Pegulas to buy energy business

[Mr. WEO]

53 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

that they were not developing players..at all. No big loss. Wins at that level mean zero if you are doing it with players who will never help the NHL club. Drafting plays a part in that, but successful coaches can develop players as well. Chris Taylor was no huge loss. 

 

March Sabres fans , including me, were" blow the whole thing up, this entire organization is trash"

 

Sabres blow the whole thing up, same fans are 

 

"Pegulas blowed the whole thing up..WTF they are cheap and don't know what they are doing"

 

This is the 3rd time they "blew the whole thing up".  How's it going?

 

The Amerks are also Rochester's pro hockey team.  That's worthwhile in and of itself.  They were doing well and well attended.  Because the owner can't figure out how to staff his NHL team for the life of him (same GM for both teams til 2017), he has to blow up the local success story because not enough players are getting called up?  How many were called up before the Amerks recent run of success?

15 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Same fans who thought the NHL was a joke and didn't give a ***** about the Sabres years before the Pegulas came on the scene.  But now it's evidence that they're bad owners. 

 

Like I said, I wouldn't care if they sold everything but the Bills, if the Sabres were ensured of staying in Buffalo.  Let them focus on the most important franchise.

 

Pegula HAD to fire the staff on the Amerks....because nobody knows the future!........or something.

 

So it follows that he won't be hiring another Coach or GM----Is he liquidating the franchise as well?

[Doc]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

Pegula HAD to fire the staff on the Amerks....because nobody knows the future!........or something.

 

So it follows that he won't be hiring another Coach or GM----Is he liquidating the franchise as well?

 

Maybe he will.  Maybe he'll sell them.  Without fans, minor league hockey, and sports in general, are dead.

[Mr. WEO]

5 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Maybe he will.  Maybe he'll sell them.  Without fans, minor league hockey, and sports in general, are dead.

 

Botterill was about to extend Sexton and and Taylor when Pegula chopped him

 

In typical Pegula "kiss of death" fashion, only 3 weeks earlier, Kim said this: "“He’s our GM. Our plan is to continue with him. I realize, maybe it’s not popular with the fans, but we have to do the things that we feel are right. We have a little bit more information than maybe a fan does, some inner workings that we see some positives in.”

 

 

[Doc]

14 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

Botterill was about to extend Sexton and and Taylor when Pegula chopped him

 

In typical Pegula "kiss of death" fashion, only 3 weeks earlier, Kim said this: "“He’s our GM. Our plan is to continue with him. I realize, maybe it’s not popular with the fans, but we have to do the things that we feel are right. We have a little bit more information than maybe a fan does, some inner workings that we see some positives in.”

 

An owner giving a vote of confidence and then firing someone.  That's a new one.

[Mr. WEO]

2 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

An owner giving a vote of confidence and then firing someone.  That's a new one.

 

"You have to have continuity," Pegula told USA TODAY's Jarrett Bell during league meetings last week. "I don’t care if you’re drilling oil in gas wells or you’re running a sports team. If you keep changing things, nothing’s going to work."

 

Despite reports, Pegula says he never considered letting Ryan or general manager Doug Whaley go after last season, and there's "no way" their jobs rely on a playoff appearance this year.

"Our coach needs to know that, through the good and the bad, there’s stability. The players need to know there’s stability," Pegula said. "And by the way, that doesn’t help our players any to start reading that their coach is going to get fired."

 

 

 

This was late October, weeks before he (of course) canned Rex before the season ended.

 

Special props to "If you keep changing things, nothing's going to work".  Poor Sabres fans having to read that goofy nonsense.

[Doc]

7 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

"You have to have continuity," Pegula told USA TODAY's Jarrett Bell during league meetings last week. "I don’t care if you’re drilling oil in gas wells or you’re running a sports team. If you keep changing things, nothing’s going to work."

 

Despite reports, Pegula says he never considered letting Ryan or general manager Doug Whaley go after last season, and there's "no way" their jobs rely on a playoff appearance this year.

"Our coach needs to know that, through the good and the bad, there’s stability. The players need to know there’s stability," Pegula said. "And by the way, that doesn’t help our players any to start reading that their coach is going to get fired."

 

 

 

This was late October, weeks before he (of course) canned Rex before the season ended.

 

Special props to "If you keep changing things, nothing's going to work".  Poor Sabres fans having to read that goofy nonsense.

 

Yes, poor Sabres fans.  Take it to their board.  Your anti-Pegula stuff is embarrassing you here.

Edited July 22, 2020 by Doc

[Mr. WEO]

Just now, Doc said:

 

Yes, poor Sabres fans.  Take it to their board.

 

Why?  Would they agree with you that the Pegulas have not done a bad job managing that team?

[papazoid]

Back in February of 2011, Buffalo Sabres owner Terry Pegula - in his introductory press conference - said when it came to the team, he was not going to spare any expense.

"If I want to make money, I'll drill another well," Pegula said.

 

guess it's time to make money

 

https://www.bizjournals.com/buffalo/blog/alphabet_soup/2011/07/will-pegula-have-to-drill-another-well.html

[Doc]

5 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

Why?  Would they agree with you that the Pegulas have not done a bad job managing that team?

 

Because this is a Bills board.  And until the Pegulas came around, you thought the NHL was a joke.

[major]

4 hours ago, papazoid said:

Back in February of 2011, Buffalo Sabres owner Terry Pegula - in his introductory press conference - said when it came to the team, he was not going to spare any expense.

"If I want to make money, I'll drill another well," Pegula said.

 

guess it's time to make money

 

https://www.bizjournals.com/buffalo/blog/alphabet_soup/2011/07/will-pegula-have-to-drill-another-well.html

Pegulas must be drilling in search of the ark. The Bible speaks of the Ark leveling mountains and laying waste in entire regions. An Army that carries the Ark before it... is invincible.

[Mr. WEO]

8 hours ago, Doc said:

 

Because this is a Bills board.  And until the Pegulas came around, you thought the NHL was a joke.

 

It is kind of a joke still.  

[Doc]

2 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

It is kind of a joke still.  

 

I don't disagree.  So why bring it up, on a Bills board no less?

[billsfan89]

On 7/21/2020 at 11:51 AM, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

 

Meh-it depends what you define "far left" as. This is, far and away, the farthest left the Democratic party has ever been. But they definitely aren't the Bolsheviks. 

 

That said, you are right, it won't happen overnight.  But the Pegulas are making a longer term investment, in a political climate that does not look good for natural gas. 

 

This is the farthest left the Democrats have ever been? FDR was pushing for universal healthcare and an economic bill of rights that included a job guarantee. The current Democratic party voted against cutting the military 10% and has a nominee that is basically a 1970's Republican who said he would veto Medicare for all. I suggest you look into US political history pre 1980.

[Mr. WEO]

Just now, Doc said:

 

I don't disagree.  So why bring it up, on a Bills board no less?

 

I'm commenting on a topic that is and has been widely discussed on this Bills football board doc.  I wasn't the one who brought it up, as you well know.

[JoshAllenHasBigHands]

34 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

This is the farthest left the Democrats have ever been? FDR was pushing for universal healthcare and an economic bill of rights that included a job guarantee. The current Democratic party voted against cutting the military 10% and has a nominee that is basically a 1970's Republican who said he would veto Medicare for all. I suggest you look into US political history pre 1980.

Economic v Social policy. Your point is well taken. My argument is that the leaps in social justice policy, and the fact that they are still so close to the FDR era in terms of economic policy, makes them the farthest left the party has ever been. 

[Billsfanatixs]

New Energy Feild 

[TigerJ]

The Pegulas are smart investors.  It's a given that the price of oil is going to go up eventually.  It is a matter of how long it will take and what their risk tolerance is.  They're getting assets at a great price, but until the price of oil and gas rises, those investments are going to bleed money for a while as they cannot be operated profitably.  I don't know how fast that bleed will be or how much the Pegulas are prepared to lose, but if their calculations are on track, they will make their investment back plus a whole lot more.

[billsfan89]

1 hour ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

Economic v Social policy. Your point is well taken. My argument is that the leaps in social justice policy, and the fact that they are still so close to the FDR era in terms of economic policy, makes them the farthest left the party has ever been. 

 

Close to FDR economically? Are you serious? The Dems now are 1970's Republicans economically. Do you really think that this current Democratic party is anywhere near FDR on economic policy? Their candidate for president would favor vetoing universal healthcare. The Democrats voted against cutting the military budget a measly 10% to put into other programs. The majority of the party is against universal programs that help the middle class. They take a ton of big business money and only mildly sway from the Republicans on Chamber of Commerce issues. Don't let AOC and a few others fool you because right wing media has a hate (and probably real) ***** to cover them. The vast majority of the Democratic Party is far from FDR. I would love it if they were "so close" to FDR, this country would be in far better shape. But that's not the case at all.

 

Bernie Sanders a fairly moderate social Democrat who was the closest any of the parties major candidates since the 1970's to come even close to FDR's economic policies and the entire infrastructure of the party untied and put its resources to defeat him twice. And yes on social issue the Dems are farther left than they ever have been but that's simply how progress works. We are only 3 generations removed from half of the US being in a literal apartheid state. Desegregation and civil rights were considered radical platforms in the 1950's to 1960's and early 1970's. Gay people not being viewed as monsters was a radical position in the 1970's. Civil rights for gays in terms of marriage was a radical position as recently as the early to mid 2000's. 

 

Where did you get this idea that the Dems are "so close" to FDR.

[billsfan89]

41 minutes ago, TigerJ said:

The Pegulas are smart investors.  It's a given that the price of oil is going to go up eventually.  It is a matter of how long it will take and what their risk tolerance is.  They're getting assets at a great price, but until the price of oil and gas rises, those investments are going to bleed money for a while as they cannot be operated profitably.  I don't know how fast that bleed will be or how much the Pegulas are prepared to lose, but if their calculations are on track, they will make their investment back plus a whole lot more.

 

I would also think that they see some other use for the assets outside of oil and gas which long term have a murky future. Maybe the equipment could be repurposed for other mining uses such as rare earth materials, nickel or thorium. 

[JoshAllenHasBigHands]

1 hour ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Close to FDR economically? Are you serious? The Dems now are 1970's Republicans economically. Do you really think that this current Democratic party is anywhere near FDR on economic policy? Their candidate for president would favor vetoing universal healthcare. The Democrats voted against cutting the military budget a measly 10% to put into other programs. The majority of the party is against universal programs that help the middle class. They take a ton of big business money and only mildly sway from the Republicans on Chamber of Commerce issues. Don't let AOC and a few others fool you because right wing media has a hate (and probably real) ***** to cover them. The vast majority of the Democratic Party is far from FDR. I would love it if they were "so close" to FDR, this country would be in far better shape. But that's not the case at all.

 

Bernie Sanders a fairly moderate social Democrat who was the closest any of the parties major candidates since the 1970's to come even close to FDR's economic policies and the entire infrastructure of the party untied and put its resources to defeat him twice. And yes on social issue the Dems are farther left than they ever have been but that's simply how progress works. We are only 3 generations removed from half of the US being in a literal apartheid state. Desegregation and civil rights were considered radical platforms in the 1950's to 1960's and early 1970's. Gay people not being viewed as monsters was a radical position in the 1970's. Civil rights for gays in terms of marriage was a radical position as recently as the early to mid 2000's. 

 

Where did you get this idea that the Dems are "so close" to FDR.

This is a super marxist approach to historical analysis. Not very vogue for today's political climate. The fact that you describe Bernie Sanders as "a fairly moderate social Democrat" tells me that your issue is not that the Democrats aren't liberal, but that they aren't liberal enough. It colors everything you think about the party today v. the party then. 

 

Let's start with universal healthcare. FDR supported it, but knew he couldn't get it passed, which is why he never seriously pushed it.  Why couldn't he pass it? Because he couldn't get the votes from his own party, nor the Republicans. Its basically the same situation that today's Democratic party is faced with. Still, as of today, over 50% support universal healthcare. There has never been more support for universal healthcare, both inside and outside of government. Sanders, who almost took Biden, supported universal healthcare, as did every other major Democratic challenger. Even now, I think its pretty obvious that the only reason Biden doesn't openly support it is he is trying to win swing votes, and all he has to do to win the election is not be controversial.  

 

I don't really know what the 10% military budget cut gets you. It didn't pass the Senate, despite considerable Democratic support. By the time it got to the House, it was all political calculus: no use taking a controversial stance if isn't going anywhere. Besides, its not like FDR was the pro-peace candidate. 

 

Aso the wildly generic and nonsensical statement: "'[t]he vast majority of the party is against universal programs that help the middle class." I don't really even know what this means.  If you want to know what empty rhetoric looks like, it is this. 

 

Your argument on social issues is just "yeah, it was inevitable."  That isn't an argument.  Those issues enjoy almost universal support from the Democratic party in a way that could not be dreamed of even 10 years ago.  You can't just glaze over that, because you want more from the party. 

Edited July 23, 2020 by JoshAllenHasBigHands