Stadium Construction Discussion (No PSL/Seat selection posts)

[K-9]

17 minutes ago, mrags said:

Pretty sure after like 10 years it’s significantly less than the $850m payback. Which imo is absolutely nothing to some rich billionaire owner. Who will likely be getting a free stadium in a new city like Austin 

 

5 minutes ago, Einstein said:

If someone purchased the team RIGHT NOW, for the fair market value, it would only cost about ~20% more to leave. 

Twenty percent more, to leave us with a hole in the ground and an bunch of metal and concrete. 

After 15 years, the penalty to relocate reduces annually. 

Apparently, it’s not just a question of paying back the money as there are other stipulations. I’ll get around to reading the entire relocation clause eventually, but this article in the news a few weeks ago is a good outline.

 

https://buffalonews.com/sports/bills/language-in-bills-stadium-deal-makes-relocation-unlikely-for-30-years-but-not-impossible/article_89ba2bec-ce4f-11ed-9c9b-976c2e6b1613.html

[mrags]

Just now, K-9 said:

 

Apparently, it’s not just a question of paying back the money as there are other stipulations. I’ll get around to reading the entire relocation clause eventually, but this article in the news a few weeks ago is a good outline.

 

https://buffalonews.com/sports/bills/language-in-bills-stadium-deal-makes-relocation-unlikely-for-30-years-but-not-impossible/article_89ba2bec-ce4f-11ed-9c9b-976c2e6b1613.html

I don’t pay for the news so it’s blocked to me. But I’m not saying it’s likely, I’m saying it’s possible which it seems they are agreeing with. I just think within 15-20 years some city will blow the new owners away with an offer they can’t refuse. And when I say new owners, I fully believe the Pegulas won’t be in the picture anymore as they are already open to selling portions away now. It will o my get worse in years to come. JMO. 

[K-9]

2 minutes ago, mrags said:

I don’t pay for the news so it’s blocked to me. But I’m not saying it’s likely, I’m saying it’s possible which it seems they are agreeing with. I just think within 15-20 years some city will blow the new owners away with an offer they can’t refuse. And when I say new owners, I fully believe the Pegulas won’t be in the picture anymore as they are already open to selling portions away now. It will o my get worse in years to come. JMO. 

There were two stipulations that I found interesting: 

 

1.) Any lawsuit brought relating to relocation must be adjudicated in Erie County. I know I wouldn’t want to be the judge that found in favor of relocation. 
 

2.) Any owner, the Pegulas or somebody else, must also pay for the cost of the demolition of the stadium. Not exactly a low cost exercise. 
 

But you’re right in that ultimately money talks. 

[Einstein]

10 minutes ago, K-9 said:

 

Apparently, it’s not just a question of paying back the money as there are other stipulations. I’ll get around to reading the entire relocation clause eventually, but this article in the news a few weeks ago is a good outline.

 

https://buffalonews.com/sports/bills/language-in-bills-stadium-deal-makes-relocation-unlikely-for-30-years-but-not-impossible/article_89ba2bec-ce4f-11ed-9c9b-976c2e6b1613.html

 

I’ve read the entire lease agreement top to bottom. I recommend that everyone does.

 

It IS just a question of paying back the money. The Buffalo News is funded by PSE and puts out puff pieces like you listed all the time. The goal is to convince the public of what they want - in this case, that the lease is ironclad. It’s not.

 

The theory that the Bills (and NYS) attempted to float is that NYS could sue the Bills to stay. Except, no court in recent history has ever stopped a team from moving. And multiple cities have tried.

 

“If the goal here is to keep the Bills in Buffalo long term, then [the lease] absolutely should have an extremely stringent requirement [to stay]… It’s weak to me.” - J.C. Bradbury, an economics professor at Kenneshaw State University who has studied stadium deals.

 

The demolition talk is ridiculous. The State/County has no desire to demolish a stadium less than 30 years old. They would move UB there before that happened.

[K-9]

1 minute ago, Einstein said:

 

I’ve read the entire lease agreement top to bottom. I recommend that everyone does.

 

It IS just a question of paying back the money. The Buffalo News is funded by PSE and puts out puff pieces like you listed all the time. The goal is to convince the public of what they want - in this case, that the lease is ironclad. It’s not.

 

The theory that the Bills (and NYS) attempted to float is that NYS could sue the Bills to stay. Except, no court in recent history has ever stopped a team from moving. And multiple cities have tried.

 

“If the goal here is to keep the Bills in Buffalo long term, then [the lease] absolutely should have an extremely stringent requirement [to stay]… It’s weak to me.” - J.C. Bradbury, an economics professor at Kenneshaw State University who has studied stadium deals.

Is Bradbury commenting only on the dollars involved and the fact that they start to decline after year 15? I ask because the cost of demolishing the stadium also needs to be factored and added to that dollar value. 
 

But yeah, there’s no such thing as ironclad; only varying degrees of difficulty.

[Einstein]

Just now, K-9 said:

Is Bradbury commenting only on the dollars involved and the fact that they start to decline after year 15? I ask because the cost of demolishing the stadium also needs to be factored and added to that dollar value. 
 

But yeah, there’s no such thing as ironclad; only varying degrees of difficulty.

 

The demolition idea is a bit ridiculous. Say a new owner wanted to move the team in 15 years - The State/County would NOT demolish a 15 year old stadium. They would move UB there before that happened.

 

It’s one of those “this sounds good but isn’t of any real benefit” type clauses.

 

 

[Gregg]

23 minutes ago, mrags said:

I don’t pay for the news so it’s blocked to me. But I’m not saying it’s likely, I’m saying it’s possible which it seems they are agreeing with. I just think within 15-20 years some city will blow the new owners away with an offer they can’t refuse. And when I say new owners, I fully believe the Pegulas won’t be in the picture anymore as they are already open to selling portions away now. It will o my get worse in years to come. JMO. 

 

Then you can say that about any team in league. Jacksonville for sure as they play a home game every year in London. With the new stadium on the way I am not going to worry about what might happen 15-20 years from now. I could be taking a dirt nap for all I know in 15-20 years. 

[mrags]

Just now, Gregg said:

 

Then you can say that about any team in league. Jacksonville for sure as they play a home game every year in London. With the new stadium on the way I am not going to worry about what might happen 15-20 years from now. I could be taking a dirt nap for all I know in 15-20 years. 

Never said it couldn’t affect any other team. I’m just giving my opinion of what will happen here. Buffalo is not long for the NFL imo. 

[K-9]

19 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

The demolition idea is a bit ridiculous. Say a new owner wanted to move the team in 15 years - The State/County would NOT demolish a 15 year old stadium. They would move UB there before that happened.

 

It’s one of those “this sounds good but isn’t of any real benefit” type clauses.

 

 

I agree that the demolition clause is absurd, but it’s in there none the less. Same with the clause pertaining to Erie county being the only venue allowed for adjudication. At the very least, it’s a speed bump that will cost potential litigants time and money to appeal if it ever comes to that. Like I said earlier, nothing is ever ironclad, but the roadblocks have to be navigated. 
 

My memory of past lawsuits regarding NFL team relocations may be a bit foggy, but if I recall, most of them reached settlement agreements before the courts decided one way or the other (Colts, Browns, Rams). Oakland is the only one I recall that was decided by the courts and, ironically, they weren’t seeking to prevent the move itself, they only wanted monetary compensation. Personally, I think their case was weak as they cited antitrust violations by the NFL and the Raiders. Imo, it had little chance given some of the antitrust exemptions the league enjoys. 

[Draconator]

 

[mrags]

3 minutes ago, Draconator said:

 

Still 20x better than what we’re getting. 

[PromoTheRobot]

9 minutes ago, mrags said:

Still 20x better than what we’re getting. 

 

If Chicago ends up costing less that $2B I will have questions.

[Mike in Horseheads]

On 4/24/2024 at 4:51 PM, mrags said:

Never said it couldn’t affect any other team. I’m just giving my opinion of what will happen here. Buffalo is not long for the NFL imo. 

Ya forgot to end that with go Bills! and Go Buffalo!  If your going to make BSF comments at least get it rght

[mrags]

48 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

 

If Chicago ends up costing less that $2B I will have questions.

Pretty sure that’s not gonna happen. But they are getting significantly more for their money. They are also getting parks and congregating areas included. Look like they are creating an outdoor space that would put the Buffalo Harbor area to shame included in the deal. Looked like lots of public parks and ball parks for the public as well. 

[stevewin]

On 4/19/2024 at 10:11 AM, Buffalo_Stampede said:

Can’t wait for it to finish. It’s going to be a great stadium.

Highmark actually looks damn good in that video