JohnC Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 Based on how he ran the Sabres with his lapdog Larry Quinn, I don't get very excited at the thought of those two running the Bills. You think Ralph is cheap? PTR If you want to criticize Golisano for the manner in which he ran the franchise that is fine. But it is Golisano who salvaged the bankrupt franchise. He purchased the team, financially stabilized the franchise and had hockey people running the team. He set a budget and the organization had to stay within the budget. It wasn't overly exspansive; but it wasn't so tight that the team couldn't compete. During his ownership stint the team periodically made the playoffs. Under the clueless Ralph the team has been out of the playoffs for 11 consecutive years, next season making it 12 consecutive years. When Golisano sold the team to Pegula he had a clause in the sale agreement that Pegula could not move the team out of Buffalo if and when he sold the team. Compare that to the current aged owner of the Bills who will auction the team off when he passes, possibly causing the franchise to be relocated. Another appealing facet of Golisano's ownership compared to the incompetent owner of the Bills is he didn't interfere in the hockey operations. He let the hockey staff make the hockey decisions within the framework of the budget. Unlike the owner of the Bills who at one time had his marketing guru be the head of the football operations. How unusual is that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SF Bills Fan Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Under Golisano, the Sabres probably should have won the cup the year they lost to Carolina. I think he would be a decent owner becasue he would be the type of guy to hire and retain a good football guy like Polian. I think he would be a hands off owner and not meddle too much. There is no dubt he has the cash to buy the team, more than some of the individuals that talk of trying to buy the team to move them. The fact that this moviing issue concerns him and is on his radar is good enough for me at this stage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Under Golisano, the Sabres probably should have won the cup the year they lost to Carolina. I think he would be a decent owner becasue he would be the type of guy to hire and retain a good football guy like Polian. I think he would be a hands off owner and not meddle too much. There is no dubt he has the cash to buy the team, more than some of the individuals that talk of trying to buy the team to move them. The fact that this moviing issue concerns him and is on his radar is good enough for me at this stage. When he bought the Sabres when they were in the bankruptcy court system he paid vendors he was not obligated to pay. His explanation was that he was not obligated to do so but it was the right thing to do. Make no mistake about Golisano he is a tough businessman. You don't get to his financial status unless you are tough. But he is also very principled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gumby Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Based on how he ran the Sabres with his lapdog Larry Quinn, I don't get very excited at the thought of those two running the Bills. You think Ralph is cheap? PTR I have little problem with the way the Sabres were operated under Golisano. He allowed hockey people to run the franchise as they saw fit all he asked was they keep to a budget. That's how most franchises operate. I'd take Golisano owning the Bills instead of Wilson any day of the week. Before he purchased the Sabres they were in real danger of leaving. HSBC was half full on most nights. He bought a team on life support, saved them, and for a couple years gave the fans in Buffalo some of the best hockey they ever seen. God forbid this man ever owns the Bills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RTW2012 Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 If you want to believe that the Bills are going to be sold to a lower local bidder then that is your prerogative. Odds are very strong that a 92 yr old owner who is known for the stringent way he has managed his franchise for half a century is not going to act out of character. Mr. Ralph has lived for almost a century. He is who he is. The owner has been very explicit in his expressions that the team will remain in western NY as long as he owns the team. He refuses to say what happens afterwards. As I stated to the other poster you can believe what you want. My belief is that it is going to be auctioned off to the highest bidder. If a local bidder is the highest it stays. If not it will probably be moved. And yet if Ralph was truly trying to wring every last dollar he could out of owning an NFL franchise, he would have moved the team to greener pastures years ago. So actually, giving preference to a local interest to buy the team so that it stays in WNY is in his character. That is completely logical. However, as I said, outside of Ralph's inner circle, everyone is guessing on this one. No one else knows exactly what will happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 (edited) I have little problem with the way the Sabres were operated under Golisano. He allowed hockey people to run the franchise as they saw fit all he asked was they keep to a budget. That's how most franchises operate. I'd take Golisano owning the Bills instead of Wilson any day of the week. Before he purchased the Sabres they were in real danger of leaving. HSBC was half full on most nights. He bought a team on life support, saved them, and for a couple years gave the fans in Buffalo some of the best hockey they ever seen. God forbid this man ever owns the Bills Good points. Anyone who says they worry about Golisano owning the Sabres (yet have no problem with the current owner) are historical revisionists or just crazy. Golisano is hardly "cheap". He spends his time giving away his vast fortune, whereas Ralph is still wringing every last dollar from the faithful that he can while he's still breathing----for what, exactly? By the way, we've moved past "Ralph is cheap" to "Ralph is incompetent". Try to keep up, PTR.. Edited July 21, 2011 by Mr. WEO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 And yet if Ralph was truly trying to wring every last dollar he could out of owning an NFL franchise, he would have moved the team to greener pastures years ago. So actually, giving preference to a local interest to buy the team so that it stays in WNY is in his character. That is completely logical. However, as I said, outside of Ralph's inner circle, everyone is guessing on this one. No one else knows exactly what will happen. Exactly. Ralph has never been all about money. He has made a ton of bad decisions based on money, but he has never been all about pocketing the most he can. He wanted this team in Buffalo, and there is no logical reason to believe that he will not want the team to remain in Buffalo. He is, like any person in the spotlight and public arena, also concerned about his legacy. Everyone is to some degree. I'm sure he wants his family to be well taken care of financially when he passes. And there is almost nothing he can do to screw that up. They all are going to be extremely wealthy when he passes and the team is sold (if it is sold). But also, like anyone, he is not going to want to be known as the man who let the Bills go from Buffalo. And he is not going to want his wife and his daughter Linda and other members of his family to suffer all the public attacks on him they will suffer if he does something stupid. Like have no plan in place. Rest assured, there is a plan to keep the team in Buffalo, and the resources available to keep the team in Buffalo, and the money to keep the team viable in Buffalo. I will bet anyone, any amount they are willing, that Ralph Wilson has a plan in place for the team after he passes that is not simply "Sell to the highest bidder." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punch Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 I have little problem with the way the Sabres were operated under Golisano. He allowed hockey people to run the franchise as they saw fit all he asked was they keep to a budget. That's how most franchises operate. I'd take Golisano owning the Bills instead of Wilson any day of the week. Before he purchased the Sabres they were in real danger of leaving. HSBC was half full on most nights. He bought a team on life support, saved them, and for a couple years gave the fans in Buffalo some of the best hockey they ever seen. God forbid this man ever owns the Bills Anyone that doesn't have a problem with how Golisano ran the Sabres was simply not paying attention. There's a reason Pegula and his executives have taken great strides to publicly declare there will be no restrictions or interference on/with the Hockey Dept.---- "hockey people" were not making the decisions in the Hockey Dept. Larry Quinn was not a hockey man, and he held sway over too many important hockey decisions. The budget wasn't a problem in principle, but refusing to negotiate contracts in-season and lock up key players (not only Drury/Briere, but also JP Dumont and Jay McKee and others) is what ultimately tore apart what was arguably the best Sabres' roster in the history of the franchise. Of course Golisano's wealth would contribute mightily to an ownership group (it's not vast enough for him to go it alone, anyhow), but that's the extent to which I'd feel comfortable regarding his involvement. Furthermore, the NHL would have never allowed the Sabres to leave Buffalo, unless there were absolutely no suitors. The League bent over backwards to keep the team in Western NY, just as they have done for the Coyotes in Phoenix (a much worse situation than Buffalo's circa 2002-03). He deserves credit for stepping in, but he made a pretty big profit in the long run---- it's not as though he martyred himself for the good of the team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Exactly. Ralph has never been all about money. He has made a ton of bad decisions based on money, but he has never been all about pocketing the most he can. He wanted this team in Buffalo, and there is no logical reason to believe that he will not want the team to remain in Buffalo. He is, like any person in the spotlight and public arena, also concerned about his legacy. Everyone is to some degree. I'm sure he wants his family to be well taken care of financially when he passes. And there is almost nothing he can do to screw that up. They all are going to be extremely wealthy when he passes and the team is sold (if it is sold). But also, like anyone, he is not going to want to be known as the man who let the Bills go from Buffalo. And he is not going to want his wife and his daughter Linda and other members of his family to suffer all the public attacks on him they will suffer if he does something stupid. Like have no plan in place. Rest assured, there is a plan to keep the team in Buffalo, and the resources available to keep the team in Buffalo, and the money to keep the team viable in Buffalo. I will bet anyone, any amount they are willing, that Ralph Wilson has a plan in place for the team after he passes that is not simply "Sell to the highest bidder." If this is true, why doesn't he simply sell the team now? Reveal the secret succession plan and let it begin. He would be idolized--and alive to see it! His future heirs will be rich beyond their dreams (even with taxes). Why not sell it now?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punch Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 If you want to criticize Golisano for the manner in which he ran the franchise that is fine. But it is Golisano who salvaged the bankrupt franchise. He purchased the team, financially stabilized the franchise and had hockey people running the team. He set a budget and the organization had to stay within the budget. It wasn't overly exspansive; but it wasn't so tight that the team couldn't compete. During his ownership stint the team periodically made the playoffs. Under the clueless Ralph the team has been out of the playoffs for 11 consecutive years, next season making it 12 consecutive years. When Golisano sold the team to Pegula he had a clause in the sale agreement that Pegula could not move the team out of Buffalo if and when he sold the team. Compare that to the current aged owner of the Bills who will auction the team off when he passes, possibly causing the franchise to be relocated. Another appealing facet of Golisano's ownership compared to the incompetent owner of the Bills is he didn't interfere in the hockey operations. He let the hockey staff make the hockey decisions within the framework of the budget. Unlike the owner of the Bills who at one time had his marketing guru be the head of the football operations. How unusual is that? This isn't really true--- Golisano himself vetoed a relatively modest contract extension to Chris Drury which Darcy Regier had negotiated (and Drury agreed to) in December 2006. By stalling with Drury and then ignoring Briere altogether the Sabres wound up with neither, and were then forced to agree to the ridiculous offer sheet the Edmonton Oilers' Kevin Lowe created for Thomas Vanek. The policy of not negotiating contracts during the season was something he believed in strongly, until it completely backfired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Anyone that doesn't have a problem with how Golisano ran the Sabres was simply not paying attention. There's a reason Pegula and his executives have taken great strides to publicly declare there will be no restrictions or interference on/with the Hockey Dept.---- "hockey people" were not making the decisions in the Hockey Dept. Larry Quinn was not a hockey man, and he held sway over too many important hockey decisions. The budget wasn't a problem in principle, but refusing to negotiate contracts in-season and lock up key players (not only Drury/Briere, but also JP Dumont and Jay McKee and others) is what ultimately tore apart what was arguably the best Sabres' roster in the history of the franchise. Of course Golisano's wealth would contribute mightily to an ownership group (it's not vast enough for him to go it alone, anyhow), but that's the extent to which I'd feel comfortable regarding his involvement. Furthermore, the NHL would have never allowed the Sabres to leave Buffalo, unless there were absolutely no suitors. The League bent over backwards to keep the team in Western NY, just as they have done for the Coyotes in Phoenix (a much worse situation than Buffalo's circa 2002-03). He deserves credit for stepping in, but he made a pretty big profit in the long run---- it's not as though he martyred himself for the good of the team. I respect Golisano for keeping the Sabres in Buffalo, but even with his money and the (relatively) little amount invested in the Sabres, he still demanded turning a profit. What a concept! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 If this is true, why doesn't he simply sell the team now? Reveal the secret succession plan and let it begin. He would be idolized--and alive to see it! His future heirs will be rich beyond their dreams (even with taxes). Why not sell it now?? Numerous reasons. Because he loves being the owner of the Bills, because he wants to see the team turn around with his relatively new hires while he is still the owner, because he knows he would die soon if he wasn't active in business, because it keeps him vital and relevant. If I were Ralph Wilson, the only difference I think I would do is say something public a little more specific about wanting to keep the team here. But there may be a a very good reason why he is not doing that. He also has rarely said things publicly about how he runs the team, except for very simple statements that he wants to keep the team in Buffalo and make it financially viable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punch Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 I respect Golisano for keeping the Sabres in Buffalo, but even with his money and the (relatively) little amount invested in the Sabres, he still demanded turning a profit. What a concept! He didn't demand a profit--- he simply wanted to break even. At the time he purchased the team, this directive was made public, and to be honest I was ecstatic at the thought, figuring it would make the team competitive in free agency (to an extent) and spend up to the new salary cap. This came to pass, and it was relatively commendable. Then again, as Terry Pegula stated in his initial press conference: " If I wanted to make money, I'd drill an oil well." Billionaires generally don't purchase sports teams to make money, but to satisfy some kind of ego trip. My only real issue with Golisano is that he trusted a snake oil salesman like Larry Quinn, completely. Golisano didn't know anything about hockey and (wrongly) beleived Quinn was advising him well on the matter. I mention the profit Golisano made in the operation and sale of the team only to point out that he didn't exactly make a huge sacrifice to purchase the Sabres, and in fact, profited not only monetarily, but also earned the goodwill and adulation of an entire community. It wasn't enough to put him over the top for his NY State Gubernatorial bid, but it rehabilitated the state of the franchise and paved the way for a better hockey corporation. I will always respect him for that but also regret his bringing Quinn back into the organization. Quinn is truly one of the all-time great villains in Sabres' history--- in the pantheon with Brad Park, Bobby Clarke, and Brett Hull. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-No Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Fearing the worst - Does Ralph's silence speak volumes? Why won't he come out and say that he has worked to keep the Bills in Buffalo after he passes? Does he know they will just be sold and likely moved, but wants to keep the paying fans on board until then? Just wondering....Not addressing it directly seems odd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThurmasThoman Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 what you guys have to remember, is that the buffalo area, despite (some of) your eternal pessimism, is a VERY large market... Toronto, Buffalo, Syracuse, Rochester, Albany, etc. all associate as Bills fans. IF the bills left... you would have a completely vacant section of the country on the NFL television map; a section that not only didn't have a team, but one that was completely alienated by the NFL. Now, I know what it means to be a Bills fan. I know what it means to sell ourselves short and never look on the bright side. But instead of looking at this from a perspective of a Buffalo Bills fan... it's VERY crucial for some of you to start looking at this from the perspective of an NFL fan. In 99.99% of ANY article that is published regarding relocation, the Bills are never mentioned. The chargers, the jags, the vikings, the rams - all come up ahead of buffalo. The simple fact of the matter is that the NFL is king. It is BIG BIG business, and it is viable in buffalo with a product, that, for TEN years, has been absolutely, undeniably, awful. You wouldn't close a bagel shop on Long Island if it had lines out the door every morning to buy moldy bagels. Ralph's gonna die. Sure. But a new owner, in a terrible economy, would have to move the team to a city that has an NFL stadium ready to go, and pay a relocation fee, AND, if it's LA, they would have to be reasonably assured that the team will succeed - something that has never happened in the NFL before. I can say with 100% confidence, that the Buffalo Bills will be, at WORSE, the Niagra bills, for my, yours, and your childrens life time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 I have little problem with the way the Sabres were operated under Golisano. He allowed hockey people to run the franchise as they saw fit all he asked was they keep to a budget. That's how most franchises operate. I'd take Golisano owning the Bills instead of Wilson any day of the week. Before he purchased the Sabres they were in real danger of leaving. HSBC was half full on most nights. He bought a team on life support, saved them, and for a couple years gave the fans in Buffalo some of the best hockey they ever seen. God forbid this man ever owns the Bills In what alternate universe did this happen in? PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Barbarian Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Yes it does matter. People want to be remembered for the good things they did while they were alive, or the positive impact they made. If Ralph left Buffalo out to dry after he passes , he knows damn well his name would be forever sullied, his family would be hated, his likeness would probably also be burned in effigy for about 100 years...On the other hand if he has a plan to keep them in WNY when he does pass an dthey stay indefinetely , there will be a bronze statue erected in his honor and he will be remembered with admiration for decades. He cares what happens as much as we all do. If he could announce a plan - maybe he would, but there is a ton of posturing and bluffing going on to swing things in his favor (negotiation wise). Bills are staying in WNY.... Lets get him one now so he knows we care and that he will be remembered now and forever and if they still go we can drag it down like Saddam Hussein's statue and destroy it in a huge riot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 (edited) Numerous reasons. Because he loves being the owner of the Bills, because he wants to see the team turn around with his relatively new hires while he is still the owner, because he knows he would die soon if he wasn't active in business, because it keeps him vital and relevant. If I were Ralph Wilson, the only difference I think I would do is say something public a little more specific about wanting to keep the team here. But there may be a a very good reason why he is not doing that. He also has rarely said things publicly about how he runs the team, except for very simple statements that he wants to keep the team in Buffalo and make it financially viable. He's been waiting for his various "new hires" to turn the team around since he turned....80! Relevant? During this time, his love of ownership has brought his team to the brink of irrelevancy. If he loves it so much---he must set it free! Or at least sell the majority of the team. Then he can still gear up for the big trip east to New York state every couple of weeks in the fall to see his team play and sit in the owner's box. Edited July 21, 2011 by Mr. WEO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ropeerasers Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Between Pegs and Golisano, the Bills have a decent chance of staying in Buffalo for awhile. Why does anyone think Pegula has any interest in keeping the Bills in Buffalo? He's from northeast Pennsylvania... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cookiemonster Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 move them to Orlando fl. that's where i live. lol Casey, is that you? I thought that you had reloacted to Siberia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts