Vikings' $975M stadium bill passed

[dwight in philly]

fixed that

 

 

If it makes you feel better, think of all the Jets and Giants fans downstate and NYC based that will be taxed for our WNY stadium upgrades.

do you mean just like WNY was taxed to build citi-field and yankee stadium? a huge chunk of state funds were used for both.

[The Wiz]

do you mean just like WNY was taxed to build citi-field and yankee stadium? a huge chunk of state funds were used for both.

The exact same way yes.

[Mr. WEO]

Actually, downstate NY supports WNY/upstate NY, and it's not even close. WNY is essentially a charity case for greater NYC.

 

http://www.rockinst.org/pdf/nys_government/2011-12-Giving_and_Getting.pdf

 

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2011/12/upstate_ny_grabs_more_than_it.html

 

Thanks Dave. This stuff gets repeated endlessly here--usually with the "I read somewhere..." preamble.

[Bills(70)]

Actually, downstate NY supports WNY/upstate NY, and it's not even close. WNY is essentially a charity case for greater NYC.

 

http://www.rockinst.org/pdf/nys_government/2011-12-Giving_and_Getting.pdf

 

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2011/12/upstate_ny_grabs_more_than_it.html

Let's start with the Rockefeller Institute Report you referrence here.

It is not, in point of fact, an actual factual detailed spending analysis in so far as state funding, it is a what if scenario generator. I am very familiar with it and do not agree with it at all given several factors. But in the interest of summarizing, it's in the report itself.

 

"The study uses the “state-funds” basis of revenues and expenditures. Thus it includes, for example, payments that are funded from the state’s own taxes, fees, public university tuition, hospital

and other charges, but not those supported by federal aid. We exclude proceeds from state bond issuances, given the difficulty of allocating such revenues by region. To offset that exclusion (conceptually if not dollar-for-dollar), we also omit disbursements for debt service. Capital expenditures funded through tax and other

state-funds revenues are included. The basic data for analysis are

from the Comptroller’s Annual Report to the Legislature on State

Funds Cash Basis of Accounting, for the fiscal year ended March 31

2010.1

Revenue and expenditure categories in this report follow

those in the cash report. Additional data sources include the state

Department of Taxation and Finance, the Division of the Budget,

and other agencies."

 

For your information, bond issuance, specifically at the state level, is actually very significant when taken in the context of economic development and state infrastructure expansion/maintenance.

By definition of the geography of the greater NYC area as opposed to the next 3 largest NYS cities combined, NYC receives the lions share of such, and they are also "taxpayer" monies.

And there are literally hundreds of other issues left out of the loop in this report for the state level.

And finally, the report itself clearly states the following:

 

"We do not attempt to determine whether regions pay or receive their “fair share.” We do, however, present relevant

demographic data for each region so that our factual findings on

the geographic distribution of payments may be considered in a

useful context."

 

Basing the information on population demographics is problematic to say the least. And I give this prime example.

By 1900, Buffalo was the 8th largest city in the United States, and went on to become a major railroad hub, and the largest grain-milling center in the country.

One could argue that technology advances, taxation rates and free trade agreements have primarily offset WNY's population numbers to the extent they are now, the period from 1960 to current day, also known as "The Great Exodus from Buffalo".

But let's not be naive enough not to realize that downstate political power played just an overwhelming enormous part in this tragedy based largely on the need of down state to mitigate the power of WNY in state government to garner favorable returns at the state level in revenue. To discount such is akin to wearing blinders in a glass retailer as you run the aisles.

 

As for giving more than taking, Upstate and Western New York really don't have a choice in the matter in the modern era as NYC based power politicians such as Sheldon Silver have put such business killing policies in place and mandates to the county/municipal governments that the balance ostensibly was shifted in the late 80's/early 90's as the Exodus was repeatedly ignored at the state level by those same NYC interests and politicians.

 

I.E. They looked out for their own asses downstate for decades, yes, decades, while these areas of manufacturing hubs and bastions of blue collar populations were plundered and purged by aforementioned policies and mandates.

 

So, it's more than fair to state that downstate get's the lion's share of the state funding, when bond issuance's, tax revenue from all sources and Federal Funds (which were not included in these reports remember) which are stipend to Albany are taken into consideration.

Edited May 10, 2012 by Bills(70)

[JohnC]

do you mean just like WNY was taxed to build citi-field and yankee stadium? a huge chunk of state funds were used for both.

 

George Steinbrenner payed for Yankee Stadium. The costs incurred by the public authorities went for infrastructure costs surrounding the stadium, not for the stadium per se. There is no doubt that in such complex financing projects the taxpayers are directly and indirectly footing a sizeable amount of the project costs, a large portion going for bond financing. What is glaringly different in the examples you cite (Yankee Stadium and Citi-field stadium) to our situation in western NY is that the owners of the respective teams made sizeable contribution to the projects.

 

You need to observe what is going on in Minnesota. What is very evident is that the owner of the Vikings is willing in a very substantial way contribute to the stadium project. That is far different from the way the stadium issue is unfolding in western NY.

 

How much do you expect Ralph Wilson to contribute to to the stadium upgrades that he is demanding? Is the 93 yr old owner going to guarantee that the team will remain in western NY after he passes and the stadium bond costs are still ongoing? If the answer is no to each question then the owner should be told to shove it.

[Bills(70)]

George Steinbrenner payed for Yankee Stadium. The costs incurred by the public authorities went for infrastructure costs surrounding the stadium, not for the stadium per se. There is no doubt that in such complex financing projects the taxpayers are directly and indirectly footing a sizeable amount of the project costs, a large portion going for bond financing. What is glaringly different in the examples you cite (Yankee Stadium and Citi-field stadium) to our situation in western NY is that the owners of the respective teams made sizeable contribution to the projects.

 

You need to observe what is going on in Minnesota. What is very evident is that the owner of the Vikings is willing in a very substantial way contribute to the stadium project. That is far different from the way the stadium issue is unfolding in western NY.

 

How much do you expect Ralph Wilson to contribute to to the stadium upgrades that he is demanding? Is the 93 yr old owner going to guarantee that the team will remain in western NY after he passes and the stadium bond costs are still ongoing? If the answer is no to each question then the owner should be told to shove it.

Very correct JohnC.

That is why I stated my opinion on the domed stadium for this region. 200 million dollars in facility upgrades at Rich Stadium does nothing in the way of offering any significant use for the stadium outside of housing an NFL franchise, that may, or may not stick around.

 

Building a domed stadium in downtown however, offers the advantage of year round use of a facility that can do more than just house an NFL franchise. Yes the cost is more, substantially more, but in the interest of keeping a facility at least viable to pay off the bond issuance, you'll need multiple uses. It's just sound financial practice as opposed to throwing 200 million at a facility that may, in the future, sit dormant for many years.

 

Risk analysis all day long.

[LabattBlue]

Building a domed stadium in downtown however, offers the advantage of year round use of a facility that can do more than just house an NFL franchise.

...and what would those other uses be?

[Bills(70)]

...and what would those other uses be?

Use the creative thinking skills of your brain.

[QCity]

...and what would those other uses be?

We could have a monster truck show that will draw about 5,000 people! Oh wait, we could still do that in the summer right now if we wanted.

 

We could have huge stadium rock concerts! Oh wait, we could still do that in the summer right now if we wanted. What's that? The era of huge stadium rock concerts died over a decade ago?

[JohnC]

Very correct JohnC.

That is why I stated my opinion on the domed stadium for this region. 200 million dollars in facility upgrades at Rich Stadium does nothing in the way of offering any significant use for the stadium outside of housing an NFL franchise, that may, or may not stick around.

 

Building a domed stadium in downtown however, offers the advantage of year round use of a facility that can do more than just house an NFL franchise. Yes the cost is more, substantially more, but in the interest of keeping a facility at least viable to pay off the bond issuance, you'll need multiple uses. It's just sound financial practice as opposed to throwing 200 million at a facility that may, in the future, sit dormant for many years.

 

Risk analysis all day long.

 

There will never be a domed stadium or a version of it built in downtown Buffalo. There would be too much resistance from the preservationists and there would be no political and taxpayer consensus to where it would be located and how to pay for it. The Peace Bridge and the Bass Pro projects should dispel the idea of getting a multi-purpose and expensive dome stadium built. It simply is not feasible.

 

I agree with the cranky owner of the Bills that the current stadium is antiquated and desperately needs upgrades. The problem I have is that the owner is 93 yrs old and it is probable that the franchise is going to be auctioned off when he passes. What are the life expectations for someone who is not far from the century mark?

 

As it stands the Bills play seven regular season games a year at the Orchard Park stadium. How does one justify an approximately $200 million expenditure when it is not even settled that the team will still be in the area in the not too distant future? How does one justify such a large public expenditure when the current sole tenant and main beneficiary of the stadium is not contributing a penny to such an ambitious project?

 

I'm not against public funds used for the needed stadum upgrades. But common sense conditions are required to protect the interest of the taxpayers. One condition is that the owner should agree to pay a percentage of the costs. The second condition should be that it should be ensured that the team will remain in the region after he passes. If he doesn't agree to those conditions then no public money should be spent on the stadium.

 

The model that the local western NY and state authorities should use on this stadium upgrade issue is the Kansas City Arrowhead model. A comprehensive remodeling was done with both the public authorities and team owner making a sizeable committment and long term lease agreement.

[BRAWNDO]

There will never be a domed stadium or a version of it built in downtown Buffalo. There would be too much resistance from the preservationists and there would be no political and taxpayer consensus to where it would be located and how to pay for it. The Peace Bridge and the Bass Pro projects should dispel the idea of getting a multi-purpose and expensive dome stadium built. It simply is not feasible.

 

I agree with the cranky owner of the Bills that the current stadium is antiquated and desperately needs upgrades. The problem I have is that the owner is 93 yrs old and it is probable that the franchise is going to be auctioned off when he passes. What are the life expectations for someone who is not far from the century mark?

 

As it stands the Bills play seven regular season games a year at the Orchard Park stadium. How does one justify an approximately $200 million expenditure when it is not even settled that the team will still be in the area in the not too distant future? How does one justify such a large public expenditure when the current sole tenant and main beneficiary of the stadium is not contributing a penny to such an ambitious project?

 

I'm not against public funds used for the needed stadum upgrades. But common sense conditions are required to protect the interest of the taxpayers. One condition is that the owner should agree to pay a percentage of the costs. The second condition should be that it should be ensured that the team will remain in the region after he passes. If he doesn't agree to those conditions then no public money should be spent on the stadium.

 

The model that the local western NY and state authorities should use on this stadium upgrade issue is the Kansas City Arrowhead model. A comprehensive remodeling was done with both the public authorities and team owner making a sizeable committment and long term lease agreement.

 

Agreed. I think any lease will have to require the team paid the full amount of the cost of improvements if they move before the lease is up. Figure 20 years for a 200 million dollar upgrade. Unless the buyout is similar to the existing lease where the amount of the buyout decreases with each year of the lease which is probably what the Bills will ask for again.

 

Very correct JohnC.

That is why I stated my opinion on the domed stadium for this region. 200 million dollars in facility upgrades at Rich Stadium does nothing in the way of offering any significant use for the stadium outside of housing an NFL franchise, that may, or may not stick around.

 

Building a domed stadium in downtown however, offers the advantage of year round use of a facility that can do more than just house an NFL franchise. Yes the cost is more, substantially more, but in the interest of keeping a facility at least viable to pay off the bond issuance, you'll need multiple uses. It's just sound financial practice as opposed to throwing 200 million at a facility that may, in the future, sit dormant for many years.

 

Risk analysis all day long.

 

The only way a downtown domed stadium is built, would be if it was part of a new hotel convention center complex. Unfortunately this would require a mix of public and private investment of which the private investment is not there.

[LabattBlue]

Use the creative thinking skills of your brain.

In other words you don't know. How about it would sit empty just like RWS does all summer long every year.

Edited May 11, 2012 by LabattBlue

[dwight in philly]

George Steinbrenner payed for Yankee Stadium. The costs incurred by the public authorities went for infrastructure costs surrounding the stadium, not for the stadium per se. There is no doubt that in such complex financing projects the taxpayers are directly and indirectly footing a sizeable amount of the project costs, a large portion going for bond financing. What is glaringly different in the examples you cite (Yankee Stadium and Citi-field stadium) to our situation in western NY is that the owners of the respective teams made sizeable contribution to the projects.

 

You need to observe what is going on in Minnesota. What is very evident is that the owner of the Vikings is willing in a very substantial way contribute to the stadium project. That is far different from the way the stadium issue is unfolding in western NY.

 

How much do you expect Ralph Wilson to contribute to to the stadium upgrades that he is demanding? Is the 93 yr old owner going to guarantee that the team will remain in western NY after he passes and the stadium bond costs are still ongoing? If the answer is no to each question then the owner should be told to shove it.

so, does it still count as ny state taxpayer money if they took it in whatever fashion?? please, the state owes us , we are in fact, the only NFL team that plays in the state. if wilson does not contribute a dime and they left,the loss would be monumental in the region's identity and quality of life. that in turn plays a part in people, or business's coming here. unfortunately, wilson has the region by the short hairs, face it.as for a domed stadium, why?? we are buffalo, we play football in the snow, cold, a domed stadium will never be utilized in the fashion all the proponents think it will. i would love to hear one use , and how that would be cost effective to build.

Edited May 11, 2012 by dwight in philly

[Hammered a Lot]

With my father and brother being Vikings fans I find this to be good news. The Vikings should always be in Minny the fans support them.

Have the Vikings talked about PSLs???

Edited May 12, 2012 by Hammered a Lot

[Joe W]

Brandon has to release this stadium improvement report immediately so we know exactly what we are looking at. Reporters should be badgering him as to why it is so overdue.

 

The county is also supposed to do a study on the concrete structure of the stadium, where is that? it is getting very late in this lease negotiation game.

[JohnC]

so, does it still count as ny state taxpayer money if they took it in whatever fashion?? please, the state owes us , we are in fact, the only NFL team that plays in the state. if wilson does not contribute a dime and they left,the loss would be monumental in the region's identity and quality of life. that in turn plays a part in people, or business's coming here. unfortunately, wilson has the region by the short hairs, face it.

 

On what basis do you make the claim that the state owes the region a huge public expenditure with little justification that there will be a return on the sizeable investment? How do you convince the state wide representatives that it is reasonable to invest in a reportedly $200 million project that will primarily benefit a 93 yr old out of town businessman who we think will auction off the team to the highest bidder when he passes. If asked by the inquisitives public representatives how much will the upgraded stadium be used after investing $200 million or more the embarrassing answer is 7 regular season games a year. How stupid is that?

 

The Bills are not going to leave while the owner is alive. He has made that clear. He has also indirectly indicated (he won't be specific about his estate plans) that the team will be auctioned off when he passes. The public authorities are in an untenable position not because of anything they have done but because the owner has put them in that uncomfortable position.

 

as for a domed stadium, why?? we are buffalo, we play football in the snow, cold, a domed stadium will never be utilized in the fashion all the proponents think it will. i would love to hear one use , and how that would be cost effective to build.

 

Go back and re-read my posts. I do not support the building of a dome stadium for a variety of reasons, foremost costs.

[dwight in philly]

On what basis do you make the claim that the state owes the region a huge public expenditure with little justification that there will be a return on the sizeable investment? How do you convince the state wide representatives that it is reasonable to invest in a reportedly $200 million project that will primarily benefit a 93 yr old out of town businessman who we think will auction off the team to the highest bidder when he passes. If asked by the inquisitives public representatives how much will the upgraded stadium be used after investing $200 million or more the embarrassing answer is 7 regular season games a year. How stupid is that?

 

The Bills are not going to leave while the owner is alive. He has made that clear. He has also indirectly indicated (he won't be specific about his estate plans) that the team will be auctioned off when he passes. The public authorities are in an untenable position not because of anything they have done but because the owner has put them in that uncomfortable position.

 

 

 

Go back and re-read my posts. I do not support the building of a dome stadium for a variety of reasons, foremost costs.

i think the WNY region needs the bills regardless if it lines "a 93 yr-old owner's"pockets. i am quite sure that if the stadium has the necessary improvements and upgrades, which, in turn will be part of the lease agreement, it would solidify them remaining here.i want to see a tangible return on my tax dollars rather than just blindly saying they cant afford it. politicians routinely pi$$ away tax dollars, but in this case at least we would see a result.as for your comment :"how stupid is that", i would say you are entitled to your opinion.

Edited May 12, 2012 by dwight in philly

[JohnC]

i think the WNY region needs the bills regardless if it lines "a 93 yr-old owner's"pockets. i am quite sure that if the stadium has the necessary improvements and upgrades, which, in turn will be part of the lease agreement, it would solidify them remaining here.i want to see a tangible return on my tax dollars rather than just blindly saying they cant afford it. politicians routinely pi$$ away tax dollars, but in this case at least we would see a result.as for your comment :"how stupid is that", i would say you are entitled to your opinion.

 

You are misinterpreting what I have said. I'm not against a large public expenditure for a stadium upgrade. Far from it. I'm for an even more extensive upgrade for the current archaic facility. My main point is that it makes little sense to commit a large sum of public money to that type of project unless there is an assurance that the team will remain in the region.

 

My position for a long time is that the owner of the team, no matter his age, has an obligation to make a contribution to the project that will primarily benefit him. In addition, prior to agreeing to the public paying for a stadium upgrade the current owner needs to commit that the franchise will remain in region for an extended period of time.

 

The attachment below is an example of a responsible owner who is willing to commit to a region by contributing to a stadium project.

 

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-total-access/09000d5d829092f0/Zygi-Wilf-Vikings-are-here-to-stay?module=HP11_content_stream

[dwight in philly]

You are misinterpreting what I have said. I'm not against a large public expenditure for a stadium upgrade. Far from it. I'm for an even more extensive upgrade for the current archaic facility. My main point is that it makes little sense to commit a large sum of public money to that type of project unless there is an assurance that the team will remain in the region.

 

My position for a long time is that the owner of the team, no matter his age, has an obligation to make a contribution to the project that will primarily benefit him. In addition, prior to agreeing to the public paying for a stadium upgrade the current owner needs to commit that the franchise will remain in region for an extended period of time.

 

The attachment below is an example of a responsible owner who is willing to commit to a region by contributing to a stadium project.

 

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-total-access/09000d5d829092f0/Zygi-Wilf-Vikings-are-here-to-stay?module=HP11_content_stream

i agree with you in theory, but unfortunately the area has no trump cards to play. i would love it if the bills contributed a fair share for the upgrades,maybe they will, who knows?, my position is that whatever it takes , it needs to be done, i am thankful that the stadium can be upgraded and they are not asking for a new one or else. the amount that is wasted by the state is huge, 200 mill is a good investment as i see it .

[San Jose Bills Fan]

Butting in on Dwight and John's conversation, the stadium investment vs team assurances thing is a chicken/egg argument however I agree that the Bills have zero leverage.

 

As such, I can't see the politicians playing hardball with the Bills on investing in the stadium or demanding the team partner on the investment.

 

IMO, stadium investment will be a political gamble which will be taken with the hope that it buys some more time for the Bills in WNY.

 

I also think that the deal needs to be done ASAP as the worst case would be precipitated with the passing of Mr. Wilson early in the process.

 

I believe that the farther the team/state/county travel down this road while Mr. Wilson is alive, the better it will be for the outcome.