New Bills stadium deal is bad for taxpayers, according to Yahoo!

[Malazan]

The economics on stadiums is pretty set. Even with secondary/tertiary jobs / etc, they have a tough time covering the straight up costs. 

 

I ask, does anyone on here care? Not every project needs to be a profit maker. 

[Mr. WEO]

12 hours ago, EasternOHBillsFan said:

 

How come the fact that the Pegulas wanted 100% public funding isn't the story?

 

Yeah, these kinds of stories are ridiculous... we have a new stadium and the Bills are staying and we're majorly successful right now. UTTER BS that we have to read this garbage.

 

Everyone assumed Pegula wanted a freebie.  That wouldn't be news. 

 

The topic of discussion is whether NYS could have negotiated a better deal for the State. 

 

Also, why do you say you "have to read this"?  Just a guy stating well known research on stadium funding--stuff you already knew as a TSW reader.  Who made you read it?

 

11 hours ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

And once again without a deal - all that profit goes away to another place.  If out of NYS - that is lost revenue that equates to the cost of the stadium.

 

 

 

That's assuming the Bills would have moved if they had to pay a penny more than they now will have to pay for a new stadium.  It also assumes that 850 million could not have been used to produce  more jobs that produce an equal amount of tax revenue from business and employee income.

 

Both aren't solid assumptions.

[ALF]

NYS subsidizes NYC transit , subways and buses every year.

 

The MTA in CY 2020 will oversee more than 75,000 employees and an annual operating budget of over $17 billion

Within the Department of Transportation budget, the Executive Budget recommends $6.2 billion in transit operating aid to the MTA. 

 

https://www.budget.ny.gov/pubs/archive/fy21/exec/agencies/appropdata/MetropolitanTransportationAuthority.html

[Doc]

27 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

That's assuming the Bills would have moved if they had to pay a penny more than they now will have to pay for a new stadium.  It also assumes that 850 million could not have been used to produce  more jobs that produce an equal amount of tax revenue from business and employee income.

 

Both aren't solid assumptions.

 

Regarding the first assumption, not worth finding out the hard way like cities that thought the same way and lost teams did, only to later cry for a replacement.  As for the 2nd, it's a bigger assumption to think that the money will be well spent on nebulous job creation versus a stadium project that will actually create and keep jobs in the state.  If this bothers you so, you should worry more about the other $220B that the state is spending on who knows what.

[Mr. WEO]

30 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Regarding the first assumption, not worth finding out the hard way like cities that thought the same way and lost teams did, only to later cry for a replacement.  As for the 2nd, it's a bigger assumption to think that the money will be well spent on nebulous job creation versus a stadium project that will actually create and keep jobs in the state.  If this bothers you so, you should worry more about the other $220B that the state is spending on who knows what.

 

St Louis is kind of crying I guess.  But then again, they fronted a stadium to take the Rams from LA.  When their citizens refused to buy yet another Rams stadium, the owner took the team back to LA--and built a 5 billion palace with his own money.  Not quite what's going on here....

 

Also, St. Louis lost a team and got another one...then lost that team as well.  It's an NFL dead zone--why would a team move there at this point?

 

As for the second, the new stadium will create a lot of temporary new jobs perhaps--assuming the workers building it are currently unemployed or from out of state.  Once it's done, it will not have a significantly larger staff working there on game days (or with a skeleton maintenance crew for the other 350 or so days it's empty).

 

Not sure what a nebulous job is but let's just look at a recent example:

 

The public commitment for the stadium is about 1.1 billion.  For a public commitment of 1.52 billion (1.2 billion tax credit, 350 million cash, based on actual performance/job numbers), the state had an agreement to subsidize (not build)  "H2" in LIC bringing 25,000 jobs averaging (per Amazon) $150K per year.  This deal would have generated 27 billion in income tax revenue over 25 years------and it was OPPOSED by downstate politicians!  Easily one of the worst political/fiscal decisions in the city's history.   Let all of the posters whining about "downstate" ruminate on that for a bit.

 

Obviously Amazon isn't coming to Buffalo, but such incentives, if competently vetted (sorry Erie County!) can bring actual new jobs, not just wrap existing jobs in expensive new clothes.

 

As for what I should "worry" about, out of staters like you really have no legitimate skin in this game so your opinions should be given weight proportional to that.

 

 

Edited April 16, 2022 by Mr. WEO

[hondo in seattle]

22 hours ago, Tulsabillsfanz said:

The guy is from Massachusetts…….   He vastly underestimates the value of the Bills for the Buffalo area.  Very one sided article. If he’s an expert, he just devalued his own “franchise “ with what appears to be a much more subjective than objective article. 

 

I've read multiple summaries of studies by sports economists.   I don't recall any of them examining what a stadium/team means to differing cities.  I would guess a stadium/team is far more impactful in place like Buffalo than LA or Boston.   If Buffalo lost the Bills, it would be soul-crushing for the residents and nationally confirm Buffalo's reputation as a second-rate city.  This would have economic ramifications that would be hard to quantify.  When LA loses a team, nothing happens to LA.  The economic/cultural/societal relationship between a team and its city varies from city to city.  

 

Also, the economic studies tend to focus on the impact to local businesses.  The economists ask how much extra revenue is generated by the local hotels, restaurants, and so on.  With so few home games in the NFL, the benefit isn't significant.  But in taxes alone, NYS will recoup its investment.  

[WickedGame]

I think I’ve figured out a solution that keeps the Bills in Buffalo and satisfies the “not with my tax dollars”/“it’s a bad deal” crowd: Get rid of all stadiums and tell them to play football in the grass lot in the apartment complex. 
 

It’s cost-efficient, it’s natural grass, and it’s just how you remember it from the good ol’ days. Everybody wins. 

[Mr. WEO]

15 minutes ago, hondo in seattle said:

 

I've read multiple summaries of studies by sports economists.   I don't recall any of them examining what a stadium/team means to differing cities.  I would guess a stadium/team is far more impactful in place like Buffalo than LA or Boston.   If Buffalo lost the Bills, it would be soul-crushing for the residents and nationally confirm Buffalo's reputation as a second-rate city.  This would have economic ramifications that would be hard to quantify.  When LA loses a team, nothing happens to LA.  The economic/cultural/societal relationship between a team and its city varies from city to city.  

 

Also, the economic studies tend to focus on the impact to local businesses.  The economists ask how much extra revenue is generated by the local hotels, restaurants, and so on.  With so few home games in the NFL, the benefit isn't significant.  But in taxes alone, NYS will recoup its investment.  

 

The studies don't look at the impact of a team leaving a city (no team that got the new stadium left). 

 

A team that doesn't move doesn't (re)pay for a new stadium with the taxes they have always been paying playing in the old stadium.  It's not new revenue for the state, it is a new expense for the state.

[Doc]

1 minute ago, Mr. WEO said:

St Louis is kind of crying I guess.  But then again, they fronted a stadium to take the Rams from LA.  When their citizens refused to buy yet another Rams stadium, the owner took the team back to LA--and built a 5 billion palace with his own money.  Not quite what's going on here....

 

Also, St. Louis lost a team and got another one...then lost that team as well.  It's an NFL dead zone--why would a team move there at this point?

 

As for the second, the new stadium will create a lot of temporary new jobs perhaps--assuming the workers building it are currently unemployed or from out of state.  Once it's done, it will not have a significantly larger staff working there on game days (or with a skeleton maintenance crew for the other 350 or so days it's empty).

 

Not sure what a nebulous job is but let's just look at a recent example:

 

The public commitment for the stadium is about 1.1 billion.  For a public commitment of 1.52 billion (1.2 billion tax credit, 350 million cash, based on actual performance/job numbers), the state had an agreement to subsidize (not build)  "H2" in LIC bringing 25,000 jobs averaging (per Amazon) $150K per year.  This deal would have generated 27 billion in income tax revenue over 25 years------and it was OPPOSED by downstate politicians!  Easily one of the worst political/fiscal decisions in the city's history.   Let all of the posters whining about "downstate" ruminate on that for a bit.

 

Obviously Amazon isn't coming to Buffalo, but such incentives, if competently vetted (sorry Erie County!) can bring actual new jobs, not just wrap existing jobs in expensive new clothes.

 

As for what I should "worry" about, out of staters like you really have no legitimate skin in this game so your opinions should be given weight proportional to that.

 

I'm pretty sure that after STL successfully sued the NFL, they're not crying for a new team since they know the NFL will never give them another one.  I'm talking about SD and Oakland, as well as those in the more distant past who lost teams. 

 

But since you mentioned it, Kroenke has even more money than the Pegulas and wouldn't even partially, much less completely, pay for a new stadium to keep the team in STL.  Instead he bolted for a city that lost 2 teams decades earlier because of poor fan support, but which is a bigger market, hoping it works (he'll be long dead before that franchise breaks even, if it does).  And if you think STL won't get a new team (they won't), what makes you think Buffalo would?  They won't, which, again, gets back to my point that it's not worth playing hardball and finding out.

 

Nebulous job creation.  That is, thinking that the $220B being spent isn't enough, it's that $850M that's gonna do it.  When that money is actually going to be used towards jobs, and the state will own the stadium and recoup their money in a couple decades.

 

And you're right, as an out-of-stater, I don't care in the least where NYS spends their money.  Guilty as charged!  I'm just glad the Bills are staying in Buffalo for the rest of my life.  Which is why I said you should be more worried about where the vast majority of your tax money is going. 

[Beerball]

On 4/15/2022 at 9:56 AM, JPL7 said:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ive-studied-stadium-financing-over-121246769.html

“As a sports economist who has studied stadium deals for over two decades, I am not exaggerating when I write that the New York Legislature has managed to craft one of the worst stadium deals in recent memory – a remarkable feat considering the high bar set by other misguided state and local governments across the country.”

Of course it’s bad for taxpayers, the alternative would have been worse though IMO.

[Rochesterfan]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

 

That's assuming the Bills would have moved if they had to pay a penny more than they now will have to pay for a new stadium.  It also assumes that 850 million could not have been used to produce  more jobs that produce an equal amount of tax revenue from business and employee income.

 

Both aren't solid assumptions.

 

So you are thinking the state would spend the 850 million and get a better return than covering the cost in 20+ years.  😂😂😂😂

 

It surely could of been used to make more jobs maybe, but the Bills employee a huge number including game day people and all of that generates tax revenue.  The size of the salaries alone make it hard for a regular set of jobs to match - including the fees on parking, tickets etc - that go right back.

 

Finally - the state, the county, and the Pegula’s have been in discussion for years on this.  You know as well as everyone else - the ideal spot would have been to build the stadium downtown where the Pegula’s have their other buildings, but they worked out a basic agreement years ago to rebuild on-site as the cheapest alternative.

 

The ideal solution would have been about 850 million for the stadium downtown and about 2 billion in infrastructure- you know similar to what gets spent in NYC publicly, but they came to an agreement to use similar money in OP.

 

It is a pretty solid assumption that the Bills badly needed a new stadium and that the Pegula’s and the NFL were going to pick up a portion of it and the State and the County were going to pick up the rest.  They had a framework on the money before Hochul took over and it was always going to get pushed through.  
 

The stupid thing is thinking that the state should of played hardball and risk losing a huge money generator over a couple of hundred million dollars.

 

For all of the crap we read from economists about the cost - the facts are EVERY city that has lost a team (Baltimore, Cleveland, St. Louis, Houston, LA, and Oakland) has found a way to build a new stadium for a team after losing the team - usually at a significantly worse deal than was offered before.  
 

The difference is the size of the Buffalo market - means we never get a team again - so you lose the revenue and Buffalo loses its identity.  Lose/Lose

 

 

[Rochesterfan]

38 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

The studies don't look at the impact of a team leaving a city (no team that got the new stadium left). 

 

A team that doesn't move doesn't (re)pay for a new stadium with the taxes they have always been paying playing in the old stadium.  It's not new revenue for the state, it is a new expense for the state.

 

Should be easy enough to do - every city that lost a team has built a brand new stadium - usually 100% public money to bring in a new team.  So every city and state that has lost a team - must have determined having the team was a much bigger benefit than not having the team.

 

 

[Doc]

34 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

So you are thinking the state would spend the 850 million and get a better return than covering the cost in 20+ years.  😂😂😂😂

 

It surely could of been used to make more jobs maybe, but the Bills employee a huge number including game day people and all of that generates tax revenue.  The size of the salaries alone make it hard for a regular set of jobs to match - including the fees on parking, tickets etc - that go right back.

 

Finally - the state, the county, and the Pegula’s have been in discussion for years on this.  You know as well as everyone else - the ideal spot would have been to build the stadium downtown where the Pegula’s have their other buildings, but they worked out a basic agreement years ago to rebuild on-site as the cheapest alternative.

 

The ideal solution would have been about 850 million for the stadium downtown and about 2 billion in infrastructure- you know similar to what gets spent in NYC publicly, but they came to an agreement to use similar money in OP.

 

It is a pretty solid assumption that the Bills badly needed a new stadium and that the Pegula’s and the NFL were going to pick up a portion of it and the State and the County were going to pick up the rest.  They had a framework on the money before Hochul took over and it was always going to get pushed through.  
 

The stupid thing is thinking that the state should of played hardball and risk losing a huge money generator over a couple of hundred million dollars.

 

For all of the crap we read from economists about the cost - the facts are EVERY city that has lost a team (Baltimore, Cleveland, St. Louis, Houston, LA, and Oakland) has found a way to build a new stadium for a team after losing the team - usually at a significantly worse deal than was offered before.  
 

The difference is the size of the Buffalo market - means we never get a team again - so you lose the revenue and Buffalo loses its identity.  Lose/Lose

 

$2.85B in NYS money to build a stadium for the Bills in downtown Buffalo?  Was never going to happen.

[Mr. WEO]

9 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

I'm pretty sure that after STL successfully sued the NFL, they're not crying for a new team since they know the NFL will never give them another one.  I'm talking about SD and Oakland, as well as those in the more distant past who lost teams. 

 

But since you mentioned it, Kroenke has even more money than the Pegulas and wouldn't even partially, much less completely, pay for a new stadium to keep the team in STL.  Instead he bolted for a city that lost 2 teams decades earlier because of poor fan support, but which is a bigger market, hoping it works (he'll be long dead before that franchise breaks even, if it does).  And if you think STL won't get a new team (they won't), what makes you think Buffalo would?  They won't, which, again, gets back to my point that it's not worth playing hardball and finding out.

 

Nebulous job creation.  That is, thinking that the $220B being spent isn't enough, it's that $850M that's gonna do it.  When that money is actually going to be used towards jobs, and the state will own the stadium and recoup their money in a couple decades.

 

And you're right, as an out-of-stater, I don't care in the least where NYS spends their money.  Guilty as charged!  I'm just glad the Bills are staying in Buffalo for the rest of my life.  Which is why I said you should be more worried about where the vast majority of your tax money is going. 

 

SD was so upset at the possibility that they could lose the Chargers over public funding for a stadium (even via a hotel tax), that they voted against it anyway.  The Raiders have come and gone from several cities.  Oakland doesn't seem to be whining after they lost the team (again).

 

5.8 billion vs 10.7 billion is an interesting hair to split, lol.  No one has suggested that either billionaire should spend 5 billion on a new stadium.  Strange point to make.  Certainly Pegula could afford to pay and should have paid more than the few hundred million he is now obligated to.   His net worth growth is "Peg'd" to the ever increasing value of the franchise he bought--at this rate at least a billion every 10 years.  

 

Yeah, Kroenke put his money where his mouth is and went all in on LA.  He left St. Louis on spec.  Bidwell left because of the stadium issue and dwindling fan interest.    Pegula held out for a free stadium in Buffalo, where he makes risk free money as his main income stream.  He's certainly no fool.   The state didn't play ball (hard or otherwise) at all, which is my point--this nonsense by PSE and now the Governor (Austin! no, wait--it was SD!), not withstanding. 

 

Certainly the *50 mill on the stadium is not gonna do it, that much is obvious.  As for "owning the stadium"...since it is a single use facility (spare us the concerts, Bowl games, etc) it is a very limited value asset.  Without it's lone tenant, it has no value.  It cannot, if the team was to break it's lease and move, be used for anything else.  In fact doesn't the lease include language to the effect that if the team moves, the Bills have to pay for the demolition of the stadium on their way out.

 

Since you don't care in the least, you have no standing to comment at all as to how NYS residents tax dollars are spent.  Anyone in NY is free to be happy the Bills will stay, while at the same time being convinced that the state clearly put up little fight for the tax payers--that much should be obvious.  

 

3 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

So you are thinking the state would spend the 850 million and get a better return than covering the cost in 20+ years.  😂😂😂😂

 

It surely could of been used to make more jobs maybe, but the Bills employee a huge number including game day people and all of that generates tax revenue.  The size of the salaries alone make it hard for a regular set of jobs to match - including the fees on parking, tickets etc - that go right back.

 

Finally - the state, the county, and the Pegula’s have been in discussion for years on this.  You know as well as everyone else - the ideal spot would have been to build the stadium downtown where the Pegula’s have their other buildings, but they worked out a basic agreement years ago to rebuild on-site as the cheapest alternative.

 

The ideal solution would have been about 850 million for the stadium downtown and about 2 billion in infrastructure- you know similar to what gets spent in NYC publicly, but they came to an agreement to use similar money in OP.

 

It is a pretty solid assumption that the Bills badly needed a new stadium and that the Pegula’s and the NFL were going to pick up a portion of it and the State and the County were going to pick up the rest.  They had a framework on the money before Hochul took over and it was always going to get pushed through.  
 

The stupid thing is thinking that the state should of played hardball and risk losing a huge money generator over a couple of hundred million dollars.

 

For all of the crap we read from economists about the cost - the facts are EVERY city that has lost a team (Baltimore, Cleveland, St. Louis, Houston, LA, and Oakland) has found a way to build a new stadium for a team after losing the team - usually at a significantly worse deal than was offered before.  
 

The difference is the size of the Buffalo market - means we never get a team again - so you lose the revenue and Buffalo loses its identity.  Lose/Lose

 

 

 

The size of (8) game day temp workers salaries and tax revenue would be hard to match with a similar number of "regular workers" to match ?  That makes no sense.  Regular jobs generate tax revenue year round.

 

I'm not sure how 2.85 billion of public money would be "ideal".   2 billion in "infrastructure"?  "In NYC", a city of 8.5 million and a metro of 20 million where 4.5 million people work and another 1 million commute into the city to work each day, and which is visited by 66 million per year.....a 2 billion dollar investment in infrastructure can have a massive positive public impact.  In Buffalo, a town of a quarter of a million and a metro of just over a million, a 2 billion infrastructure expenditure would be absurd--especially if tied to a usually empty stadium.

 

You describe the findings of economists (public funding of pro stadiums are a bad deal for the taxpayer) as "crap" at the same time your are making your argument by noting that every new stadium built was "as significantly worse deal than a previous deal".  The economists will appreciate your seconding their findings.

 

If Buffalo were to lose its team, I'm betting it will survive.  No city is only it's NFL (or any sports) team's identity.  It would be a blow to many who live in the city and it's surroundings, but the city wouldn't crumble (I haven't been, but I hear St. Louis is still standing).  People will still move to or leave the area for the same reasons they do so today (not Bills related).

 

 

 

54 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

Should be easy enough to do - every city that lost a team has built a brand new stadium - usually 100% public money to bring in a new team.  So every city and state that has lost a team - must have determined having the team was a much bigger benefit than not having the team.

 

 

 

These are the stadiums that are studied, since they are publicly funded stadiums.  The studies conclusions demonstrate that politicians don't really care about the public cost of the stadium.  That's   the whole point of all that research.  The "much bigger benefit" isn't financial.  It's political, emotional, etc....

[blueblooded]

I, for one, am grateful the Bills are staying for another 30+ years. Having an NFL team is a big deal. Many don’t realize it, until it’s gone. Just ask Cleveland, Houston, LA, Baltimore, and St. Louis. 
 

Having lived in a market that’s bigger than Buffalo for most of my life, and having no NFL team nearby, it’s amazing having the Bills. When I knew I was moving to WNY over 10 years ago, I became a Bills fan overnight and it was  awesome taking my 9 year old son to the New England playoff game this past January. 
 

Now, as for this deal. Yeah, it’s not great for taxpayers. However, I’m not convinced the Pegulas couldn’t have made out better moving the franchise somewhere else. Buffalo isn’t a huge market. You lose the Bills and you lose an NFL team for good. So, for many WNYers it’s a fantastic deal to be able to keep their 60+ year old beloved team.

 

The Pegulas played a good hand and they had the negotiating power as owners of an NFL franchise in a small market. They’re not running a charity. Most billionaires would play it a similar way.

 

Tax dollars have been wasted on worse.

 

 

 

Edited April 16, 2022 by blueblooded
Missed word

[Generic_Bills_Fan]

I have a hard time painting the pegulas as greedy…if we’re just talking dollars and cents they are leaving a ton of money on the table by keeping the team in buffalo.  Also why do people think billionaires just have billions of dollars in cash laying around lol the team cost + stadium cost is more than half his net worth

Edited April 16, 2022 by Generic_Bills_Fan

[FieldGeneral]

The Stadiums Make Poor Neighbors example is humorous. 

[Bobby Hooks]

13 minutes ago, FieldGeneral said:

The Stadiums Make Poor Neighbors example is humorous. 

Exactly. Anyone who has gone to a Bills game knows the neighbors get at least a mortgage payment out of home games charging for parking. 

[hondo in seattle]

18 hours ago, Malazan said:

The economics on stadiums is pretty set. Even with secondary/tertiary jobs / etc, they have a tough time covering the straight up costs. 

 

I ask, does anyone on here care? Not every project needs to be a profit maker. 

 

Business build projects that are profit makers.

Governments build projects (roads, schools...  stadiums) that are not profit makers.

[PrimeTime101]

On 4/15/2022 at 10:14 AM, Brennan Huff said:

I don’t care. I’d pay for the whole stadium if I could

YOU would pay for the whole stadium? Would you please?