Buffalo Barbarian Posted October 26, 2012 Posted October 26, 2012 I'd rather have ralph Ralph can't live forever and if Golisano can keep the team here I'm all for it. And he did have very successful teams when he had Briere and Drury here, so it's not like he doesn't know how to build a winner. Besides if he can sell it to some other Billionaire who wants to keep the team here whose only purpose is to win Superbowls, what do we have to lose.
bmur66 Posted October 26, 2012 Posted October 26, 2012 No Thanks. Saved the Sabres my arse. He bought them dirt cheap and made a huge profit. It was purely a business deal. The league saved the Sabres. Not Golisano. The Bills need an owner whos biggest goal is to win a Superbowl. Anything less and they may as well relocate as far as I am concerned cause I have seen enough.
Booger Posted October 26, 2012 Posted October 26, 2012 I agree with the person above. Sure, he "saved" the Sabres because they were sold at a fraction of their worth. Buffalo had everything in place and the league wanted them to remain in Buffalo due to the fact it would have been even more nightmarish if they were to up and leave with little to no planning. I thank him for that, for stepping up and committing to keep the team in Buffalo. Anyone that thinks his #1 motivation was anything but making millions on the deal is simply not seeing it clearly. His #1 goal each season was to keep costs down. The lower the costs the more profit he would make in the end. As for the BIlls? They will be sold for a premium. Especially if there are investors from LA or investors wanting to move the team to LA. And, do not be surprised if Golisano came in, bought the team and then said "the Buffalo economy could no longer support the team, needs to move to LA"....you think that is nuts? Look what he did with his own business. If you want to remain in this tailspin through another period of ownership then I feel Golisano would be your man. For the franchise to move forward, for it to spark and make some serious changes (kind of like how Cleveland is) then I hope some more serious investors step up that care about football. Heck, one should be excited and energetic about owning a team, Golisano comes off in his interview as if he would just be doing everyone a favor as he did with the Sabres.
OvrOfficiousJerk Posted October 26, 2012 Posted October 26, 2012 No Thanks. Saved the Sabres my arse. He bought them dirt cheap and made a huge profit. Because NHL franchises are all cash cows. Dont get me wrong, I'll never forgive him for letting Briere and Drury walk. But tell me that you weren't on your knees next to the radio when the Hammister deal broke down. I remember i had an off day in band, listening to WBEN praying that we werent going to be contracted. Anyone who'd trust Bettman is either naive or stupid; Golisano saved the Sabres more than you'll give him credit for, especially when that dumb idiot hoser Basille probably threw corelone money at Golisano to move them up the QEW. I won't begrudge him if he made a few bucks in the process Like JW said this is hardly news, but the NFL would certainly want someone with a track record of making a major league franchise work in a small market like Golisano in an ownership group
OvrOfficiousJerk Posted October 26, 2012 Posted October 26, 2012 Heck, one should be excited and energetic about owning a team, Golisano comes off in his interview as if he would just be doing everyone a favor as he did with the Sabres. Point taken, but I bet the lack of overt enthusiasm is more out of deference to Mr Wilson who is still the owner.
plenzmd1 Posted October 26, 2012 Posted October 26, 2012 in a bid to provide perspective, so not to fan the flames one way or another, there is nothing new here. Tom Golisano simply repeated what he's said numerous times, and the fact that his comments were included in yet another press release and posted on video simply shows that WBBZ is covering stories that have been covered. as so-called 'exclusives' go, this is well, repetitive at best, much like what they got out of their interview out of Jim Kelly. jw please note the words: "not a commitment." I agree here John, seems to me he has said this before and the "no commitment" caught my eye as well. However, the comment about how he believes Ralph has more plans in place than just sell to the highest bidder in a forced sell seems new to me ..no? Any ideas on what that could mean? Having said that..do you all hound TPegs on this? I know he is prolly in lockdown mode with the lockout, but Ihear all the time that it is "unseemly" for these guys to talk about what happens to the team after Ralph dies, as if somehow Ralph is going to live forever. I dont get how it is okay for me to talk about me and my wife dying and the plans we have made for such (at age 49), but we cannot talk about Ralph dying.at age 94. Why cant TPegs or Tommy just come out and say they will bid on the team when it goes for sale..whenever that may be
Dopey Posted October 26, 2012 Posted October 26, 2012 The fact that he rescued the Sabres in their darkest hours (post Rigas) and sold them to a person who wanted to keep them here (Pegula)? I agree. Please consider his track record as Sabres owner.
K-9 Posted October 26, 2012 Posted October 26, 2012 Positive he helps to keep the team in WNY. Negative he runs the team like he did the Sabres, as a business. His motto just break even. I still would take him as owner though. It would be nearly impossible for an NFL owner to break even, especially after the new media contracts kick in. He won't have to lift a finger to turn a profit. GO BILLS!!!
DDD Posted October 26, 2012 Posted October 26, 2012 He's a businessman and ran the Sabres as such. Pegula on the otherhand is a businessman fan but wants a championship and will spare no expense. If Golisano becomes the BIlls owner, expect more of the same bottum line results we've seen from Ralph over the years.
JohnC Posted October 26, 2012 Posted October 26, 2012 The fact that he rescued the Sabres in their darkest hours (post Rigas) and sold them to a person who wanted to keep them here (Pegula)? I agree. Please consider his track record as Sabres owner. When Mr. G. sold the team to Pegula he insisted on a clause in the sell contract that if Pegula ever sold the team it had to remain in Buffalo. Compare that to Ralph's approach toward his "asset"? What was appealing about Mr. G's stint as an owner of the hockeyteam was that he didn't interfere with the hockey operation, a delightful contrast to the inept meddling ways of the Detroit owner. When Mr. G. bought the Sabres out of bankruptcy he paid off vendors he wasn't obligated to pay off because he felt that it was the right thing to do. Does anyone believe that Ralph would do the same thing? I certainly don't. Tom Golisano had a very basic guideline for the hockey operation: Stay within the established budget. It wasn't overly restrictive. His budget wasn't so tight to be unreasonable. A lot of people complain about the limits of his spending but in reality it was at a reasonable and competitive level. He felt very strongly that in business and government it was important to be fiscally responsible for long term viability. I certainly respect that mind-set.
Buftex Posted October 26, 2012 Posted October 26, 2012 When Mr. G. sold the team to Pegula he insisted on a clause in the sell contract that if Pegula ever sold the team it had to remain in Buffalo. Compare that to Ralph's approach toward his "asset"? What was appealing about Mr. G's stint as an owner of the hockeyteam was that he didn't interfere with the hockey operation, a delightful contrast to the inept meddling ways of the Detroit owner. When Mr. G. bought the Sabres out of bankruptcy he paid off vendors he wasn't obligated to pay off because he felt that it was the right thing to do. Does anyone believe that Ralph would do the same thing? I certainly don't. Tom Golisano had a very basic guideline for the hockey operation: Stay within the established budget. It wasn't overly restrictive. His budget wasn't so tight to be unreasonable. A lot of people complain about the limits of his spending but in reality it was at a reasonable and competitive level. He felt very strongly that in business and government it was important to be fiscally responsible for long term viability. I certainly respect that mind-set. Its' kind of a double edged sword (sabre?) isn't it. I am definitely in the camp that thinks Golisano helped to stabalize our hockey team. But, I don't think he ever intended to do more than that, as a means of protecting his other business investments in the WNY region. Losing a professional sports team, even if it is "only" the NHL, would have hurt his other businesses, and would not be good for the economy overall. I applaud him, and am grateful. I am not sure that he ever intended to own the Sabres long term. All that said, it was Golisanos "common sense" approach to owning the Sabres that kind of led to the mediocrity that it is mired in right now. His investment in the talent on the ice was minimal, and not what it needed to be to keep the team (which was very good for two years) from sliding back into the bottom tier. If they had won the cup in 2006 (or maybe even just made it to the finals) who knows how much different things would have turned out. Painful as it is to say, there really may not be any real "common sense", as it applies to business, to owing a pro sports team in WNY. I think Pegula knows this, and has almost said as much... an owner committed to keeping the Bills in WNY is likely going to have to be one who is committed to the area, and not just the bottom line. Where Golisano falls in that area, is kind of murky. Believe me, I will be happy if anyone buys the Bills, with a commitment to the area (his insistence that a new Sabres owner have that commitment gives him some credibility there), whether it is Golisano, Pegula, or somebody else. Maybe I am naive, but I am still liking Pegula as my idel owner.
CountDorkula Posted October 26, 2012 Posted October 26, 2012 My goodness people take a look at the financials. In hockey over half of the teams are losing money (hence the lockout). Tom was never a hockey fan, and he admitted that. He did it to save the team, he is a football fan. It is guranteed you will make money in the NFL, even with the cap at whatever it may be, he could let this team spend to the cap every year and still turn a huge profit. I am in full support of this. I would have to assume he would be working with Jim Kelly and his gurus. Again, that is an IMO statement.
apuszczalowski Posted October 26, 2012 Posted October 26, 2012 I will be forever grateful to Golisano for taking the Sabres when they were a mess, and steadying the ship. I like that he is (seemingly) committed to the WNY area. I must admit however, the idea of Terry Pegula excites me a little more. I know he has only thrown money at the Sabres so far, with little to show, but the fact that he seems like a big sports fan is appealing to me. And, all those billions don't hurt either! He is a big HOCKEY Fan, thats why he bought the Sabres, and has given big money to Penn State for their hockey programI believe he has said before that he doesn' really follow football at all, Hockey is his sport. I really question the true motives of some of these guys when they buy the teams With TP, I wonder when he is going to push for more drilling/Fracking in WNY, and With TG, you knew that it was a business deal to look better in the eyes of the people in WNY when it came election time and he was running (Now that he is no longer running, the Sabres are sold and he is off living in Florida) The key is to be careful what you wish for, for all we know, TG/Tp as owner of the Bills could be the next Wanstache move..............
jimmy10 Posted October 26, 2012 Posted October 26, 2012 It would be nearly impossible for an NFL owner to break even, especially after the new media contracts kick in. He won't have to lift a finger to turn a profit. GO BILLS!!! Which is why I'm amazed Ralph's heirs want nothing to do with owning the team. I get the whole estate tax thing, but they could just sell a minority stake to offset the taxes. An NFL franchise is a license to print money.
apuszczalowski Posted October 26, 2012 Posted October 26, 2012 Which is why I'm amazed Ralph's heirs want nothing to do with owning the team. I get the whole estate tax thing, but they could just sell a minority stake to offset the taxes. An NFL franchise is a license to print money. Why would any owner of an NFL team want to sell the team then?
jimmy10 Posted October 26, 2012 Posted October 26, 2012 Why would any owner of an NFL team want to sell the team then? A huge payday and sitting on the beach of your private island the rest of your days? I could see the appeal.
Buftex Posted October 26, 2012 Posted October 26, 2012 He is a big HOCKEY Fan, thats why he bought the Sabres, and has given big money to Penn State for their hockey program I believe he has said before that he doesn' really follow football at all, Hockey is his sport. I really question the true motives of some of these guys when they buy the teams With TP, I wonder when he is going to push for more drilling/Fracking in WNY, and With TG, you knew that it was a business deal to look better in the eyes of the people in WNY when it came election time and he was running (Now that he is no longer running, the Sabres are sold and he is off living in Florida) The key is to be careful what you wish for, for all we know, TG/Tp as owner of the Bills could be the next Wanstache move.............. I thought I read, way back when Pegula-maina was all the rage, that Pegula, while a hockey fan first and foremost, also followed the Bills when he lived in Orchard Park...where his wife is from. I kind of got the impression, at that time, that he was trying to temper any talks about his interest in owning the Bills, out of respect for Mr Wilson...but he did, with a nod and a wink, seem to indicate that he would have some considerable interest. Not on the record, but I also remember hearing rumor, before his Sabres purchase, he had put out some feelers on the Bills as well. I think he is smart enough to know that he is likely going to pump as much into the Sabres as he is to get out of them...but the Bills might be more lucrative. As far as your second point, it is well taken. I have been guilty, at times, of assuming Pegula is just willing to spend money like crazy...and I know that can't be the case, indefinitely. Whose to say he wouldn't buy them, see his fortunes in other business shrink, and looking to be selling them...the industry he has made his fortunes on is certainly controversial.
RyanC883 Posted October 26, 2012 Posted October 26, 2012 When Mr. G. sold the team to Pegula he insisted on a clause in the sell contract that if Pegula ever sold the team it had to remain in Buffalo. Compare that to Ralph's approach toward his "asset"? What was appealing about Mr. G's stint as an owner of the hockeyteam was that he didn't interfere with the hockey operation, a delightful contrast to the inept meddling ways of the Detroit owner. When Mr. G. bought the Sabres out of bankruptcy he paid off vendors he wasn't obligated to pay off because he felt that it was the right thing to do. Does anyone believe that Ralph would do the same thing? I certainly don't. Tom Golisano had a very basic guideline for the hockey operation: Stay within the established budget. It wasn't overly restrictive. His budget wasn't so tight to be unreasonable. A lot of people complain about the limits of his spending but in reality it was at a reasonable and competitive level. He felt very strongly that in business and government it was important to be fiscally responsible for long term viability. I certainly respect that mind-set. Anyone who would perfer someone else as owner is nuts. Tom is 100% committed to the WNY region, and would only sell to someone who is equally committed. You can't blame the Sabers performance during his time as owner on him as he was hands off. I have no doubt he could bring in someone like Cower (not necessarily Cower) because of his hands off approach. And any team should be competitive in the NFL with the salary floor at its current level.
Delete This Account Posted October 26, 2012 Posted October 26, 2012 I agree here John, seems to me he has said this before and the "no commitment" caught my eye as well. However, the comment about how he believes Ralph has more plans in place than just sell to the highest bidder in a forced sell seems new to me ..no? Any ideas on what that could mean? he's also said this before, in regards to believing Mr. Wilson has more plans in place. trouble is, Golisano has never expanded on this making it appear like mere speculation on his part. jw
BUFFALOTONE Posted October 26, 2012 Posted October 26, 2012 in a bid to provide perspective, so not to fan the flames one way or another, there is nothing new here. Tom Golisano simply repeated what he's said numerous times, and the fact that his comments were included in yet another press release and posted on video simply shows that WBBZ is covering stories that have been covered. as so-called 'exclusives' go, this is well, repetitive at best, much like what they got out of their interview out of Jim Kelly. jw please note the words: "not a commitment." Sooooo you are saying its a done deal......
Recommended Posts