Terry asked about media availability re: Bills/Sabres

[PASabreFan]

He said it's a possibility in the future. Again cites Kim's health.

It was a great question BTW. Questioner cited taxpayer money for the stadium creating an obligation for TP to speak.

[Weave]

Deets?

Not sure what this is about.

[tom webster]

Just now, Weave said:

Deets?

Not sure what this is about.

I’m paraphrasing but He was asked at Bills press conference if he felt obligated to talk to press considering he took $850 million to build stadium.

[kas23]

If it’s to talk about the stadium construction or its impact on the locality, I agree, he should be available to talk. But I don’t see a connection between him speaking about the product on the field and accepting tax payer money. Tax payers bought a stadium, not a team. 

[Jorcus]

12 minutes ago, kas23 said:

If it’s to talk about the stadium construction or its impact on the locality, I agree, he should be available to talk. But I don’t see a connection between him speaking about the product on the field and accepting tax payer money. Tax payers bought a stadium, not a team. 

I agree but wanted to add how much they have contributed to a public works project also gives them some shelter on the subject.

The projected cost of the Bills’ new stadium has “ballooned” to what team officials indicate is “north of” $2.1B, with team owners Terry and Kim Pegula “responsible for picking up the more than” $560M in overruns, according to John Wawrow of the AP. 

[Mr Peabody]

As a NYS tax payer I was hoping they’d deny the funding to see how much of a reduction I’d be getting on my annual tax bill.  Not sure seeing TP in public more often will lessen my pain. 

 

Edit:  this was sarcasm

Edited January 21 by Mr Peabody

[LTS]

1 hour ago, PASabreFan said:

He said it's a possibility in the future. Again cites Kim's health.

It was a great question BTW. Questioner cited taxpayer money for the stadium creating an obligation for TP to speak.

I suppose. There's no expectation in my mind of a business owner needing to speak to the public. Words are meaningless, action means everything. Any speaking event is going to be controlled to the point that there's no meaning at all behind it. 

Just remember, his business asked the state for the money/concessions. It's not like NYS had to say yes. If anyone should speak to the public about the NYS expense, it should be those who approved it.

I think Kim's health is a big part of him stepping back from the public spotlight. I can only imagine what subjecting himself to the trolls of media and the Internet would bring forth.

[PASabreFan]

1 hour ago, LTS said:

I suppose. There's no expectation in my mind of a business owner needing to speak to the public. Words are meaningless, action means everything. Any speaking event is going to be controlled to the point that there's no meaning at all behind it. 

Just remember, his business asked the state for the money/concessions. It's not like NYS had to say yes. If anyone should speak to the public about the NYS expense, it should be those who approved it.

I think Kim's health is a big part of him stepping back from the public spotlight. I can only imagine what subjecting himself to the trolls of media and the Internet would bring forth.

Your last paragraph isn't adding up. I think Terry was saying Kim's health took away time for talking publicly about the team. That doesn't add up.

 

I wish I had had the gumption to become a professional sportswriter, and as such, the gumption to ask: Brandon, Terry said you've told him to eff off more than once. Why didn't you tell him to eff off when he told you he was firing Sean?

[jad1]

1 hour ago, PASabreFan said:

He said it's a possibility in the future. Again cites Kim's health.

It was a great question BTW. Questioner cited taxpayer money for the stadium creating an obligation for TP to speak.

He cited that Kim's health was one of the reasons.  

As far as taxpayer money, he's agreeing that his football team will play in Buffalo 30 more years.  What else is needed?

The project is on schedule, he's paying over runs, and today he said his intention is that the Bills win the Super Bowl.

What else do the taxpayers deserve?

4 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

I wish I had had the gumption to become a professional sportswriter, and as such, the gumption to ask: Brandon, Terry said you've told him to eff off more than once. Why didn't you tell him to eff off when he told you he was firing Sean?

Because maybe Beane agrees with him.

[PromoTheRobot]

47 minutes ago, Mr Peabody said:

As a NYS tax payer I was hoping they’d deny the funding to see how much of a reduction I’d be getting on my annual tax bill.  Not sure seeing TP in public more often will lessen my pain. 
 

Oh sure, that was gonna happen.

[GASabresIUFAN]

58 minutes ago, Mr Peabody said:

As a NYS tax payer I was hoping they’d deny the funding to see how much of a reduction I’d be getting on my annual tax bill.  Not sure seeing TP in public more often will lessen my pain. 
 

Leave NY if you want a tax reduction. 

The 800 million wasn’t taxpayer money.  The govt floated muni bonds which were bought by investors.  The interest and principal on the bonds are being paid by stadium revenue.  The taxpayers will only be in on the hook if the Bills somehow default on the payments.  The odds on that are pretty slim.  

[K-9]

1 hour ago, Jorcus said:

I agree but wanted to add how much they have contributed to a public works project also gives them some shelter on the subject.

The projected cost of the Bills’ new stadium has “ballooned” to what team officials indicate is “north of” $2.1B, with team owners Terry and Kim Pegula “responsible for picking up the more than” $560M in overruns, according to John Wawrow of the AP. 

That’s in addition to to the $550b the Pegulas contributed initially; $300b from the Pegulas directly and $250b in G5 loan funding from the league that the team is on the hook to repay. By the time it’s all said and done, team ownership will have paid well over $1b for the new digs across the street. 

[JohnC]

20 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

Leave NY if you want a tax reduction. 

The 800 million wasn’t taxpayer money.  The govt floated muni bonds which were bought by investors.  The interest and principal on the bonds are being paid by stadium revenue.  The taxpayers will only be in on the hook if the Bills somehow default on the payments.  The odds on that are pretty slim.  

Almost every study done over the past number of years clearly shows that the cost of the investment doesn't equal the return. And much of the stadium revenue goes to the owner to cover his costs and help increases his profit margin and not to the government. 

I'm not against government entities contributing to the building of arenas and stadiums. But the claim that the public authorities don't incur costs for their construction contribution and for government funds not being utilized for other purposes is inaccurate.

Below is one link demonstrating the point of cost/benefit. There is a lot of other literature that makes the same point that from the government revenue standpoint it is a money loser for the public unit. Again, I'm not against public funds used for stadiums and arenas because it does generate other business activity and ancillary benefits

https://taxfoundation.org/blog/sports-stadium-subsidies-taxpayers/

[tom webster]

10 minutes ago, JohnC said:

Almost every study done over the past number of years clearly shows that the cost of the investment doesn't equal the return. And much of the stadium revenue goes to the owner to cover his costs and help increases his profit margin and not to the government. 

I'm not against government entities contributing to the building of arenas and stadiums. But the claim that the public authorities don't incur costs for their construction contribution and for government funds not being utilized for other purposes is inaccurate.

Below is one link demonstrating the point of cost/benefit. There is a lot of other literature that makes the same point that from the government revenue standpoint it is a money loser for the public unit. Again, I'm not against public funds used for stadiums and arenas because it does generate other business activity and ancillary benefits

https://taxfoundation.org/blog/sports-stadium-subsidies-taxpayers/

In a perfect world, government would be out of the subsidy business all together. Obviously this isn’t a perfect world. 
You are right about those studies but I wonder if that’s still true given how the economics and salaries have changed. 
That notwithstanding, putting a value on what the Bills and Sabres mean to this area is difficult at best and if you are going to tax us to death, you better give us something we want every once and awhile.

[JohnC]

5 minutes ago, tom webster said:

In a perfect world, government would be out of the subsidy business all together. Obviously this isn’t a perfect world. 
You are right about those studies but I wonder if that’s still true given how the economics and salaries have changed. 
That notwithstanding, putting a value on what the Bills and Sabres mean to this area is difficult at best and if you are going to tax us to death, you better give us something we want every once and awhile.

As I said in the prior post, I'm not against public $$$ being used for sports facilities. It seemed to me that with the Pegula stadium project it was done responsibly by all the parties involved from a contribution standpoint. I remember the County Executive on WGR talking how it was cheaper to make a contribution for a new stadium than it was for their current costs associated with stadium upkeep of an old and antiquated facility. I also agree with you that doing reasonable things to keep the Bills and Sabres local is a worthwhile expenditure. I was simply responding to a prior post that all the public costs would be covered by the increased generated revenue for the new stadium. As indicated by numerous studies, that public revenue neutral claim is not accurate.

[That Aud Smell]

2 hours ago, kas23 said:

Tax payers bought a stadium, not a team. 

But we funded that stadium because of the team. That's not a distinction that makes a difference, to me.

1 hour ago, LTS said:

his business asked the state for the money/concessions. It's not like NYS had to say yes. If anyone should speak to the public about the NYS expense, it should be those who approved it.

This is a fair point.

Did Elon Musk or other corporate representatives ever conduct a presser to talk about the $750M that they received from NYS as part of that Solar City project?

What about that big Micron project down the road? Are any corporate representatives taking questions at a press conference?

1 hour ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

The 800 million wasn’t taxpayer money.  The govt floated muni bonds which were bought by investors.  The interest and principal on the bonds are being paid by stadium revenue.  The taxpayers will only be in on the hook if the Bills somehow default on the payments.  The odds on that are pretty slim.  

I've never read or heard this before. Can you provide a link?

[K-9]

2 hours ago, Mr Peabody said:

As a NYS tax payer I was hoping they’d deny the funding to see how much of a reduction I’d be getting on my annual tax bill.  Not sure seeing TP in public more often will lessen my pain. 
 

As NYS taxpayer, I was (somewhat) comforted by the fact that nearly all of the state’s $600m contribution to the new stadium was covered by the $564m revenue sharing the state recovered from the Seneca Nation casino operations. 

2 hours ago, kas23 said:

If it’s to talk about the stadium construction or its impact on the locality, I agree, he should be available to talk. But I don’t see a connection between him speaking about the product on the field and accepting tax payer money. Tax payers bought a stadium, not a team. 

To be fair, we taxpayers bought less than half of the stadium. 

[JohnC]

Just now, K-9 said:

As NYS taxpayer, I was (somewhat) comforted by the fact that nearly all of the state’s $600m contribution to the new stadium was covered by the $564m revenue sharing the state recovered from the Seneca Nation casino operations. 

There is another aspect to the state contributing for new sports facilities i.e. revenues not directed toward other needs such as roads, schools, public safety, public health etc. because those funds were directed toward the stadium project. Again, I was all for the state make a major financial commitment to the stadium project because I thought it was structured in such a way that capped the amount the state had to contribute. But that doesn't mean that the money contributed to the stadium project couldn't instead have been directed toward other worthy causes. 

[K-9]

3 minutes ago, JohnC said:

There is another aspect to the state contributing for new sports facilities i.e. revenues not directed toward other needs such as roads, schools, public safety, public health etc. because those funds were directed toward the stadium project. Again, I was all for the state make a major financial commitment to the stadium project because I thought it was structured in such a way that capped the amount the state had to contribute. But that doesn't mean that the money contributed to the stadium project couldn't instead have been directed toward other worthy causes. 

https://www.wkbw.com/news/local-news/hochul-directs-418-million-of-disputed-casino-revenue-to-go-toward-new-buffalo-bills-stadium
 

According to this article, $146m of that $564m will go to WNY communities. 

[JohnC]

4 minutes ago, K-9 said:

https://www.wkbw.com/news/local-news/hochul-directs-418-million-of-disputed-casino-revenue-to-go-toward-new-buffalo-bills-stadium
 

According to this article, $146m of that $564m will go to WNY communities. 

The major point I was underscoring with my posts on this issue is that money directed toward the stadium is money not directed toward other public needs, as I listed in the prior post. As stated, I'm all for the stadium public contribution. But it can't be denied that money directed toward that project is money that isn't used for other public projects/needs. 

[GASabresIUFAN]

29 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

But we funded that stadium because of the team. That's not a distinction that makes a difference, to me.

This is a fair point.

Did Elon Musk or other corporate representatives ever conduct a presser to talk about the $750M that they received from NYS as part of that Solar City project?

What about that big Micron project down the road? Are any corporate representatives taking questions at a press conference?

I've never read or heard this before. Can you provide a link?

Link to the Erie County Bonds issued for the stadium. https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2024/09/20/buffalo-bills-fans-can-buy-bonds-to-finance-the-teams-new-stadium.html 

[PerreaultForever]

For me owners should mostly not speak (unless they win a championship). They should make a statement about direction and confidence at the beginning of the year, they should make a wrap up statement about direction at the end of the season. Otherwise they should just speak if they fire a GM or make a big stadium/arena announcement or alumni event. That's it. 

[K-9]

6 minutes ago, JohnC said:

The major point I was underscoring with my posts on this issue is that money directed toward the stadium is money not directed toward other public needs, as I listed in the prior post. As stated, I'm all for the stadium public contribution. But it can't be denied that money directed toward that project is money that isn't used for other public projects/needs. 

I agree entirely and would prefer billionaires use their own funds to build their revenue producing palaces. Unfortunately, there is no shortage of other municipalities willing to pony up. 

[JohnC]

2 minutes ago, K-9 said:

I agree entirely and would prefer billionaires use their own funds to build their revenue producing palaces. Unfortunately, there is no shortage of other municipalities willing to pony up. 

As I said in my prior post, I thought the manner in way the financing was structured by all the involved parties was responsibly done. As an example, the state protected itself by capping the amount it was responsible for making the owner assume all overage costs. As you seem to indicate, we live in a competitive environment where localities compete with one another. We all have to adjust to the real world and not the nonexistent idealistic world. 

[That Aud Smell]

14 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

Link to the Erie County Bonds issued for the stadium. https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2024/09/20/buffalo-bills-fans-can-buy-bonds-to-finance-the-teams-new-stadium.html 

This is just for Erie County, not for New York State.

And the bonded amount was ~$125M -- which was half of the County's share of $250M.

The total government contribution amount was $850M.

Also, I see no mention in that article that stadium revenues will be used to pay off the bonds.