chaccof Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 Can't speak for anyone else but if the Bills ever moved, to Toronto or elsewhere, they would be dead to me in an instant. Just like the Braves. GO BILLS!!! +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gray Beard Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 Can't speak for anyone else but if the Bills ever moved, to Toronto or elsewhere, they would be dead to me in an instant. Just like the Braves. GO BILLS!!! They wouldn't even be able to keep their name if they moved. The only city that makes sense with "Bills" is Buffalo. Kind of like the Browns becoming the Ravens, or the Oilers becoming the Titans. It would be even easier to lose interest in a team with a different name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwight in philly Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Laying off teachers, firefighters, policemen, closing libraries and delaying much needed infrastructure upgrades due to a lack of public money also involve quality of life issues. How do you justify making a sizeable investment into a stadium that is not freguently used and that mostly benefits a very rich owner who has the wherewithal to contribute to his already lucrative business. I'm not suggesting that the state and county should not invest a sizeable amount of money to upgrade a very archaic facility. My point is simply that the owner and his organization should also to a degree contribute to the improvement of the facilities. Having the owner pay a quarter or a third of the costs to enhance the facility that he controls is not unreasonable. The owner has made more than a quarter of a billion dollars off a very bad product over the last eight years. Having him make a stipulated contribution to improve the stadium would not only benefit him but it would also be the right thing to do. please! laying off teachers, firefighters and police? that does not happen! especially in ny state, i am a retired govt employee and very much in sync with the plight of municipal employees. allocating 50- 100 million to upgrade the ralph will not mean that policeman or teachers will be layed off. it is a specious argument at best , the big picture must include the bills in buffalo, at the ralph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 John, any idea if a roof over RWS is part of the study? PTR I'm guessing that retrofitting a roof on a stadium that didn't include a roof in the original design is probably a $500 million project. I seriously doubt it comes up in any plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 (edited) please! laying off teachers, firefighters and police? that does not happen! especially in ny state, i am a retired govt employee and very much in sync with the plight of municipal employees. allocating 50- 100 million to upgrade the ralph will not mean that policeman or teachers will be layed off. it is a specious argument at best , the big picture must include the bills in buffalo, at the ralph. I don't know how you can be unaware of the fact that there has been a very tight state and local budget environment for the past few years. In this very restrictive budgetary climate there have been numerous public employee layoffs. I don't understand how you can dispute that point. My basic point in my prior postings is that the local and state government should condition any expenditure on a stadium ugrade to a reasonably set contribution by the private business that will mostly benefit from the upgrade. The Kansas City Chiefs have a similarly styled stadium designed by the same company that designed the Ralph. It recently had a major overhaul done to its facilities. The Chiefs made a significant contribution to that project. Why shouldn't Ralph Wilson and his business similarly make a contribution to a project that will benefit them, even if it is a lesser contribution? note: In your last post you noted that the upgrade will be in the $50-100 million range. You are being very conservative. The estimate will probably be closer to $200-250 million range. If an ugrade is going to be done it needs to be done properly, not done on the cheap with more to be done at a latter time. Edited January 7, 2012 by JohnC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'64 Bills Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 This entire scenario is so silly. The county hires an outside consulting firm to study the situation and deal with the Bills in regards to a new lease. As that is going on the Bills are in negotations with the Rogers Communication Group for an extension of their agreement for games in Toronto. Roger's wants TWO regular season games in Toronto so they can build a fan base and sell a 3 game package that will include 1 pre-season game. The Bills are very open to that considering the profit they make for the Toronto games and the diminishing season tickets sales that guarantees small crowds at late Novemeber and December games. How can Erie County work on a new lease when perhaps only 7 games will be played at the Ralph each year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 (edited) I'm guessing that retrofitting a roof on a stadium that didn't include a roof in the original design is probably a $500 million project. I seriously doubt it comes up in any plan. Very true. I was just hoping between new materials and some fresh young minds in design could come up with something. Lord knows we could use it in December. PTR Edited January 7, 2012 by PromoTheRobot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete This Account Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 (edited) This entire scenario is so silly. The county hires an outside consulting firm to study the situation and deal with the Bills in regards to a new lease. As that is going on the Bills are in negotations with the Rogers Communication Group for an extension of their agreement for games in Toronto. Roger's wants TWO regular season games in Toronto so they can build a fan base and sell a 3 game package that will include 1 pre-season game. The Bills are very open to that considering the profit they make for the Toronto games and the diminishing season tickets sales that guarantees small crowds at late Novemeber and December games. How can Erie County work on a new lease when perhaps only 7 games will be played at the Ralph each year? let's clear a few things up here: -- the county is seeking bids to hire an outside lawfirm to handle the negotiations. this is standard procedure and was done the last time the lease was up. -- the Bills are the ones who have hired a prominent architectural firm that specializes in sports stadium construction and design to conduct an extensive study on what's needed to maintain Ralph Wilson Stadium as a viable facility and what improvements could be done to make it a more attractive destination for fans. -- Rogers would prefer two regular season games, though that is very unlikely to happen unless the NFL expands its regular season to 17-18 games. -- the Bills have never indicated they're open to giving up another game to Toronto in any instance. -- season ticket sales were climbing since the Toronto series was launched until this season. and the poor ticket sales can be blamed on the uncertainty surrounding the lockout that wiped out the entire offseason. and another factor is the Bills have traditionally had difficulty selling out games past Thanksgiving well before the Toronto series. jw Edited January 7, 2012 by john wawrow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwight in philly Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 (edited) I don't know how you can be unaware of the fact that there has been a very tight state and local budget environment for the past few years. In this very restrictive budgetary climate there have been numerous public employee layoffs. I don't understand how you can dispute that point. My basic point in my prior postings is that the local and state government should condition any expenditure on a stadium ugrade to a reasonably set contribution by the private business that will mostly benefit from the upgrade. The Kansas City Chiefs have a similarly styled stadium designed by the same company that designed the Ralph. It recently had a major overhaul done to its facilities. The Chiefs made a significant contribution to that project. Why shouldn't Ralph Wilson and his business similarly make a contribution to a project that will benefit them, even if it is a lesser contribution? note: In your last post you noted that the upgrade will be in the $50-100 million range. You are being very conservative. The estimate will probably be closer to $200-250 million range. If an ugrade is going to be done it needs to be done properly, not done on the cheap with more to be done at a latter time. i totally understand the climate is not condusive to handing wealthy NFL owners taxpayer dollars. my premise is that taxpayer dollars are going to be spent, wasted, regardless, why not make sure some of it is put toward upgrading the stadium? at least we would realize a tangible result of spent tax dollars. the stadium is the "people's" stadium(actually owned by erie county), putting the "people's" money(tax dollars)into keeping the stadium viable would seem to make sense to me. Edited January 7, 2012 by dwight in philly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SectionC3 Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Chris Collins was not dragging his feet. aside from the fact there was no guarantee he would be the county executive beyond last year (he's not), he was awaiting the completion of the Bills' study of Ralph Wilson Stadium before moving forward. that study is not yet complete. Poloncarz is picking up the baton and is now ensuring his ducks are in a row once talks begin. jw To be fair, it should also be noted that if history holds true, the Bills are going to want to talk to the Governor to seal the deal. Like John said, I wouldn't worry about what Collins did or didn't do on the issue, and the vigor with which Poloncarz is approaching the issue is outstanding, but Pataki sealed the last negotiations, and Cuomo will likely have to do the same thing this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papazoid Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 let's clear a few things up here: -- the county is seeking bids to hire an outside lawfirm to handle the negotiations. this is standard procedure and was done the last time the lease was up. -- the Bills are the ones who have hired a prominent architectural firm that specializes in sports stadium construction and design to conduct an extensive study on what's needed to maintain Ralph Wilson Stadium as a viable facility and what improvements could be done to make it a more attractive destination for fans. -- Rogers would prefer two regular season games, though that is very unlikely to happen unless the NFL expands its regular season to 17-18 games. -- the Bills have never indicated they're open to giving up another game to Toronto in any instance. -- season ticket sales were climbing since the Toronto series was launched until this season. and the poor ticket sales can be blamed on the uncertainty surrounding the lockout that wiped out the entire offseason. and another factor is the Bills have traditionally had difficulty selling out games past Thanksgiving well before the Toronto series. jw there you go again.....letting facts get in the way of a good internet story.... keep up the good work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 i totally understand the climate is not condusive to handing wealthy NFL owners taxpayer dollars. my premise is that taxpayer dollars are going to be spent, wasted, regardless, why not make sure some of it is put toward upgrading the stadium? at least we would realize a tangible result of spent tax dollars. the stadium is the "people's" stadium(actually owned by erie county), putting the "people's" money(tax dollars)into keeping the stadium viable would seem to make sense to me. You are correct that the stadium is technically owned by the county and not by the Bills. But in reality under the current lease agreement the stadium is under the control of the Bills. Ralph Wilson and his company have total control of the stadium. They determine what events are allowed at the facility and they, not the county, reap the benefits renting out the facility. Ralph Wilson has control of the stadium naming rights, not the county. If he decided to sell the naming rights to the stadium he would accrue all the financiall windfall. You and I both want to see a public investment in an antiquaited facility. Where we part company is that I believe that the owner and his company should make a contribution in a project that directly benefits him. I'm not calling for an onerous and business killing cost sharing. What I believe to be fair and reasonable is for him to make some agreed upon contribution before the public financial committment is made. In this stadium upgrade issue the complicating feature is how does a public authority commit to a major expenditure when, as it stands, there is no committment by the 90 + owner to keep his franchise anchored in western NY when he passes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwight in philly Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 You are correct that the stadium is technically owned by the county and not by the Bills. But in reality under the current lease agreement the stadium is under the control of the Bills. Ralph Wilson and his company have total control of the stadium. They determine what events are allowed at the facility and they, not the county, reap the benefits renting out the facility. Ralph Wilson has control of the stadium naming rights, not the county. If he decided to sell the naming rights to the stadium he would accrue all the financiall windfall. You and I both want to see a public investment in an antiquaited facility. Where we part company is that I believe that the owner and his company should make a contribution in a project that directly benefits him. I'm not calling for an onerous and business killing cost sharing. What I believe to be fair and reasonable is for him to make some agreed upon contribution before the public financial committment is made. In this stadium upgrade issue the complicating feature is how does a public authority commit to a major expenditure when, as it stands, there is no committment by the 90 + owner to keep his franchise anchored in western NY when he passes? i agree with you, i really think we are on the same page. we both want the bills to stay and the stadium upgraded. i would love for wilson to commit "X" amount of dollars toward the upgrade, but past history says he wont, not saying that is right, just positioning myself to face reality. i hope i am wrong and he does contribute, it would be ideal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 i agree with you, i really think we are on the same page. we both want the bills to stay and the stadium upgraded. i would love for wilson to commit "X" amount of dollars toward the upgrade, but past history says he wont, not saying that is right, just positioning myself to face reality. i hope i am wrong and he does contribute, it would be ideal. As you stated we are mostly in agreement. We are merely parsing over the margin. What I resent about the owner is with all his complaining about the regional economics he has been treated exceptionally well (generously) by the public authorities. As you wisely observed Wilson's past history tells us a very consistent story of what Ralph is all about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwight in philly Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 As you stated we are mostly in agreement. We are merely parsing over the margin. What I resent about the owner is with all his complaining about the regional economics he has been treated exceptionally well (generously) by the public authorities. As you wisely observed Wilson's past history tells us a very consistent story of what Ralph is all about. i am ONE-HUNDRED per-cent in agreement with you regarding wilson and his money-grubbing persona. there is no point to rehash history about the treatment that he has received from the region versus what he has given back . we both know what that is, let us hope that a fair deal can be achieved somewhat, for the taxpayers, but again, i am not holding my breath, the NFL is the "deal" and the region cannot lose the team. it is just essentially bend over , grab your ankles, and let ralph has his way. do not agree, but it is what it is, unfortunately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanC883 Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 i am hoping cuomo will be sympathetic to western new york and the bills. as we all know, taxpayer money to billionaires does not play well at the present time. rational thinking probably supports that premise, but as i and others are aware of, NY state gave millions in assistance to build yankee stadium and citi field. we are do our fair share, no matter what one's feeling is on taxpayer money to NFL owners. the politicos in ny state must come thru.if you want to look at it from strictly dollars and sense, the bills are a positive force. Yes, but you are forgetting that the powers in Albany could care less about anything outside of NYC. From time to time they'll throw upstate/western, ny a small bone here and there. You all need to elect a governor from Upstate/Western NY, or break off and join Pennsylvania. i am ONE-HUNDRED per-cent in agreement with you regarding wilson and his money-grubbing persona. there is no point to rehash history about the treatment that he has received from the region versus what he has given back . we both know what that is, let us hope that a fair deal can be achieved somewhat, for the taxpayers, but again, i am not holding my breath, the NFL is the "deal" and the region cannot lose the team. it is just essentially bend over , grab your ankles, and let ralph has his way. do not agree, but it is what it is, unfortunately. You hit the nail on the head. Reality vs. the way we would all like it to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 -- the Bills are the ones who have hired a prominent architectural firm that specializes in sports stadium construction and design to conduct an extensive study on what's needed to maintain Ralph Wilson Stadium as a viable facility and what improvements could be done to make it a more attractive destination for fans. -- season ticket sales were climbing since the Toronto series was launched until this season. and the poor ticket sales can be blamed on the uncertainty surrounding the lockout that wiped out the entire offseason. and another factor is the Bills have traditionally had difficulty selling out games past Thanksgiving well before the Toronto series. jw You left out the most obvious factor in increasing the ticket sales: A better product on the field. I doubt if there will be more season ticket sales for this upcoming season. Unless this franchise does something meaningful and soon to excite the long term battered fans the fan support is going to continue to wither. Just because there has been an increase in sales since the Toronto series you can't necessarily make the claim that it was due to the Toronto series. That is making an unwarranted leap. In some respect a claim can be made that because of the poor product exhibited in the Toronto series the marketing to that area was damaged and not enhanced. I'm not against aggressive marketing and expanding the targeted market area into Canada. That is a wise and forward approach to take in enhancing the viability of the franchise. My basic point is the best marketing tool in any product line is having a quality product. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SRQ_BillsFan Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Very true. I was just hoping between new materials and some fresh young minds in design could come up with something. Lord knows we could use it in December. PTR Showing my age but I thought I remember reading when the Ralph was built they said the design could include a dome in the future? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 i am ONE-HUNDRED per-cent in agreement with you regarding wilson and his money-grubbing persona. there is no point to rehash history about the treatment that he has received from the region versus what he has given back . we both know what that is, let us hope that a fair deal can be achieved somewhat, for the taxpayers, but again, i am not holding my breath, the NFL is the "deal" and the region cannot lose the team. it is just essentially bend over , grab your ankles, and let ralph has his way. do not agree, but it is what it is, unfortunately. If we have to bend over and grab our ankles is it impolite to sheepishly ask for some vasiline to smooth the way for the expected ram rod? LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RTW2012 Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Showing my age but I thought I remember reading when the Ralph was built they said the design could include a dome in the future? The idea of putting on a roof was kicked around about 20 years ago, and dismissed. Essentially the stadium would have to be enclosed by a giant wall that would support said roof. The original design for Rich/Ralph Stadium never had plans for a future dome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts