Doc Posted March 27, 2016 Posted March 27, 2016 This isn't coming from Goodell, but comments like this are the reason that his bosses pay him 30-40 million a year... Every owner knows that what Rog says comes from the other owners.
boater Posted March 27, 2016 Posted March 27, 2016 Time for a Downtown Multipurpose Facility to come into the current Century. Multi-purpose stadiums disappoint NFL fans. Gillette was made to host soccer. Result: the fans are seated far away from the field, the noise level is low. Google https://www.google.com/#safe=on&q=gillette+stadium+sucks When the Patsies start losing (it will happen someday), that place is going to be an empty shell.
3rdand12 Posted March 27, 2016 Posted March 27, 2016 So there was a 120k SF commerical space available in an actual historic building all along. Who knew. We're going to look back at the day Bass Pro decided against building at Canalside as the best thing that ever happened. If they park the new stadium down on Ohio St it's a short spur to add on. If they stick it in between the arena and the casino (like they should) it will fit right in. FWIW, in that scenario I fully advocate having an elevated playing surface so the grid can remain intact underneath. The streets can be closed to traffic on game days. Having the building itself be a part of the city grid system opens up a lot more possibilities during the rest of the non-football season rather than having an isolated barn surrounded by a moat of parking. Transportation is going to be key in the new stadium. Ease of transport more specifically. Also i can imagine some business minded folks would like to turn "tailgating" into revenue. Getting folks to spend some of that grill time at a local friendly tavern or venue of sorts. and those that camp into a Hotel. Best case is a lot that is inviting to campers keeping tailgating alive, and then a smooth consistent public transport into the "hub' where the stadium resides. Where lunches and beer are served , leaving just a walk come game time. Fans could catch a dinner and get gently returned to the camping lot or even the airport. Networking the Transportation is key.
Buffalo Barbarian Posted March 27, 2016 Posted March 27, 2016 http://bills.buffalonews.com/2016/03/23/nfl-executives-say-bills-should-get-moving-on-new-stadium/ you Roger! (we will build our stadium when and where we want)
Shoto Posted March 27, 2016 Posted March 27, 2016 Downtown stadiums suck, it will will be the end of tailgate as you know it. I've been to Indy, Baltimore and tailgating isn't very good.
bbb Posted March 27, 2016 Posted March 27, 2016 So there was a 120k SF commerical space available in an actual historic building all along. Who knew. We're going to look back at the day Bass Pro decided against building at Canalside as the best thing that ever happened. If they park the new stadium down on Ohio St it's a short spur to add on. If they stick it in between the arena and the casino (like they should) it will fit right in. FWIW, in that scenario I fully advocate having an elevated playing surface so the grid can remain intact underneath. The streets can be closed to traffic on game days. Having the building itself be a part of the city grid system opens up a lot more possibilities during the rest of the non-football season rather than having an isolated barn surrounded by a moat of parking. Totally agree on Bass Pro! For selfish reasons (and some non selfish), I'd like to stay at the Ralph - but everything you said sound good.
Saxum Posted March 28, 2016 Posted March 28, 2016 .....and a little perceived pressure from the league might help to take the heat off the Pegulas with fans who are stuck on the Ralph. And help the pressure from the stuck up fans who want amenities and higher prices for scalped tickets.
justnzane Posted March 28, 2016 Posted March 28, 2016 My biggest gripe is that we allow a multi-billion dollar business to bilk the public for new stadia under threat of moving. As I have said here multiple times before, the gov't should do what the European governments do and make the teams build/expand their own without public financing. Thus, the price of upgrading or building a stadium is solely on the revenue from tickets and TV revenue. The NFL in London is moving away from Wembley to the new 61,000 seat Tottenham stadium in a couple years as it is starting construction next year. Tottenham Hotspur is building it mostly out of their own revenues and bank loans, like most other businesses do here. This new stadium, which includes hotels and other local business opportunities built into the neighborhood is expected to cost roughly $575 million USD. These teams end up building more cost efficient facilities that are not a drain on public resources, and try to add to the neighborhoods that they are located in. Rarely do soccer teams move (Wimbledon to MK Dons, being the only one I can think of) and that is largely because the teams tend to have the local fans as minority owners as well, kinda like Green Bay does. The Euro soccer stadia also tend to keep the elements in play by roofing the fans but leaving the field uncovered. They also emphasize grass over turf (with exception to teams in Iceland, Sweden and Finland where the grass doesn't grow). That all said, if the NFL wants a new stadium here, I want them to flip the bill and add to the greater good of the city with other facilities and businesses to attract people to the stadium all year round.
Saxum Posted March 28, 2016 Posted March 28, 2016 It is HARD to get off the public dole whether it is personal or corporate welfare; have heard it described as more difficult than an hard drug additional.
simpleman Posted March 28, 2016 Posted March 28, 2016 (edited) After reading the article in the News quoting Joe Banner, a former NFL executive, I began wondering exactly why the league is making such a noise about forcing Buffalo to build a new stadium. I really don’t think the fans are complaining about the basic design of the Ralph. Yes, better bathroom and concessions maybe. A desire by some for a covered, weather controlled area, protected from the elements environment. But few seem to complain about the tailgating opportunities or the sight-lines. Or the game-day experience in general. So a new stadium is not for the fan’s benefit. He claims “League-wise, there’s not a real cost or a real benefit to the building of the new stadiums.” So according to him the economic benefits to the other owners is basically a wash. He claims the Pegulas will make about $25 million more a year with a new stadium. But they will probably be expected to invest $200 million plus interest. The taxpayers will have to invest about $ 600 million plus interest in the stadium alone. If the stadium is built away from the current location, in addition they could be responsible almost that much for “infrastructure improvements” like roads, utilities and transportation upgrades. So the whole issue is about generating $25 Million dollars a year more for the Pegulas. If the basic bones of the stadium are solid, why build a new stadium? Don’t fix what is not broken. What if just a portion of the current stadium is gutted and rebuilt so that it is glassed in? Obviously it would have to be redesigned to maintain optimal site-lines for everyone within and the current site-lines preserved for the rest of the stadium. The fans that are so desirous of a controlled environment could pay more for that desire. The redesign would require losing a number of existing seats, he described how part of the financial advantage of a new stadium to Pegula would be less seats, so the law of supply and demand could drive up all seat prices. The team would make the extra income. Everyone could be happy. Everything the fans love about the Ralph could remain the same for everyone else. We keep the atmosphere of the open field for the purists. We keep the tailgating experience. And we save everyone hundreds of millions of dollars. Edited March 28, 2016 by simpleman
BuffaloBill Posted March 28, 2016 Posted March 28, 2016 Lost in the NFL rhetoric is the fans' perspective. Has any owner, Pegula's included, listened formally from the fans? Th BN article suggests a new stadium would seat 50k to 60k people? Why so small? If this team started winning again ticket demand might be nearly 75% higher than those numbers. The Ralph can't last forever but the NFL needs not to forget about the fans by turning stadiums into antiseptic corporate gathering places.
BillnutinHouston Posted March 28, 2016 Posted March 28, 2016 Th BN article suggests a new stadium would seat 50k to 60k people? Why so small? Banner's statement about the capacity of a new stadium assumes that by limiting supply, you increase demand and yield a revenue increase as a result. That makes sense in a larger market but not sure how well that theory applies to Buffalo. Brandon has repeatedly said that the Bills are a volume business. Is that paradigm driven by the large stadium, or by the composition of the market, or both? I trust Brandon far more than an outsider like Banner to find the sweet spot for the Pegulas.
Kirby Jackson Posted March 28, 2016 Posted March 28, 2016 Lost in the NFL rhetoric is the fans' perspective. Has any owner, Pegula's included, listened formally from the fans? Th BN article suggests a new stadium would seat 50k to 60k people? Why so small? If this team started winning again ticket demand might be nearly 75% higher than those numbers. The Ralph can't last forever but the NFL needs not to forget about the fans by turning stadiums into antiseptic corporate gathering places. Absolutely NOTHING sells like demand in sports. That is why teams create "waiting lists." About half of those are complete BS. They create waiting lists to give a sense of scarcity and then they call everyone on the waiting list that year anyways. The new stadium will be 60-65K IMO. They want it sold out no questions asked and would love a decent sized waiting list (maybe 10k). That really forces people's hand in terms of renewal and forces them to act in a manner that the team wants. If they say that the deposit is due on 2/1 and there is a 10,000 person waiting list you are much more likely to send in your deposit on time. This allows the teams to forecast and budget more accurately when they have a better sense for what they are working with.
simpleman Posted March 28, 2016 Posted March 28, 2016 (edited) I was a part of a $200M upgrade. I was a part of a lease negotiation. I really do get what's being said in those rooms. The retrofit alienates too many current fans. That's its downfall. People don't downgrade locations. They don't. You can't afford to alienate that many people. No one will ever come out and say that but I promise that is at the top of their list. How do we make as much money as we can while making as many people happy as we can? I respect your background and that you have an insight to what was said in those rooms. But if a retrofit alienates too many fans, by that logic a new stadium in a different location not only alienates a certain percentage of fans, but a full 100% of the fan base. Since it inconveniences and changes the status quo for each and every fan, not just a certain segment. A retrofit designed to negatively impact the minimum number of fans can leave the parking, access to the property, tailgating etc. the same. Leaving as much as possible of the stadium intact and unchanged . It would alienate less fans. A plan that retrofits the stadium to provide the amenities that fans want without removing 100% of the things they like , the history and the tradition of The Ralph causes less alienation and hassles for the fans than a 100% option of moving every fan to an alien stadium. And if the retrofit adds amenities the fans actually want, they will be to be willing to pay more for them. Pegula can then get the extra scratch he thinks he needs for his pocket. Edited March 28, 2016 by simpleman
Kirby Jackson Posted March 28, 2016 Posted March 28, 2016 (edited) I respect your background and that you have an insight to what was said in those rooms. But if a retrofit alienates too many fans, by that logic a new stadium in a different location not only alienates a certain percentage of fans, but a full 100% of the fan base. Since it inconveniences and changes the status quo for each and every fan, not just a certain segment. A retrofit designed to negatively impact the minimum number of fans can leave the parking, access to the property, tailgating etc. the same. Leaving as much as possible of the stadium intact and unchanged . It would alienate less fans. A plan that retrofits the stadium to provide the amenities that fans want without removing 100% of the things they like , the history and the tradition of The Ralph causes less alienation and hassles for the fans than a 100% option of moving every fan to an alien stadium. And if the retrofit adds amenities the fans actually want, they will be to be willing to pay more for them. Pegula can then get the extra scratch he thinks he needs for his pocket. You missed the first post on it. It is the traditions and sense of ownership that are still there with a retrofit. You no longer park in the same place, sit next to the same people, enter the same gate, drive the same route, etc... that you have done for 20+ years. The only differences are your ticket price has doubled or your location is a lot worse with the retrofit. Neither of which people take kindly to. As I said earlier people don't downgrade locations so that universe is even smaller than the people who quit or paid double. The clean slate of the new stadium doesn't have all of those memories (for lack of a better term). You seat the fans by seniority and everything is different. They get a sense that they are picking their location not being forced out of their location. It is an enormous difference when talking about how it will be perceived. Edited March 28, 2016 by Kirby Jackson
Saxum Posted March 28, 2016 Posted March 28, 2016 I see so easier to fool people with back door price raise; sounds like typical marketing idea to me.
bbb Posted March 28, 2016 Posted March 28, 2016 After reading the article in the News quoting Joe Banner, a former NFL executive, I began wondering exactly why the league is making such a noise about forcing Buffalo to build a new stadium. I really don’t think the fans are complaining about the basic design of the Ralph. Yes, better bathroom and concessions maybe. A desire by some for a covered, weather controlled area, protected from the elements environment. But few seem to complain about the tailgating opportunities or the sight-lines. Or the game-day experience in general. So a new stadium is not for the fan’s benefit. He claims “League-wise, there’s not a real cost or a real benefit to the building of the new stadiums.” So according to him the economic benefits to the other owners is basically a wash. He claims the Pegulas will make about $25 million more a year with a new stadium. But they will probably be expected to invest $200 million plus interest. The taxpayers will have to invest about $ 600 million plus interest in the stadium alone. If the stadium is built away from the current location, in addition they could be responsible almost that much for “infrastructure improvements” like roads, utilities and transportation upgrades. So the whole issue is about generating $25 Million dollars a year more for the Pegulas. If the basic bones of the stadium are solid, why build a new stadium? Don’t fix what is not broken. What if just a portion of the current stadium is gutted and rebuilt so that it is glassed in? Obviously it would have to be redesigned to maintain optimal site-lines for everyone within and the current site-lines preserved for the rest of the stadium. The fans that are so desirous of a controlled environment could pay more for that desire. The redesign would require losing a number of existing seats, he described how part of the financial advantage of a new stadium to Pegula would be less seats, so the law of supply and demand could drive up all seat prices. The team would make the extra income. Everyone could be happy. Everything the fans love about the Ralph could remain the same for everyone else. We keep the atmosphere of the open field for the purists. We keep the tailgating experience. And we save everyone hundreds of millions of dollars. I read that yesterday, too - and was like that CAN'T be what this is all about, can it??
Saxum Posted March 28, 2016 Posted March 28, 2016 No and Vic's article talked about how this was not a money grab and other teams would not benefit but neglected to mention in article that prices will be going up and other teams will get more in shared gate receipts. I am not surprised since that is a fact which goes against theme of article.
Kirby Jackson Posted March 28, 2016 Posted March 28, 2016 (edited) I read that yesterday, too - and was like that CAN'T be what this is all about, can it?? That may be the TICKET revenue of the new stadium. That would be about an additional $50 a ticket on 60,000 seats. I don't know if he is saying their portion is $25M or the total is $25M. An additional $25M in ticket revenue would have the Bills contributing an extra $10M a year to the league. The other money comes in the sponsor opportunities. I would think that the Bills can raise their sponsorships by another $20M a year (assuming naming rights). Yes, I know that they can sell naming rights at RWS but it may create ill will and they will generate more on a new building than on an old one. There will also be all kinds of new sponsorship areas. Without factoring anything else those 2 would have the Pegulas netting an extra $35M a year. Those are real rough and round numbers. That doesn't include parking, concessions, etc... Edited March 28, 2016 by Kirby Jackson
bbb Posted March 29, 2016 Posted March 29, 2016 That may be the TICKET revenue of the new stadium. That would be about an additional $50 a ticket on 60,000 seats. I don't know if he is saying their portion is $25M or the total is $25M. An additional $25M in ticket revenue would have the Bills contributing an extra $10M a year to the league. The other money comes in the sponsor opportunities. I would think that the Bills can raise their sponsorships by another $20M a year (assuming naming rights). Yes, I know that they can sell naming rights at RWS but it may create ill will and they will generate more on a new building than on an old one. There will also be all kinds of new sponsorship areas. Without factoring anything else those 2 would have the Pegulas netting an extra $35M a year. Those are real rough and round numbers. That doesn't include parking, concessions, etc... But, I was figuring the league owners are looking to pocket a bunch of money - not that they would be concerned about the Pegulas and making sure they stay competitive.
Recommended Posts