On Friday, New York Governor Kathy Hochul made comments that all but guaranteed that an agreement for a new stadium for the Bills will be made soon, according to Mike Florio of NBC Sports.
Highmark Stadium (previously Rich Stadium, Ralph Wilson Stadium, and New Era Field) has been the home of the Bills since 1973. The Bills’ current lease on Highmark expires in 2023 and the franchise has been pushing with many government entities to build them a shiny, new stadium. The team has used the very real looming threat that there are plenty of other markets in the country that can support an NFL franchise.
Hochul commented on that threat saying, “That’s why we’re negotiating very intently, to make sure we have the right outcome for this community.” The new stadium will partially be funded by the public to the tune of about $850MM. The Governor claims that a deal will be done by April 1, in time for the annual budget.
Here are a few other rumors from around the AFC East, starting with a couple of notes that keep us in the Empire State:
- The Jets are planning to use this offseason to add some weapons to the roster for quarterback Zach Wilson. They currently have Corey Davis and Elijah Moore sitting atop the depth chart. They would love to bring back Braxton Berrios as a fourth-receiver/gadget player and they haven’t yet given up on Denzel Mims. Still, New York will have ample opportunity to add a potential No. 1 receiver to the roster, according to SNY’s Ralph Vacchiano. The free agent market is home to many household names like Chris Godwin, Allen Robinson, Mike Williams, and, potentially, Amari Cooper. Players like Calvin Ridley and Cole Beasley have been rumored to be available via trade. The 2022 NFL Draft is also so rich in talented receivers that many believe some first round talent could fall to the second round where the Jets have two high picks, if they don’t choose to take a top prospect like Garrett Wilson or Drake London with the 10th overall pick.
- That being said, Vacchiano also reports that, despite their vast spending ability, general manager Joe Douglas has been preaching the maintenance of financial flexibility. Though the Jets rank in the Top 5 in the NFL in salary cap space, Douglas rejected the notion that their $50-60MM in cap space will be dedicated to big spending in free agency. Douglas acknowledged free agency as just one of “a lot of different tools to improve your roster” and pointed to the Bengals as an example of responsible free agent spending. “I think Cincy did great in free agency last year,” he said. “They didn’t blow the doors off in terms of signing super high-priced guys. They brought in guys who fit exactly what they wanted to do.”
- According to Mike Giardi of NFL Network, Patriots’ cornerback JC Jackson is likely headed for free agency with some lofty expectations. While Jackson still likes the Patriots, money is a big factor for the 26-year-old. Giardi claims that Jackson is strictly seeking compensation similar to Jalen Ramsey. New England won’t bring that money to the table and it sounds like they won’t be utilizing their franchise tag on Jackson, either. That information could lead to a tag and trade situation if other teams aren’t willing to shell out for Jackson in free agency.
Quit giving money to billionaire owners for their toys. When are cities and states going to finally figure out these are fools’ bets?
$850 million dollars could go a long way towards helping those actually in need.
In the long run, how much tax revenue is brought in from an NFL franchise/players? Just wondering.. over the course of 50 years+
In reply to both comments……
A football stadium brings people with money to spend into the area. The team and stadium pay taxes on the money they spend to see the games. People are hired to build and maintain the stadium as well as people that work games (vendors, security, technical people for everything from TV to running a state of the art scoreboard). All those people pay taxes on their earnings as well as spend their earnings usually in the local area which then employs other people that pay taxes and spend the money. This is known as “The Velocity of Money”.
Simply giving money to people that provide no value for the money they’re receiving is pretty much a one-way transaction that has no noticeable ripple effect.
The local economy benefits of taxpayer funded stadiums have been shown to be minimal at best. This is a bad use of public money.
@ Oooof;
Actually, I’m not arguing that.
However, when the government spends money I’d prefer to see them generate more. Example – spending on education to develop citizens that can add value to the local economy through the work they choose to do builds a vibrant area. On the other hand, teaching people that America is a terrible place isn’t going to do anything to help the area prosper.
So given a choice between giving money to “people that need it” or giving it to people that help generate more money for the government and jobs for the locals, I pick getting the ripple effect. Make no mistake – there are people that are handicapped in some way and should be given government assistance. But my experience in working in blighted areas in America is that people make a fine living by getting every dollar that can from the government, then work off the books to get more.
However, professional sports are totally out of whack in America (as Howard Cosell wrote in the 1980’s when it was a fraction of what it is today), and the fact that taxpayers have to subsidize professional sports franchises that are now playing elite players $40-$50 million a year along with average veteran players $10-20 million a year is simply nuts. The elite players can make $30 million a year, the average players can get $5-8 million a year, then the team owners can spend those savings as well as some of their profits to build their own parks.
Truly can’t even tell what point you’re trying to make, but the government shouldn’t give billion dollar handouts to billionaires because they hold a sports team hostage.
I think Samuel is acknowledging that a stadium DOES add to an area’s economy, but that there are many better and more direct ways to do so with the money given.
A stadium does benefit the area that it’s built in by providing jobs and a venue to allow cash to flow, but most of that cash flow ends up not in the hands of community members and most of those jobs are low paying. The upper echelon management (on the football or the operations/entertainment side) is from out of state, and the construction jobs are usually a big national company (and the construction jobs are temporary as is).
The Pegulas got what appears to be the most team friendly deal in history. Apparently the county taxes are planned to rise by a percentile point as a result, or so I’ve heard. I’m glad that Buffalo got to keep the Bills, but the Pegulas really are beyond shameful for holding the city and state hostage for getting so much help to build their business venue. This isn’t even a point in the general discussion of owners versus cities as a whole (which is a valid conversation). In this case specifically, with all of that aside, could and I think should have seen the Pegulas do much, much, much more instead of crossing their arms and threatening to take their ball home.
It’s about time the Bills and their fans invested in a new stadium. Unfortunately the current governor has shortsightedly decided it will NOT be domed – thus the quality of the football experience during winter months will still suck (and it will never host a Super Bowl).
A dome in Orchard Park or downtown Buffalo would cost more than a similar structure in other locations, for one (yes, to handle the weight of the snow). Your second premise assumes Buffalo could host a Superbowl, but the area doesn’t meet several of the other reqirements. If you want to pony up a billion more for no added benefit, feel free to write the governor.
Not sure what you mean by “no added benefit”, especially given Buffalo’s unique climate. Ask Jerry Jones if he thinks having a dome in Dallas is an added benefit over not having one. I think the real question that needs to be asked is why the Bills should still be kept in Buffalo at all, as the NFL could make lots more money by moving that team to a bigger and more vibrant city.
I don’t think the Bills threats of moving carry much weight. To remain in the AFC East they have to stay in their current time zone and most of the existing teams in those states don’t want another franchise intruding into their market.