billsfan89 Posted July 18, 2009 Posted July 18, 2009 I was having a conversation with a friend about the New Giants/Jets Stadium which is going to cost well over a billion dollars. Now the Jets and Giants are going to use a combination of PSL's, Team money, and Tax payer subsidies (Very little money compared to most projects due to the PSL's). But we were talking about do football stadiums need to be all that nice? I have only been to games at Giants stadium and I think it is the epitome of a place to see a game. Its not fancy but it gets the job done. You get the atmosphere that this is where football is played and the people here are here to see football. So do you really need a fancy stadium when there is a better atmosphere to be had at a more basic stadium. I understand the need for fancy arenas and stadiums for baseball and hockey/basketball. In baseball you want a nice place to draw a crowd for 81 home games a year. In hockey and basketball you get 41 dates a year for each sport so you want a draw also a arena needs to a good venue for concerts and other events. So I understand the need for the Prudential Center, Citi field, and New Yankee Stadium to be really state of the art. But why do football Stadiums which are only going to be used 8 times a year (although the Giants/Jets stadium is going to be used 16 times) need to be Billion dollar stadiums that are state of the art. I think a football stadium should be place to see a game that hold a ton of people. I understand the money aspect but in the long haul are you willing to risk pricing out the fans with things like high ticket prices and PSLs
GOBILLS78 Posted July 18, 2009 Posted July 18, 2009 The new Giants Stadium will be used a lot more than 16 times a year, counting non-football events, but I understand your point.
billsfan89 Posted July 18, 2009 Author Posted July 18, 2009 The new Giants Stadium will be used a lot more than 16 times a year, counting non-football events, but I understand your point. Besides Jets and Giants games what else is there. They play a few college football games but not much else. Other than the occasional concert (Mostly Springsteen) which fills like a date or two a year (Unless Springsteen comes to town). So overall you play 20-30 dates a year. Unless I am missing something. The only other thing I know its used for is high school football for a few dates.
DDD Posted July 18, 2009 Posted July 18, 2009 Great point. A true waste of owner and taxpayer dollars. That thing Jerry Jones has built in Dallas is a travesty against humanity.
VOR Posted July 18, 2009 Posted July 18, 2009 Naw, they're GREAT uses of taxpayer money, to help pad the pockets of destitute NFL owners. And the price-gouging that follows? It's an added bonus!
GOBILLS78 Posted July 18, 2009 Posted July 18, 2009 Besides Jets and Giants games what else is there. They play a few college football games but not much else. Other than the occasional concert (Mostly Springsteen) which fills like a date or two a year (Unless Springsteen comes to town). So overall you play 20-30 dates a year. Unless I am missing something. The only other thing I know its used for is high school football for a few dates. The current stadium has 35 events scheduled from now until the end of the year alone. That's less than half a year. That being said, I'm not sure if some of those events will shift to different venues once the new stadium opens. Still, I get your point.
billsfan89 Posted July 18, 2009 Author Posted July 18, 2009 The current stadium has 35 events scheduled from now until the end of the year alone. That's less than half a year. Still, I get your point. didn't realize that many events are held there. Although to be fair its padded a little by the Springsteen concerts.
GOBILLS78 Posted July 18, 2009 Posted July 18, 2009 didn't realize that many events are held there. Although to be fair its padded a little by the Springsteen concerts. On the fifth day of Springsteen, my true love gave to me...
BillnutinHouston Posted July 18, 2009 Posted July 18, 2009 Here's my take: No, stadiums do not necessarily need to be state of the art. Stadiums in themselves are not drivers of a team's economic success as much as the respective local economies are. But what new glitzy stadiums do, in places like NYC or Dallas where a new facility helps an owner more effectively leverage the economics of the immediate area to boost his "unshared revenues", is give him a competitive advantage over other teams. A stadium serves as a revenue-maximizing tool by maximizing the number of suites, providing amenities that help drive up the price he can charge for the suites, offering higher-end concessions and parking facilities, and creating an upscale atmosphere that drives up stadium naming fees. This is exactly why a new stadium for Buffalo would do little to help impact the Bills' finances relative to other teams - there is no significant new money in the WNY market to harvest if a new stadium were to provide these types of upgrades. As it is, not all of the Ralph's corporate suites are sold, and if they were made "nicer" it is doubtful that revenues would increase sufficiently to justify the investment. As for season/individual ticket prices, initiating a PSL policy would, as you suggest, likely end up hurting overall revenues (you collect more from each account, but the number of accounts would surely decrease.) A new stadium for Buffalo will never happen, nor should it as the economy currently stands, because it makes no economic sense and would only make the Bills' revenue situation worse than it is now. Not only would revenues not significantly increase as a result (the market is already tapped out and a stadium does nothing to coax out more revenues), but it also would likely force the team to take on stadium construction debt, which it currently has none of with the Ralph. Neither of these outcomes from a new stadium would help the Bills' bottom line - they actually hurt it. I laugh when people advocate building a new stadium, or even better, grumble about taking games to Toronto. The Toronto deal is a "Hail Mary pass" designed to keep the team minimally viable where it is. Those complaining about it are missing the big picture, seeing it only as a money grab by Ralph. In actuality he's doing us a favor by putting the team on life support for a few more years.
GOBILLS78 Posted July 18, 2009 Posted July 18, 2009 I laugh when people advocate building a new stadium, or even better, grumble about taking games to Toronto. The Toronto deal is a "Hail Mary pass" designed to keep the team minimally viable where it is. Those complaining about it are missing the big picture, seeing it only as a money grab by Ralph. In actuality he's doing us a favor by putting the team on life support for a few more years. Right. It would certainly be a shot in the arm in the short term, but isn't viable for the long term.
VOR Posted July 18, 2009 Posted July 18, 2009 Right. It would certainly be a shot in the arm in the short term, but isn't viable for the long term. That's why ultimately I see games being split between Buffalo and Toronto. The costs to relocate a team are ginormous (in the $400M range), and even more moving the team out of the country. But with the economy the way it is, no city will entice an NFL with a shiny new stadium.
billsfan89 Posted July 18, 2009 Author Posted July 18, 2009 Here's my take: No, stadiums do not necessarily need to be state of the art. Stadiums in themselves are not drivers of a team's economic success as much as the respective local economies are. But what new glitzy stadiums do, in places like NYC or Dallas where a new facility helps an owner more effectively leverage the economics of the immediate area to boost his "unshared revenues", is give him a competitive advantage over other teams. A stadium serves as a revenue-maximizing tool by maximizing the number of suites, providing amenities that help drive up the price he can charge for the suites, offering higher-end concessions and parking facilities, and creating an upscale atmosphere that drives up stadium naming fees. This is exactly why a new stadium for Buffalo would do little to help impact the Bills' finances relative to other teams - there is no significant new money in the WNY market to harvest if a new stadium were to provide these types of upgrades. As it is, not all of the Ralph's corporate suites are sold, and if they were made "nicer" it is doubtful that revenues would increase sufficiently to justify the investment. As for season/individual ticket prices, initiating a PSL policy would, as you suggest, likely end up hurting overall revenues (you collect more from each account, but the number of accounts would surely decrease.) A new stadium for Buffalo will never happen, nor should it as the economy currently stands, because it makes no economic sense and would only make the Bills' revenue situation worse than it is now. Not only would revenues not significantly increase as a result (the market is already tapped out and a stadium does nothing to coax out more revenues), but it also would likely force the team to take on stadium construction debt, which it currently has none of with the Ralph. Neither of these outcomes from a new stadium would help the Bills' bottom line - they actually hurt it. I laugh when people advocate building a new stadium, or even better, grumble about taking games to Toronto. The Toronto deal is a "Hail Mary pass" designed to keep the team minimally viable where it is. Those complaining about it are missing the big picture, seeing it only as a money grab by Ralph. In actuality he's doing us a favor by putting the team on life support for a few more years. Good post just a thought about Buffalo getting a new stadium. I don't think they could build a new one but they might be able to renovate the Ralph for under 200 million and sign a new lease that keeps the Bills in Buffalo for over 20 years. It won't happen under Ralph such a scenario would only be able to happen under new ownership.
GOBILLS78 Posted July 19, 2009 Posted July 19, 2009 Good post just a thought about Buffalo getting a new stadium. I don't think they could build a new one but they might be able to renovate the Ralph for under 200 million and sign a new lease that keeps the Bills in Buffalo for over 20 years. It won't happen under Ralph such a scenario would only be able to happen under new ownership. But what would another renovation do for the Bills' long-term viability? They aren't going to sell more luxury boxes, and they're not going to sell more seats, no matter what amenities they add.
San Jose Bills Fan Posted July 19, 2009 Posted July 19, 2009 You really can't make blanket statements about stadiums and whether their costs are justified. Since Cowboys Stadium opened around June 1st there's there's already been 5 events hosted there starting with a George Strait concert and continuing with two soccer matches this weekend. They also have a Technology Conference Center which is already booked for 22 events. In addition to the Cowboys games, the stadium will host 10 college football games this year. The new stadium also has a Dallas Cowboys Hall of Fame which will ensure further revenue streams. I bet this stadium, despite the $1.2 billion price tag will be a money maker.
TheLynchTrain Posted July 19, 2009 Posted July 19, 2009 But what would another renovation do for the Bills' long-term viability? They aren't going to sell more luxury boxes, and they're not going to sell more seats, no matter what amenities they add. I respectfully disagree. The only way the Bills stay is if they win a Superbowl, heck a few superbowls. Everybody saw what it did to the Packers, now they're the real small town America's team. Yeah yeah the PAckers had history but nobody gave a sh-- about the Packers before Favre and the SB...they couldn't recruit black players b/c they thought GB was racist for christsakes! On a different level think about the hated Pats*...they were packed and ready for St Louis in the early 90s, nobody in that shithole region cared about the team, and then they started winning. Yeah yeah, Boston is a lot bigger than Buffalo (and richer) but they really rely on the whole of New England. Thats why I don't think the market's tapped out. I bet they could get the seasons up by another 5-10K from the region alone...but the real prize would be nationally. They have to win and get some of that Green Bay small town magic. And think of all the ex-buffalonians we got around this nation? I'm sure their would be plenty of companies who would buy up those suites. Its all about winning.
bbb Posted July 19, 2009 Posted July 19, 2009 I like how 90 year old college stadiums still get the job done.
billsfan89 Posted July 19, 2009 Author Posted July 19, 2009 You really can't make blanket statements about stadiums and whether their costs are justified. Since Cowboys Stadium opened around June 1st there's there's already been 5 events hosted there starting with a George Strait concert and continuing with two soccer matches this weekend. They also have a Technology Conference Center which is already booked for 22 events. In addition to the Cowboys games, the stadium will host 10 college football games this year. The new stadium also has a Dallas Cowboys Hall of Fame which will ensure further revenue streams. I bet this stadium, despite the $1.2 billion price tag will be a money maker. Its still a lot of money on a stadium that is only guaranteed to house 18 sell outs a year (I am going to assume the 10 college games are sell outs or near sell outs). I don't doubt that they are trying to fill as many dates as possible due to the cost. But you can only book so many concerts (very few acts can sell out 80,000 or near 80,000 to justify a stadium concert) and soccer matches aren't going to come close to filling that stadium. My point is on the actual stadium did you really need a 1.2 Billion dollar price tag? you could have spent 500-700 million on that and still have gotten a really nice stadium (Ford Field in Detroit cost 400 million to make) that could have housed the Cowboys, College football, concerts, and the Super Bowl. To me Jerry Jones wanted to build a 1.2 Billion dollar !@#$ you to the Giants and the Redskins. It wasn't just about luxury boxes or non-shared revenue. The Cowboys on top of selling PSLs (At really outrageous prices), getting 150 million from the NFL, had to get 325 million from tax payers just to fund that monstrosity. Also they are going to charge 40-75 dollars for parking. And I thought parking at Giants stadium which was about 15 dollars was ridiculous.
billsfan89 Posted July 19, 2009 Author Posted July 19, 2009 Another point I would like to make is the alternative to state of the art over 1 billion dollar stadiums are really really nice 400-700 million dollar stadiums that are pretty much state of the art. Lucas Oil stadium where the Colts play cost 720 million and is really state of the art so tell me what are you spending the extra 500-700 million dollars on. (the Meadowlands stadium and New Cowboys stadium cost 1.4 and 1.2 billion dollars). Most recent NFL Stadiums and what they cost. All are still considered state of the art stadiums built since 2002. Lincoln Financial Field- opened 2003 cost 512 million market Philadelphia Qwest Field- opened 2002 cost 430 million market Seattle University of Phoenix stadium- opened 2006 cost 455 million Lucas Oil stadium- Opened 2008 cost 720 million market Indy Soldier Field- Complete Renovation 600 million opened 2003 Chicago. Ford Field- opened 2002 cost 400 million market Detroit. Which means the Cowboys and Jets/Giants are out spending their closest competitor by 500-700 million dollars and are tripling and more than doubling what most teams are spending on stadiums. You can make the case that the Jets and Giants should be spending twice as much stating that they are in the largest market and that they are spending for 2 teams but do you really think they spend 1.4 billion dollars if Jerry Jones only spends 800 million on his stadium.
iinii Posted July 19, 2009 Posted July 19, 2009 Do they need to be state of the art? No, but wouldn't you like a new car? The point someone made about college stadiums continuing to get the job done is very valid. As far as the N.F.L. goes though it really is an ego thing for the owners and their bank.
Art in PNS Posted July 19, 2009 Posted July 19, 2009 It's the hollywood syndrome. The NFL right now is all about the merchandising of it's product and less about the product itself. The ralph is a great place to watch a football game , good sightlines from everywhere, it's outside and you can feel like a part of the game. When it rains you get wet, when it's cold you freeze your ass off just like the players except we all look like eskimo's . The luxury boxes are like going to a downtown bar nothing wong with it by why put up with the traffic if you are not going to get the EXPERIENCE of the game. I live in NC and have seasons tix. It's much cheaper for mre to stay in my own luxury box with my wide screen TV, surround sound system , better low cost beer and good food.Plus no possible way to get in a traffic accident or worse . I choose to drive/fly to as many games as possible to tailgate with other football fans and actually WATCH the game. I'm not interested in whether the carpet is frayed or he paint doesn't match the ammenities. I'm not showing up in Hollywood look at me gear . I'm coming in a Bills Jersy and hat. Just keep the concrete from falling on me and give me a decent seat for my old fat butt. Of course I am not going to sit in it very long except for the commercial time outs which come every three minutes. While Ralph appreciates my seasons ticket purchase , the NFL couldn't care less unless somehow I can get more TV coverage or add revenue. Hell Ralph would get more media attention if he gave one of the suites to Jon and Kate plus 8 . Just think of it all those TV viewers tuning in to see whats happening . Forget the game not important. As long as REALITY TV shows keep drawing the audience they do why pay for an actual game at all , just build a hollywood set and all the mental midget FANS will line out to see what will happen next. I'll leave my rant now.
Recommended Posts