(08-04-2021 02:39 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(08-03-2021 09:19 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  St. Louis is out there too and I would think more amenable to an NFL franchise over a place like Austin.

Buffalo is a great NFL town, but it's too small to generate the investment needed these days. The stadium isn't great and it's not a growing area.

Buffalo may be small, but they can draw from Rochester, Albany, and Syracuse as well. Don't forget that they draw from Toronto also.

But in this case, it'd be them and them alone footing the bill for a new stadium.

(08-04-2021 02:31 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-04-2021 02:35 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(08-03-2021 08:36 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-03-2021 05:06 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  I honestly think that the Pegulas should abandon Austin as a threat. In fact, again, IMHO, I think the Pegulas should use an incentive for the people of Buffalo: want to make sure the Bills never move?? Help put up $1.5 billion for the team and receive partial ownership, ala' the Green Bay Packers!! I think that would be a much better approach for the Pegulas.

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk

Forbes estimates the Bills are worth $2.05 billion.

If $1.5 billion is invested in exchange for partial ownership, and that $1.5 billion is added to the $2.05 billion valuation of what the Pegulas already own, then the people/city would own about 42% of the Bills franchise. (1.5 ÷ [1.5 + 2.05] = about 42.25%.)

That's pretty far from what the Pegulas are proposing, which is that the city invest $1.5 billion in exchange for 0.0% ownership.

Might be pretty far from what the Pegulas are proposing, but it is definitely fair, IMO. If the Pegulas don't like it, then they can choose put in more of their own money, or they can look around. Jerry Jones will veto Austin/SA, IMHO, and I am pretty sure that the McNair family will do the same. St. Louis, from what I hear, is very anti-NFL right now. London would be much more of a threat, IMO.

The $700 million that the Raiders got from Nevada is likely going to be the high water mark in public stadium money for awhile. It would be surprising if Buffalo offered more than that, at least in the absence of a credible relocation city where money is being offered for a new stadium. AFAIK the Pegulas are not as wealthy as Kroenke; they are not going to go elsewhere and pay the entire cost of a new stadium themselves.

Kroenke!!! Blecchhh!!! Can't stand that name!!!!! If Iran had a football team, I might have root for a sinkhole to open up to swallow up it and the Rams. As far as the Chargers are concerned, they might as well be the football version of the LA Clippers, to me. I liked the Chargers some when they were in San Diego, but now??? Not even really relevant in my interests.

Now that I got that out of my system, I am not advocating for Buffalo to move anywhere but to a new stadium in Buffalo. And yes, 1.5 billion is very excessive for what the Pegulas really want, unless they are willing to make the city of Buffalo part owners of the Bills, and I literally mean the whole city of Buffalo, NY.

(08-05-2021 09:30 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(08-04-2021 02:31 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-04-2021 02:35 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(08-03-2021 08:36 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-03-2021 05:06 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  I honestly think that the Pegulas should abandon Austin as a threat. In fact, again, IMHO, I think the Pegulas should use an incentive for the people of Buffalo: want to make sure the Bills never move?? Help put up $1.5 billion for the team and receive partial ownership, ala' the Green Bay Packers!! I think that would be a much better approach for the Pegulas.

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk

Forbes estimates the Bills are worth $2.05 billion.

If $1.5 billion is invested in exchange for partial ownership, and that $1.5 billion is added to the $2.05 billion valuation of what the Pegulas already own, then the people/city would own about 42% of the Bills franchise. (1.5 ÷ [1.5 + 2.05] = about 42.25%.)

That's pretty far from what the Pegulas are proposing, which is that the city invest $1.5 billion in exchange for 0.0% ownership.

Might be pretty far from what the Pegulas are proposing, but it is definitely fair, IMO. If the Pegulas don't like it, then they can choose put in more of their own money, or they can look around. Jerry Jones will veto Austin/SA, IMHO, and I am pretty sure that the McNair family will do the same. St. Louis, from what I hear, is very anti-NFL right now. London would be much more of a threat, IMO.

The $700 million that the Raiders got from Nevada is likely going to be the high water mark in public stadium money for awhile. It would be surprising if Buffalo offered more than that, at least in the absence of a credible relocation city where money is being offered for a new stadium. AFAIK the Pegulas are not as wealthy as Kroenke; they are not going to go elsewhere and pay the entire cost of a new stadium themselves.

Kroenke!!! Blecchhh!!! Can't stand that name!!!!! If Iran had a football team, I might have root for a sinkhole to open up to swallow up it and the Rams. As far as the Chargers are concerned, they might as well be the football version of the LA Clippers, to me. I liked the Chargers some when they were in San Diego, but now??? Not even really relevant in my interests.

Now that I got that out of my system, I am not advocating for Buffalo to move anywhere but to a new stadium in Buffalo. And yes, 1.5 billion is very excessive for what the Pegulas really want, unless they are willing to make the city of Buffalo part owners of the Bills, and I literally mean the whole city of Buffalo, NY.

Essentially, the Chargers are in LA because their ownership is cash-poor, their only significant asset at the financial level of an NFL owner is the book value of the franchise itself. Having failed to get anyone in San Diego to build them a stadium at no net cost to the team, they had no means to get into a new stadium other than politicking their way ahead of the Raiders to become Kroenke's tenant.

If the Pegulas, unlike the Spanoses, have significant wealth, they don't need to have the public pay 100% of the cost in order to get a new stadium. Buffalo shouldn't agree to build it for free -- and no one should argue "but the city will own the stadium", because a 65,000 seat football stadium is nearly worthless to the city unless an NFL team plays in that stadium.

Article about this, written by a stadium skeptic:

County exec vows “fair deal for all” on Bills stadium he once called too pricey, all hail the gods of anchoring

Quote:This gets us back to some of the reason for that initial $1.5 billion ask (assuming the unnamed sources are correct) and why it could be less a shameful demand in the middle of a pandemic economy and more a well-thought-out negotiating ploy. As I’ve mentioned before here, one of the central principles of the new field of behavioral economics is “anchoring“: the idea that hearing an initial price gets people comparing the eventual price to that number, rather than to what they’d rationally be willing to pay.

Quote:Are the Pegulas really expecting to get $1.5 billion in public money? Almost certainly not. Are they figuring that floating a $1.5 billion price tag is a great way to get some large but not quite that large sum of public money for a stadium that just got $94.5 million in renovations at public expense, plus $132 million in state operating subsidies, less than a decade ago?

Quote:It can’t help the Pegulas that their main advocate in Albany is about to get impeached for sexually harassing subordinates and then claiming in his defense that he gropes everybody, even Bill Clinton; you think there’s a chance that the $1.5 billion number was leaked on Sunday because somebody wanted to drop an anchor before the Cuomo report dropped on Tuesday? That’s probably too Machiavellian even for Roger Goodell, but I would never rule it out.

(08-03-2021 09:19 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  St. Louis is out there too and I would think more amenable to an NFL franchise over a place like Austin.

Buffalo is a great NFL town, but it's too small to generate the investment needed these days. The stadium isn't great and it's not a growing area.

I believe for St Louis, its going to be an NFL expansion team or nothing.

The City has already been burned twice with teams relocating to St Louis, only to turn around later and leave for yet another city. The Cardinals only stayed for 28 years. The Rams for less than that.

They will never,ever again try to lure another NFL franchise to relocate to St Louis. They will only take a new NFL franchise with no pre-existing history.

(08-04-2021 02:31 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-04-2021 02:35 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(08-03-2021 08:36 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-03-2021 05:06 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  I honestly think that the Pegulas should abandon Austin as a threat. In fact, again, IMHO, I think the Pegulas should use an incentive for the people of Buffalo: want to make sure the Bills never move?? Help put up $1.5 billion for the team and receive partial ownership, ala' the Green Bay Packers!! I think that would be a much better approach for the Pegulas.

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk

Forbes estimates the Bills are worth $2.05 billion.

If $1.5 billion is invested in exchange for partial ownership, and that $1.5 billion is added to the $2.05 billion valuation of what the Pegulas already own, then the people/city would own about 42% of the Bills franchise. (1.5 ÷ [1.5 + 2.05] = about 42.25%.)

That's pretty far from what the Pegulas are proposing, which is that the city invest $1.5 billion in exchange for 0.0% ownership.

Might be pretty far from what the Pegulas are proposing, but it is definitely fair, IMO. If the Pegulas don't like it, then they can choose put in more of their own money, or they can look around. Jerry Jones will veto Austin/SA, IMHO, and I am pretty sure that the McNair family will do the same. St. Louis, from what I hear, is very anti-NFL right now. London would be much more of a threat, IMO.

The $700 million that the Raiders got from Nevada is likely going to be the high water mark in public stadium money for awhile. It would be surprising if Buffalo offered more than that, at least in the absence of a credible relocation city where money is being offered for a new stadium. AFAIK the Pegulas are not as wealthy as Kroenke; they are not going to go elsewhere and pay the entire cost of a new stadium themselves.

Another good example might be Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis, another small market in a northern climate.

The total cost of Lucas Oil Stadium was $720 million. The stadium was being financed with funds raised by the State of Indiana and the City of Indianapolis, with the Indianapolis Colts providing $100 million.

Meaning the state and city payed $620 million out of a total $720 million. The stadium opened in 2008. THIS is the high water mark for public financing for new NFL stadiums.

(08-01-2021 04:47 PM)Erictelevision Wrote:  Would they really need to tear down the Alamodome and start from scratch?

????????????

(09-15-2021 12:37 PM)EPJr2 Wrote:  

(08-01-2021 04:47 PM)Erictelevision Wrote:  Would they really need to tear down the Alamodome and start from scratch?

????????????

What does that mean?

(09-15-2021 06:16 PM)Erictelevision Wrote:  

(09-15-2021 12:37 PM)EPJr2 Wrote:  

(08-01-2021 04:47 PM)Erictelevision Wrote:  Would they really need to tear down the Alamodome and start from scratch?

????????????

What does that mean?

The Alamodome would be a temporary solution and only approved if a new stadium deal were guaranteed.

Alamodome? What about DK Royal?

(09-20-2021 12:28 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Alamodome? What about DK Royal?

Its possible as the Vikings played in the Gophers home stadium while US Bank Stadium was being built. I did see one proposal for a new stadium built between SA and Austin, with some kind of cost sharing between the two cities. That would IMO justify the DKR option. Otherwise, why would the city of San Antonio want there new team playing in Austin when they have a perfectly serviceable temporary facility?

(09-20-2021 03:52 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 12:28 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Alamodome? What about DK Royal?

Its possible as the Vikings played in the Gophers home stadium while US Bank Stadium was being built. I did see one proposal for a new stadium built between SA and Austin, with some kind of cost sharing between the two cities. That would IMO justify the DKR option. Otherwise, why would the city of San Antonio want there new team playing in Austin when they have a perfectly serviceable temporary facility?

Why would the cities of Austin and San Antonio spend their tax dollars on an NFL stadium that is 30 to 50 miles away from either city? That would be like the city of San Francisco using its tax dollars to pay for the 49ers stadium in Santa Clara.

(09-20-2021 03:52 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 12:28 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Alamodome? What about DK Royal?

Its possible as the Vikings played in the Gophers home stadium while US Bank Stadium was being built. I did see one proposal for a new stadium built between SA and Austin, with some kind of cost sharing between the two cities. That would IMO justify the DKR option. Otherwise, why would the city of San Antonio want there new team playing in Austin when they have a perfectly serviceable temporary facility?

San Marcos is a popular "day trip" in Texas and easy to get to off I-35.

Change the nickname from "Bills" to "Buffalo Bills" and make the geographical location "Texas." Call them the Texas Buffalo Bills! For the logo, modify the red stripe so that it forms into a gun holster and BOOM the Texas Buffalo Bills.

(09-20-2021 11:51 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 03:52 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 12:28 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Alamodome? What about DK Royal?

Its possible as the Vikings played in the Gophers home stadium while US Bank Stadium was being built. I did see one proposal for a new stadium built between SA and Austin, with some kind of cost sharing between the two cities. That would IMO justify the DKR option. Otherwise, why would the city of San Antonio want there new team playing in Austin when they have a perfectly serviceable temporary facility?

Why would the cities of Austin and San Antonio spend their tax dollars on an NFL stadium that is 30 to 50 miles away from either city? That would be like the city of San Francisco using its tax dollars to pay for the 49ers stadium in Santa Clara.

I'm not saying the plan was even valid, but with all the good relocation markets gone, something needed to be cobbled together the scare upstate NY to ante up.