NFL exec: Vikes 'out of options'

[BLeonard]

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7830779/nfl-exec-says-minnesota-vikings-options-stadium-bid



Two days after a Minnesota House committee voted against the Vikings' stadium bill, the NFL responded with its own strong message to state leaders: Get it done or face the consequences.

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell told Gov. Mark Dayton on Wednesday there will be "serious consequences" for both the league and the Vikings if the bill isn't passed, according to a Pioneer Press report.

And with the state's legislative session likely to wrap up in the next two weeks, Dayton said Tuesday that resolving the stadium issue, which has lingered for about a decade, would probably have to wait until 2013.

But the Vikings, who don't have a stadium lease, said Tuesday that next year isn't an option and a league executive said Wednesday the team and its ownership are "out of options" after Monday night's vote.


Exhibit A on why a new stadium for the Bills would be a better alternative than a renovation, tied to a ten year lease.

-Bill

[Extremebillsfan247]

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7830779/nfl-exec-says-minnesota-vikings-options-stadium-bid



Exhibit A on why a new stadium for the Bills would be a better alternative than a renovation, tied to a ten year lease.

-BillAre you ok with having to purchase a seat license just to be able to buy season tickets? That's exactly what would happen if the Bills got a new stadium. You could also expect single game day ticket prices to rise significantly, as well as prices at the concession stands, not to leave out the tax payers who will have to foot a pretty extensive bill.

For someone like me it doesn't matter, I'm out of state. But for those who attend games on a regular basis, this could be a big problem. Selling out a new stadium wont be a picnic from a franchise marketing point of view either. New stadiums sound great, but could also turn into financial disasters, not only for the team playing in them, but for the city that they are built in also. That's something to keep in mind. As the old saying goes, "Be careful of what you wish for". JMO

[BLeonard]

Are you ok with having to purchase a seat license just to be able to buy season tickets? That's exactly what would happen if the Bills got a new stadium. You could also expect single game day ticket prices to rise significantly, as well as prices at the concession stands, not to leave out the tax payers who will have to foot a pretty extensive bill.

For someone like me it doesn't matter, I'm out of state. But for those who attend games on a regular basis, this could be a big problem. Selling out a new stadium wont be a picnic from a franchise marketing point of view either. New stadiums sound great, but could also turn into financial disasters, not only for the team playing in them, but for the city that they are built in also. That's something to keep in mind. JMO

Well, I'm out of state also, but here's my thoughts:

Whether any of us like it or not, the NFL (and sports in general) seem to be heading in this "PSL/Billion Dollar Stadium" direction. As I've said many times in various threads, a renovation of RWS is only a temporary (10-15 year) solution. While renovating the stadium would suffice for the time being, there's going to come a point where:

A: They are going to have done all of the "renovating and upgrading" possible with the current structure, making anew stadium necessary.

B: The new owner (after Ralph) is going to want a new stadium as a condition for keeping the team in Buffalo.

So, the way I see it, sooner or later, NYS and Erie County are going to have to pony up for a new stadium, or the team will be moved. Look at what's going on in Minnesota. Look at what's going on with the Raiders and Chargers. Hell, look at what's going on with the Sacremento Kings.

Pro sports (especially the NFL) are multi-billion dollar businesses. In order to keep that business in town, eventually, you're gonna have to put some real cash up to do it.

-Bill

[Extremebillsfan247]

Well, I'm out of state also, but here's my thoughts:

Whether any of us like it or not, the NFL (and sports in general) seem to be heading in this "PSL/Billion Dollar Stadium" direction. As I've said many times in various threads, a renovation of RWS is only a temporary (10-15 year) solution. While renovating the stadium would suffice for the time being, there's going to come a point where:

A: They are going to have done all of the "renovating and upgrading" possible with the current structure, making anew stadium necessary.

B: The new owner (after Ralph) is going to want a new stadium as a condition for keeping the team in Buffalo.

So, the way I see it, sooner or later, NYS and Erie County are going to have to pony up for a new stadium, or the team will be moved. Look at what's going on in Minnesota. Look at what's going on with the Raiders and Chargers. Hell, look at what's going on with the Sacremento Kings.

Pro sports (especially the NFL) are multi-billion dollar businesses. In order to keep that business in town, eventually, you're gonna have to put some real cash up to do it.

-Bill I see what your getting at, and I think your right that eventually the Bills will be forced into PSLs anyway. But, 10 to 15 years down the road, local Bills fans may be ready for it. The number of Canadians buying Bills season tickets is on a significant rise. The longer they stick around in Toronto, the bigger that fan base will get.

If they do build a stadium, location will be extremely important to the success of the franchise. The Bills are going to have to remain a regionalized team in order to continue to be relevant in the NFL. That's this team's only saving grace in my opinion. But it's a good one, and why I think this team is safe, for now.

[Skooby]

If its not your money, F-yeah. If you're paying it, maybe. We need our entire area to have easy access to a stadium, Orchard Park is out of the way for most of them. We could pull in E. NY money & Toronto money, the torontonians already spend all kinds of money on the weekend. It's pretty short-sighted to not give them over the border access with amazing new shopping near Niagara Falls or Downtown, otherwise we're limited by geography.

The whole plan is to intergrate the whole area, in case you missed those T.O. games.

[THATHURMANATOR]

Well, I'm out of state also, but here's my thoughts:

Whether any of us like it or not, the NFL (and sports in general) seem to be heading in this "PSL/Billion Dollar Stadium" direction. As I've said many times in various threads, a renovation of RWS is only a temporary (10-15 year) solution. While renovating the stadium would suffice for the time being, there's going to come a point where:

A: They are going to have done all of the "renovating and upgrading" possible with the current structure, making anew stadium necessary.

B: The new owner (after Ralph) is going to want a new stadium as a condition for keeping the team in Buffalo.

So, the way I see it, sooner or later, NYS and Erie County are going to have to pony up for a new stadium, or the team will be moved. Look at what's going on in Minnesota. Look at what's going on with the Raiders and Chargers. Hell, look at what's going on with the Sacremento Kings.

Pro sports (especially the NFL) are multi-billion dollar businesses. In order to keep that business in town, eventually, you're gonna have to put some real cash up to do it.

-Bill
People can't afford seat licenses bro.

[THATHURMANATOR]

And there is 0% chance of one at this time. Why even mention it?

[BLeonard]

People can't afford seat licenses bro.

Then, chances are, the team will be moved eventually... They can't play in RWS forever.

Unless, of course, the economics of sports change and selling PSL's just stops. I just don't see that happening.

-Bill

[BLeonard]

And there is 0% chance of one at this time. Why even mention it?

It's worth mentioning because this will now be the 2nd $200 million plus renovation done to RWS. So, since 1998, NYS and Erie county will have paid $400 million to renovate a stadium that cost $22 million ($115 mil in 2012 dollars) to build.

How much more money should be put into the building before someone says "Hey, with the cost of all these renovations, we could have had a new stadium." It's kinda like asking yourself "How many times should I replace the transmission in my car, before I just buy a new car?"

Another factor is that there is going to be a point where you're not getting the best value by again renovating a 40 plus year old stadium. Look atthe situation in Minnesota... The NFL is basically saying that the Metrodome is not an adequate facility for an NFL team... And the Metrodome is 10 years younger than RWS.

I'm not saying the Bills NEED a new stadium RIGHT NOW. What I AM saying is, a renovation is gonna buy 10 years, 15 max, before we're on this message board discussing the same thing again.

If there is a new owner for the Bills by then, they could very well tie the team's future in Buffalo to getting a new stadium. If WNY and NYS doesn't want to pony up the kind of money that it takes to have a team that competes in a multi billion dollar business, then I'm sure there are other cities out there that will.

-Bill

[jamze132]

It's worth mentioning because this will now be the 2nd $200 million plus renovation done to RWS. So, since 1998, NYS and Erie county will have paid $400 million to renovate a stadium that cost $22 million ($115 mil in 2012 dollars) to build.

How much more money should be put into the building before someone says "Hey, with the cost of all these renovations, we could have had a new stadium." It's kinda like asking yourself "How many times should I replace the transmission in my car, before I just buy a new car?"

Another factor is that there is going to be a point where you're not getting the best value by again renovating a 40 plus year old stadium. Look atthe situation in Minnesota... The NFL is basically saying that the Metrodome is not an adequate facility for an NFL team... And the Metrodome is 10 years younger than RWS.

I'm not saying the Bills NEED a new stadium RIGHT NOW. What I AM saying is, a renovation is gonna buy 10 years, 15 max, before we're on this message board discussing the same thing again.

If there is a new owner for the Bills by then, they could very well tie the team's future in Buffalo to getting a new stadium. If WNY and NYS doesn't want to pony up the kind of money that it takes to have a team that competes in a multi billion dollar business, then I'm sure there are other cities out there that will.

-Bill
Well thank Jesus for RWS not having a vinyl roof that is supported by air pressure!

[Blacksheep71]

The irony is if they'd ponied up the money 10years ago, Buffalo would have got a new shiny retractable roof stadium for $350m.

I don't see why a downtown stadium necessarily stops the team being a regional team.

1) Look at what happened with the Pontiac Silverdome. It was a hated, unloved stadium in the middle of nowhere. Sometimes it does work as in the case of the Gillette but not always and do we have a name change to the Western New York Bills?

2) Downtown does not mean tailgating nor parking - especially if the stadium is built in and around the Buffalo Skyway and the Niagara Thruway. Improve access around the Kensington Expressway for access from Rochester.

3) Use the lure of a new stadium as a development catalyst. For example Buffalo is (was) part of the Empire Corridor, a federally designated high speed rail corridor. Say to the State and the Fed Govt - "we've got a new stadium, a massive push to develop downtown, help us redevelop the gloriously designed but abandoned Buffalo Central Terminal as a hub for this service which can also bring fans in".

When you see the Olympics, the stadium is often a catalyst for both further public but also unrelated private investment in the immediate local area.

You can get substantial money support from sponsors even in these difficult times, but a multi-purpose stadium gives much more use that Buffalo as a city could provide in terms of major conferences, political conventions, NCAA Bowl games etc all of which would show that Buffalo still exists.

Or in 6-10years time the issue of PSLs will be irrelevant because if you want to see a home game, you'll be transiting through O'Hare on the way to LA.

[Night Train]

Maybe the greedy NFL should stop thinking every ticket in the stadium needs to be at least $200 a game.

[Blacksheep71]

http://929jackfm.com/files/2012/04/Dome-stadium-on-the-waterfront.jpg

or

http://929jackfm.com/files/2012/04/Bills-Stadium-on-the-Water-Front-closer-to-downtwon.jpg

Courtsey of WYRK.com showing what a stadium on the waterfront down town might look like by the Buffalo Skyway, 1.5 miles South of the First Niagara Center

[ddaryl]

People can't afford seat licenses bro.

then the Bills will have to be moved.

Bottom line new ownership alone is going to see a massive up tick in ticket prices.. and a new owner is going to want a new stadium soon after buying.

Ralph's days are numbered and I expect the headline to pop up any day now.

Best to have a new stadium plan in motion, because no matter how you debate it, reality dictates that it is a necessity for the longevity of the franchise in Buffalo. There is no way to avoid this discussion and the band-aids will stop working soon.


AND A WATERFRONT STADIUM IS THE WORST IDEA FOR THIS AREA.

traffic will be a nightmare on route 5, the weather off the lake will make the parking lots unbearable.

[better days]

The irony is if they'd ponied up the money 10years ago, Buffalo would have got a new shiny retractable roof stadium for $350m.

I don't see why a downtown stadium necessarily stops the team being a regional team.

1) Look at what happened with the Pontiac Silverdome. It was a hated, unloved stadium in the middle of nowhere. Sometimes it does work as in the case of the Gillette but not always and do we have a name change to the Western New York Bills?

2) Downtown does not mean tailgating nor parking - especially if the stadium is built in and around the Buffalo Skyway and the Niagara Thruway. Improve access around the Kensington Expressway for access from Rochester.

3) Use the lure of a new stadium as a development catalyst. For example Buffalo is (was) part of the Empire Corridor, a federally designated high speed rail corridor. Say to the State and the Fed Govt - "we've got a new stadium, a massive push to develop downtown, help us redevelop the gloriously designed but abandoned Buffalo Central Terminal as a hub for this service which can also bring fans in".

When you see the Olympics, the stadium is often a catalyst for both further public but also unrelated private investment in the immediate local area.

You can get substantial money support from sponsors even in these difficult times, but a multi-purpose stadium gives much more use that Buffalo as a city could provide in terms of major conferences, political conventions, NCAA Bowl games etc all of which would show that Buffalo still exists.

Or in 6-10years time the issue of PSLs will be irrelevant because if you want to see a home game, you'll be transiting through O'Hare on the way to LA.

Name me one benefit to putting a Stadium downtown other than to benefit the City of Buffalo. It makes much more sense to move it between Buffalo & Rochester so fans from Rochester & Canada can get there faster & it should not take much if any longer for people from Buffalo to get there & no, the name does not need to be changed, the team can still be called the Buffalo Bills.

[Blacksheep71]

Name me one benefit to putting a Stadium downtown other than to benefit the City of Buffalo. It makes much more sense to move it between Buffalo & Rochester so fans from Rochester & Canada can get there faster & it should not take much if any longer for people from Buffalo to get there & no, the name does not need to be changed, the team can still be called the Buffalo Bills.

If you build the stadium and regenerate down town it may along with many other steps might turn the population shift away from Buffalo.

There are suggestions that having moved to Santa Clara, the 49ers may not be able to call themselves San Francisco.

However I agree to a certain extent and an alternative location might be around Akron.

But more often than not, out of town stadiums have not proven successful and ultimately the teams have moved back to a more central location

[THATHURMANATOR]

Then, chances are, the team will be moved eventually... They can't play in RWS forever.

Unless, of course, the economics of sports change and selling PSL's just stops. I just don't see that happening.

-Bill
Ok cool then. What do you want from us?

[THATHURMANATOR]

If you build the stadium and regenerate down town it may along with many other steps might turn the population shift away from Buffalo.

There are suggestions that having moved to Santa Clara, the 49ers may not be able to call themselves San Francisco.

However I agree to a certain extent and an alternative location might be around Akron.

But more often than not, out of town stadiums have not proven successful and ultimately the teams have moved back to a more central location
How is a stadium that is used like 10 times a year going to generate anything to the city other than huge debts?

Concerts are going to go to the First Niagara center.

There aren't many tours that sell out stadiums anymore.

What kind of conference needs a huge stadium?

Lets be serious people. Seriously upgrade the Ralph get a new iron clad 10 to 15 year lease signed and hopefully during that time ownership changes hands to someone more apt to keep the team in Buffalo. Then at that time yes a new stadium is needed.

I feel like you people are living in some kind of dreamland.

Trust me I would pay PSL's if I had to as well. The whole idea of a new stadium is a fairytale.

[Blacksheep71]

and with all of these types of structures, there are always upgrades to the surrounding infrastructure. Those objections are merely excuses.

[Johnny Bugmenot]

The plot thickens...


On the same day Minnesota Vikings owner Zygi Wilf's private plane was spotted at a Southern California airport Thursday comes this little nugget: NFL commissioner Roger Goodell recently met privately in Los Angeles with Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa to talk about, among other things, the NFL relocating to Los Angeles.

The connection: The Vikings were dealt a major blow to their stadium efforts in Minnesota this week when the House Government Operations and Elections committee rejected by a 9-6 vote a proposal for a $975 million plan to raze and rebuild the Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome in downtown Minneapolis.

The state now has 10 more days to either revive the bill and get a stadium deal passed or risk losing the Vikings, who intimated they will not wait until 2013 to finalize a new stadium plan in Minneapolis.

"There is no next year," Vikings vice president Lester Bagley said.

http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_20435464/private-plane-belonging-minnesota-vikings-owner-zigi-wilf

[OpIv37]

I'd hate to see Minnesota lose their team because I don't think any fans should have to suffer through that, but at the same time, as a Bills fan, this is the best thing that could happen. LA is the only major market vying for a team right now, and if they get the Vikings, it makes it far less likely that the Bills will move due to a lack of better locations for the NFL.

Sure, there's San Antonio, but they aren't pushing real hard. And Toronto is a possibility, but they would need a new stadium too, and the Bills in Toronto series hasn't exactly been a rousing success. The Vikings in LA doesn't guarantee the future of the NFL in Buffalo, but it does make it a lot more likely.

[BLeonard]

How is a stadium that is used like 10 times a year going to generate anything to the city other than huge debts?

Concerts are going to go to the First Niagara center.

There aren't many tours that sell out stadiums anymore.

What kind of conference needs a huge stadium?

Lets be serious people. Seriously upgrade the Ralph get a new iron clad 10 to 15 year lease signed and hopefully during that time ownership changes hands to someone more apt to keep the team in Buffalo. Then at that time yes a new stadium is needed.

I feel like you people are living in some kind of dreamland.

Trust me I would pay PSL's if I had to as well. The whole idea of a new stadium is a fairytale.

So, you admit in 10 - 15 years that the Bills will need a new stadium, but say that a new stadium is a "fairytale." Which is it?

But, I'll respond to the rest of your post:

First, my guess is, any new stadium would likely have a roof of some kind on it, whether it be an always-closed dome, a retractable deal, or whatever. That means, it can be used more than "10 times a year."

First Niagara Center is fine for concerts and the like. But, the fact is, it only holds about 20,000 people. If you ever want to get a bigger event, such as an NCAA Final Four, or perhaps even a Super Bowl, RWS nor a 20,000 seat First Niagara Center are gonna cut it.

Again, I'm not saying the Bills need a new stadium in 2013... I'm saying, given the current state of the Bills franchise (The owner being 90 plus years old) if WNY and Erie County want to keep the Bills for many years after Wilson is gone, discussions should begin now on funding a facility for the team to play in, because I highly doubt that RWS is going to be an acceptable facility by NFL standards for much longer, even with $200 million in renovations.

The Minnesota Vikings have been trying to get a new stadium for AT LEAST a decade now. In that time, they've seen the Twins, Wild and the Gophers football team all get new stadiums. I'd rather see Erie County and NYS start planning NOW for a new stadium and have some sort of a plan 10 years down the road, as opposed to twiddling their thumbs, thinking that RWS can be the Lambeau Field of the AFC.

-Bill

[THATHURMANATOR]

So, you admit in 10 - 15 years that the Bills will need a new stadium, but say that a new stadium is a "fairytale." Which is it?

But, I'll respond to the rest of your post:

First, my guess is, any new stadium would likely have a roof of some kind on it, whether it be an always-closed dome, a retractable deal, or whatever. That means, it can be used more than "10 times a year."

First Niagara Center is fine for concerts and the like. But, the fact is, it only holds about 20,000 people. If you ever want to get a bigger event, such as an NCAA Final Four, or perhaps even a Super Bowl, RWS nor a 20,000 seat First Niagara Center are gonna cut it.

Again, I'm not saying the Bills need a new stadium in 2013... I'm saying, given the current state of the Bills franchise (The owner being 90 plus years old) if WNY and Erie County want to keep the Bills for many years after Wilson is gone, discussions should begin now on funding a facility for the team to play in, because I highly doubt that RWS is going to be an acceptable facility by NFL standards for much longer, even with $200 million in renovations.

The Minnesota Vikings have been trying to get a new stadium for AT LEAST a decade now. In that time, they've seen the Twins, Wild and the Gophers football team all get new stadiums. I'd rather see Erie County and NYS start planning NOW for a new stadium and have some sort of a plan 10 years down the road, as opposed to twiddling their thumbs, thinking that RWS can be the Lambeau Field of the AFC.

-Bill
Yes it is BOTH. A fairytale now and probably a fairytale then. UNLESS an owner with intent to keep the team here arises or there is a miracle turn around for Buffalo as a city. OR years of planning take place.

If it is a dome yes maybe used more than 10 times a year but how much more? Not enough to generate any growth in the city.

What bigger events? NCAA final four? Ok maybe but that is a once in a lifetime thing and VERY unlikely at that. The Super Bowl? Are you drunk or something??? We are not getting a Super Bowl EVER no matter what.

Explain why the Ralph cannot be viable with 200+ million in renovations. You may be right but explain your point. I have given mine as to how it can be.

I am all about them planning for it now, and I think they could get together a kick ass plan in 10 years. If they were to demand it now it would be a thrown together mis mosh. We don't have time to get it done now. The Ralph needs improvements rigtht away.

[Forward_Lateral]

Thurm, Detroit got a superbowl, so I wouldn't say Buffalo would never get one. If it was an open air stadium, then I'd agree with you. If they built a dome, or retractable roof, then it would definitely be possible.

[OpIv37]

First, my guess is, any new stadium would likely have a roof of some kind on it, whether it be an always-closed dome, a retractable deal, or whatever. That means, it can be used more than "10 times a year."



First, I don't get all this talk about a retractable roof. If it's retractable, it's going to be closed for every game after Oct. We will have lost our home field weather advantage anyway. There's no point. I'd prefer open air, but if they are going to go with a roof, just save the money and make it fixed. A retractable roof in a place with such bad weather just makes no sense. The die-hard fans would want it open year-round, but the NFL has to cater to more than just the die-hards.

Second, what other events would need an indoor stadium that large? What concert sells more than 20k these days? You mentioned the SB and Final Four, but those rotate- we'd be lucky to get 2 of those in a decade. There just aren't enough events that require 65,000+ capacity to consistently bring in money.

[BLeonard]

I'd hate to see Minnesota lose their team because I don't think any fans should have to suffer through that, but at the same time, as a Bills fan, this is the best thing that could happen. LA is the only major market vying for a team right now, and if they get the Vikings, it makes it far less likely that the Bills will move due to a lack of better locations for the NFL.

Sure, there's San Antonio, but they aren't pushing real hard. And Toronto is a possibility, but they would need a new stadium too, and the Bills in Toronto series hasn't exactly been a rousing success. The Vikings in LA doesn't guarantee the future of the NFL in Buffalo, but it does make it a lot more likely.

...Until Minnesota pulls their head out and builds a new stadium, wiht the hopes of attracting another NFL team after losing the Vikings.

Minnesota has a history of losing teams, then building stadiums to attract new ones. They've lost both an NBA and an NHL team, only to lure each league back with a new building to play in. They damn near lost the Twins too, until they agreed to build Target Field.

I don't see San Antonio as a real possibility, primarily because I don't see Jerry Jones wanting to lose part of his Cowboys fanbase to San Antonio. Jerry's got a billion dollar stadium to fill... The Cowboys have also recnetly been holding their training camp in San Antonio, which I have to assume is an effort to "regionalize" the Cowboys more, sort of like how the Bills do with St. John Fischer college.

I also don't see Toronto. As you said, they'd need a new stadium as well and form what I gather, the people in Toronto have no desire to build a new stadium for an NFL franchise... Or, at least don't have the desire to put down the money to do it.

-Bill

[OpIv37]

Thurm, Detroit got a superbowl, so I wouldn't say Buffalo would never get one. If it was an open air stadium, then I'd agree with you. If they built a dome, or retractable roof, then it would definitely be possible.

Minnesota had SB's too, back when their dome was new and not the POS it is now.

[OpIv37]

...Until Minnesota pulls their head out and builds a new stadium, wiht the hopes of attracting another NFL team after losing the Vikings.

Minnesota has a history of losing teams, then building stadiums to attract new ones. They've lost both an NBA and an NHL team, only to lure each league back with a new building to play in. They damn near lost the Twins too, until they agreed to build Target Field.

I don't see San Antonio as a real possibility, primarily because I don't see Jerry Jones wanting to lose part of his Cowboys fanbase to San Antonio. Jerry's got a billion dollar stadium to fill... The Cowboys have also recnetly been holding their training camp in San Antonio, which I have to assume is an effort to "regionalize" the Cowboys more, sort of like how the Bills do with St. John Fischer college.

I also don't see Toronto. As you said, they'd need a new stadium as well and form what I gather, the people in Toronto have no desire to build a new stadium for an NFL franchise... Or, at least don't have the desire to put down the money to do it.

-Bill

The NFL doesn't gain anything by moving a team from Buffalo to Minnesota. It's small market to small market. If the Vikings do to to LA, the NFL will need to find another market that promises significantly more money/fans than Buffalo to consider moving the Bills. Minnesota doesn't fit that criteria.

[THATHURMANATOR]

Thurm, Detroit got a superbowl, so I wouldn't say Buffalo would never get one. If it was an open air stadium, then I'd agree with you. If they built a dome, or retractable roof, then it would definitely be possible.
Then I have a bridge to sell you.

[THATHURMANATOR]

First, I don't get all this talk about a retractable roof. If it's retractable, it's going to be closed for every game after Oct. We will have lost our home field weather advantage anyway. There's no point. I'd prefer open air, but if they are going to go with a roof, just save the money and make it fixed. A retractable roof in a place with such bad weather just makes no sense. The die-hard fans would want it open year-round, but the NFL has to cater to more than just the die-hards.

Second, what other events would need an indoor stadium that large? What concert sells more than 20k these days? You mentioned the SB and Final Four, but those rotate- we'd be lucky to get 2 of those in a decade. There just aren't enough events that require 65,000+ capacity to consistently bring in money.
EXACTLY!!! No reason for it to be retractable.

People talking about opening in snow games are IDIOTS. They would never do that.

[BLeonard]

Yes it is BOTH. A fairytale now and probably a fairytale then. UNLESS an owner with intent to keep the team here arises or there is a miracle turn around for Buffalo as a city. OR years of planning take place.

That's why I'm saying the planning should start now... My guess is, a new owner is going to want to profit off his billion-plus dollar investment when he buys the team...



If it is a dome yes maybe used more than 10 times a year but how much more? Not enough to generate any growth in the city.

So, keep pissing away $200 million every 10 or so years to renovate RWS, even though you know, down the road, something's got to give...? I agree that stadiums don't generate much, if any, growth to cities, but RWS isn't generating any growth either. A new stadium would command around a 30 year lease, on top of bringing in revenue from naming rights, etc... When that's inevitable anyway, why not plan sooner than later?



What bigger events? NCAA final four? Ok maybe but that is a once in a lifetime thing and VERY unlikely at that. The Super Bowl? Are you drunk or something??? We are not getting a Super Bowl EVER no matter what.

Really? Well, let's look at indoor/retractable roof stadiums that have been built recently:

Cowboys Stadium: Super Bowl XLV
Lucas Oil Stadium: Super Bowl XLVI
U of Phoenix Stadium: Super Bowl XLII, Super Boel XLIX
Reliant Stadium: Super Bowl XXXVIII
Ford Field: Super Bowl XL

Hell, they're giving the Jets/Giants stadium a Super Bowl and it's not even covered. Fact is, with the exception of Edward Jones Dome in St. Louis, EVERY covered stadium has hosted a Super Bowl. With the NFL trying to Globalize, having a Super Bowl that close to Canada would be a big selling point.



Explain why the Ralph cannot be viable with 200+ million in renovations. You may be right but explain your point. I have given mine as to how it can be.

It CAN be viable... For the next 10-15 years. After that, with the way technology progresses, who knows? What I'm saying is, there's only so much renovating/retrofitting you can do before it just makes more sense to build an entirely new structure.



I am all about them planning for it now, and I think they could get together a kick ass plan in 10 years. If they were to demand it now it would be a thrown together mis mosh. We don't have time to get it done now. The Ralph needs improvements rigtht away.

This will probably be the 20th time I've posted this sentence: I'm not saying, "Build a new stadium NOW!!!" I'm saying, start planning to move in that direction, most likely sooner rather than later. A 10-15 year lease tied to a $200 million renovation is all well and good, but if it's anything like the last lease, it's not difficult for the Bills to buy out of it. We're at a stage where Ralph could pass literally at any time and I'd be willing to bet that no owner is going to come in and spend over a billion dollars for the franchise out of the goodness of his heart. If he's willing to spend that much on the franchise, a $10 million buyout of a lease would be peanuts. Then, you'd be left with a stadium with $200 million worth of upgrades, with no team to play in it.

Let me ask you this: How cool are you with giving the Bills $200 million for stadium upgrades, when they will likely turn around and sell at least one game per season to Toronto and play in a stadium that doesn't even meet NFL standards? If this $200 million is all going towards improving the "fan experience," why would they then turn around and ship the team to Canada, leaving that stadium (that you just paid to upgrade) empty on a sunday where it could be used?

-Bill

[THATHURMANATOR]

Bill it sounds like you are agreeing with me. New Stadium in 10 to 15 years.

[BLeonard]

First, I don't get all this talk about a retractable roof. If it's retractable, it's going to be closed for every game after Oct. We will have lost our home field weather advantage anyway. There's no point. I'd prefer open air, but if they are going to go with a roof, just save the money and make it fixed. A retractable roof in a place with such bad weather just makes no sense. The die-hard fans would want it open year-round, but the NFL has to cater to more than just the die-hards.

I say "retractable roof" for the simple reason that most stadiums nowadays have that feature. I don't know the difference in cost between fixed roof/retractable, but like I said, most new stadiums now feature a retractable roof... That's why I use that. It certainly doesn't HAVE to be retractable, just saying, that's what most new stadiums are now these days.

I don't get the whole "home field weather advantage." In the 90's, yeah, I could see it. But recently? I seem to remember the Dolphins having no problems beating the Bills in the snow last year. I don't think that "weather advantage" really exists anymore. Hell, nowadays, fans use it as an excuse to stay home. "I'm not gonna sit out in the cold and watch the Bills suck." How many times have you read that, or something similar?

Finally, if the weather advantage was such a factor, why would the Bills Front Office voluntarily give up a home game to play in a domed stadium in Canada?

-Bill

[Forward_Lateral]

I wonder how they'd realign the division if Minnesota moved to LA? The most logical move would be to put them in the AFCW with San Diego, Oakland and Denver, and maybe move KC to the NFC North? I don't know what else they could do without messing with all the divisions as they are now.

[OpIv37]

Finally, if the weather advantage was such a factor, why would the Bills Front Office voluntarily give up a home game to play in a domed stadium in Canada?

-Bill

Rogers gave them $78 million reasons to give up home field advantage.

[Blacksheep71]

How is a stadium that is used like 10 times a year going to generate anything to the city other than huge debts?

Concerts are going to go to the First Niagara center.

There aren't many tours that sell out stadiums anymore.

What kind of conference needs a huge stadium?

Lets be serious people. Seriously upgrade the Ralph get a new iron clad 10 to 15 year lease signed and hopefully during that time ownership changes hands to someone more apt to keep the team in Buffalo. Then at that time yes a new stadium is needed.

I feel like you people are living in some kind of dreamland.

Trust me I would pay PSL's if I had to as well. The whole idea of a new stadium is a fairytale.

And simply put more lipstick on a pig and in ten years time find the price is $1.5bn.

Seriously upgrade the Ralph - the only way they can do that is with a wrecking ball.

And this you might find interesting:

"The Metrodome is used about 300 days every year. Of those event days, fewer than 100 feature professional or major college sports."

So even after all the Sports franchises bar the Vikings left, the fact the Metrodome has a roof allowed the community to use it for a variety of events more than 200days per year + professional sports events, with the Metrodome employing 2,000+ people.

And if you read up about some of the large facilities, they often attract non-sporting events never previously held simply because of the large facility.

Sometimes events don't go to a location, because there is nothing big enough to host them? Some conventions held at the Convention Center could easily move to the new stadium if there was sufficient demand.

As for a SuperBowl, whilst Buffalo might lack accommodation, it is quite possible to bring some of the smaller cruise ships (Hurtigruten line) through the St Lawrence Seaway Canal and dock them up for a week.

[BLeonard]

The NFL doesn't gain anything by moving a team from Buffalo to Minnesota. It's small market to small market. If the Vikings do to to LA, the NFL will need to find another market that promises significantly more money/fans than Buffalo to consider moving the Bills. Minnesota doesn't fit that criteria.

Under the parameters I laid out before, I'd disagree that the NFL wouldn't gain anything. Here's why:

First, remmeber what I said... The Vikes move to LA, then the state of Minnesota builds a brand new stadium for around $950 million (which is the total price tag they are disussing now) in an effort to get a tam back in Minnesota.

Now, the Bills, still playing in RWS, are under new ownership. The new owner says "I want a new stadium, or I'm gonna look to relocate." WNY and Erie County sit on their hands.

You're telling me, under that scenario, that the NFL would not rather have that owner move the team to Minnesota, where a brand spanking new, state-of-the art stadium with cup holders, wireless internet and bidets installed into each stall sits just waiting for a team to inhabit it? You're also telling me that the owner himself would not jump at that sort of opportunity?

Why do you think the Hoosier dome in Indianapolis was built? it was to attract an NFL franchise. Indy certainly isn't a "large market," compared to Baltimore. They are right around the same (at least now). Minneapolis/St. Paul is around the 15th largest market... Buffalo is around 51st... Much bigger difference than Indy/Baltimore.

-Bill

[BLeonard]

I wonder how they'd realign the division if Minnesota moved to LA? The most logical move would be to put them in the AFCW with San Diego, Oakland and Denver, and maybe move KC to the NFC North? I don't know what else they could do without messing with all the divisions as they are now.

My guess would be, move the Rams to the NFC North, while putting LA in the NFC West. St. Louis is a midwest town, like Chicago, Detroit and Green Bay are.

-Bill

[OpIv37]

Under the parameters I laid out before, I'd disagree that the NFL wouldn't gain anything. Here's why:

First, remmeber what I said... The Vikes move to LA, then the state of Minnesota builds a brand new stadium for around $950 million (which is the total price tag they are disussing now) in an effort to get a tam back in Minnesota.

Now, the Bills, still playing in RWS, are under new ownership. The new owner says "I want a new stadium, or I'm gonna look to relocate." WNY and Erie County sit on their hands.

You're telling me, under that scenario, that the NFL would not rather have that owner move the team to Minnesota, where a brand spanking new, state-of-the art stadium with cup holders, wireless internet and bidets installed into each stall sits just waiting for a team to inhabit it? You're also telling me that the owner himself would not jump at that sort of opportunity?

Why do you think the Hoosier dome in Indianapolis was built? it was to attract an NFL franchise. Indy certainly isn't a "large market," compared to Baltimore. They are right around the same (at least now). Minneapolis/St. Paul is around the 15th largest market... Buffalo is around 51st... Much bigger difference than Indy/Baltimore.

-Bill

If Minnesota can't get money to build a stadium for a team they DO have, what makes you think they will spend money to build a stadium for a team they DON'T have just in hopes of attracting one?

[BLeonard]

Rogers gave them $78 million reasons to give up home field advantage.

That shows me just how concerned the Bills Front Office is with having a "home field weather advantage," then.

-Bill

[BLeonard]

If Minnesota can't get money to build a stadium for a team they DO have, what makes you think they will spend money to build a stadium for a team they DON'T have just in hopes of attracting one?

They've done it in the past. The Timberwolves, the Minnesota Wild... Minnesota is kind of stupid when it comes to that. They don't want to fork over the money now, but will fork over more money later, once they realize that, in order to get a team, they're gonna need to build a facility.

It's not that they "can't get the money," as you put it... It's that they want to do everything possible to not have to spend it. Like I said, the Vikings have been trying to get a new stadium for 10 years. In that time, they've seen the Minnesota wild get a new arena, the Minnesota Golden Gophers get a new stadiu and the Minnesota Twins get a new ballpark. all the while, the Vikings are being told to "hold on, we'll take care of you next."

I think the city is playing chicken with the Vikes... They (the city's politicians) don't think the Vikes owners will sell the team or relocate... As a result, they're stringing them along. Hell, look at this quote: http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7832446/roger-goodell-visit-minnesota-stadium-plans-governor-says



Legislative leaders said they were open to meeting with Dayton and the NFL officials on Friday, but Senate Majority Leader Dave Senjem questioned how seriously lawmakers should take the suggestion that failure to pass a bill this year could cost Minnesota the Vikings.

"I think we've had this so-called warning around here for five or 10 years, so I'm not sure it's a threat," said Senjem, R-Rochester. He later added: "I think the Vikings are probably going to be around another year or so."


Now, if the Vikes call the city's bluff and sell or relocate, my guess is, the sense of urgency to get a new stadium built would be increased dramatically. Especially when I'd be willing to bet a good majority of the politicians in office currently are run out in November.

-Bill

[Blacksheep71]

As it seems we've got a policy of drafting from the SEC, exactly who gets the advantage playing open air in Buffalo?

If we think of cold weather teams, only one game a year (v Miami) automatically gices us an advantage as I'm sure others are equally adept in cold weather.

Here's a thought? Why not build a team capable of winning in all weathers? After all the SuperBowl is only played in warm weather or climate controlled environments

[OpIv37]

They've done it in the past. The Timberwolves, the Minnesota Wild... Minnesota is kind of stupid when it comes to that. They don't want to fork over the money now, but will fork over more money later, once they realize that, in order to get a team, they're gonna need to build a facility.

It's not that they "can't get the money," as you put it... It's that they want to do everything possible to not have to spend it. Like I said, the Vikings have been trying to get a new stadium for 10 years. In that time, they've seen the Minnesota wild get a new arena, the Minnesota Golden Gophers get a new stadiu and the Minnesota Twins get a new ballpark. all the while, the Vikings are being told to "hold on, we'll take care of you next."

I think the city is playing chicken with the Vikes... They (the city's politicians) don't think the Vikes owners will sell the team or relocate... As a result, they're stringing them along. Hell, look at this quote: http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7832446/roger-goodell-visit-minnesota-stadium-plans-governor-says



Now, if the Vikes call the city's bluff and sell or relocate, my guess is, the sense of urgency to get a new stadium built would be increased dramatically. Especially when I'd be willing to bet a good majority of the politicians in office currently are run out in November.

-Bill

Well, a domed stadium is a LOT more expensive than an arena for a football or basketball team.

Also, the T-wolves played their first season in the Metrodome, so they didn't build the stadium before they had the team. So, you need to check some of your facts.

[Historian]

People can't afford seat licenses bro.

If they can afford 41 Sabres games, they can afford a football PSL.

[Blacksheep71]

Well, a domed stadium is a LOT more expensive than an arena for a football or basketball team.

Also, the T-wolves played their first season in the Metrodome, so they didn't build the stadium before they had the team. So, you need to check some of your facts.

Except the Target Center was in a state of construction during that first season the T'Wolves debuted. So they'd already planned a Basketball specific arena from the beginning unlike the Raptors for example.

They had however started construction of the Target Center in July 1988 before The T'Wolves debuted in the 1989 season. This was because the T'Wolves actually owned the arena itself until 1995 when the sold it to the City of Minneapolis.

[OpIv37]

Except the Target Center was in a state of construction during that first season the T'Wolves debuted. So they'd already planned a Basketball specific arena from the beginning unlike the Raptors for example.

They had however started construction of the Target Center in July 1988 before The T'Wolves debuted in the 1989 season. This was because the T'Wolves actually owned the arena itself until 1995 when the sold it to the City of Minneapolis.

well if the team owned the arena, then the city/state didn't put up money to build it, correct? It must have been privately owned- I can't see the city/state putting up money for a building that remains under private ownership.

[BLeonard]

Well, a domed stadium is a LOT more expensive than an arena for a football or basketball team.

Also, the T-wolves played their first season in the Metrodome, so they didn't build the stadium before they had the team. So, you need to check some of your facts.

You honestly think they would have gotten a franchise had they not presented the NBA with a plan on a place for them to play?

Minnesota was granted the team on April 22, 1987
They broke ground for the Target Center on July 12, 1988
Their first game was November 3, 1989

Obviously, they wwre granted a franchise with the understanding that they would have an arena built. Do you think the NBA would have given them a team if they had no plans to buold an arena? Of course not. So, they basically built the stadium in order to lure the NBA into giving them an expansion team.

-Bill

[Blacksheep71]

Looking at the costs of stadiums, a domed stadium is not that much more expensive than an open air stadium. Where it becomes expensive is when post building expansion is considered.

The retractable roof option costs the most to build, but I read that over the lifetime of a stadium - 30years - this option is actually the most cost effective due to the wide range of options it presents. However it comes with the penalty of up front costs.

[Blacksheep71]

well if the team owned the arena, then the city/state didn't put up money to build it, correct? It must have been privately owned- I can't see the city/state putting up money for a building that remains under private ownership.

It was privately owned, but then the state/city bought it. It was still operated by a private company though but if afforded the city greater access for non-team usage.

There are a multitude of different deals between stadium owners and stadium tennants. For example, Benson in New Orleans has got the SuperDome sponsored and he pockets the money, not the city who operate the stadium.

[BLeonard]

well if the team owned the arena, then the city/state didn't put up money to build it, correct? It must have been privately owned- I can't see the city/state putting up money for a building that remains under private ownership.

On the bolded: Not back then, no... But these days, pretty much all stadiums are privately owned, while being funded by public money.

I don't necessarily agree with it, but that's pretty much how things work these days.

-Bill

[Forward_Lateral]

My guess would be, move the Rams to the NFC North, while putting LA in the NFC West. St. Louis is a midwest town, like Chicago, Detroit and Green Bay are.

-Bill

So is KC

[BLeonard]

So is KC

True, but KC is an AFC team. Moving the Rams to the NFC North and putting the "LA Vikings" in the NFC West means no team has to change Conferences. It also puts 2 California teams in Each Conference (LA and SF in the NFC, OAK and SD in the NFC).

Just makes more sense to me personally, it moves as few teams as possible.

-Bill

[Beebe's Kid]

You honestly think they would have gotten a franchise had they not presented the NBA with a plan on a place for them to play?

Minnesota was granted the team on April 22, 1987
They broke ground for the Target Center on July 12, 1988
Their first game was November 3, 1989

Obviously, they wwre granted a franchise with the understanding that they would have an arena built. Do you think the NBA would have given them a team if they had no plans to buold an arena? Of course not. So, they basically built the stadium in order to lure the NBA into giving them an expansion team.

-Bill
That is not evidence, and there is nothing obvious about it. I would say "playing devil's advocate," but I am just applying logic. If one of your points was they agreed on the site, budget etc, and plans were finalized in '86...that would make your point.

The argument about the Bills, and what they need to do to get people involved, or how much they could make by building a new stadium suffers from the same lack of logic that the TWolves argument does.

The Ralph is packed all of the time. The few exceptions have been near the end of the season when we were not playing for anything...for the tenth year in a row, which also happens to coincide with the holidays. Building a stadium is a huge cost, and there is not "making" money for a while.

There are not only PSLs associated with a new venue, but also increased taxes etc. What do people need to watch football? Grab a ****ing Beef on Weck and get to your seat. I don't need a ferris wheel, and a kid's area. I have kids, and they don't need that either. Again...beef, weck, seat.

My season tickets all have the cup holder in tact, so short of getting the attachment, i am living the life of Riley.

[OpIv37]

You honestly think they would have gotten a franchise had they not presented the NBA with a plan on a place for them to play?

Minnesota was granted the team on April 22, 1987
They broke ground for the Target Center on July 12, 1988
Their first game was November 3, 1989

Obviously, they wwre granted a franchise with the understanding that they would have an arena built. Do you think the NBA would have given them a team if they had no plans to buold an arena? Of course not. So, they basically built the stadium in order to lure the NBA into giving them an expansion team.

-Bill

Ok, but that's NOT what you said. You said they built the arena to attract the team. They had plans to build an arena, they got a team- they could have cancelled the arena construction if the team fell through.

Agreeing to build a stadium as part of a deal to get a team is COMPLETELY different then building a stadium with no tenant in hopes of attracting a team.

[BLeonard]

The Ralph is packed all of the time. The few exceptions have been near the end of the season when we were not playing for anything...for the tenth year in a row, which also happens to coincide with the holidays. Building a stadium is a huge cost, and there is not "making" money for a while.

There are not only PSLs associated with a new venue, but also increased taxes etc. What do people need to watch football? Grab a ****ing Beef on Weck and get to your seat. I don't need a ferris wheel, and a kid's area. I have kids, and they don't need that either. Again...beef, weck, seat.

My season tickets all have the cup holder in tact, so short of getting the attachment, i am living the life of Riley.

Personally, I won't disagree with any of this... However, the NFL likely would.

It's not that people particularly "need" anemities that new stadiums offer in order to watch a football game. Apparently, you don't realize that the NFL isn't about what the fans "need" or "want" anymore. It's about what generates corporate dollars, advertising and revenue for the league, not necessarily the city.

I wish the NFL would get back to being about the fan... But, unfortunately, I don't see that happening anytime soon.

-Bill

[BLeonard]

Ok, but that's NOT what you said. You said they built the arena to attract the team. They had plans to build an arena, they got a team- they could have cancelled the arena construction if the team fell through.

Agreeing to build a stadium as part of a deal to get a team is COMPLETELY different then building a stadium with no tenant in hopes of attracting a team.

Perhaps I worded things incorrectly. Let me try this again:

When a city/group/etc is lobbying for a sports team, they are basically bidding against other cities/groups/etc in order to be awarded a franchise.

In this instance, I'll about guarantee you that the people in Minnesota said "Hey, NBA, if you award us a team, we'll pay x amount for a franchise fee, build a new arena with features A,B and C in said arena and guarantee y amount of ticket sales." The arena was part of the presentation.

No new arena = No Franchise. So, the people of Minnesota used the new stadium to convince the NBA to give them a franshise.

Now, was the arena physically built before they were awarded the franchise? No. I don't recall ever saying it was. If I did, that's incorrect and I apologize. But, the stadium was certainly a catalyst for being awarded a franchise.

Some stadiums have been built beforehand, with the hopes of luring a franchise, without actually having an agreement beforehand. The Hoosier Dome was one and the Sprint Center in KC, while it hosts other events, has attempted to lure many NHL and NBA teams into Kansas City. So, it's not like building a stadium before actually securing a team hasn't been done in the past.

Hope that makes more sense.

-Bill

[THATHURMANATOR]

Bill you need to ease down. You are getting into a tizzy.

[YardRat]

The Target Center didn't open until October of '90.

[BLeonard]

The Target Center didn't open until October of '90.

Correct... The T-Wolves played their first season in the Metrodome, as we have discussed.

The point was, construction of the Target Center was well underway before the T-Wolves even started playing games. So, it's pretty obvious that, in order to be awarded a franchise, the people in Minnesota's proposal included a new stadium for the team to play in. The NBA certainly wouldn't have awarded a franchise to them if the plan was to play in the Metrodome on a permanent basis.

-Bill

[PromoTheRobot]

Did I not just read that Minny agreed to build a new stadium at the Metrodome site with the Vikes paying half?

PTR

[BLeonard]

Did I not just read that Minny agreed to build a new stadium at the Metrodome site with the Vikes paying half?

PTR

The Minnesota House Committee voted it down earlier this week: http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2012/04/16/minnesota-house-committee-votes-down-vikings-stadium-bill/

Vikes are already playing 2012 in the Metrodome with no lease... Don't see them waiting much longer for Minnesota to pull their heads out.

-Bill