Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
26CornerBlitz

Bucky Gleason Leaving TBN After Requesting a Buyout - Jerry Sullivan and Now Tim Graham Out

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, JohnC said:

The BN could have fired him anytime they wanted to regardless what the guild thought.

 

Not from what I heard.  I was told they couldn't even fire Rodney McKissic when he was caught plagiarizing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, K-9 said:

Hopefully, new columnists will emerge who can offer biting criticism when warranted without the childish and unprofessional snark that too often littered their work. For example, old school journalists like Larry Felser had no problem leveling strong opinions against the Bills while maintaining their professionalism which allowed them to also maintain solid relationships within organization. Bucky and Sully were esentially blacklisted because of their inability in doing so which only served to further feed their spite and cloud their objectivity far too often in their work.

 

They are not offering to buy these guys out to hire new columnists, they are eliminating jobs, it's a central element to the cost cutting happening at newspapers. In Rochester, they got rid of Scott Pitoniak and Bob Matthews in the sports department and guys like Jeff Spevak in the Arts/Living dept. a few years ago and they were not replaced. It's different with the Democrat & Chronicle because they are a Gannett newspaper and they have replaced the writers on staff with USA Today content. There used to be opinion pieces 6-7 days a week now Leo Roth does 1 or 2. TBN will do the same. 

 

Newspapers have been slow to react to the changing times, they didn't figure out how to migrate to online profitably and not enough people still want to get a newspaper. 

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HansLanda said:

Sully tweeted that TBN said his column wasn't good for business. Do you know what isn't good for business? The entire site layout, design and monetization strategy. 

All of those things are also true but kudos to the people who complained about him for years.  They stopped clicking on his work and that eventually made it go away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

LoL! Both links have been scrubbed from the Buffalo News website.

6 minutes ago, bbb said:

 

Not from what I heard.  I was told they couldn't even fire Rodney McKissic when he was caught plagiarizing. 

Both Gleason and Sullivan had job protection from their union. Note that Sully wasn't fired. He quit after a demotion, losing his column. Quit in a snit. 

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, JohnC said:

The BN could have fired him anytime they wanted to regardless what the guild thought. 

 

 

Nope.

 

Article 5 of the Guild contract:  Job Security      http://www.buffaloguild.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/2016-Guild-Contract-.pdf

 

1. There will be no discharge or dismissal except for just and sufficient cause.

 

4. The News will be the judge of the competence of all employees covered by this contract, provided this is not construed to take away the right of a discharged employee or the Guild to take up the merits of a competency discharge as provided in Article 17 (Grievance and Arbitration Article).

 

Article 6—Dismissals to Reduce the Force

 

1. The News is responsible for controlling the size of its working force. Any dismissal to reduce the force will be only for economic reasons to remedy the stability of the newspaper.

 

2. All dismissals that may be necessary to reduce the force will be made in each job classification in reverse order of bargaining unit seniority. However, any employee dismissed from their classification may use their bargaining unit seniority to displace a less senior employee in another classification or group, which provides an equal or less rate of pay, if they are competent and able to perform the duties of such junior employee and if bumped to a job in the same group they will retain the same rate of pay and, if in a lower rated group, they will receive the maximum salary of that group or their present salary, whichever is less.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, bbb said:

 

Not from what I heard.  I was told they couldn't even fire Rodney McKissic when he was caught plagiarizing. 

I don't know what you are referring to. I did a search but couldn't come up with the McKissic plagiarizing issue. I'm not saying you are wrong but I couldn't find anything about it.

 

On the other hand if the BN wanted to fire Jerry Sullivan they could have done it any time they wanted to do. That is not to say that if he had a contract they still would have been obligated to honor it unless there was a just cause basis not to do so. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He didn't get fired he took the buyout. He said he took the buyout because they took away his column. Said he wasn't being an effective writer anymore. Any time, as John C says, in the 29 years they could have taken away the column and he likely would have had the same reaction: I am not going to work here if I do not have the opportunity to write the column. So he was fired. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, JohnC said:

 

On the other hand if the BN wanted to fire Jerry Sullivan they could have done it any time they wanted to do. That is not to say that if he had a contract they still would have been obligated to honor it unless there was a just cause basis not to do so. 

 

Fun reading, in case you didn't see the post above...

 

http://www.buffaloguild.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/2016-Guild-Contract-.pdf

 

 

Edited by Lurker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Peter said:

 

You probably hit at one of the root causes for their disdain. 

 

Jealousy. 

 

They always thought they knew better than anyone else and could not understand why the Pegulas should have the opportunity to own the teams. 

 

Boy was it ever. Just a few months ago Gleason wrote a scathing column about UB over hiring "outsider" Mark Allnutt as Athletic Director. Bucky was adamant UB hire a local person and drop football to FCS because that's what made sense to Bucky.

 

CORRECTION!!!!! Bucky did not call Allnutt a dancing minstrel. That was from another column at www.UBBullRun.com that commented on the Bucky column. I apologize for the mix up: 

 

 

Edited by PromoTheRobot
  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thanks! (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Lurker said:

 

Fun reading, in case you didn't see the post above...

 

http://www.buffaloguild.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/2016-Guild-Contract-.pdf

I wasn't clear. He had a contract. If they wanted to put him on the shelf they had to still honor his contract unless there was a just cause. Jerry Sullivan took a buyout because he lost his column. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JohnC said:

I wasn't clear. He had a contract. If they wanted to put him on the shelf they had to still honor his contract unless there was a just cause. Jerry Sullivan took a buyout because he lost his column. 

 

"On the other hand if the BN wanted to fire Jerry Sullivan they could have done it any time they wanted to do."

 

Yeah, that's a tad bit unclear with respect to usage of the underlined term.    Jerry, is that you???...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JohnC said:

Sullivan covered two teams that were generationally bad. Of course he was more of a scathing critic than a giddy cheerleader. When franchises are so bad for so long in a cap system which is supposed to promote parity did you expect him to extol the competencies of those running the respective franchises? Acid Jerry has covered a lot of sports for a long time.  He knows what a well run organization looks like, and he has been at the doorstep of franchises that were not only badly run but were weirdly run. With the Bills he watched the out of touch owner hire Levy, Brandon (as a short term rescue GM) and Nix followed by Whaley as GMs. You don't think that type of consecutive hires wouldn't make you a cynical observer? Then the new owner came into town and with a grand flourish he watched Rex being hired. Does anyone expect him or any credible reporter to give an opinion that this new ownership was bringing in a breath of fresh air and putting this bedraggled franchise on the right track?  

 

Where I agree with some critics of Sullivan was that he was not much a fan of pro football and hockey. His favorite sports were basketball and baseball. He seemed to be more animated when discussing his favored sports over his less favored sports. 

 

Where I give him credit compared to some of the other toads in the media was that he was not a fawning reporter. He was not afraid to stand up and be the critic in the room. Did he go too far or get too tiresome at that role? I honestly have to say yes. But in general, I liked him because he was willing not only to write the critical column but he was willing to stand up in the room, face to face, and ask his hard nosed questions. Many people are uncomfortable with that contrary display while I am not.  

Your reasoned comments compared to most in this thread shine like a light in a vast, ignorant, darkness.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Lurker said:

 

"On the other hand if the BN wanted to fire Jerry Sullivan they could have done it any time they wanted to do."

 

Yeah, that's a tad bit unclear with respect to usage of the underlined term.    Jerry, is that you???...

If you are a reporter and management puts you on the shelf not allowing your column or stories to be posted what do you call that? If your job is to write for the newspaper or be on TV but your bosses say that you basically don't have a function then how would you categorize that action by management? 

 

Jerry Sullivan took a buyout because he considered the situation untenable. That was the point of management's action. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Kelly the Dog said:

Not sure that is true. He's getting up there in age. Think of him as an NFL veteran getting released at age 35. Some teams may sign him but not what he would have made ten years ago. Sure, your writing skills often don't diminish with age, but there is a large element of ageism in most corporate entities. If he was released ten years, or twenty years ago, his worth to other papers would be much higher. 

 

 

Yes, but 20 years ago he actually was more objective and did actual work on columns.  If he still did that he would still have a job. 

 

His worth is very little not just because o his age, but his attitude and ethics at this point.

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Fadingpain said:

Your reasoned comments compared to most in this thread shine like a light in a vast, ignorant, darkness.

 

 

 

Thank you. Some people are only comfortable with cheerleaders. I certainly didn't always agree with Sullivan but I understand where he was coming from. He wasn't the most tolerant and patient reporter covering the franchises but he had a good reason not to be. 

  • Like (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, JohnC said:

If you are a reporter and management puts you on the shelf not allowing your column or stories to be posted what do you call that? If your job is to write for the newspaper or be on TV but your bosses say that you basically don't have a function then how would you categorize that action by management? 

 

Jerry Sullivan took a buyout because he considered the situation untenable. That was the point of management's action. 

 

tap dance GIF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, JohnC said:

Thank you. Some people are only comfortable with cheerleaders. I certainly didn't always agree with Sullivan but I understand where he was coming from. He wasn't the most tolerant and patient reporter covering the franchises but he had a good reason not to be. 

Problem is his shtick became constant negativity for the sake of negativity.  When he was on GR the intro was something like "he is so negative it's funny" which it completely was not funny. It was stupid. His act and angle became tiresome as did his columns

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JohnC said:

Sullivan covered two teams that were generationally bad. Of course he was more of a scathing critic than a giddy cheerleader. When franchises are so bad for so long in a cap system which is supposed to promote parity did you expect him to extol the competencies of those running the respective franchises? Acid Jerry has covered a lot of sports for a long time.  He knows what a well run organization looks like, and he has been at the doorstep of franchises that were not only badly run but were weirdly run. With the Bills he watched the out of touch owner hire Levy, Brandon (as a short term rescue GM) and Nix followed by Whaley as GMs. You don't think that type of consecutive hires wouldn't make you a cynical observer? Then the new owner came into town and with a grand flourish he watched Rex being hired. Does anyone expect him or any credible reporter to give an opinion that this new ownership was bringing in a breath of fresh air and putting this bedraggled franchise on the right track?  

 

Where I agree with some critics of Sullivan was that he was not much a fan of pro football and hockey. His favorite sports were basketball and baseball. He seemed to be more animated when discussing his favored sports over his less favored sports. 

 

Where I give him credit compared to some of the other toads in the media was that he was not a fawning reporter. He was not afraid to stand up and be the critic in the room. Did he go too far or get too tiresome at that role? I honestly have to say yes. But in general, I liked him because he was willing not only to write the critical column but he was willing to stand up in the room, face to face, and ask his hard nosed questions. Many people are uncomfortable with that contrary display while I am not.  

 

 

Look the Bills were mired in a 17 year drought, but during that time the Sabres were not that bad - they had several years of playoff runs and some deep including a Finals run during the drought.  

 

He he had no reason to become the scathing critic of both teams.  The Sabres started their tank and shortly afterward the Bills started winning getting to 9 wins under Marrone, 8 under Rex and then 9 again under McDermott.  

 

The worst of the issues started with ownership changes with the Sabres and Sully’s attitude toward the Pegulas - that then crossed into the Bills even more.

 

I think you hit a big part of his issue - his passion was Basketball and Baseball and he was forced to cover Hockey and Football.  He was not happy in his job and that spilled over into his attitude.

 

I have read Sully articles that are brilliant and well thought out - they just never dealt with his actual day to day job.  If he had just been critical and objective- he would have been ok, but he chose to take it further and he made it personal and that is where he lost me and many others.  He left fair and objective in the rear view mirror years ago and it became a vendetta on several levels.

 

He was not a fawning reporter, but he also was not a fair and balanced critic.  He would stand up and ask a few tough questions, but for the most part he tried to get these guys to make a contradictory statement so he could pounce - and when he got called for it - he went further negative.  

 

Really in the end end he had a job most of us would love and many of us do on our own time with less access, but he took an approach that many people over time did not like and in the end he could not change back to what he was in the early 90’s a true journalist with a fair approach.

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JohnC said:

The problem with covering the Bills and Sabres (to a lesser extent) is not only were they not good for an extended period of time but they were poorly run organizations. That's not theory---it was the reality of covering these teams. The teams that he often covered were pro teams that had little to no chance of being serious teams. Covering teams that were mostly out of realistic contention before the season even started has to influence one's attitude when covering the teams. 

 

He has been negative for a long time and during that time the Bills went to 4 Super Bowls and the Playoffs In 11 of 13 seasons. The Sabres meanwhile went to the playoffs 15 out of 20 years at the start including a Stanley Cup and conference Finals.  It is not like he came in during the drought and the tank at the same time.

 

He did not agree with how the teams may have been run, but his attitude is way more than that.  The Bills under Polian and Ralph were well run and received a lot of praise nationally, but he picked at many small issues.  The Sabres under the Knox brothers were also well run and this should not have been an issue.  

 

He he wanted to be the contrarian view point and worked that angle for years - it just became all he could do and he had to top the hate to get his view across - so it became nastier and nastier until he lost his place at the table.

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kelly the Dog said:

He didn't get fired he took the buyout. He said he took the buyout because they took away his column. Said he wasn't being an effective writer anymore. Any time, as John C says, in the 29 years they could have taken away the column and he likely would have had the same reaction: I am not going to work here if I do not have the opportunity to write the column. So he was fired. 

 

 

I think they could of taken his column, but without the buyout - I am not sure he would have left - he would have been paid with not much to do.

 

They had a buyout in place and then took his column- leaving him little choice, but to take a nice sum and move on.  He could of stayed on even now, but he got something to leave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

 

I think they could of taken his column, but without the buyout - I am not sure he would have left - he would have been paid with not much to do.

 

They had a buyout in place and then took his column- leaving him little choice, but to take a nice sum and move on.  He could of stayed on even now, but he got something to leave.

Maybe but I doubt it. Writers have a lot of pride and a lot of ego, similar to the athletes and politicians and other people they write about. I can’t imagine him staying there and covering sports teams he couldn’t give his opinion on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

I think they could of taken his column, but without the buyout - I am not sure he would have left - he would have been paid with not much to do.

 

They had a buyout in place and then took his column- leaving him little choice, but to take a nice sum and move on.  He could of stayed on even now, but he got something to leave.

 

He still could do what the Bills should have just stopped him from doing years ago - go to press conferences and throw barbs.  He still could have been cited as "knowledgeable source" outside of Buffalo.  He could still do his video game reviews with co-conspirators.

 

I do not believe he is going to stop.  He will try to find a local radio station, tv station or small paper to give him credentials or maybe some national rag without standards so he can show his press credentials.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that Sal Maoriana got on Twitter to 1. Lend full-throated support to Sullivan and 2. Brag about how people call him “the Jerry Sullivan of Rochester,” as if it was a compliment, tells you all you need to know about both those guys. 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Haha (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my mind, it seems that the never ending negativity coming from some Buffalo writers particularly Sullivan is partially responsible for the Bills lack of success.Yeah, I know that sounds ridiculous. I just wonder if some of those GMs, Head Coaches, Quarterbacks etc who failed since the great Super Bowl teams, could have gotten the job done if they had not been pressured or chased out of town by the press drumming up disfavor against them. With some of these writers you get 2 yrs to get to the Super Bowl or Pro Bowl if you haven't done it by then, the pressure is on to make changes. I understand that the Bills have made some bad choices and they are the primary reasons for 20 yrs of failure. None the less the public is bombarded with stories about lack of leadership, hopelessness, and  how the organization does not go all out to develop a winner. I was personally turned off by Sullys never ending discouraging columns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fadingpain said:

Your reasoned comments compared to most in this thread shine like a light in a vast, ignorant, darkness.

 

 

 

 

I'm willing to bet it's because for you and JohnC, Sullivan scratched that itch for you, letting the team that was making you angry have it. That was a large part of his appeal. It didn't make him a truth teller, though.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...