BRAWNDO Posted May 22, 2014 Posted May 22, 2014 [ Agree with your list. Must admit, I have kind of od'd on this topic..or maybe it is just too much anxiety for me...but has anyone reported anything in regards to Pegula being interested? I'm obsessed with it, because I think it's the most important thing in my lifetime for this area. But, I get all mixed up between old news and all the sources. I know Pegula put out the statement about doing everything they can to make sure the Bills stay - something like that, but not saying he's bidding. I'm not sure about anything else. I wonder why there has been absolutely nothing from Bob Rich that I've seen. Now that prospective ownership groups will start making their bids, I have a hunch we are going to start hearing about Pegula's Interest. IIRC the first time Buffalo Sports Fans heard about his interest in the Sabres was when Bucky Gleason from the News published an article about him in Nov 2010. He officially took over about three months later in February 2011. He appears to be the type who operates below radar.
Awwufelloff Posted May 22, 2014 Posted May 22, 2014 There is a big difference between the NHL and NHL..The Bills make money by being in the NFL..The Sabres were struggling to stay even money...Cant compare the two.. As a huge Sabres fan, this guy gets it. In the NFL you are guaranteed a profit, in the NHL when the Sabres were bought they were losing millions each year. He sold the team to Pegula and made many millions.
DDD Posted May 22, 2014 Posted May 22, 2014 Golisano is a businessman. His bottom line is the bottum line. It's kind of ironic however that the Sabres did much better when he owned them pinching pennies (video scouting, Campbell, Drury, Briere, etc) vs Pegula who was spent ridiculous money and has the worst team in the NHL to show for it.
SF Bills Fan Posted May 22, 2014 Posted May 22, 2014 I view this as positive. I have a friend that is pretty close with Golisano so I knew he had interest. The bills are very safe with Golisano as the owner. His intent is to prevent them from leaving. He had offers to sell the Sabres to out-of-towners and refused. People forget that as owner of the Sabres they were a few defensemen away from getting to and likely winning the Stanley Cup. They had very competitive teams when he owned them. There were some botched player transactions later in his ownership but you can't fault him completely. I think we would be good with him as owner.
papazoid Posted May 22, 2014 Posted May 22, 2014 we could do a lot worse than Golisano. still hoping it's Pegula.
RayFinkle Posted May 22, 2014 Posted May 22, 2014 After his Sabre escapades, if you thought Ralph was cheap, this guy brings it to a new higher level. This is not good news Well, except for the fact that the sabres were always near the cap under his tenure...they just didn't spend wisely.
Awwufelloff Posted May 22, 2014 Posted May 22, 2014 Well, except for the fact that the sabres were always near the cap under his tenure...they just didn't spend wisely. We were cup contenders under his tenure. From 2005-2007 the Sabres made the Eastern Conference Finals twice. We should of won the cup if it wasn't for all of our defenders getting hurt against Carolina.
metzelaars_lives Posted May 22, 2014 Posted May 22, 2014 After his Sabre escapades, if you thought Ralph was cheap, this guy brings it to a new higher level. This is not good news Dude give me a break. Anyone intending on keeping the Bills in Buffalo is great news. I'll worry about their roster and their record later, I just want to be able to have a freaking team to root for.
Buftex Posted May 22, 2014 Posted May 22, 2014 I have come to the conclusion that many commenting on current or past Sabres owners as future Bills owners, don't really follow the Sabres all that closely... true that the Sabres have bottomed out under Pegula, but nobody can deny his dedication toward building a winner. His fatal mistake was in not cleaning house when he took over...Pegula appears to be a sentimental guy... a fan, like so many of us. Not advocating, necessarily, that a house cleaning would be appropriate for a new Bills owner (this season will be an indication), but it probably would have been wise for Pegula to rid himself of Darcy immediately. Pegula put too much faith in him, when the suit was already ripping at the seams... I think he learned his lesson, he went outside the organization and got a fresh set of eyes to run the team. He let the new guy get rid of players that Darcy, and he, just didn't have the heart to do. So, yes, the Sabres bottomed out this season, with a historically bad season... but is it losing, when you are really not trying to win? Their is a method to the madness.... As for Golisano, I don't know how to put it any simpler... he did hockey fans in the city of Buffalo a huge favor by, essentially, buying the franchise, and stabilizing it, until he could find a more suitable owner for it. He made it pretty clear, from day one, that he wasn't a "hockey guy"... his philosophy with Darcy was, spend what you have to and I am cool with it, as long as we don't lose money. Golisano was never in on the Sabres for the long haul, and wasn't looking to make a ton of money...his greatest interest in owning the team, was to make sure it stayed in WNY. Like the Bills now, as you may recall, there were plenty of rumblings that the franchise unstable ownership situation was making them a candidate to be re-located. The league was running the team at the time...and they weren't going to wait forever for things to settle down. Golisano seems to get a lot of **** from some people... I just don't understand that at all. The guy proved, in a big way, that he is committed to WNY. Now, if his intent, as it was with the Sabres, was to buy the Bills short term, and flip them to somebody who is committed to keeping the team in WNY long-term, I have no problem with that. We can argue all we want about what went down with the Drury thing....but as somebody pointed out along the way, rather astutely, Drury signed a huge deal with the Rangers instead, and did absolutely nothing in New York. As I recall, they had to buy him out, and he retired three seasons later, labled a bust for the Ranges, and a bad free agent siging...so whatever the perceived damage created to the Sabres, by not re-signing Drury, it may not have been real. It could have just been another long, bad, contract on the Sabres books...
billsfan1959 Posted May 22, 2014 Posted May 22, 2014 I have come to the conclusion that many commenting on current or past Sabres owners as future Bills owners, don't really follow the Sabres all that closely... true that the Sabres have bottomed out under Pegula, but nobody can deny his dedication toward building a winner. His fatal mistake was in not cleaning house when he took over...Pegula appears to be a sentimental guy... a fan, like so many of us. Not advocating, necessarily, that a house cleaning would be appropriate for a new Bills owner (this season will be an indication), but it probably would have been wise for Pegula to rid himself of Darcy immediately. Pegula put too much faith in him, when the suit was already ripping at the seams... I think he learned his lesson, he went outside the organization and got a fresh set of eyes to run the team. He let the new guy get rid of players that Darcy, and he, just didn't have the heart to do. So, yes, the Sabres bottomed out this season, with a historically bad season... but is it losing, when you are really not trying to win? Their is a method to the madness.... As for Golisano, I don't know how to put it any simpler... he did hockey fans in the city of Buffalo a huge favor by, essentially, buying the franchise, and stabilizing it, until he could find a more suitable owner for it. He made it pretty clear, from day one, that he wasn't a "hockey guy"... his philosophy with Darcy was, spend what you have to and I am cool with it, as long as we don't lose money. Golisano was never in on the Sabres for the long haul, and wasn't looking to make a ton of money...his greatest interest in owning the team, was to make sure it stayed in WNY. Like the Bills now, as you may recall, there were plenty of rumblings that the franchise unstable ownership situation was making them a candidate to be re-located. The league was running the team at the time...and they weren't going to wait forever for things to settle down. Golisano seems to get a lot of **** from some people... I just don't understand that at all. The guy proved, in a big way, that he is committed to WNY. Now, if his intent, as it was with the Sabres, was to buy the Bills short term, and flip them to somebody who is committed to keeping the team in WNY long-term, I have no problem with that. We can argue all we want about what went down with the Drury thing....but as somebody pointed out along the way, rather astutely, Drury signed a huge deal with the Rangers instead, and did absolutely nothing in New York. As I recall, they had to buy him out, and he retired three seasons later, labled a bust for the Ranges, and a bad free agent siging...so whatever the perceived damage created to the Sabres, by not re-signing Drury, it may not have been real. It could have just been another long, bad, contract on the Sabres books... Absolutely agree
eball Posted May 22, 2014 Posted May 22, 2014 Anyone who compares the Sabres situation when Golisano purchased them with the Bills current situation just doesn't get it. Golisano being in the running to own this team is nothing but good news.
BreezeMafia Posted May 22, 2014 Posted May 22, 2014 I'd say it was more the fault of a bad GM. Drury left and was a horrific signing by the Rangers. Briere was also amnestied I believe. They re-signed guys like Afinogenov and Kotalik over Dumont. Also paid Connolly twice along with some other horrible signing. Not like Pegula has had success since taking over right? Anybody who keeps the Bills in Buffalo I'm all for. YES!!!!! on your GM comment. Golisano wasnt cheap. Sabres had a top 10 salary roster from 06 - 09. GOlisano wasnt the problem. Rieger definitely was. All I ask is for Larry Quinn to please sit on the sideline and dont come near this bid opportunity.
The Wiz Posted May 22, 2014 Posted May 22, 2014 I'm curious to know who the other deep-pocketed businessman is they reference? Pegula perhaps?
Kellyto83TD Posted May 22, 2014 Posted May 22, 2014 When it comes to cheap ass owners, we would be going from the frying pan into the fire with him
RayFinkle Posted May 22, 2014 Posted May 22, 2014 When it comes to cheap ass owners, we would be going from the frying pan into the fire with him ...and this is based off what?
The Wiz Posted May 22, 2014 Posted May 22, 2014 (edited) ...and this is based off what? I'm guessing by the fact the he kept the sabres from folding and only issued 1 year deals to player to financially stabilize the team and then not giving Drury and briere ridiculous contacts that didn't pan out for their new teams. Because that's the same situation the bills are in. Edited May 22, 2014 by The Wiz
Wayne Cubed Posted May 22, 2014 Posted May 22, 2014 I'm guessing by the fact the he kept the sabres from folding and only issued 1 year deals to player to financially stabilize the team and then not giving Drury and briere ridiculous contacts that didn't pay out for their new teams. Because that's the same situation the bills are in. Not to mention, there is a cap minimum that must be spent to in the NFL.
BreezeMafia Posted May 22, 2014 Posted May 22, 2014 ...and this is based off what? Wow. Not really sure where this is coming from. Golisano cheap owner? I dont agree with that. When you have a less than stellar GM paying money to the wrong players from 07 - 10, you then get a crappy product. Rieger had the Sabres salary total in the top 10 for each of the last four seasons while Golisano was owner (I am looking for the article as we speak). I remember tracking this each year. I believe (not confirmed) that Larry Quinn had a lot to do with the contract shenanigans that occurred with Drury and Briere.
Recommended Posts