EDIT: Total cost to taxpayers? Bills select sports firm to represent ownership in building new open air stadium in OP, targeted for 2025

[Hapless Bills Fan]

https://buffalonews.com/news/local/state-and-regional/state-lawmakers-on-bills-request-for-100-public-financing-for-stadium-a-non-starter/article_9c0de7a4-f465-11eb-854a-bf4c9530615c.html

 

(Not sure if it's paywalled or not)

 

Quote

ALBANY – Crystal Peoples-Stokes is the second most powerful lawmaker in the State Assembly and a longtime backer of the Buffalo Bills. “I’m a die-hard fan,’’ Peoples-Stokes said last week, a line she uses whenever the subject of the Buffalo Bills comes up.
 

As talk of a new stadium swirls again, Peoples-Stokes makes it clear: She would love to see a new facility built in downtown Buffalo, her city. But she is also on board with the Pegula Sports & Entertainment plan to build a new stadium next to the Bills' longtime home in Orchard Park.

What’s she’s not OK with is what she has been told about the negotiations: an ask by the Pegula company for a 100% taxpayer-financed stadium.

“Because the amount is so large, it seems like a non-starter,’’ Peoples-Stokes said last week in an interview.

 

The public will have to pay some portion of a new stadium project, she believes, because the stadium would be, like the existing one, county-owned and one she believes is a taxpayer resource with a healthy return on the investment for the state and county.

“But, it certainly should not be 100%,’’ she said.

 

Quote

“The idea of taxpayers funding 100% of a new stadium is a non-starter," said Sen. Sean Ryan, a Buffalo Democrat. “A new, publicly owned stadium would be a year-round asset, which would warrant some support from the people of the State of New York, but 100% is not going to happen."

The early chatter in Buffalo and Albany is that the Bills were dropping an initial offer they knew would not be the final product. But there has also been speculation among some sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity, that the Bills might not be as committed as they have been to remaining in Buffalo if their first bid to try to engage New York State and Erie County was at a level that politicians could never accept, either for financial or political reasons, or both.

 

[SectionC3]

18 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

https://buffalonews.com/news/local/state-and-regional/state-lawmakers-on-bills-request-for-100-public-financing-for-stadium-a-non-starter/article_9c0de7a4-f465-11eb-854a-bf4c9530615c.html

 

(Not sure if it's paywalled or not)

 

 

 

This is to be expected.  It’s a negotiation.  The good news here is that everyone in the article — including the progressives — is open to the idea of using taxpayer funds to facilitate the construction of a stadium. 

[BuffaloRebound]

51 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

This is to be expected.  It’s a negotiation.  The good news here is that everyone in the article — including the progressives — is open to the idea of using taxpayer funds to facilitate the construction of a stadium. 

Yeah.  Mission already accomplished by Pegula and NFL.  The leaked 100% publicly financed ask already has lawmakers on their heels and admitting a portion will be publicly financed.  

[SectionC3]

3 minutes ago, BuffaloRebound said:

Yeah.  Mission already accomplished by Pegula and NFL.  The leaked 100% publicly financed ask already has lawmakers on their heels and admitting a portion will be publicly financed.  

 

I don’t see it that way.  Nobody’s on their heels.  My take is that the huge initial ask gives the state/county room to claim they got a great deal when it ends up paying for 65% of a $900m stadium. 

[Golden*Wheels]

I got 5 on it.

[TheFunPolice]

Or maybe the state says how about we build it downtown, giving you the $ you requested (dollar amount, not percentage) and the Pegulas cover the rest

[SoCal Deek]

17 hours ago, Buffalo716 said:

UTSA plays there 

 

 

 

I don't doubt that they do. But they didn't build that domed stadium for UTSA. (Again, just an observation, having stood outside of the place yesterday morning.)

3 hours ago, SectionC3 said:

This is to be expected.  It’s a negotiation.  The good news here is that everyone in the article — including the progressives — is open to the idea of using taxpayer funds to facilitate the construction of a stadium. 

The raging debate should not be about the initial 'investment' but rather the return on those funds.  It's only an "investment"  if the money and then some flows back to the folks who put up the funds.  Otherwise it's just an "expense".

[SectionC3]

24 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

I don't doubt that they do. But they didn't build that domed stadium for UTSA. (Again, just an observation, having stood outside of the place yesterday morning.)

The raging debate should not be about the initial 'investment' but rather the return on those funds.  It's only an "investment"  if the money and then some flows back to the folks who put up the funds.  Otherwise it's just an "expense".

No argument here.  The dirty little secret is that the stadium is useful to drive payroll taxes and sales taxes.  Other than that, the benefits are intrinsic or difficult to quantify (e.g., the “advertising” benefits of being an NFL city).  It’s not a money-making deal for the state, no matter how anyone slices it.  And this is coming from a guy who desperately wants the Bills to stay in OP forever. 

[SectionC3]

53 minutes ago, TheFunPolice said:

Or maybe the state says how about we build it downtown, giving you the $ you requested (dollar amount, not percentage) and the Pegulas cover the rest

I’ll say it again.  It’s not going downtown.  It’s time to put that hope to rest.

 

Say the state says that we’ll provide $600mil for a new stadium.  The cost in OP probably comes in around $900mil, from what I’ve gathered.  The Pegulas then cover $300mil for the stadium.  Maybe some of that is NFL money, maybe some of it is a 1031 from the sale of the Sabres (I’m assuming that’s happening).  Whatever.  Either way, it’s a $300mil bite in OP.  

 

Downtown is different.  There are land acquisition costs that they don’t have in OP.  There are infrastructure issues (new entrances/exits on the 190; reconstruction of arterial roads, perhaps a new practice facility, etc.).  There’s electric issues, sewer issues, parking issues . . . A whole raft of things that I wouldn’t normally think about.  Now, say the infrastructure costs requires a $1.2b outlay for the project.  All of a sudden (I’m sure everyone’s shedding crocodile tears for the rich folks now), the Pegulas need another $300m—for a total of $600m—to cover the costs of the stadium.  What’s the likelihood they recover that $300m in a time sufficient to justify the cost of that capital?  Post-pandemic, my guess is that it doesn’t happen.  Hence the focus on Orchard Park. 

[SoCal Deek]

19 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

No argument here.  The dirty little secret is that the stadium is useful to drive payroll taxes and sales taxes.  Other than that, the benefits are intrinsic or difficult to quantify (e.g., the “advertising” benefits of being an NFL city).  It’s not a money-making deal for the state, no matter how anyone slices it.  And this is coming from a guy who desperately wants the Bills to stay in OP forever. 

Well it all depends on how the County/State structure the deal. For example, they could tell the Pegulas that the County/State gets some, most, or all of the revenue from all events other than Bills games, or something like that. Think about it. Why does any business build a building? It really has no value on its own. It is a tool, a venue, from which a business provides a service that they charge their customers for. Mc Donald's sells pretty cheap hamburgers but their business model still factors in the cost of building a building to sell them from. They do not expect to get that investment back right away, but over time it pays for itself off of the price of french fries.

Edited August 9, 2021 by SoCal Deek

[Motorin']

6 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Well it all depends on how the County/State structure the deal. For example, they could tell the Pegulas that the County/State gets some, most, or all of the revenue from all events other than Bills games, or something like that. Think about it. Why does any business build a building? It really has no value on its own. It is a tool, a venue, from which a business provides a service that they charge their customers for. Mc Donald's sells pretty cheap hamburgers but their business model still factors in the cost of building a building to sell them from. They do not expect to get that investment back right away, but over time it pays for itself off of the price of french fries.

 

Doubtful on concessions. More likely the Bills will agree to a long term lease somewhere between what the Vikings pay 8.5 mil / year +3% each year for 20 years, or what the 49ers pay to Santa Clara, 25mil / yr for 40 years. And commit to a massive poison pill on breaking the lease to ensure the Bills stay long term in return for a favorable deduction in lease fees. 

 

It wouldn't make sense for PSE to agree to a lease that's more than if they just took out the mortgage themselves, unless the state/ county assumes ownership. If PSE owns the stadium, the lease + property taxes should turn a profit for the state/ county, but be less than the mortgage + property taxes.

 

If the state / county create an independent land trust that owns and operates the stadium, they could charge more on the lease than the cost of the mortgage and turn a profit, in return for a tax free agreement on the stadium i.e. if PSE doesn't own it there's no property taxes to pay. The big question then comes down to the cost of upkeep. 

 

[eball]

New article in The Athletic debunking much of what has leaked out through the press.  Good stuff, should make people feel a bit better.

 

It's a paid site.  Cliff Notes version:  PSE doesn't expect 100% taxpayer funding, Bills would continue to play at Highmark while new stadium across the street is built.

[DCOrange]

5 minutes ago, eball said:

New article in The Athletic debunking much of what has leaked out through the press.  Good stuff, should make people feel a bit better.

 

It's a paid site.  Cliff Notes version:  PSE doesn't expect 100% taxpayer funding, Bills would continue to play at Highmark while new stadium across the street is built.

Some other notes that stood out to me:

• Downtown Stadium budget came out to $2.5 billion. Doesn't seem likely that the government would go for that.
• The Miami Dolphins are currently the smallest media market to own their own stadium; Miami is the 18th largest market in the country. Buffalo is 52nd and declining.
• Tim Graham thinks we may need to grapple with the idea that the Bills could actually move, as he doesn't think it's a given that the government will feel comfortable paying what it will take for the team to stay given some of the economic difficulties in the area already.
• I think it was already mentioned in another piece, but PSE says they haven't asked for anything related to the Sabres arena yet; they're planning to work on that after the Bills situation is sorted out.

[SCBills]

21 minutes ago, DCOrange said:

 

• Tim Graham thinks we may need to grapple with the idea that the Bills could actually move, as he doesn't think it's a given that the government will feel comfortable paying what it will take for the team to stay given some of the economic difficulties in the area already.

 

31 minutes ago, eball said:

New article in The Athletic debunking much of what has leaked out through the press.  Good stuff, should make people feel a bit better.

 

It's a paid site.  Cliff Notes version:  PSE doesn't expect 100% taxpayer funding, Bills would continue to play at Highmark while new stadium across the street is built.

 

Don't have a sub to The Athletic, but that does not make me feel better...

[eball]

24 minutes ago, DCOrange said:

Tim Graham thinks we may need to grapple with the idea that the Bills could actually move, as he doesn't think it's a given that the government will feel comfortable paying what it will take for the team to stay given some of the economic difficulties in the area already.

 

This, I think, is just Timmah being Timmah.  He even prefaces the comment by reminding the reader he's from Cleveland.

 

I'm not worried about the Bills leaving.  NYS won't let that happen.

[Patrick Duffy]

36 minutes ago, eball said:

New article in The Athletic debunking much of what has leaked out through the press.  Good stuff, should make people feel a bit better.

 

It's a paid site.  Cliff Notes version:  PSE doesn't expect 100% taxpayer funding, Bills would continue to play at Highmark while new stadium across the street is built.

I never bought any of that ***** anyway myself. I knew it was complete and total B.S from the very beginning. Although I'm sure some may have gotten shaken up about it. 

[CountDorkula]

35 minutes ago, eball said:

 

This, I think, is just Timmah being Timmah.  He even prefaces the comment by reminding the reader he's from Cleveland.

 

I'm not worried about the Bills leaving.  NYS won't let that happen.

 The NFL doesnt care about this.

 

They care about money.

 

If It comes down to it, the other owners will push to make sure that the bills wherever they play, make the most money.

 

I would say Oakland is a more iconic franchise with a larger fanbase and a more stable economy. The NFL did not care about that. 

 

Edited August 10, 2021 by CountDorkula

[Patience]

I usually hate the type of post that I'm about to make, but take it for what it is:

 

Have a friend (yeah, one of those deals) whose family is long entrenched and active in NYS and local (West Seneca, Orchard Park area) politics, and I've been communicating with him regarding the stadium issue since the new stadium report came to light.  He's assured me that there is "zero chance" that the stadium deal doesn't get done, and therefore there is "zero chance" the team moves.  Take it for what it is, I suppose.  But he's given me insight on non-Bills related matters that turned out the way he said they would.  

[PromoTheRobot]

3 minutes ago, CountDorkula said:

 The NFL doesnt not care about this.

 

They care about money.

 

If It comes down to it, the other owners will push to make sure that the bills wherever they play, make the most money.

 

I would say Oakland is a more iconic franchise with a larger fanbase and a more stable economy. The NFL did not care about that. 

 

 

I don't get why folks don't see that. The NFL only pays lip service to tradition as a marketing tool.

Just now, Patience said:

I usually hate the type of post that I'm about to make, but take it for what it is:

 

Have a friend (yeah, one of those deals) whose family is long entrenched and active in NYS and local (West Seneca, Orchard Park area) politics, and I've been communicating with him regarding the stadium issue since the new stadium report came to light.  He's assured me that there is "zero chance" that the stadium deal doesn't get done, and therefore there is "zero chance" the team moves.  Take it for what it is, I suppose.  But he's given me insight on non-Bills related matters that turned out the way he said they would.  

 

If the state/county pay the "ransom" I'm sure the Bills stay. But it will always be that way, every few years.

[MaltaBillsFan]

if only the NYS Governor was from Buffalo...oh wait.