apuszczalowski Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Well its only fair the Bills chip in if it is going to be their new home after the NFL finds a way when Ralphs gone But c'mon, Ralph will be gone so the team will be a winner! Seriously though, Buffalo could use a new stadium, lets get the rest of the league to chip in and buy us one too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACor58 Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Well its only fair the Bills chip in if it is going to be their new home after the NFL finds a way when Ralphs gone But c'mon, Ralph will be gone so the team will be a winner! Seriously though, Buffalo could use a new stadium, lets get the rest of the league to chip in and buy us one too. 820189[/snapback] Any thoughts on location. I am thinking right off of the thruway between Buffalo and Batavia. Very easy to get to, and will draw even more fans from Rochester and Syracuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Any thoughts on location. I am thinking right off of the thruway between Buffalo and Batavia. Very easy to get to, and will draw even more fans from Rochester and Syracuse. 820195[/snapback] I prefer the waterfront in Downtown Buffalo (might as well build something there) and make them the BUFFALO Bills. But that is more of a personnal preference because it would be less of a drive for me to get to a game so I might go more often. It would also tap into the Canadian market and draw more fans from across the border. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. Rich Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 there must be a reason the raiders and rams couldnt survive there. 819690[/snapback] I've always heard it was more about real estate than it was about fan support. Getting prime real estate in California, especially to construct a stadium, has always been the biggest hurdle for the NFL, and is the reason teams have such a hard time staying there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obie_wan Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 I don't think that LA doesn't want a team so much as they DON'T want to shell-out $600M-$1B in tax money to make an already-rich NFL owner richer. It's the same reason a new stadium in Buffalo will never happen, and why the team if probably destined to move eventually. BTW, anyone have an edumicated guess as to how much more money the NFL would see in yearly TV revenue with a team in LA? It HAS to be sizeable, considering they're willing to spend $600M-1B to get a team there. 819619[/snapback] Contrary to populr opinion, the networks have the best situation now - choice of best games to televise into LA each week, freedom of scheduling, no threat of TV blackout forcing loss of network exposure. A local team in LA would force the networks to televise that team's games in LA even if that team sucked and noboby watched. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 I prefer the waterfront in Downtown Buffalo (might as well build something there) and make them the BUFFALO Bills. But that is more of a personnal preference because it would be less of a drive for me to get to a game so I might go more often. It would also tap into the Canadian market and draw more fans from across the border. 820215[/snapback] Which ignores the fact that is no tax base nor infrastructure to support moving it there. But hey, we could get a few more Canucks and a few less Americans so somehow that's a win. I'm sure the guaranteed eight times a year the facility got used would pay the countless BILLIONS it would take to create a road system to support the 50K+ vehicles and the required amenities to get into and out of the ghetto of downtown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Which ignores the fact that is no tax base nor infrastructure to support moving it there. But hey, we could get a few more Canucks and a few less Americans so somehow that's a win. I'm sure the guaranteed eight times a year the facility got used would pay the countless BILLIONS it would take to create a road system to support the 50K+ vehicles and the required amenities to get into and out of the ghetto of downtown. 820309[/snapback] Hamilton County,OH is facing increasing difficulty servicing the large debt incurred for Mike Brown's free playpen. No surprise there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4BillsintheBurgh Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 Lets see, a billion dollar stadium paid for by 32 teams, divided by 10 games divided by 75,000 tix/bills home game. The answer is $41.67/game ticket. So basically doubling Bills tickets for one year pays for the LA stadium. Alright, lets all kick in!!!! 819982[/snapback] How about you take a billion a year or so off the TV deals and just lower the ridiculous amount of money the owners and players are paid? What are the chances of that happening? If the NFL had it's fans in mind that's exactly what it should do. That's what any business should do, let alone a business that basically has a monoply. Sometimes I wish there was a way to get people together and pressure the NFL to do the right thing, but there's no vehicle to do that. I guess in a few decades they will be so full of themselves (see MLB) they'll just start to fade away. It's the American way. As for a new stadium for the Bills, taxpayers won't stop that from happening. Pittsburgher's voted down using taxpayer money to fund a stadium. Still happened. And still happened with tax money. A perfectly good stadium that still had the original purchase price owed on it (after 30 years) was blown up because it was "only" about $100 million more to build a whole new stadium rather than upgrade it. The owners will "prove" the value to whatever politicians will listen, talk about how they need to do what's best for the franchise and there will be a new stadium. I feel better now. Now that I'm a homeowner/growing up, election time gets me all fired up. Something about people wasting all my hard earned money. I'm very anti-incumbent this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 As for a new stadium for the Bills, taxpayers won't stop that from happening. Pittsburgher's voted down using taxpayer money to fund a stadium. Still happened. And still happened with tax money. Ralph has publicly stated that he neither wants nor thinks the area can afford/support a new stadium. I don't know he truly means it, but I have to think he does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 Which ignores the fact that is no tax base nor infrastructure to support moving it there. But hey, we could get a few more Canucks and a few less Americans so somehow that's a win. I'm sure the guaranteed eight times a year the facility got used would pay the countless BILLIONS it would take to create a road system to support the 50K+ vehicles and the required amenities to get into and out of the ghetto of downtown. 820309[/snapback] It was only an option, its not like it is actually going to happen, the Buffalo politions like the waterfront property the way it is, it seems, and it will stay that way I was just saying since it would also be right around HSBC arena, which doesn't have a problem with the extra traffic, and there is plenty of property, plus a relatively untapped market across the border for the Bills to draw from. Although won't all of that infrastructure have to be upgraded soon anyways with all of the influx of traffic from the new Peace Bridge and the extra people coming downtoen to the Bass Pro Shop and the Casino? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 I prefer the waterfront in Downtown Buffalo (might as well build something there) and make them the BUFFALO Bills. 820215[/snapback] Completely terrible idea. I really don't want to use waterfront property to erect a building that will be used 8 times a year. If the Bills were a baseball team and it meant getting 20,000 to 40,000 people downtown 81 times a season, then it would make sense (Jacobs Field in Cleveland is a good example). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 Although won't all of that infrastructure have to be upgraded soon anyways with all of the influx of traffic from the new Peace Bridge and the extra people coming downtoen to the Bass Pro Shop and the Casino? 820998[/snapback] Mmmm, no. Both the BPS and Casino are pretty terrible ideas that probably won't work in the long run anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 Mmmm, no. Both the BPS and Casino are pretty terrible ideas that probably won't work in the long run anyway. 821091[/snapback] That was supposed to be taken as Sarcsim, they seem to have as much chance of being built as a new Bills stadium on the waterfront property. As for the stdium only being used for 8 games is not true, a new stdium would not just be used for the Bills, I doubt any stadium is used for only football in the NFL, (it could be designed to also hold Ball games or other sports) and would be used to hold concerts and other events then just football. I doubt any team in the league would be able to prove a new stadium as viable only to be used for 8-10 games a year for just football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 If they WERE to build a new stadium, it should be a stadium with a permanent, or preferrably a retractable, dome. That would certainly add to cost, but make it more useable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hammered a Lot Posted October 31, 2006 Author Share Posted October 31, 2006 If they WERE to build a new stadium, it should be a stadium with a permanent, or preferrably a retractable, dome. That would certainly add to cost, but make it more useable. 821112[/snapback] Put a DOME on The Rich er The Ralph. Best surrounding road system of any NFL stadium. 2nd safest area around a NFL stadium in the whole league ( why do you think they put in the burbs) Best tailgating lots in the NFL. Move the stadium downtown and there goes your quick traffic flow, safety, and tailgating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 That was supposed to be taken as Sarcsim, they seem to have as much chance of being built as a new Bills stadium on the waterfront property. 821098[/snapback] Unfortunately, I really do think the Casino is going to happen, and pretty soon. Bass Pro could go either way but the entire handling of what to do with the Aud once the Sabres moved down the street is already as retarded as it could possibly be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Jack Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 Put a DOME on The Rich er The Ralph. Best surrounding road system of any NFL stadium. 2nd safest area around a NFL stadium in the whole league ( why do you think they put in the burbs) Best tailgating lots in the NFL. Move the stadium downtown and there goes your quick traffic flow, safety, and tailgating. 821208[/snapback] And if it goes downtown, there goes Buddy The Wonder Dog's inheritance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ganesh Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 there must be a reason the raiders and rams couldnt survive there. 819690[/snapback] May be the lakers were very good during that period when the raiders moved to LA and the fans went to see them rather than the raiders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaliforniaCheez Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 Back in the eighties, when the Raiders were at the LA Coliseum, the stadium capacity was too high(85K+). You could walk up on game day and buy tickets and get in. (Very much like today at the Oakland Coliseum(63K+) where almost all home games are blacked out) The deal really is for television revenues. 20% of the US population lives within 200 miles of LA. To make it financially viable the Governor wants 2 teams-probably an AFC and NFC team. The likely choices are the Chargers if they do not get a new stadium deal and the Vikings who are at the bottom of the league in revenues. Why should fans in one city pay for another city's stadium? The NFL has a loan program where owners assist but the loan is limited to around 50 million and must be paid back. LA politicians can screw up any deal. This "issue" will be discussed 10 years from now because there is no genuine enthusiasm, only parasites wanting a chunk of the action which isn't that large. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts