uticaclub Posted May 8, 2011 Share Posted May 8, 2011 great sign that they're instailling new turf the year before their lease expires. Hopefully this means their staying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 8, 2011 Share Posted May 8, 2011 Where is the owner from? East Amherst or Cheektowaga? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hplarrm Posted May 8, 2011 Share Posted May 8, 2011 My favorite recent artificial turf story was that about a year of so ago, thanks to a lawsuit by the CA Attorney General, the Astro Turf Co. agreed to pay for replacement of every astroturf field installed in CA schools. Though the conventional wisdom is that lead poisoning is a problem of the past, lead is still widely used for industrial and manufacturing purposes. Lead is a neat metal to use for manufacture due to its low melting point but hardiness once it cools to make things durable. However, it has long been known that exposure to lead simply short circuits the brain. It takes a high dosage to make an adult act stupid (Ben Franklin and even Socrates wrote about this as smelters got exposed to large amounts of lead dust making shields and bullets and stuff). At any rate, one thing lead is used for his to make colors brighter and this durable coating breaks down overtime but it lasts for a few years. It turns out our friends at Astro-Turf were using lead in their turf to make the green greener and breakdown more slowly with folks running all over it. The huge problem here is that lead can make an adult act stupid in high doses but even more horribly it interferes with the developing neural pathways of a fast growing kid at incredibly lowdosages. As the lead breaksdown and slowly mixes with air, you have all these student athletes breathing deeply inhaling the particles and sliding and opening their blood stream to astroturf abrasions and burns. It is well studied (actually by a Prof at the Univ. of Rochester, NY) that increased of blood lead levels tracks directly with greater need and demand for special education (which is more expensive than regular ed and thus drives up your tax bills). I hope that the folks who make A-Turf are not doing something so stupid as there are lots of kids who play their championship games at the Ralph. It amazes me how we do stuff that hurts kids to make an extra nickel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 (edited) The plot thickens. As the story originally posted states, A-Turf was the lowest bidder. As it turns out, their bid must have been well less than half of the other bids. The owner explained his rationale for lowballing…as it would be the centerpiece for his marketing efforts trying to sell top-tier customers…he's willing to minimize profit to maximize his exposure. Still, the price is apparently well below the industry norm. http://profootballta...ory/rumor-mill/ Edited May 9, 2011 by San Jose Bills Fan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CowgirlsFan Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 A first for the NFL. Nice to see a season ticket holder get the project. Before the Ralph is cheap talk starts this is a County project. link Really...I thought the idea was to score in the red zone not in a blue zone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffalohotwings Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 I like the change to blue endzones, but would have preferred the helmet at midfield and back to the red endzones....just brings back good memories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 The plot thickens. As the story originally posted states, A-Turf was the lowest bidder. As it turns out, their bid must have been well less than half of the other bids. The owner explained his rationale for lowballing…as it would be the centerpiece for his marketing efforts trying to sell top-tier customers…he's willing to minimize profit to maximize his exposure. Still, the price is apparently well below the industry norm. http://profootballta...ory/rumor-mill/ Good find. direct link to article Jim Dobmeier posted a comment explaining more detail. I will post it here but will not post the original article: "aturf says: May 9, 2011 11:36 AM A-Turf, Inc. is very excited about the upcoming turf project for the Buffalo Bills and Erie County taxpayers at Ralph Wilson Stadium. We’ve followed some of the chatter and want to alleviate any concerns on the part of the passionate football fans and taxpayers in general. In the field building business, it’s rare to have the opportunity to showcase your system at an NFL stadium venue. The marketing value and credibility is immeasurable. This truly is a win-win situation, the Bills get a premier system and we get the honor of installing it. Given that this was a public bid led by Erie County, the price is a matter of public record. Over the years many NFL stadium fields have been given away by other field builders, at reduced prices or in some cases at no cost at all. In many of these cases, the Club makes the decision, meaning it’s not a public bid process and therefore the cost of such fields is not released. Why would a field builder do this? Again, because the exposure is tremendous and the difference between market price and paid price is treated as a multi-year marketing investment. Given the scope of work at Ralph Wilson Stadium, market price would have been in the low $300,000’s, not the $700,000 – $1,000,000 mentioned in above comments. The three quarters of a million dollars would be more typical of converting a natural grass field to synthetic, which includes considerable site work cost. The Ralph Wilson Stadium project is much simpler – remove the old and replace it with the new. As a matter of public record, the second low bid was $269,100. A-Turf has built more than 250 athletic fields in the last nine years … our record is impeccable … our systems are as player friendly, safe and durable as any on the market. Our Dalton, Georgia based turf manufacturing partner, Controlled Products, is the largest turf producer and arguably the most capable in the industry. They participated hand-in-hand with A-Turf in providing this one-time reduced pricing. Now it’s back to business as usual charging reasonable prices and providing outstanding value! Jim Dobmeier A-Turf, Inc. President & Founder" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 Great find nobody…Jim Dobmeier commenting on PFT. Very cool that he commented and I'm glad he was able to speak to the bid process and put his price in a great context. Just awesome that a local company will be re-doing the playing field at The Ralph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zow2 Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 Great news for the local company and the Bills getting a new field. I thought The Ralph had the worst artificial Turf field in the league. You'd commonly see players from both teams slip while cutting on perfectly dry days. Just seemed like the field was more slippery than other rubberized synthetic turf fields in the NFL. Glad to see the county stepping up and fixing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haven Moses Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 The county pays for the field, not Ralph. Now how extravagant you guys want to be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 The county pays for the field, not Ralph. Now how extravagant you guys want to be? The original poster (Beerball), in his 3 sentence post (one page before this one) already mentioned what most of us know…that it's a county expense. Secondly, no one was complaining that the county didn't spend enough money on this field…that we wanted them to be more "extravagant?" So I'm not sure who you're addressing here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucci Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 The original poster (Beerball), in his 3 sentence post (one page before this one) already mentioned what most of us know…that it's a county expense. Secondly, no one was complaining that the county didn't spend enough money on this field…that we wanted them to be more "extravagant?" So I'm not sure who you're addressing here. Some can't post without bitching about something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 Some can't post without bitching about something. And here I thought that some can't B word without posting about something. Funny how that works. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 Some can't post without bitching about something. It really isn't bitiching about something... It is about a lot of taxpayer dollars for a tab a billionaire surely can pick up himself. We all complain about the "welfare queens" out there, this is no different. I really didn't know the Bills didn't pick up the tab themselves... Afterall, the team name is spray painted all over the rug... You would think they would have to at least chip in a %. Seems only ethical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mead107 Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 Is that the new blue color? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucci Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 It really isn't bitiching about something... It is about a lot of taxpayer dollars for a tab a billionaire surely can pick up himself. We all complain about the "welfare queens" out there, this is no different. I really didn't know the Bills didn't pick up the tab themselves... Afterall, the team name is spray painted all over the rug... You would think they would have to at least chip in a %. Seems only ethical. Agree or not it is part of the lease that the county takes care of the maintenance of the stadium. I'd guess there are similar arrangements around the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hplarrm Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 Agree or not it is part of the lease that the county takes care of the maintenance of the stadium. I'd guess there are similar arrangements around the league. Persomally, I am not that concerned about whether the taxpayers or the taxusers like Mr. Ralph pay for this as this cost is really deminimus compared to the much larger subsidies going on between taxpayers and the welfare beneficiaries of the NFL ( one might call them welfare queens but in general the boys club does not include women). My observations on your comment is that surely you are not saying that because a lot of other teams do this it is right. In my view I am not worried about this because it is wrong buy it is a pretty small one in the multi-billion dollar picture. However, there should be an understanding among all those commenting on this that it is a small example of your and my tax dollars being used to save money for the incredibly well-to-do in our society. Deals like this are small potatoes but it is one of the reason why some of us find it so laughable when the NFL demands to reopen its agreement with the players because the owners are not making enough money off of the TV networks shoveling $ into the NFL maw. Please. It also points out that the grand taxpayer subsidy which the NFL gets and is different that what almost all major sports get is that in the NFL system they actually have arranged it so that colleges pay googobs of money to train and develop their athletes, On other major leagues like baseball and hockey the teams pay a lot of money to operate minor league franchises. The teams pay huge money to kids (or actually the parents of kids in speculative contracts. They then train and develop these youngsters dropping them off the ladder as they climb up to AAA ball and eventually enter the SHOW. In pro football though, the deal is that an intricate system run by the colleges trains and develops these youngsters until they can be drafted and signed by the NFL. Where is the subsidy? Look no further than a lionshare of the collegiate system is paid for using your and my taxdollars to fund this training and development activity. An example is a school like UB which is heavily engaged write now in trying to get the NYS legislature to pass the UB 20/20 proposal which involved massive taxpayer spending. UB spent tons of money in the pass decade moving up to Division I status. Part of the strategy to build a competitor is to try to turn UB into a school which specializes in producing pro WRs just as schools like Stanford and USC are known as QB factories or NB is an interior lineman factory. Even worse the NFL squashes individual rights by restricting draftees until their age group hits 21. While other athletes are signing contacts at 16, NFL players are forced to not be able to sign even though they are adults 18-21. It really is amazing that the owners make money hand over fist and now are pre-emptively using an out clause in the agreement to try to pry money back from the players. All of that while these welfare pimps the teamowners are benefitting from the public. OK do it and thats fine, I just wish the owners would stop insulting us and saying its because they have it so contractually hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted May 10, 2011 Author Share Posted May 10, 2011 Persomally, I am not that concerned about whether the taxpayers or the taxusers like Mr. Ralph pay for this as this cost is really deminimus compared to the much larger subsidies going on between taxpayers and the welfare beneficiaries of the NFL ( one might call them welfare queens but in general the boys club does not include women). My observations on your comment is that surely you are not saying that because a lot of other teams do this it is right. In my view I am not worried about this because it is wrong buy it is a pretty small one in the multi-billion dollar picture. However, there should be an understanding among all those commenting on this that it is a small example of your and my tax dollars being used to save money for the incredibly well-to-do in our society. Deals like this are small potatoes but it is one of the reason why some of us find it so laughable when the NFL demands to reopen its agreement with the players because the owners are not making enough money off of the TV networks shoveling $ into the NFL maw. Please. It also points out that the grand taxpayer subsidy which the NFL gets and is different that what almost all major sports get is that in the NFL system they actually have arranged it so that colleges pay googobs of money to train and develop their athletes, On other major leagues like baseball and hockey the teams pay a lot of money to operate minor league franchises. The teams pay huge money to kids (or actually the parents of kids in speculative contracts. They then train and develop these youngsters dropping them off the ladder as they climb up to AAA ball and eventually enter the SHOW. In pro football though, the deal is that an intricate system run by the colleges trains and develops these youngsters until they can be drafted and signed by the NFL. Where is the subsidy? Look no further than a lionshare of the collegiate system is paid for using your and my taxdollars to fund this training and development activity. An example is a school like UB which is heavily engaged write now in trying to get the NYS legislature to pass the UB 20/20 proposal which involved massive taxpayer spending. UB spent tons of money in the pass decade moving up to Division I status. Part of the strategy to build a competitor is to try to turn UB into a school which specializes in producing pro WRs just as schools like Stanford and USC are known as QB factories or NB is an interior lineman factory. Even worse the NFL squashes individual rights by restricting draftees until their age group hits 21. While other athletes are signing contacts at 16, NFL players are forced to not be able to sign even though they are adults 18-21. It really is amazing that the owners make money hand over fist and now are pre-emptively using an out clause in the agreement to try to pry money back from the players. All of that while these welfare pimps the teamowners are benefitting from the public. OK do it and thats fine, I just wish the owners would stop insulting us and saying its because they have it so contractually hard. There's a thread for that, use it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GR8PRKN Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 Really...I thought the idea was to score in the red zone not in a blue zone. I could see the naming rights will being sold to Jet Blue..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malazan Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 I could see the naming rights will being sold to Jet Blue..... BECAUSE RALPH IS CHEAP!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts