SwampD Posted October 16, 2013 Report Share Posted October 16, 2013 And really if both teams go.........Who the hell really cares. With the loss of Industry and jobs, wage and benefit cuts for those left, that are fortunate enough to be working. Higher taxes for residents here, to cover for those residents who have gone, Schools closing, Hospitals closing. SERIOUSLY, Buffalo residents are worried about teams leaving, when it all boils down, who really cares. They both SUCK anyways, in two ways. They SUCK you dry for new updates to the stadiums and everything associated with that, Parking, Food and Beer sales. They SUCK you dry for tickets, sports gear, TV subscriptions. And they SUCK Period on the playing field and Ice. Come on people, buffalonians have bigger fish to fry, than to be worried about the sports teams leaving town. I do have an idea, though, play the same card as Corporate America, "Pay them for performance". I think if we adjusted the rates of admission, based on the quality of the performance. We could all go see the Bills and the Sabres for next to nothing if not free. Apparently you haven't been reading the ticket prices on Stub Hub that Ghost has been posting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IKnowPhysics Posted October 16, 2013 Report Share Posted October 16, 2013 It sounds like an expat that wanted to write an article about how crazy his former sports town was, but missed the mark on a major talking point or two. I am firmly aware of Ralph Wilsons impending mortality, and I understand the consequences of what will happen if his will directly of indirectly (see: kids) puts the team up for auction before Los Angeles finds a team to fill Farmers Field, but none of that is anything close to for sure. We need him to live long enough to prevent LA from buying us when the new lease enters cheap-to-move mode, but not so long that he somehow prevents us from becoming a contender in the next 20 years. Sabres aren't going anywhere. At least until Terry and Kim both die, which, hopefully, will be a long, long time from now. It's improved greatly in the nine years I've been here. And I still have desires of moving back some day so I can help in the rebuild. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted October 16, 2013 Report Share Posted October 16, 2013 I really, truly believe that it is inevitable that the Bills are leaving Buffalo. I'm not sure it is as close as next season, but I can't see the team staying with an outdated stadium and the lack of corporate support in western NY. Maybe that is part of the reason I am not emotionally invested in the team any more. I don't think they are here for the long haul. The Sabres on the other hand, have an up-to-date facility and an owner committed to Buffalo. And there really is no better market for hockey that doesn't already have a team. I can't see the Sabres leaving. I can assure you that, if ever, it's AT LEAST a decade away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted October 17, 2013 Report Share Posted October 17, 2013 I'm almost positive the NFL has a specific fund to assist in stadium construction and that it's not a debt service. I also don't think an open-air stadium costs $750 mil. Gillette stadium as built in the early 2000s for $325 mil. Even counting inflation I doubt the total cost for a new open air stadium today would exceed $500 million. Domes, of course, are another matter entirely. Edit: I stand corrected. The NFL's G4 program is a loan of up to $200 mil that gets repaid over 15-25 years by PSLs. I'm still right about stadium costs though :P Broncos stadium -- 2001 -- $400MM Seahawks stadium -- 2002 -- $430MM Cardinals stadium -- 2006 -- $455MM Eagles stadium -- 2003 -- $512MM Cowboys stadium -- 2009 -- $1.3B Giants stadium -- 2010 -- $1.6B All open-air stadiums (or, if you prefer, stadia). They don't get cheaper over time. I can assure you that, if ever, it's AT LEAST a decade away. What on earth is this based on? The Bills can walk in 2020 for a nominal escape fee. This post illustrates why adults generally don't find the assurances of kids that reassuring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
87168 Posted October 17, 2013 Report Share Posted October 17, 2013 You started this very same thread over in the Bills forums. Why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted October 17, 2013 Report Share Posted October 17, 2013 (edited) What on earth is this based on? The Bills can walk in 2020 for a nominal escape fee. This post illustrates why adults generally don't find the assurances of kids that reassuring. Okay. At least seven years. Definitely nothing going on within the year, and that was my point in the first place... Also, in what world is Cowboys Stadium an open air stadium? It's a dome with a retractable roof... Edited October 17, 2013 by DStebb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted October 17, 2013 Report Share Posted October 17, 2013 Okay. At least seven years. Definitely nothing going on within the year, and that was my point in the first place... Also, in what world is Cowboys Stadium an open air stadium? It's a dome with a retractable roof... When Ralph dies all bets are off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted October 17, 2013 Report Share Posted October 17, 2013 (edited) When Ralph dies all bets are off. Sure. But chances are they'll wait out this lease either way. And if Ralph Wilson died this offseason they wouldn't move the team immediately for multiple reasons. 1. Ralph Wilson is considered one of the pioneers of the NFL (NFL/AFL merge more specifically). So they likely wouldn't just take the team immediately out of pure respect. 2. You can't move a team in one offseason. Especially with no other NFL-ready stadium. 3. You need buyers. Unless his family already has buyers and is waiting for him to die, that will take a while. Edited October 17, 2013 by DStebb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robviously Posted October 17, 2013 Report Share Posted October 17, 2013 I really, truly believe that it is inevitable that the Bills are leaving Buffalo. I'm not sure it is as close as next season, but I can't see the team staying with an outdated stadium and the lack of corporate support in western NY. Maybe that is part of the reason I am not emotionally invested in the team any more. I don't think they are here for the long haul. The Sabres on the other hand, have an up-to-date facility and an owner committed to Buffalo. And there really is no better market for hockey that doesn't already have a team. I can't see the Sabres leaving. Sadly, I agree. There aren't enough corporate dollars in WNY to support an NFL team. There are barely any -- unless you think we can scoop up corporate sponsors from all the way up in Toronto. (And if that's the case, why haven't we already done that?) The Bills are already poor enough that they sell 1 home game a year. What's the long term strategy? I also don't think the NFL is super interested in staying in Buffalo. To show you where their collective head is at, the league has their heart set on landing a team in London at some point. With major international cities like London, Toronto, and Los Angeles all on the radar, I don't think Buffalo fits into what the NFL wants to be in the 21st century. The Sabres seems safe for the foreseeable future, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted October 17, 2013 Report Share Posted October 17, 2013 Sure. But chances are they'll wait out this lease either way. And if Ralph Wilson died this offseason they wouldn't move the team immediately for multiple reasons. 1. Ralph Wilson is considered one of the pioneers of the NFL (NFL/AFL merge more specifically). So they likely wouldn't just take the team immediately out of pure respect. 2. You can't move a team in one offseason. Especially with no other NFL-ready stadium. 3. You need buyers. Unless his family already has buyers and is waiting for him to die, that will take a while. 1. is wild speculation with nothing to back it up. 2. Los Angeles 3. See LA Dodgers for how quickly a sports franchise can be sold. Exhibit B is the Buffalo Sabres. When Ralph dies it may very well take awhile for the ownership to change hands. It may take a few years. So maybe the timeframe is longer. But it surely isn't guaranteed that it will be a long process. And when that process ends my opinion is that the Bills will have a new city and a new name. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted October 17, 2013 Report Share Posted October 17, 2013 To me it comes down to dollars and cents. I can't escape the simple arithmetic. The bills will end up selling for at least $700MM and maybe as much as $1 billion. Most of that purchase price will be financed with debt. There is no way the WNY region can produce enough revenue to support the debt service on that number. I hate to say it, but by the time that seven-year cheap escape valve becomes usable, Ralph will probably be gone. At that point, economic realities will force the new owner to look to greener pastures, even in the unlikely event he weren't inclined to do so already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted October 17, 2013 Report Share Posted October 17, 2013 (edited) 1. is wild speculation with nothing to back it up. 2. Los Angeles 3. See LA Dodgers for how quickly a sports franchise can be sold. Exhibit B is the Buffalo Sabres. When Ralph dies it may very well take awhile for the ownership to change hands. It may take a few years. So maybe the timeframe is longer. But it surely isn't guaranteed that it will be a long process. And when that process ends my opinion is that the Bills will have a new city and a new name. Oh. Los Angeles has an NFL ready stadium?... If they did, they'd have a team by now. And the Dodgers are a desirable asset that didn't have to be moved. Nobody is buying the Bills with the intention to move them without first gaining all of the necessary pieces to move the team which just aren't in place and won't be for a few years at the earliest. Edited October 17, 2013 by DStebb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted October 17, 2013 Report Share Posted October 17, 2013 (edited) Broncos stadium -- 2001 -- $400MM Seahawks stadium -- 2002 -- $430MM Cardinals stadium -- 2006 -- $455MM Eagles stadium -- 2003 -- $512MM Cowboys stadium -- 2009 -- $1.3B Giants stadium -- 2010 -- $1.6B All open-air stadiums (or, if you prefer, stadia). They don't get cheaper over time. Are you really going to argue those stadiums are comparable to what would be built in Buffalo? The new Giants stadium, for instance, had A) much more expensive real estate, B) is a joint venture between two teams and C) seats 83k...no way in hell a new Bills stadium is made to hold 83k. And the Cowboys stadium, seriously? It's a friggin' retractable dome that can seat over 100k. Edit: To expand, even the Broncos stadium seats 76k and would cost $528MM in today's dollars. Gillette stadium (completed in 2002--1 year AFTER the Broncos stadium), meanwhile, only seats 68k and cost $422MM in today's dollars. I'm sure it's more complicated as far as design and amenities go, but for simplicity's sake, that's $100MM less for 8k less seats. Get the Bills a new stadium at ~62k or so, open-air, and it's very doable for far less than you're thinking. Edited October 17, 2013 by TrueBluePhD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted October 17, 2013 Report Share Posted October 17, 2013 (edited) Oh. Los Angeles has an NFL ready stadium?... If they did, they'd have a team by now. And the Dodgers are a desirable asset that didn't have to be moved. Nobody is buying the Bills with the intention to move them without first gaining all of the necessary pieces to move the team which just aren't in place and won't be for a few years at the earliest. Farmers Field, a proposed 78,000-seat stadium on a 1.7-million square foot project adjacent to the Convention Center and Staples Center, remains the frontrunner if a franchise (or franchises) decides to relocate to Southern California. “AEG is a much more credible deal than the others,” Matheson said. The project has a naming rights deal in place, a $50-million public transportation and infrastructure plan to get spectators in and out of downtown and a deal with the city to begin construction that runs through October 2014. If AEG can secure a team after the 2013 season and the move is approved by NFL owners next March, the company could break ground for construction within 90 days. Farmers Field could be open for the 2018 season with a relocated franchise likely playing at the Rose Bowl until then. The plan in LA is simply waiting for a team to come available. Edited October 17, 2013 by weave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted October 17, 2013 Report Share Posted October 17, 2013 (edited) That's going to be ready in one offseason? Yea, totally. Considering they've been working at it for years now and it hasn't even started. I'm not saying the team couldn't move to LA in the future. But right now, it's in Buffalo and won't be leaving in a single offseason. Edited October 17, 2013 by DStebb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted October 17, 2013 Report Share Posted October 17, 2013 That's going to be ready in one offseason? Yea, totally. Considering they've been working at it for years now and it hasn't even started. Did you read the entire quote? The Rose Bowl for a couple seasons while the new stadium is being built. The group in charge of the project are already looking into teams with leases set to expire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted October 17, 2013 Report Share Posted October 17, 2013 Are you really going to argue those stadiums are comparable to what would be built in Buffalo? The new Giants stadium, for instance, had A) much more expensive real estate, B) is a joint venture between two teams and C) seats 83k...no way in hell a new Bills stadium is made to hold 83k. And the Cowboys stadium, seriously? It's a friggin' retractable dome that can seat over 100k. You are right about the retractable roof on the cowboys stadium - my mistake. However, even if a new bills stadium is not as substantial as Giants Stadium, it would still be a massive public works project in NYS built by union laborers, with all the waste and graft that that entails. And the other stadiums are relevant comparables, too. There's no way a new stadium for the bills gets built for less than $600MM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted October 17, 2013 Report Share Posted October 17, 2013 That's going to be ready in one offseason? Yea, totally. Considering they've been working at it for years now and it hasn't even started. I'm not saying the team couldn't move to LA in the future. But right now, it's in Buffalo and won't be leaving in a single offseason. The only one who keeps saying single offseason is you. Well, you and the numbskull who published that article. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted October 17, 2013 Report Share Posted October 17, 2013 You are right about the retractable roof on the cowboys stadium - my mistake. However, even if a new bills stadium is not as substantial as Giants Stadium, it would still be a massive public works project in NYS built by union laborers, with all the waste and graft that that entails. And the other stadiums are relevant comparables, too. There's no way a new stadium for the bills gets built for less than $600MM. See my edit. Also consider naming rights. For all of these new stadiums the naming deals have been well over $100MM for 10 years or more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robviously Posted October 17, 2013 Report Share Posted October 17, 2013 Are you really going to argue those stadiums are comparable to what would be built in Buffalo? The new Giants stadium, for instance, had A) much more expensive real estate, B) is a joint venture between two teams and C) seats 83k...no way in hell a new Bills stadium is made to hold 83k. And the Cowboys stadium, seriously? It's a friggin' retractable dome that can seat over 100k. Edit: To expand, even the Broncos stadium seats 76k and would cost $528MM in today's dollars. Gillette stadium (completed in 2002--1 year AFTER the Broncos stadium), meanwhile, only seats 68k and cost $422MM in today's dollars. I'm sure it's more complicated as far as design and amenities go, but for simplicity's sake, that's $100MM less for 8k less seats. Get the Bills a new stadium at ~62k or so, open-air, and it's very doable for far less than you're thinking. I went to a Cowboys game for the first time a couple weeks ago. To call that place a "stadium" doesn't even feel right. Jerry Jones built the Death Star in Arlington. Don't even worry so much about the gazillion seats or the jumbotron the size of a small apartment building hanging over everything --- the big difference I noticed immediately was FOUR LEVELS of luxury suites. Ridiculous. Plus the giant jumbotron also basically had its own in-game broadcast team. So during the TV breaks they had their own in-game show going on and everything was sponsored by something. If the NFL ever gets the chance to add another one of these somewhere in the world, they're going to go after it hard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted October 17, 2013 Report Share Posted October 17, 2013 See my edit. Also consider naming rights. For all of these new stadiums the naming deals have been well over $100MM for 10 years or more. First, I want you to know that even though it was a major pain in the neck to navigate back one page to check your edit, I did so out of respect for you as a poster. Second, I don't think the cost per seat metric you're relying on is applicable. Those last couple of rows in the upper deck for the last 7000 seats or so don't cost $100 million. I think it's much more a function of labor costs, overall footprint and infrastructure improvements that are needed to the surrounding area. Third, Gillette Stadium was 100% privately financed. This means that there was much more private market discipline exerted to hold down costs than would be the case in a stadium built with lots of public money. Fourth, I suspect you already know this, but there is no way the bills are going to get much for naming rights. The mighty taco doesn't have that kind of budget. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted October 17, 2013 Report Share Posted October 17, 2013 First, I want you to know that even though it was a major pain in the neck to navigate back one page to check your edit, I did so out of respect for you as a poster. Second, I don't think the cost per seat metric you're relying on is applicable. Those last couple of rows in the upper deck for the last 7000 seats or so don't cost $100 million. I think it's much more a function of labor costs, overall footprint and infrastructure improvements that are needed to the surrounding area. Third, Gillette Stadium was 100% privately financed. This means that there was much more private market discipline exerted to hold down costs than would be the case in a stadium built with lots of public money. Fourth, I suspect you already know this, but there is no way the bills are going to get much for naming rights. The mighty taco doesn't have that kind of budget. ...but could you imagine the quality of food they could produce if they did!?!?! Seriously though, you aren't wrong on a lot of this stuff, I think we just disagree as to the degree of these differences among stadiums and Buffalo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted October 17, 2013 Author Report Share Posted October 17, 2013 First, I want you to know that even though it was a major pain in the neck to navigate back one page to check your edit, I did so out of respect for you as a poster. Second, I don't think the cost per seat metric you're relying on is applicable. Those last couple of rows in the upper deck for the last 7000 seats or so don't cost $100 million. I think it's much more a function of labor costs, overall footprint and infrastructure improvements that are needed to the surrounding area. Third, Gillette Stadium was 100% privately financed. This means that there was much more private market discipline exerted to hold down costs than would be the case in a stadium built with lots of public money. Fourth, I suspect you already know this, but there is no way the bills are going to get much for naming rights. The mighty taco doesn't have that kind of budget. He's got your stadium naming rights! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted October 17, 2013 Report Share Posted October 17, 2013 First, I want you to know that even though it was a major pain in the neck to navigate back one page to check your edit, I did so out of respect for you as a poster. Second, I don't think the cost per seat metric you're relying on is applicable. Those last couple of rows in the upper deck for the last 7000 seats or so don't cost $100 million. I think it's much more a function of labor costs, overall footprint and infrastructure improvements that are needed to the surrounding area. Third, Gillette Stadium was 100% privately financed. This means that there was much more private market discipline exerted to hold down costs than would be the case in a stadium built with lots of public money. Fourth, I suspect you already know this, but there is no way the bills are going to get much for naming rights. The mighty taco doesn't have that kind of budget. Stadium naming rights aren't necessarily attached to local companies. M&T Stadium? In Baltimore, not Buffalo. Barclay's Arena? Brooklyn, not London. FedEx field? DC suburbs, not Memphis. Etc. NFL stadium = instant visibility, so this is a non-issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted October 17, 2013 Report Share Posted October 17, 2013 You are right about the retractable roof on the cowboys stadium - my mistake. However, even if a new bills stadium is not as substantial as Giants Stadium, it would still be a massive public works project in NYS built by union laborers, with all the waste and graft that that entails. And the other stadiums are relevant comparables, too. There's no way a new stadium for the bills gets built for less than $600MM. You know that Giants Stadium is in New Jersey, right? I don't think the last 2 are good comps on your list. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.