JohnC Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 (edited) I think you meant to say upstate not downstate. We will have to see if there are causes in the lease for repayment of improvemnt to the stadium if the team is sold before the end of the future lease. I know of NO NFL stadium that has not gotten some goverment help either directly or indirectly. You are right that I mixed up the expressions. Thanks for the clarification. You are right that most new stadiums have gotten some form of government help. George Steinbrenner was forced to pay the full cost for Yankee Stadium. The local authorities did pay a substantial amount for infrastructure upgrades and other secondary upgrade costs. But in that particular case the upgrades in transportation, sewer lines etc would still benefit the commmunity with or without the stadium. The stadium used by the Giants and Jets was paid entirely by both of those teams with again infrastructure and secondary upgrades paid by the public. With the KC Chiefs they paid about a third of the cost for a three year major remake of their stadium. If the new stadium comes to fruition in Minnesota the franchise will pay a sizeable proportion of the costs. In addition, the new stadium will be a multi-use facility that can be used for conventions and many varied types of activities. How much do you think the 93 yr old owner is willing to pay for an upgrade? As you noted in your response you indicated that there should be a protection clause in the lease if the team is moved. Would you support the expenditure of public funds if Ralph Wilson said no or was only willing to go to a lesser extent that would leave the authorities shortchanged if the team was moved? Even if the Bills put in a clause that would reimburse the government if the franchise is moved would it be a wise expenditure of government money to rehab a stadium at great expense and then have it be a white elephant if the franchise is moved? I'm and ardent fan as you are. But I do have a problem with providing a large public expenditure that will primarily benefit a private citizen. Ralph Wilson has the region in a pickle. He has the leverage. If past history is one's guide then he will use it to benefit him at the expense of the taxpayers. Well you certainly can count "Ralph Wilson Stadium" among those that have received this. It was created purely with "government help" and has been upgraded, expanded and renovated time after time since it was first built--all with "government help" exclusively. What I resent about this cantankerous owner is that he has a history of complaining about his "small market plight"while not acknowledging that he is the most publicly subsidized owner in the NFL. To make things even worse is that he has not demonstrated an ability or desire to put out a presentable product to the paying customer. It is absurd. Edited March 5, 2012 by JohnC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe W Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 Don't be surprised if Wilson decides that he doesn't fight w the state or county over improvements and lease terms. He'll probably put the team up for sale and let potential new owners deal w what's going to be an uphill battle. The team is obviously much more valuable without a lease tying them here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe W Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 The Bills will also be in a fight w Rogers communication over extending that debacle . Rogers will not be paying 10 m per game again and they landed the first punch sending the worthless preseason game back to Bflo Everything points to the 93 yo owner putting it up for sale soon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 The Bills will also be in a fight w Rogers communication over extending that debacle . Rogers will not be paying 10 m per game again and they landed the first punch sending the worthless preseason game back to Bflo Everything points to the 93 yo owner putting it up for sale soon So he can pay capital gains taxes on very roughly an $800 million profit, that he could avoid entirely by delaying the sale until after he passed? Why would a 93 year old business man, who as far as we know owns 100% of the shares of the corporation that owns the Bills, do that? Based on 2007 data, the average life expectancy of a 93 year old man is only 3.15 years: http://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html Ralph can afford the best health care money can buy, so that would tend to increase his life expectancy a bit, but he's also had a broken hip, which would tend the other way. If you still think his family will be better off financially if he sells the team before his death, I'd like to know why you think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffalobillsfootball Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 You have a small market team playing in a state with the second highest level of government and state spending. That is why NY State will continue to bail out any team that plays in WNY. Regarding all this discussion about taxes, money and what downstate and upstate want - what's a hundred million when this state spends over $302 billion dollars a year? The Bills will never leave WNY - no matter what the folks in Albany B word about and the freaks in NYC want. Go Bills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe W Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 If Wilson puts the team for sale now without a lease tying it to Buffalo it obviously will be in a bidding situation, which probably will not be the case with your life expectancy stat of 3 years. The family would be better off putting for sale now as well to avoid the upcoming battles with the County, State and Rogers over the lease, stadium improvements And TO series extension. Does a 93 yo with 3.15 years to live really want those headaches , don't be surprised if they're put up for sale soon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillnutinHouston Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 (edited) Many of you seem to be forgetting...Ralph was the one who initiated this round of talks. Link Edited March 5, 2012 by BillnutinHouston Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe W Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Well if Wilson is so keen on initiating these talks where is this stadium improvements report It is extremely overdue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 So he can pay capital gains taxes on very roughly an $800 million profit, that he could avoid entirely by delaying the sale until after he passed? Why would a 93 year old business man, who as far as we know owns 100% of the shares of the corporation that owns the Bills, do that? Based on 2007 data, the average life expectancy of a 93 year old man is only 3.15 years: http://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html Ralph can afford the best health care money can buy, so that would tend to increase his life expectancy a bit, but he's also had a broken hip, which would tend the other way. If you still think his family will be better off financially if he sells the team before his death, I'd like to know why you think so. Ralph Wilson is sophisticated enough in finances to have made his estate plans probably when he was in his fiftiess and sixties. He planned on keeping the team to the end of the line because that is what he wanted to do. He was the owner of an NFL franchise, and he enjoyed being an owner. At least that is what he has publicly stated. If he wanted to limit his tax liabilities he could have done so by making arrangements to sell the frachise a long time ago. He chose not to do that. The team is too much of a cash cow for him to let it go. That is not a criticism. More power to him. Is a person in his 90s capable of owning and managing an NFL franchise? Of course not. What he has done is have surrogates in place to run the operation the way he wanted it to be run. There are no special arrangements to keep the franchise in the region. The franchise is going to be auctioned off. If a local bidder wins then it stays. If an outside bidder wins the auction then the franchise will be moved. If anyone thinks that a long term lease agreement is going to be signed that will make this franchise less attractive to all bidders then they are deluding themselves. The scenario is being played out the way the owner wants it to be played out. That is his prerogative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodeMonkey Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Ralph Wilson is sophisticated enough in finances to have made his estate plans probably when he was in his fiftiess and sixties. He planned on keeping the team to the end of the line because that is what he wanted to do. He was the owner of an NFL franchise, and he enjoyed being an owner. At least that is what he has publicly stated. If he wanted to limit his tax liabilities he could have done so by making arrangements to sell the frachise a long time ago. He chose not to do that. The team is too much of a cash cow for him to let it go. That is not a criticism. More power to him. Is a person in his 90s capable of owning and managing an NFL franchise? Of course not. What he has done is have surrogates in place to run the operation the way he wanted it to be run. There are no special arrangements to keep the franchise in the region. The franchise is going to be auctioned off. If a local bidder wins then it stays. If an outside bidder wins the auction then the franchise will be moved. If anyone thinks that a long term lease agreement is going to be signed that will make this franchise less attractive to all bidders then they are deluding themselves. The scenario is being played out the way the owner wants it to be played out. That is his prerogative. As unsettling as that is to a lot of people, your logic is sound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts