Men 3 Edited June 22, 2014 by jeremy2020
Kirby Jackson Posted June 22, 2014 Posted June 22, 2014 (edited) Informed opinions are good. Thank you. And this is exactly the kind of public funding that should be used to build stadiums and that I would favor. It should not be a part of the local or state government's obligation to fund. As you say, the users or those who directly benefit pay for it. A couple of follow-ups, though: Have we seen this model used elsewhere, without major goosing from government funds? Is there enough cash flow here to cover the debt? Is the jock tax established law, or likely to be challenged? I remember that some state somewhere was moving away from a jock tax because of a legal challenge (sorry about my memory). kj No problem, the jock tax is around now. I believe that Tennessee was the state that went away from it but I am not positive. The players obviously don't like it but it is what it is. You are basically paying a state tax to work in that state. If you figure that the cap is $133M (sure to go up over 30 years but let's use that for our conservative baseline). The visiting teams will play 10 games a year in WNY (unless they increase the schedule). If each team pays out 13,300,000 per game and you take 8% of that over 30 year you are generating over $319M. Again, it is dumbed down a little but you get the point. The numbers can certainly be tweaked in whatever way you choose. It's certainly a good starting point though if we are talking about an $800M stadium (which for some reason is the number in my head). It has been used before to do this. You will probably face some pushback from the athletes but I think that the state would like it in this case. If they can target this money to be invested to fund a public stadium instead of a private entity you will probably be fine. Edited June 22, 2014 by Kirby Jackson
BillnutinHouston Posted June 22, 2014 Posted June 22, 2014 His most misguided point is about people clamoring for "premium seats." While duh, who wants to pay double to sit in a corner section of the Jim Kelly Club instead of sitting 30 rows up at the 50 yard line? The reason that the premium seats haven't been more successful is because there are viable alternatives that are much less $. In the new stadium the best locations will have a PSL in my opinion ($5K paid over 5 years for example). The stadium will be scaled much differently from a pricing and benefits standpoint. The Bills haven't been able to do this. It isn't because they didn't think that it would work. It would have been far to risky to make that drastic of a change. Who knows how much revenue you would have lost doing it? The clean slate of a new stadium will solve this problem. The best locations will be offered by seniority at a higher price and everyone will "fall into place." The best seats will be filled 1st by who can afford them and 2nd by how long they have been there (not the other way around as it presently stands). They will have zero problem selling those. You are 100% correct about this. Any doubters need only look at the seating plans for the Vikings new stadium. Those plans are fascinating. In a new stadium configuration you will pay much more than the current $900 per year for season tickets between the 35s, but you also may have access to the corridor area where the players walk by so you get the chance to high five the players. People will pay for this type of experience. I will.
Kirby Jackson Posted June 22, 2014 Posted June 22, 2014 (edited) You are 100% correct about this. Any doubters need only look at the seating plans for the Vikings new stadium. Those plans are fascinating. In a new stadium configuration you will pay much more than the current $900 per year for season tickets between the 35s, but you also may have access to the corridor area where the players walk by so you get the chance to high five the players. People will pay for this type of experience. I will. I actually think that this is one of the main reasons that they need a new stadium. They need to rescale so that their prime real estate is priced more accordingly. In a lot of ways they are like rent controlled apartments in NY. I am not saying that they need to go crazy with the pricing but it is WAY off the rest of the league. It actually hurts their higher priced inventory currently (clubs). Edited June 22, 2014 by Kirby Jackson
thebandit27 Posted June 22, 2014 Posted June 22, 2014 FWIW, I spoke with a fellow involved with the stadium process over the weekend... It is absolutely, most certainly feasible with even a small contribution from ownership and relatively I expensive PSLs. Esmonde is simply incorrect about the "truth"...so far exactly zero people have provided any financial analysis supporting the idea that a new stadium is not economically feasible.
Kirby Jackson Posted June 22, 2014 Posted June 22, 2014 FWIW, I spoke with a fellow involved with the stadium process over the weekend... It is absolutely, most certainly feasible with even a small contribution from ownership and relatively I expensive PSLs. Esmonde is simply incorrect about the "truth"...so far exactly zero people have provided any financial analysis supporting the idea that a new stadium is not economically feasible. I dunno Bandit, he said it so it must be true. He asked an anonymous guy if he would pay $110k more for the same thing and he said no. So there's that great piece of investigative journalism....
Wayne Cubed Posted June 22, 2014 Posted June 22, 2014 I dunno Bandit, he said it so it must be true. He asked an anonymous guy if he would pay $110k more for the same thing and he said no. So there's that great piece of investigative journalism.... C'mon Kirby you just aren't speaking in facts, I talked to 3 attorneys who have backed me about it. </sarcasm>
Recommended Posts