BringBackFergy Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 Thanks!! My dad was explaining the same thing to me yesterday. He is in investment banking and knows a good deal on the subject. He thought that the timing and amount were certainly curious. If you think about the cost of the team and an owner's portion of a new stadium that $1.75B ($1.25 team, $500M stadium) would certainly sound about right. One thing that I didn't ask: does that only apply to real estate or does it apply to buying existing businesses as well? http://www.ipx1031.com/fb/March2013Insider.pdf “Like-kind” means I must exchange the same type of property, such as an apartment building, for another apartment building. No! Like-kind is an unfortunate misnomer within the context of real property. 1031 exchanges are often called “like-kind exchanges” because that is the language used in the tax code. And there’s the rub: “like-kind,” in effect, simply means that as long as you’re selling real property somewhere in the USA and then buying/exchanging into some other real property located somewhere in the USA, then you’re OK. Exchanges can be done anywhere in the country and can cross state lines. If you sell a rental condo, you do not necessarily have to exchange into another rental condo! You could exchange into raw land, or a strip shopping mall, or a commercial office building, etc. So let’s recap: all real property is like-kind to other real property. Although most 1031 exchanges are done with real property, exchanges can be done with aircraft, artwork, machinery, business vehicles… just about anything that has a capital gain tax can be exchanged. We call these non-real property items “personal property.” The term “like-kind” means that you can’t exchange real property for an aircraft. You can’t exchange machinery for artwork. But in the context of real property, always remember that all real property is like-kind to all other real property.
Wayne Cubed Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 There are only 24 hours in a day. W/ everything Pegula is involved with, I just don't see how he'd have the time to own the Bills. Remember, owner's do have their responsibilities. Staff can only do so much. Hmm, makes me wonder how Paul Allen get anything done owning both the Portland Trailblazers and Seattle Seahawks.
DOGNESS Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 I would be all for this. Contrary to the opinion of some, Pegula wants to win. Given his initial loyalty to Darcy I think he would keep Whaley and Co. in place, which would be the right thing to do. I dont think this is a coincidence. Bills are probably selling north of 1.5 bill.
PromoTheRobot Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 I believe, and Yolo will correct me if I'm wrong...what he meant was that Pegula has not mentioned the Bills publicly since Ralph's passing. Only to offer condolences.
YoloinOhio Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 There are only 24 hours in a day. W/ everything Pegula is involved with, I just don't see how he'd have the time to own the Bills. Remember, owner's do have their responsibilities. Staff can only do so much. That's what Russ Brandon is for.
Canadian Bills Fan Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 So, here's the most important question: Will the NFL allow someone to own the Bills and the Sabres? (hint: Comic Sans) I can't believe it took this long for someone to ask that! CBF
Kelly the Dog Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 Since when is one a trend? Pegula came in as Sabres owner and he already liked Darcy, so he gave him another chance. It backfired badly. Why on earth would someone assume that because a billionaire did something one time, and it bit him in the ass, that he would automatically do the same thing and keep all the same guys on the Bills side? That said, if the a Bills are on the clear upswing when he or anyone else takes over the team, they will very likely have at least one more year to see where it is going. The point is, you, me, and most everyone else in the world, had they just bought an NFL team for a billion dollars, is going to walk in and evaluate the guys running the team. They are already going to have preconceived notions about these guys, which will be reinforced or changed during interviews. And then they will reevaluate. It will likely have nothing to do with whether he kept Darcy and Lindy as to whether he would keep Whaley and Marrone. I would suspect that he would be very impressed with Whaley.
uncle flap Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 There's been another 3-4 billion in land sales in those shale basins in the last week. I dont know if Pegula needing/wanting money for the Bills was the catalyst for this, or, fortunately for us, if it is simply a matter of American Energy Partners going on a buying spree. Some have speculated the latest EPA ruling may be a factor, since natural gas is cleaner than coal. http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/98636-american-energy-in-425b-multi-basin-buying-spree http://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2014/06/09/american-energy-partners-buys-75-000-acres-of.html
SRQ_BillsFan Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 Golisano was not the cheapskate people seem to think. Sure he didn't throw his own money in and lose millions each year. He took a team from bankruptcy and said it needed to stand on its own. Because of this and the Drury/Brier mess people assume he was cheap. The facts do not support it. This has all been covered many times on this board. While I agree he should have locked in Brier/Drury a year earlier on a friendly contract, not signing either for big dollars to keep them at the end turned out to be the right move. Additional politics aside. .
GA BILLS FAN Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 Golisano was not the cheapskate people seem to think. Sure he didn't throw his own money in and lose millions each year. He took a team from bankruptcy and said it needed to stand on its own. Because of this and the Drury/Brier mess people assume he was cheap. The facts do not support it. This has all been covered many times on this board. While I agree he should have locked in Brier/Drury a year earlier on a friendly contract, not signing either for big dollars to keep them at the end turned out to be the right move. Additional politics aside. . I think the issue with Golisano was as much about FO infrastructure spending (i.e. scouting etc.) as it was resigning players
PromoTheRobot Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 Since when is one a trend? Pegula came in as Sabres owner and he already liked Darcy, so he gave him another chance. It backfired badly. Why on earth would someone assume that because a billionaire did something one time, and it bit him in the ass, that he would automatically do the same thing and keep all the same guys on the Bills side? That said, if the a Bills are on the clear upswing when he or anyone else takes over the team, they will very likely have at least one more year to see where it is going. The point is, you, me, and most everyone else in the world, had they just bought an NFL team for a billion dollars, is going to walk in and evaluate the guys running the team. They are already going to have preconceived notions about these guys, which will be reinforced or changed during interviews. And then they will reevaluate. It will likely have nothing to do with whether he kept Darcy and Lindy as to whether he would keep Whaley and Marrone. I would suspect that he would be very impressed with Whaley. Part of the reason it backfired is Pegula meddling in free agency. Rumor is TP got involved in signing players like Leino, Regher and Erhoff. But TP is a hockey guy, not a football guy.
Captain Caveman Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 It's a bizarre Hobbesian choice. Choice A) Team stays in Buffalo, and never wins a Super Bowl; or Choice B) Team moves to a different location, and wins the Super Bowl (or multiple Super Bowls) I think almost everyone here would take Choice A, because Choice B would mean the team is dead to us anyway. What about Choice C) Buffalo Bills win Super Bowl, after which the team Moves away?
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 What about Choice C) Buffalo Bills win Super Bowl, after which the team Moves away? Wow. Tougher one, but I would reject that. You?
All_Pro_Bills Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 Since when is one a trend? Pegula came in as Sabres owner and he already liked Darcy, so he gave him another chance. It backfired badly. Why on earth would someone assume that because a billionaire did something one time, and it bit him in the ass, that he would automatically do the same thing and keep all the same guys on the Bills side? That said, if the a Bills are on the clear upswing when he or anyone else takes over the team, they will very likely have at least one more year to see where it is going. The point is, you, me, and most everyone else in the world, had they just bought an NFL team for a billion dollars, is going to walk in and evaluate the guys running the team. They are already going to have preconceived notions about these guys, which will be reinforced or changed during interviews. And then they will reevaluate. It will likely have nothing to do with whether he kept Darcy and Lindy as to whether he would keep Whaley and Marrone. I would suspect that he would be very impressed with Whaley. I think you're right about this. The two situations are similar in some respects but quite different in others. With the Sabres you had a long-term team of Darcy and Lindy in place for what seemed like a lifetime. And while both handled their jobs with complete professionalism they failed to deliver a championship. Compare their tenure and success rate to that of other hockey franchises like the Penguins or Devils that are not shy about making GM and HC changes and you can conclude ownership stayed with the duo far too long. And this might have been compounded by the series of ownership changes with the Sabres. The fact that Pegula was not only a new owner but a life-long Sabres fan appears to have clouded his judgment or at least delayed the decision to make the change. I suspect you won't see that kind of emotionalism with the Bills if he acquires the team. This is year 2 of Whaley/Marrone on the job so their book of work is not complete. I think they're headed in the right direction. I couldn't say this about Reiger/Ruff where I felt the Sabres were just treading water while preparing for the annual push for 9th place in the conference. The football duo will need to sell any new owner on their 'vision' for building a winner. And having a successful, winning, playoff appearance season in 2014 will go a long way in convincing ownership to stay the course for now. He's going to have to get on board with the current front office team or move in another direction if he doesn't buy into their approach. Either way, priority #1 is assured. The team stays in Buffalo with a TP as potential new owner.
GoPre Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 Hmm, makes me wonder how Paul Allen get anything done owning both the Portland Trailblazers and Seattle Seahawks. Take a look at what Pegula is handling downtown. Time is money. Buffalo should be grateful for what the guy is doing. And I'm not just making reference to the Sabres. I think it is fine for a person to own two teams. But I have to ask. Have you been following Pegula's ownership of the Sabres? If you have, you'd have an understanding of why it'd be very difficult for Pegula to own the Bills. He is devoted to his hockey team.
Beerball Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 What about Choice C) Buffalo Bills win Super Bowl, after which the team Moves away? Hollow.
Captain Caveman Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 Wow. Tougher one, but I would reject that. You? Probably would also reject, but it's tempting. Also, why did I capitalize "Moves"? WTF.
26CornerBlitz Posted June 12, 2014 Author Posted June 12, 2014 Take a look at what Pegula is handling downtown. Time is money. Buffalo should be grateful for what the guy is doing. And I'm not just making reference to the Sabres. I think it is fine for a person to own two teams. But I have to ask. Have you been following Pegula's ownership of the Sabres? If you have, you'd have an understanding of why it'd be very difficult for Pegula to own the Bills. He is devoted to his hockey team. Billionaires aren't able to hire great people to help them manage their diverse portfolio holdings? You have got to be kidding!
uncle flap Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 There's been another 3-4 billion in land sales in those shale basins in the last week. I dont know if Pegula needing/wanting money for the Bills was the catalyst for this, or, fortunately for us, if it is simply a matter of American Energy Partners going on a buying spree. Some have speculated the latest EPA ruling may be a factor, since natural gas is cleaner than coal. http://www.naturalga...in-buying-spree http://www.bizjourna...0-acres-of.html Actually browsing around a little more, it seems AEP initiated this and the wheels have been in motion for months. Not trying to be pessimistic, just saying if Pegula does buy the Bills, he likely would've been buying them anyway. The timing is fortunate for us/him if he is buying the Bills and possibly building a Stadium, but I think that's all it is, simply good fortune (no pun intended).
GoPre Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 (edited) Billionaires aren't able to hire great people to help them manage their diverse portfolio holdings? You have got to be kidding! I'm not saying that isn't possible. I understand many owners main responsibility is to simply remain rich. And that's it. I'm looking at Pegula only. He does not seem to be the type of guy that will throw money into something and not be highly involved. It's Pegula I'm talking about. Not all owners. Edited June 12, 2014 by thanes16
Recommended Posts