JohnC Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 It's still eight years away, what's your point? It will be a year before the new owner is here and completely immersed. It will be another year or two before they decide on a site. Another year to haggle over who will fund the thing. Another year for environmental issues and political wrangling. Another year before the plans are done. Another two years before the groundbreaking and the thing is built and ready for play. As you are suggesting the new lease bought all sides additioinal time to keep the franchise in the region while it was working on a more permanent stadium solution. When the lease was written it was my understanding that the Wilson side of the negotiation strenuously argued for a lenient buy out clause. The negotiators representing the county and state authorities insisted on a more financially punitive approach to anyone who bought the team and wanted to move. Ultimately, the public authorities won out in having an expensive buyout clause for the price of paying for stadium upgrades. If one puts things in perspective both sides acted responsibly in protecting their interests yet compromising in order to get a deal done. In essence the Wilson side of the negotiating table agreed to terms that almost guaranteed the franchise would remain in the region for the short term. If the public authorities are not able to take advantage of this interlude then they can't complain that they weren't afforded the opportunity to keep the franchise in the region. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 As you are suggesting the new lease bought all sides additioinal time to keep the franchise in the region while it was working on a more permanent stadium solution. When the lease was written it was my understanding that the Wilson side of the negotiation strenuously argued for a lenient buy out clause. The negotiators representing the county and state authorities insisted on a more financially punitive approach to anyone who bought the team and wanted to move. Ultimately, the public authorities won out in having an expensive buyout clause for the price of paying for stadium upgrades. If one puts things in perspective both sides acted responsibly in protecting their interests yet compromising in order to get a deal done. In essence the Wilson side of the negotiating table agreed to terms that almost guaranteed the franchise would remain in the region for the short term. If the public authorities are not able to take advantage of this interlude then they can't complain that they weren't afforded the opportunity to keep the franchise in the region. And where did you hear this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 (edited) And where did you hear this? The County Executive was on WGR talking about the lease negotiations and explaining the terms of the deal. He made the point that the only way that he and the negotiators representing the public authorities could justify the expenditure of public funs on the stadium upgrade was to place conditions on the lease. He stated that the Wilson negotiators resisted the conditions but eventually agreed to the terms. Without a doubt the Wilson side would favor a less punishing opt out clause when the team was put on the market. Edited June 13, 2014 by JohnC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 The County Executive was on WGR talking about the lease negotiations and explaining the terms of the deal. He made the point that the only way that he and the negotiators representing the public authorities could justify the expenditure of public funs on the stadium upgrade was to place conditions on the lease. He stated that the Wilson negotiators resisted the conditions but eventually agreed to the terms. Without a doubt the Wilson side would favor a less punishing opt out clause when the team was put on the market. You misheard the interview then, assuming the CE was Mark Poloncarz. Here at around the 12:00 mark he says that the league wasn't keen on the restrictions for moving the team, but Ralph, Littman, and Brandon convinced them to go along with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 (edited) Can you clarify that? Only a couple of stadiums have worked to avoid passing costs to taxpayers that I am aware of. New England and the Meadowlands, I think. Working from memory here. Costs can be passed to taxpayers in a number of ways. Jerry Jones got a big boost with the stadium being financed by tax-free bonds issued by both the county and city. Cleveland just passed a sales tax to fund maintenance and upgrades to their 3 downtown facilities (plus the city is giving away use of parking lots to the Browns and letting the team sell naming rights to a stadium it doesn't own). Lots of stadiums are taxpayer supported, probably most. kj What I was getting at is that their are other methods for the government to generate the money to contribute. I highlighted a few examples in the post. They do not need to simply raise taxes on the public. They can raise taxes on the players, institute a bed tax in hotels and even a surcharge on concessions. It is not as simple as passing it along to the general public. There are creative ways to pass that money along to out of town visitors and people using the facility. Obviously, that money still comes from the government but it does not have to be as simple as raising taxes. I was just doing the math on a $133M payroll an 8% jock tax would raise $319M over 30 years. Edited June 13, 2014 by Kirby Jackson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 (edited) You misheard the interview then, assuming the CE was Mark Poloncarz. Here at around the 12:00 mark he says that the league wasn't keen on the restrictions for moving the team, but Ralph, Littman, and Brandon convinced them to go along with it. The County Executive has been on WGR a number of times post lease deal. I don't disagree that the league didn't favor the clause. No one is saying otherwise. But in comments he has made to the radio station he pointed out that the other side of the negotiating table preferred not having such punishing opt out clause. No one is saying that the Wilson group wasn't amenable to some form of an opt out clause. According to the County Executive they strenuously argued for a much weaker clause. Let's use some common sense here. Why would the Wilson faction prefer an onerous opt out clause? It would hurt their selling position. The public authorities insisted, rightly so, that in order to protect their public investment in updating the facility they needed strong guarantees that they wouldn't be left holding the bag if a new owner wanted to move the franchise. The bottom line is simple: No public money was going to be used for a stadium upgrade unless there was a near ironclad guarantee that the team would remain at the Ralph during the 7 year term of the lease. Edited June 13, 2014 by JohnC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 The County Executive has been on WGR a number of times post lease deal. I don't disagree that the league didn't favor the clause. No one is saying otherwise. But in comments he has made to the radio station he pointed out that the other side of the negotiating table preferred not having such punishing opt out clause. No one is saying that the Wilson group wasn't amenable to some form of an opt out clause. According to the County Executive they strenuously argued for a much weaker clause. Let's use some common sense here. Why would the Wilson faction prefer an onerous opt out clause? It would hurt their selling position. The public authorities insisted, rightly so, that in order to protect their public investment in updating the facility they needed strong guarantees that they wouldn't be left holding the bag if a new owner wanted to move the franchise. The bottom line is simple: No public money was going to be used for a stadium upgrade unless there was a near ironclad guarantee that the team would remain at the Ralph during the 7 year term of the lease. Why would the Wilson faction prefer an onerous opt out clause? Probably for the same reason Ralph voted "no" every time an NFLteam relocated and refused to move the Bills himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punch Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 Why would the Wilson faction prefer an onerous opt out clause? Probably for the same reason Ralph voted "no" every time an NFLteam relocated and refused to move the Bills himself. Unless I'm misreading the purported public statements regarding lease negotiations, the Wilson faction were not in favor of an onerous opt out clause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 Unless I'm misreading the purported public statements regarding lease negotiations, the Wilson faction were not in favor of an onerous opt out clause. From what I got from Poloncarz, they didn't want an owner to be screwed after the current CBA expired and have another 2006 CBA show up again. Which is why there is a small penalty opt-out in year 7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 Unless I'm misreading the purported public statements regarding lease negotiations, the Wilson faction were not in favor of an onerous opt out clause. You got the story correct. The response from Doc is misinterpreting what happened. He is making something very simple and obvious andturning it on its head. The County Executive has been on WGR multiple times explaining the terms of the lease. On one of the appearances (maybe more) he clearly stated that the Wilson faction (understandably) wanted a weaker opt out clause. The County Executive made it clear that from his side of the negotiating table if there wasn't strong language in the deal protecting the interets of the taxpayers via a punitive opt out clause then a deal was not going to be done. From what I got from Poloncarz, they didn't want an owner to be screwed after the current CBA expired and have another 2006 CBA show up again. Which is why there is a small penalty opt-out in year 7. The County Executive wasn't concerned with the next CBA. His focus was on getting a lease deal that protected the taxpayers' investment in the stadium upgrade. It's as simple as that. Overall he did a good job and the Wilson faction was very reasonable and fair in the approach they took. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 You got the story correct. The response from Doc is misinterpreting what happened. He is making something very simple and obvious andturning it on its head. The County Executive has been on WGR multiple times explaining the terms of the lease. On one of the appearances (maybe more) he clearly stated that the Wilson faction (understandably) wanted a weaker opt out clause. The County Executive made it clear that from his side of the negotiating table if there wasn't strong language in the deal protecting the interets of the taxpayers via a punitive opt out clause then a deal was not going to be done. The County Executive wasn't concerned with the next CBA. His focus was on getting a lease deal that protected the taxpayers' investment in the stadium upgrade. It's as simple as that. Overall he did a good job and the Wilson faction was very reasonable and fair in the approach they took. Yes, a deal had to get done that was fair to all involved. Ralph had his interests, the CE had his, and the league had theirs. Ralph wasn't going to hamstring a new owner with an onerous opt-out clause if the next CBA reverted back to one like the horrible 2006 CBA, because then the price of the team would have dropped. So he agreed to a smaller buy-out in the 7th year as a contingency. And he sold it to the league who had no reason to want any restrictions being placed on the deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 Yes, a deal had to get done that was fair to all involved. Ralph had his interests, the CE had his, and the league had theirs. Ralph wasn't going to hamstring a new owner with an onerous opt-out clause if the next CBA reverted back to one like the horrible 2006 CBA, because then the price of the team would have dropped. So he agreed to a smaller buy-out in the 7th year as a contingency. And he sold it to the league who had no reason to want any restrictions being placed on the deal. The owner was in the last stages of his life. He was both mentally and physically frail at the time the deal was being negotiated. Do you honestly believe that he was concerned with the next CBA deal that would apply to the next owner? Wilson's faction clearly didn't want an onerous opt-out clause because it was going to hinder potential bidders. For the most part the people negotiating for the public got their way on the price for an opt-out. You have this habit of taking a simple issue and making it into one enormous ball of confusion in order to rationalize a perplexing position. The stances that the negotiating parties took as explained by the CE on multiple WGR appearances were very simple: The public authorities wanted a high bar for the opt out and the Wilson faction wanted a low bar for the opt out in order to improve their sale position when the time came to that. I don't know what else I can say????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 The owner was in the last stages of his life. He was both mentally and physically frail at the time the deal was being negotiated. Do you honestly believe that he was concerned with the next CBA deal that would apply to the next owner? Wilson's faction clearly didn't want an onerous opt-out clause because it was going to hinder potential bidders. For the most part the people negotiating for the public got their way on the price for an opt-out. You have this habit of taking a simple issue and making it into one enormous ball of confusion in order to rationalize a perplexing position. The stances that the negotiating parties took as explained by the CE on multiple WGR appearances were very simple: The public authorities wanted a high bar for the opt out and the Wilson faction wanted a low bar for the opt out in order to improve their sale position when the time came to that. I don't know what else I can say????? LOL! So he was "mentally and physically frail at the time the deal was being negotiated" and couldn't think about the future, eh John? What else can you say? Nothing. You've said enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 So, I know there are a lot of people, esp. from Rochester, who hate Congel on this thread. What do you think he's up to with this West Seneca project. Now, it seems to really be getting serious - with or mostly likely without the stadium. He hires away the mayor of Buffalo's right hand man, and hires that huge stadium builder, HKS. If he's just a scammer, how does he benefit by laying out all this money?: http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/dallas-based-stadium-designer-joins-casey-on-congel-team-20140715 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CountryCletus Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 All these potential sites for a potential new stadium... where are they in relation to Orchard Park??? I currently drive 2 hours to get to the games from NWPA, are all these potential sites farther from me? lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 All these potential sites for a potential new stadium... where are they in relation to Orchard Park??? I currently drive 2 hours to get to the games from NWPA, are all these potential sites farther from me? lol This one would be just a few miles further for you. I"d say less than five minutes, but obviously not on game day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CountryCletus Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 the rest are much further I am assuming? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 the rest are much further I am assuming? Not really. Probably the furthest would be the Falls, which would probably tack 25 minutes or so on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kellyto83TD Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 Golisano is buying the team to secure their long term future in WNY. He will secure the new stadium and a long term lease and then possibly put them back on the market. There are much worse options than Golisano. Unless he is owning them for 20 years he isn't securing their future period. And in the mean time he makes Ralph look like a huge spender. Pass on this guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CountryCletus Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 Not a fan of that plan Kirby... I know its asking a lot, but I want another Ralph type owner... LONGGGGG term, KEEP the team in Buffalo.... This isn't a combination o Million Dollar Listing and Flip This House Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts