AP exclusive: Bills propose new 60k seat stadium by (update - 2025)

[Chandler#81]

7 hours ago, TEC said:

 

The league doesn't play hardball anyway. Terry doesn't have to stand at the podium and please his case. Give us our money, or we leave. Paulie said it better in Goodfellas - '***** you, pay me'. 

 

That's the reality. Y'all are right - give the Bills a ton of public funds, or they will find a new city (Is it San Diego or St Louis now? Austin? I can't keep up). The loyalty the Pegulas claimed to have would quickly evaporate without an influx of public money, Bills fandom be damned.

 

I appreciate what San Diego and Oakland did. Not because they didn't love their team, not because they weren't loyal fans, but they just realized that when the rubber meets the road, public money is better spent elsewhere, and they had the balls to call out the ultra-wealthy.  Of course, we don't like that reality, because again, who can fathom the team leaving. 

 

Sounds like ya'll are ready to cut your check. Good luck. 

You’ve obviously joined up here solely to promote your agenda, as you’ve offered zero posts of the on field football team this site is founded on.  On top of this, your Holier Than Thou attitude makes you a complete bore, to say nothing of having many of your key points effectively rebutted.

 

This is a fan site of the Buffalo Bills football team. Consider yourself on notice. You’ve exposed yourself.

[That's No Moon]

7 hours ago, klos63 said:

It doesn't mean they're going to sell. They would move if it came to that.

And the net result will be the same.

[SoCal Deek]

17 hours ago, Doc said:

 

So you call his bluff and Terry moves the team or sells it to someone who will move it.  Great, you "called the billionaire's bluff."  You da man!  And now you don't have a team and your tax money still gets wasted on stupid ***** anyway.

 

I think you’re missing my point. This is a Bills Message Board. So I assume it’s filled with a select subset of the general population: Bills fans. So….If you want to go to see home games in WNY at a reasonable price you should want the cost of the stadium subsidized by the biggest number of people as possible. That doesn’t mean everyone pays an equal share! The assumption is that the Owner will pay the largest share. The fans at the games the next largest, and the region’s general population the least per person. The key will be reaching the proper balance between all three.

[Rochesterfan]

9 hours ago, TEC said:

 

The league doesn't play hardball anyway. Terry doesn't have to stand at the podium and please his case. Give us our money, or we leave. Paulie said it better in Goodfellas - '***** you, pay me'. 

 

That's the reality. Y'all are right - give the Bills a ton of public funds, or they will find a new city (Is it San Diego or St Louis now? Austin? I can't keep up). The loyalty the Pegulas claimed to have would quickly evaporate without an influx of public money, Bills fandom be damned.

 

I appreciate what San Diego and Oakland did. Not because they didn't love their team, not because they weren't loyal fans, but they just realized that when the rubber meets the road, public money is better spent elsewhere, and they had the balls to call out the ultra-wealthy.  Of course, we don't like that reality, because again, who can fathom the team leaving. 

 

Sounds like ya'll are ready to cut your check. Good luck. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Except that is BS.  They took the bluff and lost.  They decided public money could be used elsewhere, but SD soon found out that meant more of their public funding left the area to support things in LA where their team went.  They did not suddenly have some huge influx in cash - the money followed the team and they are no better off.  
 

Oakland is starting to see the same thing with money heading toward SF and San Jose to support infrastructure and stadium builds in that area.

 

Now SD has already started internal discussions that if they can get another team where would a stadium go.  They have started politically looking at how and where they can publicly finance a build for a baseball/football complex and bring the NFL back.  They lost and now realize it was a loss to the community.

 

St. Louis for years has been fighting the fight - they had the Cardinals and didn’t pony up the money - lost the Cardinals to Arizona.  Then spent huge money and effort to lure the Rams - the city got raped to get that team.  Then in a flash - they are gone and once again they are looking at ways to rebuild and get a new team.

 

Baltimore/Cleveland/LA - same story over and over - the cities plays hardball or drag their feet and franchises do what they have to do - Iconic Franchises - Baltimore Colts - Original Cleveland Browns - original NFL franchises pack up in the dead of night and bang gone.

 

But to you that is a good thing - those cities should have a glut of public money for projects, but it doesn’t work that way - suddenly the city lacks an identity and very shortly they are 100% publicly financing a new stadium.

 

The dumbest argument for not building the stadium is the “it won’t pay for itself” and “it doesn’t create the economic impact to counter the cost”.  That is just asinine.  Of course it won’t pay for itself or create the impact to cover the cost - that is why public money is needed.  If they made a huge profit - then privately people would finance it and suck off the profit.  
 

Do libraries and museums make a profit?  Nope - they suck huge amounts of public funds every year to cover costs, upgrades, projects.  Roads are needed, but they bring in no money, but we spend tons of money on roads.  The list is endless on what our public money goes to and almost all of it is money lost.  In this case it is money lost to keep an identity for the area and I am ok with that.

 

The final piece is if we tried to ask the users to pay only and you want to understand the impact on who attends - you are looking at adding about $100 in fees a ticket or about $1000 per seat pear season to pay off the initial build and interest in 20 years.  Plus as we already know - being open air - upgrades and new features will need to be added within the first 10 years and every 10 years afterwards.  
 

So a season ticket holder of 4 seats will suddenly have to pay a new PSL, higher seat prices, and over $4000 in fees each year - so suddenly it costs a ticket holder about $12,000 or more each year and for club type seats 25 - 30,000 or more per season.  
 

Have fun with that.

[Doc]

12 hours ago, Fdapats said:

Everyone has a price

 

So (and let's assume the NFL allows community ownership of a team, which they don't, except for GB who was grandfathered-in), you have a problem with taxpayers paying $700M or so for a new stadium...but want them to spend $2.3B to buy the Bills and then another $1.4B for a new stadium?  LOL! 

 

3 hours ago, Chandler#81 said:

You’ve obviously joined up here solely to promote your agenda, as you’ve offered zero posts of the on field football team this site is founded on.  On top of this, your Holier Than Thou attitude makes you a complete bore, to say nothing of having many of your key points effectively rebutted.

 

This is a fan site of the Buffalo Bills football team. Consider yourself on notice. You’ve exposed yourself.

 

He's got a problem with Terry and the fracking.  As do the people that rail against him.

 

1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said:

I think you’re missing my point. This is a Bills Message Board. So I assume it’s filled with a select subset of the general population: Bills fans. So….If you want to go to see home games in WNY at a reasonable price you should want the cost of the stadium subsidized by the biggest number of people as possible. That doesn’t mean everyone pays an equal share! The assumption is that the Owner will pay the largest share. The fans at the games the next largest, and the region’s general population the least per person. The key will be reaching the proper balance between all three.

 

Sorry bro, my post wasn't aimed at you.  I agree with you.

[purple haze]

12 hours ago, That's No Moon said:

You've set up a scenario for yourself where you will be unhappy either way, either the public will pay for part of the stadium and the Bills will stay or they won't and they won't. You get to be upset either way. Congratulations.

ding, ding, ding.

🎤👇🏾

 

 

[klos63]

4 hours ago, That's No Moon said:

And the net result will be the same.

The comment I responded to was about selling the team to the state/county, that can't/won't happen.

[Fdapats]

2 hours ago, Doc said:

So (and let's assume the NFL allows community ownership of a team, which they don't, except for GB who was grandfathered-in), you have a problem with taxpayers paying $700M or so for a new stadium...but want them to spend $2.3B to buy the Bills and then another $1.4B for a new stadium?  LOL!

All hypothetical, but absolutely.  Would you rather spend $700M for nothing or $3B-$4B for ownership of the team and all of the profits in perpetuity?  If no, I don't think I will be asking for investment advice from you.  Also, community ownership would be the absolute best case scenario for the fans.

[Mr. WEO]

32 minutes ago, Fdapats said:

All hypothetical, but absolutely.  Would you rather spend $700M for nothing or $3B-$4B for ownership of the team and all of the profits in perpetuity?  If no, I don't think I will be asking for investment advice from you.  Also, community ownership would be the absolute best case scenario for the fans.

 

Except only fraction of "the community" paying for the purchase of the team are fans of the team.  

[Fdapats]

3 hours ago, Rochesterfan said:

 If they made a huge profit - then privately people would finance it and suck off the profit.

 

I agree with this 100%, that is why use of tax payer money can’t be considered an investment at all.  It is a subsidy to the NFL owners, just calling a spade a spade.
 

4 hours ago, Rochesterfan said:

Do libraries and museums make a profit?  Nope - they suck huge amounts of public funds every year to cover costs, upgrades, projects.  Roads are needed, but they bring in no money, but we spend tons of money on roads.

 

This is such a bad comparison.  Libraries loan books to the community for free.  Roads are free for the community to use.  Spending money on a new stadium will simply allow the owners to charge more for tickets and make more money.  The community gets no service, other than the ability to pay more (probably double the price) to attend games.

 

4 hours ago, Rochesterfan said:

In this case it is money lost to keep an identity for the area and I am ok with that.

 

I agree with you on this point.  The identity for the area and the identity of all of us as Bills fans is something I cherish and absolutely do not want to lose.  Is it worth putting $1B of tax payer money directly in the owner’s pockets?  I think that is the tough question we all have to answer.

 

4 hours ago, Rochesterfan said:

The final piece is if we tried to ask the users to pay only and you want to understand the impact on who attends - you are looking at adding about $100 in fees a ticket or about $1000 per seat pear season to pay off the initial build and interest in 20 years.  Plus as we already know - being open air - upgrades and new features will need to be added within the first 10 years and every 10 years afterwards.  

 

So a season ticket holder of 4 seats will suddenly have to pay a new PSL, higher seat prices, and over $4000 in fees each year - so suddenly it costs a ticket holder about $12,000 or more each year and for club type seats 25 - 30,000 or more per season.  
 

 

This is another really bad point.  If we give tax payer money to ownership to pay for a new stadium, is there any reason they won’t charge the absolute maximum they can and still sell out the stadium?  Tickets will be set at the exact same price whether or not tax payer money is used.

[Chandler#81]

17 minutes ago, Fdapats said:

 

I agree with this 100%, that is why use of tax payer money can’t be considered an investment at all.  It is a subsidy to the NFL owners, just calling a spade a spade.
 

 

This is such a bad comparison.  Libraries loan books to the community for free.  Roads are free for the community to use.  Spending money on a new stadium will simply allow the owners to charge more for tickets and make more money.  The community gets no service, other than the ability to pay more (probably double the price) to attend games.

 

 

I agree with you on this point.  The identity for the area and the identity of all of us as Bills fans is something I cherish and absolutely do not want to lose.  Is it worth putting $1B of tax payer money directly in the owner’s pockets?  I think that is the tough question we all have to answer.

 

 

This is another really bad point.  If we give tax payer money to ownership to pay for a new stadium, is there any reason they won’t charge the absolute maximum they can and still sell out the stadium?  Tickets will be set at the exact same price whether or not tax payer money is used.

Knock it off, Know it all!🤦‍♂️🤨

[Buffalo716]

Anybody coming to a Buffalo Bills board 

 

And openly stating that they don't want a new stadium to be built for the team... Is so clearly a troll and not a Bills fan 

 

No matter what he says

 

Guaranteed he is not a part of the Buffalo community

 

 

[SoCal Deek]

If you spread $1.5 billion over 65,000 seats over 50 years and 10 games a year, it comes out to $46 per ticket per game to pay for the place. You can decide if that’s a lot or a little. 

[cba fan]

1 hour ago, Fdapats said:

 

I agree with this 100%, that is why use of tax payer money can’t be considered an investment at all.  It is a subsidy to the NFL owners, just calling a spade a spade.
 

 

This is such a bad comparison.  Libraries loan books to the community for free.  Roads are free for the community to use.  Spending money on a new stadium will simply allow the owners to charge more for tickets and make more money.  The community gets no service, other than the ability to pay more (probably double the price) to attend games.

 

 

 

what??

Taxpayers pay a premium for roads. Fuel tax. Misc back door taxes to improve roads. Surcharges/taxes to upgrade storm sewer run off plus retention ponds from roads. City crews salaries and benefits to maintain roads including winter snow work. City street cleaning. Lights needed for certain roads for driver safety.

 

Free books from Library? Lol. Libraries cost millions to build and maintain. Workers salaries and benefits also big cost. RE taxes have a levy for library district property owners.

 

You want pro sports to stop asking for subsidies? Then gov't also needs to stop the most profitable corp in history from getting tax money to build Super Walmarts...etc etc......

 

FYI: I am against giving tax money(tif districts etc) to private companies, especially very profitable ones, but until it is stopped I won't fault pro sports for trying to get their piece of the corp welfare pie. 

Edited September 4, 2021 by cba fan

[klos63]

Who runs the state owned team? The Governor? County executive?

[cba fan]

26 minutes ago, klos63 said:

Who runs the state owned team? The Governor? County executive?

whoever owns it. City or county.

 

In city near me(Rockford IL) the city bought the local minor league hockey franchise(Rockfrod Icehogs same colors lol) and upgraded to AHL affiliate for Chicago Blackhawks. They then kept all profits. Worked well plus they no longer needed to subsidize the city owned arena. Recently Blackhawks purchased the franchise. Blackhawks want Blackhawks get, and tells me it is profitable.

 

Edited September 4, 2021 by cba fan

[klos63]

1 minute ago, cba fan said:

whoever owns it. City or county.

 

So with each election, we could see different management.

[cba fan]

12 minutes ago, cba fan said:

whoever owns it. City or county.

 

 

11 minutes ago, klos63 said:

So with each election, we could see different management.

no. They would form a sports authority board who would manage and run it. They all would be appointed by pols for a term or open ended. They would be in charge and not subject to election changes. They would hire President and president would hire GM who would hire coaches etc etc. All would need board approval.

Edited September 4, 2021 by cba fan

[klos63]

1 minute ago, cba fan said:

 

no. They would form a sports authority board who would manage and run it. They all would be appointed by pols for a term or open ended. They would be in charge and not subject to election changes. They would hire President and GM who would hire coaches etc etc.

fortunately , it will never happen.

[cba fan]

3 minutes ago, klos63 said:

fortunately , it will never happen.

right NFL would never allow it like Green Bay....and GB is criticized for lack of influential one owner to fix or prevent some of the archaic backwards treatment of players like Rogers.....allegedly. They are thought of as a franchise with no head.