SoCal Deek Posted July 18, 2017 Posted July 18, 2017 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. That's where you and I would differ. Nobody is getting 'fleeced' except for possibly when the City Fathers are complete nit-wits and don't have some decent minimum number of years built into the lease agreement. As I've said in other posts here, the Stadium is a construction project. Almost all of the money goes right back into the local construction market, just like a road or a school. The money doesn't go to the Owner and he can't take the building with him when/if he leaves. I'm old enough to remember the construction of Rich Stadium...which was considered a fortune back in the 70's. Now...the place has long since been paid for and there players on the Team who almost make more money EVERY SEASON than the $20m it cost to build.
billykaykay 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. 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. I think that cities like NY & Chicago could easily host another team. Brooklyn alone has about 3 million people & now has its own NBA team.
Guest NeckBeard Posted July 18, 2017 Posted July 18, 2017 I think that cities like NY & Chicago could easily host another team. Brooklyn alone has about 3 million people & now has its own NBA team. Brooklyn? That's possible, but do they have room to build another stadium? I don't think they'll be playing in NJ. Chicago? Don't see it. That's where you and I would differ. Nobody is getting 'fleeced' except for possibly when the City Fathers are complete nit-wits and don't have some decent minimum number of years built into the lease agreement. As I've said in other posts here, the Stadium is a construction project. Almost all of the money goes right back into the local construction market, just like a road or a school. The money doesn't go to the Owner and he can't take the building with him when/if he leaves. I'm old enough to remember the construction of Rich Stadium...which was considered a fortune back in the 70's. Now...the place has long since been paid for and there players on the Team who almost make more money EVERY SEASON than the $20m it cost to build. Sure, it's a construction project, and definitely tying the lease to any cash outlay is smart, but what happens when one doesn't fulfill their obligations on a municipal bond? That's my core issue here. And, as far as construction projects go, have you seen Niagara Falls lately? Turtle. Rainbow Mall. Abandoned. Winter garden? Water park? Eh. WNY has many of these ghosts scattered about, and many were joint funded back in the day. Rich Stadium turned out to be a boon, but it's the exception in an otherwise pretty lengthy list of failures in WNY. I am having a hard time believing that a partnership to build a >$500M (I'm estimating) stadium for a >$1B team is a good idea. The Bills should just downsize and play in a dome. The Turtle.
SoCal Deek Posted July 18, 2017 Posted July 18, 2017 Brooklyn? That's possible, but do they have room to build another stadium? I don't think they'll be playing in NJ. Chicago? Don't see it. Sure, it's a construction project, and definitely tying the lease to any cash outlay is smart, but what happens when one doesn't fulfill their obligations on a municipal bond? That's my core issue here. And, as far as construction projects go, have you seen Niagara Falls lately? Turtle. Rainbow Mall. Abandoned. Winter garden? Water park? Eh. WNY has many of these ghosts scattered about, and many were joint funded back in the day. Rich Stadium turned out to be a boon, but it's the exception in an otherwise pretty lengthy list of failures in WNY. I am having a hard time believing that a partnership to build a >$500M (I'm estimating) stadium for a >$1B team is a good idea. The Bills should just downsize and play in a dome. The Turtle. I actually don't have a dog in the fight of whether the new facility is a new Stadium on a new site, or a significant addition to New Era Stadium. I just know that the option of doing nothing....is not an option. To 'play' in this league, the host City is going to have provide something. For example, in Los Angeles, they're not providing construction funds but instead, for now, they're providing access to 20 million people! Buffalo is going to have to provide land, construction or something else that an Owner wants. By the way, the examples you cite are all good ones. They may unfortunately be living examples of why Buffalo can no longer support an NFL Team.
Guest NeckBeard Posted July 19, 2017 Posted July 19, 2017 I actually don't have a dog in the fight of whether the new facility is a new Stadium on a new site, or a significant addition to New Era Stadium. I just know that the option of doing nothing....is not an option. To 'play' in this league, the host City is going to have provide something. For example, in Los Angeles, they're not providing construction funds but instead, for now, they're providing access to 20 million people! Buffalo is going to have to provide land, construction or something else that an Owner wants. By the way, the examples you cite are all good ones. They may unfortunately be living examples of why Buffalo can no longer support an NFL Team. Therein lies the issue. Buffalo has made incremental (and welcome) progress over the last decade or so, but regionally WNY is still a mixed bag. I think the region can still support the Bills (and other pro teams), but it's not L.A., so cash outlay from the public sector is the gating factor. Perhaps the barometer for the path forward is more Cleveland and less L.A..
Drunken Pygmy Goat Posted July 25, 2017 Posted July 25, 2017 (edited) Found this article last night. Interesting idea. https://www.buffalorumblings.com/2017/7/22/16007846/golden-state-warriors-new-arena-personal-seat-license-model-buffalo-bills-stadium "This week, the Golden State Warriors announced that they would be charging a unique kind of Personal Seat License to ticket holders at their new arena. PSLs have been around for a while, mostly in the NFL, as a way for owners to raise a lot of capital upfront so they had to finance less money and allowing them to pay less interest. Essentially, you pay a large fee just for the ability to purchase season tickets. The twist the Warriors have introduced would pay back the fee after a period of time. This acts as a 30-year, interest-free loan for the organization. For the fans, at least they will get their original $10,000 back. Most PSLs are a fee, not a loan, and you never see that money return." Edited July 25, 2017 by Drunken Pygmy Goat
cba fan Posted July 26, 2017 Posted July 26, 2017 Found this article last night. Interesting idea. https://www.buffalorumblings.com/2017/7/22/16007846/golden-state-warriors-new-arena-personal-seat-license-model-buffalo-bills-stadium "This week, the Golden State Warriors announced that they would be charging a unique kind of Personal Seat License to ticket holders at their new arena. PSLs have been around for a while, mostly in the NFL, as a way for owners to raise a lot of capital upfront so they had to finance less money and allowing them to pay less interest. Essentially, you pay a large fee just for the ability to purchase season tickets. The twist the Warriors have introduced would pay back the fee after a period of time. This acts as a 30-year, interest-free loan for the organization. For the fans, at least they will get their original $10,000 back. Most PSLs are a fee, not a loan, and you never see that money return." Well in a way you can get that fee returned. When you sell your season tickets to someone else. If the team is winning, the PSL would retain its value. I am sure not all PSL are transferrable so would need to understand that before buying if this is a factor for you. Teams have done diff things with PSL. For EX Raiders totally ripped off fans when they moved back to Oakland with a PSL that expired after I think 10 yrs. Crazy that fans would do that. But they did. Raiders had an eye on another PSL when the new stadium Oakland promised would be built later.
ALF Posted July 29, 2017 Posted July 29, 2017 Kim Pegula: Bills on "fact-finding mission" concerning stadium http://www.wkbw.com/news/kim-pegula-bills-on-fact-finding-mission-concerning-stadium
ALF Posted July 29, 2017 Posted July 29, 2017 Vic Carucci's Bills Mailbag: Downtown stadium inevitable, but won't happen as fast as the NFL would like http://buffalonews.com/2017/07/28/vic-caruccis-bills-mailbag-downtown-stadium-inevitable-wont-happen-fast-nfl-like/?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=puma&utm_source=Twitter#link_time=1501298304
PromoTheRobot Posted July 29, 2017 Posted July 29, 2017 Not trying to be a buzzkill, I'm just the "believe it when I see it" type. Well there are things happening now. You just choose not to see them. I agree, the model is Patriot Place, but in an urban setting. It's coming. 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. Read a paper. They do it in several states. Spend millions on drug tests to find one drug user. Wow, what savings!
Drunken Pygmy Goat Posted July 31, 2017 Posted July 31, 2017 Vic Carucci's Bills Mailbag: Downtown stadium inevitable, but won't happen as fast as the NFL would like http://buffalonews.com/2017/07/28/vic-caruccis-bills-mailbag-downtown-stadium-inevitable-wont-happen-fast-nfl-like/?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=puma&utm_source=Twitter#link_time=1501298304 I don't think a downtown stadium is "inevitable", and I don't think there's any way for Vic to know that specifically. If the bones of New Era Field are in as good of shape as they're said to be, a supreme retrofit shouldn't be off the table, and I think that most fans would prefer that over a new stadium, especially downtown. Besides, the current stadium already had recent renovations done, costing well over $100 million. Throw another $400-600 million on top of it, and it should be up to "league standards", IMO.
PromoTheRobot Posted July 31, 2017 Posted July 31, 2017 I don't think a downtown stadium is "inevitable", and I don't think there's any way for Vic to know that specifically. If the bones of New Era Field are in as good of shape as they're said to be, a supreme retrofit shouldn't be off the table, and I think that most fans would prefer that over a new stadium, especially downtown. Besides, the current stadium already had recent renovations done, costing well over $100 million. Throw another $400-600 million on top of it, and it should be up to "league standards", IMO. Now you are throwing money away. Rich/RWS/New Era will be 50 years old at the end of the lease. How much longer do you expect it to last?
Drunken Pygmy Goat Posted July 31, 2017 Posted July 31, 2017 Now you are throwing money away. Rich/RWS/New Era will be 50 years old at the end of the lease. How much longer do you expect it to last? I have no clue, but that's not something that I'm paid for to determine. It's not my money either. Green Bay, Chicago, and Kansas City all had major renovations in recent years. I assume it can be done to NEF as well. The Stadium Committee included NEF in their studies, so to say that a downtown stadium is "inevitable" doesn't seem accurate. The Pegulas will be burdened with a large chunk of the costs, so a set up similar to what the **Pats have done may be a reasonable, logical expectation, but "inevitable" may not be the best assumption. That's all I'm saying. Plus, a similar model may not be feasible in a downtown setting, depending on the location.
Kirby Jackson Posted July 31, 2017 Posted July 31, 2017 I don't think a downtown stadium is "inevitable", and I don't think there's any way for Vic to know that specifically. If the bones of New Era Field are in as good of shape as they're said to be, a supreme retrofit shouldn't be off the table, and I think that most fans would prefer that over a new stadium, especially downtown. Besides, the current stadium already had recent renovations done, costing well over $100 million. Throw another $400-600 million on top of it, and it should be up to "league standards", IMO.I've highlighted the reasons that I don't think that a retrofit is practical a bunch of times. Long story short it has to do with the revenue (both direct and indirect). The Bills are the least valuable team in the NFL I think. There is a gap to close and their margin for error is much smaller than bigger markets. The new stadium gives them the opportunity for a clean slate to do it in such a way that those gaps close.
Beast Posted July 31, 2017 Posted July 31, 2017 It sucks but that has been the reality of it. A community wants a football team they have to ante up to keep it in place. For now, that is a harsh reality. Eventually I imagine this won't be the case but not for a while. I do think that this is eventually why you will see multiple teams outside of the United States.
Drunken Pygmy Goat Posted July 31, 2017 Posted July 31, 2017 I've highlighted the reasons that I don't think that a retrofit is practical a bunch of times. Long story short it has to do with the revenue (both direct and indirect). The Bills are the least valuable team in the NFL I think. There is a gap to close and their margin for error is much smaller than bigger markets. The new stadium gives them the opportunity for a clean slate to do it in such a way that those gaps close. That's a good point. Maybe I missed those posts, or read and forgot them. Surely it's something that those in charge of the process will examine and make determination upon, and they may have already come to the same conclusion as you. With that being said, securing public funds will likely be a key determining factor, and you can bet that there will be plenty of push back from politicians, as far as just how much public money they're willing to contribute. A new stadium downtown will require much more money for infrastructure costs, in comparison to a retrofit of NEF. I guess it all depends on what would need to be done to NEF for it to be considered "up to date" with league standards. In my previous post, I mentioned three other stadiums that are now considered to be up to date. Lambeau Field is 15 years older than NEF, and has had a few major renovations completed, the first in 2003 (costing $295 mil) and another in 2015 ($140 mil), as well as video and sound improvements in 2010 (IIRC; not sure of the cost). Soldier Field is almost 50 years older than NEF, and they had major renovations completed in 2003 ($632 mil). Arrowhead Stadium is a year older than NEF, renovated in 2010 ($375 mil). Not trying to be argumentive at all, but if in fact a retrofit is a feasible solution, I believe that would be preferred, in order to minimize costs. Also worth mentioning is that the G4 program (currently) is set up to provide more money for renovations (up to $250 mil) than it does for new stadium projects (up to $200 mil). Part of the league "pressure" for the Bills to act soon may be based on the idea that the G4 program may or may not be available in the near future, as it must be negotiated into the CBA, which expires in a couple of years.
PromoTheRobot Posted July 31, 2017 Posted July 31, 2017 Keep in mind that Rich Stadium was built in Orchard Park to escape the city, at a time when everyone was moving to the suburbs. Today the trend is the opposite. It's no secret the Pegulas are building their own downtown at the foot of Main. A new home for the Bills is part of that vision. It's just a matter of when. I still think it's 2023.
CodeMonkey Posted July 31, 2017 Posted July 31, 2017 Read a paper. They do it in several states. Spend millions on drug tests to find one drug user. Wow, what savings! Exactly. That's what the "drug test them all" crowd fails to account for, the cost of the drug tests themselves.
PromoTheRobot Posted July 31, 2017 Posted July 31, 2017 Exactly. That's what the "drug test them all" crowd fails to account for, the cost of the drug tests themselves. And, no surprise, those pushing the hardest for drug testing are....wait for it...the people who own labs that do drug tests!
cba fan Posted August 1, 2017 Posted August 1, 2017 Exactly. That's what the "drug test them all" crowd fails to account for, the cost of the drug tests themselves. Well then these people are just idiots. You do not drug test everyone. You do a methodical random sampling which will identify via formula/projections what the projected % of drug users are estimated with a decent level of accuracy out there. Like a Gallup poll or Nielsen ratings. You then move forward based on that data. You may stop testing altogether or step it up depending on the results. You may just check those suspected or identified via whistler blower hotlines etc etc......
Recommended Posts