Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
The 9 Isles

Pro football talk hates Buffalo - CBA and stadium funding

Recommended Posts

 

 

 

 

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/07/02/issue-of-stadium-credits-hovers-over-cba-talks/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“Spinning it forward to cities that currently have stadium issues, the NFLPA would/should/could have influence over the stadium solution in Buffalo. What if, collectively, the NFL’s workforce deems it prudent to have its own money spent in a different market? A market where the return on the investment could be greater? A market where more NFL players would prefer to live and to work?”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trying to create a issue where there is none.

 

NFLPA and the players would be crazy to get involved, especially with any of their own $ on deciding stadium issues. Players want to go from team to team to get the best deals, why get locked into one city with a stadium issue.    Let the owners and the municipalities deal with the funding of stadiums and all the associated headaches that accompany the process.

 

And the issue of players wanting to prefer to live and work would not be good for high tax rust belt cold northern cities like Buffalo.

  • Like (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are they suggesting that the NFL would force the Pegula's to move, if a substantial investment is not made in improving the Bills Stadium, (Renovate or Rebuild)? I feel its just an article, to scare fans and to get the tax payers to open their pockets.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, wagon127 said:

Are they suggesting that the NFL would force the Pegula's to move, if a substantial investment is not made in improving the Bills Stadium, (Renovate or Rebuild)? I feel its just an article, to scare fans and to get the tax payers to open their pockets.

and it's the offseason......

  • Like (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, nucci said:

and it's the offseason......

I miss the good old days, where the big news every July, was whether Brett Favre would come out of retirement.

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Haha (+1) 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

on a related note 

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/27102750/cba-talks-ramp-nfl-nflpa

 

The current CBA expires after the 2020 season, but talks about a new one have already begun. Sources say there have been three direct owner/player negotiation sessions so far .

 

The situation is far different than it was at the tail end of the previous CBA. In May 2008, owners voted to opt out of that agreement following the 2010 season -- a move that signaled their intention to lock out the players in order to secure more favorable terms in the next agreement. Lock them out they did, in 2011, though the two sides were able to reach an agreement in time to hold abbreviated training camps and a full 2011 season.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, RoyBatty is alive said:

Trying to create a issue where there is none.

 

NFLPA and the players would be crazy to get involved, especially with any of their own $ on deciding stadium issues. Players want to go from team to team to get the best deals, why get locked into one city with a stadium issue.    Let the owners and the municipalities deal with the funding of stadiums and all the associated headaches that accompany the process.

 

And the issue of players wanting to prefer to live and work would not be good for high tax rust belt cold northern cities like Buffalo.

 

I think you are missing the point here.  The point is that their money is already going to be taken in that the pool of revenue in which the players are allocated a certain percentage, will be lower because money will be taken from it and placed into stadium projects.  He is saying since they are essentially paying for some it because of this this now reduced pool of revenue, they should have some say in how its spent.  Simple example with incorrect numbers.  Total Revenue $1B, players get 50% share.  Players get $500M.  In this scenario it may be this.  Total Revenue $1B, Amount dedicated to stadiums $100M.  New Revenue left $900M, players still get 50% share.  Players only get $450M.  So, they actually "paid" for $50M of the stadium improvements.

Edited by Mark80
  • Thanks! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mark80 said:

 

I think you are missing the point here.  The point is that their money is already going to be taken in that the pool of revenue in which the players are allocated a certain percentage, will be lower because money will be taken from it and placed into stadium projects.  He is saying since they are essentially paying for some it through because of this this now reduced pool of revenue, they should have some say in how its spent.  Simple example with incorrect numbers.  Total Revenue $1B, players get 50% share.  Players get $500M.  In this scenario it may be this.  Total Revenue $1B, Amount dedicated to stadiums $100M.  New Revenue left $900M, players still get 50% share.  Players only get $450M.  So, they actually "paid" for $50M of the stadium improvements.

 

Thanks for the clarification but my main issue remains why do they players or for the matter want the NFLPA to get involved in a political/financial headache?  So lets say the NFLPA trys to get the Pegula's to move from buffalo since they donjt have the revenue maximizing stadium, do the players want to insert themselves in that mess and end up being one of the "bad guys". Those are and should be owners decision imo, at one point do the players cease to be :"players" and start to be player/owners?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Mark80 said:

I think you are missing the point here.  The point is that their money is already going to be taken in that the pool of revenue in which the players are allocated a certain percentage, will be lower because money will be taken from it and placed into stadium projects.  He is saying since they are essentially paying for some it through because of this this now reduced pool of revenue, they should have some say in how its spent.  Simple example with incorrect numbers.  Total Revenue $1B, players get 50% share.  Players get $500M.  In this scenario it may be this.  Total Revenue $1B, Amount dedicated to stadiums $100M.  New Revenue left $900M, players still get 50% share.  Players only get $450M.  So, they actually "paid" for $50M of the stadium improvements.

 

It will be sold to them as a matter of better stadiums mean more money coming in for them to share, beyond what they're losing theoretically helping to finance them.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, Mark80 said:

 

I think you are missing the point here.  The point is that their money is already going to be taken in that the pool of revenue in which the players are allocated a certain percentage, will be lower because money will be taken from it and placed into stadium projects.  He is saying since they are essentially paying for some it through because of this this now reduced pool of revenue, they should have some say in how its spent.  Simple example with incorrect numbers.  Total Revenue $1B, players get 50% share.  Players get $500M.  In this scenario it may be this.  Total Revenue $1B, Amount dedicated to stadiums $100M.  New Revenue left $900M, players still get 50% share.  Players only get $450M.  So, they actually "paid" for $50M of the stadium improvements.

How is this different then when my office is remodeled? Essentially that's money that the company earned, that they could have afforded to distribute to me and the rest of my colleagues. However, I know that them remodeling my office is better for the company overall, which leads to being better for my employment situation. If the bills spend money on a new stadium, that will lead to more revenue for the Bills, and for the rest of the league. So the players get more revenue as well. All I get is a better feeling of job security.

Edited by wagon127
  • Like (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, RoyBatty is alive said:

 

Thanks for the clarification but my main issue remains why do they players or for the matter want the NFLPA to get involved in a political/financial headache?  So lets say the NFLPA trys to get the Pegula's to move from buffalo since they donjt have the revenue maximizing stadium, do the players want to insert themselves in that mess and end up being one of the "bad guys". Those are and should be owners decision imo, at one point do the players cease to be :"players" and start to be player/owners?

 

 

Money talks, and low revenue walks... Not many people vote to decrease their wallet size. In the end the NFLPA and the NFL would be in agreement because the goal is to increase revenues, something the recent CBA made sure the players were a part of. I don't think any players are truly loyal to any city.. In the end their love for any one city would be trumped by there desire for larger revenues and bigger paychecks. This is the world we created.  

 

I don't worry about this because I think Buffalo will bounce back on the revenue scale given the present upgrading of the city / surrounding areas and the fact we are coming out of a very long losing tradition. Winning will increase revenues a solid chuck.. While a new modest stadium will catapult us upward towards the half way mark. We are never going to compete with the top 10 biggest teams, but neither will most other franchises

  • Like (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, wagon127 said:

rHow is this different then when my office is remodeled? Essentially that's money that the company earned, that they could have afforded to distribute to me and the rest of my colleagues. However, I know that them remodeling my office is better for the company overall, which leads to being better for my employment situation. If the bills spend money on a new stadium, that will lead to more revenue for the Bills, and for the rest of the league. So the players get more revenue as well. All I get is a better feeling of job security.

 

 

I think the point is if we do not do a good job at maximizing revenue, (short arming a new stadium)  and more revenue can be made elsewhere then the push to move to a larger revenue generating area might start to take form.. 

More than likely we are going to get a new stadium that will satisfy the area and the NFL so not worried.. But if we do decide to go cheap or force a cheap stadium fix then yes I can see the push to get the Bills out of Buffalo gaining LOTS OF STEAM. This is why it is important to get the right stadium in the right area for the right cost and a good ROI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike Florio has been stirring that pot for years. He doesn’t even make mention that the Pegulas own the other major sports team in town. 

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Thanks! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a frankly asinine suggestion by Florio. Again, he’s engaging in wild conjecture to mine some clicks. Trust me, PFT is acutely aware of how sensitive Buffalo fans are about the mere suggestion of relocation.

 

The owners would never, ever EVER give that level of managerial control to players. 

  • Like (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, wagon127 said:

Are they suggesting that the NFL would force the Pegula's to move, if a substantial investment is not made in improving the Bills Stadium, (Renovate or Rebuild)? I feel its just an article, to scare fans and to get the tax payers to open their pockets.

 

I agree.  The reality is that the NFL and/or the NFLPA getting involved in stadium issues opens that nasty can of worms called "violation of anti-trust statutes".  Unlike MLB, the other professional sports teams aren't protected from anti-trust scrutiny by the federal government.  If an individual team wants to threaten relocation to pressure local or state taxpayers to ante up for a new stadium,  that's an "individual action".  If the league or the NFLPA tries to do the same, the federal courts could very well consider that an action "in furtherance of a monopoly".  Congress could hold hearings and possibly compel NFL teams to open their books to public scrutiny (which as privately held businesses they aren't currently forced to do).  It could get nasty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just curious, but a related question, how much of a PSL fee would the season ticket holders on the board be willing to pay?  How much of a PSL fee will the WNY market support? 

Just doing some math...a $5,000 per seat PSL fee for 50000 seats generates $250M in upfront cash.  Remember a PSL is a right to buy seasons -- the season fee is in addition. 

 

Is that enough of a "local contribution" to match the Pegula contribution; the NFL financing and a State of NY contribution?  The $5000 per seat is really low compared to other markets....I know its one of the questions on the stadium survey and I believe that the board likely represents a higher economic status than the average of the fan base, but I am just interested.

 

I am sure the "Internet Content Should be Free" crowd will weigh in at "0" PSL fee (just kidding guys and gals) 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, JoeF said:

Just curious, but a related question, how much of a PSL fee would the season ticket holders on the board be willing to pay? 

IANASTH, but if I was... $150/seat, tops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, wagon127 said:

How is this different then when my office is remodeled? Essentially that's money that the company earned, that they could have afforded to distribute to me and the rest of my colleagues. However, I know that them remodeling my office is better for the company overall, which leads to being better for my employment situation. If the bills spend money on a new stadium, that will lead to more revenue for the Bills, and for the rest of the league. So the players get more revenue as well. All I get is a better feeling of job security.

 

It depends on what the company remodels.  One of my companies did that at told the employees that this would increase ability to get contracts, add revenue, etc.  It ends up that 90% of the money went into corporate officers perks - new private parking lot, private gym and cafeteria, etc.  If that remodeling was better for your employment situation you work in remodeling.  It is the same thing for players - increased money spent on bringing in high class restaurants, wine lists, etc do nothing for players.

3 hours ago, JoPar_v2 said:

It is a frankly asinine suggestion by Florio. Again, he’s engaging in wild conjecture to mine some clicks. Trust me, PFT is acutely aware of how sensitive Buffalo fans are about the mere suggestion of relocation.

 

The owners would never, ever EVER give that level of managerial control to players. 

 

Well since sports fans and players generate the money to pay for PFT lets try giving control to them about who works there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, JoeF said:

Just curious, but a related question, how much of a PSL fee would the season ticket holders on the board be willing to pay?  How much of a PSL fee will the WNY market support? 

 

 

Can't answer that without further info.  I'd pay $5k a seat for 2 seats, IF the seats were between the 30s, in a location comparable to the current lower level, and no more than $1500 a year each.  I think this is basically what I said in response to their survey. 

 

For me it's about location, location, location.

 

 

 

Edited by BillnutinHouston

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, wagon127 said:

Are they suggesting that the NFL would force the Pegula's to move, if a substantial investment is not made in improving the Bills Stadium, (Renovate or Rebuild)? I feel its just an article, to scare fans and to get the tax payers to open their pockets.

No, it's not suggesting that at all.It's a hypothetical scenario in which the NFLPA decides it wants a say in this issue because the money involved is pretty huge and - if this were to happen - would not be available to them even though it's technically league revenue. Florio does not have any animus toward Buffalo, but since Buffalo's stadium situation has been in the news lately AND since they have one of the league's oldest stadiums (Arrowhead is a year older) not counting Alamada Colosseum and the LA Colosseum (both Soldier Field and Lambeau were basically completely rebuilt), the Bills are an obvious hypothetical example. Plus the team has been bad for a long time and stadium-based revenue generation is meager compared to the rest of the league. People are aware that the Bills rank dead last in terms of franchise value, right? https://www.forbes.com/nfl-valuations/list/#tab:overall 

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The article is written by Florio. His job is to give a side, then poop on it and call it “logic”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BillnutinHouston said:

 

Can't answer that without further info.  I'd pay $5k a seat for 2 seats, IF the seats were between the 30s, in a location comparable to the current lower level, and no more than $1500 a year each.  I think this is basically what I said in response to their survey. 

 

 

 

Thanks BNIH....I am about where you are...its also location dependent.  I am outside the 30's in the lower bowl -- would probably be okay with $5K per seat maybe even a little more.  I think we will find out what "Season Ticket Holder Investment" is required to make this a go in the next few months when we have a plan from the Pegulas and their consultants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

No, it's not suggesting that at all.It's a hypothetical scenario in which the NFLPA decides it wants a say in this issue because the money involved is pretty huge and - if this were to happen - would not be available to them even though it's technically league revenue. Florio does not have any animus toward Buffalo, but since Buffalo's stadium situation has been in the news lately AND since they have one of the league's oldest stadiums (Arrowhead is a year older) not counting Alamada Colosseum and the LA Colosseum (both Soldier Field and Lambeau were basically completely rebuilt), the Bills are an obvious hypothetical example. Plus the team has been bad for a long time and stadium-based revenue generation is meager compared to the rest of the league. People are aware that the Bills rank dead last in terms of franchise value, right? https://www.forbes.com/nfl-valuations/list/#tab:overall 

Good post. Depressing, but accurate. The suggestion is not that the NFLPA could mandate a team relocation. The "proposal" does lead one to the idea that the decision the players make could force the owner's hand for financial viability.

 

Let's hope it's all junk that never comes to pass.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...