Golisano "interested" to keep the Bills in Buffalo

[Kelly the Dog]

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.

[Delete This Account]

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

[bbb]

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!

[Mr. WEO]

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.

[Ramius]

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.

[Doc]

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.

[Mr. WEO]

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?

[Kelly the Dog]

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

[bbb]

If they go 10-6 without Ruud, do they still pass the test?

 

Son of former Bill, Tom Ruud, by the way.

[Mr. WEO]

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.

[Hplarrm]

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.

[Terry Tate]

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.

[papazoid]

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

[Doc]

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?

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

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

[Ramius]

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.

[Kelly the Dog]

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.

[Mr. WEO]

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.

[Doc]

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.

[Kelly the Dog]

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/

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

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.

maybe he didn't get dollars or euros, but Pegula's company received $4.7B in cash considerations, which is pretty close. For you to say his net worth is basically on paper isn't really accurate.

Edited February 4, 2011 by In-A-Gadda-Levitre

[SuperKillerRobots]

sure made my day! i am not a fan of quinn or golisano for obvious reasons concerning the on -ice product they try to sell us, but the mere fact he essentially said he would be VERY interested if the bills were in danger of leaving certainly seems like he would step up, very comforting, to say the least. the only question i would have is, would the fans be content if golisano runs the bills like he ran the sabres? i know, the bills have been worse, but i think it is due from outright ineptness as compared to golisano "wanting to break even" (as he said today). i will answer my own question.. yes, i would rather have a mediocre bills team, than none at all.

 

I would rather Golisano take over the Bills and do with them what he did witht he Sabres than allow the team to leave. When you think about, he ran the Sabres in a way that was transparently business first (like how most people try to say Wilson runs the Bills). However, the saving grace is the fact that he 1. saved the team from leaving initially when he bought and 2. basically ensured that the team wouldn't leave after he got out. This is no small feat. He took less money for the sale of the team (albeit mroe than he paid) from someone who guaranteed they'd stay in Buffalo. He also wrote language intot he sale contract making it difficult to impossible to move the team going forward. If he bought the Bills, held on to them for 10 years, then sold them to someone who really cared and kept them here, I'd call him a freakin hero.

[Direhard Fan]

Ralph wills the Bills to Jim Kellys charity tax free and we all win. Clause says Bills must remain in Buffalo. Jim becomes the head cheese and we all are happy. What are the chances of that?

[Doc]

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.

Very few teams have 2 highly paid players at the same position, like WR or CB. And it's a matter of what a team thinks a player is worth, not some profit they think they need to achieve. At some point you bow-out of negotiations because it becomes funny money.

[Mr. WEO]

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.

 

 

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/

Didn't see the part about 65%, but assuming you are correct, still no way he invests all cash in the football team. He can get a much better return investing than the loan will cost him.

[papazoid]

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.

 

Buffalo Sabres = $189 million (actual purchase price)

 

Buffalo Bills = $799 million (Forbes) a little over 4 times the value of the Sabres.

 

really nice big screen TV = $2 thousand (stereo advantage).

 

very expensive house ?? = $8 thousand ?? (a fixer upper).

[Kelly the Dog]

Very few teams have 2 highly paid players at the same position, like WR or CB. And it's a matter of what a team thinks a player is worth, not some profit they think they need to achieve. At some point you bow-out of negotiations because it becomes funny money.

I agree with that, although no one on the Bills at CB makes a lot of money. Decent, not a ton. Both Greer and Winfield signed solid contracts, and more than the Bills wanted to pay them. But they were both worth the money the other teams paid, and if they did sign with us even for that amount, at no point would we be paying too much for CBs. McGee and Leodis make decent money, not a ton.

 

We can go around on this all day. And I agree with most of what you're saying. I'm saying if you have 120 million to spend on payroll instead of 100 or 110 million, it's easy to keep a player like Winfield you don't want to pay too much to because you're worried about other positions. That extra 10 or 20 comes in handy when a player is asking for 1-2 more a year than you want to pay him (that is not the same as what he's worth).

[Doc]

I agree with that, although no one on the Bills at CB makes a lot of money. Decent, not a ton. Both Greer and Winfield signed solid contracts, and more than the Bills wanted to pay them. But they were both worth the money the other teams paid, and if they did sign with us even for that amount, at no point would we be paying too much for CBs. McGee and Leodis make decent money, not a ton.

 

We can go around on this all day. And I agree with most of what you're saying. I'm saying if you have 120 million to spend on payroll instead of 100 or 110 million, it's easy to keep a player like Winfield you don't want to pay too much to because you're worried about other positions. That extra 10 or 20 comes in handy when a player is asking for 1-2 more a year than you want to pay him (that is not the same as what he's worth).

The problem is that worth is relative, and true worth can't really be judged until later.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

There have been numerous stories about the Glazer family and their troubled ownership of Manchester United. These stories have often been accompanied by references to possible financial difficulties that the family may be having. From the way that they've run the Buccaneers, it would certainly seem that if they're not having financial troubles that they are bottom line type owners…more interested in profit than championships. And that's their prerogative but it also sucks if you're a fan of their team.

 

Really?? Take another look at the Bucs--they are a young, talented team on the rise. You must be thinking of a different owner...("more interested in profit than championships").

Really?? Did I say that the Bucs weren't a young and talented team? I was referencing stories I've read in the Tampa Tribune and other newspapers which mention that the Glazer family, by virtue of having paid an enormous sum for the Manchester United club, are servicing that debt to the tune of about $100 million per year. I was referencing stories I've read that mention that the Buccaneers have been way under the salary cap in recent years…I think $35 million is the figure I heard. I (like many people) have friends in the Tampa-St Petersburg area who tell me that the common perception is that the Glazers have become spendthrifts.

 

I didn't make any statements about whether the team was talented or how well they were run. The frustration many/most Bills fans feel is not so much due to the perceived frugality of Ralph Wilson so much as the fact that the team has been incompetently run for so many years. If we all felt the Bills were well run regardless of their budget, there'd be a lot fewer unhappy fans right now.

 

So the fact that you imply that because the Buccaneers are heading in the right direction means that the team is not cheap completely misses the point. They are separate issues.

 

If they go 10-6 without Ruud, do they still pass the test?

 

 

 

[Mr. WEO]

Buffalo Sabres = $189 million (actual purchase price)

 

Buffalo Bills = $799 million (Forbes) a little over 4 times the value of the Sabres.

 

really nice big screen TV = $2 thousand (stereo advantage).

 

very expensive house ?? = $8 thousand ?? (a fixer upper).

 

Very good. But that doesn't change the fact that the 400% difference in the prices would make it far more wise not to pay cash for the football team. The bulk of that money would be better invested elsewhere. Don't worry, Peluga knows this.

Really?? Did I say that the Bucs weren't a young and talented team? I was referencing stories I've read in the Tampa Tribune and other newspapers which mention that the Glazer family, by virtue of having paid an enormous sum for the Manchester United club, are servicing that debt to the tune of about $100 million per year. I was referencing stories I've read that mention that the Buccaneers have been way under the salary cap in recent years…I think $35 million is the figure I heard. I (like many people) have friends in the Tampa-St Petersburg area who tell me that the common perception is that the Glazers have become spendthrifts.

 

I didn't make any statements about whether the team was talented or how well they were run. The frustration many/most Bills fans feel is not so much due to the perceived frugality of Ralph Wilson so much as the fact that the team has been incompetently run for so many years. If we all felt the Bills were well run regardless of their budget, there'd be a lot fewer unhappy fans right now.

 

So the fact that you imply that because the Buccaneers are heading in the right direction means that the team is not cheap completely misses the point. They are separate issues.

 

Actually, this is what you said:

 

From the way that they've run the Buccaneers, it would certainly seem that if they're not having financial troubles that they are bottom line type owners…more interested in profit than championships.

 

I thought your point was pretty clear...

 

But now you say you are simply reiterating that they are cheap, yet on the rise and doing well with this approach at this time. What's the point of mentioning they are cheap?

Edited February 5, 2011 by Mr. WEO

[JohnC]

Didn't see the part about 65%, but assuming you are correct, still no way he invests all cash in the football team. He can get a much better return investing than the loan will cost him.

 

Pegula didn't buy the Sabres because it was the best way he could get a return on his money. He bought the team because he has a passion for the sport. I'm sure he has not entered the hockey business to lose money. What I'm very confident is that he won't run the business as merely a profit-center at the expense of being a competitive team, as another owner you are familiar with does. I'm also confident that Mr. P won't be allowing his marketing specialist to be involved in the hockey operation.

 

You are correct that he would never invest a large portion of his own money in a football franchise. That would be foolish. But what he could do is be able to get the financing to purchase the team and then run it in a responsible way to pay off the debt.

Edited February 6, 2011 by JohnC

[Doc]

Pegula didn't buy the Sabres because it was the best way he could get a return on his money. He bought the team because he has a passion for the sport. I'm sure he has not entered the hockey business to lose money. What I'm very confident is that he won't run the business as merely a profit-center at the expense of being a competitive team, as another owner you are familiar with does. I'm also confident that Mr. P won't be allowing his marketing specialist to be involved in the hockey operation.

 

You are correct that he would never invest a large portion of his own money in a football franchise. That would be foolish. But what he could do is be able to get the financing to purchase the team and then run it in a responsible way to pay off the debt.

We'll see, John. The problems Pegula will face, which is what the other owners to whom you are referring faces are a) there is a salary cap, b) many players don't want to play in Buffalo without a premium (which falls under A) and c) he needs to get the top people and bring them to Buffalo, and keep them there. Snyder has proven that being a fan and spending money doesn't ensure anything. And in the case of all three (Wilson, Golisano, and now Pegula), I'm more thankful for them keeping the team in Buffalo than going broke trying to field a winner.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

I thought your point was pretty clear...

 

But now you say you are simply reiterating that they are cheap, yet on the rise and doing well with this approach at this time. What's the point of mentioning they are cheap?

You've italicized the word "now" meaning that…you think I've changed my position? Do you always have to play these passive-aggressive games?

 

I haven't changed my position at all throughout this thread.

 

 

Look WEO. The "point" of me mentioning that the Glazers were cheap is two-fold. Firstly this thread is about Golisano. Secondly, someone else brought up the Glazers. So nothing I've posted here is pointless (you asked me "what's the point?).

 

I made the point that many Bucs fans view the Glazers as being cheap. This is not being disputed.

 

You felt it was necessary to mention that I was somehow wrong because the Bucs are a "young, talented team on the rise," which I freely admit but which misses the point that I was making about their cheapness.

 

I then reply (again defending myself against your criticism) that cheapness and performance are two separate issues and that the fact that they are uptrending doesn't refute my point that they are cheap.

 

So what to make of your latest post? Do you have to get the last word in? Is that it? I'm defending myself here.

 

Let me try to explain it one more time. Don't feel compelled to reply. Just try to understand (yes, I'm reciprocating your rudeness).

 

The Bucs have made some good decisions. They've drafted some good players and paid them according to what they would have received anywhere else. The Bucs made a nice coaching hire in Raheem Morris although Morris is a first-time head coach and is rumored to be one of the lowest paid coaches in the league.

 

The Bucs are well below the salary cap. The Bucs have not signed Morris to a contract extension and Morris has an option for the 2011 season. NFL coaches almost never have lame duck seasons. Morris and his staff are hanging in limbo. Hopefully for the sake of the organization, the Glazers spend the money and extend him soon.

 

So the Bucs have made some good decisions which have made them a "young, talented team on the rise" but according to most of the media and team's followers, they are cheap.

 

So to recap, we are talking about two separate issues.

 

Furthermore, in spite of your attempts to suggest otherwise, I have not changed my position in this post.

 

Also, feel free to let my defense of my posts be the last word in this discussion. Thank you in advance for your hoped for cooperation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Kelly the Dog]

The simple fact is, IMO, that if I, as a big fan of the Sabres, sold my company for 4.7 billion, took home 3 bil from the purchase, I would immediately want to buy the Sabres, too, and bring a championship to Buffalo regardless of the cost (under obvious limits). I would have no problem losing a few million a year for 20 years if that's what it took. You can't spend a billion dollars let alone three billion unless you are criminally stupid. I wouldn't care one bit if I lost the entire 189 million dollars to be honest, because it wouldn't affect my life one bit. I would probably be willing to spend a billion in cash on the Bills, too, knowing the strength of the NFL, and knowing full well I could make a little or a lot more money spending it elsewhere.

 

And I know there are a lot of people in Buffalo or who grew up in Buffalo that would feel and spend the same. I really wouldn't care if it was a poor investment and I lost tens of millions if I had three bil. And, as others have said, it's easy to get money when you have money, so there would ways to do it and reduce the risk.

[Mr. WEO]

You've italicized the word "now" meaning that…you think I've changed my position? Do you always have to play these passive-aggressive games?

 

I haven't changed my position at all throughout this thread.

 

 

Look WEO. The "point" of me mentioning that the Glazers were cheap is two-fold. Firstly this thread is about Golisano. Secondly, someone else brought up the Glazers. So nothing I've posted here is pointless (you asked me "what's the point?).

 

I made the point that many Bucs fans view the Glazers as being cheap. This is not being disputed.

 

You felt it was necessary to mention that I was somehow wrong because the Bucs are a "young, talented team on the rise," which I freely admit but which misses the point that I was making about their cheapness.

 

I then reply (again defending myself against your criticism) that cheapness and performance are two separate issues and that the fact that they are uptrending doesn't refute my point that they are cheap.

 

So what to make of your latest post? Do you have to get the last word in? Is that it? I'm defending myself here.

 

Let me try to explain it one more time. Don't feel compelled to reply. Just try to understand (yes, I'm reciprocating your rudeness).

 

The Bucs have made some good decisions. They've drafted some good players and paid them according to what they would have received anywhere else. The Bucs made a nice coaching hire in Raheem Morris although Morris is a first-time head coach and is rumored to be one of the lowest paid coaches in the league.

 

The Bucs are well below the salary cap. The Bucs have not signed Morris to a contract extension and Morris has an option for the 2011 season. NFL coaches almost never have lame duck seasons. Morris and his staff are hanging in limbo. Hopefully for the sake of the organization, the Glazers spend the money and extend him soon.

 

So the Bucs have made some good decisions which have made them a "young, talented team on the rise" but according to most of the media and team's followers, they are cheap.

 

So to recap, we are talking about two separate issues.

 

Furthermore, in spite of your attempts to suggest otherwise, I have not changed my position in this post.

 

Also, feel free to let my defense of my posts be the last word in this discussion. Thank you in advance for your hoped for cooperation.

 

Mercy granted.

[bbb]

Are you guys arguing about whether the Bucs owners are cheap??

[JohnC]

We'll see, John. The problems Pegula will face, which is what the other owners to whom you are referring faces are a) there is a salary cap, b) many players don't want to play in Buffalo without a premium (which falls under A) and c) he needs to get the top people and bring them to Buffalo, and keep them there. Snyder has proven that being a fan and spending money doesn't ensure anything. And in the case of all three (Wilson, Golisano, and now Pegula), I'm more thankful for them keeping the team in Buffalo than going broke trying to field a winner.

 

I have a simple rebuttal to you. Pittsburgh Steelers and Green Bay Packers. Two small market towns with franchises run competently. Do you want me to add additional small or medium market teams to the list? How about Baltimore, Indianapolis, KC etc

Edited February 6, 2011 by JohnC