EDIT: Total cost to taxpayers? Bills select sports firm to represent ownership in building new open air stadium in OP, targeted for 2025

[ColoradoBills]

34 minutes ago, Augie said:

We had four covered seats about the 45 yard line closest to home base. (Those are words that should NEVER be in that order.) The roof was great in the rain, except where we sat…under the crack in the seam in the roof where it came down like a FIREHOSE! 

 

That is crazy.  I was only at the old rockpile for maybe 6-8 games but only sat under the overhang 1 time.

The rest we were in the end zones.  My dad did let me run down to try and get a ball after TDs.

I was probably 10-12 years old.  Different times!

[PromoTheRobot]

3 hours ago, BUFFALOBART said:

"No replacement parts", is sending my B.S. meter through the ceiling. Heated seats are not exactly unique items.

The entire article (In my opinion) is attempting to corral fans into thinking that things are much worse than they seem.

 

2 hours ago, Patience said:

 

I tend to think the same thing. 

 

Because you're structural engineers?

[PromoTheRobot]

2 hours ago, JohnNord said:

Thanks for the few members here who decided to shame me for having the audacity to ask for a summary, I was able to find a way to read the article.

 

Here’s a summary for anyone that doesn’t want to get harassed:

 

The gist is that Highmark Stadium is bad shape and in order to renovated it like Soldier Field in Chicago it would cost almost $1 Billion dollars.  PSE believes that the better value is paying $1.4M for a new stadium next to Highmark.  

There are a number of issues - mostly caused by the freeze-thaw cycle:

- Upper Deck

- structural damage

- settled and cracked concrete 

- antiquated light poles

- Deteriorating steel beams  

 

These are just a few.  The bottom line is that the stadium is old and while it’s safe, it taken a tremendous to keep it up to code.  If the Pegulas are going to spending upwards of a $1 Billion on a new stadium…they want to own it…and they want a new one.  

No problem… the story is, I don’t think I’d get value out of a BN subscription - so I don’t subscribe.  So I asked if someone could provide a recap - as myself and many others have done for other members in the past who don’t subscribe to a service.  
 

I was basically shamed for asking and called a “freeloader.”  Nice people here I see.

 

Anyway I did find a way to read the article and provided a summary for anyone who doesn’t want to be harassed for asking

 

Just an FYI: When you talk about the Soldier Field "renovation" what your really talking about is an ENTIRE new stadium built inside the footprint of the old Soldier Field, but keeping the old Roman column facade. It would be like buying a new car but keeping the hubcaps from your old one and calling that a renovation.

45 minutes ago, Augie said:

We had four covered seats about the 45 yard line closest to home base. (Those are words that should NEVER be in that order.) The roof was great in the rain, except where we sat…under the crack in the seam in the roof where it came down like a FIREHOSE! 

 

And the Ol' Rockpire was only 35 YEARS OLD when it was replaced by a new Rich Stadium in 1973...which is now 48 years old!

Edited August 16, 2021 by PromoTheRobot

[Doc]

The stadium is 50 years old.  It needs to be replaced.  Not sure why people are so convinced the thing isn't falling apart, despite the renovations (that can only do so much)?

[PromoTheRobot]

1 minute ago, BUFFALOBART said:

If there were profound structural issues, I would think that they would've been addressed firsthand, during the $140 million 'upgrade'. It wasn't all that long ago.. Let's just assume, that they 'didn't notice'.

 

They did address them but they weren't a permanent solution apparently. Like I posted early, the stadium is now 48 years old, exposed to the elements all that time. It's not preposterous that a replacement is needed. Why on earth would you keeping sinking money into a dump?

[Patience]

15 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

 

 

Because you're structural engineers?

 

Didn't know you had to be a structural engineer to have an opinion - hence, how I framed it as: I tend to think. 

[PromoTheRobot]

1 minute ago, Patience said:

 

Didn't know you had to be a structural engineer to have an opinion - hence, how I framed it as: I tend to think. 

 

It helps if you are debating the worthiness of a structure. I prefer opinions from experts.

[Patience]

2 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

 

It helps if you are debating the worthiness of a structure. I prefer opinions from experts.

 

Good to know.  We all should attempt to refrain from posting our opinions in response to any reports, since you only prefer, in your words, expert opinions.  Perhaps we should limit any discussion of any stadium construction issues to experts that have been qualified and validated by the moderators.  

[loyal2dagame]

4 hours ago, Southern_Bills said:

You guys are being brutal to @JohnNord but I don't know the whole story lol.. carry on.

Wasn't John Nord the Berserker in WWF?

 

Edit: just seen his profile pic....👍

6 hours ago, PromoTheRobot said:

 

Terry knows his customers.

It's been called the vomitotium since before the Pegulas owned the team

Edited August 16, 2021 by loyal2dagame

[Doc]

17 minutes ago, Patience said:

Good to know.  We all should attempt to refrain from posting our opinions in response to any reports, since you only prefer, in your words, expert opinions.  Perhaps we should limit any discussion of any stadium construction issues to experts that have been qualified and validated by the moderators.  

 

As I like to say, opinions are like...

 

I think what PTR was trying to say is that if you're, say, expressing an opinion on the article and where it may be trying to lead you, don't hold back.  But if you start opining about the stadium likely being fine and that they're just lying to us to get a new one, that requires an opinion from someone who has actually examined the stadium. 

[Patience]

8 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

As I like to say, opinions are like...

 

I think what PTR was trying to say is that if you're, say, expressing an opinion on the article and where it may be trying to lead you, don't hold back.  But if you start opining about the stadium likely being fine and that they're just lying to us to get a new one, that requires an opinion from someone who has actually examined the stadium. 

 

I don't think it could be clearer that it's the former.  Here's the original quote pertaining to the article that I responded to: "The entire article (In my opinion) is attempting to corral fans into thinking that things are much worse than they seem."

 

The quote above was a reaction to the article based on the report, not the report itself.  But, apparently, I'm precluded from passing these judgments as I'm not a structural engineer, and the poster above only prefers to peruse opinions of structural engineers for his consideration on a general Buffalo Bills message board.  Mea culpa. 

[loyal2dagame]

Whether the current stadium has structural issues,  the restrooms are made for vomiting, or the owners and or media put a spin on things,  the Bills are going to be playing in a new stadium within the next 6 years.  

Like my man Ric Flair said,  "Whether you like it, or don't like it, learn to love it...."

[SoCal Deek]

Just get on with it already. Replace the current stadium with a modern, amenity filled, open air facility in Orchard Park and don’t look back. Everything points in that direction. Cost (saving at least $500m), time (saving at least two years and maybe much more), and game day experience (tailgating tradition). It makes ZERO sense to build a dome stadium in the middle of nowhere just you can sit inside once or twice a year. Done…now start building! 

[Albany,n.y.]

18 hours ago, JohnNord said:

Stop being so sanctimonious.  I simply asked someone to summarize the article because I don’t like to waste money on things that suck.

All you freeloaders who get on my case because "everything you want to know is on the internet for free" need to either pay if you want to see something that isn't free or shut up & stop mocking people who are paying for stuff you can't see.  

 

You're the one who is sanctimonious, thinking you're above paying for things & expecting the world to just give you everything.  Grow up!

 

[BigBuff423]

4 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

Just get on with it already. Replace the current stadium with a modern, amenity filled, open air facility in Orchard Park and don’t look back. Everything points in that direction. Cost (saving at least $500m), time (saving at least two years and maybe much more), and game day experience (tailgating tradition). It makes ZERO sense to build a dome stadium in the middle of nowhere just you can sit inside once or twice a year. Done…now start building! 

 

Maybe I missed something, but do you plan on having the other 6 or 7 games in a different stadium? I mean, the point of the dome would be to host at least 8 games, up to 9 in the regular season, and the playoffs during the coldest time of the year, correct? And, given the nature of contemporary NFL doesn't it make sense to maximize that leverage whenever possible? Tailgating tradition still happens in the parking lot, right? So, why would having a dome impact the tailgating experience? Also, if the plan is to use tax payer money, wouldn't it also make sense to be able to utilize that same venue for things during the non-football season? 

 

All just questions with no snark intended. I'm just trying to make sure I understand the logic in the argument and re-frame them to ensure accuracy. 

[SoCal Deek]

46 minutes ago, BigBuff423 said:

 

Maybe I missed something, but do you plan on having the other 6 or 7 games in a different stadium? I mean, the point of the dome would be to host at least 8 games, up to 9 in the regular season, and the playoffs during the coldest time of the year, correct? And, given the nature of contemporary NFL doesn't it make sense to maximize that leverage whenever possible? Tailgating tradition still happens in the parking lot, right? So, why would having a dome impact the tailgating experience? Also, if the plan is to use tax payer money, wouldn't it also make sense to be able to utilize that same venue for things during the non-football season? 

 

All just questions with no snark intended. I'm just trying to make sure I understand the logic in the argument and re-frame them to ensure accuracy. 

Nice try. The goal of a dome is to be able to take FULL advantage of the indoor environment with many different events throughout the year along with the boost to the surrounding businesses. You’re not going to get that advantage with a dome built out in Orchard Park.,You just aren’t. So if you want to invest $500 million in a roof for two football games a year so people don’t have to put on a jacket , go for it. Feel free to write the check! 

[BigBuff423]

27 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Nice try. The goal of a dome is to be able to take FULL advantage of the indoor environment with many different events throughout the year along with the boost to the surrounding businesses. You’re not going to get that advantage with a dome built out in Orchard Park.,You just aren’t. So if you want to invest $500 million in a roof for two football games a year so people don’t have to put on a jacket , go for it. Feel free to write the check! 

 

You disagree with putting a dome on it, ok fair enough - everyone is entitle to their opinion. What I don't understand and you didn't answer is the tailgate experience should change, right? Also, why do you keep saying "two football games a year"? Did the Bills forfeit the other 6 or 7, not including playoffs? If you want to be honest about the weather, then let's discuss rain in October or really cold evening games in December like the Bills have played the last two years - because those factor in as well. Moreover, do you think it's more likely the Bills play another Thanksgiving game in a dome at home to host the Lions or Cowboys, or have a Divisional match-up? Do you honestly believe that IF the Bills keep playing well and winning games that the venue of that game, i.e. a new dome, doesn't help the NFL market those games better? Again, not snarky questions, I'm legitimately asking to see what your thoughts are....as it seems to me, from what I can tell, you just don't want a dome because you like the purity of having an open air stadium, because the nostalgia of years gone by is rich to you, and because you have concerns over the financial implications of the dome both in taxes and cost of tickets / concessions. 

[LABILLBACKER]

33 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Nice try. The goal of a dome is to be able to take FULL advantage of the indoor environment with many different events throughout the year along with the boost to the surrounding businesses. You’re not going to get that advantage with a dome built out in Orchard Park.,You just aren’t. So if you want to invest $500 million in a roof for two football games a year so people don’t have to put on a jacket , go for it. Feel free to write the check! 

2 games a year?....how bout 8 games a year with wind. Everyone always forgets about the wind. 

[nucci]

1 minute ago, LABILLBACKER said:

2 games a year?....how bout 8 games a year with wind. Everyone always forgets about the wind. 

not everyone. It's the biggest weather issue at the stadium

Edited August 16, 2021 by nucci

[SoCal Deek]

2 minutes ago, BigBuff423 said:

 

You disagree with putting a dome on it, ok fair enough - everyone is entitle to their opinion. What I don't understand and you didn't answer is the tailgate experience should change, right? Also, why do you keep saying "two football games a year"? Did the Bills forfeit the other 6 or 7, not including playoffs? If you want to be honest about the weather, then let's discuss rain in October or really cold evening games in December like the Bills have played the last two years - because those factor in as well. Moreover, do you think it's more likely the Bills play another Thanksgiving game in a dome at home to host the Lions or Cowboys, or have a Divisional match-up? Do you honestly believe that IF the Bills keep playing well and winning games that the venue of that game, i.e. a new dome, doesn't help the NFL market those games better? Again, not snarky questions, I'm legitimately asking to see what your thoughts are....as it seems to me, from what I can tell, you just don't want a dome because you like the purity of having an open air stadium, because the nostalgia of years gone by is rich to you, and because you have concerns over the financial implications of the dome both in taxes and cost of tickets / concessions. 

I’m neither pro dome or anti dome. My point is that if the stadium is out in the suburbs I find it hard to believe that the people paying for it will invest in the roof. I know that I wouldn’t if it was my money. 

3 minutes ago, LABILLBACKER said:

2 games a year?....how bout 8 games a year with wind. Everyone always forgets about the wind. 

Yikes! Come on people! You don’t spend a half billion to keep your team out of the wind. The primary purpose of a domed stadium is so that it’ll become multi-functional. The wind thing is nice, but it’s not the driving ‘force’ (pardon the pun) in spending that kind of money.