Jump to content

Pegulas selling 25% of the Bills, per Tim Graham


Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, BigDingus said:

 

I think it's pretty clear why the NFL changed the rules.

 

If local community owns the team, there's no way to leverage the team against the city for cushy tax breaks, stadium funding, or the threat of relocating.

 

Better to have a billionaire owner or ownership group who can say "we'll move to San Antonio if you don't give us $2 billion for a new stadium!" Fans just want the team to stay put, so there's a huge limit placed on future growth.

 

If Green Bay's population & surrounding areas never grow, the team is still staying put. The NFL can't pressure them into a new stadium, and fans are content having a team to root for.

Fwiw the rule against this type of ownership was established a long time ago, when there probably weren’t any billionaire NFL owners etc . It didn’t happen in say , 1985.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, LabattBlue said:

If he still has controlling interest, selling 25% of the team doesn’t “ease” his burden at all. 


You are the only one mentioning a “burden”, but I can see where he is being strategic in setting up an ownership partner that can one day buy Pegula out completely. That would definitely be some immediate peace of mind if it were me. 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, WotAGuy said:


You are the only one mentioning a “burden”, but I can see where he is being strategic in setting up an ownership partner that can one day buy Pegula out completely. That would definitely be some immediate peace of mind if it were me. 

The poster I responded to talked about “easing”.   What exactly is he “easing” if not the burden of responsibility?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, LabattBlue said:

The poster I responded to talked about “easing”.   What exactly is he “easing” if not the burden of responsibility?



As in “easing off the gas” or “coasting” into retirement.  It’s basically planning ahead and transitioning toward retirement. Having a co-owner puts Pegula in much better position to divest of the Bills if need be some day. 

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, WotAGuy said:



As in “easing off the gas” or “coasting” into retirement.  It’s basically planning ahead and transitioning toward retirement. Having a co-owner puts Pegula in much better position to divest of the Bills if need be some day. 

I am reading his post differently.  I will move on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, HOUSE said:

I left my wallet in my work clothes 

 

When did you get work? Good for you! 

 

 

I see a new ashtray in your future! Are you excited??? 

  • Haha (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/19/2024 at 3:42 PM, Prospector said:

And I am good for 25% of your 25% of his 25%

 

And I am good for 25% of your 25% of his 25% of his 25%.

 

BTW, Powerball is $98M tonight, and Mega is $202M Tuesday night, for those interested. 

  • Haha (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Simon unpinned this topic
  • Simon pinned this topic

Lots of questions in my head

 

1.  Is this because Pegula is low on cash and could this get worse, chance of selling team outright sooner than later?  Maybe  he needs cash for stadium overruns

2.  Maybe he wants cash to help with inheritance if his kids were going to take over?

3.  The Bills are underspending the cap this year in terms of cash which in my mind is good but .......is it related to running low on cash in the business?

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/20/2024 at 1:40 AM, BillsFanForever19 said:

Why would anyone want to pay $925 million dollars (and probably be asked to help with finances for the team) and have no say in anything?

 

Even billionaires make idiotic decisions. I mean, some may argue that owning multiple entertainment businesses in one of the most economically depressed regions in the country may be one of them.

 

There is a remote possibility that some billionaire may bite for vanity purposes alone.

 

However, it's much more likely that any such deal will have to include the possibility to buy a majority stake some time down the road.

 

Yet another scenario would be buying the rights to build some corollary business around the new stadium, but that would also be an idiotic decision as outlined above.

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/20/2024 at 10:12 AM, WotAGuy said:


There’s also the growing number of guaranteed contracts that require all the funds to be put into escrow.  That, plus all the cash outlays for regular operations probably presents some cash flow challenges. Even though the team is worth a ton on paper, that’s not ready cash needed to accommodate everything going on. 

 

The TV/merch/licensing money covers all expenses.  The rest is free money. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Matt_In_NH said:

Lots of questions in my head

 

1.  Is this because Pegula is low on cash and could this get worse, chance of selling team outright sooner than later?  Maybe  he needs cash for stadium overruns

2.  Maybe he wants cash to help with inheritance if his kids were going to take over?

3.  The Bills are underspending the cap this year in terms of cash which in my mind is good but .......is it related to running low on cash in the business?

 

Most likely it’s liquid cash to cover stadium overruns. 

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...