Bucky Gleason Leaving TBN After Requesting a Buyout - Jerry Sullivan and Now Tim Graham Out

[Peter]

30 minutes ago, john wawrow said:

 

you’ve dug yourself a mighty fine hole there.

so why not keep digging.

?

 

jw

 

Really?

 

I doubt that.

 

Perhaps you are referring to the part of my earlier post when I wrote:

 

- I always respected you;

 

- It is clear the the Pegulas and the people that work for their teams do as well;

 

- there is a huge difference between you, Vic, and Tim, on the one hand, and Sully, Bucky, and Harrington on the other.

 

As I also wrote, to paraphrase Chris Berman: No one circles the wagons like Buffalo Sports media when one of their own is criticized.

 

I hate to see anyone lose their jobs.  After all that has happened, we can only hope for Sully and Bucky's sake that they will gain some perspective and empathy.  Maybe, just maybe, they actually will do some self reflection and will not be so quick to incessantly, overly criticize people . . .  and with the maximum amount of snark.

 

God bless.

16 minutes ago, K-9 said:

Terry Pegula is self taught in geology. 

 

He holds a degree in Petroleum and Natural Gas Engineering from Penn State and spent a decade working for Getty and other oil companies before founding East Resources. His “luck” was many years in the making as his training, diligence, technical advances, and timing served to make informed speculations. He’s the quintessential American success story; completely self made. 

 

Any suggestion that he got “lucky” a la Jed Clampett is uninformed at best. 

 

Well said.

 

He made his own luck and put himself in the position to be where he is today.

 

Interestingly, so did Sully . . . he put himself in the position that he finds himself in today . . . as did Bucky.

[CommonCents]

1 minute ago, Peter said:

 

Really?

 

I doubt that.

 

Perhaps you are referring to the part of my earlier post when I wrote:

 

- I always respected you;

 

- It is clear the the Pegulas and the people that work for their teams do as well;

 

- there is a huge difference between you, Vic, and Tim, on the one hand, and Sully, Bucky, and Harrington on the other.

 

As I also wrote, to paraphrase Chris Berman: No one circles the wagons like Buffalo Sports media when one of their own is criticized.

 

I hate to see anyone lose their jobs.  After all that has happened, we can only hope for Sully and Bucky's sake that they will gain some perspective and empathy.  Maybe, just maybe, they actually will do some self reflection and will not be so quick to incessantly, overly criticize people . . .  and with the maximum amount of snark.

 

God bless.

A smart man once told me not to get so frustrated with everyone that is different from myself. He said everyone had a purpose. In one list you have the overly proffesional guys who report facts, in the other list you have guys that ask hard/dirty questions that no one else wants to ask. JW used examples of important questions that BG and JS posed towards ownership and Whaley. I’m not ok with those hard questions being never asked again.

 

As a fan it was very important that Whaley fell so hard on his face that day and it may have expedited the rebuild/retool. 

 

In short, even if you didn’t agree with JS/BG or disliked their style, they had a place. 

[Peter]

1 minute ago, Commonsense said:

A smart man once told me not to get so frustrated with everyone that is different from myself. He said everyone had a purpose. In one list you have the overly proffesional guys who report facts, in the other list you have guys that ask hard/dirty questions that no one else wants to ask. JW used examples of important questions that BG and JS posed towards ownership and Whaley. I’m not ok with those hard questions being never asked again.

 

As a fan it was very important that Whaley fell so hard on his face that day and it may have expedited the rebuild/retool. 

 

In short, even if you didn’t agree with JS/BG or disliked their style, they had a place. 

 

I have no problem with tough questions.  That is not the point.  

[JohnC]

10 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

All things happen for a reason. I like where we are right now.

The reason why there was so much tumult in the organization was very evident. It related to dysfunction and incompetence. 

 

The Bills are certainly in a better spot with this new regime. They have brought order, coherency and competency to this former rag tag operation. Without having to agree with every move at least they were understandable and made sense. I believe that the Bills are still a couple to few years away from being a serious team. But at least now you can see a direction and am identity forming in this once formless organization. 

Edited May 31, 2018 by JohnC

[Hapless Bills Fan]

8 hours ago, BadLandsMeanie said:

I think of you more as a Mary Poppins type. With a rapier in her umbrella handle.

I'm not sure how that applies here, but for some reason it does. ?

 

'Spoonful of sugar'  not me.  'Feed the Birds' sometimes. 

 

I'm more the "Speak softly and carry a shilelagh" type I believe.

[Cripple Creek]

15 minutes ago, Commonsense said:

A smart man once told me not to get so frustrated with everyone that is different from myself. He said everyone had a purpose. In one list you have the overly proffesional guys who report facts, in the other list you have guys that ask hard/dirty questions that no one else wants to ask. JW used examples of important questions that BG and JS posed towards ownership and Whaley. I’m not ok with those hard questions being never asked again.

 

As a fan it was very important that Whaley fell so hard on his face that day and it may have expedited the rebuild/retool. 

 

In short, even if you didn’t agree with JS/BG or disliked their style, they had a place. 

Those same questions, and much more pointed ones, are asked here on a regular basis. Do you really believe that without Sullivan and/or Harrington those questions will go unasked?

 

i highly doubt that will be the case. If it is then all jw need do is look in the mirror.

[CommonCents]

Just now, Cripple Creek said:

Those same questions, and much more pointed ones, are asked here on a regular basis. Do you really believe that without Sullivan and/or Harrington those questions will go unasked?

 

i highly doubt that will be the case. If it is then all jw need do is look in the mirror.

That’s what’s great about TBD, there is balance. Everyone serves a purpose. If you take out all the posters who second guess OBD what do you then have?

 

It’s a safe bet that BN will be looking to hire someone that is less willing to rock the boat.

 

It’s entertainment for us fans on and off the field, I don’t need the Pegula’s being praised for every decision to continue being a fan.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

12 minutes ago, Cripple Creek said:

Those same questions, and much more pointed ones, are asked here on a regular basis. Do you really believe that without Sullivan and/or Harrington those questions will go unasked?

 

i highly doubt that will be the case. If it is then all jw need do is look in the mirror.

 

I'll go one step further.  Of recent years, the "hard questions" being asked by Sullivan and Gleason were sometimes asked in an insulting and/or adversarial way that lacked real potential elicit meaningful information in response, nor IMHO was it intended to do so.  An example would be one I believe Wawrow brought up, Sullivan's "What is it you do exactly?" question of Whaley.  "Can you clarify for us your role in...." or "is it true that you did...."  could elicit meaningful information.  "What is it you do exactly?" was pure snark, the journalist equivalent of a "LAMP" here.

 

I think any "vacuum" will be filled by others asking hard questions, and in a more meaningful way actually intended to potentially elicit information.  There's a lot of room between PR guys like Chris Brown/Murphy and what Gleason/Sullivan had become.

[Mike in Horseheads]

2 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I'll go one step further.  Of recent years, the "hard questions" being asked by Sullivan and Gleason were sometimes asked in an insulting and/or adversarial way that lacked real potential elicit meaningful information in response, nor IMHO was it intended to do so.  An example would be one I believe Wawrow brought up, Sullivan's "What is it you do exactly?" question of Whaley.  "Can you clarify for us your role in...." or "is it true that you did...."  could elicit meaningful information.  "What is it you do exactly?" was pure snark, the journalist equivalent of a "LAMP" here.

 

I think any "vacuum" will be filled by others asking hard questions, and in a more meaningful way actually intended to potentially elicit information.  There's a lot of room between PR guys like Chris Brown/Murphy and what Gleason/Sullivan had become.

When practically the first question out of Sully's mouth to Pegula when he bought the Bills was about building a new stadium their relationship was over. Good riddens Sully and your snarky ass questions.

 

[BADOLBILZ]

2 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

Wow.  This thing kinda got out of hand while I was asleep...... reading it objectively I don't think either side comes out very well. Maybe let's all take a breath and move on.  

 

 

Your unnecessary "speak for yourself" take wasn't a good look either.    Your takes certainly hadn't come off as "dancing on the grave" that dave had talked of and you kind of interjected yourself into that category for no reason, IMO.   Which lead you to explain why you are better equipped to critique Sully.  Are most literary critics esteemed authors themselves? ?

 

But as for this thread........sometimes you gotta' play Jauron Ball and drag them into the mud they are making and see how they like it.

 

Tim Graham learned that.....perhaps here.......and uses it well on twitter I am told.?

[GunnerBill]

7 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

Your unnecessary "speak for yourself" take wasn't a good look either.    Your takes certainly hadn't come off as "dancing on the grave" that dave had talked of and you kind of interjected yourself into that category for no reason, IMO.   Which lead you to explain why you are better equipped to critique Sully.  Are most literary critics esteemed authors themselves? ?

 

But as for this thread........sometimes you gotta' play Jauron Ball and drag them into the mud they are making and see how they like it.

 

Tim Graham learned that.....perhaps here.......and uses it well on twitter I am told.?

 

I wasn't suggesting critics have to be writers.  I don't agree with that at all in fact.  But the accusation seemed to be without being a writer your criticism was somehow invalid.  EDIT: Actually worth saying that when dave clarified what he was trying to convey in his original post I had no argument with his point.  Dave and I managed to have that exchange without resorting to silliness.  

 

But what went on last night was just a bit childish back and forth in my opinion. 

Edited May 31, 2018 by GunnerBill

[May Day 10]

23 minutes ago, Mike in Horseheads said:

When practically the first question out of Sully's mouth to Pegula when he bought the Bills was about building a new stadium their relationship was over. Good riddens Sully and your snarky ass questions.

 

 

It started when Pegula bought the Sabres and tried to publicly instruct the media to be overly positive and write nice things about Tim Connolly instead of wondering why the Sabres refused to move on from him.  TBN mocked him (as it was a ridiculous notion), and since the relationship has been pretty rocky.  

 

It goes both ways too.  Pegulas have been every bit as spiteful as TBN columnists.

[BADOLBILZ]

3 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I wasn't suggesting critics have to be writers.  I don't agree with that at all in fact.  But the accusation seemed to be without being a writer your criticism was somehow invalid.  

 

But what went on last night was just a bit childish back and forth in my opinion. 

 

Keeping it civil starts with avoiding the unnecessary responses.   You could see the people he was referring to.   They aren't our best and brightest so lumping yourself in with them and adding unnecessary weight to their cause made no sense.

 

[Delete This Account]

10 hours ago, Peter said:

 

You have read the agreement?

 

If so, please tell us how much they were paid in their buy outs. I know you will not but I suspect that it was not a lot for someone who worked there for 29 years.

 

Please also explain why Bucky and Harrington could not keep their stories straight.  Bucky tweeted that he initiated the buy out: "I requested, received and accepted a buyout from TBN."

 

Harrington, on the other hand, admitted that TBN initiated this: "Voluntary buyouts were offered and people are making personal, life-changing decisions."

 

It is typical in any end of employment pay out for the employer to insist on the waiver of any claims and a non disclosure agreement or at least a non disparagement clause.  If TBN did not do so when making these payments, this would surprise me very much . . . and I would wonder what their attorneys' advice was.

 

what are you, nuts.

i'm not going to share with you what i know based on personal conversations i've had that will remain personal.

 

you make some baseless claim.

are called out for it.

and now it's on me to provide proof. how about you provide proof that these nda's actually exist.

 

you're wrong. deal with it.

 

jw

[GunnerBill]

1 minute ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

Keeping it civil starts with avoiding the unnecessary responses.   You could see the people he was referring to.   They aren't our best and brightest so lumping yourself in with them and adding unnecessary weight to their cause made no sense.

 

 

I clearly didn't think the response was unnecessary. As for best and brightest.... I try not to have too many fixed opinions about posters. I take them for what each individual post says. 

[CommonCents]

38 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I'll go one step further.  Of recent years, the "hard questions" being asked by Sullivan and Gleason were sometimes asked in an insulting and/or adversarial way that lacked real potential elicit meaningful information in response, nor IMHO was it intended to do so.  An example would be one I believe Wawrow brought up, Sullivan's "What is it you do exactly?" question of Whaley.  "Can you clarify for us your role in...." or "is it true that you did...."  could elicit meaningful information.  "What is it you do exactly?" was pure snark, the journalist equivalent of a "LAMP" here.

 

I think any "vacuum" will be filled by others asking hard questions, and in a more meaningful way actually intended to potentially elicit information.  There's a lot of room between PR guys like Chris Brown/Murphy and what Gleason/Sullivan had become.

It’s all personal preference.

 

I thought the “what is it you do exactly” was perfect. I had heard enough of Whaley stumbling his way through his time as GM, I didn’t need to hear anymore. That question put the exclamation point on Clown Show! 

[oldmanfan]

Just now, BADOLBILZ said:

 

Keeping it civil starts with avoiding the unnecessary responses.   You could see the people he was referring to.   They aren't our best and brightest so lumping yourself in with them and adding unnecessary weight to their cause made no sense.

 

You are again referring to me I believe.  Want to compare IQs?

 

Seriously, you are not the arbiter of posting.  I'm sorry you did not like my postings in this thread, but I have pointed out a number of times now that the whole luck or not  thing was a straw man designed to avoid the main topic of the thread.  I continue to wait for an answer from jw on whether he thought the frequent insults and churlishness exhibited by S&G were his idea of professional journalism.  I have not received an answer.  I asked for your thoughts on it; I have not received an answer, other than cheap shots about intelligence.

 

Are you willing to discuss actual issues or do you just want to throw around cheap shots?

[Hapless Bills Fan]

2 minutes ago, Commonsense said:

It’s all personal preference.

 

I thought the “what is it you do exactly” was perfect. I had heard enough of Whaley stumbling his way through his time as GM, I didn’t need to hear anymore. That question put the exclamation point on Clown Show! 

 

I understand that it was a great "Zinger!" and popular with people who had had enough of Whaley.

But ask yourself if it was an effective journalistic question actually intended or designed to elicit information - the prototypical "hard question" of journalism.

 

I think it was not.  YMMV.

[BADOLBILZ]

4 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I clearly didn't think the response was unnecessary. As for best and brightest.... I try not to have too many fixed opinions about posters. I take them for what each individual post says. 

 

You mean like people should take each individual Sully or Bucky piece rather than lump them in?    Because there actually were plenty of positively spun pieces written.   3 seasons above .500 in 18 years just doesn't provide much to work with, unfortunately.   And of course all the things that the supposed "bad guys" knew over the years that were never said.   The narrative that people anyone in the local media are "out to get" the Bills or Sabres is wrong and that's the fuel for the grave dancing, IMO. 

5 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I understand that it was a great "Zinger!" and popular with people who had had enough of Whaley.

But ask yourself if it was an effective journalistic question actually intended or designed to elicit information - the prototypical "hard question" of journalism.

 

I think it was not.  YMMV.

 

It was a reactionary question.    The media........and subsequently the fanbase........was getting the  run-around that week.    It was ridiculous.    Try pulling that off in markets just 300-400 miles east of here.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

4 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

It was a reactionary question.    The media........and subsequently the fanbase........was getting the  run-around that week.    It was ridiculous.    Try pulling that off in markets just 300-400 miles east of here.

 

It sounds as though we agree.  You say "reactionary question", I say "zinger" or snark.

 

The point is, we both appear to agree it wasn't an example of a "hard journalistic question" per se as some have brought up may be missed or left as a gap with Sullivan and Gleason's departure.