Jerry Jabber Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Stadium Lease update: http://www.wgrz.com/sports/pro_football/NFL/Bills/article/159109/116/Poloncarz-Hopes-To-Have-New-Bills-Lease-By-Training-Camp "Scott Brown: "How confident are you that a new lease is going to get done and are we talking ten years or so?" County Executive Poloncarz: "I feel very confident that a lease is going to get done, my goal is to get it done by the beginning of training camp (this summer) and we're going to try and get the longest lease we possibly can." Scott Brown: "Ten years, fifteen years what do you think?" County Executive Poloncarz: "At least that, at least ten years." I don't live in NY anymore, but I like Poloncarz. One of his topics last year while running for election was the Stadium lease negotiations with the Bills. I'm glad to see he's been hard at work trying to get a new lease completed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 I'd love to know what kind of RWS improvements they have in mind. A roof would be huge in getting December games sold out. Not very likely though. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealityCheck Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 I'd love to know what kind of RWS improvements they have in mind. A roof would be huge in getting December games sold out. Not very likely though. PTR The cost of a roof would be astronomical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryan42790 Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 I'd love to know what kind of RWS improvements they have in mind. A roof would be huge in getting December games sold out. Not very likely though. PTR Mind as well just build a new stadium for how much that would cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Tomcat Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 might as well trade in the car instead of buying new tires Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartacus Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Mind as well just build a new stadium for how much that would cost. a new stadium or expensive roof would definitely be worth the huge bucks for the 8 home games they would use it for can't think of a better use of taxpayer dollars Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 I'd love to know what kind of RWS improvements they have in mind. A roof would be huge in getting December games sold out. Not very likely though. PTR If I recall correctly I think there was some consideration of the feasibility of adding some type of roof system. The engineers and architects concluded that it would be imppossible to do because of the way it was orginally structured. If a roof could have been added not only would it make later season games more appealing but the stadium could be used for a lot more varied type of events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaattMaann Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 a new stadium or expensive roof would definitely be worth the huge bucks for the 8 home games they would use it for can't think of a better use of taxpayer dollars even I got that sarcasm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeF Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 a new stadium or expensive roof would definitely be worth the huge bucks for the 8 home games they would use it for can't think of a better use of taxpayer dollars I hear they already have a design concept for something affordable... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Romes Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 If I recall correctly I think there was some consideration of the feasibility of adding some type of roof system. The engineers and architects concluded that it would be imppossible to do because of the way it was orginally structured. If a roof could have been added not only would it make later season games more appealing but the stadium could be used for a lot more varied type of events. Except for the fact that the supergroup era is over and everyone has moved away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weehawk Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 This topic is so entertaining even at 9pm. There will be no roof There will be no new stadium That being said, Bills fans should be following what's going on in MIN. The State, County, City wants to give them nothing in the way of a new stadium, and the team has no leverage. There is no where for them to threaten to move to. Same thing here. Give them enough money to keep the place safe and then tell RW to blow if he does not like it. Toronto - No suitable NFL stadium and the Canadian govt is not building one LA - Aint happnin now or in the next 5-10 years So....what happens when they tell RW to F**k off on his $100 million+ demands? Joe six-pack fan will realize very few tangible benefits from these improvements. They will go toward infrastructure and to "revenue-generating" improvements. That leaves me, you, and 60,000+ other fans out in the cold since we only generate $50 tickets, $20 parking, and $100 worth of beer. CALL RALPH's BLUFF!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 (edited) This topic is so entertaining even at 9pm. There will be no roof There will be no new stadium That being said, Bills fans should be following what's going on in MIN. The State, County, City wants to give them nothing in the way of a new stadium, and the team has no leverage. There is no where for them to threaten to move to. Same thing here. Give them enough money to keep the place safe and then tell RW to blow if he does not like it. Toronto - No suitable NFL stadium and the Canadian govt is not building one LA - Aint happnin now or in the next 5-10 years So....what happens when they tell RW to F**k off on his $100 million+ demands? Joe six-pack fan will realize very few tangible benefits from these improvements. They will go toward infrastructure and to "revenue-generating" improvements. That leaves me, you, and 60,000+ other fans out in the cold since we only generate $50 tickets, $20 parking, and $100 worth of beer. CALL RALPH's BLUFF!! What bluff are you referring to? If there is no stadium lease it benefits the 93 yr. old who will then go on a year to year lease agreement. Thus after he passes the team is more attractive to all bidders because there is no lease encumberance to this very attractive commodity. I'm not advocating committing money to upgrading the stadium. My basic point is that as it stands the owner has the leverage any way you look at it. Maybe the best approach for all the parties involved is to wait and see what happens to the franchise as far as being moved or not and then make a determination as to whether to commit money to the stadium. Edited March 7, 2012 by JohnC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe W Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Call their bluff, this team will end up in LA befor your six pack gets warm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkyMannn Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 I don't live in NY anymore, but I like Poloncarz. He is a tool for the public unions. Will set the county back farther than what it is when he pads the union contracts and jacks taxes thru the roof Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weehawk Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 You really should research what the LA stadium situation is alla bout. If it was that simple, they'd be the LA Vikings or the LA Chargers by now. It's not as black and white as you make it sound. Call their bluff, this team will end up in LA befor your six pack gets warm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weehawk Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 The "bluff" is the unspoken assertion that the team will move if the taxpayers dont pony-up big money for RWS. Sure, he can go year-to-year, but if anyone is truly paying attention (specifically to the LA situation), it could be ten years before anything happens there. Considering we're looking at only a ten year lease for them to stay, I say call the unspoken bluff. Keep the stadium safe and relatively comfortable, but dont make taxpayers pay for upgrades/additions to luxury amenities that lines RWs pockets, but bleeds the taxpayers in the process. I like the idea of them going year-to-year right now. Then when RW passes and the family waves the middle finger to WNY, we can look back and say we made the right call by not giving them $100 million+ to stay. Once RW passes and IF someone does buy them and stays, then we can discuss long-term renovations and leases. What bluff are you referring to? If there is no stadium lease it benefits the 93 yr. old who will then go on a year to year lease agreement. Thus after he passes the team is more attractive to all bidders because there is no lease encumberance to this very attractive commodity. I'm not advocating committing money to upgrading the stadium. My basic point is that as it stands the owner has the leverage any way you look at it. Maybe the best approach for all the parties involved is to wait and see what happens to the franchise as far as being moved or not and then make a determination as to whether to commit money to the stadium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 (edited) The "bluff" is the unspoken assertion that the team will move if the taxpayers dont pony-up big money for RWS. Sure, he can go year-to-year, but if anyone is truly paying attention (specifically to the LA situation), it could be ten years before anything happens there. Considering we're looking at only a ten year lease for them to stay, I say call the unspoken bluff. Keep the stadium safe and relatively comfortable, but dont make taxpayers pay for upgrades/additions to luxury amenities that lines RWs pockets, but bleeds the taxpayers in the process. I like the idea of them going year-to-year right now. Then when RW passes and the family waves the middle finger to WNY, we can look back and say we made the right call by not giving them $100 million+ to stay. Once RW passes and IF someone does buy them and stays, then we can discuss long-term renovations and leases. I don't understand your perspective. It is not in the aged Ralph Wilson's interest to "demand" major upgrades to a stadium that his franchise will play in while he is the owner. Ralph knows exactly how old he is, he feels it everyday. The archaic stadium certainly needs upgrades, as it also clearly needs maintenance. Something close to a status quo situation benefits the current owner, not hurts him. Both sides understand the situation. A long time tough owner is at the end of his tenure. An archaic stadium needs a major overhaul, and at the least requires maintenance work. What will probably happen is that there will be an agreement to fix the deficiencies at a reasonable cost and let the next owner (if local) deal with the challenging issue of figuring out how to overhaul an archaic facility in a tight fiscal environment. Certain political and financial battles that would be undertaken when a person is in their fifties is ludicrous to get involved in when you are in your 90s. My preference is to have a blueprint for a short term fix and a long term and comprehensive facility upgrade plan done. When the team is sold then the bidding parties will have an understanding of the financial requirements that are associated with the franchise. Edited March 7, 2012 by JohnC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe W Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Don't be surprised if Wilson changes course and decides to sell while he's still alive. He'll point to the uncertainty of the the stadium situation and leave it up to the new owners, local or otherwise, to decide what's going to happen. The fact that this stadium report has not been released yt is crazy, I don't think everyone realizes how late in the game we are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Re: my roof comment, I was just hoping, considering the advances in light weight materials, there would be a away to put something akin to a tent over RWS. But I realize that the winds we get might make that impractical. Again just saying what if. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weehawk Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 A few points: 1) RWS is not archaic in any sense of the word. The State and County have pumped millions into it over the years. I think most people would agree that short of a new billion dollar palace, or a half billion dollar renovation, that RWS is an ok venue. 2) While no one knows exactly what is being contemplated, when I hear $100 million+ being discussed, I think it's pretty obvious that we're not talking about patching up some concrete and adding a few new beer stands. I know I keep repeating myself...I'm good with spending only enough money to keep it safe and that's it for now. I simply dont believe that $100 million+ is required for safety work. 3)Keep it safe for now and then see what happens after RW passes. How does this sound... * We spend $100 million+ now * RW passes in two years * His family says no hometown discount or other considerations for a local buyer * The team leaves I know everyone will jump on the idea that our elected leaders will somehow safeguard our $100 million+ investment through "ironclad" contracts/leases. I dont buy it. There are numerous examples of contract loopholes, court verdicts, etc that make me highly skeptical of anything the govt does in relation to protecting my tax money. Keep it a viable, safe building for now and then see what the future brings. $100 million+ is not required to keep it a safe and viable venue. I don't understand your perspective. It is not in the aged Ralph Wilson's interest to "demand" major upgrades to a stadium that his franchise will play in while he is the owner. Ralph knows exactly how old he is, he feels it everyday. The archaic stadium certainly needs upgrades, as it also clearly needs maintenance. Something close to a status quo situation benefits the current owner, not hurts him. Both sides understand the situation. A long time tough owner is at the end of his tenure. An archaic stadium needs a major overhaul, and at the least requires maintenance work. What will probably happen is that there will be an agreement to fix the deficiencies at a reasonable cost and let the next owner (if local) deal with the challenging issue of figuring out how to overhaul an archaic facility in a tight fiscal environment. Certain political and financial battles that would be undertaken when a person is in their fifties is ludicrous to get involved in when you are in your 90s. My preference is to have a blueprint for a short term fix and a long term and comprehensive facility upgrade plan done. When the team is sold then the bidding parties will have an understanding of the financial requirements that are associated with the franchise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts