“When it comes to the future new home of the Bills, [the Pegulas] have always known that, like virtually all NFL stadiums, this will ultimately be some form of a public/private partnership.”
“Some form of a public/private partnership” means the team will pay somewhere between 1% and 99% — or, since there are plenty of ways for a public-private partnership to give team owners more in subsidies than they spend on construction, possibly between -5% and 99%. Either way, it’s as unspecific a statement as possible, and doesn’t commit the Pegulas to any particular sum of money, or even necessarily a significant sum of money.
It does, however, give headline writers something to grab on to, and boy, did they grab with both fists:
Buffalo Bills owners committed to paying for portion of proposed stadium’s costs (ESPN)
Pegulas committed to sharing costs on proposed stadium (Observer Today)
‘Taxpayers, wipe your brow’: Why Bills stadium rhetoric is causing unnecessary angst (The Athletic)
I can’t prove, or even authoritatively speculate, whether the “Bills owners want 100% public funding” rumor was leaked to the Buffalo News last week by the team itself solely to anchor people’s expectations so that the owners paying literally anything would look good by comparison, but man, did it sure work out that way. If this story had first broken as “Pegulas want public money to help build $1.4 billion stadium,” the focus would be on how much taxpayer cash they wanted; instead, with elected officials going on the record to say, sure, they’ll commit public money to this project, they just won’t pay 100%, it’s suddenly not a question of whether people on Long Island should help pay for a new stadium in Buffalo, it’s just a question of how much.
(Anchoring, of course, can work in multiple ways at once: Not only is it important to make spending hundreds of millions of dollars in public money seem like a bargain because it’s not a billion and a half dollars, but it’s important to make it seem like spending something like a billion dollars is inevitable regardless. So we have here a Bills spokesperson claiming this weekend that an “independent engineering study” shows that the entire upper deck of the Bills’ current stadium would “have to be replaced” at a cost of $500 million, and renovation overall would cost $1 billion. Doesn’t he know it works better if you have a sheaf of blank papers to wave?)
With Gov. Andrew Cuomo resigning, how to split the massive cost is going to come down to talks between the Pegulas and incoming Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Buffalo native, who when asked about the stadium deal last week replied, “We are committed to keeping the Buffalo Bills in the city — stop period — that’s it.” Where the final public subsidy number will land is unknowable, but the odds on it exceeding the Las Vegas Raiders‘ $750 million record for an NFL stadium are looking a whole better than they did last week.
I’d have to say it’s “borderline reckless” to label stadium-funding fears as “borderline reckless.” If this is the kind of high-end analysis a subscription offers, then I’m pleased to say I’m not currently paying for The Athletic.
Then again, per the replies, everyone loved the piece! https://twitter.com/ByTimGraham/status/1426267453169016834
“Borderline reckless” and “taxpayers, wipe your brow” are both quotes from Nelson Civello, an “undying Bills fan” and also “an experienced banker for NFL stadiums,” who says the state could borrow the money and be repaid by team revenues. Which, yep, it could! Have the Pegulas said they’d be willing to do this? Civello wouldn’t know, but that doesn’t stop the Athletic from basing an entire article around his quotes.
Theoretically, they could also split revenues with you and me.
By “team revenues”, Civello means a TIF. At least, that’s how I took it.
A TIF? For Buffalo? Are they rebuilding the Erie Canal or something?
Why would developers invest in Buffalo at this level, exactly?
Stadium sales taxes, plus sales taxes at whatever ballpark village they build around New New Era Field.
It worked in Milwaukee. Deer District does great on non-game days.
Whatever happened to the NFL stadium funding assistance? Giants/Jets got 300 million. Or are loans for losers when you can just get the taxpayers to foot nearly the whole thing.
Looks like the current G-4 loan fund is limited to $350m:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2020/08/27/nfl-shows-financial-muscle-32-billion-of-new-highly-rated-debt/?sh=43dab0cc7299
Not sure what the cap is per team, or if that’s even relevant anymore.
it was $400 million but they raised it for the Rams stadium. They gave them another $500 million. Granted that’s a 2 team stadium,
Correction; at *least* 99% public funding.
It’s sad that token pittances from billionaires on frivolities like sports venues are considered major victories when they should be forced to pay most, if not all, of the development fees as opposed to public taxpayer dollars.
It is sad. It is not surprising. But it is sad (and disgraceful).
I thought Kim & Terry Pegula owned the team? Maybe I missed a memo or a reassignment surgery announcement or something.
I don’t necessarily follow those sorts of things the way I’m told I’m supposed to…