jeanbe Posted January 17, 2015 Posted January 17, 2015 What would happen to the top-notch training center and field house if they built downtown, for example? Would they be able to move it all? This is interesting. I live in PHX and the Cards training facilities are really nice and top notch in Tempe, AZ where the Cards played for years before moving to Glendale AZ. many ov the Card players still live in the Tempe/Ahwatukee area of PHX and drive the 40 miles to Glendale on game day. I don't see why it would be different in Buffalo with less miles between training and downtown stadium.
Heitz Posted January 17, 2015 Posted January 17, 2015 When the Bills move out of The Ralph, does anyone want to go in and rent it as a condo? I WILL move back to Buffalo for that Hammer, bring the whole family - the the Lot just got HUGE! No pressure on Kenny, I would expect he'll move the tailgate to downtown, but maybe we can still do Saturday's at Hammer's, er, my condo's parking lot? Flag football games all year. A huge garage, for all my 1 Jeep. GIANT TV - think of the video game tourneys and movie nights? It's gonna be great, who's IN?
joshfitz Posted January 17, 2015 Posted January 17, 2015 Like Rex, I am completely dumbfounded at the quality of the facilities. After pissing in troughs filled with human feces a few years ago, I did NOT expect that the "behind-the-scenes" video would be so amazing, and feature a high quality, high tech, look at OBD. This just makes me more excited for the season, and makes me think we're even more capable of attracting bigger, better talent (as long as they don't use the public restrooms).
Chandler#81 Posted January 17, 2015 Posted January 17, 2015 I've loved seeing games at the Ralph for years, but I am 100% behind a downtown Buffalo roofed stadium. Ditto.
zonabb Posted January 17, 2015 Posted January 17, 2015 When I hear statements like "revenue generation" I immediately wonder "who" is expected to increase the revenue generation? It seems to me, based on some simple math assumptions that a debt free stadium with 40,000+ season tickets holders, close to 2100% club seat and suite occupancy has to, even with some of the lowest ticket prices, generate a good deal of revenue. Increased revenue does not equal increased profit because you have to account for the money Pegula would have to spend to build a new stadium. So if he spends $700 million to build a new stadium to make more revenue, he's now got to jack prices through the roof to get to the current level of profit from the existing stadium. That brings me to the next question.... "who" fills it? Let me be clear, this region is still stagnating and has been since 1970. The regional population (two counties) has declined since 1970 while the Erie County population has basically been unchanged. Businesses continue to leave and those opening are lower end services and retail. So who is willing to spend more, much more, so Pegula can actually make more profit than he is now when he has zero stadium debt and will incur debt with a new one? PSLs anyone? Not this season ticket holder. It comes down to opportunity costs for these guys. If they spend $700M on a stadium, they expect a return they could get spending the same $700 on another investment. Typically a 10% return is viable (I know a major multibillion dollar company where no project is considered without a 15% return). So is the Bills make, as some had argued, $30 million a year with no stadium debt and need to make $70M (10% of a the $700M stadium investment) that's $40M a year from the stadium, which in this market seems highly unlikely. If that return isn't possible, it brings us to private profit and socialized debt. When league owners seek new stadiums and cry poor for govt help, it's not that they can't make money, it's that they have an expectation to make the same level of profit they did on the old, paid off stadium. In order for them to do so, they need the govt to step in socialize debt to ensure the return they expect. So before we anoint Terry and Kim Pegula as saviors, let's see how this plays out. Here's what's happened to the NFL, and we can see it with the Sabres already. It's become a spectator sport for the wealthy. They've sterilized the environment for the wealthy who consume Sabres games conspicuously as a status symbol. I used to go a ton as a young hockey player, sit in the oranges and upper blue and enjoy the atmosphere of all dedicated, involved passionate fans. Now a Sabres game is a social event. More talking in the stands than anything. Women dressed to the nines spending the night on their phones. The atmosphere sucks. But its sold out because its a status symbol, no more no less. That is the model Jerry Jones has employed and by many accts, his ticket prices are so high they owners sell their seats to out of town fans who want to make the trek to that place just to see it. It's a tourist attraction and made Jones millions (of course with a handout). But the atmosphere has suffered and the longstanding fans who can't afford it got pushed out. So the model is to sterilize the atmosphere to bring in the high enders who just want the status that comes with it and are willing to pay the high prices. Good for business, yes. But many here are clamoring for a new stadium because they think it's just gonna be the same vibe and fans in a new stadium. It won't. Not even close. It hasn't happened for Dallas or either of the NY teams, in particular the Jets. As a fan, I don't need a new stadium. I spend 3 hours in a seat staring at a field. I don't need expensive microbrews (I love em but don't need em), I would never eat at a game (who the hell tries to eat chicken wings at a game or better yey what self-respecting Buffalonian would waste their money). I don't need a multimillion dollar scoreboard just dedicated to fantasy stats. I don't need my eardrums shattered at every whistle by the blaring music. I need a seat, a field, a the team I'm rooting for. I've said in a few posts... you look at the EPL model. These guys are playing stadiums built in the late 1800s that continually get updated. For many, tickets are super high priced and super hard to get. The culture of the sport is what matters. Here it's the culture of consumption and constant stimulation that is ruining the stadium experience. In fact, I laugh at people who say soccer is too boring. Read this and tell me what's boring: http://www.sportsgrid.com/nfl/pie-chart-actual-football-watching-nfl-game-vs-replays-commercials-etc/I guess that's why they have to divert your attention... you're paying thousands of dollars a year for 8 games that each have 11 minutes of game action. That's 88 minutes of action, or less than one entire EPL game, which by the way can be viewed commercial free in less than two hours.
T master Posted January 17, 2015 Posted January 17, 2015 I just wonder what will happen to the Ralph if they in fact do build a new stadium down town ? Willa ll of that $130 Mill in renovations just sit & go to ruin ? I have been to the Ralph recently & i don't get it , the place seems to me to be in pretty good shape & there doesn't seem to be a bad seat as far as sight lines in the place . You can see the field well from any angle , the Jim Kelly lounge was happening when i was there a couple of years ago . Now with the new store i can only imagine how much better it must be . But the NFL wants a new stadium so LET THE NFL PAY FOR IT !! If Roger gave up part of his $44 million contract & each team put in part of the revenue from the TV contract & then get some reality when it comes to the players contracts i think each stadium could be paid for in a big part by the NFL seeing as they ultimately get most of the profits ...
dwight in philly Posted January 17, 2015 Posted January 17, 2015 When I hear statements like "revenue generation" I immediately wonder "who" is expected to increase the revenue generation? It seems to me, based on some simple math assumptions that a debt free stadium with 40,000+ season tickets holders, close to 2100% club seat and suite occupancy has to, even with some of the lowest ticket prices, generate a good deal of revenue. Increased revenue does not equal increased profit because you have to account for the money Pegula would have to spend to build a new stadium. So if he spends $700 million to build a new stadium to make more revenue, he's now got to jack prices through the roof to get to the current level of profit from the existing stadium. That brings me to the next question.... "who" fills it? Let me be clear, this region is still stagnating and has been since 1970. The regional population (two counties) has declined since 1970 while the Erie County population has basically been unchanged. Businesses continue to leave and those opening are lower end services and retail. So who is willing to spend more, much more, so Pegula can actually make more profit than he is now when he has zero stadium debt and will incur debt with a new one? PSLs anyone? Not this season ticket holder. It comes down to opportunity costs for these guys. If they spend $700M on a stadium, they expect a return they could get spending the same $700 on another investment. Typically a 10% return is viable (I know a major multibillion dollar company where no project is considered without a 15% return). So is the Bills make, as some had argued, $30 million a year with no stadium debt and need to make $70M (10% of a the $700M stadium investment) that's $40M a year from the stadium, which in this market seems highly unlikely. If that return isn't possible, it brings us to private profit and socialized debt. When league owners seek new stadiums and cry poor for govt help, it's not that they can't make money, it's that they have an expectation to make the same level of profit they did on the old, paid off stadium. In order for them to do so, they need the govt to step in socialize debt to ensure the return they expect. So before we anoint Terry and Kim Pegula as saviors, let's see how this plays out. Here's what's happened to the NFL, and we can see it with the Sabres already. It's become a spectator sport for the wealthy. They've sterilized the environment for the wealthy who consume Sabres games conspicuously as a status symbol. I used to go a ton as a young hockey player, sit in the oranges and upper blue and enjoy the atmosphere of all dedicated, involved passionate fans. Now a Sabres game is a social event. More talking in the stands than anything. Women dressed to the nines spending the night on their phones. The atmosphere sucks. But its sold out because its a status symbol, no more no less. That is the model Jerry Jones has employed and by many accts, his ticket prices are so high they owners sell their seats to out of town fans who want to make the trek to that place just to see it. It's a tourist attraction and made Jones millions (of course with a handout). But the atmosphere has suffered and the longstanding fans who can't afford it got pushed out. So the model is to sterilize the atmosphere to bring in the high enders who just want the status that comes with it and are willing to pay the high prices. Good for business, yes. But many here are clamoring for a new stadium because they think it's just gonna be the same vibe and fans in a new stadium. It won't. Not even close. It hasn't happened for Dallas or either of the NY teams, in particular the Jets. As a fan, I don't need a new stadium. I spend 3 hours in a seat staring at a field. I don't need expensive microbrews (I love em but don't need em), I would never eat at a game (who the hell tries to eat chicken wings at a game or better yey what self-respecting Buffalonian would waste their money). I don't need a multimillion dollar scoreboard just dedicated to fantasy stats. I don't need my eardrums shattered at every whistle by the blaring music. I need a seat, a field, a the team I'm rooting for. I've said in a few posts... you look at the EPL model. These guys are playing stadiums built in the late 1800s that continually get updated. For many, tickets are super high priced and super hard to get. The culture of the sport is what matters. Here it's the culture of consumption and constant stimulation that is ruining the stadium experience. In fact, I laugh at people who say soccer is too boring. Read this and tell me what's boring: http://www.sportsgrid.com/nfl/pie-chart-actual-football-watching-nfl-game-vs-replays-commercials-etc/I guess that's why they have to divert your attention... you're paying thousands of dollars a year for 8 games that each have 11 minutes of game action. That's 88 minutes of action, or less than one entire EPL game, which by the way can be viewed commercial free in less than two hours. very well stated.. one of the best analysis i have seen on here regarding the stadium situation..
ALF Posted January 17, 2015 Posted January 17, 2015 I would think FA's would rather go to a roof stadium and drafted players would want to stay. It's up to Terry and Kim, just like Ralph vetoed a dome .
freeagentqb Posted January 17, 2015 Posted January 17, 2015 I worked downtown for years and the weather always seemed worse there, with the winds coming off the lake. I think any stadium built in that area needs to be covered, The swirling winds are bad in the Ralph but they'd be worse in downtown Buffalo. The games would be a real mess. Besides, we need to have a facility that can host more than 8-10 events a year.
eball Posted January 17, 2015 Posted January 17, 2015 very well stated.. one of the best analysis i have seen on here regarding the stadium situation.. I don't know that it's an analysis so much as it is his opinion...well supported, but just an opinion. Many disagree.
dwight in philly Posted January 17, 2015 Posted January 17, 2015 I don't know that it's an analysis so much as it is his opinion...well supported, but just an opinion. Many disagree. analysis? opinion? whatever you deem worthy of calling it, i happen to agree with it and am aware many disagree..
TAinLack. Posted January 17, 2015 Posted January 17, 2015 When I hear statements like "revenue generation" I immediately wonder "who" is expected to increase the revenue generation? It seems to me, based on some simple math assumptions that a debt free stadium with 40,000+ season tickets holders, close to 2100% club seat and suite occupancy has to, even with some of the lowest ticket prices, generate a good deal of revenue. Increased revenue does not equal increased profit because you have to account for the money Pegula would have to spend to build a new stadium. So if he spends $700 million to build a new stadium to make more revenue, he's now got to jack prices through the roof to get to the current level of profit from the existing stadium. That brings me to the next question.... "who" fills it? Let me be clear, this region is still stagnating and has been since 1970. The regional population (two counties) has declined since 1970 while the Erie County population has basically been unchanged. Businesses continue to leave and those opening are lower end services and retail. So who is willing to spend more, much more, so Pegula can actually make more profit than he is now when he has zero stadium debt and will incur debt with a new one? PSLs anyone? Not this season ticket holder. It comes down to opportunity costs for these guys. If they spend $700M on a stadium, they expect a return they could get spending the same $700 on another investment. Typically a 10% return is viable (I know a major multibillion dollar company where no project is considered without a 15% return). So is the Bills make, as some had argued, $30 million a year with no stadium debt and need to make $70M (10% of a the $700M stadium investment) that's $40M a year from the stadium, which in this market seems highly unlikely. If that return isn't possible, it brings us to private profit and socialized debt. When league owners seek new stadiums and cry poor for govt help, it's not that they can't make money, it's that they have an expectation to make the same level of profit they did on the old, paid off stadium. In order for them to do so, they need the govt to step in socialize debt to ensure the return they expect. So before we anoint Terry and Kim Pegula as saviors, let's see how this plays out. Here's what's happened to the NFL, and we can see it with the Sabres already. It's become a spectator sport for the wealthy. They've sterilized the environment for the wealthy who consume Sabres games conspicuously as a status symbol. I used to go a ton as a young hockey player, sit in the oranges and upper blue and enjoy the atmosphere of all dedicated, involved passionate fans. Now a Sabres game is a social event. More talking in the stands than anything. Women dressed to the nines spending the night on their phones. The atmosphere sucks. But its sold out because its a status symbol, no more no less. That is the model Jerry Jones has employed and by many accts, his ticket prices are so high they owners sell their seats to out of town fans who want to make the trek to that place just to see it. It's a tourist attraction and made Jones millions (of course with a handout). But the atmosphere has suffered and the longstanding fans who can't afford it got pushed out. So the model is to sterilize the atmosphere to bring in the high enders who just want the status that comes with it and are willing to pay the high prices. Good for business, yes. But many here are clamoring for a new stadium because they think it's just gonna be the same vibe and fans in a new stadium. It won't. Not even close. It hasn't happened for Dallas or either of the NY teams, in particular the Jets. As a fan, I don't need a new stadium. I spend 3 hours in a seat staring at a field. I don't need expensive microbrews (I love em but don't need em), I would never eat at a game (who the hell tries to eat chicken wings at a game or better yey what self-respecting Buffalonian would waste their money). I don't need a multimillion dollar scoreboard just dedicated to fantasy stats. I don't need my eardrums shattered at every whistle by the blaring music. I need a seat, a field, a the team I'm rooting for. I've said in a few posts... you look at the EPL model. These guys are playing stadiums built in the late 1800s that continually get updated. For many, tickets are super high priced and super hard to get. The culture of the sport is what matters. Here it's the culture of consumption and constant stimulation that is ruining the stadium experience. In fact, I laugh at people who say soccer is too boring. Read this and tell me what's boring: http://www.sportsgrid.com/nfl/pie-chart-actual-football-watching-nfl-game-vs-replays-commercials-etc/I guess that's why they have to divert your attention... you're paying thousands of dollars a year for 8 games that each have 11 minutes of game action. That's 88 minutes of action, or less than one entire EPL game, which by the way can be viewed commercial free in less than two hours. Valid points, Zonabb. Even though I don't like the current location of our stadium because their is very little around it, it looks like a fine facility. Small point to add, even though we haven't played a playoff game here in an eternity, there is something special about playing football here in the cold and snow!
Kirby Jackson Posted January 17, 2015 Posted January 17, 2015 (edited) When I hear statements like "revenue generation" I immediately wonder "who" is expected to increase the revenue generation? It seems to me, based on some simple math assumptions that a debt free stadium with 40,000+ season tickets holders, close to 2100% club seat and suite occupancy has to, even with some of the lowest ticket prices, generate a good deal of revenue. Increased revenue does not equal increased profit because you have to account for the money Pegula would have to spend to build a new stadium. So if he spends $700 million to build a new stadium to make more revenue, he's now got to jack prices through the roof to get to the current level of profit from the existing stadium. That brings me to the next question.... "who" fills it? Let me be clear, this region is still stagnating and has been since 1970. The regional population (two counties) has declined since 1970 while the Erie County population has basically been unchanged. Businesses continue to leave and those opening are lower end services and retail. So who is willing to spend more, much more, so Pegula can actually make more profit than he is now when he has zero stadium debt and will incur debt with a new one? PSLs anyone? Not this season ticket holder. It comes down to opportunity costs for these guys. If they spend $700M on a stadium, they expect a return they could get spending the same $700 on another investment. Typically a 10% return is viable (I know a major multibillion dollar company where no project is considered without a 15% return). So is the Bills make, as some had argued, $30 million a year with no stadium debt and need to make $70M (10% of a the $700M stadium investment) that's $40M a year from the stadium, which in this market seems highly unlikely. If that return isn't possible, it brings us to private profit and socialized debt. When league owners seek new stadiums and cry poor for govt help, it's not that they can't make money, it's that they have an expectation to make the same level of profit they did on the old, paid off stadium. In order for them to do so, they need the govt to step in socialize debt to ensure the return they expect. So before we anoint Terry and Kim Pegula as saviors, let's see how this plays out. Here's what's happened to the NFL, and we can see it with the Sabres already. It's become a spectator sport for the wealthy. They've sterilized the environment for the wealthy who consume Sabres games conspicuously as a status symbol. I used to go a ton as a young hockey player, sit in the oranges and upper blue and enjoy the atmosphere of all dedicated, involved passionate fans. Now a Sabres game is a social event. More talking in the stands than anything. Women dressed to the nines spending the night on their phones. The atmosphere sucks. But its sold out because its a status symbol, no more no less. That is the model Jerry Jones has employed and by many accts, his ticket prices are so high they owners sell their seats to out of town fans who want to make the trek to that place just to see it. It's a tourist attraction and made Jones millions (of course with a handout). But the atmosphere has suffered and the longstanding fans who can't afford it got pushed out. So the model is to sterilize the atmosphere to bring in the high enders who just want the status that comes with it and are willing to pay the high prices. Good for business, yes. But many here are clamoring for a new stadium because they think it's just gonna be the same vibe and fans in a new stadium. It won't. Not even close. It hasn't happened for Dallas or either of the NY teams, in particular the Jets. As a fan, I don't need a new stadium. I spend 3 hours in a seat staring at a field. I don't need expensive microbrews (I love em but don't need em), I would never eat at a game (who the hell tries to eat chicken wings at a game or better yey what self-respecting Buffalonian would waste their money). I don't need a multimillion dollar scoreboard just dedicated to fantasy stats. I don't need my eardrums shattered at every whistle by the blaring music. I need a seat, a field, a the team I'm rooting for. I've said in a few posts... you look at the EPL model. These guys are playing stadiums built in the late 1800s that continually get updated. For many, tickets are super high priced and super hard to get. The culture of the sport is what matters. Here it's the culture of consumption and constant stimulation that is ruining the stadium experience. In fact, I laugh at people who say soccer is too boring. Read this and tell me what's boring: http://www.sportsgrid.com/nfl/pie-chart-actual-football-watching-nfl-game-vs-replays-commercials-etc/I guess that's why they have to divert your attention... you're paying thousands of dollars a year for 8 games that each have 11 minutes of game action. That's 88 minutes of action, or less than one entire EPL game, which by the way can be viewed commercial free in less than two hours. It's a well supported case even though I disagree some. I don't feel like rehashing the math & such on here but in terms of an extra $40M I will just give a few thoughts and be really conservative with it. $10M naming rights (similar to Reliant in Houston), $10M a year in increased F&B per cap (this is WAY conservative based on the bars & restaurants with the new stadium), $5M in increased sponsorships because of new inventory (club names to sell, parking lots, increased signage, areas of the stadium, etc...), the rest comes from the increase in ticket revenue. By having your best inventory back those prices will go from $100 to $200-$250. Other areas will increase as well but on those 10,000 seats alone you have generated another another $12.5M (at $225 a ticket). If you factor in all of the other avenues and inventory to sell that a new stadium will present it isn't crazy at all. I tried to be really, really conservative above (except maybe naming rights). I'm addition, the elephant in the room is stadium funding. If the state kicks in $300M (that's been the number in my head), and they generate another $200M in PSLs we are up to $500M. The new stadium wouldn't be built without them being positive that both their shared and nonshared revenues would increase. The atmosphere will certainly take a step back as you alluded to with the Sabres. In order to compete with the in home experience and attract that wealthy clientel the amenities will have to cater to them. Whether it's good or bad, it's reality. Edited January 18, 2015 by Kirby Jackson
DrDawkinstein Posted January 17, 2015 Posted January 17, 2015 I've loved seeing games at the Ralph for years, but I am 100% behind a downtown Buffalo roofed stadium. Pretty much exactly here I am at. Same here. Needs to be downtown, and needs to be multi-use.
Ted William's frozen head Posted January 17, 2015 Posted January 17, 2015 After looking at some video footage of the OBD facilities, I question whether a new stadium is needed. At the very least, some foresight was needed to stop the most recent round of renovations. http://www.buffalobills.com/video/videos/Behind-the-Scenes-Rexs-First-48-Hours-in-Buffalo/ebebd619-277a-45b9-9a36-0dcb5fa6c06a?campaign=fb_buf_video The Ralph is a great place to see a game. "New" is not necessarily better. Pretty much exactly here I am at. Just wait until you get the season ticket bill...........
May Day 10 Posted January 17, 2015 Posted January 17, 2015 Very excited to see where it goes. I'm hoping for a centurylink style stadium. Outdoor, but protected from the elements a bit... a bit eastward from the arena. The county city and state will be asked to fund infrastructure and they will. Hopefully this will spawn a much needed public and privately funded convention center near the premesis. Also thinking there will be a brick and mortar amphtlitheater down there by the water within a decade. There we have the best of all worlds. Imo an indoor stadium here won't have a fraction of activity dallas, atlanta, indy, and even detroit have. What would be held there in winter months that the arena can't hold? Maybe a final 4 someday? On the flip side I would bet a new centurylink style holds multiple nhl outdoor weekends. Fan experience for the richies can and will be the same.
Kirby Jackson Posted January 17, 2015 Posted January 17, 2015 (edited) Just wait until you get the season ticket bill...........I guess for me the Bills are what I like to spend my money on. I have season tickets and live in New Orleans. If it costs me another $500 a year or whatever -so be it. I really can't think of many places that I'd rather use that $ for. Edited January 17, 2015 by Kirby Jackson
May Day 10 Posted January 17, 2015 Posted January 17, 2015 (edited) Yeah. For me, the ticket price is laughable. Like my friends and I sit there and literally laugh at the price. Definitely can't hit anywhere near the league averages though. At least overnight. The sabres method has been great to slowly climb from the bottom to about nhl average. Need to have a few good seasons though to create the whole perpetual demand and fan resale benefits of hanging on to their "spot In line" Edited January 17, 2015 by May Day 10
PromoTheRobot Posted January 17, 2015 Posted January 17, 2015 RWS will be 50 years old when the current lease expires. Replacing it is certainly a reasonable idea. Building anything other than a covered stadium is a waste of money because the facility could be used year round with a roof. I think it's a given it's going to in or near downtown. As for what to do with the old stadium? That's a tough question. Tearing it down seems like a waste of a still useful facility, but maintaining and operating it for the occasional high school game is way too expensive of the county to consider. I would tear down the upper decks since that's the part of the stadium in the worst shape. The rest of it sits in the ground so it's well supported. WIth the upper decks gone you could then consider an inflatable roof like the Carrier Dome. But again, who pays for the upkeep? As sad as it seems the best idea might be to just fill it with dirt and be done with it.
dwight in philly Posted January 17, 2015 Posted January 17, 2015 RWS will be 50 years old when the current lease expires. Replacing it is certainly a reasonable idea. Building anything other than a covered stadium is a waste of money because the facility could be used year round with a roof. I think it's a given it's going to in or near downtown. As for what to do with the old stadium? That's a tough question. Tearing it down seems like a waste of a still useful facility, but maintaining and operating it for the occasional high school game is way too expensive of the county to consider. I would tear down the upper decks since that's the part of the stadium in the worst shape. The rest of it sits in the ground so it's well supported. WIth the upper decks gone you could then consider an inflatable roof like the Carrier Dome. But again, who pays for the upkeep? As sad as it seems the best idea might be to just fill it with dirt and be done with it. i am curious as to what other events a downtown domed stadium could hold. i am not trying to be a wise guy, but i hear all this talk about "year round events".. i really cant think of any "sure things" that would justify a covered stadium..
Recommended Posts