buckeyemike Posted July 19, 2009 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. Lambeau Field - renovated 2003 cost $295 million market Green Bay Former Packers CEO Bob Harlan estimates that the renovation would be in the $600 million range now, and there's no way in the world the Packers could do it today. They got in just under the wire, and many believe that Lambeau Field is the best NFL stadium, including me.
Offside Number 76 Posted July 19, 2009 Posted July 19, 2009 I've been to two "state of the art" football stadiums, and the cigar bars and club-level amenities add absolutely nothing to the experience. In fact, they distract and detract--because there's always someone who wants to spend 20 minutes checking out this feature or that one, and that's time away from the game. Luxury boxes and semi-private areas (such as the M&T club) are no fun no matter whether the stadium is old or new.
buckeyemike Posted July 19, 2009 Posted July 19, 2009 I've been to two "state of the art" football stadiums, and the cigar bars and club-level amenities add absolutely nothing to the experience. In fact, they distract and detract--because there's always someone who wants to spend 20 minutes checking out this feature or that one, and that's time away from the game. Luxury boxes and semi-private areas (such as the M&T club) are no fun no matter whether the stadium is old or new. Which two? I've been in the club lounges in Cleveland, and I'm not a huge fan of these areas either, BTW.
GOBILLS78 Posted July 19, 2009 Posted July 19, 2009 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. Sure, winning is everything. My point is that even if they were to sell another 5-10K more season tickets, the way the system is set up, that will eventually just be a drop in the bucket compared with revenue-driving teams. That's why I say it would be a shot in the arm in the short term, but wouldn't work long-term, in my opinion.
Mr. WEO Posted July 19, 2009 Posted July 19, 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! Actually, the City of Arlington left it up to the taxpayers and, wouldn't you know it, they decided it was a great use of their money. Lazy, predictable comment. 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. You're right. The original plan was for a $650 mil stadium--half from the taxpayers, half for JJ to come up with. But JJ couldn't help himself and went bigger and ?better to a total over $1 billion. He's on the hook for $700 million, hence the 75 parking spot. If you don't want to pay for parking, park on someone's lawn. Or take a tour bus. The vast majority of football fans watch their team for free on TV. This is because others, who willingly choose to pay what ever price they are being charged, sell out the stadium.
Offside Number 76 Posted July 19, 2009 Posted July 19, 2009 Which two? I've been in the club lounges in Cleveland, and I'm not a huge fan of these areas either, BTW. The two in Maryland. There's absolutely nothing in either of them that makes a football game any more enjoyable to watch than it is at an older stadium.
apuszczalowski Posted July 19, 2009 Posted July 19, 2009 The problem with comparing previous stadiums to NY and Dallas's new ones is that the prices keep going up cause they try and out do one another, especially when it comes to The US "Holy Land", NYC, and "America's Team", Dallas. They have to be the best and out do one another. These new stadiums are being used as multi purpose facilities too, for concerts, shows, games, conventions, etc. When was the last time the Ralph was used for something non football related? Most fans can be happy with just a "nice" stadium, but the owners and sponsors/potential sponsors don't want to put their names one something that is only used 8-10 times a year. Its also hard to justify charging double for a ticket in Dallas then for one in Buffalo if dallas were playing in the Ralph for home games. This way the owners can say that they are providing a better atmosphere that is worth the extra ticket money
apuszczalowski Posted July 19, 2009 Posted July 19, 2009 I've been to two "state of the art" football stadiums, and the cigar bars and club-level amenities add absolutely nothing to the experience. In fact, they distract and detract--because there's always someone who wants to spend 20 minutes checking out this feature or that one, and that's time away from the game. Luxury boxes and semi-private areas (such as the M&T club) are no fun no matter whether the stadium is old or new. But that all depends on the person though and what type of fan they are. If they are a die hard fan who is there to see their team play live, then yeah, they add nothing when they could be just as happy sitting in the weather with some beers watching the game. When you are a "fan" who is there to socialise with clients, or broker a deal, and the game is a secondary interest to you, then those are the kind of places you might prefer. Somewhere that you can socialise and have some wine and a cigar with buisness associates and clients.
billsfan89 Posted July 19, 2009 Author Posted July 19, 2009 Actually, the City of Arlington left it up to the taxpayers and, wouldn't you know it, they decided it was a great use of their money. Lazy, predictable comment. You're right. The original plan was for a $650 mil stadium--half from the taxpayers, half for JJ to come up with. But JJ couldn't help himself and went bigger and ?better to a total over $1 billion. He's on the hook for $700 million, hence the 75 parking spot. If you don't want to pay for parking, park on someone's lawn. Or take a tour bus. The vast majority of football fans watch their team for free on TV. This is because others, who willingly choose to pay what ever price they are being charged, sell out the stadium. True its not a right to go see games at the stadium. If you can't afford seats than just don't go. However they are playing a very risky game with this pricing model. They continue to price out the real fan in favor of the haves and the corporations. It use to be if you couldn't afford lower level seats you could sit up top at a cheaper price. Now especially in the NFL you can't afford to get in the door no matter how bad a seat you were willing to take. Its a big gamble right now the market can handle it but down the road it might hurt the league. Especially for the Giants and Jets who have season ticket holders who have been there for generations who have to give up their seats or move into the upper seats due to extremely high PSL prices and a huge increase in prices for the new stadium. I mean they not only charge you something like 25000 dollars to keep your seats but than the price goes from 120 dollars a game to a 1000 dollars a game. Especially in this economy people just can't afford (Assuming you have a pair of seats) 50000 dollar PSLs and 16000 dollars a year every year instead of 1600 a year. Most Giant fans I know don't really want a new stadium they don't care about cigar lounges and other amenities honestly they just want a place to see a football game and tailgate.
Offside Number 76 Posted July 19, 2009 Posted July 19, 2009 But that all depends on the person though and what type of fan they are. If they are a die hard fan who is there to see their team play live, then yeah, they add nothing when they could be just as happy sitting in the weather with some beers watching the game. When you are a "fan" who is there to socialise with clients, or broker a deal, and the game is a secondary interest to you, then those are the kind of places you might prefer. Somewhere that you can socialise and have some wine and a cigar with buisness associates and clients. I've been in luxury boxes and club areas in various arenas and stadiums a hundred times or so. It isn't about fun in those situations, which is what I wrote about. It may be (but I don't think so--see below) preferable for business, but it is no fun. If I'm taking a client who is not a fan somewhere just to socialize, I take them to a restaurant. If I'm taking a client who is a fan of the sport, I take the client to a restaurant and then to some good seats. The client has a better time, better food, and it's all less costly. If I'm taking a GROUP of clients, a box becomes somewhat handy, but no one enjoys the game as much. I'm part of a business that ended up wasting its box seats at RWS--and that currently wastes its M&T Club seats--because clients don't want to go. If they like football, they usually have seats of their own, or otherwise would rather be in the crowd, so we use our personal seats and take them. If they don't like football, they don't want to be bothered trucking out to Orchard Park for five hours. We usually end up giving the tickets to employees for personal use about 4 or 5 games per year. Which is nice & builds morale and all, but it's not the reason we're spending ten grand on football tickets.
VOR Posted July 19, 2009 Posted July 19, 2009 Actually, the City of Arlington left it up to the taxpayers and, wouldn't you know it, they decided it was a great use of their money. Lazy, predictable comment. Hate to break it to you chief, but Erie County would cough up the cash if Ralph held their feet to the fire and demanded a new stadium...or else. Even with the economic disaster that is WNY. So using the "the taxpayers voted for it" is about as dumb an argument as one can use. But totally predictable on your part.
Chalkie Gerzowski Posted July 19, 2009 Posted July 19, 2009 The two in Maryland. There's absolutely nothing in either of them that makes a football game any more enjoyable to watch than it is at an older stadium. Just the wider concourses at Ravens' stadium. Those are nice, and the huge replay boards...otherwise, meh.
Gordio Posted July 20, 2009 Posted July 20, 2009 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. Yeah, putting a stadium near the city is a little different though. They will be able to have more events due to their size. Besides when sprinstein or bon jovi usually play at the meadowlands don't they usually schedule like 8 or 9 concerts in 10-11 days & sell them all out. Buffalo would never be able to pull something like that off. I remember when Springstein was scheduled to play at the Arena a few years back & they had to move it to darien lake because they could not sell enough tickets.
dollars 2 donuts Posted July 20, 2009 Posted July 20, 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. I agree completely, billsfan89. I think the additional 100s of millions of dollars are just an excuse to charge people through the roof on their 8-10 football dates a year. Holy peanuts, the new Texas Stadium? Are you kidding me?
Gordio Posted July 20, 2009 Posted July 20, 2009 But that all depends on the person though and what type of fan they are. If they are a die hard fan who is there to see their team play live, then yeah, they add nothing when they could be just as happy sitting in the weather with some beers watching the game. When you are a "fan" who is there to socialise with clients, or broker a deal, and the game is a secondary interest to you, then those are the kind of places you might prefer. Somewhere that you can socialise and have some wine and a cigar with buisness associates and clients. This is the reason why over the last few years I have preferred the College football. The atmospheres are 100xs better because real passionate fans are still able to get a seat. For most cities, the NFL has gave a big FU to the diehard average fan. In cities like Dallas/NY/Foxboro/Philly/Denver etc.. the real fans have been priced right out of the stadium. That is why I love the Ralph. The real diehard fans can still afford a seat in the lower bowl between the 20s. In any other city, these same diehard fans are relugated to the nose bleeds in the upper deck. Ask some longtime Jet season ticket who for years have had lower bowl seats between the 20s & have supported their team thru mostly miserable season after miserable season, that are now being forced to the 3rd tier upper decks because they can not afford to pay a PSL how they feel about their new stadium
reddogblitz Posted July 20, 2009 Posted July 20, 2009 I have my own theory on this. Running a professional sports team is not a real good way to make money year over year. However, it can make you a ton of money when you sell. Nothing drives up the value of a franchise than a new "state of the art" stadium. I saw it first hand in the '90s with the Dallas Mavericks when I lived there. Ross Perot Jr. was the owner. The team sucked. He hired low budget coaches. Didn't pay big time free agents. They went on to win <20 games per year. Then Ross suckered Dallas into building the American Airline Center even though the stadium they played in was less than 20 years old. As soon as the thing was done, he sold the team to the Cube for a HUGE profit. Look at the Forbes top 10 valuable teams: 1. Dallas Cowboys 2. Washington Redskins 3. New England Patriots 4. Houston Texans 5. Philadelphia Eagles 6. Denver Broncos 7. Chicago Bears 8. New York Giants 9. Cleveland Browns 10. New York Jets They all have brand new "state of the art" stadiums. Now, the bottom 7: 25. New Orleans Saints 26. San Diego Chargers 27. Buffalo Bills 28. Oakland Raiders 29. Jacksonville Jaguars 30. San Francisco 49ers 31. Atlanta Falcons 32. Minnesota Vikings They all play in old dilapidated stadiums. Atlanta's is 10 years old or so I think. The Metrodome is 24 years old. The league likes it because it drives up the value of it's franchises which generates more money in TV deals etc. Major sports leagues hold up municipalities and threaten to move their team if they don't build a new stadium. Look at what Gooddell said when he was here last year. If Buffalo were to build a new stadium, all of the sudden Buffalo would become a viable market for the NFL. Look into what David Stern did to the city of Seattle before the Sonics moved. The team could stay if a new stadium was built. To it's credit, the city of Seattle said NO and look what happened. Just a little lesson to any other cities out there thinking of NOT building a new stadium. Anyway, that's my story and I'm stickin' with it.
billsfan89 Posted July 20, 2009 Author Posted July 20, 2009 I have my own theory on this. Running a professional sports team is not a real good way to make money year over year. However, it can make you a ton of money when you sell. Nothing drives up the value of a franchise than a new "state of the art" stadium. I saw it first hand in the '90s with the Dallas Mavericks when I lived there. Ross Perot Jr. was the owner. The team sucked. He hired low budget coaches. Didn't pay big time free agents. They went on to win <20 games per year. Then Ross suckered Dallas into building the American Airline Center even though the stadium they played in was less than 20 years old. As soon as the thing was done, he sold the team to the Cube for a HUGE profit. Look at the Forbes top 10 valuable teams: 1. Dallas Cowboys 2. Washington Redskins 3. New England Patriots 4. Houston Texans 5. Philadelphia Eagles 6. Denver Broncos 7. Chicago Bears 8. New York Giants 9. Cleveland Browns 10. New York Jets They all have brand new "state of the art" stadiums. Now, the bottom 7: 25. New Orleans Saints 26. San Diego Chargers 27. Buffalo Bills 28. Oakland Raiders 29. Jacksonville Jaguars 30. San Francisco 49ers 31. Atlanta Falcons 32. Minnesota Vikings They all play in old dilapidated stadiums. Atlanta's is 10 years old or so I think. The Metrodome is 24 years old. The league likes it because it drives up the value of it's franchises which generates more money in TV deals etc. Major sports leagues hold up municipalities and threaten to move their team if they don't build a new stadium. Look at what Gooddell said when he was here last year. If Buffalo were to build a new stadium, all of the sudden Buffalo would become a viable market for the NFL. Look into what David Stern did to the city of Seattle before the Sonics moved. The team could stay if a new stadium was built. To it's credit, the city of Seattle said NO and look what happened. Just a little lesson to any other cities out there thinking of NOT building a new stadium. Anyway, that's my story and I'm stickin' with it. Very good post. However I doubt the Houston Texans are worth more than the NY Giants. Not only do the Giants play in a bigger market but they have had a recent Super Bowl run and a season ticket list that even with PSLs that is still going to be decades long. I don't know what makes the Houston Texans so valuable. I know for a fact if the Giants were sold they would sell for more than the Texans even without a new stadium. My point is that its not that they should be playing in crap shack stadiums for "Atmosphere" but that do we need Billion Dollar Stadiums when a 600-800 million dollar stadium would be just as nice? Like I said Lucas Oil Stadium which is considered to be the best stadium in the NFL cost 720 million (It went 50 million over budget). Now if Jerry Jones spent 800-900 million dollars on a Stadium it would drive up the value of his franchise just as much as a 1.2 Billion dollar stadium. Franchise values aren't Dependant on how much you spend on a stadium but rather if you stadium is State of the Art. I doubt if Lucas Oil Stadium cost 950 million to build the Colts would be worth any more than they are now. But good point about Franchise value being a big factor in State of the Art stadiums and why owners feel the need to build them.
billsfan89 Posted July 20, 2009 Author Posted July 20, 2009 Yeah, putting a stadium near the city is a little different though. They will be able to have more events due to their size. Besides when sprinstein or bon jovi usually play at the meadowlands don't they usually schedule like 8 or 9 concerts in 10-11 days & sell them all out. Buffalo would never be able to pull something like that off. I remember when Springstein was scheduled to play at the Arena a few years back & they had to move it to darien lake because they could not sell enough tickets. True Jersey goes Nuts for Springsteen he is going to sell out 5 shows in a 80,000 seat arena (Not sure what it holds for concerts either way thats a lot of people) Even Bon Jovi (Springsteen wanna be) had to give away 5000 tickets just to sell out one show at Giants stadium. But in Buffalo a renovation is going to be what the Ralph is going to get if the Bills are going to stay in Buffalo. A 200-300 million dollar renovation spent by the NFL and a new ownership group.
BillsWatch Posted July 20, 2009 Posted July 20, 2009 This is the reason why over the last few years I have preferred the College football. The atmospheres are 100xs better because real passionate fans are still able to get a seat. Depends on team - ask R. Rich about getting tickets to his alma mater Penn State.
naj377 Posted July 20, 2009 Posted July 20, 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. no they dont need to be state of the art however they do need to be able to accomodate all the fans so grown men dont have to piss in the sink... you guys are messed up for that
Recommended Posts