LabattBlue Posted March 28, 2019 Posted March 28, 2019 Just now, dollars 2 donuts said: Two things, quick, and I am sorry if they have already been talked about: 1. Given Pegulas comments are we just taking a domed stadium or retractable roof stadium off the board? I believe so, unless you can find away to bring that under 600 or so million dollars, which a shot in the dark tells me is the sweet spot. 2. Wouldn't many of us anyways prefer or a more moderate stadium with more reasonable tickets than the cathedrals we are seeing built? Just my 2 cents. I think a retractable roof is a waste of money and not being considered, but a moderately priced domed stadium which is more in line with Minnesota and Indy, and not Jerry's World or Mercedes Dome, is probably going to end up being the answer. 1
zonabb Posted March 28, 2019 Posted March 28, 2019 I've working in the community engagement field, and I can tell you for certain that public surveys and comment periods are nothing more than token lip service AND that consultants hired by the govt are hired to confirm the position of leaders, not do what's best for the community or provide empirically driven, unbiased findings. Poloncarz hired a firm to "study" a convention center. He conducted a public survey (which by many accounts was responded to by a massive push by the Poloncarz and Democratic machine to get people to respond in favor influence the results). Everything in the study and the survey said it was a good idea. But when you look around the country, read cost-benefit analyses on convention centers, they are f'in losers in most places. The county is going to spend $400+M to build one, then millions annually to maintain and operate it. Who benefits? The wealthy developers who fund his campaign and every politicians campaign and who, by the way, also own the bars and hotels that'll slightly benefit and who, by the way, we subsidized those buildings for. All around, economic development public-private partnerships are losers for the public and a boon for the wealthy. Socialized debt, privatized profit. The same is true for sports teams who hire consultants to examine stadium options and conduct surveys. The owners have already made up their mind, their hire a firm to tell "them" what they want to hear so that they can "tell" the govt the predicament they are in so drum up support. And when the NFL has been bashing you over the head publicly for years to build a new stadium, you hire a firm not to tell you if you should do it, but one to tell you where to do it and how to finance it. Pegula$ were pretty obvious in their statements that a new stadium is coming. When you hear someone say "gamechanger" and "impactful" and “It’s going to take a lot of work from a lot of people. The county, the fans, us, the stadium, the league, the state" it confirms my experience in development and public engagement. And in her comment above, "work" means money. These people are basically pilferers of the public. We pay for their stadium now. They're one of the richest families in America. They've made hundreds of millions of profit on the team in cash and equity. And they want a new stadium but WE have to "work" hard for it? No thanks. One penny is one penny too much for supporting any owner in this league in any market. This team is profitable NOW, as it stands, in this market, in this stadium enough so that they plunked down a cook $1.2B. We have to make sure that in addition to ensuring maximum profit (remember, that's what this is about' it's the potential untapped profit they want to make but it requires US to pay for it) , we subsidize it more so many of us can be excluded? I won't pay for a PSL, I won't pay more than $100 per game for a seat (ticket is super close now) and I suspect many in my large group will be out. So the real question is... can they built something comfortable enough for affluent white professionals to cough up money for tickets so their wives can parade around in knee high boots and spend the entire game on their phones like at Sabres games? What this is about, and what needs to happen for this power play to work, is a significant shift in the composition of the attending fan base away from the commoners who have supported this team through this miserable stretch to a more affluent group that will buy a "status symbol" season ticket, consume expensive food and drinks, and generally consume the NFL and not care about the game. The league and Pegula$ are capitalists first and foremost. The game is secondary, the profit is primary. Or, they keep tickets roughly the same with a small increase and the same general cohort of STH remain. However, that will require a SUBSTANTIALLY higher investment from the govt to increase the annual profit to keep Jerry Jone$ and Robert "Rub and Tug" Kraft happy. Either way, I'm not on board with spending precious public capital on a stadium the owners can clearly afford (this is not about whether they can or can't, it's about playing the economic development corporate welfare game) when we have dire needs in this region ... our roads and bridges are a mess, our sewer and water systems are a mess, our neighborhoods need some help and our people are being left behind. But we're supposed to invest in a billionaire for 10 events a year. What happened to "I'll drill another well" when he needed money? 3 1
LabattBlue Posted March 28, 2019 Posted March 28, 2019 1 minute ago, zonabb said: I've working in the community engagement field, and I can tell you for certain that public surveys and comment periods are nothing more than token lip service AND that consultants hired by the govt are hired to confirm the position of leaders, not do what's best for the community or provide empirically driven, unbiased findings. I said this same thing when they did there surveys and had their little STH focus groups. They mean nothing. IMO...they have already decided what type of stadium they want, and where it will be. It's just waiting for an announcement at this point.
oldmanfan Posted March 28, 2019 Posted March 28, 2019 13 minutes ago, LabattBlue said: Just my 2 cents. I think a retractable roof is a waste of money and not being considered, but a moderately priced domed stadium which is more in line with Minnesota and Indy, and not Jerry's World or Mercedes Dome, is probably going to end up being the answer. Point of information, but they can open the roof here in Indy.
Just Jack Posted March 28, 2019 Posted March 28, 2019 31 minutes ago, dollars 2 donuts said: 2. Wouldn't many of us anyways prefer or a more moderate stadium with more reasonable tickets than the cathedrals we are seeing built? I would prefer something like Houston or Indy has, the "warehouse" style stadium. Simple, basic, rectangle box, drop a field inside. No special engineering/designing needed. 3
Mr. WEO Posted March 28, 2019 Posted March 28, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Kirby Jackson said: I hear you but everyone else is doing it. It is not going to be something that the Pegulas pick up alone. There are so many new revenue streamson the horizon (marijuana, sports betting, etc..) that they can find their portion. You can't bid out a billion dollar project on tax revenue on activities that aren't even legal yet. Also, as you know, Any new tax revenue will not be earmarked for a particular item. And finally, every downstate legislator is going to raise the Buffalo Billions fiasco over and over as a reason not to waste anymore taxpayer dollars on special projects in Buffalo. And most NY citizens would be behind that sentiment, no doubt. How much money did NYS kick in for Harborcenter? None. If Pegula wants a new stadium, let him pay for it like he did for the Bills/Sabres/Harborcenter. He can afford it. NYS obviously cannot. The MTA alone needs 30-40 billion. The political atmosphere is toxic for billionaires and tax breaks. Look how they swatted Amazon out in a week over (crazy, I think) issues of deferred business taxes. Edited March 28, 2019 by Mr. WEO
Hammered a Lot Posted March 28, 2019 Posted March 28, 2019 1 hour ago, LabattBlue said: Fine...but don't just spin nonsense. Nonsense? 1 hour ago, LabattBlue said: Just my 2 cents. I think a retractable roof is a waste of money and not being considered, but a moderately priced domed stadium which is more in line with Minnesota and Indy, and not Jerry's World or Mercedes Dome, is probably going to end up being the answer. What's moderately price mean ? 1 billion -1.5 billion?
Mr. WEO Posted March 28, 2019 Posted March 28, 2019 1 hour ago, LabattBlue said: Just my 2 cents. I think a retractable roof is a waste of money and not being considered, but a moderately priced domed stadium which is more in line with Minnesota and Indy, and not Jerry's World or Mercedes Dome, is probably going to end up being the answer. Terry's first response to a dome, when questioned, was "no". Then he went on to the "let's see what the study says" BS. 1 hour ago, dollars 2 donuts said: Two things, quick, and I am sorry if they have already been talked about: 1. Given Pegulas comments are we just taking a domed stadium or retractable roof stadium off the board? I believe so, unless you can find a way to bring that under 600 or so million dollars, which a shot in the dark tells me is the sweet spot. 2. Wouldn't many of us anyways prefer or a more moderate stadium with more reasonable tickets than the cathedrals we are seeing built? New stadium is never going to equal "reasonable tickets" nowadays. Unless they are planning PSLs, they will have to jack way up the season ticket prices. 2
Hammered a Lot Posted March 28, 2019 Posted March 28, 2019 1 hour ago, LabattBlue said: Take his ramblings with a grain of salt. He is biased, as he is about to lose his parking revenue from 10 home games every year. Ramblings? And what you post is not?
LabattBlue Posted March 28, 2019 Posted March 28, 2019 10 minutes ago, Hammered a Lot said: Nonsense? What's moderately price mean ? 1 billion -1.5 billion? Like I said your biased...but your experience in Indy is reason to have a stadium in the suburbs instead of in a downtown area? Yes...that is nonsense.
iinii Posted March 28, 2019 Posted March 28, 2019 1 hour ago, zonabb said: I've working in the community engagement field, and I can tell you for certain that public surveys and comment periods are nothing more than token lip service AND that consultants hired by the govt are hired to confirm the position of leaders, not do what's best for the community or provide empirically driven, unbiased findings. Poloncarz hired a firm to "study" a convention center. He conducted a public survey (which by many accounts was responded to by a massive push by the Poloncarz and Democratic machine to get people to respond in favor influence the results). Everything in the study and the survey said it was a good idea. But when you look around the country, read cost-benefit analyses on convention centers, they are f'in losers in most places. The county is going to spend $400+M to build one, then millions annually to maintain and operate it. Who benefits? The wealthy developers who fund his campaign and every politicians campaign and who, by the way, also own the bars and hotels that'll slightly benefit and who, by the way, we subsidized those buildings for. All around, economic development public-private partnerships are losers for the public and a boon for the wealthy. Socialized debt, privatized profit. The same is true for sports teams who hire consultants to examine stadium options and conduct surveys. The owners have already made up their mind, their hire a firm to tell "them" what they want to hear so that they can "tell" the govt the predicament they are in so drum up support. And when the NFL has been bashing you over the head publicly for years to build a new stadium, you hire a firm not to tell you if you should do it, but one to tell you where to do it and how to finance it. Pegula$ were pretty obvious in their statements that a new stadium is coming. When you hear someone say "gamechanger" and "impactful" and “It’s going to take a lot of work from a lot of people. The county, the fans, us, the stadium, the league, the state" it confirms my experience in development and public engagement. And in her comment above, "work" means money. These people are basically pilferers of the public. We pay for their stadium now. They're one of the richest families in America. They've made hundreds of millions of profit on the team in cash and equity. And they want a new stadium but WE have to "work" hard for it? No thanks. One penny is one penny too much for supporting any owner in this league in any market. This team is profitable NOW, as it stands, in this market, in this stadium enough so that they plunked down a cook $1.2B. We have to make sure that in addition to ensuring maximum profit (remember, that's what this is about' it's the potential untapped profit they want to make but it requires US to pay for it) , we subsidize it more so many of us can be excluded? I won't pay for a PSL, I won't pay more than $100 per game for a seat (ticket is super close now) and I suspect many in my large group will be out. So the real question is... can they built something comfortable enough for affluent white professionals to cough up money for tickets so their wives can parade around in knee high boots and spend the entire game on their phones like at Sabres games? What this is about, and what needs to happen for this power play to work, is a significant shift in the composition of the attending fan base away from the commoners who have supported this team through this miserable stretch to a more affluent group that will buy a "status symbol" season ticket, consume expensive food and drinks, and generally consume the NFL and not care about the game. The league and Pegula$ are capitalists first and foremost. The game is secondary, the profit is primary. Or, they keep tickets roughly the same with a small increase and the same general cohort of STH remain. However, that will require a SUBSTANTIALLY higher investment from the govt to increase the annual profit to keep Jerry Jone$ and Robert "Rub and Tug" Kraft happy. Either way, I'm not on board with spending precious public capital on a stadium the owners can clearly afford (this is not about whether they can or can't, it's about playing the economic development corporate welfare game) when we have dire needs in this region ... our roads and bridges are a mess, our sewer and water systems are a mess, our neighborhoods need some help and our people are being left behind. But we're supposed to invest in a billionaire for 10 events a year. What happened to "I'll drill another well" when he needed money? Peg$ doesn’t care about anything but himself. Just another billionaire who can’t get enough, at the expense of you and the environment.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 28, 2019 Posted March 28, 2019 54 minutes ago, Just Jack said: I would prefer something like Houston or Indy has, the "warehouse" style stadium. Simple, basic, rectangle box, drop a field inside. No special engineering/designing needed. me too, I actually like the look of Lucas Oil. 1
Kirby Jackson Posted March 28, 2019 Author Posted March 28, 2019 43 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said: You can't bid out a billion dollar project on tax revenue on activities that aren't even legal yet. Also, as you know, Any new tax revenue will not be earmarked for a particular item. And finally, every downstate legislator is going to raise the Buffalo Billions fiasco over and over as a reason not to waste anymore taxpayer dollars on special projects in Buffalo. And most NY citizens would be behind that sentiment, no doubt. How much money did NYS kick in for Harborcenter? None. If Pegula wants a new stadium, let him pay for it like he did for the Bills/Sabres/Harborcenter. He can afford it. NYS obviously cannot. The MTA alone needs 30-40 billion. The political atmosphere is toxic for billionaires and tax breaks. Look how they swatted Amazon out in a week over (crazy, I think) issues of deferred business taxes. This isn’t being done tomorrow. The project isn’t being bid out yet. The Pegulas aren’t going to accept the “you can afford it” argument when it is commonplace elsewhere. The NFL (located in NY) will back them. They want a new stadium for the Bills. The Bills will pick up their share but they won’t be paying for all of it. 1
Boatdrinks Posted March 28, 2019 Posted March 28, 2019 1 hour ago, zonabb said: I've working in the community engagement field, and I can tell you for certain that public surveys and comment periods are nothing more than token lip service AND that consultants hired by the govt are hired to confirm the position of leaders, not do what's best for the community or provide empirically driven, unbiased findings. Poloncarz hired a firm to "study" a convention center. He conducted a public survey (which by many accounts was responded to by a massive push by the Poloncarz and Democratic machine to get people to respond in favor influence the results). Everything in the study and the survey said it was a good idea. But when you look around the country, read cost-benefit analyses on convention centers, they are f'in losers in most places. The county is going to spend $400+M to build one, then millions annually to maintain and operate it. Who benefits? The wealthy developers who fund his campaign and every politicians campaign and who, by the way, also own the bars and hotels that'll slightly benefit and who, by the way, we subsidized those buildings for. All around, economic development public-private partnerships are losers for the public and a boon for the wealthy. Socialized debt, privatized profit. The same is true for sports teams who hire consultants to examine stadium options and conduct surveys. The owners have already made up their mind, their hire a firm to tell "them" what they want to hear so that they can "tell" the govt the predicament they are in so drum up support. And when the NFL has been bashing you over the head publicly for years to build a new stadium, you hire a firm not to tell you if you should do it, but one to tell you where to do it and how to finance it. Pegula$ were pretty obvious in their statements that a new stadium is coming. When you hear someone say "gamechanger" and "impactful" and “It’s going to take a lot of work from a lot of people. The county, the fans, us, the stadium, the league, the state" it confirms my experience in development and public engagement. And in her comment above, "work" means money. These people are basically pilferers of the public. We pay for their stadium now. They're one of the richest families in America. They've made hundreds of millions of profit on the team in cash and equity. And they want a new stadium but WE have to "work" hard for it? No thanks. One penny is one penny too much for supporting any owner in this league in any market. This team is profitable NOW, as it stands, in this market, in this stadium enough so that they plunked down a cook $1.2B. We have to make sure that in addition to ensuring maximum profit (remember, that's what this is about' it's the potential untapped profit they want to make but it requires US to pay for it) , we subsidize it more so many of us can be excluded? I won't pay for a PSL, I won't pay more than $100 per game for a seat (ticket is super close now) and I suspect many in my large group will be out. So the real question is... can they built something comfortable enough for affluent white professionals to cough up money for tickets so their wives can parade around in knee high boots and spend the entire game on their phones like at Sabres games? What this is about, and what needs to happen for this power play to work, is a significant shift in the composition of the attending fan base away from the commoners who have supported this team through this miserable stretch to a more affluent group that will buy a "status symbol" season ticket, consume expensive food and drinks, and generally consume the NFL and not care about the game. The league and Pegula$ are capitalists first and foremost. The game is secondary, the profit is primary. Or, they keep tickets roughly the same with a small increase and the same general cohort of STH remain. However, that will require a SUBSTANTIALLY higher investment from the govt to increase the annual profit to keep Jerry Jone$ and Robert "Rub and Tug" Kraft happy. Either way, I'm not on board with spending precious public capital on a stadium the owners can clearly afford (this is not about whether they can or can't, it's about playing the economic development corporate welfare game) when we have dire needs in this region ... our roads and bridges are a mess, our sewer and water systems are a mess, our neighborhoods need some help and our people are being left behind. But we're supposed to invest in a billionaire for 10 events a year. What happened to "I'll drill another well" when he needed money? While your post makes sweeping generalizations about the Bills target customer, there are some valid political points. IF we lived in a perfect world, right ? We all know that we don’t, and government is far from great with taxpayer dollars. However, we don’t live in a perfect world and if a new stadium is desired by the Pegulas and Co, it will almost certainly get done. Most likely a combination of funding sources will be used including some tax $. That’s how it is. It’s not just the NFL, lots of profitable businesses do this kind of thing in some shape or form. While I acknowledge the validity of your message, I don’t agree with it personally.
Mr. WEO Posted March 28, 2019 Posted March 28, 2019 1 minute ago, Kirby Jackson said: This isn’t being done tomorrow. The project isn’t being bid out yet. The Pegulas aren’t going to accept the “you can afford it” argument when it is commonplace elsewhere. The NFL (located in NY) will back them. They want a new stadium for the Bills. The Bills will pick up their share but they won’t be paying for all of it. What leverage does Pegula have over NYS?
Kirby Jackson Posted March 28, 2019 Author Posted March 28, 2019 Just now, Mr. WEO said: What leverage does Pegula have over NYS? Well, he does own the only NFL team in the state... I’m not sure that he would ever play that card but he certainly can. He could certainly entertain other locations. That’s the nuclear option but it’s an option... 2
WhoTom Posted March 28, 2019 Posted March 28, 2019 22 hours ago, LabattBlue said: How is it that Indy(a dome team) came into RWS two years ago, and beat the Bills while the snow piled up quarter after quarter? They didn't. http://www.espn.com/nfl/game?gameId=400951560
Mr. WEO Posted March 28, 2019 Posted March 28, 2019 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said: Well, he does own the only NFL team in the state... I’m not sure that he would ever play that card but he certainly can. He could certainly entertain other locations. That’s the nuclear option but it’s an option... That's his leverage? That he moves the team? He had that chance. Who wouldn't call that bluff (of those legislators who do not represent WNY)? They would ask....."where you gonna go?" Pegula's pal Stan Kroenke had a plan all along to move out of St. Louis--he was just waiting for LA. Pegula doesn't have that option. And Kroenke is putting up 1.6 billion cash and financing another 2.25 billion for a project that is now expected to cost at least 4.25 billion. Edited March 28, 2019 by Mr. WEO
LabattBlue Posted March 28, 2019 Posted March 28, 2019 22 minutes ago, WhoTom said: They didn't. http://www.espn.com/nfl/game?gameId=400951560 hahahaha...my mistake...but they did take the team accustomed to playing in blizzards to OT.
Recommended Posts