What’s wrong with the Ralph? By NFL standards, plenty

[SpikedLemonade]

Interesting detailed article in yesterday's Buffalo News...

What’s wrong with the Ralph? By NFL standards, plenty

....In the $9 billion business known as the modern National Football League, which shares 80 percent of its revenue among its 32 teams, Ralph Wilson Stadium in Orchard Park is a loser.

Even after $130 million in renovations this year, the Ralph is not – and probably never can be – the moneymaking machine that the NFL now favors.

It’s poorly located for a team in the league’s second-smallest market, which must rely on fans from Canada and Rochester and points east in order to thrive. That’s why, sources said, several NFL team owners argue that a new stadium, preferably in downtown Buffalo, is essential to securing the team’s long-term future in the region.

What’s more, the Ralph is old – and teams can charge higher ticket prices in newer facilities. So Bills fans, who enjoyed the league’s second-lowest ticket prices last year, likely will see their bargain come to an end in a new stadium......


.....Sources who are familiar with the thinking within the NFL said some team owners believe the Bills’ new home should be closer to Toronto and Rochester to cash in on those markets.

The reason, they say, is that while Buffalo may be bouncing back now, it remains the league’s second-smallest market, ahead of only the Green Bay Packers.

It didn’t always used to be that way. When the Bills joined the new eight-team American Football League in 1960, the NFL had 13 teams and Buffalo was, according to the Census Bureau, the 16th-largest metropolitan area in the country.

Five decades of economic decline later, metro Buffalo ranks 50th, with a population of 1.13 million that’s actually smaller than it was when the Bills were formed.

That fact already plays a key role in the marketing of the Bills, who say they now get nearly 20 percent of their home-field crowds from Canada and who hold their training camp near Rochester.....

http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/erie-county/whats-wrong-with-the-ralph-by-nfl-standards-plenty-20140824?two-bills-drive

[Skooby]

Here piggy piggy, here's your lipstick.

[SpikedLemonade]

Here piggy piggy, here's your lipstick.

You should read the article.

Plenty of the issues that we have discussed here with statistics.

[Fletch]

You should read the article.

Plenty of the issues that we have discussed here with statistics.

Come on now, you mean these guys actually read something that takes longer than 15 seconds to read. Let's get real.

Great article though, best written, and I completely agree with you, touches on all that we've been discussing.

I think that it does a great job of outlining the pros/cons.

I don't think that it would draw people from Rochester more though.


Susan Gemmett, president of the Bills Backers of Rochester, surveyed members of her group about the possibility of a downtown Buffalo stadium and got a mixed response.


“While some think the prospects of a new stadium in downtown would be exciting and make us comparable with other NFL cities, others still like the friendly confines of the Ralph in Orchard Park,” she said. “They believe that a downtown stadium would be restrictive in travel options and especially restrictive to tailgating.”


I agree. The drive wouldn't be any shorter and the entry points would be even more clogged than they are to OP.

Tailgating would obviously be more restrictive. That's more than likely to be the case no matter where they put one if it happens. It can't get more tailgating friendly than at Rich.

Isn't there room northeast of Buffalo, say in Amherst or that area, for a stadium? That would be much easier for people coming from the east to access, and significantly closer too. Doesn't have the appeal of the downtown stuff though. I think they need that Rochester base.

Also, I'm not at all confident that Buffalonians will pay those higher ticket prices, which are very significant.

Maybe if the seating capacity were reduced to 60K or something that would be the ticket sales offset needed for the price increase.

[better days]

Well, I think it is a bunch of BS.

The NFL makes NO MONEY from renting out a Stadium for a prom.

The vast majority of things named in that article bring NO MONEY to the NFL.

The only thing that does bring money to the NFL is general admission seats.

The rest goes to the owner.

[SpikedLemonade]

The truth of the Bills having the 2nd lowest ticket prices, 2nd smallest market and 3rd lowest gate receipts just pissed you off eh homer?

This part must have raised your old blood pressure...

“The Bills have to look to Toronto,” Mills said. “That’s where the money is.”

[better days]

The truth of the Bills having the 2nd lowest ticket prices, 2nd smallest market and 3rd lowest gate receipts just pissed you off eh homer?

How does any of that change with a new Stadium TROLL?

[SpikedLemonade]

Experts in the economics of the NFL say that’s because new stadiums inevitably produce more money – starting with higher ticket prices.

For example, last year in aging Candlestick Park, the 49ers charged an average of $86 a ticket. This year, in their new stadium, the cheapest seat goes for $110.

Economists say that’s just a simple matter of a tighter supply and greater demand. Many new NFL stadiums have fewer seats than the Ralph, which seats 73,079, and yet demand to see the games increases with the hype and excitement surrounding a new stadium.

So if a new stadium is built, the team’s average ticket price is not likely to remain at $58, second-lowest in the NFL, more costly than only the Cleveland Browns last year.

“Usually it goes up a lot for the really nice seats,” said Winfree, the sports economist at the University of Idaho.

[chernobylwraiths]

Gee, I wonder which owners were polled that said a bigger newer building is essential to securing a long term future? Maybe Snyder, Jones, Kraft?

The NFL is quickly becoming a **** league where the owners care more about lining their pockets than putting a good product on the field and making fans (who line thier pockets) happy.

[Fletch]

You should read the article.

Plenty of the issues that we have discussed here with statistics.

Case in point ...


Well, I think it is a bunch of BS.

The NFL makes NO MONEY from renting out a Stadium for a prom.

The vast majority of things named in that article bring NO MONEY to the NFL.

The only thing that does bring money to the NFL is general admission seats.

The rest goes to the owner.

:whoosh:

- - - Updated - - -


How does any of that change with a new Stadium TROLL?

TROLL

LOL

[SpikedLemonade]

Gee, I wonder which owners were polled that said a bigger newer building is essential to securing a long term future? Maybe Snyder, Jones, Kraft?

The NFL is quickly becoming a **** league where the owners care more about lining their pockets than putting a good product on the field and making fans (who line thier pockets) happy.

No doubt the NFL's greed knows no limits.

On the other hand, it is partnership politics where profits are shared and the top revenue producers simply aren't happy sharing with the low revenue producers.

[SpikedLemonade]

Case in point ...

Why should he read the article when he wants to continue to believe in his own version of reality that he pulls out of his old ass?

[Fletch]

Gee, I wonder which owners were polled that said a bigger newer building is essential to securing a long term future? Maybe Snyder, Jones, Kraft?

Does it matter, the fact is that the big ones do.

I don't think that there's anyone in this forum that would be perfectly content to simply go to games, bring our own PDAs, and just watch the game and be able to eat/drink and piss in peace. We don't need luxury suites, ads plastered all over electronic media, ribbon scoreboards, or a ton of other **** that the league and these owners say we need.

This isn't an exercise in what we or the region wants, all we care about is our Bills football.

You answered your own question, it's exactly about what you say it is. So fans should quit taking issue with other fans. This isn't going away, the standards are here and set by the *****s that you nor anyone here likes.


The NFL is quickly becoming a **** league where the owners care more about lining their pockets than putting a good product on the field and making fans (who line thier pockets) happy.

- - - Updated - - -


Why should he read the article when he wants to continue to believe in his own version of reality that he pulls out of his old ass?

And that is different from 75% of the rest of the posters here how now?

[OpIv37]

Does it matter, the fact is that the big ones do.

I don't think that there's anyone in this forum that would be perfectly content to simply go to games, bring our own PDAs, and just watch the game and be able to eat/drink and piss in peace. We don't need luxury suites, ads plastered all over electronic media, ribbon scoreboards, or a ton of other **** that the league and these owners say we need.


You're not wrong but the problem is that the NFL has long since tapped the market of people like us. They no longer give a **** about us because they know they will get our money. They want to go after people who are more casual fans and need something besides football to entice them to the game. They want to go after rich people who would never sit in plastic chairs in a snowstorm, but relish the opportunity to sit in a luxury box eating catered food and rubbing elbows with other rich people.

And the Ralph just can't do that because it was built in an era when the NFL was still establishing itself with the average fan.

[SpikedLemonade]

You're not wrong but the problem is that the NFL has long since tapped the market of people like us. They no longer give a **** about us because they know they will get our money. They want to go after people who are more casual fans and need something besides football to entice them to the game. They want to go after rich people who would never sit in plastic chairs in a snowstorm, but relish the opportunity to sit in a luxury box eating catered food and rubbing elbows with other rich people.

And the Ralph just can't do that because it was built in an era when the NFL was still establishing itself with the average fan.

It isn't only that The Ralph can't do that. You also need the corporations and rich people. This is not simply a "if you build it they will come". The Bills already have trouble selling their club seats and suites.

The article also wrote...

A downtown Buffalo stadium would, on game days, likely be at least a half-hour closer than Ralph Wilson Stadium in Orchard Park for fans traveling to see the Bills from Canada. And Mills, who has studied cross-border traffic on Bills game days, said the easier commute to a downtown stadium could make the team more appealing not just to the average Canadian fan, but to Canadian companies who might want to buy luxury suites.

I assure you that no Toronto based corporation is going to buy a suite in Buffalo. Their executives and clients aren't interested in the 2 hours (including border crossing) trip both ways. They just won't do it.

What works for the ACC and Rogers Centre is that they are both located in downtown Toronto next to the public transit hub and in the heart of the financial district.

[better days]

Experts in the economics of the NFL say that’s because new stadiums inevitably produce more money – starting with higher ticket prices.

For example, last year in aging Candlestick Park, the 49ers charged an average of $86 a ticket. This year, in their new stadium, the cheapest seat goes for $110.

Economists say that’s just a simple matter of a tighter supply and greater demand. Many new NFL stadiums have fewer seats than the Ralph, which seats 73,079, and yet demand to see the games increases with the hype and excitement surrounding a new stadium.

So if a new stadium is built, the team’s average ticket price is not likely to remain at $58, second-lowest in the NFL, more costly than only the Cleveland Browns last year.

“Usually it goes up a lot for the really nice seats,” said Winfree, the sports economist at the University of Idaho.

The gross profit may be higher with a new Stadium, but the net profit would most likely be lower after factoring expenses that come with a new Stadium.

[SpikedLemonade]

The public has borne about 62 percent of the costs of a typical NFL stadium in the last 20 years, according to Vrooman’s figures. And the cost of the new stadiums built in the past decade range from $455 million for the Arizona Cardinals’ University of Phoenix Stadium in 2006 to $1.2 billion for Levi’s Stadium, the San Francisco 49ers’ brand-new facility in Santa Clara, Calif.

Not if the owner is paying for only a fraction of the new stadium.

[better days]

The public has borne about 62 percent of the costs of a typical NFL stadium in the last 20 years, according to Vrooman’s figures. And the cost of the new stadiums built in the past decade range from $455 million for the Arizona Cardinals’ University of Phoenix Stadium in 2006 to $1.2 billion for Levi’s Stadium, the San Francisco 49ers’ brand-new facility in Santa Clara, Calif.

Not if the owner is paying for only a fraction of the new stadium.

38% of $1.2 Billion is a LOT of money.

Much more of an expense than the Bills pay now.

A new Stadium would NOT bring in added profit for YEARS to come.

There will come a point in time when the Stadium needs to be replaced, but not for years.

[SpikedLemonade]

No new stadium approved by 2020 and the Bills relocation talk will be hot and heavy.

[Fletch]

You're not wrong but the problem is that the NFL has long since tapped the market of people like us. They no longer give a **** about us because they know they will get our money. They want to go after people who are more casual fans and need something besides football to entice them to the game. They want to go after rich people who would never sit in plastic chairs in a snowstorm, but relish the opportunity to sit in a luxury box eating catered food and rubbing elbows with other rich people.

And the Ralph just can't do that because it was built in an era when the NFL was still establishing itself with the average fan.

It's clearly about the wealthy and what the piece terms "venue revenues," in which are included naming rights, sponsorships, and luxury suites.

I'm not so sure I agree with you about the casual fans. That's a lot of bucks for a casual fan to pay just to "go do something" on a Sunday, we're talking upwards of $100 easily per person. Easily. I mean if a stadium can't sell out 60-some K seats with decent fans, not including the luxury suites, then it's time to start asking whether or not that city can support a team.

I think that it's pretty clear, even to Bills fans here, that the current stadium doesn't cut mustard anymore.

Besides, as the piece says, the newer stadiums are built to serve a bunch of other options. Many cities, again, as the piece points out, have restaurants that are accessible every day of the week from the outside of the stadium. That's no uncommon anymore. That at least gets a restaurant to pay annual rent. Factor in some events, concerts, other stuff and unlike Rich it's much more viable.

It will be interesting to see how things unfold pending the announcement and acceptance of Pegula as owner. He's got the Sabres right next door to where this piece is talking about. I'm still not in favor of a downtown stadium for reasons of tailgating and proximity to points east, but hey, I'm in the minority apparently there.

[Fletch]

The public has borne about 62 percent of the costs of a typical NFL stadium in the last 20 years, according to Vrooman’s figures. And the cost of the new stadiums built in the past decade range from $455 million for the Arizona Cardinals’ University of Phoenix Stadium in 2006 to $1.2 billion for Levi’s Stadium, the San Francisco 49ers’ brand-new facility in Santa Clara, Calif.

Not if the owner is paying for only a fraction of the new stadium.

Yeah, I agree, that statement needs to be qualified quite a bit more.

[better days]

Case in point ...



:whoosh:

- - - Updated - - -



TROLL

LOL

Well, I read that article before your fellow TROLL posted this thread.

You FAIL Troll.

Nobody can dispute what I said about that article being a bunch of BS.

[SpikedLemonade]

Not in your little made up world.

[better days]

Not in your little made up world.

Not in the REAL World which is where I live.

[Fletch]

Well, I read that article before your fellow TROLL posted this thread.

You FAIL Troll.

Nobody can dispute what I said about that article being a bunch of BS.

Then you're in Dense mode again, try toggling the switch to Cognizant.

I realize that schizophrenia can be challenging.

[better days]

Then you're in Dense mode again, try toggling the switch to Cognizant.

I realize that schizophrenia can be challenging.

Well, you & Spiked seem to be the schizo personality on this board.