Why Do the Bills Need a New Stadium ??

[PromoTheRobot]

3 hours ago, SinceThe70s said:

 

Could the same line of thinking apply to Green Bay? Is Lambeau that much better then New Era and Green Bay that much more affluent than WNY?  

 

Totally different case. They are the NFL's only publically owned franchise. But even then, look at what primo seating costs after the renovation.

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

3 minutes ago, RochesterRob said:

  I don't know what Boatdrinks has in mind but I doubt suites will be done in a one size fits all manner.  Kraft and Jones can dictate to the market but Pegula will need to solicit ideas based on who is out there and what they may be willing to pay.  I would not be surprised if there are upwards of 6 choices for boxes in a new facility.

..principally based on seating capacity now....

[Fr. Jerk]

I'm watching The Yanks/Sox game and am wondering why they've never torn down that ridiculously high wall and built more seats. I guess because they want to honor the history of that stadium. 

 

I'm all about renovations, but don't forget the history of The Ralph. NO NEW STADIUM! 

[KingRex]

1 minute ago, Boatdrinks said:

Check the resale prices on Bills tickets via the secondary market ticket sites. People are paying higher prices already, an dthe Bills are getting none of that money. A new stadium with reduced capacity ( 60,000 or so) greater amenities and climate control will bring the best seats up to a real world current market NFL level. Your experience is your own, it means nothing toward the market as a whole. A new pricing structure with reduced capacity will increase revenues. People will buy the tickets if the gameday experience justifies it. Simple as that. 

The rule in the NFL is that money rules.

 

Ticket sale $ are way secondary to $ the NFL makes from selling their product to the TV networks that the value of ticket income is simply not the driver of decision-making it once was.

 

The primary importance of fan base is as props to putting together a great TV production that brings in billions from the TV networks rather than the "mere" millions from the ticket base.

 

Capacity for new stadiums are actually getting smaller as the TV show is a better product with a ticket base of 60,000 ravenous fans and the scarcity of a waiting list rather than the 80,000+ fans that could be jjammed into the old Rich Stadium IF the team was winning.

 

It simply ain't Ralph Wilson or George Halas's league anymore, its Pete Rozelle, Paul Tagliabue and arguably Gene Upshaw's NFL

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[jimmy10]

3 minutes ago, The Jerk said:

I'm watching The Yanks/Sox game and am wondering why they've never torn down that ridiculously high wall and built more seats. I guess because they want to honor the history of that stadium. 

 

I'm all about renovations, but don't forget the history of The Ralph. NO NEW STADIUM! 

 

No, it’s because Lansdowne Street runs directly behind the wall, and it’s a major thoroughfare with bars, restaurants, clubs, etc. 

[Boatdrinks]

1 minute ago, KingRex said:

The rule in the NFL is that money rules.

 

Ticket sale $ are way secondary to $ the NFL makes from selling their product to the TV networks that the value of ticket income is simply not the driver of decision-making it once was.

 

The primary importance of fan base is as props to putting together a great TV production that brings in billions from the TV networks rather than the "mere" millions from the ticket base.

 

Capacity for new stadiums are actually getting smaller as the TV show is a better product with a ticket base of 60,000 ravenous fans and the scarcity of a waiting list rather than the 80,000+ fans that could be jjammed into the old Rich Stadium IF the team was winning.

 

It simply ain't Ralph Wilson or George Halas's league anymore, its Pete Rozelle, Paul Tagliabue and arguably Gene Upshaw's NFL

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think you are agreeing with me here. Yes, a new stadium will have a reduced capacity in order  to create demand for seats. While ticket revenue isn’t as critical as it once was overall, it’s still the main way to increase the teams take. TV money is evenly divided, premium seat revenue is not. While the Bills will never be in the lofty realm of the Cowboys and Patriots et al when it comes to premium seating, their tickets remain vastly underpriced. TV revenue is most critical to paying the bills , local revenue is what pads the bottom line. This is where the Bills are falling short, and the other NFL owners aren’t fond of propping up the Bills franchise because they play in a shed. 

[RochesterRob]

3 hours ago, SinceThe70s said:

 

Could the same line of thinking apply to Green Bay? Is Lambeau that much better then New Era and Green Bay that much more affluent than WNY?  

  It won't happen at present but for the future it is not inconceivable.  Enough dust needs to fall on the legacy of Lombardi, Favre, Rodgers, etc. for the NFL to build up the nerve but they will smell weakness in GB the way a shark picks up blood in the ocean.  Without sifting through a bunch a data that will not tell the full story I don't think GB-Milwaukee is anymore affluent than Buffalo, Rochester, and the surrounding region.  If it is fair to throw Madison and Wausua into the customer base out there then it is fair to throw in Syracuse and Binghamton here.  IMO opinion in NYS the mentality was prior to organized sports every city was its own little kingdom and therefore a rival of sorts to the other cities.  Organized sports came much sooner to Wisconsin so the barriers whatever there were came down sooner with the Packers splitting games between GB and Milwaukee being an example.  

[Augie]

17 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

 

Totally different case. They are the NFL's only publically owned franchise. But even then, look at what primo seating costs after the renovation.

 

A decent seat to the Bills home opener (on Stubhub when I was shopping) is about HALF of the cost of a decent seat in Lambeau. That surprised me. 

[KingRex]

2 minutes ago, The Jerk said:

I'm watching The Yanks/Sox game and am wondering why they've never torn down that ridiculously high wall and built more seats. I guess because they want to honor the history of that stadium. 

 

I'm all about renovations, but don't forget the history of The Ralph. NO NEW STADIUM! 

The game is all about the money and the primary money in the modern game is not from the millions in ticket revenue but the billions in TV network revenue.  Historic stadiums are certainly part of a good TV show, but for example, the new SF Giants TV production on the waterfront in SF with folks chasing homeruns in boats in McCovey Cove is better TV than historic but out of town Candlestick Park.

 

For the Bills, my GUESS is a smaller downtown stadium near Canalside in the developing Pegulastan area near their hockey complex  (particularly if the NFL is willing to subsize the upfront building costs and NYS and local elected officials are willing to give the Pegula's a new Canalside Stadium.

 

It would be a far better use of NYS funds for it to simply write checks giving guaranteed income to the poor and middle class in terms of ROI, but the powers that be are usually more willing to let the masses eat cake by buying rich folks like the Pagula's a new stadium for their gladiators

[RochesterRob]

16 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

I think you are agreeing with me here. Yes, a new stadium will have a reduced capacity in order  to create demand for seats. While ticket revenue isn’t as critical as it once was overall, it’s still the main way to increase the teams take. TV money is evenly divided, premium seat revenue is not. While the Bills will never be in the lofty realm of the Cowboys and Patriots et al when it comes to premium seating, their tickets remain vastly underpriced. TV revenue is most critical to paying the bills , local revenue is what pads the bottom line. This is where the Bills are falling short, and the other NFL owners aren’t fond of propping up the Bills franchise because they play in a shed. 

  I think that smaller capacity was more important in the strict black out days than it is today and going into the future.  Subdividing seating will be the key to getting premium seating sold.  Make the money off of the drunks but put them in their own section(s).

[flomoe]

On 8/3/2018 at 1:02 PM, C.Biscuit97 said:

So I quit mistaking the sink as a urinal.  

 

On 8/3/2018 at 1:10 PM, May Day 10 said:

 

Thats good for the winter and some acts.... but arena shows are actually becoming more uncommon.

 

An ampitheater would bring in all those country and nostalgia acts from Darien Lake.  They would also get more who skip Buffalo due to not having a great concert venue.  We would also get the 'multi' tours or mini-festivals that don't come to buffalo.  The one in Camden, NJ has shows nearly every day in the Summer/Fall.  With a good promoter, they can also create their own weekend long festival there.  

Any chance Harvey Weinstein is available?

[Augie]

I only have one close friend from my childhood who lives in WNY today. He has seasons to the Bills and Sabres. His lovely bride goes with him to Sabres games, but won’t go to a Bills game any more. There are a variety of factors, but I’m sure you can guess the leaders. 

[KingRex]

8 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

I think you are agreeing with me here. Yes, a new stadium will have a reduced capacity in order  to create demand for seats. While ticket revenue isn’t as critical as it once was overall, it’s still the main way to increase the teams take. TV money is evenly divided, premium seat revenue is not. While the Bills will never be in the lofty realm of the Cowboys and Patriots et al when it comes to premium seating, their tickets remain vastly underpriced. TV revenue is most critical to paying the bills , local revenue is what pads the bottom line. This is where the Bills are falling short, and the other NFL owners aren’t fond of propping up the Bills franchise because they play in a shed. 

Its still a question of evenly dividing billions or having your own share of millions.

 

My understanding of the current deal is that virtually all the team's revenues are put into one fiscal pot which is then dvided evenly with the salary cap being the main driver in honest accounting.

 

The NFL went through a progression that began with the George Halas days of teams/owners being essentially independent entities who co-operated as a league.  The advent of the AFL and the battle with and destruction of the USFL (ironically the fiscal mismanagement of Donald Trump is a big part of its failure) brought changes creating more collaboration led by Pete Rozelle (who pushed through anti-capitalist styles like rewarding team failure by giving losers higher draft picks).

 

The big deal was when the owners kicked the NFLPAs but in the mid-80s when team owners destroyed the AFL-CIO union model.  Smart NYC lawyers teamed up with a talented tenth of jocks like Gene Upshaw to convince the players to threaten to decertify the NFLPA as a bargaining unit.  Rather than actually compete with each other in a free market, the owners instead cut a deal with the NFLPA which really made the players partners with the owners over the phrase "designated funds"

 

It was in this deal that owners shifted to investing in items like premium seats which were not designated funds as part of the salary cap (Ralph for example chopped Rich Stadium capacity from 80K to 75K but in doing so added heated premium seats which were not designated.  However, in the mandated renegotiation as the millennium turned, Upshaw simply announced that the new salary cap was going to be from the total NFL gross receipts and the players share was gonna be a % that started with a 6  (it ended up being 60.5%).

 

The NFLPA are not only partners but as we saw in the recent dispute where NFL owners tried to impose a national anthem procedure on the players.  the players simply said no and it is now being negotiated.

 

Ticket sales are important but rally is chump change compared to the TV money.

 

An irony is that like historic stadiums, the owners are important but actually secondary in the economy of the modern NFL.

[Boatdrinks]

13 minutes ago, KingRex said:

Its still a question of evenly dividing billions or having your own share of millions.

 

My understanding of the current deal is that virtually all the team's revenues are put into one fiscal pot which is then dvided evenly with the salary cap being the main driver in honest accounting.

 

The NFL went through a progression that began with the George Halas days of teams/owners being essentially independent entities who co-operated as a league.  The advent of the AFL and the battle with and destruction of the USFL (ironically the fiscal mismanagement of Donald Trump is a big part of its failure) brought changes creating more collaboration led by Pete Rozelle (who pushed through anti-capitalist styles like rewarding team failure by giving losers higher draft picks).

 

The big deal was when the owners kicked the NFLPAs but in the mid-80s when team owners destroyed the AFL-CIO union model.  Smart NYC lawyers teamed up with a talented tenth of jocks like Gene Upshaw to convince the players to threaten to decertify the NFLPA as a bargaining unit.  Rather than actually compete with each other in a free market, the owners instead cut a deal with the NFLPA which really made the players partners with the owners over the phrase "designated funds"

 

It was in this deal that owners shifted to investing in items like premium seats which were not designated funds as part of the salary cap (Ralph for example chopped Rich Stadium capacity from 80K to 75K but in doing so added heated premium seats which were not designated.  However, in the mandated renegotiation as the millennium turned, Upshaw simply announced that the new salary cap was going to be from the total NFL gross receipts and the players share was gonna be a % that started with a 6  (it ended up being 60.5%).

 

The NFLPA are not only partners but as we saw in the recent dispute where NFL owners tried to impose a national anthem procedure on the players.  the players simply said no and it is now being negotiated.

 

Ticket sales are important but rally is chump change compared to the TV money.

 

An irony is that like historic stadiums, the owners are important but actually secondary in the economy of the modern NFL.

Well, not sure where you are getting your numbers from but the players share of NFL revenues is at most 48.5% . In 2016 it was 47.2%. The owners own, and they call the shots. They can’t agree amongst themselves on an anthem policy. We know where Jerry Jones stands ( I applaud him on this personally, but no matter). They may have agreed to open up lines of communication on this with the players, but I doubt that will do much. The players don’t have the power to say “ No” as long as it doesn’t violate the CBA. Anyway, the big market owners want the Bills to get a new stadium and increase their local revenue. That way the Bills can kick more money into the pot that the owners share. Each team gets an equal slice of the TV money , regardless of their stadium facilities. 

41 minutes ago, RochesterRob said:

  I think that smaller capacity was more important in the strict black out days than it is today and going into the future.  Subdividing seating will be the key to getting premium seating sold.  Make the money off of the drunks but put them in their own section(s).

  Smaller capacity may have been more important to fans in the blackout era. It’s important today because there is currently an excess capacity of seats on the market, that helps keep prices low. In a new stadium, reduced capacity will create scarcity of product. That  will remove the backlog of cheap ( relatively) seating that we see now for games. Add in bad weather and the market becomes that much more saturated. Remember , there was a home game last year where secondary market tickets were available for just $6 ! A climate controlled stadium will eliminate these weather related ebbs of demand. So less seats and a new pricing structure with the best seats costing more of their real market value will push revenues higher in a new facility. 

[RochesterRob]

10 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

Well, not sure where you are getting your numbers from but the players share of NFL revenues is at most 48.5% . In 2016 it was 47.2%. The owners own, and they call the shots. They can’t agree amongst themselves on an anthem policy. We know where Jerry Jones stands ( I applaud him on this personally, but no matter). They may have agreed to open up lines of communication on this with the players, but I doubt that will do much. The players don’t have the power to say “ No” as long as it doesn’t violate the CBA. Anyway, the big market owners want the Bills to get a new stadium and increase their local revenue. That way the Bills can kick more money into the pot that the owners share. Each team gets an equal slice of the TV money , regardless of their stadium facilities. 

  Smaller capacity may have been more important to fans in the blackout era. It’s important today because there is currently an excess capacity of seats on the market, that helps keep prices low. In a new stadium, reduced capacity will create scarcity of product. That  will remove the backlog of cheap ( relatively) seating that we see now for games. Add in bad weather and the market becomes that much more saturated. Remember , there was a home game last year where secondary market tickets were available for just $6 ! A climate controlled stadium will eliminate these weather related ebbs of demand. So less seats and a new pricing structure with the best seats costing more of their real market value will push revenues higher in a new facility. 

  JMO but going into the future I think the tarp plan that the Raiders and Jags used will come into wider and more complex play.  Which means seating will be determined by individual game in terms of the attractiveness of the match up along with factors such as weather.  If Pegula saw primary seats sit empty in favor of secondary seats he could limit the amount of secondary seats available for a given game in the following season to put pressure on buyers to buy primary seats.  Obviously, he could not get away with playing games on seating during the couple weeks leading up to a given game but would have to determine a plan ahead of the season most likely when seasons go on sale.  That way a purchaser has the full plan in front of him when seasons go on sale so he is not angry a cheaper seat became available after he made his purchase.  Ideally, this team is headed for prolonged success where selling primary seating is not an issue.  Why all the fuss for maybe a few thousand more seats?  Even a few million extra dollars per season is enough to keep a Pegula family member in the lifestyle that they are accustomed to.  Especially if you can get somebody else such as the state, county, or city to pick up the cost of building that.

[SinceThe70s]

7 hours ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

...no, but Lambeau is "grandfathered in" as the league's "capital", an earned distinction primarily because of Vince......only publicly owned team......and I think the #1 team with a season tickets waiting list, some absurd number like 60,000+....lore says only way you move up is if somebody dies ahead of you....OR....you call Uncle Nunzio for his "services" to facilitate "matters"....

 

The public ownership is a twist I don't fully understand WRT to the small market discussion. But I doubt the NFL would view that as an impediment they couldn't overcome if they thought the market didn't deserve a team. But you raise a great  point...the fan base thats committed to season tix for years to come is probably enough to keep that team on the relocation/new-stadium back burner 

 

4 hours ago, PromoTheRobot said:

 

Totally different case. They are the NFL's only publically owned franchise. But even then, look at what primo seating costs after the renovation.

 

Totally different seems like an overstatement. Do you think the NFL sees public ownership as a long term thing they just have to live with and the Bills are an easier mark? That aside, I don't know the first thing about what their getting for primo seating...does it rival (or include) PSL's and does it generate revenue for the NFL? 

 

3 hours ago, RochesterRob said:

  It won't happen at present but for the future it is not inconceivable.  Enough dust needs to fall on the legacy of Lombardi, Favre, Rodgers, etc. for the NFL to build up the nerve but they will smell weakness in GB the way a shark picks up blood in the ocean.  Without sifting through a bunch a data that will not tell the full story I don't think GB-Milwaukee is anymore affluent than Buffalo, Rochester, and the surrounding region.  If it is fair to throw Madison and Wausua into the customer base out there then it is fair to throw in Syracuse and Binghamton here.  IMO opinion in NYS the mentality was prior to organized sports every city was its own little kingdom and therefore a rival of sorts to the other cities.  Organized sports came much sooner to Wisconsin so the barriers whatever there were came down sooner with the Packers splitting games between GB and Milwaukee being an example.  

 

Great point. I grew up in an age where the Packers were irrelevant from a competitive standpoint. Would the discussion differ if Favre and Rodgers were replaced by two guys that sucked?  I suspect it would.

 

[PromoTheRobot]

13 minutes ago, SinceThe70s said:

 

Totally different seems like an overstatement. Do you think the NFL sees public ownership as a long term thing they just have to live with and the Bills are an easier mark? That aside, I don't know the first thing about what their getting for primo seating...does it rival (or include) PSL's and does it generate revenue for the NFL? 

 

 

It's completely different, and it's something the NFL is stuck with. They can't recind the Packers franchise.

 

And they can't force Terry Pegula either, but unlike public ownership of teams, people pass on. Things change. Nothing is set in stone 

 

As for Packers prices, top seats cost about double what the best Bills opener seats cost on Stubhub. They can do that because they have 60,000 people on their season ticket waiting list.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

7 hours ago, mjd1001 said:

I'll answer that question.  A bunch of 40-60 year old guys and families that don't go to games anymore but used to..who make a good salary in the area.  I'm not saying multi-millionaires, but I know a handful of people (including a couple relataives) that make over $100k that used to go to games but haven't gone in years. Give them a new stadium..a Dome...some trendy bar/restaurants to hang around in....and LESS of a perception (whether real or not) of out-of-control drunken-ness...and I guarantee you those will the people who will be willing to pay double, triple or more for tickets, replacing some of the current base of buyers.  Personally, I will not buy season tickets again, but I would pay $200 or more for tickets a couple times a year to give me a new and different experience than what the current stadium gives.

 

Most of the 40-60 yr olds I know are "over" the "trendy bar scene". 

 

An increase in comfort and an improvement in game day experience might bring them back....the perception of "out of control drunkenness" is a factor, but most of it is stuff like not too far-fetched a bathroom wait for the ladies (with a reasonably cleanliness), and also being able to sit one's booty butt down through the game and still see it....standing all game long is a teen through 30s scene. 

 

These kind of changes to improve the fan experience could be made with the current stadium, if the will was there.  People have made the suggestions here - have "standing room" sections and "must sit" sections etc.

[SinceThe70s]

1 minute ago, PromoTheRobot said:

 

It's completely different, and it's something the NFL is stuck with. They can't recind the Packers franchise.

 

And they can't force Terry Pegula either, but unlike public ownership of teams, people pass on. Things change. Nothing is set in stone 

 

As for Packers prices, top seats cost about double what the best Bills opener seats cost on Stubhub. They can do that because they have 60,000 people on their season ticket waiting list.

 

I'll leave it to others to argue whether the Packers could ever be moved/rescinded. I usually go back to "nothing is certain but death and taxes". Right now and for the foreseeable future there's no motivation  to "rescind" and from that standpoint I get your point that it's different.

 

 An admittedly ignorant question: is the NFL benefitting from those StubHub sales? Do they care? 

[PromoTheRobot]

Just now, SinceThe70s said:

 

I'll leave it to others to argue whether the Packers could ever be moved/rescinded. I usually go back to "nothing is certain but death and taxes". Right now and for the foreseeable future there's no motivation  to "rescind" and from that standpoint I get your point that it's different.

 

 An admittedly ignorant question: is the NFL benefitting from those StubHub sales? Do they care? 

 

The NFL is in bed with Ticketmaster. They get a cut from those sales.