eball Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 The real question is: Can Brandon be the pretend GM/Shot-Caller of both the Bills and the Sabres at the same time? Only if he gives up his pseudo-top-dog responsibilities with the Bandits and Rochester Americans. Unless they've changed the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 Only if he gives up his pseudo-top-dog responsibilities with the Bandits and Rochester Americans. Unless they've changed the rules. Hey now, I can absolutely guarantee you that he doesn't call the shots in my family! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 The fact that you believe this is proof of why demonstrating due diligence is so important to the trust. It lends an air of legitimacy to the process such that it puts the final decision beyond doubt or appeal. IMHO, it would have been more legitimate making the deadline a hard one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 Mike Harrington @BNHarrington 42m Toronto columnist: "This would be a wise time for Pegula to back out." Seriously? Desperation time in ol' TO. http://m.theglobeandmail.com/sports/football/kelly-torontos-nfl-dream-lives-and-dies-on-a-prayer/article19903251/?service=mobile … Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodeMonkey Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 Mike Harrington @BNHarrington 42m Toronto columnist: "This would be a wise time for Pegula to back out." Seriously? Desperation time in ol' TO. http://m.theglobeand...mobile … Yeah, she (?) was making some sense until then. But Pegula should back out because between the team and a new stadium (which she is assuming he is going to have to build, this isn't Canada after all, states stupidly fund stadiums for teams in the US) it is going to cost him $2 billion and with the team in Buffalo that's not a sound investment. But JBJ and pals should stick around and make that same investment. Very odd logic indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 Mike Harrington @BNHarrington 42m Toronto columnist: "This would be a wise time for Pegula to back out." Seriously? Desperation time in ol' TO. http://m.theglobeand...mobile … Cathal Kelly makes Sully look like a rank amateur in the art of trolling. I wish I had known it was him before I clicked. Pegula doesn't need to "go broke" buying the Bills because he's cemented his status already? I thought Buffalo was such an armpit that it needs all the help it can get, according to Catroll Kelly. What a f---ing loser, and an ignorant one at that. At least Jerry knows the issues that he tries to get people riled up about. Edit: also, nowhere has it said JBJ and Pegula were finalists. Pegula and Trump, yes, with no confirmation of the JBJ group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 Obviously Kelly didn't do his homework on Pegs and thus doesn't realize that $2B won't make Pegs even close to broke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
May Day 10 Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 I thought her column was good until the last handful of paragraphs there where she completely misses the mark and removes herself from reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 Obviously Kelly didn't do his homework on Pegs and thus doesn't realize that $2B won't make Pegs even close to broke. And Pegula shouldn't go broke, but Bon Jovi, who is worth at least 14 times less, should? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 The article is completely counterintuitive. Using the guy's "logic," JBJ and his partners should drop out - not the Pegulas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 (edited) Promo: Calling me clueless as to what Brandon does is yet another mis-direction on your part away from the original question, "what specifically has Brandon done to keep the Bills in Buffalo". I'm sorry my "tongue in cheek" response to that absolutely ridiculous quote that some how Brandon is a miracle worker to get the Bills profitable in a league with $6B in revenues while operating a team with no debt and $15M+ under-spending the salary cap offended your sensitive side when it comes to your hero, Russ Brandon. Again, I ask, what has Brandon done to keep the Bills in Buffalo, that's the question. From my vantage point, he didn't have the power to move the team over the past 15 years, he isn't on the 4-member voting trust that will decide the next owner, he didn't create the language in the lease that keeps team in Buffalo for next 7+ years and he sure as hell didn't get Terry Pegula interested in buying the team, so, if you would go back to the original question and answer that, maybe we can have a productive exchange. First of all, you have to let me know...are you just kidding, like the Can-Pegula-own-both-the-Sabres-and-Bills meme? I ask because I keep telling you the answer and you act like you don't hear it. The Bills are 20th in revenue in the NFL. That means 12 teams make less money than the Bills. Almost all of those teams are in larger markets yet the Bills beat them in revenue? Not profit, revenue. So your "no debt" argument doesn't apply here. If the Bills were, say, 30th in revenue, critics would point at that and say they have to move to a bigger market because Buffalo can't keep up with the league. But thanks to Brandon's efforts, the Bills are middle of the pack when they have no business being there. You would think a guy who is outperforming his market should get some credit. But not from you, apparently. You just spend your time discounting his efforts and inventing reasons to hate him. Edited August 4, 2014 by PromoTheRobot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 That's all fine but I want Russ to stop making football decisions. BTW does anyone know if Pegula can own the Bills and the Sabres? Promo: Yer fired! Not if the sale is consummated in an even month during an odd year. Now wait just a dog-gonned minute. Just what the heck is an "even month"? One with 28, or 30 days in it? Or every other month beginning with February? Signed, Confused-and-in-need-of-a-drink Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clearwater cadet Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
socalfan Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 Mike Harrington @BNHarrington 42m Toronto columnist: "This would be a wise time for Pegula to back out." Seriously? Desperation time in ol' TO. http://m.theglobeandmail.com/sports/football/kelly-torontos-nfl-dream-lives-and-dies-on-a-prayer/article19903251/?service=mobile … I believe the point is, in Buffalo, Pegula is at a business disadvantage that JBJ would not face in Toronto. By moving to Toronto JBJ would eventually make a profit and cover his costs of purchasing and moving the team when he sells his interests to a Canadian. So Pegula spending $1.3 billion for the Bills (or more) is not a good business proposition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFunPolice Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 (edited) lol... Pegula should back out over the threat of Bon Jovi? I find it hilarious that Bon Jovi is trying to buy the team anyway. Suddenly a guy who can barely scrape together 33-34% is tossing his weight around like he's the bigshot. Meanwhile his rich benefactors pay the other 66% I believe the point is, in Buffalo, Pegula is at a business disadvantage that JBJ would not face in Toronto. By moving to Toronto JBJ would eventually make a profit and cover his costs of purchasing and moving the team when he sells his interests to a Canadian. So Pegula spending $1.3 billion for the Bills (or more) is not a good business proposition. It makes some sense, until you realize that Pegula will have no debt service, so he can continue raking in the $25-40 million/year profits the team makes (maybe even more in a new stadium). If he owns it for 10 years he will have pocketed 250-400 million in profits simply from operating the team. Plus he will still own the team (and probably the stadium) outright. It will be a cash cow. In 20 years he's looking at 500-800 million in profits. Now a guy like Bon Jovi who would presumably be leveraged or all-in would be under a lot more financial pressure. If he borrowed any money it would cut into the profits and therefore make it less tenable. Edited August 4, 2014 by TheFunPolice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 lol... Pegula should back out over the threat of Bon Jovi? I find it hilarious that Bon Jovi is trying to buy the team anyway. Suddenly a guy who can barely scrape together 33-34% is tossing his weight around like he's the bigshot. Meanwhile his rich benefactors pay the other 66% It makes some sense, until you realize that Pegula will have no debt service, so he can continue raking in the $25-40 million/year profits the team makes (maybe even more in a new stadium). If he owns it for 10 years he will have pocketed 250-400 million in profits simply from operating the team. Plus he will still own the team (and probably the stadium) outright. It will be a cash cow. In 20 years he's looking at 500-800 million in profits. Now a guy like Bon Jovi who would presumably be leveraged or all-in would be under a lot more financial pressure. If he borrowed any money it would cut into the profits and therefore make it less tenable. Spot-on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TXBILLSFAN Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 (edited) First of all, you have to let me know...are you just kidding, like the Can-Pegula-own-both-the-Sabres-and-Bills meme? I ask because I keep telling you the answer and you act like you don't hear it. The Bills are 20th in revenue in the NFL. That means 12 teams make less money than the Bills. Almost all of those teams are in larger markets yet the Bills beat them in revenue? Not profit, revenue. So your "no debt" argument doesn't apply here. If the Bills were, say, 30th in revenue, critics would point at that and say they have to move to a bigger market because Buffalo can't keep up with the league. But thanks to Brandon's efforts, the Bills are middle of the pack when they have no business being there. You would think a guy who is outperforming his market should get some credit. But not from you, apparently. You just spend your time discounting his efforts and inventing reasons to hate him. I think you keep missing my point. My post on Brandon/Buffalo was in response to Kirby saying that Brandon was responsible for keeping the team in Buffalo. I don't think he is. I'll accept the fact that he's been able to keep team profitable, albeit by means I do not agree with (i.e. under-spending the cap, the Toronto series), but he has. My point has nothing to do with the team being profitable, it has to do with them staying in Buffalo. They will stay in Buffalo because we have a Buffalo friendly billionaire (or two or three) that wants to own THIS team and keep it in THIS city. Pegula is not concerned about owning a team to turn a profit, that I can guarantee you. So, my point is, while Brandon has kept team profitable, he is NOT responsible for keeping team in Buffalo. I heard your answer, it doesn't make sense against the question that was raised. Edited August 4, 2014 by TXBILLSFAN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 I think you keep missing my point. My post on Brandon/Buffalo was in response to Kirby saying that Brandon was responsible for keeping the team in Buffalo. I don't think he is. I'll accept the fact that he's been able to keep team profitable, albeit by means I do not agree with (i.e. under-spending the cap, the Toronto series), but he has. My point has nothing to do with the team being profitable, it has to do with them staying in Buffalo. They will stay in Buffalo because we have a Buffalo friendly billionaire (or two or three) that wants to own THIS team and keep it in THIS city. Pegula is not concerned about owning a team to turn a profit, that I can guarantee you. So, my point is, while Brandon has kept team profitable, he is NOT responsible for keeping team in Buffalo. I heard your answer, it doesn't make sense. Its a little chicken and egg though. Would someone be interested in keeping the team in Buffalo if their revenues weren't so high? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 I think you keep missing my point. My post on Brandon/Buffalo was in response to Kirby saying that Brandon was responsible for keeping the team in Buffalo. I don't think he is. I'll accept the fact that he's been able to keep team profitable, albeit by means I do not agree with (i.e. under-spending the cap, the Toronto series), but he has. My point has nothing to do with the team being profitable, it has to do with them staying in Buffalo. They will stay in Buffalo because we have a Buffalo friendly billionaire (or two or three) that wants to own THIS team and keep it in THIS city. Pegula is not concerned about owning a team to turn a profit, that I can guarantee you. So, my point is, while Brandon has kept team profitable, he is NOT responsible for keeping team in Buffalo. I heard your answer, it doesn't make sense against the question that was raised. Actually, it was me, and what I said was that he played a key role in keeping the team here, and expanded to tell you why. I've also showed you that your impression about the supposed under-spending is simply incorrect on multiple occasions. Just in case you don't recall, however, here are the numbers: 21st in Active Cash Spending 22nd in Total Cash Spending 10th in Cash-to-Cap Ratio http://overthecap.com/nfl-cash-space.php?Year=2013 And as I always ask you when you bring this point up: can you please correlate spending to winning positively? It's never been done before... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Linen Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 Not if the sale is consummated in an even month during an odd year. This is only true if you don't have publicly trade baseball cards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts