Pegulas invite UB football to new stadium. UB prefers to stay on campus.

[Mr. WEO]

Just now, Doc said:

 

I already said that buying an expansion team and paying for a new stadium wasn't feasible.  Again owners of existing teams didn't want to move their teams.  Because they were content making good money where they were in stadiums partially funded by the public.  Just like Kroenke could have done in STL, even if he had to pay for his own stadium like you believe the Pegulas should. 

 

You're just a raging hypocrite on this topic because you dislike Terry and/or Kim for goodness knows whatever reason.  Oh wait, it's the "hero worship."  LOL!

 

Expansion fee and a decent stadium could be had for a little over half of what Kroenke paid to move to his Shangri-LA.  And ANY billionaire owner would have recouped his layout within a few years due to the "increased TV revenue" and "increased local revenue", amiritie??  Yet not one did it....for 20 years!

 

I don't feel the weird need to "like" or "dislike" owners of pro sports teams.  That's just...bizarre.  Enjoy the games!  The rest is just ginned up drama the NFL feeds you to follow along for the 99.999% off the time during our waking hours when we aren't actually watching the games.   I'm just pointing out why Pegula is no better than any other billionaire sports owner who took the first opportunity that his ownership afforded him to soak the public for his ands his family's benefit.  Even that is undeniable.  Maybe that makes you sad to accept.  Just block it out.  Go to your happy place......

 

 

........which is true "hero worship"!  You are due back to carry "Shady's" water in the retirement thread!

[Doc]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

Expansion fee and a decent stadium could be had for a little over half of what Kroenke paid to move to his Shangri-LA.  And ANY billionaire owner would have recouped his layout within a few years due to the "increased TV revenue" and "increased local revenue", amiritie??  Yet not one did it....for 20 years!

 

I don't feel the weird need to "like" or "dislike" owners of pro sports teams.  That's just...bizarre.  Enjoy the games!  The rest is just ginned up drama the NFL feeds you to follow along for the 99.999% off the time during our waking hours when we aren't actually watching the games.   I'm just pointing out why Pegula is no better than any other billionaire sports owner who took the first opportunity that his ownership afforded him to soak the public for his ands his family's benefit.  Even that is undeniable.  Maybe that makes you sad to accept.  Just block it out.  Go to your happy place......

 

 

........which is true "hero worship"!  You are due back to carry "Shady's" water in the retirement thread!

 

Expansion was done in 1999 when Bob McNair, who was from Houston, wanted to put a team...in Houston.  There won't be another expansion team.

 

You're merely conflating "didn't want to" (move to the LA market) with "couldn't."  It's a common tactic.  If Kroenke feels he can recoup his investment (well, his kids will since he's now 74) with a $6B stadium, imagine what paying even less than half of that could do?

 

Happy place?  I've been there for awhile, thank you very much.  Life is great (although COVID sucks and there are minor annoyances here and there) and the Bills will remain in Buffalo for my lifetime because the hard part, finding the right owners, is done.  They'll get their public funds, like I knew they would if they asked for them and the team will remain in Buffalo.  The cherry on top is the team is doing really well.

 

You OTOH seem upset about the public fund issue.  Don't worry, my state wastes money to enrich millionaires and billionaires in other ways as well.  There's nothing I can do about it.  So just accept it. 

[Doc Brown]

On 9/25/2021 at 6:46 AM, machine gun kelly said:

Doc, I think they mentioned a canopy so in essence the upper and part of the lower decks would be covered from snow, rain, and most importantly wind.  By installing those huge heating lamps would also create a much more mild environment.  It also on the field will still look like an open stadium which a lot of people like so without the heavy winds at times, the field would still see a little snow.  I love it, and given in another thread people are not happy about PSL’s, they would only be worse in other places mentioned.

If you're making that many accommodations isn't it easier and cheaper in the long run o just to put a roof over it?

[Doc]

10 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

If you're making that many accommodations isn't it easier and cheaper in the long run o just to put a roof over it?

 

Yeah, with the overhang they're proposing, I can't imagine it would cost a lot more to just enclose the whole thing.

[machine gun kelly]

8 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

If you're making that many accommodations isn't it easier and cheaper in the long run o just to put a roof over it?

Doc, I don’t think so.  A sturdy canopy, and if already planned anyway heating lamps, would most likely cost a lot less than a roof.  Neither one of us are engineers or actuarials so I don’t know.  Just speculation.

[SoCal Deek]

1 hour ago, machine gun kelly said:

Doc, I don’t think so.  A sturdy canopy, and if already planned anyway heating lamps, would most likely cost a lot less than a roof.  Neither one of us are engineers or actuarials so I don’t know.  Just speculation.

I’m an architect. It’s a balance. The covered stands, roof, brings significant structural costs for foundations and trusses. The dome brings the added cost of a mechanical system, walls/windows to seal and control the enclosure. In most cases the roof would be cheaper than the dome, especially when factoring in life cycle heating and air conditioning costs.

[PromoTheRobot]

52 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

I’m an architect. It’s a balance. The covered stands, roof, brings significant structural costs for foundations and trusses. The dome brings the added cost of a mechanical system, walls/windows to seal and control the enclosure. In most cases the roof would be cheaper than the dome, especially when factoring in life cycle heating and air conditioning costs.

 

I think US Bank Stadium in Minneapolis is a fabulous template to follow. Glass roof with walls that open for outside air to pass thru. Retractable roof stadiums are a colossal waste of money because when open it's akin to a sunroof on a sedan. Hardly the same as a convertible.

[Mr. WEO]

12 hours ago, Doc said:

 

Expansion was done in 1999 when Bob McNair, who was from Houston, wanted to put a team...in Houston.  There won't be another expansion team.

 

You're merely conflating "didn't want to" (move to the LA market) with "couldn't."  It's a common tactic.  If Kroenke feels he can recoup his investment (well, his kids will since he's now 74) with a $6B stadium, imagine what paying even less than half of that could do?

 

Happy place?  I've been there for awhile, thank you very much.  Life is great (although COVID sucks and there are minor annoyances here and there) and the Bills will remain in Buffalo for my lifetime because the hard part, finding the right owners, is done.  They'll get their public funds, like I knew they would if they asked for them and the team will remain in Buffalo.  The cherry on top is the team is doing really well.

 

You OTOH seem upset about the public fund issue.  Don't worry, my state wastes money to enrich millionaires and billionaires in other ways as well.  There's nothing I can do about it.  So just accept it. 

  

The NFL awarded LA, over Houston, an expansion franchise in 1999----then it decided "nah" when there was no stadium in any of the proposals by the multiple groups bidding for it.  They reversed course and went with McNair and they never looked at LA again....until Snidely Whiplash showed up with a handful of billions burning a hole in his pocket. 

 

Let the Sainted Ralph Wilson help you:

 

“In Los Angeles there won’t be a tear shed because they didn’t get the franchise,”   “We just never felt any passion there.”

 

And Lamar Hunt:

 

“Beginning 40 years ago when the American Football League started, we had a team in L.A., and at that point the Coliseum was not a very good place to play football,” . “And it’s still not a very good place 40 years later. . . . That’s the problem, an insurmountable one as it turned out. Los Angeles needs a new football stadium.”

 

And Commissioner Tagliabue ( who wanted to bring back a team to LA to cap his tenure):

 

“There were concerns in both places [Hollywood Park and the Coliseum] in the distance that still had to be traveled down the road to ensure the stadiums would be state of the art and guarantee the success of the team. The committee emphasized from the beginning that we did not just want a team in the market, but a team the fans would view as being successful and sell out on a constant basis with no games blacked out on a local basis.”

 

 

 

 

(and then, being Ralph, he couldn't resist adding) “It was like, this is all the money we’re going to put up and you need to do the rest and then we’ll think about whether we’re going to let you into our city or not. That’s how it came across to me, and well, that’s not going to fly. The city should supply the stadium, and we’ll supply the franchise. I don’t think we should go in and build the stadium and the franchise. Sure, we get a lot of TV money, but players get quite a bit of that.”

 

 

 

For the reasons many many people have documented (no fans, no stadium), the NFL was dead as a viable location from 1999 to 2015.  For all intents and purposes (and not for a lack of trying), the NFL could not put  team in LA.  You can't escape this simple truth.  

 

 

But I'll give you another chance: do you have anything to verify your claim that LA was always a viable market in those 20 years?  An article published to counter the many many articles written describing otherwise?  Show us your cards doc.

[Doc]

8 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

I’m an architect. It’s a balance. The covered stands, roof, brings significant structural costs for foundations and trusses. The dome brings the added cost of a mechanical system, walls/windows to seal and control the enclosure. In most cases the roof would be cheaper than the dome, especially when factoring in life cycle heating and air conditioning costs.

 

So just to be clear, the covered stands versus a roof (forget a dome), approximatelyhow much is cost difference?

 

6 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

  

The NFL awarded LA, over Houston, an expansion franchise in 1999----then it decided "nah" when there was no stadium in any of the proposals by the multiple groups bidding for it.  They reversed course and went with McNair and they never looked at LA again....until Snidely Whiplash showed up with a handful of billions burning a hole in his pocket. 

 

Let the Sainted Ralph Wilson help you:

 

“In Los Angeles there won’t be a tear shed because they didn’t get the franchise,”   “We just never felt any passion there.”

 

And Lamar Hunt:

 

“Beginning 40 years ago when the American Football League started, we had a team in L.A., and at that point the Coliseum was not a very good place to play football,” . “And it’s still not a very good place 40 years later. . . . That’s the problem, an insurmountable one as it turned out. Los Angeles needs a new football stadium.”

 

And Commissioner Tagliabue ( who wanted to bring back a team to LA to cap his tenure):

 

“There were concerns in both places [Hollywood Park and the Coliseum] in the distance that still had to be traveled down the road to ensure the stadiums would be state of the art and guarantee the success of the team. The committee emphasized from the beginning that we did not just want a team in the market, but a team the fans would view as being successful and sell out on a constant basis with no games blacked out on a local basis.”

 

 

 

 

(and then, being Ralph, he couldn't resist adding) “It was like, this is all the money we’re going to put up and you need to do the rest and then we’ll think about whether we’re going to let you into our city or not. That’s how it came across to me, and well, that’s not going to fly. The city should supply the stadium, and we’ll supply the franchise. I don’t think we should go in and build the stadium and the franchise. Sure, we get a lot of TV money, but players get quite a bit of that.”

 

 

 

For the reasons many many people have documented (no fans, no stadium), the NFL was dead as a viable location from 1999 to 2015.  For all intents and purposes (and not for a lack of trying), the NFL could not put  team in LA.  You can't escape this simple truth.  

 

 

But I'll give you another chance: do you have anything to verify your claim that LA was always a viable market in those 20 years?  An article published to counter the many many articles written describing otherwise?  Show us your cards doc.

 

Kroenke put a team there, did he not?  Spent more than twice as much as he needed to, in fact (not to mention he could have split the cost with Spanos, but greedily screwed him over).  No one ever said "it's not a market, period" and you certainly never talked about an owner needing to build his own stadium.  Meanwhile nothing ever stopped an owner from building his/her own stadium.  Most chose/choose not to do it and were/are content staying in their markets, again using LA as a chip, while again, "usually public funds are involved." 

 

Meanwhile you still can't answer why Kroenke didn't just pay for his own renovations to the stadium where he made tons of money?  Or build a new one?  When he obviously could afford to do so.  Ah but wait, they're "rubes," or "they didn't meet with him" or (my favorite) "they didn't honor their deal to use public money for upkeep of the stadium [again that he could easily afford to pay for, and even pay for a new one]."  No, he spent 4 times more to jilt STL because he's greedy and saw a better market elsewhere. 

 

You realize that WE are STL in this situation, right?  Again why you hold Pegula to a higher standard than Kroenke is easy to guess (despite your laughable constant denials).  Unless you don't care if the Bills have a team, in which case you know where you can go with that.

[Mr. WEO]

12 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

So just to be clear, the covered stands versus a roof (forget a dome), approximatelyhow much is cost difference?

 

 

Kroenke put a team there, did he not?  Spent more than twice as much as he needed to, in fact (not to mention he could have split the cost with Spanos, but greedily screwed him over).  No one ever said "it's not a market, period" and you certainly never talked about an owner needing to build his own stadium.  Meanwhile nothing ever stopped an owner from building his/her own stadium.  Most chose/choose not to do it and were/are content staying in their markets, again using LA as a chip, while again, "usually public funds are involved." 

 

Meanwhile you still can't answer why Kroenke didn't just pay for his own renovations to the stadium where he made tons of money?  Or build a new one?  When he obviously could afford to do so.  Ah but wait, they're "rubes," or "they didn't meet with him" or (my favorite) "they didn't honor their deal to use public money for upkeep of the stadium [again that he could easily afford to pay for, and even pay for a new one]."  No, he spent 4 times more to jilt STL because he's greedy and saw a better market elsewhere. 

 

You realize that WE are STL in this situation, right?  Again why you hold Pegula to a higher standard than Kroenke is easy to guess (despite your laughable constant denials).  Unless you don't care if the Bills have a team, in which case you know where you can go with that.

 

Kroenke was done with STL--they weren't going to heavily invest in a new stadium (fine with me, of course).   He understood that, if he was going to blow his load on a new stadium, it wasn't going to be in a dump like STL.  He was the ONLY owner in 20 years to consider LA a viable market--but only if he built a stadium.  

 

Logic would convince most posters to not describe  an owner who "spent 4 times more" to build a stadium than he needed to as "greedy".   "Greed" would have forced him to build the cheapest venue he could muster---and rake in the dough  (did I really just have too type that?  yes, of course I did).

 

Spanos was going to put over a billion to "split it" with Kroenke?  You're in full fabrication mode now, doc.  That's insane.  

 

Who's "WE"?  

 

It's worth mentioning that the original plans for SoFi were for under 2 billion (nuance isn't for you, though).  Kroenke ate all of the ballooning costs.

 

I'm assuming you are saying every article written describing why for 20 years LA was a radioactive location for the NFL (I appreciate you continuously attributing this truism to my thinking only, but it was common knowledge, copiously documented and not yet cogently refuted by you) is/was "also" wrong....because...LA is a city and any owner was fee to build a stadium at any time every year...or something.  Everyone was wrong.  ONLY YOU knew that some billionaire owner would come along and ditch his current city, spend billions (3, 4,5,6....why does it matter, really?) on a new stadium in LA.

 

Can you link all of us to the time you said you knew this was going to happen?

 

And finally, I certainly do NOT hold Pegula to the "higher standard" than Kroenke.  Look, I understand he won't pay for the stadium construction (like  Rams/Charger, Giants/Jets, Patriots).   In fact, I would commend Pegula as not a billionaire hustler if he only contributed only 85% off the new stadium costs.  Or....if arranged for private financing on the order of 1.2-1.3 billion, as in LV and ATL and SF did.

 

But when your opening offer is.....zero point zero....  Sorry doc, I call that what is is:  another owner shakedown.

 

OR..or....(again) if Pegula says "F-it, I'm moving to (insert city where  "nothing ever stopped an owner from building his/her own stadium") and building my own stadium with my own extra billions of dollars!!"....then I will give him the same props I gave Kroenke for putting his money where his mouth is.   

 

 

Pretty simple.