Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, hondo in seattle said:

I don't see the 'terrifying' concern.

 

The Pegulas hired football people (Beans, McD) to run football operations.   They hired PR people to do PR.   They hired negotiators to negotiate.

 

 

Exactly.  And they hired lobbyists.  Lobbyists!  Oh my.

 

Yawn!

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Haha (+1) 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Doc Brown said:

It's a far left website who hates fracking.  This might get moved to the ppp section but the writer obviously has an agenda.

 

So I am just to the left of Stalin as a rule and I found it a bit one sided even for my tastes.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Agree 2
  • Haha (+1) 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

It's a far left website who hates fracking.  This might get moved to the ppp section but the writer obviously has an agenda.

 

They might hate football too ;)

49 minutes ago, HOUSE said:

Very nice rocks in front of the stadium

 

You know why they are there?

 

Its not for decoration......

 

You would need to have an M1 Abrams to get through that......its to protect the Stadium and fans from a terrorist attack with a vehicle.

 

They also block OB Drive with large 5-10 ton trucks and the parking lot aisles that lead directly to the stadium.

Edited by JMF2006
large trucks
  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, JMF2006 said:

 

They might hate football too ;)

 

You know why they are there?

 

Its not for decoration......

 

You would need to have an M1 Abrams to get through that......its to protect the Stadium and fans from a terrorist attack with a vehicle.

 

They also block OB Drive with large 5-10 ton trucks and the parking lot aisles that lead directly to the stadium.

 

The rocks are still very nice. 😁

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m thinking GunnerBill has it right, when an obviously intelligent guy like GB calls the article a hatchet job you know that it is exactly that.  
 

as they say “Clicks” pay the bills… 

 

In actuality there is zero new news in this article, just the normal NFL threats / attacks on tax payers and fans, goes to show everyone how the league feels about its customers,   imo, we tax payers should put up signs all over Orchard park and Buffalo telling the NFL and the Pegula’s how we feel about this situation….,  but most folk just do what the corporate overlords insist on, because most folk are wusses…, 

 

Not go bills in this instance…

Edited by Don Otreply
  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, gomper said:

True, but the content doesn't change.  The more we know about this situation,  the less we know. 

 

More like the more effort the that someone exerts to try to read the drivel in the article,   the more time they wasted that they can never get back.

  • Haha (+1) 2
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "Pegula floated a proposal for the public to fund 100% of the cost of a new stadium" claim has already been debunked.  He/they neither floated it (a county exec did) nor did he/they ever expect the public to fund 100% of it (as if this wasn't already obvious, and I think they expect to pay 25%).  It's a negotiation with both sides wanting to be on the hook for as little as possible. 

 

They'll get something done because losing a billionaire who has done a lot for the area, as well as losing 2 professional sports teams from the area, would be devastating.  And lest anyone forget, a good chunk of the $1.4B they paid for the team went to Buffalo. 

Edited by Doc
  • Like (+1) 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I say this as both a) someone who believes Billionaires who want nice things should pay for them themselves and b) a former journalist: That article is a hatchet job. It makes no attempt to actually discern what is going on. When I add that to how poorly it is written I don't consider it worth much. What it does do, in fairness to it, is make me want to go and find some more credible reporting. So far I have largely ignored the stadium stuff but I probably need to begin engaging with it. 

 

2 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

So I am just to the left of Stalin as a rule and I found it a bit one sided even for my tastes.

 

45 minutes ago, JMF2006 said:

OMG we are going to war with IRAQ? ;)

 

Thankfully I am too old to be drafted ;)

In negotiations you never start off where you want to end up ;)

 

Throw 100% out there and settle for 50/50 thats how its done ;)


 

Based upon some people I respect calling this a one-sided hatchet job - I will not give clicks to the original article - I will wait for a reputable source like Warrow to write a true piece.  
 

I agree with JMF that this is negotiating tactics- I just don’t see it landing near 50/50.  I firmly believe the Pegula’s are making a huge concession going open air and in OP and that is their opening volley in payment.  
 

Basically we are saving you nearly 50% of the cost on the stadium we could demand - downtown and retractable roof - so we expect you to contribute about 1.2 billion publicly and we will get 200 million from NFL loans and pay this off.  
 

I think the final figures will be close to that - probably 1 Billion public, 200-300 million NFL and a couple 100 million from the Pegula’s covering cost overruns and additional amenities they want.

 

I think there will be a lot of bickering and it will be messy, but some of it will come from the infrastructure bill being passed and now is the perfect time to get this done.  

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether to put a roof on the stadium is bigger than just football.  The most important question is "if there is a roof, will the stadium be used more during the year?"  If the answer is "yes," then a roof should be installed and the county should foot the bill for the roof since it will be their stadium and they'll get more money by being able to use it more.

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, purple haze said:

From studies done by some climate change researchers Buffalo temps/weather will be warmer in general and particularly more mild in the winter than it is now.  
 

 


 

I will also say that warmer temperatures will keep the lake thawed more and when the cold polar wind currents shift down and go over the warmer, moist, thawed Great Lakes - we get lake effect snow in the Buffalo area.

 

Warmer temperatures will not actually necessarily decrease the snowfall in Buffalo because of where most of our snow comes from.  Warmer temperatures will most likely lead to more cases of blizzard like conditions that last for short periods of time as wind patterns shift. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...