loyal2dagame Posted July 15, 2017 Share Posted July 15, 2017 Billsmovinup, Why all the hate for public employees? You choose where you work just as they did. Imo, public money should never be used to build stadiums. Im OK with tax breaks after the fact, but the billionaire owners seek way too much public aid to run their business. Im all for a new stadium, when it's time, (which it isn't), but it should be funded by attendees of the stadium, not the public at large. Not for a place that is used 10 to 15 times a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Direhard Fan Posted July 15, 2017 Share Posted July 15, 2017 Need more state tax $$ for a new stadium? Drug test all welfare people. More than enough for one. Sad but true. That will never happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted July 15, 2017 Share Posted July 15, 2017 Need more state tax $$ for a new stadium? Drug test all welfare people. More than enough for one. Sad but true. That will never happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwight in philly Posted July 15, 2017 Share Posted July 15, 2017 (edited) If we brought the salaries and benefits packages of State government employees in line with the privste sector we could afford to build ten stadiums. One of my nephews close friends doubled his annual income as a court reporter when he got a state job through a political connection. My best friends wife got a f-----g boob job for free because her govt job has a cosmetic insurance rider. Funny but neither of those situations benefitted me. As far as Im concered they can build eight stadiums around here. One for each home game. At least I get something for my tax money with that. why be mad at them??i think they were actually smart, life is a crapshoot.. i have a very comfortable pension, it was a choice i made, your verbiage is VERY caustic and not well thought out ..and as always.. JMHO Edited July 15, 2017 by dwight in philly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted July 15, 2017 Share Posted July 15, 2017 why be mad at them??i think they were actually smart, life is a crapshoot.. i have a very comfortable pension, it was a choice i made, your verbiage is VERY caustic and not well thought out ..and as always.. JMHO Exactly. Grass is always greener on the other side of the fence with many people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks Posted July 15, 2017 Share Posted July 15, 2017 why be mad at them??i think they were actually smart, life is a crapshoot.. i have a very comfortable pension, it was a choice i made, your verbiage is VERY caustic and not well thought out ..and as always.. JMHO Exactly. You want a government job? Go get one. If not, organize and try to bargain for better benefits that you seem to desire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marv's Neighbor Posted July 15, 2017 Share Posted July 15, 2017 Somebody has to pay! The Rockpile was an old WPA project from the 30's Depression era. So was the Aud. So, even then, the taxpayers were paying. If you look at where the other pro teams were playing, at that time, they were all financed by public funds. The NFL will soon recognize that they are running out of "expansion" options. Buffalo is blessed to have the Pegula's because there are not very many places our size where locals have that kind of money, and are willing to step up to buy a franchise. There will; be no new stadium in Buffalo till the most recent bonds are fully amortized, another 10 or so years. New York state could step up, at the right time to offer financial incentives for whatever stadium the future holds. Ditto the NFL. But without that, we could be in New Era for a very long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwight in philly Posted July 15, 2017 Share Posted July 15, 2017 (edited) Exactly. Grass is always greener on the other side of the fence with many people. Exactly. You want a government job? Go get one. If not, organize and try to bargain for better benefits that you seem to desire. well said Edited July 15, 2017 by dwight in philly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincec Posted July 15, 2017 Share Posted July 15, 2017 Need more state tax $$ for a new stadium? Drug test all welfare people. More than enough for one. Sad but true. That will never happen. So take money from people on welfare and give it to billionaire owners who peddle entertainment? Awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Bomb Posted July 15, 2017 Share Posted July 15, 2017 Exactly. You want a government job? Go get one. If not, organize and try to bargain for better benefits that you seem to desire. OR, we vote in politicians who don't allow public employees to scam us of our tax dollars, how about that? However, the above is unlikely because all politicians are scum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augie Posted July 16, 2017 Share Posted July 16, 2017 This is an argument that can not be won..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuvian Posted July 16, 2017 Share Posted July 16, 2017 taxpayers have been subsidizing stadiums since the Roman empire. It hasn't been an issue yet because someone has eventually paid the bills but now with states and cities going bankrupt we can't assume the status quo will continue. Losing the NFL would devastate places like Buffalo and GB whereas losing it didn't phase LA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iinii Posted July 16, 2017 Share Posted July 16, 2017 What spoils exactly? The NFL is a big sham. The Bills are not so important that tax payers should pay a dime towards a new stadium. People who think that's the case are delusional and drinking the NFL Kool-Aid IMO. Drink or drowned Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
8-8 Forever? Posted July 16, 2017 Share Posted July 16, 2017 These same threads pop up all the time. If you asked many people they would prefer that every tax dollar be spread around back to all the people that paid, and did not pay, them. The problem with that is that you wouldn't get anything back larger than a monthly allowance. As someone else said...no parks, museums, roads, etc. Should the United States not have built the Washington Monument? An NFL Stadium is far more than a playground for billionaires. And being an NFL City gets Buffalo far more national (and international) exposure than Des Moines Iowa will ever get. There is indeed a soft marketing value to being home to a major league sports franchise. yeah, and when the team starts winning again (?) that marketing value will actually be positive rather than negative... go bills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCal Deek Posted July 16, 2017 Share Posted July 16, 2017 So take money from people on welfare and give it to billionaire owners who peddle entertainment? Awesome. They are not taking from people on welfare and 'giving' it to a billionaire! First of all the goal should be to have LESS people on welfare. One way to start is with a large construction project that would actually employ some of those people. Second the billionaire doesn't get to take the stadium with him when he leaves! It's a building. It stays in the City where it is built. And, if you hadn't noticed Ralph Wilson didn't get to take the Stadium anywhere....he's DEAD! Finally, the current stadium, that everyone is so romantic about, cost $21 million when it was built. Looking back, that sounds like a great investment to me! As will the new Stadium be 40 years from now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CommonCents Posted July 16, 2017 Share Posted July 16, 2017 The current Guns n Roses tour (2016-2017) is the 5th highest-grossing tour ... ever. And in 1987, they weren't headliners. And U2 just played a sold out concert at Gillete Stadium less than a month ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincec Posted July 16, 2017 Share Posted July 16, 2017 They are not taking from people on welfare and 'giving' it to a billionaire! First of all the goal should be to have LESS people on welfare. One way to start is with a large construction project that would actually employ some of those people. Second the billionaire doesn't get to take the stadium with him when he leaves! It's a building. It stays in the City where it is built. And, if you hadn't noticed Ralph Wilson didn't get to take the Stadium anywhere....he's DEAD! Finally, the current stadium, that everyone is so romantic about, cost $21 million when it was built. Looking back, that sounds like a great investment to me! As will the new Stadium be 40 years from now. I assume that this is a joke so I will only say that the goal of getting people off of welfare should be to get them good jobs, not find any excuse possible to kick them off. And redistributing this money to billionaires for their personal profit is so undemocratic, mean spirited and devoid of morals that it is difficult to see how anyone could say it in seriousness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCal Deek Posted July 16, 2017 Share Posted July 16, 2017 I assume that this is a joke so I will only say that the goal of getting people off of welfare should be to get them good jobs, not find any excuse possible to kick them off. And redistributing this money to billionaires for their personal profit is so undemocratic, mean spirited and devoid of morals that it is difficult to see how anyone could say it in seriousness. You clearly don't understand the use of the word 'redistributing'. A Stadium is a construction project...not a hand out. The labor and materials are all purchased from local, private companies. Those companies employ people and purchase products. None of that money goes to the Billionaire. And while yes, it probably increases the value of the Pegula's investment, the stadium itself stays in WNY if they ever sell the team. I assume that this is a joke so I will only say that the goal of getting people off of welfare should be to get them good jobs, not find any excuse possible to kick them off. And redistributing this money to billionaires for their personal profit is so undemocratic, mean spirited and devoid of morals that it is difficult to see how anyone could say it in seriousness. By the way, the "job training" that Liberals are always screaming for works just as well when those jobs are in the construction industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
8-8 Forever? Posted July 16, 2017 Share Posted July 16, 2017 (edited) My vote has always been to keep the Ralph and just upgrade it. We go to a game each year as we live in FL, and if they just had some more concession options and a little state money in 2022 maintain the building. keep the Ralph. area can't afford any more... poor city, poor county. let it go. Buff ain't Vegas. ain't L.A. ain't Cleveland, for crying out loud. the Ralph is fine. keep upgrading it as MGK says... Edited July 17, 2017 by jmcraig44 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincec Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 (edited) You clearly don't understand the use of the word 'redistributing'. A Stadium is a construction project...not a hand out. The labor and materials are all purchased from local, private companies. Those companies employ people and purchase products. None of that money goes to the Billionaire. And while yes, it probably increases the value of the Pegula's investment, the stadium itself stays in WNY if they ever sell the team. By the way, the "job training" that Liberals are always screaming for works just as well when those jobs are in the construction industry. You are a troll. Take this nonsense to PPP, if they will listen to it. Edited July 17, 2017 by vincec Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Hindsight Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 Need more state tax $$ for a new stadium? Drug test all welfare people. More than enough for one. Sad but true. That will never happen. Who pays for the drug tests? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NeckBeard Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 Billsmovinup, Why all the hate for public employees? You choose where you work just as they did. Imo, public money should never be used to build stadiums. Im OK with tax breaks after the fact, but the billionaire owners seek way too much public aid to run their business. Im all for a new stadium, when it's time, (which it isn't), but it should be funded by attendees of the stadium, not the public at large. Not for a place that is used 10 to 15 times a year. Yes, I think I am with this. I think that (I've worked for 22 years in private sector out of 22 years working) a lot of private sector employees seem to have a lot of time to post on a message board during the day, and in that sense, the point of productivity of state workers seems moot in that context. Also, in 22 years of working, the vast majority of people I've worked with, even for a couple of newsworthy tech companies where I've spent the vast majority of my career, do very little to earn their paychecks. IMO state workers probably trend the same way in their jobs as they do in private industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCal Deek Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 You are a troll. Take this nonsense to PPP, if they will listen to it. No trolling here and none intended. A stadium is as much a process as a product. The City doesn't GIVE any money to the Owner. And if the deal is carefully crafted it can take much of the financing into account. As I said, does anyone look back at the $20 million spent to build Rich Stadium back in 1972 and say 'what a waste of money'. After 50 years the new Stadium will be a bargain, just like Rich Stadium is now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NeckBeard Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 (edited) No trolling here and none intended. A stadium is as much a process as a product. The City doesn't GIVE any money to the Owner. And if the deal is carefully crafted it can take much of the financing into account. As I said, does anyone look back at the $20 million spent to build Rich Stadium back in 1972 and say 'what a waste of money'. After 50 years the new Stadium will be a bargain, just like Rich Stadium is now. Maybe so. One thing the arc that this thread has taken does not consider is *how* the stadium would be funded. There are many ways to do it, and without being a burden to the entire tax base. Of course, Kroenke (sp?) got Missouri to swallow that pill, and it failed miserably. There is a great article on NPR about NFL stadium funding. There are others on WSJ and in the NY Times. Oh yeah, and I'm still against co-mingling between the NFL and public funds. Edited July 18, 2017 by NeckBeard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justnzane Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 Who pays for the drug tests? I think that guy was trying to get this thread booted over to PPP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drunken Pygmy Goat Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 Maybe so. One thing the arc that this thread has taken does not consider is *how* the stadium would be funded. There are many ways to do it, and without being a burden to the entire tax base. Of course, Kroenke (sp?) got Missouri to swallow that pill, and it failed miserably. There is a great article on NPR about NFL stadium funding. There are others on WSJ and in the NY Times. Oh yeah, and I'm still against co-mingling between the NFL and public funds. Same here. Taxing hotel and rental car transactions tends to have more financial impact on out-of-towners than it does locals. The league has the G4 program (for now, at least). The Pegulas may pay for it, or a major portion. It would be nice to hear some news on the subject, even if the plan is to retrofit New Era Field, but I don't think we're going to hear anything for another couple of years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NeckBeard Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 Same here. Taxing hotel and rental car transactions tends to have more financial impact on out-of-towners than it does locals. The league has the G4 program (for now, at least). The Pegulas may pay for it, or a major portion. It would be nice to hear some news on the subject, even if the plan is to retrofit New Era Field, but I don't think we're going to hear anything for another couple of years. Yes. I think that Kroenke's agreement (when the team was in STL) was to do something very similar to the hotel / rental car taxes, and, if I'm correct, also reached to parking costs and concessions. The problem with that agreement, and the NPR article lays this out nicely (for those who haven't read it), was what to do if the team relocates, thus ending the revenue stream: the taxpayers are left with the remainder of the bill. That sucks, obviously. G4 has its upsides, but still, teams will move. IMO G4 has the implication of moving teams, because the end game is a faux partnership with the public sector, and if the public sector literally doesn't play, then funding seems more like a ransom payment than an infrastructure upgrade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drunken Pygmy Goat Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 Yes. I think that Kroenke's agreement (when the team was in STL) was to do something very similar to the hotel / rental car taxes, and, if I'm correct, also reached to parking costs and concessions. The problem with that agreement, and the NPR article lays this out nicely (for those who haven't read it), was what to do if the team relocates, thus ending the revenue stream: the taxpayers are left with the remainder of the bill. That sucks, obviously. G4 has its upsides, but still, teams will move. IMO G4 has the implication of moving teams, because the end game is a faux partnership with the public sector, and if the public sector literally doesn't play, then funding seems more like a ransom payment than an infrastructure upgrade. You would think the people in charge would have the length of the new stadium's lease coincide with the length of the loan. I think it's usually around 30 years. That way, if a team wants to move after 30 years, all debts will be paid in full. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NeckBeard Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 (edited) You would think the people in charge would have the length of the new stadium's lease coincide with the length of the loan. I think it's usually around 30 years. That way, if a team wants to move after 30 years, all debts will be paid in full. Depends on the lease. Kroenke's gave him enough wiggle room to weasel out, and when it was offered to be rectified, he was all like "nah, I'm good". No matter how much I don't want to pay for a pro football stadium, in any market, I am looking forward to how this L.A. thing turns out. The NFL has had a gigantic erection for that market for decades now, and that's odd given that *two* teams left the last go-around as well. Plus, having been to CA a lot for work, I am not really a fan of where they are putting the stadium on top of it all. Here's to hoping that we never have to experience such shenanigans as Bills' fans! Edited July 18, 2017 by NeckBeard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drunken Pygmy Goat Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 Depends on the lease. Kroenke's gave him enough wiggle room to weasel out, and when it was offered to be rectified, he was all like "nah, I'm good". No matter how much I don't want to pay for a pro football stadium, in any market, I am looking forward to how this L.A. thing turns out. The NFL has had a gigantic erection for that market for decades now, and that's odd given that *two* teams left the last go-around as well. Plus, having been to CA a lot for work, I am not really a fan of where they are putting the stadium on top of it all. Here's to hoping that we never have to experience such shenanigans as Bills' fans! IMO, Kroenke was enamoured with the idea of moving to L.A. Fan interest had been rapidly growing in L.A. for several years. And money is different out there compared to St. Louis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NeckBeard Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 (edited) IMO, Kroenke was enamoured with the idea of moving to L.A. Fan interest had been rapidly growing in L.A. for several years. And money is different out there compared to St. Louis. They've had decades to work it out, so I'm sure that there has been interest in the absence of a NFL team. :-) Let's see how the Rams fare. Edited July 18, 2017 by NeckBeard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iraq Vet Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 We just need a dome with a retractable roof. As long as it is designed to be a multi function stadium it will be worth it. Tie it in the with an expanded Metro train line.... Some stadiums have hotels and malls connected. We can even lease regular business office space there. Put in on the waterfront with a place to park boats... Make it a year round destination. Instead of going small time lets go huge. I am sick of small time thinking around here. Time to lead the nation!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drunken Pygmy Goat Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 (edited) They've had decades to work it out, so I'm sure that there has been interest in the absence of a NFL team. :-) Let's see how the Rams fare.True, but that interest grew rapidly over the last 6 or 7 years. I'm sure Kroenke wasn't totally opposed to staying in St. Louis, and on the surface, it at least appears like he did "all he could" to keep the team there, but no one needs to move. They do it for the money, and the majority of league owners agreed with the relocation. It really is screwed up how the league and the owners have the kind of leverage that they do. Even Ralph threatened to move the Bills to Seattle, which resulted in the construction of Rich Stadium. I don't think the Bills will ever leave Buffalo, at this point. I know that sounds a bit foolish, when you consider the fact that cities like Baltimore, Houston, Cleveland, and L.A., have all lost teams in the past, and soon to be Oakland once again, but where would the Bills move to at this point? Oklahoma City? That doesn't really seem like a "NFL football" town to me, but who knows, I guess. San Antonio? Austi may be close by, but is more of a college town, and Texas already has 2 teams. Where else is left? Portland? Vegas is off the table now. Toronto?...nah Edited July 18, 2017 by Drunken Pygmy Goat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HT02 Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 You aren't going to find a lot of support with, "I'd rather the Bills leave than..." The reality is you are going to be looking at a public-private partnership. There are lots of ways to pass the cost along. That's the way the world works and there are 32 teams. You can either fall in line or watch your team leave. Perfectly said on both points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NeckBeard Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 True, but that interest grew rapidly over the last 6 or 7 years. I'm sure Kroenke wasn't totally opposed to staying in St. Louis, and on the surface, it at least appears like he did "all he could" to keep the team there, but no one needs to move. They do it for the money, and the majority of league owners agreed with the relocation. It really is screwed up how the league and the owners have the kind of leverage that they do. Even Ralph threatened to move the Bills to Seattle, which resulted in the construction of Rich Stadium. I don't think the Bills will ever leave Buffalo, at this point. I know that sounds a bit foolish, when you consider the fact that cities like Baltimore, Houston, Cleveland, and L.A., have all lost teams in the past, and soon to be Oakland once again, but where would the Bills move to at this point? Oklahoma City? That doesn't really seem like a "NFL football" town to me, but who knows, I guess. San Antonio? Austi may be close by, but is more of a college town, and Texas already has 2 teams. Where else is left? Portland? Vegas is off the table now. Toronto?...nah Kroenke doubled down from all accounts. He didn't like the dome and the lease, so he balked. He didn't like the "profit" share w public sector, even though it was borrowed money, so he balked. In the end, the state just wasn't going to budge, and the situation became untenable given his demands. STL really took it in the jaw because of him, and Missouri on the whole is left to clean up his mess. I agree with you on the other points, save for the NFL really putting a team outside of the U.S., which is always possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCal Deek Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 People on here can't seem to understand how HUGE the Southern California market is. It was a no brainer for the Rams to move. The Owner owned the land where the stadium is being constructed. That fact alone made the math work.(By the way, land values in the LA area are NOTHING like the land values in WNY.) And according to Forbes, he has already doubled his money without even playing a down in the New Stadium yet! Not too shabby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NeckBeard Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 (edited) You aren't going to find a lot of support with, "I'd rather the Bills leave than..." The reality is you are going to be looking at a public-private partnership. There are lots of ways to pass the cost along. That's the way the world works and there are 32 teams. You can either fall in line or watch your team leave. I had seen this quoted later on in this thread, and I am surprised I just saw this now. You make a really interesting point. However, the NFL has been playing a game of musical chairs for decades, and it seems like they are running out of chairs. Certainly, to your latter point, San Antonio is an option, but then what? Duluth? Oakland? San Diego? Portland, Oregon? OKC? The Dakotas? I don't need to tell people how many teams are in NY, OH, FL, DC area, CA, and TX, but when I tick off the most viable landing spots in the U.S. I'm running short on markets to where a NFL team could have a successful relocation, and I would be hard pressed to believe that a bunch of Dakotans or people in Oklahoma are going to be ga-ga about any potential for tax burden on down the road. People on here can't seem to understand how HUGE the Southern California market is. It was a no brainer for the Rams to move. The Owner owned the land where the stadium is being constructed. That fact alone made the math work.(By the way, land values in the LA area are NOTHING like the land values in WNY.) And according to Forbes, he has already doubled his money without even playing a down in the New Stadium yet! Not too shabby. Again, this is where we reach the "show me" phase here. L.A. has been growing for as long as I can remember, and should have a strong blemish on its record about the performance of -- not one, but two! -- NFL teams, but doesn't. Good on the owner for making out ahead, but let's see where he's sitting in a decade. Edited July 18, 2017 by NeckBeard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCal Deek Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 NeckBeard The NFL is simply following the population shift. It wasn't all that long ago that people would have thought it was crazy to have an NFL team in Las Vegas, or Phoenix. Or an NBA Team is OKC. Or an NHL Team in San Jose or Anaheim. The league, and the Owners are moving to be annoying! They are moving to follow the fan bases that want their product. It should have read....aren't moving to be annoying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NeckBeard Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 NeckBeard The NFL is simply following the population shift. It wasn't all that long ago that people would have thought it was crazy to have an NFL team in Las Vegas, or Phoenix. Or an NBA Team is OKC. Or an NHL Team in San Jose or Anaheim. The league, and the Owners are moving to be annoying! They are moving to follow the fan bases that want their product. It should have read....aren't moving to be annoying. I'm sure they are not moving to annoy us. I just don't want their moves to fleece a bunch of taxpayers -- after they've procured funds through a public-private model, and not followed through with their end of the deal. Phoenix to me is a moot point now; they've been there how long? 30 years? 25? Las Vegas was inevitable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 I had seen this quoted later on in this thread, and I am surprised I just saw this now. You make a really interesting point. However, the NFL has been playing a game of musical chairs for decades, and it seems like they are running out of chairs. Certainly, to your latter point, San Antonio is an option, but then what? Duluth? Oakland? San Diego? Portland, Oregon? OKC? The Dakotas? I don't need to tell people how many teams are in NY, OH, FL, DC area, CA, and TX, but when I tick off the most viable landing spots in the U.S. I'm running short on markets to where a NFL team could have a successful relocation, and I would be hard pressed to believe that a bunch of Dakotans or people in Oklahoma are going to be ga-ga about any potential for tax burden on down the road. I don't see this as being a league-driven exercise. The league has no say as to where an owner chooses to operate. I believe that the Pegula's are committed to WNY. At the same time, we are watching revenues around they league skyrocket while the Bills aren't growing at the same rate. At some point they will want to generate more of the non-shared revenue to raise their margins. I don't think that it will be a threat like Kroenke. It will be an ask at first with the hope of not having to leverage San Antonio, Portland, Toronto, Louisville or Norfolk. With regards to the last 2 both have quietly been candidates for an NBA team for about a decade. It's been off the radar but they would very much be players here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts