K-9

Is Bradbury commenting only on the dollars involved and the fact that they start to decline after year 15? I ask because the cost of demolishing the stadium also needs to be factored and added to that dollar value. But yeah, there’s no such thing as ironclad; only varying degrees of difficulty.

There were two stipulations that I found interesting: 1.) Any lawsuit brought relating to relocation must be adjudicated in Erie County. I know I wouldn’t want to be the judge that found in favor of relocation. 2.) Any owner, the Pegulas or somebody else, must also pay for the cost of the demolition of the stadium. Not exactly a low cost exercise. But you’re right in that ultimately money talks.

Apparently, it’s not just a question of paying back the money as there are other stipulations. I’ll get around to reading the entire relocation clause eventually, but this article in the news a few weeks ago is a good outline. https://buffalonews.com/sports/bills/language-in-bills-stadium-deal-makes-relocation-unlikely-for-30-years-but-not-impossible/article_89ba2bec-ce4f-11ed-9c9b-976c2e6b1613.html

Well, the lease for the new stadium ties them here for 30 years. So there’s that. But I haven’t read the “out” clause if there is one, so perhaps they can break it earlier.

Awesome video, but I wish them luck convincing the taxpayers to foot half of the $4.6b cost. And we thought $850m was too much? Pocket change compared to $2.3b in public funding.

None of those three could hold a candle to John Hummer!

I was gonna say something similar but then I realized that context seldom matters to some people.

Thanks for the edification. I had no idea that the Bills were only acting as agents for the ECSC and that they, the ECSC, are actually the sole owner of the right to sell the PSLs. With that thought in mind, I wonder why Polencarz voiced his displeasure at the reported costs of the PSLs recently when the county owns the right to sell them in the first place. Anyway, thanks for taking the time to dig that up. I’m gonna be reading the entire PSL Sales and Marketing Agreement to see what else I just took for granted.

The Bills are contractually bound for $350m plus cost overruns and while everyone knows that PSL revenues will be used to cover a portion of that cost, there is no precise contractual language that I’m aware that says they must use those revenues to cover their obligation, so technically, they don’t have to expressly dedicate those funds for that purpose. It wouldn’t make good business sense because it’s found money anyway, but if Pegula wanted, he could use funds from any source he chooses to cover his obligation.

What? No option to choose Tommy O’Connell, our first ever QB?

As we all know, in the NFL there is shared and unshared revenue. If sales from PSLs are not subject to revenue sharing, which they aren’t, then how is that “hiding/avoiding revenue sharing?” If Pegula was misrepresenting to the league the amount of revenue generated by ticket sales, which every team is obligated to share on a 60/40 basis with the league, then yeah, he would be hiding and avoiding revenue sharing. But it is virtually impossible to fudge the numbers on ticket sales so that isn’t gonna happen.

Technically, the Bills can use PSL revenues for whatever they wanna use them for, but it makes sense to put it towards their share of the construction costs. The only point I was trying to make is that unlike revenues generated from ticket sales, which are shared 60/40 between the team/league, PSL revenues are not subject to revenue sharing so it’s not like the Bills are “hiding” anything from the league as was suggested in the post I responded to initially. I have no idea why you’d say that as it seemed you weren’t sure when you suggested to @Kirby Jackson that Pegula was avoiding revenue sharing by hiding something and I only sought to clarify the issue for you. I have no idea how that’s talking past you, but yeah, that’s okay.

The Bills aren’t avoiding revenue sharing in the least because revenues from the sale of PSLs are not subject to sharing with the league. The league still gets their 40% share of the gate revenue for any particular game just like it’s been for decades.

I didn’t read the article, but thanks. The 20,000 number came from @Einstein, but the fact it was actually less than half that amount suggests the PSL sales for the Jets were actually pretty good.

I appreciate the info and the effort to furnish it, but it doesn’t answer the two questions I asked. But again, it’s simple economic dynamics at play: reduce prices to increase demand. It will be interesting to see what percentage of seats the Bills end up lowering the PSL prices on and if they will be the same type of cheaper seats as the Jets ended up lowering. If so, that would indicate that sales of the premiums will have gone just fine.

Simple economic dynamics. What percentage of total PSLs sold did that 20,000 represent? Did the lowering of those 20,000 PSL prices cause the Jets to lose revenue or simply not generate as much as they wanted? The team wasn’t hurt in the least from what I can gather.

Sometimes capitalism can be a b.i.t.c.h. I guess. I’ve been lamenting the pricing out of the middle class for years now, but that genie is out of the bottle and there’s no putting it back unless the consumer market forces economic changes. And we just aren’t dissatisfied enough to do that currently.

The “plan” is in its infancy and it remains to be seen if it’s good or bad. If the Bills achieve their desired PSL sales goal, then it can only be viewed as successful. The fact that some are rankled by the process so far has little bearing on whether or not it will be successful. As far as not being normal, is that simply because it’s never been done before? If so, there are other adjectives that apply.

I agree, but “the coach” then loses credibility by suggesting Diggs should have done this or that to influence the play when those things were impossible in the first place. The only D player Diggs could influence on that play was the CB lined up in man coverage, who also was too far from the play to matter.

I don’t think I suggested that players shouldn’t try their hardest every play, but if you’re gonna analyze a play to make the point like the “coach” in the video, it would be more credible to not suggest things the player could have done that simply aren’t possible during the play.

Right on time for the annual stories to leak out in the hopes that a top prospect might fall in the draft. Beane must really want Nabers something fierce. 😂

The play was half over before Diggs could have done most of what this guy said to he should do in the time he had to do it in order to impact the play in any meaningful way, especially the suggestion that he could have influenced the strong safety who was nearly 20 yards away from Diggs at the snap. I’m sure there are other plays to illustrate Diggs’s lack of commitment, but this wasn’t much of one.

The more north/south orientation and shallower depth means the prevailing wind can’t swoop in over the score board (west side) of the stadium into the bowl like it does now, where it smashes into the far tunnel end helping to create the swirl conditions we often have at the current stadium. That is straight from a structural wind engineer. And as you mentioned, the new higher structure fully enclosing the field will add to the wind mitigation as will the “wind confusing” screening built into the enclosure that will work in tandem with the the canopy design to steer winds up and out of the stadium. It will be night and day compared to what we have now and it will no longer be the worst stadium to pass and kick in when the November gales start blowing. Can’t wait.

Most of the wind problems at the current stadium will be mitigated by the more north/south orientation and much shallower bowl of the new stadium and that’s before any deliberate wind-lessening design elements are incorporated into the structure itself.