Jump to content


What are the true structural deficiencies of Ralph Wilson Stadium?

new stadium stadium

  • Please log in to reply
96 replies to this topic

#1 simpleman

simpleman

    RFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 750 posts

Posted 05 June 2014 - 01:50 PM

The commissioner talks about a new stadium, fans talk about a new stadium, politicians talk about a new stadium. Do we really need one?
What are the reasons the current stadium can't be renovated or retrofitted to meet the football needs of the new owner? If it can't be, is there space available for a new one to be rebuilt adjacent to the current stadium, and the current one ultimately torn down to provide space for parking or other needed facilities? Between the stadium site and the adjacent CC isn't there enough room? The infrastructure is already there and seems decent.

Edited by simpleman, 06 June 2014 - 05:59 AM.


#2 PromoTheRobot

PromoTheRobot

    "...I hope I'm wrong..."

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,846 posts

Posted 05 June 2014 - 01:55 PM

It will be 50 years old in 2023. The upper decks are breaking down but the lower bowl should be fine. The biggest problem are the narrow concourses. No way to correct that. It has plenty of luxury boxes and club seats. They probably need updating. There is plenty of room the county already owns to build a new stadium.

#3 eme123

eme123

    RFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 535 posts

Posted 05 June 2014 - 02:16 PM

Its smack dab in the middle of nowhere

#4 Captain Hindsight

Captain Hindsight

    All Pro

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,896 posts

Posted 05 June 2014 - 02:19 PM

They and actual **** in the concourse for a game last year sooooooo plumbing?

#5 Kirby Jackson

Kirby Jackson

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,015 posts

Posted 05 June 2014 - 02:20 PM

There are lots of reasons but I will try to keep it simple:
-There is nowhere to play during a retrofit
-There are structural issues
-They want more high end entertaining options and it will be tough to change the culture there
-The cost would not be that different

#6 plenzmd1

plenzmd1

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,996 posts

Posted 05 June 2014 - 02:24 PM

View PostKirby Jackson, on 05 June 2014 - 02:20 PM, said:

There are lots of reasons but I will try to keep it simple:
-There is nowhere to play during a retrofit
-There are structural issues
-They want more high end entertaining options and it will be tough to change the culture there
-The cost would not be that different

Did the Chiefs and Packers play somewhere else while their retro fits occurred? I don't remember. I do remember the Bears playing at Illinois for at least a season.

Your point on the culture change is one that had not occured to me...and it does make sense to me. (even if i love the current culture)

But great points all around

#7 Kirby Jackson

Kirby Jackson

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,015 posts

Posted 05 June 2014 - 02:27 PM

View Postplenzmd1, on 05 June 2014 - 02:24 PM, said:



Did the Chiefs and Packers play somewhere else while their retro fits occurred? I don't remember. I do remember the Bears playing at Illinois for at least a season.

Your point on the culture change is one that had not occured to me...and it does make sense to me. (even if i love the current culture)

But great points all around
I don't think that they all played elsewhere. They have said that if they were to do it the Bills would need to play elsewhere for at least a year.

#8 Peter

Peter

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,875 posts

Posted 05 June 2014 - 02:31 PM

I like the Ralph for watching a game.  There are a lot of stadiums/arenas that were great for watching games for the core fan that no longer exist.

The main problems with the Ralph for various reasons:

1.  NFL wants a new stadium

2.  New owner likely wants a new stadium

3.  It is not located in a location that offers any synergy with anything else (e.g., downtown, NF, UB)

4.  It would be great if it had a retractable roof.

#9 mrags

mrags

    All Pro

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,904 posts

Posted 05 June 2014 - 02:40 PM

View PostCaptain Hindsight, on 05 June 2014 - 02:19 PM, said:

They and actual **** in the concourse for a game last year sooooooo plumbing?
the plumbing was being worked on last year. It was phase one of the remodel that we are finishing up now. And it was the only reason why there was an issue because they dug it up. There was never an issue before this.

#10 Captain Hindsight

Captain Hindsight

    All Pro

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,896 posts

Posted 05 June 2014 - 02:47 PM

View Postmrags, on 05 June 2014 - 02:40 PM, said:

the plumbing was being worked on last year. It was phase one of the remodel that we are finishing up now. And it was the only reason why there was an issue because they dug it up. There was never an issue before this.
I know. I just wanted to say something about actual **** flowing :sick:

#11 mrags

mrags

    All Pro

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,904 posts

Posted 05 June 2014 - 02:55 PM

View PostCaptain Hindsight, on 05 June 2014 - 02:47 PM, said:

I know. I just wanted to say something about actual **** flowing :sick:
oh. Then ok. Crusade on. Lol

#12 Dopey

Dopey

    RFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 586 posts

Posted 05 June 2014 - 03:01 PM

Over the last 13-14 years? My answer: The performance of the team.

#13 5 Wide

5 Wide

    Saint Doug

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,594 posts

Posted 05 June 2014 - 03:45 PM

Location Location Location.  Great for tailgating and gameday fan experience.  Terrible for generating revenue and spinoff development.  If you want to generate revenue outside of the 10 or 11 game days (including preseason) then you need a different style venue in a different location.  It was suitable for its design and use in 1973.  In today's environment, a stadium costing upwards of $750 million needs to be an economic stimulus for a region, not simply fancy new football digs.

#14 chris heff

chris heff

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,835 posts

Posted 05 June 2014 - 03:52 PM

View PostPeter, on 05 June 2014 - 02:31 PM, said:

I like the Ralph for watching a game.  There are a lot of stadiums/arenas that were great for watching games for the core fan that no longer exist.

The main problems with the Ralph for various reasons:

1.  NFL wants a new stadium

2.  New owner likely wants a new stadium

3.  It is not located in a location that offers any synergy with anything else (e.g., downtown, NF, UB)

4.  It would be great if it had a retractable roof.

This

#15 Ted William's frozen head

Ted William's frozen head

    RFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 553 posts

Posted 05 June 2014 - 04:21 PM

Americans are fixated on "New". "New" is not nec. better.
I'd rather see the present facility maintained,and expanded. The Packers did exactly that, and no one complains.
Being able to afford going to the games is most important to me.
The Ralph is a GREAT place to see a game.


Edited by Ted William's frozen head, 05 June 2014 - 05:03 PM.


#16 Mike in Horseheads

Mike in Horseheads

    RFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 772 posts

Posted 05 June 2014 - 05:00 PM

View PostTed William, on 05 June 2014 - 04:21 PM, said:

Americans are fixated on "New". "New" is not nec. better.
I'd rather see the present facility maintained,and expanded. The Packers did exactly that, and no one complains.
Being able to afford going to the games is most important to me.
The Ralph is a GREAT place to see a game.

Americans are fixated on "New". "New" is not nec. better.
I'd rather see the present facility maintained,and expanded. The Packers did exactly that, and no one complains.
Being able to afford going to the games is most important to me.
The Ralph is a GREAT place to see a game.
Did you have a "brain freeze" you said it twice? :rolleyes:

#17 Ted William's frozen head

Ted William's frozen head

    RFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 553 posts

Posted 05 June 2014 - 05:03 PM

View PostMike in Horseheads, on 05 June 2014 - 05:00 PM, said:

Did you have a "brain freeze" you said it twice? :rolleyes:
The board froze for some reason.
Can you spare some liquid Nitrogen?


#18 Peter

Peter

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,875 posts

Posted 05 June 2014 - 05:06 PM

View PostTed William, on 05 June 2014 - 04:21 PM, said:

Americans are fixated on "New". "New" is not nec. better.
I'd rather see the present facility maintained,and expanded. The Packers did exactly that, and no one complains.
Being able to afford going to the games is most important to me.
The Ralph is a GREAT place to see a game.
I agree with your central point.  Yet, even Yankee Stadium was replaced.

As far as the Packers are concerned, if only the Buffalo community could own the team (as is allowed with the Packers but no other team) . . . .

#19 Kirby Jackson

Kirby Jackson

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,015 posts

Posted 05 June 2014 - 05:10 PM

View Post5 Wide, on 05 June 2014 - 03:45 PM, said:

Location Location Location.  Great for tailgating and gameday fan experience.  Terrible for generating revenue and spinoff development.  If you want to generate revenue outside of the 10 or 11 game days (including preseason) then you need a different style venue in a different location.  It was suitable for its design and use in 1973.  In today's environment, a stadium costing upwards of $750 million needs to be an economic stimulus for a region, not simply fancy new football digs.
The central point here is dead on. Revenue generation will take priority over game day experience. There will be much finer amenities with the new stadium for the fans to enjoy but the overall game day will look different than we have been accustomed to.

#20 Mike in Horseheads

Mike in Horseheads

    RFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 772 posts

Posted 05 June 2014 - 05:18 PM

View Postsimpleman, on 05 June 2014 - 01:50 PM, said:

The commissioner talks about a new stadium, fans talk about a new stadium, politicians talk about a new stadium. Do we really need one?
What are the reasons the current stadium can’t be renovated or retrofitted to meet the football needs of the new owner? If it can’t be, is there space available for a new one to be rebuilt adjacent to the current stadium, and the current one ultimately torn down to provide space for parking or other needed facilities? Between the stadium site and the adjacent CC isn’t there enough room? The infrastructure is already there and seems decent.
IMHO, it's a get out of jail card for the NFL. Kind of like when the Dodgers moved to LA and the reason was Ebbets (sp) Field was old.
...As for the Ralph, it's old but has great sight lines (some say best in the league). I have to believe their is enough luxury seating (pry needs updating) and don't buy the BS that a retro-fit will kick them out for a year. Somehow Green Bay and KC did it.Fine put in temp seats at UB or play some at The Carrier Dome. It's the NFL TV is the money!
...Which leads me to huge new stadiums, look at MLB all new ones are smaller because as TV has improved to HD why pay a **** load of money to go to a game when you can stay home? NFL doesn't get it.

View PostTed William, on 05 June 2014 - 05:03 PM, said:

The board froze for some reason.
Can you spare some liquid Nitrogen?
LOL...it was just too easy note.





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: new stadium, stadium