If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
All: The new Billszone site with the updated software is scheduled to be turned on Tuesday, May 21, 2024. The company that built it, Dynascale, estimates a FOUR HOUR shut down, from 8pm Pacific, (5pm Eastern) while they get it up and running. Nobody will be able to post in any forum until they are done. Afterwards, you may need to do a web search for the site, as old links will not work, because the site is getting a new IP address. Please be patient. If there are bugs, we will tackle them one at a time. Remember the goal is to be up and running with no glitches by camp. Doing this now assures us of that, because it gives us all summer to get our ducks in a row. Thank you!
There is work to be done and things to be learned. We are going to try to get the old look back - or something close to it. We also know there are bugs. A thread will be started to report bugs and then we can pass those onto the host.
Thank you for all the patience and support with this - hopefully this will greatly reduce the crashes and other site issues we have had lately.
Please use this thread to report any issues you come across
http://www.billszone.com/fanzone/forum/feedback-forums/billszone-q-a/6521455-upgrade-report-bugs-here
Build A New Stadium, or Keep The Ralph And Spend "Only," About $400 Million?
The Bengals indeed call the shots. That it was the most lopsided deal ever is history - somebody wrote a book about it.
Public opinion - and blackouts - have caused ownership to soften their stance through the years. UC is revamping their campus stadium, and I'm sure that they are paying the costs associated with staging their games. It is possible that the Bgal's aren't extracting a rental fee. Haven't read anything about it either way. My guess is no.
UC is paying rent, although they may have worked out a deal for this year. But they aren't playing there for free.
Even OSU had to rent the place when they had their spring game here this year.
The point is they are paying rent to the Bengals, NOT to any Govenment.
And, as I already said, the Bengals pay rent to the government. The government is still getting paid for the use of the facility. The primary tenant is passing on the cost to the Bearcats.
And, as I already said, the Bengals pay rent to the government. The government is still getting paid for the use of the facility. The primary tenant is passing on the cost to the Bearcats.
Peter Bronson describes how sweet the Bengals deal is, relative to Paul Brown Stadium, and the struggling financial problems that Hamilton County is faced with. Now, the Bengals have no further...
YES Seriously. UB is a State College, the Stadium is Government owned.
There is no way in hell the Government is going to charge itself rent.
As Dude noted, we're dealing with two governments here. The state vs. the county. The same things happens all over the country - the UCLA Bruins pay to play in the Rose Bowl
The Rose Bowl is undergoing its most expensive renovation ever from January 2011 to August 2013.
With the construction, UCLA also agreed to new lease terms on the stadium. UCLA is dropping the remaining 13 years on its contract with the Rose Bowl for a new 30-year lease that will expire at the end of the 2042 football season. Under the new lease, there will also be changes to the revenue plan.
UCLA currently pays the Rose Bowl 8 percent of all regular ticket sales and receives $50 per luxury box ticket. Under the new deal, UCLA will still pay 8 percent, but the Rose Bowl will no longer pay UCLA the $50 per luxury box ticket. Pasadena will manage the sale of premium seats, according to board documents.
UCLA, however, will retain all television revenue after a substantial proportion of the project has been completed, according to board documents. This is a change from the 8 percent it currently pays to the city.
Membership fees for Rose Bowl lounges will be split between Pasadena and UCLA. The university will retain the first $250,000 of revenue, which will increase by 3 percent each year, while the rest will be paid for Pasadena’s debt service.
(Moderator) My name's Max Yasgur, and I approve of this post.
Originally Posted by pmoon6
The idea that you "won't settle" presumes that you have some kind of control. Delusional thinking at best for a supposed fan of a spectators' sport. Your way to deal with it is to constantly ***** and denigrate any move, any result concerning the team even if it's positive because you don't want your whittle feewings hurt again. It's a protection mechanism.
You shroud your childish approach in a vale of pompous, intellectual garbage in an attempt to look smart and "real". You over-analyze even minute points and manipulate statistics to fit your negative view of the team. Again, to feel good about yourself and to protect from getting hurt.
Of course, the criticisms are obviously from someone who has no understanding of the team concept or what it takes to excel at athletics.
The true "realist" understands that they have no control of what happens on the field or behind the closed doors at One Bills' Drive, so they do the prudent thing for a spectator. They enjoy the games on Sunday with family and friends, cheer for their team and realize that it's just entertainment.
------
"I was an integral part in the drafting process of EJ Manuel," Whaley said Thursday on NFL Network's Total Access. "I was the person that handled the draft process and setting up the board."
"We are committed. I want you to believe me when I say that," Whaley said of building around the second-year quarterback, per The Buffalo News. "I always tell you guys that I'll never say never because I don't want to paint myself in a corner, but when I do say something, I do it and I mean it and I try to fulfill it."
"We believe the addition of Sammy is going to be instant impact, not only to our quarterback, but to what our offensive coordinator can come up with game-plan wise and how defenses attack us," Whaley said.
Whaley on EJ Manuel: "We think we got a gem in this guy." (2:30)
"And as Mark says, if in three years maybe he's not [our quarterback of the future], then I'll be sitting there saying 'hey guys', .... anybody got a job for me?" - Doug Whaley
And, as I already said, the Bengals pay rent to the government. The government is still getting paid for the use of the facility. The primary tenant is passing on the cost to the Bearcats.
There are no free rides in sports or government.
The Bengals are a PRIVATE COMPANY with NO GOVERNMENT affiliation!
You are arguing for arguments sake with no leg to stand on.
UB being a STATE University would pay NO rent to play in any Stadium owned by the Government if no other tenants are involved.
And, as I already said, the Bengals pay rent to the government. The government is still getting paid for the use of the facility. The primary tenant is passing on the cost to the Bearcats.
(Moderator) My name's Max Yasgur, and I approve of this post.
Originally Posted by pmoon6
The idea that you "won't settle" presumes that you have some kind of control. Delusional thinking at best for a supposed fan of a spectators' sport. Your way to deal with it is to constantly ***** and denigrate any move, any result concerning the team even if it's positive because you don't want your whittle feewings hurt again. It's a protection mechanism.
You shroud your childish approach in a vale of pompous, intellectual garbage in an attempt to look smart and "real". You over-analyze even minute points and manipulate statistics to fit your negative view of the team. Again, to feel good about yourself and to protect from getting hurt.
Of course, the criticisms are obviously from someone who has no understanding of the team concept or what it takes to excel at athletics.
The true "realist" understands that they have no control of what happens on the field or behind the closed doors at One Bills' Drive, so they do the prudent thing for a spectator. They enjoy the games on Sunday with family and friends, cheer for their team and realize that it's just entertainment.
------
"I was an integral part in the drafting process of EJ Manuel," Whaley said Thursday on NFL Network's Total Access. "I was the person that handled the draft process and setting up the board."
"We are committed. I want you to believe me when I say that," Whaley said of building around the second-year quarterback, per The Buffalo News. "I always tell you guys that I'll never say never because I don't want to paint myself in a corner, but when I do say something, I do it and I mean it and I try to fulfill it."
"We believe the addition of Sammy is going to be instant impact, not only to our quarterback, but to what our offensive coordinator can come up with game-plan wise and how defenses attack us," Whaley said.
Whaley on EJ Manuel: "We think we got a gem in this guy." (2:30)
"And as Mark says, if in three years maybe he's not [our quarterback of the future], then I'll be sitting there saying 'hey guys', .... anybody got a job for me?" - Doug Whaley
As Dude noted, we're dealing with two governments here. The state vs. the county. The same things happens all over the country - the UCLA Bruins pay to play in the Rose Bowl http://dailybruin.com/2010/10/12/cou...es_renovation/
As I already said, the County could easily transfer ownership of the Stadium to the State.
UCLA pays the Rose Bowl................not ANY GOVENMENT.
I think UB playing at the Ralph is a very viable option.
Re: Build A New Stadium, or Keep The Ralph And Spend "Only," About $400 Million?
The only example I can find where a team doesn't pay rent is UMass playing at Gillette. However, Gillette is privately owned by Robert Kraft, and this is a temporary arrangement while UMass' on-campus facility is being built. Every other instance I've found where a school plays in an off-campus publicly owned stadium they are paying rent, either directly to the primary tenant or to the ownership. There are several instances where a facility is state owned, but I can't find any stats where a state school plays for free (GA State, as an example, pays $75,000/game to play at the Georgia Dome, which is owned by the state of Georgia).
So, you've got:
- logistics: moving stadium 20 miles away making it harder for students to attend games; remote location and lack of public transit makes it hard for students without cars (thus requiring extra cost of providing shuttle service to and from games)
- size: additional 30,000 seats that won't be used on a consistent basis
- cost: need to pay (likely high) rent plus cost of game-day operations, may or may not get to keep full revenue from concessions depending on lease
Benefits:
- enough seats to handle crowds for occasional games vs. "big-time" opponents
From the county's perspective, they have to continue to maintain the facility in addition to the new stadium, unless the new one is privately owned. The new stadium will be nicer and in a better location, so it will be the preferred venue for major events. The amount of rent they would have to charge to the lone tenant would in all likelihood make the deal cost-prohibitive for a state university with a relatively small athletic booster population.
I could go on but I'm just rehashing at this point. I've yet to see a compelling argument or reason for why UB would move to RWS, and I don't think I will.
The only example I can find where a team doesn't pay rent is UMass playing at Gillette. However, Gillette is privately owned by Robert Kraft, and this is a temporary arrangement while UMass' on-campus facility is being built. Every other instance I've found where a school plays in an off-campus publicly owned stadium they are paying rent, either directly to the primary tenant or to the ownership. There are several instances where a facility is state owned, but I can't find any stats where a state school plays for free (GA State, as an example, pays $75,000/game to play at the Georgia Dome, which is owned by the state of Georgia).
So, you've got:
- logistics: moving stadium 20 miles away making it harder for students to attend games; remote location and lack of public transit makes it hard for students without cars (thus requiring extra cost of providing shuttle service to and from games)
- size: additional 30,000 seats that won't be used on a consistent basis
- cost: need to pay (likely high) rent plus cost of game-day operations, may or may not get to keep full revenue from concessions depending on lease
Benefits:
- enough seats to handle crowds for occasional games vs. "big-time" opponents
From the county's perspective, they have to continue to maintain the facility in addition to the new stadium, unless the new one is privately owned. The new stadium will be nicer and in a better location, so it will be the preferred venue for major events. The amount of rent they would have to charge to the lone tenant would in all likelihood make the deal cost-prohibitive for a state university with a relatively small athletic booster population.
I could go on but I'm just rehashing at this point. I've yet to see a compelling argument or reason for why UB would move to RWS, and I don't think I will.
You can make arguments for & against UB playing at the Ralph, but RENT is not an argument that should be under discussion.
Comment