nfreeman

That's quite fair. I was thinking of a scenario in which the organization hired a Pegula's friend's cousin's crappy PR firm, and the engagement included "viral marketing," and the PR firm assigned its 23-year-old entry level associate to peruse message boards, twitter etc and promote canned talking points, and there was little to no oversight, and the next thing you know there is someone posting here and sounding like he/she is from outer space.

You're right that the police/military aren't generally roaming the streets and forcing people to stay inside. I'm referring to the mandatory closure of workplaces and schools, which has put the bulk of the economy in lockdown. I suppose "shutdown" might be a better word but it might be a distinction without a difference. I think the main reason is concern about the destructive effects of job and income losses. The author also mentions something that hasn't been discussed much, which is the health risk created by the suspension of all "elective" medical procedures, especially for the elderly -- evidently the "elective" category is pretty broad. It's not just PA's butt implants that have been affected.

I agree with you on 2 and 4, and partially on 3, but I don't see why you think point 1 or point 3 is an opinion -- he cites plenty of data that support his analytical conclusions. As for point 5 -- I don't understand your reaction. The whole country and most of the world is on lockdown. Is that better than having only the vulnerable slice of the population on lockdown? For that matter, he doesn't say they need to be on lockdown -- just that they are the most vulnerable and that the protections should be geared towards them.

Well, you are right that the article doesn't delve into stress on the HC system, but it's become pretty clear that the HC system is nowhere near as stressed as was anticipated -- so I think the author assumes that the HC system can handle the extra load that would result from reopening. It's reasonable to want some analysis of that assumption, but that's a different article.

Here’s a well-written article by a doctor from Stanford advocating an end to the lockdown: https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/494034-the-data-are-in-stop-the-panic-and-end-the-total-isolation

This is why, if I had to bet, I would bet that this poster was a paid "viral PR" person. It was all too canned.

Now that is thinking outside the box (heh).

This season was the best yet IMHO. The finale was great.

I hate to say it, but it would be of a piece for the Pegulas to have hired some crappy PR firm whose methods include Manchurian posters like this guy might be.

Awesome.

From an excellent, and long, Q&A with Graham and Vogl on the Athletic: https://theathletic.com/1760887/2020/04/20/live-qa-with-tim-graham-and-john-vogl-on-tuesday-4-21-from-1-2-p-m-et/

Good.

It’s unusual to see a new poster with this much certitude combined with this poor of a grasp of the facts.

Wow.

...edited Hank's post to hide the spoilers. (Sorry Hank -- but I thought since the show told one continuous story for 6 years, it was worth hiding the very end.)

"On a hunch" appears to animate most of your posts on this topic. In addition to -- proudly, it appears -- assuming that they aren't charitable based on zero facts, what boxes are you checking off based on hunches? Drugs? Racism? Brothels? Fraud? Which family members do your hunches tell you are indulging in these vices? How certain are you? You've mentioned a few times that you don't subscribe to the Athletic. Were you able to read the full story, or is your description of it as "brilliant" and "reveals a lot" also based on a hunch? As for superyacht and family lifestyle -- are they not allowed to own a fancy yacht? Are they not allowed to have/enjoy their lifestyle?

He is The One.

JFC. Every now and then the fear and loathing come bubbling up, innit? What exactly is "toxic" about them? They made a zillion dollars, bought our sports teams, kept them here, threw a ton of money at them AND at developing downtown Buffalo -- neither of which anyone else was willing to do or has ever done -- created a bunch of jobs, made some mistakes along the way, got the Bills from Mickey Mouse status to respected, professional franchise, haven't been able to do so yet with the Sabres but not for lack of trying, and are now -- like many other sports owners in an unprecedented situation -- trying to control spending. Are they getting arrested for fraud like Rigas? Are they alienating everyone they come into contact with like Dan Snyder? Are they racists like Donald Sterling or Marge Schott? Are they drug fiends like Jim Irsay? Are they looking the other way when their players repeatedly commit sociopathic acts like many NFL owners? Are they running brothels -- and joining in the fun -- like Jerry Jones? Are they continuously beefing with franchise icons like James Dolan? Are they blackmailing the city for a new stadium while gutting the team like Jeff Loria? No, they aren't. And do you have any information whatsoever about their charitable donations? Or are you just assuming that because you've heard of the Penn State hockey donation but not anything else (other than, I suppose, the Covid-related donation they just made to WNY) that there is nothing else?

Great show, right?

But this essentially assumes away the key point: players come and go. Owners willing to spend to the cap, fund fancy facilities, scouting departments, etc. for an NHL team in Buffalo are like unicorns. I agree with most of this, but the bolded IMHO needs the additional factor of being willing to spend what it takes to be competitive. Ralph didn't do this for the last 15 years or so and the Bills became a joke of a franchise. OSP didn't either and Black Sunday, followed by a generation in the desert, was the result. This is another huge and critical assumption that isn't borne out by the facts.

God bless you and your family, @spndnchz.

You're referring to the $50MM in losses over the past few years mentioned in the article? How much would you like to share?

Didn't he...y'know...kidnap and kill someone?

I agree with this and with most of what you've said in this thread. I do think though that there are 2 more questions: 1. Are the Pegulas competent at building a good organization, which presumably would lead to good on-ice results? 2. Are they greedy, insensitive jerks? I think the article today essentially argues that the answers to both of these are "no." Now, was the article -- and the assertions it made -- somewhat overblown and sensationalized, and likely based on sour grapes from people who have been let go? Yes, almost certainly. But it's undeniable that there has been a ton of turnover at PSE, and that the on-ice results have been awful. So it's not unreasonable for people to connect the dots, and for people to be skeptical about the Pegulas until they demonstrate that they deserve the benefit of the doubt. OTOH, one might think that their development efforts in Buffalo, their charity and the success with the Bills would buy them more goodwill than they seem to be getting here. Of course, this is a Sabres board, and the Sabres have been freaking terrible.

No. According to the article, there was a management presentation that included a powerpoint presentation, in which 1 of the slides laid out 3 main Pegula family goals: win championships, sustainability, and return on investment. The ROI goal included a sub-heading that read "fund businesses, taxes, lifestyle." The article also said: In other words, the 3rd of 3 articulated goals was for the business to pay for itself as well as to contribute to the family's lifestyle -- i.e. to turn a profit that the family could use to live large, or give to charity, or do whatever else they want with it. So, nothing too inflammatory or nutty there, although it was probably pretty tone-deaf to include "lifestyle," since it's pretty clear that they live quite large and it didn't need to be waved in everyone's faces that they intend to keep doing so.