Captain Hindsight Posted July 17, 2017 Posted July 17, 2017 Need more state tax $$ for a new stadium? Drug test all welfare people. More than enough for one. Sad but true. That will never happen. Who pays for the drug tests?
Guest NeckBeard Posted July 17, 2017 Posted July 17, 2017 Billsmovinup, Why all the hate for public employees? You choose where you work just as they did. Imo, public money should never be used to build stadiums. Im OK with tax breaks after the fact, but the billionaire owners seek way too much public aid to run their business. Im all for a new stadium, when it's time, (which it isn't), but it should be funded by attendees of the stadium, not the public at large. Not for a place that is used 10 to 15 times a year. Yes, I think I am with this. I think that (I've worked for 22 years in private sector out of 22 years working) a lot of private sector employees seem to have a lot of time to post on a message board during the day, and in that sense, the point of productivity of state workers seems moot in that context. Also, in 22 years of working, the vast majority of people I've worked with, even for a couple of newsworthy tech companies where I've spent the vast majority of my career, do very little to earn their paychecks. IMO state workers probably trend the same way in their jobs as they do in private industry.
SoCal Deek Posted July 17, 2017 Posted July 17, 2017 You are a troll. Take this nonsense to PPP, if they will listen to it. No trolling here and none intended. A stadium is as much a process as a product. The City doesn't GIVE any money to the Owner. And if the deal is carefully crafted it can take much of the financing into account. As I said, does anyone look back at the $20 million spent to build Rich Stadium back in 1972 and say 'what a waste of money'. After 50 years the new Stadium will be a bargain, just like Rich Stadium is now.
Guest NeckBeard Posted July 18, 2017 Posted July 18, 2017 (edited) No trolling here and none intended. A stadium is as much a process as a product. The City doesn't GIVE any money to the Owner. And if the deal is carefully crafted it can take much of the financing into account. As I said, does anyone look back at the $20 million spent to build Rich Stadium back in 1972 and say 'what a waste of money'. After 50 years the new Stadium will be a bargain, just like Rich Stadium is now. Maybe so. One thing the arc that this thread has taken does not consider is *how* the stadium would be funded. There are many ways to do it, and without being a burden to the entire tax base. Of course, Kroenke (sp?) got Missouri to swallow that pill, and it failed miserably. There is a great article on NPR about NFL stadium funding. There are others on WSJ and in the NY Times. Oh yeah, and I'm still against co-mingling between the NFL and public funds. Edited July 18, 2017 by NeckBeard
justnzane Posted July 18, 2017 Posted July 18, 2017 Who pays for the drug tests? I think that guy was trying to get this thread booted over to PPP.
Drunken Pygmy Goat Posted July 18, 2017 Posted July 18, 2017 Maybe so. One thing the arc that this thread has taken does not consider is *how* the stadium would be funded. There are many ways to do it, and without being a burden to the entire tax base. Of course, Kroenke (sp?) got Missouri to swallow that pill, and it failed miserably. There is a great article on NPR about NFL stadium funding. There are others on WSJ and in the NY Times. Oh yeah, and I'm still against co-mingling between the NFL and public funds. Same here. Taxing hotel and rental car transactions tends to have more financial impact on out-of-towners than it does locals. The league has the G4 program (for now, at least). The Pegulas may pay for it, or a major portion. It would be nice to hear some news on the subject, even if the plan is to retrofit New Era Field, but I don't think we're going to hear anything for another couple of years.
Guest NeckBeard Posted July 18, 2017 Posted July 18, 2017 Same here. Taxing hotel and rental car transactions tends to have more financial impact on out-of-towners than it does locals. The league has the G4 program (for now, at least). The Pegulas may pay for it, or a major portion. It would be nice to hear some news on the subject, even if the plan is to retrofit New Era Field, but I don't think we're going to hear anything for another couple of years. Yes. I think that Kroenke's agreement (when the team was in STL) was to do something very similar to the hotel / rental car taxes, and, if I'm correct, also reached to parking costs and concessions. The problem with that agreement, and the NPR article lays this out nicely (for those who haven't read it), was what to do if the team relocates, thus ending the revenue stream: the taxpayers are left with the remainder of the bill. That sucks, obviously. G4 has its upsides, but still, teams will move. IMO G4 has the implication of moving teams, because the end game is a faux partnership with the public sector, and if the public sector literally doesn't play, then funding seems more like a ransom payment than an infrastructure upgrade.
Drunken Pygmy Goat Posted July 18, 2017 Posted July 18, 2017 Yes. I think that Kroenke's agreement (when the team was in STL) was to do something very similar to the hotel / rental car taxes, and, if I'm correct, also reached to parking costs and concessions. The problem with that agreement, and the NPR article lays this out nicely (for those who haven't read it), was what to do if the team relocates, thus ending the revenue stream: the taxpayers are left with the remainder of the bill. That sucks, obviously. G4 has its upsides, but still, teams will move. IMO G4 has the implication of moving teams, because the end game is a faux partnership with the public sector, and if the public sector literally doesn't play, then funding seems more like a ransom payment than an infrastructure upgrade. You would think the people in charge would have the length of the new stadium's lease coincide with the length of the loan. I think it's usually around 30 years. That way, if a team wants to move after 30 years, all debts will be paid in full.
Guest NeckBeard Posted July 18, 2017 Posted July 18, 2017 (edited) You would think the people in charge would have the length of the new stadium's lease coincide with the length of the loan. I think it's usually around 30 years. That way, if a team wants to move after 30 years, all debts will be paid in full. Depends on the lease. Kroenke's gave him enough wiggle room to weasel out, and when it was offered to be rectified, he was all like "nah, I'm good". No matter how much I don't want to pay for a pro football stadium, in any market, I am looking forward to how this L.A. thing turns out. The NFL has had a gigantic erection for that market for decades now, and that's odd given that *two* teams left the last go-around as well. Plus, having been to CA a lot for work, I am not really a fan of where they are putting the stadium on top of it all. Here's to hoping that we never have to experience such shenanigans as Bills' fans! Edited July 18, 2017 by NeckBeard
Drunken Pygmy Goat Posted July 18, 2017 Posted July 18, 2017 Depends on the lease. Kroenke's gave him enough wiggle room to weasel out, and when it was offered to be rectified, he was all like "nah, I'm good". No matter how much I don't want to pay for a pro football stadium, in any market, I am looking forward to how this L.A. thing turns out. The NFL has had a gigantic erection for that market for decades now, and that's odd given that *two* teams left the last go-around as well. Plus, having been to CA a lot for work, I am not really a fan of where they are putting the stadium on top of it all. Here's to hoping that we never have to experience such shenanigans as Bills' fans! IMO, Kroenke was enamoured with the idea of moving to L.A. Fan interest had been rapidly growing in L.A. for several years. And money is different out there compared to St. Louis.
Guest NeckBeard Posted July 18, 2017 Posted July 18, 2017 (edited) IMO, Kroenke was enamoured with the idea of moving to L.A. Fan interest had been rapidly growing in L.A. for several years. And money is different out there compared to St. Louis. They've had decades to work it out, so I'm sure that there has been interest in the absence of a NFL team. :-) Let's see how the Rams fare. Edited July 18, 2017 by NeckBeard
Iraq Vet Posted July 18, 2017 Posted July 18, 2017 We just need a dome with a retractable roof. As long as it is designed to be a multi function stadium it will be worth it. Tie it in the with an expanded Metro train line.... Some stadiums have hotels and malls connected. We can even lease regular business office space there. Put in on the waterfront with a place to park boats... Make it a year round destination. Instead of going small time lets go huge. I am sick of small time thinking around here. Time to lead the nation!!!
Drunken Pygmy Goat Posted July 18, 2017 Posted July 18, 2017 (edited) They've had decades to work it out, so I'm sure that there has been interest in the absence of a NFL team. :-) Let's see how the Rams fare.True, but that interest grew rapidly over the last 6 or 7 years. I'm sure Kroenke wasn't totally opposed to staying in St. Louis, and on the surface, it at least appears like he did "all he could" to keep the team there, but no one needs to move. They do it for the money, and the majority of league owners agreed with the relocation. It really is screwed up how the league and the owners have the kind of leverage that they do. Even Ralph threatened to move the Bills to Seattle, which resulted in the construction of Rich Stadium. I don't think the Bills will ever leave Buffalo, at this point. I know that sounds a bit foolish, when you consider the fact that cities like Baltimore, Houston, Cleveland, and L.A., have all lost teams in the past, and soon to be Oakland once again, but where would the Bills move to at this point? Oklahoma City? That doesn't really seem like a "NFL football" town to me, but who knows, I guess. San Antonio? Austi may be close by, but is more of a college town, and Texas already has 2 teams. Where else is left? Portland? Vegas is off the table now. Toronto?...nah Edited July 18, 2017 by Drunken Pygmy Goat
HT02 Posted July 18, 2017 Posted July 18, 2017 You aren't going to find a lot of support with, "I'd rather the Bills leave than..." The reality is you are going to be looking at a public-private partnership. There are lots of ways to pass the cost along. That's the way the world works and there are 32 teams. You can either fall in line or watch your team leave. Perfectly said on both points.
Guest NeckBeard Posted July 18, 2017 Posted July 18, 2017 True, but that interest grew rapidly over the last 6 or 7 years. I'm sure Kroenke wasn't totally opposed to staying in St. Louis, and on the surface, it at least appears like he did "all he could" to keep the team there, but no one needs to move. They do it for the money, and the majority of league owners agreed with the relocation. It really is screwed up how the league and the owners have the kind of leverage that they do. Even Ralph threatened to move the Bills to Seattle, which resulted in the construction of Rich Stadium. I don't think the Bills will ever leave Buffalo, at this point. I know that sounds a bit foolish, when you consider the fact that cities like Baltimore, Houston, Cleveland, and L.A., have all lost teams in the past, and soon to be Oakland once again, but where would the Bills move to at this point? Oklahoma City? That doesn't really seem like a "NFL football" town to me, but who knows, I guess. San Antonio? Austi may be close by, but is more of a college town, and Texas already has 2 teams. Where else is left? Portland? Vegas is off the table now. Toronto?...nah Kroenke doubled down from all accounts. He didn't like the dome and the lease, so he balked. He didn't like the "profit" share w public sector, even though it was borrowed money, so he balked. In the end, the state just wasn't going to budge, and the situation became untenable given his demands. STL really took it in the jaw because of him, and Missouri on the whole is left to clean up his mess. I agree with you on the other points, save for the NFL really putting a team outside of the U.S., which is always possible.
SoCal Deek Posted July 18, 2017 Posted July 18, 2017 People on here can't seem to understand how HUGE the Southern California market is. It was a no brainer for the Rams to move. The Owner owned the land where the stadium is being constructed. That fact alone made the math work.(By the way, land values in the LA area are NOTHING like the land values in WNY.) And according to Forbes, he has already doubled his money without even playing a down in the New Stadium yet! Not too shabby.
Guest NeckBeard Posted July 18, 2017 Posted July 18, 2017 (edited) You aren't going to find a lot of support with, "I'd rather the Bills leave than..." The reality is you are going to be looking at a public-private partnership. There are lots of ways to pass the cost along. That's the way the world works and there are 32 teams. You can either fall in line or watch your team leave. I had seen this quoted later on in this thread, and I am surprised I just saw this now. You make a really interesting point. However, the NFL has been playing a game of musical chairs for decades, and it seems like they are running out of chairs. Certainly, to your latter point, San Antonio is an option, but then what? Duluth? Oakland? San Diego? Portland, Oregon? OKC? The Dakotas? I don't need to tell people how many teams are in NY, OH, FL, DC area, CA, and TX, but when I tick off the most viable landing spots in the U.S. I'm running short on markets to where a NFL team could have a successful relocation, and I would be hard pressed to believe that a bunch of Dakotans or people in Oklahoma are going to be ga-ga about any potential for tax burden on down the road. People on here can't seem to understand how HUGE the Southern California market is. It was a no brainer for the Rams to move. The Owner owned the land where the stadium is being constructed. That fact alone made the math work.(By the way, land values in the LA area are NOTHING like the land values in WNY.) And according to Forbes, he has already doubled his money without even playing a down in the New Stadium yet! Not too shabby. Again, this is where we reach the "show me" phase here. L.A. has been growing for as long as I can remember, and should have a strong blemish on its record about the performance of -- not one, but two! -- NFL teams, but doesn't. Good on the owner for making out ahead, but let's see where he's sitting in a decade. Edited July 18, 2017 by NeckBeard
SoCal Deek Posted July 18, 2017 Posted July 18, 2017 NeckBeard The NFL is simply following the population shift. It wasn't all that long ago that people would have thought it was crazy to have an NFL team in Las Vegas, or Phoenix. Or an NBA Team is OKC. Or an NHL Team in San Jose or Anaheim. The league, and the Owners are moving to be annoying! They are moving to follow the fan bases that want their product. It should have read....aren't moving to be annoying.
Guest NeckBeard Posted July 18, 2017 Posted July 18, 2017 NeckBeard The NFL is simply following the population shift. It wasn't all that long ago that people would have thought it was crazy to have an NFL team in Las Vegas, or Phoenix. Or an NBA Team is OKC. Or an NHL Team in San Jose or Anaheim. The league, and the Owners are moving to be annoying! They are moving to follow the fan bases that want their product. It should have read....aren't moving to be annoying. I'm sure they are not moving to annoy us. I just don't want their moves to fleece a bunch of taxpayers -- after they've procured funds through a public-private model, and not followed through with their end of the deal. Phoenix to me is a moot point now; they've been there how long? 30 years? 25? Las Vegas was inevitable.
Kirby Jackson Posted July 18, 2017 Posted July 18, 2017 I had seen this quoted later on in this thread, and I am surprised I just saw this now. You make a really interesting point. However, the NFL has been playing a game of musical chairs for decades, and it seems like they are running out of chairs. Certainly, to your latter point, San Antonio is an option, but then what? Duluth? Oakland? San Diego? Portland, Oregon? OKC? The Dakotas? I don't need to tell people how many teams are in NY, OH, FL, DC area, CA, and TX, but when I tick off the most viable landing spots in the U.S. I'm running short on markets to where a NFL team could have a successful relocation, and I would be hard pressed to believe that a bunch of Dakotans or people in Oklahoma are going to be ga-ga about any potential for tax burden on down the road. I don't see this as being a league-driven exercise. The league has no say as to where an owner chooses to operate. I believe that the Pegula's are committed to WNY. At the same time, we are watching revenues around they league skyrocket while the Bills aren't growing at the same rate. At some point they will want to generate more of the non-shared revenue to raise their margins. I don't think that it will be a threat like Kroenke. It will be an ask at first with the hope of not having to leverage San Antonio, Portland, Toronto, Louisville or Norfolk. With regards to the last 2 both have quietly been candidates for an NBA team for about a decade. It's been off the radar but they would very much be players here.
Recommended Posts