Mr. WEO Posted September 30, 2021 Posted September 30, 2021 6 hours ago, Doc said: In an ideal world, people would "pay their fair share." It rarely works that way. You got yourself all worked-up over the "unprecedented ask," but we'll see how much he ends up paying for it. Again just because he allegedly started at zero, it doesn't mean it will end up anywhere close to that. The more he pays the more he owns. Yes WEO, the LA market was always there. Very astute observation. Just like I've been telling you for the better part of 2 decades. You completely dismissed it without any qualifications. Now you've come around but you're still clinging to the "there are no markets left" claim. Ignorance? LOL! everyone dismissed LA doc. for 20 years. No owners would move there. No expansion team. it was a bluff used by several of them. Everyone knows this so do you. It’s not my on my say so lol—you’re making no sense now. It was talked about for 2 decades: the reasons LA was not feasible. I haven’t been here for 2 decades, so I don’t know all of your fantasies and fabrications that predate me. but anyway…keep on turnin!
SoCal Deek Posted September 30, 2021 Posted September 30, 2021 20 hours ago, Don Otreply said: They don’t owe us a stadium, and for damn sure we don’t owe them one either…, if they want a stadium for their team, they have more than enough financial wear with all to purchase one, if they want someone else’s money do that, so they can have said stadium, they gotta fork over stock in equal value to what the public financing is, then if they want to move they can purchase back that stock at its growth value, seems like a win win deal for both parties, no? Huh? The point is that if the Pegulas dip into their own pockets to pay for a new stadium, they only have one way to recoup that expense. Raise ticket prices. I cannot imagine that people on a Bills Message Board prefer that option. I can see people who follow off-road racing, or bowling, or deep-sea fishing preferring that funding strategy....but not Bills fans. 1
Don Otreply Posted September 30, 2021 Posted September 30, 2021 1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said: Huh? The point is that if the Pegulas dip into their own pockets to pay for a new stadium, they only have one way to recoup that expense. Raise ticket prices. I cannot imagine that people on a Bills Message Board prefer that option. I can see people who follow off-road racing, or bowling, or deep-sea fishing preferring that funding strategy....but not Bills fans. I am tired of corporations getting the tax breaks, and putting the cost of doing their business on the backs of others, (the you and me of our country) so they don’t have to spend their own money, it’s total BS. Football is not that important, so as to saddle taxpayers with a private corporations debt for generations. What don’t people understand? The NFL has financially screwed the people of every municipality that has done the stadium game the NFLs way. When will folks learn? Gotta go, to I’m off to dinner and a glass of wine, enjoy the game this weekend, should be a OPOTW outing for Josh 👍 Go Bills!!! 1
Doc Posted September 30, 2021 Posted September 30, 2021 (edited) 14 hours ago, Mr. WEO said: everyone dismissed LA doc. for 20 years. No owners would move there. No expansion team. it was a bluff used by several of them. Everyone knows this so do you. It’s not my on my say so lol—you’re making no sense now. It was talked about for 2 decades: the reasons LA was not feasible. I haven’t been here for 2 decades, so I don’t know all of your fantasies and fabrications that predate me. but anyway…keep on turnin! Yeah, that's right. The NFL hadn't been wanting to return to LA since the 2 teams left and things suddenly changed around 6 years ago, making LA more than just a bluff and feasible. Good one. It was "always there" as a market. And no, it didn't take a gaudy $6B facility and a savior like Kroenke to accomplish it. Stop making excuses, just admit you were/are wrong about Bills owners never having an option to move because there are no markets and be done with it. True you haven't been here 20 years. Weren't you (we) on some other forum starting around 2001? Edited October 1, 2021 by Doc 1
SoCal Deek Posted October 1, 2021 Posted October 1, 2021 1 hour ago, Don Otreply said: I am tired of corporations getting the tax breaks, and putting the cost of doing their business on the backs of others, (the you and me of our country) so they don’t have to spend their own money, it’s total BS. Football is not that important, so as to saddle taxpayers with a private corporations debt for generations. What don’t people understand? The NFL has financially screwed the people of every municipality that has done the stadium game the NFLs way. When will folks learn? Gotta go, to I’m off to dinner and a glass of wine, enjoy the game this weekend, should be a OPOTW outing for Josh 👍 Go Bills!!! Get off my lawn!! 1
Augie Posted October 1, 2021 Posted October 1, 2021 4 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said: Get off my lawn!! What if he’s just trying to mow it for you? OK, sensitive subject, but we spent thousands on drainage and sod this summer, for the 3rd or 4th time in 11 years, and it’s struggling in one area. We are going artificial turf if they can’t get this right. Sorry for the tangent, but it was cheaper than therapy. Carry on!
ColoradoBills Posted October 1, 2021 Posted October 1, 2021 3 minutes ago, Augie said: What if he’s just trying to mow it for you? OK, sensitive subject, but we spent thousands on drainage and sod this summer, for the 3rd or 4th time in 11 years, and it’s struggling in one area. We are going artificial turf if they can’t get this right. Sorry for the tangent, but it was cheaper than therapy. Carry on! Out here in Colorado the sod just dries up and blows away replaced with weeks. I xeriscaped. LOL.
Mr. WEO Posted October 1, 2021 Posted October 1, 2021 (edited) 13 hours ago, Doc said: Yeah, that's right. The NFL hadn't been wanting to return to LA since the 2 teams left and things suddenly changed around 6 years ago, making LA more than just a bluff and feasible. Good one. It was "always there" as a market. And no, it didn't take a gaudy $6B facility and a savior like Kroenke to accomplish it. Stop making excuses, just admit you were wrong and be done with it. True you haven't been here 20 years. Weren't you (we) on some other forum starting around 2001? Atta boy!! Why was that so hard? In the 20 years the NFL had no team in LA, they awarded 4 expansion teams: they elected to move back to markets like Cleveland, Baltimore, Houston and added Carolina. No love for LA, which had lost not 1 but 2 teams. The NFL didn't "award" them a team for losing 2. And why was that? As I said, the reasons are well known (even by you): These will jog your repressed memory: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/will-los-angeles-finally-get-an-nfl-team-2015-01-28 (Former Mayor) Hahn, like many others, is convinced Los Angeles never will be home to an NFL franchise. He says the league has set up too many hurdles for the city to jump. Plus, L.A. has proved to be an effective bargaining chip for other franchises trying to squeeze better deals out of the cities where they currently play. “They’ll [NFL teams] never put a team here because they like to use us as leverage,” Hahn said. “Everybody who wants to get a new stadium can say, ‘We can always move to L.A.’ And then they get what they want.” He jokes that it’s gotten to the point where every team in the league will want at least one crack at using L.A. as a chit for squeezing a better deal out of other cities. By the time all the teams get their deals, it’ll be time to start a new cycle of NFL stadium renovation. https://bleacherreport.com/articles/7593-why-la-still-does-not-have-an-nfl-team (2008) "Philip Anshutz, the billionaire owner of the Los Angeles Kings and Staples Center, tried unsuccessfully to build a stadium in Downtown L.A. to help lure an expansion team. When he saw what obstacles city hall was planning on putting in his way, he quickly backed down. "Until either an ownership group is willing to foot the bill for the construction of a stadium on top of the billion dollar expansion fee without counting on tax-payer money, the thought of professional football returning to Los Angeles is a long-shot." (read that sentence out loud in the mirror, doc) "Because it would mean an odd number of teams, the NFL would much rather a team move to Los Angeles than grant them the 33rd franchise as an expansion team. The obvious candidates during the first half of the decade were the Chargers and the Saints." "At first, Katrina seemed like it would be the best excuse for Tom Benson to move the Saints to Los Angeles. Many of its residents had fled, the Superdome was in need of repair and many of the businesses that buy up the luxury boxes had abandoned the city." So, to recap: for 20 years, LA was not a viable location for an NFL team. The reasons had been described for 20 years. It took an owner paying all cash to bring a team to LA. Prior to Kroenke, in other words, there was no chance a team was headed to LA as even the League passed them over time after time. Teams that could have moved there did not. They did not expand into LA. 20 years.... "it didn't take a gaudy $6B facility and a savior like Kroenke to accomplish it". This could not be more wrong. Very clearly, this is EXACTLY what it took. The proof is copiously documented elsewhere and a few samples are cited above and no cogent argument otherwise can be made. For 20 years, everyone who pointed out the obvious: NFL wasn't coming to LA, was correct. Owners passed on it, the NFL passed on it. It was used only as a bargain bluff, as I already said. Only Kroenke was able to change that, with 6 billion dollars of his own money. Edited October 1, 2021 by Mr. WEO
Doc Posted October 2, 2021 Posted October 2, 2021 (edited) On 10/1/2021 at 9:03 AM, Mr. WEO said: Atta boy!! Why was that so hard? In the 20 years the NFL had no team in LA, they awarded 4 expansion teams: they elected to move back to markets like Cleveland, Baltimore, Houston and added Carolina. No love for LA, which had lost not 1 but 2 teams. The NFL didn't "award" them a team for losing 2. And why was that? As I said, the reasons are well known (even by you): These will jog your repressed memory: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/will-los-angeles-finally-get-an-nfl-team-2015-01-28 (Former Mayor) Hahn, like many others, is convinced Los Angeles never will be home to an NFL franchise. He says the league has set up too many hurdles for the city to jump. Plus, L.A. has proved to be an effective bargaining chip for other franchises trying to squeeze better deals out of the cities where they currently play. “They’ll [NFL teams] never put a team here because they like to use us as leverage,” Hahn said. “Everybody who wants to get a new stadium can say, ‘We can always move to L.A.’ And then they get what they want.” He jokes that it’s gotten to the point where every team in the league will want at least one crack at using L.A. as a chit for squeezing a better deal out of other cities. By the time all the teams get their deals, it’ll be time to start a new cycle of NFL stadium renovation. https://bleacherreport.com/articles/7593-why-la-still-does-not-have-an-nfl-team (2008) "Philip Anshutz, the billionaire owner of the Los Angeles Kings and Staples Center, tried unsuccessfully to build a stadium in Downtown L.A. to help lure an expansion team. When he saw what obstacles city hall was planning on putting in his way, he quickly backed down. "Until either an ownership group is willing to foot the bill for the construction of a stadium on top of the billion dollar expansion fee without counting on tax-payer money, the thought of professional football returning to Los Angeles is a long-shot." (read that sentence out loud in the mirror, doc) "Because it would mean an odd number of teams, the NFL would much rather a team move to Los Angeles than grant them the 33rd franchise as an expansion team. The obvious candidates during the first half of the decade were the Chargers and the Saints." "At first, Katrina seemed like it would be the best excuse for Tom Benson to move the Saints to Los Angeles. Many of its residents had fled, the Superdome was in need of repair and many of the businesses that buy up the luxury boxes had abandoned the city." So, to recap: for 20 years, LA was not a viable location for an NFL team. The reasons had been described for 20 years. It took an owner paying all cash to bring a team to LA. Prior to Kroenke, in other words, there was no chance a team was headed to LA as even the League passed them over time after time. Teams that could have moved there did not. They did not expand into LA. 20 years.... "it didn't take a gaudy $6B facility and a savior like Kroenke to accomplish it". This could not be more wrong. Very clearly, this is EXACTLY what it took. The proof is copiously documented elsewhere and a few samples are cited above and no cogent argument otherwise can be made. For 20 years, everyone who pointed out the obvious: NFL wasn't coming to LA, was correct. Owners passed on it, the NFL passed on it. It was used only as a bargain bluff, as I already said. Only Kroenke was able to change that, with 6 billion dollars of his own money. That's a lot of writing to say that LA was, in fact, always a market. Sure it might have taken an ownership group to put up their own money (the NFL helps with 25% in a 15-year loan and Kroenke's getting $1B over 30 years) but no, it didn't require a $6B spectacle, or even half that amount, for the purpose of playing football games. The TV money and corporate sponsorships alone make the investment more than worth it. What it really took is someone to "steal" a team from its city because of greed. Meanwhile you're admitting that it was used as a bargaining chip for teams to get better deals from their cities, so obviously it was perceived as a market and few owners are footing the entire bill. And it could only happen in a huge market like LA, which Buffalo is not. Again praising Kroenke for (over)spending his own money for a stadium in another city is disingenuous at best. Edited October 2, 2021 by Doc
PromoTheRobot Posted October 2, 2021 Author Posted October 2, 2021 Nice crowd, perfect day for UB football. 1
Justin C Posted October 2, 2021 Posted October 2, 2021 I've always hated the track around the stadium at UB. It kind of comes off as minor league and it is one of I believe only 4 left in NCAA Division 1. I wonder if UB is targeted the AAC to join them after they missed out on raiding the MWC. I'm not sure how big of a jump it is from the MAC, but Buffalo's football/basketball has improved over the years to the point where I could see it happening.
PromoTheRobot Posted October 2, 2021 Author Posted October 2, 2021 7-7 at the half. Game is on CBSSN.
Peevo Posted October 2, 2021 Posted October 2, 2021 As a former UB student, and (now defunct) WRUB broadcaster, it is sad to see a successful mid major team waste away winning seasons at UB stadium. I think the simplest answer is that they'll NEVER be a "power 5" school, therefore, will always be second fiddle to the Bills and NFL. The Bills would have to move for the Bulls to really become a major college football program. And that of course, is highly unlikely. There's so many layers to this that it takes too much to write. UB's internal polling/survey's show that most Buffalo area fans don't want to identify with MAC teams. Despite sharing socio-economic, climate, and geographic identities with fellow Great Lakes area schools in the MAC, most Buffalo fans want to be considered in the "Northeast", with NYC, Boston, Philly, etc. This is of course, ridiculous. But even after 20 plus years in the MAC, fans just don't care. Furthermore, 1 MAC title in that span is not nearly enough to justify a move to a "power 5" conference. Basically, it is a shame a school as big and funded as UB doesn't really "matter" in a sports context in Buffalo. This is despite several appearances in NCAA tournament, multiple MAC championships in men's basketball, and a handful of bowl game appearances for the football team. Furthermore, UB is a "research" university. Hard sciences. Medicine, architecture, chemistry, pharmacy, etc. All very important things. But those don't help gain the school notoriety in a sports context. Syracuse, Bona, Columbia J, Missouri, etc. They crank out famous people. If UB wants to "make it" in sports, they have to try to grow their school in ways that will get sports people to give a *****. They literally don't have a journalism program! Or broadcasting/public communication. Broadcasters love nothing more than to brag about where they went to broadcasting school. Trust me, I worked with dozens of these people. UB is NEVER on these lists. They just simply have no brand.
TwistofFate Posted October 2, 2021 Posted October 2, 2021 Of course he does, that's tons of revenue on a Saturday. 1
Mr. WEO Posted October 2, 2021 Posted October 2, 2021 5 hours ago, Doc said: That's a lot of writing to say that LA was, in fact, always a market. Sure it might have taken an ownership group to put up their own money (the NFL helps with 25% in a 15-year loan and Kroenke's getting $1B over 30 years) but no, it didn't require a $6B spectacle, or even half that amount, for the purpose of playing football games. The TV money and corporate sponsorships alone make the investment more than worth it. What it really took is someone to "steal" a team from its city because of greed. Meanwhile you're admitting that it was used as a bargaining chip for teams to get better deals from their cities, so obviously it was perceived as a market and few owners are footing the entire bill. And it could only happen in a huge market like LA, which Buffalo is not. Again praising Kroenke for (over)spending his own money for a stadium in another city is disingenuous at best. It wasn't. Owners didn't think so. The NFL didn't think so. Suckers (politicians) in smaller markets (and you) weren't the only ones taken in by what became over time a more and more obvious bluff. For 20 years the only logical conclusion that anyone could draw was that LA was far more valuable to the NFL without a team than with a team. You have to be one of the few humans with any familiarity with NFL history who still does not understand this. So...in the end, it did take a "savior" to put up his own money to finally, after 20 years of the NFL absolutely avoiding putting a team there despite multiple chances, bring a team to LA. You could have just agreed to that days ago and saved all this backtracking. But hey, at least you go your Fitbit steps in!! Anyway, as you point out, a new stadium can be had for far less than 6 billion in a market like Buffalo, so Pegula can certainly afford to pay fo the vast majority of the cost. Simple...
Doc Posted October 2, 2021 Posted October 2, 2021 23 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said: It wasn't. Owners didn't think so. The NFL didn't think so. Suckers (politicians) in smaller markets (and you) weren't the only ones taken in by what became over time a more and more obvious bluff. For 20 years the only logical conclusion that anyone could draw was that LA was far more valuable to the NFL without a team than with a team. You have to be one of the few humans with any familiarity with NFL history who still does not understand this. So...in the end, it did take a "savior" to put up his own money to finally, after 20 years of the NFL absolutely avoiding putting a team there despite multiple chances, bring a team to LA. You could have just agreed to that days ago and saved all this backtracking. But hey, at least you go your Fitbit steps in!! Anyway, as you point out, a new stadium can be had for far less than 6 billion in a market like Buffalo, so Pegula can certainly afford to pay fo the vast majority of the cost. Simple... LOL! If "the LA market was far more valuable to the NFL without a NFL team than with one"...why did they approve not just 1 but 2 teams moving there? As I (rhetorically) asked before, what changed? That's right: nothing except for an owner greedy enough to do it. Because the market (always) could support a team, even his gaudy $6B investment. And like you believe with Pegula, Kroenke could easily have afforded to build a stadium in STL, much less pay for upkeep. Only rubes believed that them breaking the terms of the lease or not meeting with the mayor is what forced him out. Hence the reason STL is suing. And is now a potential market after having their team stolen from them, again. Which you will dismiss, as is your wont. No, the Bills will get public money. Just like most every team does. Hopefully they can combine it with the UB stadium and make it more cost-effective for the state.
Mr. WEO Posted October 2, 2021 Posted October 2, 2021 5 minutes ago, Doc said: LOL! If "the LA market was far more valuable to the NFL without a NFL team than with one"...why did they approve not just 1 but 2 teams moving there? As I (rhetorically) asked before, what changed? That's right: nothing except for an owner greedy enough to do it. Because the market (always) could support a team, even his gaudy $6B investment. And like you believe with Pegula, Kroenke could easily have afforded to build a stadium in STL, much less pay for upkeep. Only rubes believed that them breaking the terms of the lease or not meeting with the mayor is what forced him out. Hence the reason STL is suing. And is now a potential market after having their team stolen from them, again. Which you will dismiss, as is your wont. No, the Bills will get public money. Just like most every team does. Hopefully they can combine it with the UB stadium and make it more cost-effective for the state. A billionaire decided to do what no other one would do, nor the NFL would do--put a team in LA in a stadium he purchased. Before that it simply was not a viable market because the public funds for a new stadium were nonexistent. Therefore it could not support a team moving there. I don't know why you are struggling with this. Show me anything during that time period that states otherwise. I provided a few of many articles describing why no one would move there and the NFL awarded teams elsewhere. Let's see your links.
Doc Posted October 2, 2021 Posted October 2, 2021 Just now, Mr. WEO said: A billionaire decided to do what no other one would do, nor the NFL would do--put a team in LA in a stadium he purchased. Before that it simply was not a viable market because the public funds for a new stadium were nonexistent. Therefore it could not support a team moving there. I don't know why you are struggling with this. Show me anything during that time period that states otherwise. I provided a few of many articles describing why no one would move there and the NFL awarded teams elsewhere. Let's see your links. Fine, public funds weren't available. We get it. But as you keep saying about how the Pegulas should spend $1.4B of their own money in Buffalo on a new stadium, maybe a billion more (more expensive stadium and relo fee) in LA shouldn't have been a tough task, right? Any owner moving there (expansion wasn't feasible, I agree) would have seen their team value climb by at least $500M, and they would have shared in an even bigger TV revenue package and would gotten higher local revenue like Kroenke expects to see. Again just because no one else was that greedy doesn't mean it wasn't a market. Most owners were reluctant to move and willing to work with their cities. Kroenke obviously could have footed the bill for everything in STL but he never really wanted to stay (he decided to move them just 5 years after gaining full control).
Mr. WEO Posted October 2, 2021 Posted October 2, 2021 2 minutes ago, Doc said: Fine, public funds weren't available. We get it. But as you keep saying about how the Pegulas should spend $1.4B of their own money in Buffalo on a new stadium, maybe a billion more (more expensive stadium and relo fee) in LA shouldn't have been a tough task, right? Any owner moving there (expansion wasn't feasible, I agree) would have seen their team value climb by at least $500M, and they would have shared in an even bigger TV revenue package and would gotten higher local revenue like Kroenke expects to see. Again just because no one else was that greedy doesn't mean it wasn't a market. Most owners were reluctant to move and willing to work with their cities. Kroenke obviously could have footed the bill for everything in STL but he never really wanted to stay (he decided to move them just 5 years after gaining full control). Any---yes, YES!! Yet not one of them would move there to cash in on all that "higher local revenue". Zero point zero. And the NFL would not expand there. They put 4 teams somewhere else! You can die on this hill, "as is your won't", but nothing could be more obvious and indisputable that LA was not a viable NFL market until Kroenke blew his load to bring them there.--the only owner who wasn't bluffing. You have nothing, zero, to refute this. It's common knowledge, accepted by everyone who was ever asked, who ever commented or wrote on this topic...except you. Even you know it's true, but youre stuck in a corner that you painted (again!). I can't help you any more on this one.
Doc Posted October 2, 2021 Posted October 2, 2021 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said: Any---yes, YES!! Yet not one of them would move there to cash in on all that "higher local revenue". Zero point zero. And the NFL would not expand there. They put 4 teams somewhere else! You can die on this hill, "as is your won't", but nothing could be more obvious and indisputable that LA was not a viable NFL market until Kroenke blew his load to bring them there.--the only owner who wasn't bluffing. You have nothing, zero, to refute this. It's common knowledge, accepted by everyone who was ever asked, who ever commented or wrote on this topic...except you. Even you know it's true, but youre stuck in a corner that you painted (again!). I can't help you any more on this one. I already said that expansion wasn't feasible, and it was over by 1999 when they awarded Houston an expansion team. Again owners of existing teams didn't want to move their teams. Because they were content making good money where they were in stadiums partially funded by the public. Just like Kroenke could have done in STL, even if he had to pay for his own stadium like you believe the Pegulas should. You're just a raging hypocrite on this topic because you dislike Terry and/or Kim for goodness knows whatever reason. Oh wait, it's the "hero worship." LOL! Edited October 2, 2021 by Doc
Recommended Posts