Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
The 9 Isles

Pro football talk hates Buffalo - CBA and stadium funding

Recommended Posts

22 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

The total revenue is total league revenue.  There is already a huge disparity in the individual team revenues.  And those high revenue teams drive a disproportionate amount of the total.  The players cut of adjusted revenue before the last CBA was 60%.

 

The players aren't shareholders.  They are employees. A shareholder takes his own money and invests in the company's success but puts his money at risk if the company fails.

 

But even if they, for the purposes of this discussion, WERE considered shareholders, there is no conceivable scenario where players could in any meaningful way make choices in how to best invest and multiply the NFL's revenue.   There's no way owners of a company are going to allow employees to vote on whether and where the company is located and does its business.  The concept is absurd.

 

 

Looks like the Stadium Credit Threshold tops out at 1.5% of All Revenue.  

 

We're getting numbers from different places, I'll defer to yours.  My point was that the "stadium credits" is not new, it's been in there since 2011.  

 

It is currently 1.5% (or so).  

 

As you said, there's a huge disparity between individual team revenues, but the aggregate, let's call it "league" revenue, aka the shared revenue, comes from the teams and is predicated upon how much money those teams bring in in certain areas.  I'm no specialist and don't claim to have researched these things to that extent.  However, it stands to reason that if a team brings in more that they have more to share, which is the point here.  

 

If you were a player or owner, it would benefit you to have a team in a locale that brings in more rather than less for the shared pot "league" revenue as it were.  

 

So it's pretty simple in that regard, if your money is going to fund a stadium for a locale, it would make the most sense to have it be where the greatest "league"/shared profits can be had.  Unfortunately, and for however it works out, Buffalo is not one of those locales.  That's what Florio's point was.  

 

One doesn't have to be an expert in CBA or the league's revenue structure to understand that, again, it's pretty simple economics/finance.  

 

Who knows to what extent the "stadium credits" plays out in the next CBA, but one thing's for sure, if McBeane and "The Process"/Allen don't pan out, there will be a combination of that and whatever the new CBA does bring that won't be a good tandem.  We may overcome it, but IMO it won't be good.  Not to mention that we'll be back at the proverbial square-one.  

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ronin said:

 

We're getting numbers from different places, I'll defer to yours.  My point was that the "stadium credits" is not new, it's been in there since 2011.  

 

It is currently 1.5% (or so).  

 

As you said, there's a huge disparity between individual team revenues, but the aggregate, let's call it "league" revenue, aka the shared revenue, comes from the teams and is predicated upon how much money those teams bring in in certain areas.  I'm no specialist and don't claim to have researched these things to that extent.  However, it stands to reason that if a team brings in more that they have more to share, which is the point here.  

 

If you were a player or owner, it would benefit you to have a team in a locale that brings in more rather than less for the shared pot "league" revenue as it were.  

 

So it's pretty simple in that regard, if your money is going to fund a stadium for a locale, it would make the most sense to have it be where the greatest "league"/shared profits can be had.  Unfortunately, and for however it works out, Buffalo is not one of those locales.  That's what Florio's point was.  

 

One doesn't have to be an expert in CBA or the league's revenue structure to understand that, again, it's pretty simple economics/finance.  

 

Who knows to what extent the "stadium credits" plays out in the next CBA, but one thing's for sure, if McBeane and "The Process"/Allen don't pan out, there will be a combination of that and whatever the new CBA does bring that won't be a good tandem.  We may overcome it, but IMO it won't be good.  Not to mention that we'll be back at the proverbial square-one.  

 

 

 

This guy is the ultimate wet blanket.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ronin said:

 

We're getting numbers from different places, I'll defer to yours.  My point was that the "stadium credits" is not new, it's been in there since 2011.  

 

It is currently 1.5% (or so).  

 

As you said, there's a huge disparity between individual team revenues, but the aggregate, let's call it "league" revenue, aka the shared revenue, comes from the teams and is predicated upon how much money those teams bring in in certain areas.  I'm no specialist and don't claim to have researched these things to that extent.  However, it stands to reason that if a team brings in more that they have more to share, which is the point here.  

 

If you were a player or owner, it would benefit you to have a team in a locale that brings in more rather than less for the shared pot "league" revenue as it were.  

 

So it's pretty simple in that regard, if your money is going to fund a stadium for a locale, it would make the most sense to have it be where the greatest "league"/shared profits can be had.  Unfortunately, and for however it works out, Buffalo is not one of those locales.  That's what Florio's point was.  

 

One doesn't have to be an expert in CBA or the league's revenue structure to understand that, again, it's pretty simple economics/finance.  

 

Who knows to what extent the "stadium credits" plays out in the next CBA, but one thing's for sure, if McBeane and "The Process"/Allen don't pan out, there will be a combination of that and whatever the new CBA does bring that won't be a good tandem.  We may overcome it, but IMO it won't be good.  Not to mention that we'll be back at the proverbial square-one.  

 

 

 

The owners of the NFL are pretty good at making lots of money from their product.  The concept that their employees should have a say in where the league does business is nuts.  The owners can't make a team move, they can only vote (with a supermajority) to approve of a proposed move by one of the other owners.

 

So the concept that players could?/should? be able to push a team such as, say Buffalo, into a "more profitable market" when the league itself can't do that---it isn't even worth putting into the discussion about the CBA/stadium credits.

 

Team relocation or even stadium building are risks the owners assume.  Players aren't funding anything.  They risk nothing financially with these business decisions.  So they can't be rewarded for them either.  1.5 % doesn't get them to that table...

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mr. WEO said:

Players aren't funding anything.  They risk nothing financially with these business decisions.  So they can't be rewarded for them either.  1.5 % doesn't get them to that table...

 

If they get a percentage of a shared revenue, which they do, and that shared revenue depends upon how much each team in each locale brings in, which it does, then it only stands to reason that the greater that shared pot is the more the players get as well as the owners.  

 

X% of Y dollars is greater as Y increases.  

 

Whether or not they, "they" being the players union, have a say or not remains to be seen, but if in fact it happens that the 1.5% taken for the "stadium credits" increases to 5%, or whatever, then I don't know why the PU wouldn't at least fight for some say in the matter.  

 

The NFL is a funny cat, the owners treat it like a business except when they go to the taxpayers to cover their financing (or whatver part) for their new stadiums, a business expense, and the players treat it like a business too, it's only the fans that don't treat it that way.  

 

We'll see, and no doubt much of this is simply offseason media filler type tripe, but the premise for now is valid at least.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ronin said:

 

We're getting numbers from different places, I'll defer to yours.  My point was that the "stadium credits" is not new, it's been in there since 2011.  

 

It is currently 1.5% (or so).  

 

As you said, there's a huge disparity between individual team revenues, but the aggregate, let's call it "league" revenue, aka the shared revenue, comes from the teams and is predicated upon how much money those teams bring in in certain areas.  I'm no specialist and don't claim to have researched these things to that extent.  However, it stands to reason that if a team brings in more that they have more to share, which is the point here.  

 

If you were a player or owner, it would benefit you to have a team in a locale that brings in more rather than less for the shared pot "league" revenue as it were.  

 

So it's pretty simple in that regard, if your money is going to fund a stadium for a locale, it would make the most sense to have it be where the greatest "league"/shared profits can be had.  Unfortunately, and for however it works out, Buffalo is not one of those locales.  That's what Florio's point was.  

 

One doesn't have to be an expert in CBA or the league's revenue structure to understand that, again, it's pretty simple economics/finance.  

 

Who knows to what extent the "stadium credits" plays out in the next CBA, but one thing's for sure, if McBeane and "The Process"/Allen don't pan out, there will be a combination of that and whatever the new CBA does bring that won't be a good tandem.  We may overcome it, but IMO it won't be good.  Not to mention that we'll be back at the proverbial square-one.  

 

I said it before and I’ll say it again: the NFLPA will never have a say in deciding where teams should play football.  The NFL won’t give away that much power to them. Hear me now, believe me later.   This was all just an exercise in mental ***** by Florio. But hey, what else is new? 

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


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

 

If they get a percentage of a shared revenue, which they do, and that shared revenue depends upon how much each team in each locale brings in, which it does, then it only stands to reason that the greater that shared pot is the more the players get as well as the owners.  

 

X% of Y dollars is greater as Y increases.  

 

Whether or not they, "they" being the players union, have a say or not remains to be seen, but if in fact it happens that the 1.5% taken for the "stadium credits" increases to 5%, or whatever, then I don't know why the PU wouldn't at least fight for some say in the matter.  

 

The NFL is a funny cat, the owners treat it like a business except when they go to the taxpayers to cover their financing (or whatver part) for their new stadiums, a business expense, and the players treat it like a business too, it's only the fans that don't treat it that way.  

 

We'll see, and no doubt much of this is simply offseason media filler type tripe, but the premise for now is valid at least.  

 

 

Yes, we all get that.  

 

The owners would do what you're suggesting all by themselves, if it was possible.  But it's not.  Owners can't tell other owners to move to a more profitable market (whatever that is). So why would you think otherwise?  

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as there are the owners like J Jones that have more money than brains & live totally beyond their means the Bills will always be the bottom feeders of the league because they unlike a lot of other franchise live in a house that is paid for & just needs some upgrades !!

 

But in todays world unless your up to your ass in debt then something just isn't right !! 

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 7/3/2019 at 7:55 AM, Mr. WEO said:

 

The stadium loan money or other stadium expenses doesn’t affect the total revenue pool from which they get their cut.  So I wouldn’t make sense for them to worry about stadium funding

 

I've spent many hours studying this general topic for several years now, and every time a media outlet or Goodell makes a statement regarding the Bills and their stadium situation, my opinion never changes, and this PFT article is no different.

 

Stadium loan money is basically "skimmed" off the top of total league revenue. Then, the remaining money is split between the owners and the players. That does affect the players' cut, so the issue brought up by Florio isn't new. It cannot surpass 1.5% of total revenue, but that funding does not come from the owners' pockets. Granted, they also miss out on that money, but it's intended use benefits them because it requires less out of pocket for stadium funds, as well as requirement of a private-public funding agreement.

 

Stadium improvements help increase revenue for the league, therefore the players do benefit to an extent, but they may not be completely content with the current stipluations. You can bet that DeMaurice Smith and the NFLPA will have a hard stance during negotiations, and will likely push to increase the percentage of shared revenue that they receive. Right now, it's 48.5%, based on variables, and not to be below 47% in any given year. If they push for, say, 49%, and that's the absolute lowest they'll go for a deal to be done, the owners may lobby for less stadium funding to be allowed in order to strike a deal and help alleviate that blow to the owners' side (this would probably be a "down to the wire, crunch time" type of instance, but that's typically how a deal gets done. Someone has to break somewhere).

 

Then again, the amount allowed under the current G-4 program is more than it was under the original G-3 program. Stadium funds dried up quickly under the G-3, and league revenue has increased considerably since 1999 when it was enacted (and even increased roughly $5 billion since 2011 when the current CBA was negotiated). Perhaps the amount allowed under the new CBA will provide more NFL money for stadiums. The Bills are (obviously) prime candidates for a G-4 stadium credit, given their stadium situation, compared to the other 31 teams' situations, so the owners would prefer to allocate as little money as possible to the Bills, and getting something done during the current CBA would do that, especially if the next CBA allows, say, $250-300 million for new stadium projects (or $300-350 million for renovations).  

 

There are always agendas behind the scenes, and the NFL is no different...

 

This is why I've been saying for years now, that the "pressure" being placed on the Bills by Goodell (who represents the owners, not himself, so to speak) is based strictly on two things: 1) The fact that new stadiums help to increase league revenue, and 2) the uncertainty of the existance, or the provisions of the NFL's Resolution G-4 program as it pertains to a new CBA in 2021. 

 

"Fear mongering" was brought up in this thread...there's probably at least some validity to that IMO, mainly because most fans aren't fully informed, and in fact, probably know very little about all the fine details. They know the basics, and what they're told. Most don't do the research for hours upon hours to get to the bottom of things, and trust media sources as their main source of information. Really, articles like this that seem to "target" the Bills are done with intent. All they need to do is congure up a scenario where the Bills could possibly leave WNY, and run with it, because most people don't do their homework...

 

These media outlets know how easily triggered Bills fans are when something negative is said about their team. Nothing sells like controversy, real or perceived, and that's exactly what Florio did in this instance. We see it here on this forum all the time; the threads that consist of the most posts/pages are typically the ones that are the most controversial, as opppsed to the threads that are simply factual, and thats been going on for years. Same thing on the old BBMB, and you can guarantee that sites like PFT had figured that out years ago. They know how to generate clicks. And on that note, @Ronin posted a link to an article that literally piggy-backed off of the PFT article (PFT was the source referenced in the article) and regurgitated the same message. That doesn't make the stadium credit issue (as Florio describes) "real"...In today's media, things grow legs, but for the wrong reasons that you may believe. That site knows how to generate clicks as well, and since they're not a "reputable" (...) site like PFT, they have to alter their method. Piggy-backing is all too common, and when 20 second rate sites piggy-back off of the same original source, suddenly the topic is perceived as being legit or true...too many sheep these days, not enough wolves.

 

When stadium talk arises, many WNYers instantly refer to the great tax burden that they'll inherit from Erie County if the Pegulas don't pay 100%, but that really isn't the case. Taxes are typically applied to things that don't exactly affect locals, like hotel and car rental taxes. Restaurant taxes may increase in surrounding communities, but is a $2 increase to your dinner really going to burn a hole in your wallet? The Bills are the only NFL team in the state, and the team pays a hefty amount in taxes to the state each year. They won't want the Bills to leave either. But, of course, they are going to try and spend as little as possible, so we'll hear and read the posturing from the state.

 

The Bills are going nowhere, unless the Pegulas say so, or sell the team. The other owners, nor the players, can have any meaningful say in the matter. If the Pegulas decided take the Bills out of WNY, they would have to sell the Sabres first, since they cannot own a pro franchise in two different cities (league rule). They would also likely have to consider selling off all of the business entities that they've invested millions in around the downtown Buffalo area, since the community would probably boycott them. 

 

Any talk about the Bills and their stadium issue by the league is nothing more than posturing, and in articles (until meaningful facts are released by the Pegulas), click bait. It's a polarizing topic, especially for Bills fans. But in comparison to the Bills previous ownership, the Pegulas seem to be taking an opposite approach. They're making stadium statements that seem to cater to Bills fans (we'll see how that turns out when the report is released and an announcement is made). Mr. Wilson would use that fear mongering approach in order to get financial support. 

Edited by Drunken Pygmy Goat
  • Like (+1) 2
  • Thanks! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 7/2/2019 at 2:39 PM, ddaryl said:

 

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

No matter how nice of a stadium the Pegulas build, and how nice of a facelift they give parts of the city.  It is still Buffalo NY.  Low incomes and slow economy dictate how much money fans can afford for a 8 day a season entertainment package.  Bills fans are some of the most loyal in the league, but at the end of the day, you can't get blood from a stone. If the league decides revenue trumps fan loyalty, that will be that.  For Bills fans everywhere, I hope that day never comes.

Edited by CodeMonkey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

Yes, we all get that.  

 

The owners would do what you're suggesting all by themselves, if it was possible.  But it's not.  Owners can't tell other owners to move to a more profitable market (whatever that is). So why would you think otherwise?  

 

Well, to start, it's not necessarily what I think, it's a premise.  

 

The league has leverage in these situations, and therefore by inference given the scenario being discussed, the PU would have at least some say in that leverage, would it not.  The owners can also certainly apply pressure if their goals aren't being met.  To think otherwise is to be naive.  

 

Otherwise, until further notice a "new stadium" is just talk.  I don't see it happening.  To start, the county's broke and can't pony up anything significant.  There's enough of an opposition amongst county taxpayers that don't want to be bilked to help fund the Pegulas business operations along with a growing sentiment league wide as such.  Taxes are high enough in NY, people don't want additional ones, particularly the taxpayers that don't have a certain level of fan interest as such.  I count myself among those insisting that business expenses be paid entirely by the business, not the taxpayer.  Small business owners don't get taxpayer assistance, why should large business owners.  The Pegula's have also stated that they're not made of money and can't just conjure up $1B+ which is what a new stadium will cost.  The state seemed highly reluctant to pitch in much for the renovation and has also stated that they wouldn't pony up more than few hundred M despite any recent rhetoric by either the Pegulas or the state otherwise.  Granted, that can change, but until it does it's all talk.  

 

I don't know whether it's changed or not, but a mere couple of years ago we were the last ranked team in terms of value according to Forbes.  Two of the people claiming that the Bills need a new stadium to remain viable are Goodell and Mara.  It would be unwise to not assume that those were bow shots.  

 

We'll see what happens, but A, talk is cheap, and B, new stadiums these days cost notably more than $1B.  

 

Here's the thing, we often here "what the fans think/want" here in Buffalo, and you can count me in among those that don't care for a new stadium.  I'd much prefer a renovation of the existing one.  But we keep hearing via implication how that won't be enough by some relevant and quite significant parties.  

 

If you ask me, game attendance in Buffalo is heavily tied to the tailgating environment.  I've been to many stadiums and I've never seen more fans sitting in the lots once the game starts watching the game on their TVs there than in Buffalo.  In some cities it's unheard of.  To me, moving the stadium further into the lake-effect snow-zone or downtown with parking relegated to garages and the like would be a terminal mistake, but that's after any decision as such is made.  

 

Either way, I don't think that this is 100% in the hands of the Pegulas as you and others would like to think.  Maybe I'm entirely off, but given that the entire nation revolves around money I don't think so.  The people with the most seem to always want as much of it as they can get and I don't see this being any different.  

 

Eventually it's all going to come down to how much money the team is making for the NFL, not the owners of the team.  Let's take a mathematical limit as an analogy.  Suppose for a moment that all of a sudden the Bills became unprofitable, let's just say that they broke even.  Ridiculous you say, perhaps so given the current climate.  But let's assume that Allen tanks, McD & Beane are fired, which frankly wouldn't be far behind, and as the team enters the option years it essentially sucks again pending yet another coach/GM hire/rebuild.  My position is and has been that that's not a good recipe for getting funding for a new stadium.   

 

That's also a pretty high place for us to fall from hope wise, no one can argue that.  In fact, I'd say that it would be the biggest fall during our last two cecades of futility.  Who knows how the fans would react, but going back to that mathematical limit, suppose that fan interest approaches modern era worst.  Considering that we're already on the bottom of the heap in terms of contributions to league goals, I don't see how that would sit well with anyone.  It wouldn't sit well with us either, but we'd be willing to see things through.  Unfortunately, unless the team were to expect fans to financially subsidize a substandard product as such, it shouldn't be a reach to envision a significant downturn in attendance under such a scenario however.  

 

Granted, it's not the "cheap seats" which make the biggest contributions to team revenues, but then again, our income from the expensive seats and suites pales in comparison to that of most if not all other NFL teams at this point.  We're near the bottom there too.  

 

It's a complex scenario and impossible to predict how it plays out, but it shouldn't be a reach to realize that "cheap seat" fan support isn't going to be the cornerstone of whether or not the team sticks around.  

 

My angle is that I don't think we'll be entering the stadium-lease option years, during which a new stadium will undoubtedly be discussed, and doing ourselves any favors to help ourselves as such by having yet another cycle of a outgoing coach and GM and a team with its best players (Shady, Kyle, Lorax, Hughes) on the outs or gone while having fans' hopes once again dashed in the greatest dashing of hopes since the '90s team diminished.  Some may think otherwise, and hey, maybe it won't matter.  I have trouble envisioning that it won't however.  

 

We'll see what happens and should be hearing at least something starting next year sometime.  As well, whether or not the requisite strides in team performance are made this season will factor into that as well.  If team play ascends to the highest hopes of many fans, then it should help our cause as such in a pretty big way.  But if not, I see no reason to not expect the opposite.  

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Drunken Pygmy Goat said:

 

I've spent many hours studying this general topic for several years now, and every time a media outlet or Goodell makes a statement regarding the Bills and their stadium situation, my opinion never changes, and this PFT article is no different.

 

Stadium loan money is basically "skimmed" off the top of total league revenue. Then, the remaining money is split between the owners and the players. That does affect the players' cut, so the issue brought up by Florio isn't new. It cannot surpass 1.5% of total revenue, but that funding does not come from the owners' pockets. Granted, they also miss out on that money, but it's intended use benefits them because it requires less out of pocket for stadium funds, as well as requirement of a private-public funding agreement.

 

Stadium improvements help increase revenue for the league, therefore the players do benefit to an extent, but they may not be completely content with the current stipluations. You can bet that DeMaurice Smith and the NFLPA will have a hard stance during negotiations, and will likely push to increase the percentage of shared revenue that they receive. Right now, it's 48.5%, based on variables, and not to be below 47% in any given year. If they push for, say, 49%, and that's the absolute lowest they'll go for a deal to be done, the owners may lobby for less stadium funding to be allowed in order to strike a deal and help alleviate that blow to the owners' side (this would probably be a "down to the wire, crunch time" type of instance, but that's typically how a deal gets done. Someone has to break somewhere).

 

Then again, the amount allowed under the current G-4 program is more than it was under the original G-3 program. Stadium funds dried up quickly under the G-3, and league revenue has increased considerably since 1999 when it was enacted (and even increased roughly $5 billion since 2011 when the current CBA was negotiated). Perhaps the amount allowed under the new CBA will provide more NFL money for stadiums. The Bills are (obviously) prime candidates for a G-4 stadium credit, given their stadium situation, compared to the other 31 teams' situations, so the owners would prefer to allocate as little money as possible to the Bills, and getting something done during the current CBA would do that, especially if the next CBA allows, say, $250-300 million for new stadium projects (or $300-350 million for renovations).  

 

There are always agendas behind the scenes, and the NFL is no different...

 

This is why I've been saying for years now, that the "pressure" being placed on the Bills by Goodell (who represents the owners, not himself, so to speak) is based strictly on two things: 1) The fact that new stadiums help to increase league revenue, and 2) the uncertainty of the existance, or the provisions of the NFL's Resolution G-4 program as it pertains to a new CBA in 2021. 

 

"Fear mongering" was brought up in this thread...there's probably at least some validity to that IMO, mainly because most fans aren't fully informed, and in fact, probably know very little about all the fine details. They know the basics, and what they're told. Most don't do the research for hours upon hours to get to the bottom of things, and trust media sources as their main source of information. Really, articles like this that seem to "target" the Bills are done with intent. All they need to do is congure up a scenario where the Bills could possibly leave WNY, and run with it, because most people don't do their homework...

 

These media outlets know how easily triggered Bills fans are when something negative is said about their team. Nothing sells like controversy, real or perceived, and that's exactly what Florio did in this instance. We see it here on this forum all the time; the threads that consist of the most posts/pages are typically the ones that are the most controversial, as opppsed to the threads that are simply factual, and thats been going on for years. Same thing on the old BBMB, and you can guarantee that sites like PFT had figured that out years ago. They know how to generate clicks. And on that note, @Ronin posted a link to an article that literally piggy-backed off of the PFT article (PFT was the source referenced in the article) and regurgitated the same message. That doesn't make the stadium credit issue (as Florio describes) "real"...In today's media, things grow legs, but for the wrong reasons that you may believe. That site knows how to generate clicks as well, and since they're not a "reputable..." site like PFT, they have to alter their method. Piggy-backing is all too common, and when 20 second rate sites piggy-back off of the same original source, suddenly the topic is perceived as being legit or true...too many sheep these days, not enough wolves.

 

When stadium talk arises, many WNYers instantly refer to the great tax burden that they'll inherit from Erie County if the Pegulas don't pay 100%, but that really isn't the case. Taxes are typically applied to things that don't exactly affect locals, like hotel and car rental taxes. Restaurant taxes may increase in surrounding communities, but is a $2 increase to your dinner really going to burn a hole in your wallet? The Bills are the only NFL team in the state, and the team pays a hefty amount in taxes to the state each year. They won't want the Bills to leave either. But, of course, they are going to try and spend as little as possible, so we'll hear and read the posturing from the state.

 

The Bills are going nowhere, unless the Pegulas say so, or sell the team. The other owners, nor the players, can have any meaningful say in the matter. If the Pegulas decided take the Bills out of WNY, they would have to sell the Sabres first, since they cannot own a pro franchise in two different cities (league rule). They would also likely have to consider selling off all of the business entities that they've invested millions in around the downtown Buffalo area, since the community would probably boycott them. 

 

Any talk about the Bills and their stadium issue by the league is nothing more than posturing, and in articles (until meaningful facts are released by the Pegulas), click bait. It's a polarizing topic, especially for Bills fans. But in comparison to the Bills previous ownership, the Pegulas seem to be taking an opposite approach. They're making stadium statements that seem to cater to Bills fans (we'll see how that turns out when the report is released and an announcement is made). Mr. Wilson would use that fear mongering approach in order to get financial support. 

 

Just a couple thoughts per the bolded parts above. I believe the figure can go above 1.5% with approval from th NFLPA (not that it probably would in Buffalo's case, just pointing it out).

 

Also the only stadium talk we really hear about right now is generally only in response to a reporter asking a question. We aren't really hearing much from Goodell or the other owners anymore as far as coming out and promoting/pressuring the Bills. I believe this is because the CBA says the stadium credit is given beginning in the year before the new stadium opens. And there's no way at this point any new Bills stadium would open in by 2021, and with uncertainty about the G-4 program beyond 2020, I don't think anything regarding a G-4 type loan will get done until there's a new CBA with a defined future plan.

 

Once there is a new CBA I would expect all sorts of new stadium talks from all parties. Just my $.02.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Drunken Pygmy Goat said:

 

I've spent many hours studying this general topic for several years now, and every time a media outlet or Goodell makes a statement regarding the Bills and their stadium situation, my opinion never changes, and this PFT article is no different.

 

Stadium loan money is basically "skimmed" off the top of total league revenue. Then, the remaining money is split between the owners and the players. That does affect the players' cut, so the issue brought up by Florio isn't new. It cannot surpass 1.5% of total revenue, but that funding does not come from the owners' pockets. Granted, they also miss out on that money, but it's intended use benefits them because it requires less out of pocket for stadium funds, as well as requirement of a private-public funding agreement.

 

Stadium improvements help increase revenue for the league, therefore the players do benefit to an extent, but they may not be completely content with the current stipluations. You can bet that DeMaurice Smith and the NFLPA will have a hard stance during negotiations, and will likely push to increase the percentage of shared revenue that they receive. Right now, it's 48.5%, based on variables, and not to be below 47% in any given year. If they push for, say, 49%, and that's the absolute lowest they'll go for a deal to be done, the owners may lobby for less stadium funding to be allowed in order to strike a deal and help alleviate that blow to the owners' side (this would probably be a "down to the wire, crunch time" type of instance, but that's typically how a deal gets done. Someone has to break somewhere).

 

Then again, the amount allowed under the current G-4 program is more than it was under the original G-3 program. Stadium funds dried up quickly under the G-3, and league revenue has increased considerably since 1999 when it was enacted (and even increased roughly $5 billion since 2011 when the current CBA was negotiated). Perhaps the amount allowed under the new CBA will provide more NFL money for stadiums. The Bills are (obviously) prime candidates for a G-4 stadium credit, given their stadium situation, compared to the other 31 teams' situations, so the owners would prefer to allocate as little money as possible to the Bills, and getting something done during the current CBA would do that, especially if the next CBA allows, say, $250-300 million for new stadium projects (or $300-350 million for renovations).  

 

There are always agendas behind the scenes, and the NFL is no different...

 

This is why I've been saying for years now, that the "pressure" being placed on the Bills by Goodell (who represents the owners, not himself, so to speak) is based strictly on two things: 1) The fact that new stadiums help to increase league revenue, and 2) the uncertainty of the existance, or the provisions of the NFL's Resolution G-4 program as it pertains to a new CBA in 2021. 

 

"Fear mongering" was brought up in this thread...there's probably at least some validity to that IMO, mainly because most fans aren't fully informed, and in fact, probably know very little about all the fine details. They know the basics, and what they're told. Most don't do the research for hours upon hours to get to the bottom of things, and trust media sources as their main source of information. Really, articles like this that seem to "target" the Bills are done with intent. All they need to do is congure up a scenario where the Bills could possibly leave WNY, and run with it, because most people don't do their homework...

 

These media outlets know how easily triggered Bills fans are when something negative is said about their team. Nothing sells like controversy, real or perceived, and that's exactly what Florio did in this instance. We see it here on this forum all the time; the threads that consist of the most posts/pages are typically the ones that are the most controversial, as opppsed to the threads that are simply factual, and thats been going on for years. Same thing on the old BBMB, and you can guarantee that sites like PFT had figured that out years ago. They know how to generate clicks. And on that note, @Ronin posted a link to an article that literally piggy-backed off of the PFT article (PFT was the source referenced in the article) and regurgitated the same message. That doesn't make the stadium credit issue (as Florio describes) "real"...In today's media, things grow legs, but for the wrong reasons that you may believe. That site knows how to generate clicks as well, and since they're not a "reputable..." site like PFT, they have to alter their method. Piggy-backing is all too common, and when 20 second rate sites piggy-back off of the same original source, suddenly the topic is perceived as being legit or true...too many sheep these days, not enough wolves.

 

When stadium talk arises, many WNYers instantly refer to the great tax burden that they'll inherit from Erie County if the Pegulas don't pay 100%, but that really isn't the case. Taxes are typically applied to things that don't exactly affect locals, like hotel and car rental taxes. Restaurant taxes may increase in surrounding communities, but is a $2 increase to your dinner really going to burn a hole in your wallet? The Bills are the only NFL team in the state, and the team pays a hefty amount in taxes to the state each year. They won't want the Bills to leave either. But, of course, they are going to try and spend as little as possible, so we'll hear and read the posturing from the state.

 

The Bills are going nowhere, unless the Pegulas say so, or sell the team. The other owners, nor the players, can have any meaningful say in the matter. If the Pegulas decided take the Bills out of WNY, they would have to sell the Sabres first, since they cannot own a pro franchise in two different cities (league rule). They would also likely have to consider selling off all of the business entities that they've invested millions in around the downtown Buffalo area, since the community would probably boycott them. 

 

Any talk about the Bills and their stadium issue by the league is nothing more than posturing, and in articles (until meaningful facts are released by the Pegulas), click bait. It's a polarizing topic, especially for Bills fans. But in comparison to the Bills previous ownership, the Pegulas seem to be taking an opposite approach. They're making stadium statements that seem to cater to Bills fans (we'll see how that turns out when the report is released and an announcement is made). Mr. Wilson would use that fear mongering approach in order to get financial support. 

 

Good post!  Well reasoned out!  

 

I will comment on a couple parts of it however.  Read my post above however.  As I view it, a whole lot will be determined by the overall trajectory of the team in the next season or two, either directly or indirectly.  I also don't think that the team will stick around, regardless of circumstances, w/o either a new stadium, which if moved downtown I think will be a colossal error in judgment, or a very significantly renovated existing stadium.  

 

On this, (and please, tell me if I misunderstood you here);  

 

Quote

When stadium talk arises, many WNYers instantly refer to the great tax burden that they'll inherit from Erie County if the Pegulas don't pay 100%, but that really isn't the case. Taxes are typically applied to things that don't exactly affect locals, like hotel and car rental taxes. Restaurant taxes may increase in surrounding communities, but is a $2 increase to your dinner really going to burn a hole in your wallet? The Bills are the only NFL team in the state, and the team pays a hefty amount in taxes to the state each year. They won't want the Bills to leave either. But, of course, they are going to try and spend as little as possible, so we'll hear and read the posturing from the state.

 

The business (team) expense that historically has been funded more often than any other is the financing on new stadium builds.  Look at it this way, suppose you bought a house and had the taxpayers pick up the interest on the home.  We all know that when one buys a home under the normal conditions ~ 20% down, etc., that over the course of a 30-year loan, the financing on the home is greater than the purchase price generally speaking.  That's what taxpayers have quite often picked up, which is not insignificant.  Overall it's typically more than the original cost of the home itself.  Recent public pressure is beginning to exterminate such deals as people are starting to question why they as taxpayers have to pay for the business expenses of uber-wealthy multi-billionaire owners.  

 

As to the benefit of a community/municality/county, whatever, numerous studies have been conducted illustrating unmistakably that NFL teams do not bring in more in taxes than they suck in via the taxpayers under such scenarios.  Besides the enormous elephant sitting in the bathroom sink of why on earth are normal citizens paying the business expenses of uber-wealthy multi-billionaire NFL owners, there is no proven economic benefit to having a team as such, there is only economic burden as such.  

 

But here's my question for you, and again, please correct me if I misunderstood your post, and as well, this relates to my post above this one to Mr. WEO, but let's assume that  team profitability falters even more because things under McBeane didn't work out and fan interest tapers off, which wouldn't be the first time, which would presumably breach an entirely new level of "hopelessness" that the team will ever be good, and the Bills become a financial burden for the league as such. Frankly, they're already close to that relatively speaking.  

 

Do you really then see the league/owners/or even PU supporting the provision of money for the building of a new stadium in Buffalo?   I'm having trouble envisioning that in this world that's incessantly being driven by money, profit, and wealth by the most influential and controlling people involved in particular.  I also don't see the state ponying up the bucks necessary in an investment that wouldn't benefit the state anymore than it would the county financially.  Again, talk is cheap right now, and the power & money in the state hates WNY and treats it like a teat to be sucked dry, the opposite of putting money into it.  

 

Quote

They would also likely have to consider selling off all of the business entities that they've invested millions in around the downtown Buffalo area, since the community would probably boycott them. 

 

That's the one thing that I would fully agree with you on.  I've always maintained that the Pegulas first-love is an empire in WNY with either the Sabres and/or Bills playing second-fiddle and part-and-parcel of that greater goal.  I think that they want to be viewed as the saviors of Buffalo.  To what extent their goal as such could be realized w/o the Bills is a good question.  

 

I'll finish by stating that we're due for at least another 2008/2009-like recession, and Buffalo has to be among the bottom couple of NFL locales in terms of least likely being able to weather such a recession in terms of having it impact their teams as such and their related profitabilities and related contributions to NFL coffers.  

 

It concerns me that the stadium issue may very well overlap the biggest team disappointment(s) in a couple of decades, and on top of that in perfect-storm fashion and entirely out of anyone's control unlike the first two, a looming recession now too.  I can't even begin to stress enough how important it may be that things work out with Allen & The Process here this season.  There's nothing any of us can do about it except wait and see, but again, I think that it's an enormous mistake to assume that outside pressure and leveraged cannot be applied to a franchise that simply isn't cutting it as a contributing member of the league as such if in fact it works out that way for one or more reasons.  

 

And is it really necessary to state that the last thing that any of the decision-makers in this process care about is what the fans want.  We're the ones that are always getting bilked on "hopes" and as with during Wilson's reign being scared into attending games "so that the team wouldn't move" as you mentioned.  

 

 

20 minutes ago, Tuco said:

Once there is a new CBA I would expect all sorts of new stadium talks from all parties. Just my $.02.

 

Definitely agree with that.  Seems like a lot is on hold pending the completion of the new CBA.  But there too, that will impact the owners' share(s) as well implicitly.  

 

 

 

 

Edited by Ronin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, CodeMonkey said:

No matter how nice of a stadium the Pegulas build, and how nice of a facelift they give parts of the city.  It is still Buffalo NY.  Low incomes and slow economy dictate how much money fans can afford for a 8 day a season entertainment package.  Bills fans are some of the most loyal in the league, but at the end of the day, you can't get blood from a stone. If the league decides revenue trumps fan loyalty, that will be that.  For Bills fans everywhere, I hope that day never comes.

 

1) the league cannot force the issue.

 

2) Bills games are not filled 100% by Buffalonians/WNYers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tuco said:

 

Just a couple thoughts per the bolded parts above. I believe the figure can go above 1.5% with approval from th NFLPA (not that it probably would in Buffalo's case, just pointing it out).

 

Also the only stadium talk we really hear about right now is generally only in response to a reporter asking a question. We aren't really hearing much from Goodell or the other owners anymore as far as coming out and promoting/pressuring the Bills. I believe this is because the CBA says the stadium credit is given beginning in the year before the new stadium opens. And there's no way at this point any new Bills stadium would open in by 2021, and with uncertainty about the G-4 program beyond 2020, I don't think anything regarding a G-4 type loan will get done until there's a new CBA with a defined future plan.

 

Once there is a new CBA I would expect all sorts of new stadium talks from all parties. Just my $.02.

 

I thought the loan was granted basically upon agreement, and the ammortized repayment of the loan begins the league year prior to the openening of new stadium. 

 

I may have done a ton of research, but my interpretation of what I've read could be inaccurate...my apologies. I'm no lawyer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
36 minutes ago, Drunken Pygmy Goat said:

 

I thought the loan was granted basically upon agreement, and the ammortized repayment of the loan begins the league year prior to the openening of new stadium. 

 

I may have done a ton of research, but my interpretation of what I've read could be inaccurate...my apologies. I'm no lawyer.

 

The way I read it (and I'm no lawyer either) is the private cost of the stadium (as far as the NFL and G-4 their loan is concerned), which includes financing cost, is amortized over 15 years. And the annual amount of that amortization, plus all the other stadium projects in their various schedule of amortization, becomes the amount of the stadium credit for the year - with the amortization figures for any stadium beginning the season before the new stadium opens.

 

So what you're saying isn't wrong. But the approval of the G-4 loan doesn't just happen by a vote of the owners or simple agreement with the NFLPA. There has to be a stadium plan (new or serious, hundreds of millions worth of renovation) in place with the G-4 amount (up to it's maximum) matching private money the team owner puts up, and additionally, all G-4 loans are contingent a certain amount of public money contributed to the project.

 

Neither side is going to commit to a G-4 loan who's benefit starts after 2020 until they know exactly what that benefit is. So my point being, the only way for the league to currently take advantage of all of this would be to have all that financing in place, plus planning and construction completed for the stadium to open in 2021 so they can begin the stadium credit under the last year of the CBA in 2020. And that's just not feasible. 

 

So I don't see the league pressuring the Bills any more until there is a new agreement with a similar program. That will no doubt be a point of negotiation in the CBA, and every time the subject comes up the Bills will be at the forefront of the whole stadium credit conversation because they're one of the few teams who haven't built or seriously renovated in the last 15 years. And that will mean, unfortunately, lots of comments by people who think stadium credits are something new. And lots of over reaching articles like the one by Florio.

Edited by Tuco
  • Thanks! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 7/6/2019 at 1:20 PM, Ronin said:

 

Good post!  Well reasoned out!  

 

I will comment on a couple parts of it however.  Read my post above however.  As I view it, a whole lot will be determined by the overall trajectory of the team in the next season or two, either directly or indirectly.  I also don't think that the team will stick around, regardless of circumstances, w/o either a new stadium, which if moved downtown I think will be a colossal error in judgment, or a very significantly renovated existing stadium.  

 

First, let me apologize in advance for any rambling or tangents on my part in this post or others of mine...bear with me.

 

I don't believe that the team trajectory plays as much of a role as you do, but I do believe it is a factor, and have thought about that since Goodell and Mr. Mara initially started the Bills stadium talks 4 or 5 years ago. One reason being is that G4 loan money is partially repaid via PSL/SSL money as well as opposing teams' share of ticket sales (these are considered "private" funds btw). Granted, PSL values in general have decreased over the last 10 years, and, of course, each stadiums PSL values are pretty relative to the local economies; Pegula says a new stadium must cater to Buffalo, and if the team isn't doing well, it would be more difficult to charge more for a particular seat license. But that's no different than the current Bills model (although Bills ticket prices have increased over the last several years, they're still "cheap" in comparison to the rest of the league). 

 

I do get your point about tailgating and a downtown stadium, but the current model standard for NFL stadiums isn't just some grand palace to play football 8 times a year, but more specifically, a "year-round" destination for locals. With all the money that the Pegulas have invested downtown, plus the Sabres, it almost seems as if an NFL stadium model has already been in progress for several years now, and a new stadium would put a cap on that. The revenue stream for the Pegulas would be much greater there than in OP, unless a similar model is in the plans of a New Era Field retrofit, but that approach just wouldn't be as feasible. There aren't hundreds of people walking around NEF each and every day like there already are downtown.  

 

Perhaps a major retrofit would be the best solution for appeasing both the fans and the league, but it may not be the Pegulas preferred choice.

 

Quote

On this, (and please, tell me if I misunderstood you here);  

 

 

The business (team) expense that historically has been funded more often than any other is the financing on new stadium builds.  Look at it this way, suppose you bought a house and had the taxpayers pick up the interest on the home.  We all know that when one buys a home under the normal conditions ~ 20% down, etc., that over the course of a 30-year loan, the financing on the home is greater than the purchase price generally speaking.  That's what taxpayers have quite often picked up, which is not insignificant.  Overall it's typically more than the original cost of the home itself.  Recent public pressure is beginning to exterminate such deals as people are starting to question why they as taxpayers have to pay for the business expenses of uber-wealthy multi-billionaire owners.  

 

I'm not a multi-billionaire or a NFL team owner, so we are all generally in the same boat and share the same point of view regarding stadium funding and public money. But, when discussing the matter, I try to provide whatever insight I can, although what I provide may be subjective to my own interpretations...I try not to give opinions on the stadium topic, but rather thinking points based on the facts, dynamics, and surrounding circumstances, regardless of whether or not I agree with them. I do have opinions to share, but they're laid out plain enough to know. In other words, I really don't have a horse in the race when discussing the "political" aspect of stadium talk. 

 

The fact of the matter is that having a NFL team based in your town is a luxury. Buffalo today is definitely not as lucrative of a NFL city as a larger, more populated city with more fortune 500 type businesses based there. But I do believe that tradition still does have a place in the NFL, and I do believe that the league wants the Bills to stay in WNY.

 

Five or six years ago, talks of an NFL team or teams in L.A. really ramped up, and Buffalo was often talked about as a serious candidate to move there. But that was based on nothing more than the uncertainty of the team with an aging owner, an old, outdated stadium, and last but certainly not least, games already being played in a different building (in another country, at that). Really, though, there was nothing substantial to tie the Bills to L.A., but it sure did generate a lot of clicks. The 3 other teams that were considered candidates were the Rams, Raiders, and Chargers. Interesting how that all worked out...The landscape has changed dramatically since then. The Bills weren't sold to Trump or Bon Jovi, and have owners that are very much more committed to the area. Fear mongering Bills fans worked a lot better back then, even without having produced a consistent winning team yet.

 

But keep in mind that the public is not funding a building that the Pegulas or the NFL will own in any way. The Pegulas will simply use the building and pay rent annually to Erie county (I believe there's a Stadium Authority in charge) or whatever main municipality is chosen, should it be a new stadium away from OP. I don't think your example of buying a house and having taxpayers pay the interest is a good one, but I get what you're saying. How many people in WNY have attended a convention at the Javits Center in Manhattan? Probably very few, but the state of NY is on the hook for $1 billion for the most recent renovation project...

The proposal: contributing to an econmic boon to the state on NY by creating more space to the center, allowing for more people at conventions, resulting in more tax revenue via hotels, restaurants, etc. (more on that later).

 

Teams like the Giants/Jets and the Rams can afford to fund a stadium with their own money, because the markets they're in consist of payback by rich fans with ridiculous PSLs. Buffalo cannot, and will need some public help if they want a professional football team. PSLs will definitely be a part of it, but you're probably talking about $500-$5,000 for PSLs in Buffalo, far less than other, newer stadiums. A tax model similar to the one the Colts used should be more than sufficient, especially if less public funding is involved in comparison to Lucas Oil, which was paid for with about 85% public money IIRC. 

 

Quote

As to the benefit of a community/municality/county, whatever, numerous studies have been conducted illustrating unmistakably that NFL teams do not bring in more in taxes than they suck in via the taxpayers under such scenarios.  Besides the enormous elephant sitting in the bathroom sink of why on earth are normal citizens paying the business expenses of uber-wealthy multi-billionaire NFL owners, there is no proven economic benefit to having a team as such, there is only economic burden as such.  

 

I'm glad you brought this up. Each individual case is different, but I think there's a case to be made by both sides of that argument. Perhaps the pros and cons even out, making any real economic boost a wash, or minimal boost at best. But, the current NFL stadium model is much different than it was 20 years ago. Now, teams are planning the stadiums around grander plans than just 8 games of revenue per year. They're planning "mini-cities" around the stadiums, with shops, restaurants, hotels, bars, movie theatres, coffee shops, etc., many of which are large, national corporations that also helps create business partnerships and sponsorships with the team, all of which creates more jobs and more tax revenue than a simple "field and seats" stadium model from the 1970s did. As far as economic studies pertaining to stadiums goes, I know of them but haven't done the research to form a better opinion, so that may be my next task, but studies generally take many years to conduct.

 

This briefly touches on the subject: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadium_subsidy

 

In the case of stadium subsidies, you're talking about roughly a minimum of 15 years before that money is paid off, and possibly several more years before you see significant net economical boost. If I had to guess, many or most of those studies (relative to NFL stadiums specifically) could be outdated, given the fact that the current stadium model is much different than it was when those studies were conducted. Perhaps I'm overthinking things here; just saying that not everything is black and white. Studies can also be conducted with an agenda in mind, just like analysts can twist stats to "prove" a point. But I'm certainly not discrediting the notion that politicians could be twisting things like economic boost when it comes to lobbying for state money...

 

Quote

But here's my question for you, and again, please correct me if I misunderstood your post, and as well, this relates to my post above this one to Mr. WEO, but let's assume that  team profitability falters even more because things under McBeane didn't work out and fan interest tapers off, which wouldn't be the first time, which would presumably breach an entirely new level of "hopelessness" that the team will ever be good, and the Bills become a financial burden for the league as such. Frankly, they're already close to that relatively speaking.  

 

Do you really then see the league/owners/or even PU supporting the provision of money for the building of a new stadium in Buffalo?   I'm having trouble envisioning that in this world that's incessantly being driven by money, profit, and wealth by the most influential and controlling people involved in particular.  I also don't see the state ponying up the bucks necessary in an investment that wouldn't benefit the state anymore than it would the county financially.  Again, talk is cheap right now, and the power & money in the state hates WNY and treats it like a teat to be sucked dry, the opposite of putting money into it.  

 

This sounds like you have a worry wort on your brain that's been there for years and you should think about having it removed...

 

I don't think that day will ever come from Bills fans. We've had a general "woe is me" kind of metality for years now, yet our fandom hasn't wavered. There's a connection between the Bills and WNYers and natives that goes way beyond football, much like the Packers and their fans. But even if that level of "hopelessness" were to set in, I'm pretty sure that the NFL TV contracts money would provide enough to overcome any losses in ticket revenue, until the team can turn things around and produce a winner. And TBH, I think this team is in pretty good shape going forward, as far as producing a winning product goes. There's a level of competency here that has been lacking for 20+ years.

 

I think your idea here is worrying about the absolute worst possible scenario playing out, even though it probably has about a 0.0001% chance of ever playing out (IMO). I think the beaten down Bills fan history is slowly being eradicated, because it was more of a reflection of how the franchise was being operated under the previous ownership. That was magnified during Ralph's final years, as the team was basically being run by Russ for several years. It was a bit of a limbo period, and we as fans just had to tough it out. Time will tell if this new group can change our mentaility on a large scale, but I'm fairly confident they will, based on how we've seen them operate and evolve in just a few years.

 

Quote

 

That's the one thing that I would fully agree with you on.  I've always maintained that the Pegulas first-love is an empire in WNY with either the Sabres and/or Bills playing second-fiddle and part-and-parcel of that greater goal.  I think that they want to be viewed as the saviors of Buffalo.  To what extent their goal as such could be realized w/o the Bills is a good question.  

 

It's hard to imagine them wanting to abandon what they've created, and what they seem to be trying to accomplish. I think the provisions that RWJ put into the stadium lease and sale of the Bills allowed for an alligning of the stars that none of us could have imagined at the time, and those stars are still in the process of alligning at this moment. Whatever level of worry that I had about the Bills potentially leaving WNY at the time, which was small but existent, has been fully eradicated at this point. The Florio cheese is too old and moldy for me...

 

Quote

I'll finish by stating that we're due for at least another 2008/2009-like recession, and Buffalo has to be among the bottom couple of NFL locales in terms of least likely being able to weather such a recession in terms of having it impact their teams as such and their related profitabilities and related contributions to NFL coffers.  

 

It concerns me that the stadium issue may very well overlap the biggest team disappointment(s) in a couple of decades, and on top of that in perfect-storm fashion and entirely out of anyone's control unlike the first two, a looming recession now too.  I can't even begin to stress enough how important it may be that things work out with Allen & The Process here this season.  There's nothing any of us can do about it except wait and see, but again, I think that it's an enormous mistake to assume that outside pressure and leveraged cannot be applied to a franchise that simply isn't cutting it as a contributing member of the league as such if in fact it works out that way for one or more reasons.  

 

And is it really necessary to state that the last thing that any of the decision-makers in this process care about is what the fans want.  We're the ones that are always getting bilked on "hopes" and as with during Wilson's reign being scared into attending games "so that the team wouldn't move" as you mentioned.  

 

Recession is probably an inevitble part of the cycle, and I expect it as well, but to what level is unknown. It could be like 2008/2009, it could be worse, or not as bad. But, it's probably inevitable at some point in the near future. Again, TV contracts are so big and should be enough to help weather the storm. 

Edited by Drunken Pygmy Goat
  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Oldtime's "proverb for the day".....why let "your boyz turn blue over this crap"?.....can an axe grinding anti-Bflo urinalist really torque you that bad from under his desk?....our troops will be ready and then watch the flood of "mea culpas (um ok-)".......we may need a year for all changes , albeit personnel and coaching staff, but "we're comin'"....stay tuned............

Edited by OldTimeAFLGuy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

You said a mouthful there, and no worries at all about "rambling"/tangents, etc., I love the back-n-forth and this is a complex topic.  

 

 

Quote

 

I do get your point about tailgating and a downtown stadium, but the current model standard for NFL stadiums isn't just some grand palace to play football 8 times a year, but more specifically, a "year-round" destination for locals. With all the money that the Pegulas have invested downtown, plus the Sabres, it almost seems as if an NFL stadium model has already been in progress for several years now, and a new stadium would put a cap on that. The revenue stream for the Pegulas would be much greater there than in OP, unless a similar model is in the plans of a New Era Field retrofit, but that approach just wouldn't be as feasible. There aren't hundreds of people walking around NEF each and every day like there already are downtown.  

 

Perhaps a major retrofit would be the best solution for appeasing both the fans and the league, but it may not be the Pegulas preferred choice.

 

 

Again, you have to keep in mind the politics that support that kind of stuff.  Any monetary benefit to funding taxpayers is derived in terms of sales taxes typically.  But do the math and it seems like a ludicrous proposition.  

 

Also, think stadiums like DC (Skins), Foxborough (Pats), and I'm sure several others whereby their teams contribute way more to the general funds but are nowhwere near "walkaround" areas.  I've never been to Lambeau but based on the pics that doesn't seem that way either.  I'm sure there are more also not having been to them all.  

 

The Meadowlands is way out in the middle of nowhere with zero "walkaround" area with two very profitable teams.  

 

I'll still always default to the value of tailgating in Buffalo since we obviously cannot support the pricey corporate seats that other markets do.  I'm convinced that since we've sucked attendance would have been far lower if we had crappy tailgating like DC or other places.  

 

 

Quote

I really don't have a horse in the race when discussing the "political" aspect of stadium talk. 

 

Same here, I have no political horse in the race, I simply react to league-wide trends & patterns and our local circumstances, particularly as contrasted with other markets and teams.  For instance, I've never seen the degree and robustness of tailgating so far as we have.  There was one exception which was the Niners when they were at Candlestick, but I haven't been to the new park so I have no idea whether or how it's changed.  

 

 

Quote

 

The fact of the matter is that having a NFL team based in your town is a luxury. Buffalo today is definitely not as lucrative of a NFL city as a larger, more populated city with more fortune 500 type businesses based there. But I do believe that tradition still does have a place in the NFL, and I do believe that the league wants the Bills to stay in WNY.

 

 

I agree with that up to the point, on implication, that tradition is enough to carry a team.  The whole Cleveland/Baltimore fiasco demonstrates that, same with Houston moving to Tennessee, or the Rams moving to St. Louis.  Tradition takes a bigtime backseat to money, make no mistake about that.  The tradition may be a tiebreaker but that's about it insofar as the league is concerned.  

 

Quote

 

But keep in mind that the public is not funding a building that the Pegulas or the NFL will own in any way. The Pegulas will simply use the building and pay rent annually to Erie county (I believe there's a Stadium Authority in charge) or whatever main municipality is chosen, should it be a new stadium away from OP. I don't think your example of buying a house and having taxpayers pay the interest is a good one, but I get what you're saying. How many people in WNY have attended a convention at the Javits Center in Manhattan? Probably very few, but the state on NY is on the hook for $1 billion for the most recent renovation project...

 

The proposal: contributing to an econmic boon to the state on NY by creating more space to the center, allowing for more people at conventions, resulting in more tax revenue via hotels, restaurants, etc. (more on that later).

 

 

That's more or less a shell-game of sorts however.  OK, so the county owns it, as they do Rich, and which I don't think will happen again since the county has already pulled it's pockets out of its pants revealing that they're empty.  Couple that with a very significant if not majority of population that doesn't want yet another tax hike to pay for it.  But even if it were to happen the taxpayers would still be picking up the tab, but the entire tab at that point and presumably w/o a 15+ year commitment from the team, or only as long as whatever their lease were.  

 

Look at it this way, if it makes no sense to build it w/o any involvement from the team, it's all but inconceivable that the team's 8 uses/year would be the use that puts it over the top and into profitability.  Just not seeing that, particularly in Buffalo.  Now maybe the downtown area has changed so much in recent years that it's like that now, I don't know, but based on what I know that simply doesn't seem viable.  

 

It's not like DC where the restaurants are open on the periphery where people eat all week long, I simply don't see that kind of foot-traffic in Buffalo.  

 

I'll believe the profitability model when I see it otherwise and will consider it to be a political smokescreen until that time.  Anything else would be unwise.  

 

 

Quote

Teams like the Giants/Jets and the Rams can afford to fund a stadium with their own money, because the markets they're in consist of payback by rich fans with ridiculous PSLs. Buffalo cannot, and will need some public help if they want a professional football team. PSLs will definitely be a part of it, but you're probably talking about $500-$5,000 for PSLs in Buffalo, far less than other, newer stadiums. A tax model similar to the one the Colts used should be more than sufficient, especially if less public funding is involved in comparison to Lucas Oil, which was paid for with about 85% public money IIRC. 

 

On that, to start, Indianapolis is a completely different city, eh.  Otherwise, you hit the nail right on the head here.  That's where the NFL prefers to have teams/stadiums, where the most "rich fans" that can afford "ridiculous PSLs" are.  As you say, Buffalo simply isn't that place.  For the same reasons, directly or indirectly, I see the same lack of viability with the "lease" [from the county] arrangement.  

 

As to Lucas Oil Stadium, Indiana also isn't NY and Indy far from WNY, I simply not only don't see "support" for something like that, last time there was a big outcry against it.  

 

 

Quote

I'm glad you brought this up. Each individual case is different, but I think there's a case to be made by both sides of that argument. Perhaps the pros and cons even out, making any real economic boost a wash, or minimal boost at best. But, the current NFL stadium model is much different than it was 20 years ago. Now, teams are planning the stadiums around grander plans than just 8 games of revenue per year. They're planning "mini-cities" around the stadiums, with shops, restaurants, hotels, bars, movie theatres, coffee shops, etc., many of which are large, national corporations that also helps create business partnerships and sponsorships with the team, all of which creates more jobs and more tax revenue than a simple "field and seats" stadium model from the 1970s did. As far as economic studies pertaining to stadiums goes, I know of them but haven't done the research to form a better opinion, so that may be my next task, but studies generally take many years to conduct.

 

Do you really see that being apropos to Buffalo?  

 

I'm struggling with it, mightily.  

 

 

Quote

 

In the case of stadium subsidies, you're talking about roughly a minimum of 15 years before that money is paid off, and possibly several more years before you see significant net economical boost.

 

 

Again, the primary economic boost to the taxpayers funding it is via sales tax.  Add up the amount of sales tax collected every year and do the math.  It's amazing how short these superficial studies fall.  And then again, that's if the politicos actually repay the taxpayers, ... since when does that happen?  I'm tellin' ya, it's all smoke-n-mirrors which is what politicians specialize in across the board.  

 

Quote

 

This sounds like you a worry wort on your brain that's been there for years and you should think about having it removed..

 

I don't think that day will ever come from Bills fans. We've had a general "woe is me" kind of metality for years now, yet our fandom hasn't wavered. There's a connection between the Bills and WNYers and natives that goes way beyond football, much like the Packers and their fans. But even if that level of "hopelessness" were to set in, I'm pretty sure that the NFL TV contracts money would provide enough to overcome any losses in ticket revenue, until the team can turn things around and produce a winner. And TBH, I think this team is in pretty good shape going forward, as far as producing a winning product goes. There's a level of competency here that has been lacking for 20+ years.

 

I think your idea here is worrying about the absolute worst possible scenario playing out, even though it probably has about a 0.0001% chance of ever playing out (IMO). I think the beaten down Bills fan history is slowly being eradicated, because is was more of a reflection of how the franchise was being operated under the previous ownership. That was magnified during Ralph's final years, as the team was basically being run by Russ for several years. It was a bit of a limbo period, and we as fans just had to tough it out. Time will tell if this new group can change our mentaility on a large scale, but I'm fairly confident they will, bases on how we've seen them operate and evolve in just a few years.

 

 

I don't think so, but maybe.  It wasn't all that long ago, and frankly, on teams that on paper were better than ours is today, that we were struggling to get 40k seasons annually.  It took the smooth talking Whaley, who was regarded just as highly as Beane is today, to sweet-talk fans into excitement again.  And think about it, consider the hype on Allen, if the teams falls from a mistake there, man, that fall's going to be huge.  The whole "BILL-ieve" thing is all but a joke today which is where "The Process" will be if it doesn't work out.  

 

Here's the thing that I've noticed, older fans are dwindling and their interest is falling off fast as A, they age, and B, they feel like they've been fleeced one too many times and don't want to be played for fools again.  Many, a great many, that I've known, go to games primarily for the tailgating but wouldn't otherwise. So in getting back to that downtown stadium, if tailgating is hindered there will be a dropoff in the interest in going to games, the only question is to what extent, but I believe that it would not only be significant,, but that w/o a highly competitive (aka playoff competitive) team, it would be terminal.  

 

Hopefully we'll never find out.  But still, I don't think that odds of that "perfect storm" scenario are anywhere close to that low.  The team I'd say at best is 50/50 to render "The Process" viable and even less of Allen working out, again, at best.  If that happens then I'm pretty sure that the team will become more of a financial burden to the league in the eyes of a majority of owners.  The only other factor was a recession, which WNY weathers worse than other areas of the country, and that's all but a given with only the day/hour being unknown.  So again, I don't think that's a "far from happening" thing.  

 

 

Quote

It's hard to imagine them wanting to abandon what they've created, and what they seem to be trying to accomplish. I think the provisions that RWJ put into the stadium lease and sale of the Bills allowed for an alligning of the stars that none of us could have imagined at the time, and those stars are still in the process of alligning at this moment. 

 

That stadium lease is up after this season pending only a 3-year extension that will go quickly with long-term decisions beginning to have to be made as early as next year. 

 

It's not really a question of abandonment othewise, it's more a question of whether or not it will succeed.  Many a politician, particularly in WNY (Rochester very specifically) have tried to "renovate downtown" yet have merely dug bigger debt holes from which to climb out of.  

 

Here's where the Pegulas may be pissing into the wind, but the problem with WNY derives itself form the oppressive tax structure which is driving indigenous people from the state in no small numbers.  That circumstance is nowhere even close to changing, not even on the horizon as such.  And for eco-political reasons that I won't get into and no doubt you are aware of, those taxes will not be reduced anytime soon as they can't be or what remains crumbles.  It's a lose-lose situation for the state, particularly WNY.  

 

Either way, I'm highly doubtful that the Pegula's goal will ever be realized as they envision it.  As mentioned, they're pissing into the eco-political headwinds.  If you ask me, they'll continue to fund it until they go broke, then the gig will be up.  


 

Quote

 

Recession is probably an inevitble part of the cycle, and I expect it as well, but to what level is unknown. It could be like 2008/2009, it could be worse, or not as bad. But, it's probably inevitable at some point in the near future. Again, TV contracts are so big and should be enough to help weather the storm. 

 

 

It'll be worse than 2008/2009, which was covered up in a way that will not be possible yet again.  Having said that, again, WNY doesn't weather recessions as well as most parts of the country.  As to the TV contracts, those do not appear to be a big part of the equation or problem insofar as we're concerned.  

 

We'll see, it's fun to discuss, and any number of outcomes are possible with any number of permutations of things we're discussing.  

 

For example, one outcome is that they manage to scrape together enough to build a downtown stadium, which would seem to be against what the Pegs have implied is possible, but let's say it happens.  Suppose that it's only for 50k seats but that demand diminishes for exactly the reason that tailgating changes so significantly that many fans, particularly older ones, completely lose interest in merely "going to games" as fans in other markets do.  That would cause an unsolvable problem at that time.  

 

We'll see, but the first hurdle is getting Allen corrected.  If that doesn't happen then the first portion of my incredibly unlikely scenario will be firmly in place.  From where I sit, analytically, I don't think we're far from that occurring.  It will mean a new coach & GM, which means "square one," ... again.  Given the hype on Allen, and considering that every times that happens more fans fall off into "prove it to me first" territory, I think that the situation will be relatively dark for us.  

 

Unfortunately there's nothing we can control about the vast majority of it.  The one thing that we can control is subsidizing a poorly performing team, but my personal policy is that the owners treat it like a business, even to the extent of doing whatever they can to have us working stiffs fund their business expenses, the players treat it like a business, so I treat it like a business in that regard.  If they want my money it'll only be given in exchange for a product that I want, not in efforts to create fear that if I don't subsidize the team then they'll move.  It's either a business or it isn't, but the league makes that determination, not us.  

 

We should know more about this team and McBeane's implicit status within a few short months.  We should know more about the future direction of the location of the team within the next year or so as we enter the lease-option years ending after the '22 season a mere 3-1/2 years from now.  If they're going to build a new stadium we should know by the end of next year as plans and construction will need to begin.  Same for a renovation.  

 

 

Edited by Ronin
  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/6/2019 at 9:02 AM, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

So the concept that players could?/should? be able to push a team such as, say Buffalo, into a "more profitable market" when the league itself can't do that---it isn't even worth putting into the discussion about the CBA/stadium credits.

 

In a nutshell, I think the POTENTIAL danger is that any proposal of this nature would force Pegula's hand if it were to hamper Buffalo's financial situation to the extent that it's no longer viable; not that the league could ACTUALLY force Pegs to relocate.

Share this post


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

In a nutshell, I think the POTENTIAL danger is that any proposal of this nature would force Pegula's hand if it were to hamper Buffalo's financial situation to the extent that it's no longer viable; not that the league could ACTUALLY force Pegs to relocate.

 

Again,  why would the owners ever even let that get on the table?   I could see, maybe,  NFLPA getting a vote in some way on relocations of teams of owners who are looking to move them.  But there is no scenario where the union could pressure a team to move to another market—the owners themselves, as a group, have no such power.

 

Makes no sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

Again,  why would the owners ever even let that get on the table?   I could see, maybe,  NFLPA getting a vote in some way on relocations of teams of owners who are looking to move them.  But there is no scenario where the union could pressure a team to move to another market—the owners themselves, as a group, have no such power.

 

Makes no sense.

I would counter that the group of owners who would benefit from such proposal would love to get it on the table. The question then becomes how many owners believe it would work in their favor and how many believe it would be a detriment.

 

And again, it's not about pressuring a team to move to another location. It's about making the conditions such that a team would essentially be forced to move or sacrifice a great deal financially.

Edited by LSHMEAB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

I would counter that the group of owners who would benefit from such proposal would love to get it on the table. The question then becomes how many owners believe it would work in their favor and how many believe it would be a detriment.

 

And again, it's not about pressuring a team to move to another location. It's about making the conditions such that a team would essentially be forced to move or sacrifice a great deal financially.

 

Well, logic would dictate that the low revenue owners are the ones who would benefit the most.  They are free to propose to move their teams now, and the other owners who will also benefit would vote to approve.  So there would be no benefit to any owner if the union had a voice in this.  

 

The reality is that moving teams is rare.  Also,  there are at this point an extremely small number of cities without a team that could support a team (stadium, fan base) to the degree that they would be a definite “better market” for any team right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

Well, logic would dictate that the low revenue owners are the ones who would benefit the most.  They are free to propose to move their teams now, and the other owners who will also benefit would vote to approve.  So there would be no benefit to any owner if the union had a voice in this.  

 

The reality is that moving teams is rare.  Also,  there are at this point an extremely small number of cities without a team that could support a team (stadium, fan base) to the degree that they would be a definite “better market” for any team right now.

 

Moving teams is rare? Really?

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...