NFL Execs say Bills should get moving on new stadium

[Tuco]

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...

Isn't the real benefit to the other owners in the G4 program? Unless I'm mistaken, G4 money is "loaned" by the league to teams building or improving stadiums via matching the team contribution up to $200 million as long as the project also has public money included. This money is then "repaid" through certain ticket revenue the team is obligated to share with the league anyway. That money is then deducted, by agreement with the NFLPA in the CBA, from the "all revenue" figure used to compute the salary cap each year.

 

If my figures are correct, in 2013 there were almost $800 million in G4 loans given to different teams for stadiums. After deducting that from "all revenue," that makes almost $400 million the league was not required to pay in the form of player salaries (over $10 million per team) in that season alone. Even if this money is given interest free and not recouped for 10-15 years, and even if it counts as "all revenue" in those subsequent years, from a business stand point, isn't that better than just paying it out as salary in one season where it's gone forever?

 

And since there are a limited number of stadiums that can be built in a certain span, and since the whole program is tied to the CBA which only runs for 5 more years, isn't the real reason the other owners want the Bills to build a new stadium fairly soon more about them wanting the Bills to "take their turn" in taking advantage of this program before the opportunity possibly runs out, with the added income of a new stadium being a secondary asset?

[T master]

If there is to be a new stadium built i feel the NFL should be the one to carry the lion share of the load when it comes to paying for it !

 

Thats all they care about is the money . That way if there is any lose it won't be stacked on the backs of the tax payers !

 

The Bills are making money just not enough for the likes of those such as Jerry Jones & Richardson in Carolina . to which i say SCREW THEM !!

 

If the Bills are good enough for our area & the fans/players & team execs are happy with the stadium then tell Goodell & the other owners to go P**S up a rope !!

Edited March 29, 2016 by T master

[simpleman]

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.

I understand what you were saying. Maybe I am just different from most people.

I find a good woman who treats me right, who I am comfortable with, and I can trust and I am satisfied with her. I am not tempted to leave her for others just for the excitement of the new and different. I find a good car, I drive it until it becomes so worn out, or so beat up I am forced to replace it. I don’t wait in line for the newest I-phone when my year old one has nothing wrong with it, and I don’t NEED any of the newer bells and whistles.

 

To me I find nothing seriously wrong with The Ralph. I can get there easily, enjoy tailgating if I wish, get in to the stadium reasonably quick and easy. Bathrooms and a few obnoxious fans may irritate me. I don’t like to pay those high prices for “meh” concessions. But other than bathrooms, I’m not sure that those are “structural stadium” issues that can be resolved with either renovation or building a brand new stadium.

 

Of course no one will want to pay an extra $50 a ticket (your mentioned price for a ticket in the new stadium) to a retrofitted “Ralph” if the renovations are done and they don’t add enough extra value to the experience of the person paying the extra $50.

The obvious solution to the issue is, if you renovate it, it has to be had to be done with the “customer” in mind. If it does not add real value for the person buying the ticket, then it isn’t a wise renovation to be done.

A renovation that causes the least inconvenience or degrading of the fan experience of the fan who does not benefit from it is what you should be aiming for.

I think we all realize ticket prices WILL go up regardless of any renovations, just not so drastic as $50, without first adding some serious value to our stadium experience. A comfy couch and that big screen TV, or a bar full of other fun loving fans sounds a lot more appealing at another $50.

 

That’s why I posted an idea of gutting a section of the stadium and adding a large enclosed climate controlled area to “The Ralph”. It could be priced below the cost of enclosed corporate suites with all their extra services and amenities, but still bringing in the much higher prices.

Maybe adding a higher density of bathrooms, better concessions, wider seating, bigger aisles etc. included in that area. Making it “the place to be” during a game. That feeling of status and “having better seats than your neighbor has”.

If it is done right, you could charge a lot more for those seats, bringing in the desired extra income. Plus lowering the number of available seats, driving up the cost due to the laws of supply and demand. This way you are least limiting the possibility is of alienating fans to only those who had seats in the renovated area.

 

Maybe I am different than a majority of people in WNY and on this board. But I would be much more inconvenienced and alienated by a move to a new stadium in a different location.

I am simply not stupid enough to be tricked and enticed by the allure of the shiny and new, if it results in a huge jump in my costs, is more inconvenient, it destroys my traditions, and adds almost nothing of value to MY fan experience.

Which sounds like what you are saying those in the Bills organization believe will happen if you move to a new stadium. They believe people will still be inconvenienced, will have their traditions destroyed, have to pay much higher prices; but they are so gullible they will be tricked and enticed enough by the shiny and new stadium to not be alienated by it.

Maybe you are right, I don’t have a degree in psychology, but this mind-game would not work on me. How about others on this board, will it work on you?

Edited March 29, 2016 by simpleman

[Kirby Jackson]

I understand what you were saying. Maybe I am just different from most people.

I find a good woman who treats me right, who I am comfortable with, and I can trust and I am satisfied with her. I am not tempted to leave her for others just for the excitement of the new and different. I find a good car, I drive it until it becomes so worn out, or so beat up I am forced to replace it. I don’t wait in line for the newest I-phone when my year old one has nothing wrong with it, and I don’t NEED any of the newer bells and whistles.

 

To me I find nothing seriously wrong with The Ralph. I can get there easily, enjoy tailgating if I wish, get in to the stadium reasonably quick and easy. Bathrooms and a few obnoxious fans may irritate me. I don’t like to pay those high prices for “meh” concessions. But other than bathrooms, I’m not sure that those are “structural stadium” issues that can be resolved with either renovation or building a brand new stadium.

 

Of course no one will want to pay an extra $50 a ticket (your mentioned price for a ticket in the new stadium) to a retrofitted “Ralph” if the renovations are done and they don’t add enough extra value to the experience of the person paying the extra $50.

The obvious solution to the issue is if you renovate it, it has to be had to be done with the “customer” in mind. If it does not add real value for the person buying the ticket, then it isn’t a wise renovation to be done.

A renovation that causes the least inconvenience or degrading of the fan experience of the fan who does not benefit from it is what you should be aiming for.

I think we all realize ticket prices WILL go up regardless of any renovations, just not so drastic as $50, without first adding some serious value to our stadium experience. A comfy couch and that big screen TV, or a bar full of other fun loving fans sounds a lot more appealing at another $50.

 

That’s why I posted an idea of gutting a section of the stadium and adding a large enclosed climate controlled area to “The Ralph”. It could be priced below the cost of enclosed corporate suites with all their extra services and amenities, but still bringing in the much higher prices.

Maybe adding a higher density of bathrooms, better concessions, wider seating, bigger aisles etc. included in that area. Making it “the place to be” during a game. That feeling of status and “having better seats than your neighbor has”.

If it is done right, you could charge a lot more for those seats, bringing in the desired extra income. Plus lowering the number of available seats, driving up the cost due to the laws of supply and demand. This way you are least limiting the possibility is of alienating fans to only those who had seats in the renovated area.

 

Maybe I am different than a majority of people in WNY and on this board. But I would be much more inconvenienced and alienated by a move to a new stadium in a different location.

I am simply not stupid enough to be tricked and enticed by the allure of the shiny and new, if it results in a huge jump in my costs, is more inconvenient, it destroys my traditions, and adds almost nothing of value to MY fan experience.

Which sounds like what you are saying those in the Bills organization believe will happen if you move to a new stadium. They believe people will still be inconvenienced, will have their traditions destroyed, have to pay much higher prices; but they are so gullible they will be tricked and enticed enough by the shiny and new stadium to not be alienated by it.

Maybe you are right, I don’t have a degree in psychology, but this mind-game would not work on me. How about others on this board, will it work on you?

They have that.

 

The point is that with a retrofit you are telling people, "Good news we upgraded the stadium. The same seat that you paid $1,000 for is now $2200." All you are doing is telling them that the same thing that they always had now cost double. I'm not doing a good job explaining this because a bunch of people aren't following. Let me try it a different way. Say you went to the same bar for 20 years. Your drink of choice was always $4. You and your wife would have 3 in a night, knew everyone in the place well and the bill would come and you left $35 and went on your way. You come back to that same bar a week later, the people you know are no longer there, it looks the same, you order your usual drink and it is $8. You and your wife have 3 each, leave $60 and go on your way. That leaves you a little annoyed I presume? You feel like they gouged you and took something away from you.

 

The flip side is you and your wife go to a new fancy place that just opened. It is comfortable, chic and has a little higher end clientele. You order the same drink that you ordered at the other place and it is $8. You and your wife order 3 and leave $60 at this new place. You do not have that sense that something was 'taken from you." It is a new experience. You aren't upset that you now pay more for the same thing. You aren't upset that the people that you hung out with there no longer go there. It is an entirely new experience.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Who's going to pay for it? Buffalo is a poor city.

 

Thank you, Ralph Wilson, for your input.

 

[Kirby Jackson]

Isn't the real benefit to the other owners in the G4 program? Unless I'm mistaken, G4 money is "loaned" by the league to teams building or improving stadiums via matching the team contribution up to $200 million as long as the project also has public money included. This money is then "repaid" through certain ticket revenue the team is obligated to share with the league anyway. That money is then deducted, by agreement with the NFLPA in the CBA, from the "all revenue" figure used to compute the salary cap each year.

 

If my figures are correct, in 2013 there were almost $800 million in G4 loans given to different teams for stadiums. After deducting that from "all revenue," that makes almost $400 million the league was not required to pay in the form of player salaries (over $10 million per team) in that season alone. Even if this money is given interest free and not recouped for 10-15 years, and even if it counts as "all revenue" in those subsequent years, from a business stand point, isn't that better than just paying it out as salary in one season where it's gone forever?

 

And since there are a limited number of stadiums that can be built in a certain span, and since the whole program is tied to the CBA which only runs for 5 more years, isn't the real reason the other owners want the Bills to build a new stadium fairly soon more about them wanting the Bills to "take their turn" in taking advantage of this program before the opportunity possibly runs out, with the added income of a new stadium being a secondary asset?

To be honest, I don't know ton about the program. I just know that they lend a few hundred million (I believe interest free) to build stadiums. I think that your depiction of the program is accurate but again I don't know it too well.

[Mr. WEO]

Isn't the real benefit to the other owners in the G4 program? Unless I'm mistaken, G4 money is "loaned" by the league to teams building or improving stadiums via matching the team contribution up to $200 million as long as the project also has public money included. This money is then "repaid" through certain ticket revenue the team is obligated to share with the league anyway. That money is then deducted, by agreement with the NFLPA in the CBA, from the "all revenue" figure used to compute the salary cap each year.

 

If my figures are correct, in 2013 there were almost $800 million in G4 loans given to different teams for stadiums. After deducting that from "all revenue," that makes almost $400 million the league was not required to pay in the form of player salaries (over $10 million per team) in that season alone. Even if this money is given interest free and not recouped for 10-15 years, and even if it counts as "all revenue" in those subsequent years, from a business stand point, isn't that better than just paying it out as salary in one season where it's gone forever?

 

And since there are a limited number of stadiums that can be built in a certain span, and since the whole program is tied to the CBA which only runs for 5 more years, isn't the real reason the other owners want the Bills to build a new stadium fairly soon more about them wanting the Bills to "take their turn" in taking advantage of this program before the opportunity possibly runs out, with the added income of a new stadium being a secondary asset?

 

 

I doubt it. The loan has a maximum amount of $200 million and it would be a one time savings (1 new stadium over the next 5 years) for the league against all revenue before the new CBA.

 

A new stadium producing a higher shared revenue is a gift that keeps on giving. This is the over-rif=ding motivation for the other owners.

[KD in CA]

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.

 

Yup. And with the smaller stadium they can still have close to a full house when the team stinks. Empty seats don't look good on TV.

[BuffaloBill]

Yup. And with the smaller stadium they can still have close to a full house when the team stinks. Empty seats don't look good on TV.

The Bills could sell out now on season tix and the team has been mediocre at best for 16 years.

[simpleman]

They have that.

 

The point is that with a retrofit you are telling people, "Good news we upgraded the stadium. The same seat that you paid $1,000 for is now $2200." All you are doing is telling them that the same thing that they always had now cost double. I'm not doing a good job explaining this because a bunch of people aren't following. Let me try it a different way. Say you went to the same bar for 20 years. Your drink of choice was always $4. You and your wife would have 3 in a night, knew everyone in the place well and the bill would come and you left $35 and went on your way. You come back to that same bar a week later, the people you know are no longer there, it looks the same, you order your usual drink and it is $8. You and your wife have 3 each, leave $60 and go on your way. That leaves you a little annoyed I presume? You feel like they gouged you and took something away from you.

 

The flip side is you and your wife go to a new fancy place that just opened. It is comfortable, chic and has a little higher end clientele. You order the same drink that you ordered at the other place and it is $8. You and your wife order 3 and leave $60 at this new place. You do not have that sense that something was 'taken from you." It is a new experience. You aren't upset that you now pay more for the same thing. You aren't upset that the people that you hung out with there no longer go there. It is an entirely new experience.

I'm not arguing with your view. Or saying it is not the mindset of those within the club. But you are the one not following the point.

In your example, the bar has not upgraded the customer experience, just raised the price and driven out it's old regulars.

The drinks they serve are not a better quality liqueur, served in nicer glasses. They do not have a friendlier, better trained wait staff. They have not fixed that annoying icy, frigid blast of winter air that blows though the place whenever someone comes in the front door. The decoration scheme has still not been updated from the mid fifties and the plastic table cloths are not replaced with linen. The tattered leather benches are not replaced with new, more comfortable seats.

The ceilings and walls have not been soundproofed and redecorated to muffle the annoying too loud cackle of those inevitable couple of drunken patrons. You and your lovely lady still can't hear each other talk when sitting at the table because of the noise of those at the bar. You can still see the peeling paint on the ceiling, the mirrored glass still is discolored and cracked from abuse over the years.

They have not upgraded their bar food menu from generic mushy frozen french fries and the burgers are obviously still the same hard frozen hard mystery meat patties you can buy at Walmart and make enough burgers for a family for the price of one there.

That is a better analogy to the stadium.

In other words, they did not first make intelligent renovations that added value to YOUR customer experience. They skipped that critical step and just raised the price.

You, and obviously those within the Bills organization you mention, do not seem to understand, or possibly comprehend, the difference between a well thought out, well planned and executed renovation done properly with the goal of enhancing the customer's fan experience; and that of a quick, self serving only renovation, carelessly done to be the easier and cheaper strictly for the business's benefit. Believing it is easier to take shortcut of hoping people are gullible enough to be distracted by a shiny new stadium, rather than taking the time, making the effort, and finding a way to add proper value to the fan experience and justify the added costs they believe they need to inflict on the customers to generate the added income they desire.

That is a totally different issue than thinking correctly or wrongly that the majority of the fans truly desire a shiny new stadium in a different location, at a much higher cost to the taxpayers and those same fans. That is an issue not even to be considered here.

Edited March 29, 2016 by simpleman

[Kirby Jackson]

I'm not arguing with your view. Or saying it is the mindset of those within the club. But you are the one not following the point.

In your example, the bar has not upgraded the customer experience, just raised the price and driven out it's old regulars.

The drinks they serve are not a better quality liqueur, served in nicer glasses. They do not have a friendlier, better trained wait staff. They have not fixed that annoying icy, frigid blast of winter air that blows though the place whenever someone comes in the front door. The decoration scheme has still not been updated from the mid fifties and the plastic table cloths are not replaced with linen. The tattered leather benches are not replaced with new, more comfortable seats.

The ceilings and walls have not been soundproofed and redecorated to muffle the annoying too loud cackle of those inevitable couple of drunken patrons. You can still see the peeling paint on the ceiling, the mirrored glass still is discolored and cracked from abuse over the years.

They have not upgraded their bar food menu from generic mushy frozen french fries and the burgers are obviously still the same hard frozen hard mystery meat patties you can buy at Walmart and make enough burgers for a family for the price of one there.

In other words, they did not first make intelligent renovations that added value to YOUR customer experience. They skipped that step and just raised the price.

You, and obviously those within the Bills organization you mention, do not seem to understand, or possibly comprehend, the difference between a well thought out, well planned and executed renovation done properly with the goal of enhancing the customer's fan experience; and that of a quick, self serving only renovation, carelessly done to be the easier and cheaper strictly for the business's benefit. Believing it is easier to take shortcut of hoping people are gullible enough to be distracted by a shiny new stadium, rather than taking the time, making the effort, and finding a way to add proper value to the fan experience and justify the added costs they believe they need to inflict on the customers to generate the added income they desire.

That is a totally different issue than thinking correctly or wrongly that the majority of the fans truly desire a shiny new stadium in a different location, at a much higher cost to the taxpayers and those same fans. That is an issue not even to be considered here.

I am following that just isn't how it works in reality. If you are going to put $400M into a retrofit all of those upgrades will happen. It doesn't change the fact that you are entering the same gate, driving the same route, and in all likelihood paying double. The perception will be that it is upgraded but it is going to be tough to convince people that it doubles their experience. It feels like something is being taken away and there is no cover to hide behind.

 

I apologize for monopolizing the thread. I was going to stay out of it until Bandit asked me to chime in. Every time we get on the subject I tend to monopolize it. There are just a number of things that on the surface feel easy to explain but when put into practice work completely differently. As a real life example we removed 8 seats one year to expand the floor seating by 2 rows. We offered to upgrade those 8 people at no additional charge. the next tier of seating was double the cost and we were giving it to these people at their price. It seems like a no brainer on the surface. The 1st customer that we moved was a dentist (about 50 years old). He literally started crying about moving -not whining, crying!!! The emotional tie that people have to a team is what separates it from other businesses, that and the fact that your assets are your liabilities (players). No one ever cried over their mayonnaise changing it's logo or going on a different shelf in the grocery store.

 

It is a real fine line that teams have to walk because of this emotional investment. It is March 29th and there are hundreds of us on a message board talking about the product. That isn't the case with other businesses. You have to be very sensitive to not anger your customers. I promise that more people will be angered in a retrofit situation as opposed to a new stadium. There will be people that are not happy in either situation. To use my example above no one wants to pay $8 for a drink. You just think about that $8 more in the bar where you remember paying $4 for it. There are vocal leaders too that stir the mob mentality. There will be a guy saying, "remember when our seats were $50?!? Now they want $100 to watch the same thing?!?" When that stuff starts happening the beers are warmer and the hot dogs are colder in people's minds.

[NoSaint]

I understand what you were saying. Maybe I am just different from most people.

I find a good woman who treats me right, who I am comfortable with, and I can trust and I am satisfied with her.

now imagine she has aged only ymoderately well, and suddenly starts demanding more and more of your paycheck while not being quite as kind to you as she once was. does that brand new model that would be just as high maintenance but have all the new bells and whistles start to become a bit more appealing?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

now imagine she has aged only ymoderately well, and suddenly starts demanding more and more of your paycheck while not being quite as kind to you as she once was. does that brand new model that would be just as high maintenance but have all the new bells and whistles start to become a bit more appealing?

 

A wise man (from this very board) once told me...no matter how hot she is, someone somewhere is sick of her ****.

[3rdand12]

I am following that just isn't how it works in reality. If you are going to put $400M into a retrofit all of those upgrades will happen. It doesn't change the fact that you are entering the same gate, driving the same route, and in all likelihood paying double. The perception will be that it is upgraded but it is going to be tough to convince people that it doubles their experience. It feels like something is being taken away and there is no cover to hide behind.

 

I apologize for monopolizing the thread. I was going to stay out of it until Bandit asked me to chime in. Every time we get on the subject I tend to monopolize it. There are just a number of things that on the surface feel easy to explain but when put into practice work completely differently. As a real life example we removed 8 seats one year to expand the floor seating by 2 rows. We offered to upgrade those 8 people at no additional charge. the next tier of seating was double the cost and we were giving it to these people at their price. It seems like a no brainer on the surface. The 1st customer that we moved was a dentist (about 50 years old). He literally started crying about moving -not whining, crying!!! The emotional tie that people have to a team is what separates it from other businesses, that and the fact that your assets are your liabilities (players). No one ever cried over their mayonnaise changing it's logo or going on a different shelf in the grocery store.

 

It is a real fine line that teams have to walk because of this emotional investment. It is March 29th and there are hundreds of us on a message board talking about the product. That isn't the case with other businesses. You have to be very sensitive to not anger your customers. I promise that more people will be angered in a retrofit situation as opposed to a new stadium. There will be people that are not happy in either situation. To use my example above no one wants to pay $8 for a drink. You just think about that $8 more in the bar where you remember paying $4 for it. There are vocal leaders too that stir the mob mentality. There will be a guy saying, "remember when our seats were $50?!? Now they want $100 to watch the same thing?!?" When that stuff starts happening the beers are warmer and the hot dogs are colder in people's minds.

I have found this dialogue to be one of the most intriguing ones to date. You and Simpleman and EVERYONE else too.

This really gets to the heart of the Bills Fandom. The perspective and history of the Ralph.

And then the business side has been covered nicely too.

Thank you for your input Kirby and each one of you who has expressed your thoughts and concerns with such great elaboration and elocution.

It is a matter of the heart is it not ?

 

Think for a moment of Families uprooted from either war or weather or whatever it might be.

 

Guess Bills fans really are like Family.

dysfunctional of course.

 

Change comes to All, how we each manage that change, defines us I suppose

Go Bills!

[Tuco]

 

 

I doubt it. The loan has a maximum amount of $200 million and it would be a one time savings (1 new stadium over the next 5 years) for the league against all revenue before the new CBA.

 

A new stadium producing a higher shared revenue is a gift that keeps on giving. This is the over-rif=ding motivation for the other owners.

Sure but just like in 2013 when there was $800 million in loans, add the $200 mil from Buffalo to the $200 mil for Los Angeles (which will be $400 million if they put 2 teams there, even if they use the same stadium) plus whatever other improvements teams make and maybe another stadium or two, and you're looking at another $800 mil or so. That's over $10 mil per team that they have a choice of giving it to the players and it's gone or loaning it out for stadiums that increase revenue and they get their money back eventually. As I said, there's only so many stadiums to be built and the time limit for this program is getting short fast. There's 5 years left and it's not happening this year so there's really 4 at the most. Yes the program could extend to the next CBA but these big businessmen would rather deal with the sure thing here and now. I believe that's the real reason some owners want a new stadium soon. But that's just me.

[simpleman]

now imagine she has aged only ymoderately well, and suddenly starts demanding more and more of your paycheck while not being quite as kind to you as she once was. does that brand new model that would be just as high maintenance but have all the new bells and whistles start to become a bit more appealing?

Unfortunately I already know firsthand what you mean. But the new one will probably turn out just the same way, don't they all sooner or later? I'll just keep the devil I know. How many exes can we afford, LOL.

[BADOLBILZ]

I still do not see how they spent $130 million for the current renovations. They applied epoxy paint to the floors of the same crappy bathrooms, and those jagged boulders that surround the stadium are a lawsuit waiting to happen when some drunk eventually crashes into one head first.. (WTF was wrong with using reinforced concrete?) The place looks closer to being a prison instead of a well thought out renovation. The 'super gates' are pretty much useless since they closed off the back gates. Getting into the stadium is much more of a chore than it should be.

The portion of the big video screen used to show replays is a waste of that fairly impressive LCD.. For the rest of the viewing, who the F cares about fantasy football while the game is going on? The additional force feeding of fans with bad advertising on the rest of the video footprint makes me think the screen $$$ just might've been better spent elsewhere

The locker rooms must be primo, though. It must be what we don't see. Yup. That's it......

 

 

I have extremely low expectations wrt how far a dollar will stretch on a renovation job..........but seeing how little $130M could do for the RWS facility was still a bit of a shock.

 

It does look like a prison or a military installation and it somehow hasn't gotten easier to enter the game.

[BUFFALOKIE]

Unfortunately I already know firsthand what you mean. But the new one will probably turn out just the same way, don't they all sooner or later? I'll just keep the devil I know. How many exes can we afford, LOL.

Good answer!

[Saxum]

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...

They will create ill will by moving more than just selling naming rights.

They will probably LOSE money on parking unless they pay out to local owners to lease it them to sublease.

But like Vic do not let facts interfere with your attempt to push a point.

Never, ever seen salesmen let facts interfere with pitch.

[Kirby Jackson]

They will create ill will by moving more than just selling naming rights.

They will probably LOSE money on parking unless they pay out to local owners to lease it them to sublease.

But like Vic do not let facts interfere with your attempt to push a point.

Never, ever seen salesmen let facts interfere with pitch.

Personally, I could care less. I was asked to weigh in on the topic because of my experience. My best childhood memories are at the Ralph. I am fine either way. I'm just trying to bring about the issues that they will be discussing. You can choose to agree with me or not but please don't accuse me of having an agenda.