Buffalo Bills want a new stadium – and for taxpayers to foot the bill

[Ann]

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/SalSports/status/1433876410230321156 

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

2 hours ago, Ann said:

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/SalSports/status/1433876410230321156 

 

Buffalo has a really great city, in Toronto?

 

&#%$ you and your Fort Worth Cowboys, Jerry. 

[Joe]

3 hours ago, GG1 said:

What are they supposed to say?

Not blackmailing would be great.

 

Their PR is the absolute worst

[Spartacus]

4 hours ago, GG1 said:

What are they supposed to say?

we are committed to Western New York.

to back up that commitment, we are building a state of the art facility next to our current facility.

 

we will pay for the cost of construction.

we only require that the County contribute the needed property so the Bills will fully own the entire Bills complex.

 

[GG1]

43 minutes ago, Joe said:

Not blackmailing would be great.

 

Their PR is the absolute worst

 

Since when is negotiating called blackmail?

 

13 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

we are committed to Western New York.

to back up that commitment, we are building a state of the art facility next to our current facility.

 

we will pay for the cost of construction.

we only require that the County contribute the needed property so the Bills will fully own the entire Bills complex.

 

 

I don't know how much more commitment Pegula can show than throwing $2 billion into the sports teams and real estate development.

 

Quick, name one private investor that's poured more money into WNY over the last decade?

 

If you want them to abide by the rules you outlined, not a single owner would make that dumb investment because sadly, the return isn't there.   

[Fansince88]

8 hours ago, Joe said:

The more Pegula's people talk, the less I like him

 

 

You are buying it. Hopefully they do too.

[Joe]

10 hours ago, Fansince88 said:

You are buying it. Hopefully they do too.

Yes, I'm buying that greedy billionaires would, in fact, hold a region hostage to get the taxpayers to increase their wealth.

 

That doesn't take a rocket surgeon.

[Ann]

And the plans are for a significantly smaller stadium...

[Ann]

This article...

 

Buffalo Bills owner threatens to move team if he doesn’t get public funds for new stadium — but does he mean it?
 

</snip>
 

But a source who knows the family and has spoken to them in recent weeks tells The Post that the threats are just that — idle threats: The Pegula family isn’t likely to move the Bills, even if they don’t get state or local funding to help build a new 60,000-seat stadium, the source said.
 

</snip>
 

Pegula has agreed to cover some of the costs of a new stadium, people familiar with the negotiations tell The Post, but he hasn’t given a specific figure, so it’s also not certain what he’s asking for when it comes to state and local funding. The team is negotiating with state politicians, including Buffalo native and new Gov. Kathy Hochul. The negotiations aren’t at an advanced stage, the sources familiar told The Post.
 

Hochul’s office confirmed negotiations, which a spokesman said were “ongoing.” “Her administration looks forward to sharing details with the public as soon as negotiations are completed,” the spokesman said.
 

</snip>
 

“Renovation is simply not an option — and neither is an extension of the lease that ends in 2023 without a deal,” Wilkinson, the Pegula spokesman, told The Post.
 

Sources familiar with the matter tell The Post that if Pegula can’t come up with a deal by the end of the year, he will seek other alternatives so the Bills can relocate before the lease expires.
 

Pegula knew at the time he purchased the team that a new stadium would be necessary, said two sports industry sources who have spoken to Pegula in recent years. Because of that, they said they’re skeptical that he would follow through on a threat to move the franchise.
 

“When he bought the team, he spoke about building a new stadium,” one of the sources said, adding that Pegula as of July was worth more than $7 billion, according to Bloomberg calculations. “I don’t think his threats about moving are credible.”

 

[Ann]

From the Athletic (paid site):
 

Bills downtown stadium would cost taxpayers $1 billion more than new one in Orchard Park, study shows
Tim Graham
 

</snip>
 

Sources with access to the November 2019 study that examined a potential downtown Bills stadium say it would cost an extra $500 million to construct and hundreds of millions more in infrastructure accommodations.
 

The sources said infrastructure costs to build another Orchard Park stadium across Abbott Road would be less than $10 million.
 

The disparity comes from the Orchard Park site essentially being shovel-ready and already connected to its utility needs, giving the project a 42- to 48-month construction schedule.
 

A downtown stadium would require so much groundwork that the project would take about 72 months, incurring more labor costs on top of added inflation. The project would require environmental studies and municipal overhauls such as relocating a power substation, electrical cables, water mains, storm sewers, gas lines and fiber optics, all of which are currently in service and would need to be disrupted.
 

</snip>
 

The sources said a retractable roof at either locale would add $400 million to the price tag.
 

</snip>

 

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

55 minutes ago, Ann said:

From the Athletic (paid site):
 

Bills downtown stadium would cost taxpayers $1 billion more than new one in Orchard Park, study shows
Tim Graham
 

</snip>
 

Sources with access to the November 2019 study that examined a potential downtown Bills stadium say it would cost an extra $500 million to construct and hundreds of millions more in infrastructure accommodations.
 

The sources said infrastructure costs to build another Orchard Park stadium across Abbott Road would be less than $10 million.
 

The disparity comes from the Orchard Park site essentially being shovel-ready and already connected to its utility needs, giving the project a 42- to 48-month construction schedule.
 

A downtown stadium would require so much groundwork that the project would take about 72 months, incurring more labor costs on top of added inflation. The project would require environmental studies and municipal overhauls such as relocating a power substation, electrical cables, water mains, storm sewers, gas lines and fiber optics, all of which are currently in service and would need to be disrupted.
 

</snip>
 

The sources said a retractable roof at either locale would add $400 million to the price tag.
 

</snip>

 

 

Where could they build a stadium downtown that demolition alone wouldn't be expensive as hell?

[GG1]

6 minutes ago, Crap Throwing Monkey said:

 

Where could they build a stadium downtown that demolition alone wouldn't be expensive as hell?

 

Plenty of space in the area around the arena, casino & Riverworks.  Demolition not a huge issue, but proper access & infrastructure would be.

[Figster]

41 minutes ago, GG1 said:

 

Plenty of space in the area around the arena, casino & Riverworks.  Demolition not a huge issue, but proper access & infrastructure would be.

Orchard Park is a much better location IMO. Besides, I have cousins living less than a mile away from the stadium. I think its kinda neat for fans to see the new stadium under construction when going to Highmark.

[Ann]

3 minutes ago, Figster said:

Orchard Park is a much better location IMO. Besides, I have cousins living less than a mile away from the stadium. I think its kinda neat for fans to see the new stadium under construction when going to Highmark.

I don't think OP is a better location, necessarily. If they did more with a downtown stadium - say adding in a new convention center and closing the dinky-twinky ugly building that currently passes for one now - that would be helpful.

Downtown has access to public transportation which could be enhanced on game day. Park and ride is available from the 'burbs. Downtown also has a plethora of hotels and restaurants. Out-of-towners would not have to rent a car if they come in for a game (easy to get a lift, uber, or taxi from the airport to downtown). 

There are a lot of reasons downtown makes more sense than Orchard Park. The one reason OP makes more sense; money, is why a new stadium will be built in Orchard Park.

 

[GG1]

13 minutes ago, Figster said:

Orchard Park is a much better location IMO. Besides, I have cousins living less than a mile away from the stadium. I think its kinda neat for fans to see the new stadium under construction when going to Highmark.

 

Personal preferences aside, there's no question a downtown location would be better for the majority of fans and overall experience.   Yes, you would lose the whole tailgating experience in the private lots, but imagine a whole new party zone that can be created in the wasteland that's around Riverworks now.  It could be a similar if not better experience than Nashville, where you party downtown and then walk over to the stadium.   Imagine having less people driving to and from the stadium.

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

I still say put it on Grand Island. 

 

Watching the bridge traffic will be more entertaining than many of the games.

[Figster]

36 minutes ago, GG1 said:

 

Personal preferences aside, there's no question a downtown location would be better for the majority of fans and overall experience.   Yes, you would lose the whole tailgating experience in the private lots, but imagine a whole new party zone that can be created in the wasteland that's around Riverworks now.  It could be a similar if not better experience than Nashville, where you party downtown and then walk over to the stadium.   Imagine having less people driving to and from the stadium.

Lots of tradition built up over the years in these private lots. When you say better for the majority of fans. I for one can't speak for all of them.

 

 

[Spartacus]

2 hours ago, Ann said:

I don't think OP is a better location, necessarily. If they did more with a downtown stadium - say adding in a new convention center and closing the dinky-twinky ugly building that currently passes for one now - that would be helpful.

Downtown has access to public transportation which could be enhanced on game day. Park and ride is available from the 'burbs. Downtown also has a plethora of hotels and restaurants. Out-of-towners would not have to rent a car if they come in for a game (easy to get a lift, uber, or taxi from the airport to downtown). 

There are a lot of reasons downtown makes more sense than Orchard Park. The one reason OP makes more sense; money, is why a new stadium will be built in Orchard Park.

 

cool

taxpayers could pay for both a stadium and convention center that won't be used

 

"public transportation" in downtown Buffalo is a reach.

Normally this would include subway lines to somewhere which  are capable of moving large number of fans

 

in Buffalo, not so much

[Nanker]

Tulsa. 

[Fansince88]

On 9/17/2021 at 12:46 PM, GG1 said:

 

Personal preferences aside, there's no question a downtown location would be better for the majority of fans and overall experience.   Yes, you would lose the whole tailgating experience in the private lots, but imagine a whole new party zone that can be created in the wasteland that's around Riverworks now.  It could be a similar if not better experience than Nashville, where you party downtown and then walk over to the stadium.   Imagine having less people driving to and from the stadium.

Dont like it. That said, Im not welcome so who cares.