Golisano "interested" to keep the Bills in Buffalo

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

Doc is right. Buying an NHL team is like you and I buying a really nice big screen TV. Buying an NFL team is a lot different--like buying a very expensive house. We aren't going to pay cash even if we have the cash. Money is still pretty cheap and no way a sharpie like Pegula is going to tie up a billion of his cash (remember his net worth is on paper, not in the bank) on a single investment.

maybe he didn't get dollars or euros, but Pegula's company received $4.7B in cash considerations, which is pretty close. For you to say his net worth is basically on paper isn't really accurate.

Edited February 4, 2011 by In-A-Gadda-Levitre

[SuperKillerRobots]

sure made my day! i am not a fan of quinn or golisano for obvious reasons concerning the on -ice product they try to sell us, but the mere fact he essentially said he would be VERY interested if the bills were in danger of leaving certainly seems like he would step up, very comforting, to say the least. the only question i would have is, would the fans be content if golisano runs the bills like he ran the sabres? i know, the bills have been worse, but i think it is due from outright ineptness as compared to golisano "wanting to break even" (as he said today). i will answer my own question.. yes, i would rather have a mediocre bills team, than none at all.

 

I would rather Golisano take over the Bills and do with them what he did witht he Sabres than allow the team to leave. When you think about, he ran the Sabres in a way that was transparently business first (like how most people try to say Wilson runs the Bills). However, the saving grace is the fact that he 1. saved the team from leaving initially when he bought and 2. basically ensured that the team wouldn't leave after he got out. This is no small feat. He took less money for the sale of the team (albeit mroe than he paid) from someone who guaranteed they'd stay in Buffalo. He also wrote language intot he sale contract making it difficult to impossible to move the team going forward. If he bought the Bills, held on to them for 10 years, then sold them to someone who really cared and kept them here, I'd call him a freakin hero.

[Direhard Fan]

Ralph wills the Bills to Jim Kellys charity tax free and we all win. Clause says Bills must remain in Buffalo. Jim becomes the head cheese and we all are happy. What are the chances of that?

[Doc]

Nonsense. The Bills valued both Winfield and Greer very highly. The only reason they didn't sign them was because they didnt want to pay them what they were worth, and what other teams were willing to pay them plus another CB on the team a lot (it turns out they lost Winfield and Clements). The point is, if the team is making 10 million in profit per year and the GM is told he can spend that extra ten million, there are very good players you can keep or get. Peters was not at all let go because he was a headcase, he was let go because he wanted 10 million a year and they were willing to pay him 8-9 million a year because they were on a budget.

Very few teams have 2 highly paid players at the same position, like WR or CB. And it's a matter of what a team thinks a player is worth, not some profit they think they need to achieve. At some point you bow-out of negotiations because it becomes funny money.

[Mr. WEO]

Nonsense. The Bills valued both Winfield and Greer very highly. The only reason they didn't sign them was because they didnt want to pay them what they were worth, and what other teams were willing to pay them plus another CB on the team a lot (it turns out they lost Winfield and Clements). The point is, if the team is making 10 million in profit per year and the GM is told he can spend that extra ten million, there are very good players you can keep or get. Peters was not at all let go because he was a headcase, he was let go because he wanted 10 million a year and they were willing to pay him 8-9 million a year because they were on a budget.

 

 

Dutch Shell paid 4.7 billion in cash. Pegula owned about 65% of it.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/company-news/royal-dutch-shell-buys-east-resources/19495355/

Didn't see the part about 65%, but assuming you are correct, still no way he invests all cash in the football team. He can get a much better return investing than the loan will cost him.

[papazoid]

Doc is right. Buying an NHL team is like you and I buying a really nice big screen TV. Buying an NFL team is a lot different--like buying a very expensive house. We aren't going to pay cash even if we have the cash. Money is still pretty cheap and no way a sharpie like Pegula is going to tie up a billion of his cash (remember his net worth is on paper, not in the bank) on a single investment.

 

Buffalo Sabres = $189 million (actual purchase price)

 

Buffalo Bills = $799 million (Forbes) a little over 4 times the value of the Sabres.

 

really nice big screen TV = $2 thousand (stereo advantage).

 

very expensive house ?? = $8 thousand ?? (a fixer upper).

[Kelly the Dog]

Very few teams have 2 highly paid players at the same position, like WR or CB. And it's a matter of what a team thinks a player is worth, not some profit they think they need to achieve. At some point you bow-out of negotiations because it becomes funny money.

I agree with that, although no one on the Bills at CB makes a lot of money. Decent, not a ton. Both Greer and Winfield signed solid contracts, and more than the Bills wanted to pay them. But they were both worth the money the other teams paid, and if they did sign with us even for that amount, at no point would we be paying too much for CBs. McGee and Leodis make decent money, not a ton.

 

We can go around on this all day. And I agree with most of what you're saying. I'm saying if you have 120 million to spend on payroll instead of 100 or 110 million, it's easy to keep a player like Winfield you don't want to pay too much to because you're worried about other positions. That extra 10 or 20 comes in handy when a player is asking for 1-2 more a year than you want to pay him (that is not the same as what he's worth).

[Doc]

I agree with that, although no one on the Bills at CB makes a lot of money. Decent, not a ton. Both Greer and Winfield signed solid contracts, and more than the Bills wanted to pay them. But they were both worth the money the other teams paid, and if they did sign with us even for that amount, at no point would we be paying too much for CBs. McGee and Leodis make decent money, not a ton.

 

We can go around on this all day. And I agree with most of what you're saying. I'm saying if you have 120 million to spend on payroll instead of 100 or 110 million, it's easy to keep a player like Winfield you don't want to pay too much to because you're worried about other positions. That extra 10 or 20 comes in handy when a player is asking for 1-2 more a year than you want to pay him (that is not the same as what he's worth).

The problem is that worth is relative, and true worth can't really be judged until later.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

There have been numerous stories about the Glazer family and their troubled ownership of Manchester United. These stories have often been accompanied by references to possible financial difficulties that the family may be having. From the way that they've run the Buccaneers, it would certainly seem that if they're not having financial troubles that they are bottom line type owners…more interested in profit than championships. And that's their prerogative but it also sucks if you're a fan of their team.

 

Really?? Take another look at the Bucs--they are a young, talented team on the rise. You must be thinking of a different owner...("more interested in profit than championships").

Really?? Did I say that the Bucs weren't a young and talented team? I was referencing stories I've read in the Tampa Tribune and other newspapers which mention that the Glazer family, by virtue of having paid an enormous sum for the Manchester United club, are servicing that debt to the tune of about $100 million per year. I was referencing stories I've read that mention that the Buccaneers have been way under the salary cap in recent years…I think $35 million is the figure I heard. I (like many people) have friends in the Tampa-St Petersburg area who tell me that the common perception is that the Glazers have become spendthrifts.

 

I didn't make any statements about whether the team was talented or how well they were run. The frustration many/most Bills fans feel is not so much due to the perceived frugality of Ralph Wilson so much as the fact that the team has been incompetently run for so many years. If we all felt the Bills were well run regardless of their budget, there'd be a lot fewer unhappy fans right now.

 

So the fact that you imply that because the Buccaneers are heading in the right direction means that the team is not cheap completely misses the point. They are separate issues.

 

If they go 10-6 without Ruud, do they still pass the test?

 

 

 

[Mr. WEO]

Buffalo Sabres = $189 million (actual purchase price)

 

Buffalo Bills = $799 million (Forbes) a little over 4 times the value of the Sabres.

 

really nice big screen TV = $2 thousand (stereo advantage).

 

very expensive house ?? = $8 thousand ?? (a fixer upper).

 

Very good. But that doesn't change the fact that the 400% difference in the prices would make it far more wise not to pay cash for the football team. The bulk of that money would be better invested elsewhere. Don't worry, Peluga knows this.

Really?? Did I say that the Bucs weren't a young and talented team? I was referencing stories I've read in the Tampa Tribune and other newspapers which mention that the Glazer family, by virtue of having paid an enormous sum for the Manchester United club, are servicing that debt to the tune of about $100 million per year. I was referencing stories I've read that mention that the Buccaneers have been way under the salary cap in recent years…I think $35 million is the figure I heard. I (like many people) have friends in the Tampa-St Petersburg area who tell me that the common perception is that the Glazers have become spendthrifts.

 

I didn't make any statements about whether the team was talented or how well they were run. The frustration many/most Bills fans feel is not so much due to the perceived frugality of Ralph Wilson so much as the fact that the team has been incompetently run for so many years. If we all felt the Bills were well run regardless of their budget, there'd be a lot fewer unhappy fans right now.

 

So the fact that you imply that because the Buccaneers are heading in the right direction means that the team is not cheap completely misses the point. They are separate issues.

 

Actually, this is what you said:

 

From the way that they've run the Buccaneers, it would certainly seem that if they're not having financial troubles that they are bottom line type owners…more interested in profit than championships.

 

I thought your point was pretty clear...

 

But now you say you are simply reiterating that they are cheap, yet on the rise and doing well with this approach at this time. What's the point of mentioning they are cheap?

Edited February 5, 2011 by Mr. WEO

[JohnC]

Didn't see the part about 65%, but assuming you are correct, still no way he invests all cash in the football team. He can get a much better return investing than the loan will cost him.

 

Pegula didn't buy the Sabres because it was the best way he could get a return on his money. He bought the team because he has a passion for the sport. I'm sure he has not entered the hockey business to lose money. What I'm very confident is that he won't run the business as merely a profit-center at the expense of being a competitive team, as another owner you are familiar with does. I'm also confident that Mr. P won't be allowing his marketing specialist to be involved in the hockey operation.

 

You are correct that he would never invest a large portion of his own money in a football franchise. That would be foolish. But what he could do is be able to get the financing to purchase the team and then run it in a responsible way to pay off the debt.

Edited February 6, 2011 by JohnC

[Doc]

Pegula didn't buy the Sabres because it was the best way he could get a return on his money. He bought the team because he has a passion for the sport. I'm sure he has not entered the hockey business to lose money. What I'm very confident is that he won't run the business as merely a profit-center at the expense of being a competitive team, as another owner you are familiar with does. I'm also confident that Mr. P won't be allowing his marketing specialist to be involved in the hockey operation.

 

You are correct that he would never invest a large portion of his own money in a football franchise. That would be foolish. But what he could do is be able to get the financing to purchase the team and then run it in a responsible way to pay off the debt.

We'll see, John. The problems Pegula will face, which is what the other owners to whom you are referring faces are a) there is a salary cap, b) many players don't want to play in Buffalo without a premium (which falls under A) and c) he needs to get the top people and bring them to Buffalo, and keep them there. Snyder has proven that being a fan and spending money doesn't ensure anything. And in the case of all three (Wilson, Golisano, and now Pegula), I'm more thankful for them keeping the team in Buffalo than going broke trying to field a winner.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

I thought your point was pretty clear...

 

But now you say you are simply reiterating that they are cheap, yet on the rise and doing well with this approach at this time. What's the point of mentioning they are cheap?

You've italicized the word "now" meaning that…you think I've changed my position? Do you always have to play these passive-aggressive games?

 

I haven't changed my position at all throughout this thread.

 

 

Look WEO. The "point" of me mentioning that the Glazers were cheap is two-fold. Firstly this thread is about Golisano. Secondly, someone else brought up the Glazers. So nothing I've posted here is pointless (you asked me "what's the point?).

 

I made the point that many Bucs fans view the Glazers as being cheap. This is not being disputed.

 

You felt it was necessary to mention that I was somehow wrong because the Bucs are a "young, talented team on the rise," which I freely admit but which misses the point that I was making about their cheapness.

 

I then reply (again defending myself against your criticism) that cheapness and performance are two separate issues and that the fact that they are uptrending doesn't refute my point that they are cheap.

 

So what to make of your latest post? Do you have to get the last word in? Is that it? I'm defending myself here.

 

Let me try to explain it one more time. Don't feel compelled to reply. Just try to understand (yes, I'm reciprocating your rudeness).

 

The Bucs have made some good decisions. They've drafted some good players and paid them according to what they would have received anywhere else. The Bucs made a nice coaching hire in Raheem Morris although Morris is a first-time head coach and is rumored to be one of the lowest paid coaches in the league.

 

The Bucs are well below the salary cap. The Bucs have not signed Morris to a contract extension and Morris has an option for the 2011 season. NFL coaches almost never have lame duck seasons. Morris and his staff are hanging in limbo. Hopefully for the sake of the organization, the Glazers spend the money and extend him soon.

 

So the Bucs have made some good decisions which have made them a "young, talented team on the rise" but according to most of the media and team's followers, they are cheap.

 

So to recap, we are talking about two separate issues.

 

Furthermore, in spite of your attempts to suggest otherwise, I have not changed my position in this post.

 

Also, feel free to let my defense of my posts be the last word in this discussion. Thank you in advance for your hoped for cooperation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Kelly the Dog]

The simple fact is, IMO, that if I, as a big fan of the Sabres, sold my company for 4.7 billion, took home 3 bil from the purchase, I would immediately want to buy the Sabres, too, and bring a championship to Buffalo regardless of the cost (under obvious limits). I would have no problem losing a few million a year for 20 years if that's what it took. You can't spend a billion dollars let alone three billion unless you are criminally stupid. I wouldn't care one bit if I lost the entire 189 million dollars to be honest, because it wouldn't affect my life one bit. I would probably be willing to spend a billion in cash on the Bills, too, knowing the strength of the NFL, and knowing full well I could make a little or a lot more money spending it elsewhere.

 

And I know there are a lot of people in Buffalo or who grew up in Buffalo that would feel and spend the same. I really wouldn't care if it was a poor investment and I lost tens of millions if I had three bil. And, as others have said, it's easy to get money when you have money, so there would ways to do it and reduce the risk.

[Mr. WEO]

You've italicized the word "now" meaning that…you think I've changed my position? Do you always have to play these passive-aggressive games?

 

I haven't changed my position at all throughout this thread.

 

 

Look WEO. The "point" of me mentioning that the Glazers were cheap is two-fold. Firstly this thread is about Golisano. Secondly, someone else brought up the Glazers. So nothing I've posted here is pointless (you asked me "what's the point?).

 

I made the point that many Bucs fans view the Glazers as being cheap. This is not being disputed.

 

You felt it was necessary to mention that I was somehow wrong because the Bucs are a "young, talented team on the rise," which I freely admit but which misses the point that I was making about their cheapness.

 

I then reply (again defending myself against your criticism) that cheapness and performance are two separate issues and that the fact that they are uptrending doesn't refute my point that they are cheap.

 

So what to make of your latest post? Do you have to get the last word in? Is that it? I'm defending myself here.

 

Let me try to explain it one more time. Don't feel compelled to reply. Just try to understand (yes, I'm reciprocating your rudeness).

 

The Bucs have made some good decisions. They've drafted some good players and paid them according to what they would have received anywhere else. The Bucs made a nice coaching hire in Raheem Morris although Morris is a first-time head coach and is rumored to be one of the lowest paid coaches in the league.

 

The Bucs are well below the salary cap. The Bucs have not signed Morris to a contract extension and Morris has an option for the 2011 season. NFL coaches almost never have lame duck seasons. Morris and his staff are hanging in limbo. Hopefully for the sake of the organization, the Glazers spend the money and extend him soon.

 

So the Bucs have made some good decisions which have made them a "young, talented team on the rise" but according to most of the media and team's followers, they are cheap.

 

So to recap, we are talking about two separate issues.

 

Furthermore, in spite of your attempts to suggest otherwise, I have not changed my position in this post.

 

Also, feel free to let my defense of my posts be the last word in this discussion. Thank you in advance for your hoped for cooperation.

 

Mercy granted.

[bbb]

Are you guys arguing about whether the Bucs owners are cheap??

[JohnC]

We'll see, John. The problems Pegula will face, which is what the other owners to whom you are referring faces are a) there is a salary cap, b) many players don't want to play in Buffalo without a premium (which falls under A) and c) he needs to get the top people and bring them to Buffalo, and keep them there. Snyder has proven that being a fan and spending money doesn't ensure anything. And in the case of all three (Wilson, Golisano, and now Pegula), I'm more thankful for them keeping the team in Buffalo than going broke trying to field a winner.

 

I have a simple rebuttal to you. Pittsburgh Steelers and Green Bay Packers. Two small market towns with franchises run competently. Do you want me to add additional small or medium market teams to the list? How about Baltimore, Indianapolis, KC etc

Edited February 6, 2011 by JohnC