Doc
-
Posts
66,107 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Doc
-
-
Had you spent 2 minutes to do a google search to back up that bit of silliness, you would have saved yourself more embarrassment. 93 million for 3 campaigns. 145 million and counting in publicly known charity.
So all of Ralph's other philanthropic efforts (the ones, as you say, not made public) are right in front of my eyes? OK.
The "spin" (fact) is that Ralph owns his business, TG does not. Ralph is President of his company. TG retired as Pres and CEO 7 years ago. Why on earth would you ask if he comes up form Fla to see how the company is running?? Are you also now suggesting that Ralph does not have final say in major company decisions--that others make those for him? Nice try, doc.
True enough, TG is not the passionate owner that Pegula seems to be, but he bought the team as a favor to the fans in Buffalo. He knows the NHL is a paupers' league and all he said was don't lose money. His teams did more than fall into the playoffs, as you know. They had a nice run this season also, you might admit--but that would take away form your brilliant "it's easy to make the playoffs" jab at TG.
Yes, according to Golisano's website, he's donated over $145M, versus the $93M he spent on his "quixotic" campaigns. I'm hardly embarrassed. But do you want to retract your claims that Ralph hasn't donated anything to charity OR that "Golisano has given away more money than Ralph has ever made?" Doing the math, in his 50+ years of owning the team, you are saying that Ralph has made about $3M/year, or if you wish, about $8M/year since the start of the salary cap era. Which would make all your complaining about all the money he's been stealing from Erie County, the fans, and the other owners has been a complete waste of time, right?
Again doc, most of Golisano's $1.3B net worth is in liquid assets. Ralph's is mostly tied-into the Bills. Yet he donate significantly to charity, considering the paltry amount of money you claim he's made over his lifetime. However I will admit there is no website trumpeting exactly how much Ralph has given away.
Golisano is still the Chairman of the Board of Paychex. Must have missed that one on Google.
Ralph has kept the team in Buffalo, and he's kept ticket prices the lowest in the league, as a favor to the fans. As for Golisano, despite spending the minimum on the team in order to turn a small profit, including firing every scout and going to video scouting and putting the inept Larry Quinn in charge, the team has done well. Again most of that is due to inheriting Ruff and the fact that 8 out of 15 teams (8 is more than half of 15, so yes, it IS harder to miss the playoffs than make them in the NHL) in a 3-division conference make the playoffs, versus 6 teams out of 16 in a 4-division conference.
-
Ok Confuscius.
I've posted excerpts before, but this is what happened:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2387218
Clearly this was a deal of expedience for the owners, who did not want a work stoppage and did not want, at that time, an uncapped year (Upshaw vowed never to agree to a cap again if that happened). Tags, the owners, Upshaw (according to Tags) all knew back then that the owners would opt out as soon as they could.
No games were missed, TV contracts were extended, Upshaw died. If anyone truly claims the owners could have gotten the sweet deal they just squeezed out of an overmatched D. Smith from Upshaw--they are lying to themselves. It's total fantasy.
The 2006 CBA was certainly not the deal they wanted, but they needed a deal and they knew it would only be for 3 years (essentially) and they would continue to make tons of money anyway. Also, if the 2006 went to to 2012 (its expiration date) and we had a lockout then what would you guys be talking about? If they didn't opt out, would you still be saying 2006 was such a bad deal for owners? Seems so far your only proof offered that it was such a bad deal was because the owners opted out early.
Look doc, it's plainly obvious to most everyone that the owners caved to Upshaw and that had they put the screws to the players then, like they're doing now, they'd have gotten themselves a far better deal, again like it appears they will now. The only fantasy is the one you've created, in which Upshaw was laughably more powerful than 32 NFL owners, who you've always sided with and claimed were far superior to the players.
And yes, I and most people would also say that when you quit a deal, it means it's a bad deal for you, otherwise why quit it? Especially when doing so can potentially cost you hundreds of millions of dollars on top of it (i.e. if games are missed).
If making more money under a new deal than under prior deals is such a bad thing then I would love to have someone negotiate a bad deal on my behalf.
Yet they still opted-out of it. Why do you suppose they did?
-
For starters Bush isn't President anymore. I know you guys have some kind of inbred trait that likes to knee jerk right back to Dubya but you're going to have to get over that. Now that that's out of the way.
If the banks own the distressed properties, how does the Government become landlords?
Do they nationalize the properties? ie Socialism
Do they buy it from the banks? ie Bailout
If they buy it what kind of price will they pay? Will they use taxpayers money to overpay and artifically keep prices high or will they get a bargain and drive prices lower?
Will the rent for properties in slumland be the same as properties in Suburbia? Will it be racist or discriminatory to charge differing rents based on location?
Most distressed properties need some work done. Who will pay for these updates while the house is unoccupied?
I just bought a house. It doesn't have granite countertops. Can I get the Government to pay for that too?
The gubment should mandate that people have to rent a foreclosed house when they go on vacation. If they don't, you're fined/taxed/whatever. They can rent anytime and the rent is the same no matter where they stay. They can even destroy the property and still pay the same rent in the future.
-
One of the aspects of Dark Knight Rises that's in its favor, is that as great of a job as Heath Ledger did as the joker, Tom Hardy is a far superior actor. So if they write the Bane character well, I think the dynamic between Batman and Bane has the potential to match or surpass the BAtman v. Joker one. What I"m concerned about is how many ancillary characters they're planning to bring into the mix. Thankfully they're keeping Robin away from this (as far as I know...), but they have Catwoman and the daughter of Raz al guhl (however you spell it) planning to get involved in the story line, too. It seems like an ambitious story to tell, while also focusing on the Main Event, so to speak. I have my hopes up, cause C. Nolan rarely misfires, and I can't wait to see what Tom Hardy does with the character.
Sounds like the kind of character overkill that made Spiderman 3 a POS.
-
The stories on Politico and The Hill this morning pretty much agree that Obama and Boehner were very close to a deal to the extent that they planned to hold a press conference Friday announcing their agreement and pushing both houses to approve it by Wednesday. That was Thursday, prior to the Pelosi/Reid/Feinstein brigade which demanded a meeting with Obama who, after the meeting, sprung the $400B on Boehner on Thursday.
In the real world, where you and I live, when you are telling people you are close to an agreement, what you're saying is that not only are the terms acceptable to each other, but you each believe you can get it past your own personal barriers (i.e. I have the downpayment, the bank will fund it, the sellers will take your price and agree to the contingency items, etc). After what was clearly a long and painful exercise for both Boehner and Obama for such a monumental issue as this, what you DON'T say half-a-day removed from a press conference is "Oh, hey, I was yelled at by my peeps yesterday and by-the-by, what do you think about changing one of the numbers by 50%?"
Most anyone would walk away from even the suggestion that the other side has once again changed their mind at the last minute because "their wife" was nagging them on the ride to work. And we're not talking about "if you help tie the Christmas tree to my roof, I'll take it" kind of last-minute stupdity. We're talking about overplaying your hand. And that's what he did.
Yeah, I'm a hack, but this one is pretty obvious. And has nothing to do with what PJ refers to as "Tea Party Terrorists."
Obama's in over his head. And now a deal will be struck without him.
Given Barry's arrogance and Chicago background, I doubt he put in in such conciliatory and nice terms.
-
Wait, why is androgyny so bad? Do you mean misandry?
Yep, that's what he meant.
-
I know what Doc was saying. And he was wrong in his interpretation of the situation. The owners absolutely knew what they were signing under the Upshaw/Tag deal. They had reservations about it when they signed the deal. That is why the opt-out clause was added. Compare that to the proposed current deal that so far doesn't have an opt-out clause. The owners made a calculation that it was better to sign an imperfect deal (from their perspective) and not jeopardize the bountiful future TV revenues with a workstoppage. Again, my point is that the owners were not hoodwinked or outhustled with the original deal. These toughminded owners and businessmen got what they knew they were getting with that deal.
This is wrong and refuted by what the owners themselves have said. The only things you're semi-correct about is that they rushed into to "preserve labor peace" and they wisely included an opt-out clause. But even as you admitted, this caused them to accept a bad deal, from which to opt-out early. The bottom line is that it was a bad deal. Doesn't matter what excuse you give (and remember, "excuses are for losers").
-
Your claim was that Goliasano donated more to his vanity than to charity. Now in full retreat, you hint at clandestine giving by Ralph.
Why would golisano need to check up on Paychex? He doesn't run it anymore. He's no fool.
"Clandestine giving by Ralph?" LOL! It's only "clandestine" if you refuse to see what's plainly in front of your eyes.
And Golisano has spent far more on his failed bids to become governor than he's donated to charity. This is not even debatable.
Wait, Ralph "runs" the Bills? Or he owns them and hires people to run them? What way do you want to spin this one?
Again doc, I applaud Golisano for buying the Sabres and keeping them in Buffalo. However he spent the minimum on the team so as to still turn a small profit. Fortunately for him, he inherited a great coach, a salary cap was instituted a year after buying the team, and it's easy to make the playoffs in the NHL. If he were to buy the Bills, you'd be whining for the days of Ralph's meager spending.
-
Theres talk that, regardless of Cromartie, they'll only be able to keep either Holmes or Edwards as it is. Not both, and I highly doubt all 3.
If they do... I dunno... I guess then Bills fans need to see it is obvious that certain owners are serious about winning and we do not have one of them.
I look at all these teams that have multiple stars, with multiple big contracts, and wonder "Why dont/cant the Bills do that?". And I dont care about just going out in FA and signing names. It's both FA and keeping our own guys. The Vikings out bid us for Winfield and Pat Williams... and THEN signed Jared Allen... and THEN signed Brett Favre, TWICE. I dont get it. But thats for another thread...
Cromartie said he wouldn't be giving the Jets a discount, so the belief is he's gone, which is a big loss for them. Previously there was talk that they'd try and sign Asomugha, but with the lower cap and what is expected to be a $20M/year deal, that ain't happening either. And if they lose either Holmes or Edwards, it's also a big loss.
-
I agree with your thoughts on Levi Brown. He has physical tools, some smarts, and seems to have intangibles. Let's see what Chan and company can do. Wouldn't it be nice if "7" - as in 7th round - turned out to be the Bills' lucky number? Stevie Johnson, Demetrius Bell, Levi Brown, Michael Jasper...
After Brown was released and it took awhile to re-sign him, I wrote him off. If they get anything out of him, it's gravy.
-
Not technically, and I think it's pretty easy to understand what Doc meant -- that Mr. Weo knew the end result, but did not know what happened to get that result because he wasn't there. Transpire actually means "become known". People use it more as a synonym for "to occur, or happen", but that's not really what it means.
Just sayin'.
Yes. The outcome is different from the process.
Tagliabue folded. He sold the owners down the river in exchange for labor peace to cement his legacy.
No telling what would have happened if Tags hadn't become an invertebrate.
Bingo and bingo. Believing that Upshaw's word was final is about the most laughable thing I've heard.
-
There is no basis for this conclusion. It's plainly ridiculous and betrays a complete lack of understanding of what actually happened.
All you know is what transpired. You clearly don't know what happened.
-
Could you please share with us the details of the reasonable compromise? How many millions would be cut? From where? When would they be cut? Which tax loopholes would be closed?
I keep hearing over and over and over about this grand plan that Obama has put forth, and every time I ask for details, I get crickets.
Follow this truth: Word leaked that Boehner and Obama were closing in an yet-disclosed plan that MAY have included reform to entitlements. This led to an unexpected meeting yesterday between Obama and his liberal friends (Link here) to keep him from making a deal. After the meeting, according to Boehner, Obama changes the conditions he was close to agreeing on with Boehner. Boehner walks away. Obama runs in front of a camera and starts to throw another temper tantrum.
But yeah...I'm sure it was more like that DailyKos rant you posted above.
By the way, in case you weren't aware, the ONLY person who will keep little old ladies from getting their social security checks on the 3rd is the one at the podium crying like a baby.
Pretty much sums it up. Looks like the old coots have Barry running scared.
-
The wall used to be red, then they changed it to navy blue to match their change in uniforms (which obviously, they no longer use).
And yeah it looks terrible with the new royal blue lol, I'm sure they will get around to changing it. It's kinda like buying a new tailored suit and mismatching it with a 20 year old tie from your closet. Even a small change like the wall really makes the field pop.
Field looks fantastic though!
So they should change the wall to royal blue to match the endzones? I don't think red would look good at all.
-
A) they dont care about these types of things at OBD and most assuredly they do not have anyone working on it and if you were to contact them about it you would likely hear the telephone being hung up.
B) as we can see by the Sabres example it takes new ownership to make changes like paint!
Again, what's wrong with the color of the wall? I like it. Why waste any money, much less the taxpayers' money, to change it?
-
I'll tell you what will happen with the OL. It will be average or maybe a little worse. Some games it will suck and be justifiably criticized. Some games it will be average but receive praise because the QB plays well. And some games it will be average and be ripped to shreds because the QB does not play well. For further details read last year's threads.
Average maybe, but "a little worse?" Not a chance, barring injury. Wood and Bell being healthy is a huge boost. Wood moving to center is also a boost. And having guys knowing the system will be a big boost. Heck even having a RT who is plugged-in early and jells with the other guys will be a big boost.
-
George Wilson last night told me that there was nothing that he knew of being "slipped in," rather it was more of an issue of not seeing the full document -- or the document that the NFL owners had approved a mere 90 minutes or so before the players conference call was set to begin.
how, he wondered, can anyone hold a vote on something they hadn't had a chance to see.
Oh, the irony!
And from what I heard, Wilson said that a major problem was that the players didn't vote on it first and get the good PR from that and now look like the bad guys. Even though they had the chance to vote on it on Wednesday.
-
My point being, though, that a bunch of nitwits on the Hill want to increase that imbalance by removing the tax incentive for getting insurance in the first place? And these nitwits are presenting the SMART plan?
I don't know if there's any clearer example of how Congress makes laws in a complete and utter vacuum...
That goes without saying. But the tax incentive won't make a difference (whether they know it or not). People will pay the fine because it's cheaper to do so than pay for health insurance, even with the tax incentive lowered.
-
Upshaw wasn't budging from 60% doc, No matter how desperately you want to rewrite history, this fact remains unchanged. Any player with a calculator will realize that D Smith gave up a ton of cash with his accepting only 48% of total revenues. There would never had been a rookie pay scale with Upshaw. There would never have been a 10 year deal.
He would have budged if the owners told him to pound sand. He and Tagliaboob had the owners wrapped around their fingers.
The actual percentage the players were getting under the Upshaw/Tag deal is 49-50%. After you slice off the top $1B of revenue going to the owners for expenses and then factor in bottom feeding owners (think Ralph Wilson) who didn't spend close to the cap the percentages for the players in this new deal (from a percentage standpoint)is basically the same. Under the current deal the players get better health and retirement benefits for the lower percentage and shyster owners like Ralph will have to increase their payrolls. The players will not be making less money.
The money under the rookie pay scale that the top tier draft pick lose goes directly to the veteran players. Both the players and owners are in a accord with that particular salary restructuring. It was never fair for a high first round qb draft pick to get more $$$ than Brady and Manning get.
Although you might think you know what a Upshaw deal would look like in today's world you don't. Times change and labor and financial environments' change. You make the best deal you can make from an owner/labor perspective and when the deal expires you negotiate a new deal within the context of the current times and circumstances.
Do you think it's a coincidence that most owners (not just Ralph) reigned-in their spending? Why do you think that is?
-
I don't see a problem with it.
-
Nice. Now if the players would just vote on the damn CBA...
-
Only if D Smith was union president then.
Nope. If only they had the balls to stand up to Upshaw.
-
Thanks PTR. That's all I needed to know.
-
Shoulda figured...
New LOST Tralier!!!!!
in Off the Wall Archives
Posted
Pretty much explains the ridiculousness of the whole series, IMHO. What a disappointment.