TEC
-
Posts
25 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by TEC
-
-
43 minutes ago, That's No Moon said:
Here's the problem. All of us know the economic argument. We know this. If that's the argument you want to stick with you are right, they should let the Bills leave. I'm not sure how many people actually agree with that because that is the real discussion. Enter a partnership where the public pays a significant portion and higher ticket prices, or watch NFL football on TV forever. Those are the options, no bloviation is required. There is no perfect world where the billionaires pay for their own stuff. Do you want it or not yes or no.
It's easy to say "***** billionaires, pay for your own stadium or leave town" when it's another city. It's much harder when it's the Bills.
Scam, grift, strong arming, bullying, call it what you want, but citizens and representatives are being played when they write big checks to billionaires who don't need them. That is fundamentally wrong. I'd actually love for the Pegulas to step up to microphone and explain EXACTLY why they and the NFL are incapable of financing the stadium. Let the reporters grill them for 60 minutes and let's see if it's still an urgent priority.
I'm not sure what the parameters for profit sharing would like, but that's the only route I'd want to go down. No public money to the Bills for nothing, and whatever happens, happens.
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Rochesterfan said:
There are dozens of studies that look at financial impacts, but they ignore huge swaths of impact on the economy. They look at the relative economic impact without things like lost jobs and taxes of the players and owners, the subset of people that are impacted like all of the merchandise in stores that are sold and shipped and the sales tax on that. The change in the attitude of the community and the impact on social services needed and loss of donations.
So yes it is well known that a stadium by itself will not pay for itself, but the added benefits of the stadium and the team have huge benefits to the community and that becomes both financial and community wide benefits.
///
Overall - in the end - it is going to be a mix with a huge amount publicly financed and it will get done and that is a good thing.
Interesting article on the first section. It's a drop in the bucket.
https://www.marketplace.org/2015/03/19/are-pro-sports-teams-economic-winners-cities/
QuoteThere are a lot of things economists disagree about, but the economic impact of sports stadiums isn’t one of them. “If you ever had a consensus in economics, this would be it,” says Michael Leeds, a sports economist at Temple University. “There is no impact.”
Leeds studied Chicago – as big a sports town as there is, with five major teams. “If every sports team in Chicago were to suddenly disappear, the impact on the Chicago economy would be a fraction of 1 percent,” Leeds says. “A baseball team has about the same impact on a community as a midsize department store.” That’s for a sport with 80 home games a year. NFL teams only play eight regular season games.
Still, politicians love building sports stadiums.
Regardless if the deal gets done, it doesn't mean we aren't getting played. We have a $14B company, with an individual owner worth $5.7B, holding a county and state hostage for their pet project disguised as a "common good" subsidy, one we all know provides minimal economic benefit, tied together with threats of "pay us, or we're gone". I think that is fundamentally wrong, and citizens should call out such hogwash.
-
2
-
-
46 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:
Those cities all called the bluff and lost their teams - did that help and improve the local economy?
Did those cities all suddenly become wealthy because they didn’t subsidize a stadium?
The final thing is you can pray they want to do a 100% private and the Pegula’s own the stadium, but then you better be prepared not to attend any more. Anything greater than about 30% paid by the owners will come with pricing out the majority of fans - see the NY teams, Dallas, and Boston. They make back the money and true fans no longer can afford to attend.
So for me - I hope the stadium is nearly 100% financed by the public because even though it will never return the money - the team and the experience are more important in the end.
I appreciate the response...these sections stood out to me, so I'll reply to them specifically.
Economic impact: there are decades of studies that show that there is zero to minimal economic incentive to publicly fund new private stadiums. I'm sure you could find countless reports on the topic as you choose.
100% Private financing: It is unreasonable to expect that ticket pricing will stay consistent regardless of funding. Everything is going up, up, up if the Bills get a new stadium. And what the heck are "true fans"? Where are they from? What's the annual minimum spend on the Bills that is required? It can't be too high, or you know, they can't afford to attend anymore. Is ranch on their wings allowed, or do they get relegated down "average fan" with such a travesty? I'd like a guide so I can print it out and post at the local Backer bar.
The team and experience are worth it: This is really, really interesting, and ultimately what I think this comes down to. I've seen no economic reason to write Terry a check for a new stadium. We know we'll never recoup the cost. We know there are countless housing, education, infrastructure, open space and technology investments we could make that are far more impactful than a stadium. Ultimately, we are trying to establish the value of having a NFL team that calls WNY home. Nothing more, nothing less. 100% public financing would say that right is worth over $1B. I just don't see how we can prioritize that kind of spending for an identity, not anything tangible that enables our community to improve. YMMV.
-
8 minutes ago, Doc said:
I guess people only care about one particular type of grift when it comes to their tax money...
Nice straw man.
I don't expect NYS/Erie County to grow a spine on this. If it comes to a vote to raise taxes, I'd anticipate it goes through with flying colors, as it's easy to get rose colored glasses on an issue likes this. That doesn't mean it makes any economical sense to do so.
$700M seems to be the starting rate for the pride of having a team. It is what it is. #EattheRich
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said:
Huh? The Billionaire's Bluff? The Stadium isn't Terry's personal home. You know that, right? He doesn't owe you a new stadium. If you don't want your ticket costs to skyrocket, you better hope they build an economical facility, in Orchard Park, and then spread the costs out over the million plus people who don't attend Bills games.
You are right, he doesn't owe us anything. I also believe that public taxpayers don't owe him anything and shouldn't front the majority of a stadium build so some billionaire may profit off extremely limited, private events.
The case against public subsidies for new stadiums has been laid out a dozen times over by economists, city planners and journalists far smarter than I. The public can choose to ignore those facts so we can simply "have a team", or we can stand our ground and say "No". I say call his bluff. We may hate the outcome, but at least we didn't get grifted.
I hope there is a solution with limited to no public funds involved that keeps the Bills in Buffalo for decades to come.
-
2
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, Mango said:
Water, sewer, electric just in terms of utilities. Water run off and corresponding erosion. Roads will have to be re-evaluated based on traffic needs. Not just width, signals, etc. but depth as well.
Other cities absolutely had to do the same sort of planning and infrastructure upgrades.
I agree with you on calling the Pegula's bluff.Some quick searching, I think we all know NYC constructions costs aren't the best comparison, but it's a good starting point.
The new Yankee Stadium, completed in 2009, required an investment of $220 million from the city of New York to upgrade infrastructure.
I'd be interested in what Vegas, Santa Clara, Indy and Minneapolis invested for said infrastructure improvements.
Freddie's Dead mentioned $700-900M in infrastructure investments to support a field downtown, that doesn't pass the smell test.
-
1
-
1
-
-
I keep seeing these exorbitant "infrastructure improvements" estimates that go along with a downtown stadium, just what are you guys envisioning needs to happen? Every other city seems to have figured it out without building a slew of highways and mass transit options.
RE: $1.4B Stadium - Call the billionaire's bluff. Don't give this team free money and act like it's a public-private partnership. Stop the scam!
-
4
-
-
^ They are across the street, the original building burned down ~10 years ago.
-
25 minutes ago, Not at the table Karlos said:
Bar Bill.
I never understood why BOW is such a big thing here. It's a bland sandwich.
BoW is often imitated, rarely perfected.
Throw some pickles and carmelized onions in there, it will change your life.
Bar Bill is the most memorable, even if it's entering "no one goes there anymore, it's too crowded" territory.
-
Quote
At issue is how quickly a deal can be approved, and how the construction costs would be split between the team and taxpayers. The Bills have already said team owners Terry and Kim Pegula are committed to sharing part of the cost, but have not identified how much.
The expectation is the state and county will be asked to cover more than 50% of the project, raising concerns about the potential for taxpayer funding.
^^This is the important part, $700 Million minimum from taxpayers. Let's see if the stadium scam wheel keeps spinning.
-
We know the key to stopping a great offense is bringing with pressure with four.
Tackles for loss and "blockeating" isn't a negative, but you simply can't have one dimensional players on the DL.
-
Accountability...availability
Great news for our team!
-
All aboard the Gus Bus!
Lamar over 1000 rushing again...
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
The league has already mandated that coaches and front office staff be fully vaccinated, it's no surprise that they'd have the same expectation of players.
As a requirement to employment, entry to private establishments, and as a condition for decreased healthcare premiums, this is happening all over America. We are becoming a vaccinated society, and those who choose to forego the vaccine will be at a significant disadvantage.
-
2
-
3
-
6
-
1
-
1
-
-
^Style matters....I don't think we'll see a QB lead the league in TDs AND run for 1200 yards again.
Lamar is a really great player. He will likely get more than Josh, because that's how these QB extensions seem to go. Either way, Lamar is a $40M+ annual hit. That's the going rate.
-
13 minutes ago, JGMcD2 said:
Irrelevant to the question that was posed to me and has next to nothing to do with my response other than the fact that you regurgitated “Freedom of Speech.”
Beasley expressing his opinions should not result in consequences… Beasley not following the rules should.
Beasley expressing his opinions is not Beasley failing to follow the rules.
People get canned every day for expressing their opinion on a variety of topics. Beasley could be no different.
Cole is not naive. I'm sure he's recognized the gravity of choosing this hill to die on.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, JGMcD2 said:
Players talk about controversial subjects on social media all of the time… there’s a little thing called Freedom of Speech?
Cole Beasley expressing his opinion on Twitter is no different than you or I doing the same thing. I didn’t realize that Freedom of Speech dissolved when you became a professional football player.
I would say it would be pretty anti-McDermott to not allow his players to express their opinions… so yeah in a sense it’s exactly what’s been built here.
Freedom of speech/choice does not mean freedom from consequence.
-
5
-
1
-
2
-
2
-
-
In Imaginationland, I think BB would have cut Beasley before camp.
-
2
-
-
2 minutes ago, Success said:
THIS is the season - everyone is predicting us to be a SB contender, and we all know it too.
Who knows how long that window lasts.
As long as we have Josh, Diggs, White and Mcdermott, we are in the conversation. That's all you can ask for.
-
1
-
-
Accountability .... availability
-
If only there was some way that this could all be mitigated. There's just nothing that can be done.
-
The Bills don't guarantee him $150 Million if he's unvaccinated.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
Diggs said it best:
Accountability .... Availability
-
7
-
8
-
-
Ignoring the sensationalized PFT articles, this will all come down to how many hundreds of millions the Pegulas are asking for.
I'd assume it is $750M+ on a ~$1B+ Stadium to go in line with Indianapolis and Las Vegas public funding.
It's still a scam, and labeling it as a "public/private partnership" is a farse, but I don't expect NY officials and taxpayers to tell a billionaire to take a lap.
-
1
-
1
-
AP exclusive: Bills propose new 60k seat stadium by (update - 2025)
in The Stadium Wall
Posted
The league doesn't play hardball anyway. Terry doesn't have to stand at the podium and please his case. Give us our money, or we leave. Paulie said it better in Goodfellas - '***** you, pay me'.
That's the reality. Y'all are right - give the Bills a ton of public funds, or they will find a new city (Is it San Diego or St Louis now? Austin? I can't keep up). The loyalty the Pegulas claimed to have would quickly evaporate without an influx of public money, Bills fandom be damned.
I appreciate what San Diego and Oakland did. Not because they didn't love their team, not because they weren't loyal fans, but they just realized that when the rubber meets the road, public money is better spent elsewhere, and they had the balls to call out the ultra-wealthy. Of course, we don't like that reality, because again, who can fathom the team leaving.
Sounds like ya'll are ready to cut your check. Good luck.