Kelly the Dog Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Knowing Mr Golisano's ownership style (it's all a business transaction only), this would result in 2 things (1) the Bills stay and (2) the Bills suck. Said, it begs the question - if you know the Bills will be perennial jokes (3 wins give or take a season), would you rather have them stay and suffer failure or let them leave? Personally, I do not think the NFL would support a Golisano purchase as the competition committee would nix it.... Actually, if TG ran the Bills as he ran the Sabres, and simply told his GM and VPs to "at least break even", the Bills would be spending many more millions per year than they do now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete This Account Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Do you have a link to your interview with Phil Lind? I'd like to read that. it wasn't in the story. it was just the sense i got coming out of the meeting of how the thrust of Rogers Communications' charge toward an NFL franchise was left blunted -- and the vaccuum left unfilled -- following Ted Rogers' death two years later. they still seem to be on page 1, if not page minus-1. jw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 it wasn't in the story. it was just the sense i got coming out of the meeting of how the thrust of Rogers Communications' charge toward an NFL franchise was left blunted -- and the vaccuum left unfilled -- following Ted Rogers' death two years later. they still seem to be on page 1, if not page minus-1. jw Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Golisano Pro's & Cons: Pro- it's nice to know that if no one else steps forward to keep the team in Buffalo, that Golisano will. Golisano deserves huge credit for keeping the Sabres in Buffalo. At that time the Sabres were in serious financial troubles and at risk for leaving. This doesn't seem to be getting said enough, but Golisano's relocation to Florida is all about his anger with N.Y. State politicians and the amount of individual state income tax. Con- assuming he runs the Bills the same way he ran the Sabres, my biggest concern is that he only spends to 90% of the "cap". The NHL salary cap for 2010-2011 is $59.4 million. that leaves $6 million unspent on a quality player. i have no problem with his mantra to quinn & darcy to "at least break even"....but to improve their chances of winning a championship you need to spend to the cap. so that would mean increased ticket prices, which this community would and could support to put a winner on the ice. If he's the only option to keep the Bills in Buffalo then yes, but the press conference showed he cared only about the bottom line and not winning. His most telling quote when he told Quinn and Regier to " try to break even". Knowing Mr Golisano's ownership style (it's all a business transaction only), this would result in 2 things (1) the Bills stay and (2) the Bills suck. Said, it begs the question - if you know the Bills will be perennial jokes (3 wins give or take a season), would you rather have them stay and suffer failure or let them leave? Personally, I do not think the NFL would support a Golisano purchase as the competition committee would nix it.... Fear not "just beak even" fretters. Look, the NHL is a money pit. Galisano is a philanthropist--his purchase was an act of charity for the citizens of Buffalo. But it's not a real charity, and he knows the NHL is a financial joke--hence he instructed his managers not to lsoe money. He likewise knows it's nearly impossible to lose money in the NFL--almost all of his operating revenue would simply be handed to him by the NFL as a result of TV contracts paid out by the networks. And no one has to spend to the cap (certainly Ralph knows this), so the "just make sure you break even" discussion never needs to be had. I'm still not sure how Galisano steps in "if it looks like the team will be moved"--exactly how would he know they were "in danger of being moved"? In the past, the Glazers have been much more interested in profit. We'll see how they deal with this offseason. The Buccs have a nice core of young talent in place, mainly through the draft, but also have a fair amount of free agents that will need to be re-signed. People were livid down here the last few years of the Gruden regime because the Glazers were reluctant to open their wallets. That's the past. The poster was referring to the Galzers and the Bucs presently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 That's the past. The poster was referring to the Galzers and the Bucs presently. They need to prove that they are willing to shell out the bucks. They signed Donald Penn to a long contract, but this offseason will be a true test of how much the Glazers want to win as opposed to make a profit. Theyu're already talking about possibly not re-signing Barrett Ruud, which would be a big mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Knowing Mr Golisano's ownership style (it's all a business transaction only), this would result in 2 things (1) the Bills stay and (2) the Bills suck. Said, it begs the question - if you know the Bills will be perennial jokes (3 wins give or take a season), would you rather have them stay and suffer failure or let them leave? Personally, I do not think the NFL would support a Golisano purchase as the competition committee would nix it.... The competition committee has nothing to do with the sale. The owners as a group would vote on Golisano getting the franchise. And given the profit he turned with the Sabres, they wouldn't bat an eye, unless a better option, like Pegula, who by that time will have owned the Sabs for a couple years and who has about 4X the money Golisano does. Actually, if TG ran the Bills as he ran the Sabres, and simply told his GM and VPs to "at least break even", the Bills would be spending many more millions per year than they do now. What is break-even for Ralph on his $25K investment and what is break-even for the Bills' next owner on a $800M investment are two completely different amounts. Likely a new owner will bring moderately higher prices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 They need to prove that they are willing to shell out the bucks. They signed Donald Penn to a long contract, but this offseason will be a true test of how much the Glazers want to win as opposed to make a profit. Theyu're already talking about possibly not re-signing Barrett Ruud, which would be a big mistake. If they go 10-6 without Ruud, do they still pass the test? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 (edited) What is break-even for Ralph on his $25K investment and what is break-even for the Bills' next owner on a $800M investment are two completely different amounts. Likely a new owner will bring moderately higher prices. I know what you are saying, but Golisano (and me) were talking about yearly income, not appreciation of franchise worth. if Golisano or Pegula or Robert Rich or whomever bought the Bills is likely not going to take out a huge loan or build a new stadium with their own money. The Sabres were losing a ton of money each year when TG came in. Once they were back to respectability, he told Quinn to do anything he wanted, just don't lose money on a year to year basis. The Bills, on the other hand, make millions (and I would bet sometimes tens of millions) on a yearly basis. If Ralph were to tell Nix to do anything he wanted, just don't lose money, like TG told Quinn, the Bills would spend a lot more every year on FAs and keeping their own players. Edited February 4, 2011 by Kelly the Fair and Balanced Dog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 If they go 10-6 without Ruud, do they still pass the test? Son of former Bill, Tom Ruud, by the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 I know what you are saying, but Golisano (and me) were talking about yearly income, not appreciation of franchise worth. if Golisano or Pegula or Robert Rich or whomever bought the Bills is likely not going to take out a huge loan or build a new stadium with their own money. The Sabres were losing a ton of money each year when TG came in. Once they were back to respectability, he told Quinn to do anything he wanted, just don't lose money on a year to year basis. The Bills, on the other hand, make millions (and I would bet sometimes tens of millions) on a yearly basis. If Ralph were to tell Nix to do anything he wanted, just don't lose money, like TG told Quinn, the Bills would spend a lot more every year on FAs and keeping their own players. True. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hplarrm Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Golisano Pro's & Cons: Pro- but Golisano's relocation to Florida is all about his anger with N.Y. State politicians and the amount of individual state income tax. I think it goes a bit to far to claim that his anger at NY is ALL about the income tax (afterall the proof is in the pudding that buckets of big money guys who work on Wall St. do quite fine living in NYS when given the many offices of multi-national firms they not only do not have to live in NYS if they do not want to but in fact need not even pay federal taxes if they do not want to. One of the great canards of all time is that rich folks use the tax complaint to gin up Tea Party folks and others to whine. Meanwhile they use arcane laws and a tax system which is rigged by the golden rule (he who has the gold rules) to avoid onerous tax payments and live where they want. Your claim goes a bit to far in that it is pretty hard to imagine that the fact NYS voters pretty roundly and soundly rejected Golisano (despite the huge amount of $ and the fact that many rubes are loudly buying his tax whines{. The electorate from my perspective made the correct judgement that Golisano is rich because he cares about Golisano (no prob as that is his right under our system)and the interest of the body politic is a secondary (at best) concern of his. Do you really think that the electorate's rejection of Golisano had no effect on his thinking? This is a man not used to being said no to and by the millions NY residents were smart enough to reject him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Tate Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 A little interesting tidbit from a Toronto article I didn't see elsewhere (that's not saying it didn't exist)... There used to be three major league teams in Buffalo. So, yeah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papazoid Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 I think it goes a bit to far to claim that his anger at NY is ALL about the income tax (afterall the proof is in the pudding that buckets of big money guys who work on Wall St. do quite fine living in NYS when given the many offices of multi-national firms they not only do not have to live in NYS if they do not want to but in fact need not even pay federal taxes if they do not want to. One of the great canards of all time is that rich folks use the tax complaint to gin up Tea Party folks and others to whine. Meanwhile they use arcane laws and a tax system which is rigged by the golden rule (he who has the gold rules) to avoid onerous tax payments and live where they want. Your claim goes a bit to far in that it is pretty hard to imagine that the fact NYS voters pretty roundly and soundly rejected Golisano (despite the huge amount of $ and the fact that many rubes are loudly buying his tax whines{. The electorate from my perspective made the correct judgement that Golisano is rich because he cares about Golisano (no prob as that is his right under our system)and the interest of the body politic is a secondary (at best) concern of his. Do you really think that the electorate's rejection of Golisano had no effect on his thinking? This is a man not used to being said no to and by the millions NY residents were smart enough to reject him. he left to escape paying $13,800 PER DAY in state income taxes ($5,000,000 per year). http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2009/05/rochester_billionaire_tom_goli.html http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2009/05/golisanos-parting-shots.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 I know what you are saying, but Golisano (and me) were talking about yearly income, not appreciation of franchise worth. if Golisano or Pegula or Robert Rich or whomever bought the Bills is likely not going to take out a huge loan or build a new stadium with their own money. The Sabres were losing a ton of money each year when TG came in. Once they were back to respectability, he told Quinn to do anything he wanted, just don't lose money on a year to year basis. The Bills, on the other hand, make millions (and I would bet sometimes tens of millions) on a yearly basis. If Ralph were to tell Nix to do anything he wanted, just don't lose money, like TG told Quinn, the Bills would spend a lot more every year on FAs and keeping their own players. I wasn't talking about appreciation of franchise worth. I'm talking debt load. Ralph has no debt on his team. Golisano or whoever buys the team will have loans to repay. As for the Bills spending more money on players if they took a break-even approach, who do you think they didn't re-sign because it cost too much, versus them not feeling the player was worth it? Who do you think they would have gone after in FA and gotten, considering there are 31 other teams and most of them in more desirable locations than Buffalo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In-A-Gadda-Levitre Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 (edited) I'm still not sure how Galisano steps in "if it looks like the team will be moved"--exactly how would he know they were "in danger of being moved"? it's all conjecture, but I could imagine a scenario where TG contacts RW and says, words to the effect of, if the situation arises where a new prospective owner appears to want to buy the team and move it out of WNY, please have your family contact me, because I have a strong interest in keeping the team in Buffalo... Edited February 4, 2011 by In-A-Gadda-Levitre Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 If they go 10-6 without Ruud, do they still pass the test? Depends on what they eventually do with all the young talent they collect. At some point they are going to have to pay to keep it. In the past, they've been unwilling to fork over the $. Its a huge concern for everyone. But what do i know. I only live in a place filled with Buccs fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 I wasn't talking about appreciation of franchise worth. I'm talking debt load. Ralph has no debt on his team. Golisano or whoever buys the team will have loans to repay. As for the Bills spending more money on players if they took a break-even approach, who do you think they didn't re-sign because it cost too much, versus them not feeling the player was worth it? Who do you think they would have gone after in FA and gotten, considering there are 31 other teams and most of them in more desirable locations than Buffalo? It is not at all certain they will have loans to pay. I could be wrong but I would imagine Pegula is buying the team without taking huge loans out and he still will have 3 bil to play with. Players we could have kept but didn't include Pat Williams. Antoine Winfield. Jabari Greer. Jason Peters. Etc. There are also all kinds of FA who would have come here if you threw money at them like we did, say, Derrick Dockery. Or with a couple extra million to offer a guy 6 mil a year instead of 4, you can get a lot of free agents to sign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 It is not at all certain they will have loans to pay. I could be wrong but I would imagine Pegula is buying the team without taking huge loans out and he still will have 3 bil to play with. Players we could have kept but didn't include Pat Williams. Antoine Winfield. Jabari Greer. Jason Peters. Etc. There are also all kinds of FA who would have come here if you threw money at them like we did, say, Derrick Dockery. Or with a couple extra million to offer a guy 6 mil a year instead of 4, you can get a lot of free agents to sign. Doc is right. Buying an NHL team is like you and I buying a really nice big screen TV. Buying an NFL team is a lot different--like buying a very expensive house. We aren't going to pay cash even if we have the cash. Money is still pretty cheap and no way a sharpie like Pegula is going to tie up a billion of his cash (remember his net worth is on paper, not in the bank) on a single investment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Players we could have kept but didn't include Pat Williams. Antoine Winfield. Jabari Greer. Jason Peters. Etc. There are also all kinds of FA who would have come here if you threw money at them like we did, say, Derrick Dockery. Or with a couple extra million to offer a guy 6 mil a year instead of 4, you can get a lot of free agents to sign. I don't think the Bills valued Winfield and Greer very highly, which is why they let them walk, while they felt Williams was close to being done (they were wrong, but that's what they felt at the time) and Peters was a headcase. They've given big money to guys they felt were worth it, like Schobel and Evans, and signed guys like the aforementioned Walker, as well as Dockery, to big money contracts. But there are only so many players you can get when you're a team like the Bills, not to mention there are only so many players you can give a premium to make them come to Buffalo. And as in Dockery's case, paying more than other teams doesn't guarantee you production. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 I don't think the Bills valued Winfield and Greer very highly, which is why they let them walk, while they felt Williams was close to being done (they were wrong, but that's what they felt at the time) and Peters was a headcase. They've given big money to guys they felt were worth it, like Schobel and Evans, and signed guys like the aforementioned Walker, as well as Dockery, to big money contracts. But there are only so many players you can get when you're a team like the Bills, not to mention there are only so many players you can give a premium to make them come to Buffalo. And as in Dockery's case, paying more than other teams doesn't guarantee you production. Nonsense. The Bills valued both Winfield and Greer very highly. The only reason they didn't sign them was because they didnt want to pay them what they were worth, and what other teams were willing to pay them plus another CB on the team a lot (it turns out they lost Winfield and Clements). The point is, if the team is making 10 million in profit per year and the GM is told he can spend that extra ten million, there are very good players you can keep or get. Peters was not at all let go because he was a headcase, he was let go because he wanted 10 million a year and they were willing to pay him 8-9 million a year because they were on a budget. Doc is right. Buying an NHL team is like you and I buying a really nice big screen TV. Buying an NFL team is a lot different--like buying a very expensive house. We aren't going to pay cash even if we have the cash. Money is still pretty cheap and no way a sharpie like Pegula is going to tie up a billion of his cash (remember his net worth is on paper, not in the bank) on a single investment. Dutch Shell paid 4.7 billion in cash. Pegula owned about 65% of it. http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/company-news/royal-dutch-shell-buys-east-resources/19495355/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts