I noticed it was “raining” about a minute before they talked about it. What I don’t get is that if they know the roof leaks, why not repair it in the off season, which we just had? As paterson1 mentioned, the leaky roof hurts American Family Field’s image big time and doesn’t look too great on MLB either.

Better a leaky roof than a leaky bullpen!

paterson1 wrote:

Still think that Buffalo made a mistake not putting a roof on their new stadium for the Bills.  The stadium so far has cost over $2.1 billion, about $560 million over the original estimate. They should have planned a retractable or permanent roof in the design right from the start.   A retractable roof would make the stadium more versatile.  
                                                             
The new Orchard Park facility will hold fewer fans with 60,000 compared to 72,000 in the existing facility and the Bills will never be able to host a Super Bowl.  They also will have the smallest stadium in the NFL along with the Tennessee Titans.  However beyond all of this, the reports are that the Bills will have a fantastic state of the art facility when it opens later this year.  

Even with a roof there's a 0% chance Buffalo would host the Super Bowl...... without a roof they will have no attendance issues and save hundreds of millions. 
 

paterson1 wrote:

Buffalo has attendance issues when they need to move a home game to another city because of snow. 

The snow would've prevented those game from being played in Buffalo anyways due to the road conditions. In-person attendance barely matters in the context of NFL revenue. The game being played elsewhere is good enough, just look at the international games

paterson1 wrote:

They only play 8 games at home during the regular season.

All the more reason not to build a roof... plus, a few of those eight games would be in September or October when snow is a non-issue

paterson1 wrote:

A retractable or permanent roof could have been had at not a huge extra cost if it had been in the original plans.

That depends what your definition of "huge extra cost" is, but I would say anything north of $100 Million is a huge extra cost. Just a thought

paterson1 wrote:

With a roof the new stadium could be used for a larger variety of events all year long.

We're talking about the same city, right? Buffalo? America's Saskatoon? You think more big tours would stop in the *checks notes* 51st largest metro in America just because a few extra months in an otherwise wide-open schedule are opened up?
 

It makes me laugh that you think you've outsmarted the most profitable entertainment entity that has ever existed (the NFL), as well as the billionaire that owns the team in question

paterson1 wrote:

The international NFL games are planned and used to promote the league overseas and make big money.  Buffalo playing a game in Detroit at the last minute because of poor weather is not planned or used to promote anything other than magnifying the fact that Buffalo's stadium could use a roof. 

The point is the league, and most of the fans, could care less where the game takes place. Bad weather games are actually good for TV. Did it occur to you that it may be in the Bills best interest to keep their outdoor stadium? Warm climate teams would not be accustomed to it when they come to town.

paterson1 wrote:

Since they only play 8 regular season games is the exact reason why a roof opens up the stadium for other events like car shows, spring home and garden events, Monster Truck Shows, trade fairs.  No worry about concerts being rained out or cold temperatures for events in the winter.  Why spend $2.1 billion on a building that is only built for one sport and has limited use for anything else?  And the $2.1 billion isn't even the final price tag.  For that price, should come with a roof.

First of all, it can still be used 60% of the year, for a multitude of events. In short, smarter people than you did the math, and determined an extra hundred million for a roof would not be offset by a car show or a monster truck show that was never coming to a small market like Buffalo anyways.

paterson1 wrote:

Skydome which seemed like a money pit in 1989 with a cost of $570 million CDN would cost $781 million in today's dollars for the original stadium.   And this includes a retractable roof, hotel and health club.
 

Yes, and if they built that as-is today, the team would be laughed at for building a concrete, basic, ugly stadium. The stadiums of 2026 are about luxury and are far more expensive. Why would they replace a basic stadium with another basic stadium like Skydome next door?

paterson1 wrote:

Always amazes me whenever you engage in debate, you always get personal when anyone disagrees with you.    

Agree paterson1 .. 

There's a difference between disagreeing & being disagreeable .. being disagreeable lessens the impact of their position.   The inability to disagree without being disagreeable is a character flaw.

Last edited by g121 (April 17, 2026 5:53 am)

g121 wrote:

paterson1 wrote:

Always amazes me whenever you engage in debate, you always get personal when anyone disagrees with you.    

Agree paterson1 .. 

There's a difference between disagreeing & being disagreeable .. being disagreeable lessens the impact of their position.   The inability to disagree without being disagreeable is a character flaw.

Good thing I’m disagreeing with your ideas, not your character. The people who made the decision about the roof are probably all Harvard MBA's. The roof was not worth it financially, end of story. None of your points negate the fact that an investment has to be paid off in a reasonable timeframe, and it's not certain if the investment itself could actually harm the Bills performance