Terry and Kim Pegula, owners of the Sabres AND the Bills

[Stoner]

What exactly are you saying? That the Sabres should've disqualified themselves from revenue sharing? Or that they could've gotten revenue sharing without raising ticket prices? It looks like the latter.

 

Keeping up with league-wide average ticket revenues doesn't seem to have anything to do with qualifying for revenue sharing in the first place. It's in the CBA as a threat: do it, or you get your pee pee slapped in the form of having to submit business plans, having a committee oversee your efforts and possibly having your revenue sharing ended down the road.

[I am Defecting]

And it's not even a good vendetta. At least Yuri dislikes Pegula for environmental reasons. I'm completely on board with that discussion.

 

This is about the nicest compliment that I ever could have dreamed of. A good vendetta! This pleases Yuri. I apologize in advance for what I am about to say.

 

I take the 290 to the 33 into work. Leaving Cheektowaga, and entering Buffalo, there is a sign that says, Welcome to Buffalo. This name, Buffalo, I always thought was a great name. Apparently it isn't something the city is extremely proud of. Today 97 Rock though it would be good to supplant our once proud name with a giant green sign, claiming it to be Pegulaville. I'm a voice in the wilderness, and here is what is blasting from the airwaves: He put a logo on the floor. Don't step on the logo! Don't step on it. It is a sacred logo! Don't talk bad about Kim and Terry! They are God's gift to Buffalo! They are proof that God loves Buffalo!

 

If I took down that sign, you know damn well I'd have been video taped and arrested. I'm not joking. He is your new roman emperor. I suspect it's what you've always wanted, because you are hopeless little peasants and really excellent fans. In fact, the great thing about football, is that you can watch it without having to think about important things. Actually, football is the important thing, Go and name your children "Terry," now. Thank God you won't have to choose Maria, or Martin, or Abraham, or Joan, and now have a proper hero.

 

There might be some merit to the tanking argument, and how can I argue against the welcome addition of the Harbor Center? It's a good thing that the Sabres and Bills will be staying in Buffalo, and it would really would be nice to have a new stadium in the city. But here's what's going to happen. All of a sudden, you're going to hear that Terry doesn't have any more money. And gradually you will find out that all of this land that he has rights to in New York is worthless until the moratorium is lifted. You will hear that buying the Bills really set him back, and we can't afford top free agents, much less a new stadium, and you will begin to feel sorry for this man who "saved Buffalo." You will write to your congressman, form fan coalitions, put up signs, and flood social media, because if fracking isn't allowed in New York State the Bills and Sabres might even have to be sold. You will be angry with those who are against it. You'll be the most persistent and loyal ###### fans in the nation, because that's exactly what Pegula needs from you so he can pocket another 4 billion dollars. You will be an unstoppable, unreasonable force, a proletarian uprising. Then, you'll all cheer, hooray for Terry! Our savior! Finally, they've allowed fracking! Go Bills!

 

Typical peasant-think. Hopelessly naive and thinking only about football. In Pegula we Trust?! Can we be this dumb? Yes, we can.

[Stoner]

Here's how John Vogl tried to explain it, getting it mostly right, and how Ted explained it:

 

1. Teams such as Chicago, Philadelphia and Toronto are expected to spend to the cap. To make up for the hike, they’ll probably raise ticket prices.

2. The CBA dictates that clubs that receive revenue sharing must keep pace with the league’s average ticket price. If the teams fall below 75 percent of the average they “shall be required to submit to the league and Revenue Sharing Oversight Committee a forward-looking three-year business plan to establish a framework for improving its financial performance.”

In other words, if a bunch of teams charge more, the Sabres need to follow suit in order to get (PA SAYS "NOT RISK") a revenue-sharing check and avoid a trip to the principal’s office.

“With any revenue-sharing club, and I’ll speak specifically to the Sabres, to not jeopardize that you have to keep pace with what the league average growth is in ticket revenue,” Black said. “That’s the benchmark in order to not jeopardize that revenue source.”

Edited September 11, 2014 by PASabreFan

[inkman]

Man this thread is a buzz kill. Its like someone took a hammer to my pee pee.

Edited September 11, 2014 by inkman

[Hank]

 

 

This is about the nicest compliment that I ever could have dreamed of. A good vendetta! This pleases Yuri. I apologize in advance for what I am about to say.

 

I take the 290 to the 33 into work. Leaving Cheektowaga, and entering Buffalo, there is a sign that says, Welcome to Buffalo. This name, Buffalo, I always thought was a great name. Apparently it isn't something the city is extremely proud of. Today 97 Rock though it would be good to supplant our once proud name with a giant green sign, claiming it to be Pegulaville. I'm a voice in the wilderness, and here is what is blasting from the airwaves: He put a logo on the floor. Don't step on the logo! Don't step on it. It is a sacred logo! Don't talk bad about Kim and Terry! They are God's gift to Buffalo! They are proof that God loves Buffalo!

 

If I took down that sign, you know damn well I'd have been video taped and arrested. I'm not joking. He is your new roman emperor. I suspect it's what you've always wanted, because you are hopeless little peasants and really excellent fans. In fact, the great thing about football, is that you can watch it without having to think about important things. Actually, football is the important thing, Go and name your children "Terry," now. Thank God you won't have to choose Maria, or Martin, or Abraham, or Joan, and now have a proper hero.

 

There might be some merit to the tanking argument, and how can I argue against the welcome addition of the Harbor Center? It's a good thing that the Sabres and Bills will be staying in Buffalo, and it would really would be nice to have a new stadium in the city. But here's what's going to happen. All of a sudden, you're going to hear that Terry doesn't have any more money. And gradually you will find out that all of this land that he has rights to in New York is worthless until the moratorium is lifted. You will hear that buying the Bills really set him back, and we can't afford top free agents, much less a new stadium, and you will begin to feel sorry for this man who "saved Buffalo." You will write to your congressman, form fan coalitions, put up signs, and flood social media, because if fracking isn't allowed in New York State the Bills and Sabres might even have to be sold. You will be angry with those who are against it. You'll be the most persistent and loyal ###### fans in the nation, because that's exactly what Pegula needs from you so he can pocket another 4 billion dollars. You will be an unstoppable, unreasonable force, a proletarian uprising. Then, you'll all cheer, hooray for Terry! Our savior! Finally, they've allowed fracking! Go Bills!

 

Typical peasant-think. Hopelessly naive and thinking only about football. In Pegula we Trust?! Can we be this dumb? Yes, we can.

 

So everything he's done/doing is a ruse? He's slow playing us? Possible. Did he not liquidate a lot of assets/land iot buy the bills? It's possible you may end up being right and all he truly cares about is NY fracking rights, we'll see. In the meantime though, he's doing a lot of good in the buffalo community. Let's at least recognize and enjoy that until his true evil selfish maniacal intentions shine through. Maybe?

Edited September 11, 2014 by Hank

[X. Benedict]

I think the NHL CBA/Revenue Sharing talk could be moved. But with the moderators' indulgence I'll share some of what I'm learning.

 

The CBA doesn't say that all NHL clubs need to submit business plans to the league, or that meeting projections in those plans is essential to, or a condition of, getting revenue sharing. It says that teams already getting revenue sharing must submit a three year plan if they fall below a measure of average ticket revenues. It puts revenue sharing at risk but doesn't mean a team stops getting it. (Below, "recipient club" is a team that is receiving revenue sharing.)

 

So, the Sabres don't have to raise ticket prices to qualify for revenue sharing. They may have to do it in order to continue to receive revenue sharing (which is why Ted uses the word "jeopardize"). I hope I'm reading it right. It's late.

 

 

Any Recipient Club that has per-game Regular Season Gate Receipts (as

set forth in the NHL Gate Receipts and Paid Admissions Report) for the

most recently-completed League Year less than seventy-five (75) percent

of the League-wide average per-game Regular Season Gate Receipts for

that same League Year (e.g., $1,000,000 (approx.) x 75 percent, or

$750,000 for the 2011-12 League Year) shall be eligible for potential

assistance from the Industry Growth Fund, and subject to oversight by the

League and the Revenue Sharing Oversight Committee and review of its

performance as follows:

(A) Each such Recipient Club shall be required to submit to the League

and Revenue Sharing Oversight Committee a forward-looking

three-year business plan to establish a framework for improving its

financial performance, including but not limited to the steps the

Club intends to take in order to achieve an improved and

acceptable level of business performance. Industry Growth Fund

resources may be used to facilitate the implementation of a Club's

business plan, either through grants, loans, or in-kind contributions

in accordance with Section 49.7.

(B) The Revenue Sharing Oversight Committee may review and

approve such business plan, and evaluate the Club's performance

in subsequent League Years against the projections provided by

the Club in its business plan. A Club's continuing eligibility to

receive Distributions may be conditioned on successfully

executing on such plan.

 

 

 

I just did 15 minutes of research and discovered that at least two of you had a key point flat out wrong. Want to keep poking the bear?

Okeedokie. At least your looking at the right stuff.

 

The highlighted from your section is correct but misleading. Only the bottom 15 revenue producing clubs are required. Sabres are in the bottom 15 clubs in revenue, therefore required.

 

The second highlight is sorta wrong. The Sabres have to submit a plan to qualify for revenue sharing. (as does Carolina, etc.) It is not optional. The players have a right to see that clubs are maximizing revenue. In some cases a plan to raise revenue might include raising prices, in some cases freezing prices, in some cases lowing prices (to stimulate demand and gate). The 15 bottom revenue clubs have to submit plans to increase revenue. In Buffalo's case, lowering ticket prices or freezing is not going to stimulate higher gates. The gate is already good. Season ticket sales are already good. They don't technically have to raise prices....but a simple understanding of a demand curve proves that when demand is inelastic, revenue is increased by raising prices.

 

Here's the thing. When ALL the bottom clubs have a plan to raise revenue by 4% (e.g.) - that is potential revenue shared with the players. That's their 2% raise in the salary floor year to year, that's the lift of the salary cap.

 

Clubs in the bottom half of revenue can't ignore this obligation to the players.

 

Pegula and Black's weird solution to this is rather baroque. Raise ticket prices to meet the requirements, and figure out ways to give the money back.

 

The Industry Growth Fund was a major concession by the players to get the CBA approved. I think last year it was something like 60 or 70 million dollars total league-wide. . Divide that by the 15 bottom clubs and you are talking about money only 4 million dollars per bottom club. For the Sabres there is not much incentive to qualify for the Industry Growth Fund other than the CBA obligation. The Sabres paid more money to Erhoff this summer than they received from the Growth Fund. They do however have to have a plan. Required is the contractual language.

 

I may be poor at explaining this. But lets give the players some credit. It is what they negotiated for.

Edited September 11, 2014 by X. Benedict

[SwampD]

Okeedokie. At least your looking at the right stuff.

 

The highlighted from your section is correct but misleading. Only the bottom 15 revenue producing clubs are required. Sabres are in the bottom 15 clubs in revenue, therefore required.

 

The second highlight is sorta wrong. The Sabres have to submit a plan to qualify for revenue sharing. (as does Carolina, etc.) It is not optional. The players have a right to see that clubs are maximizing revenue. In some cases a plan to raise revenue might include raising prices, in some cases freezing prices, in some cases lowing prices (to stimulate demand and gate). The 15 bottom revenue clubs have to submit plans to increase revenue. In Buffalo's case, lowering ticket prices or freezing is not going to stimulate higher gates. The gate is already good. Season ticket sales are already good. They don't technically have to raise prices....but a simple understanding of a demand curve proves that when demand is inelastic, revenue is increased by raising prices.

 

Here's the thing. When ALL the bottom clubs have a plan to raise revenue by 4% (e.g.) - that is potential revenue shared with the players. That's their 2% raise in the salary floor year to year, that's the lift of the salary cap.

 

Clubs in the bottom half of revenue can't ignore this obligation to the players.

 

Pegula and Black's weird solution to this is rather baroque. Raise ticket prices to meet the requirements, and figure out ways to give the money back.

 

The Industry Growth Fund was a major concession by the players to get the CBA approved. I think last year it was something like 60 or 70 million dollars total league-wide. . Divide that by the 15 bottom clubs and you are talking about money only 4 million dollars per bottom club. For the Sabres there is not much incentive to qualify for the Industry Growth Fund other than the CBA obligation. The Sabres paid more money to Erhoff this summer than they received from the Growth Fund. They do however have to have a plan. Required is the contractual language.

 

I may be poor at explaining this. But lets give the players some credit. It is what they negotiated for.

I need something cleared up. Which statement is true?

 

1. They are required to have a plan.

 

2. They are required to have a plan in order to qualify for/already receiving revenue sharing.

Edited September 11, 2014 by SwampD

[Stoner]

I need something cleared up. Which statement is true?

 

1. They are required to have a plan.

 

2. They are required to have a plan in order to qualify for/already receiving revenue sharing.

 

I was told to read the CBA. I did. It clearly states the business plan requirement is a consequence of missing ticket revenue targets while receiving revenue sharing. If there's a requirement to submit a plan in order to receive revenue sharing, I can't find it.

 

A twist here is that Black's explanations for ticket increases in 2011 and 2012 came under the old CBA. Things changed:

 

In addition, various performance parameters (paid attendance averaging at least 14,000, growing business at an above-average rate, etc.) have been removed. In the past, failing to meet those criteria could cause a team to lose 25-50% of their distribution. In place of those punitive measures, this CBA sets up an Industry Growth Fund, in which lagging teams submit business plans for how to improve and can receive loans or grants to help in that regard.

 

http://www.ontheforecheck.com/2013/6/7/4406482/2013-nhl-cba-revenue-sharing-program-explained

[X. Benedict]

I need something cleared up. Which statement is true?

 

1. They are required to have a plan.

 

2. They are required to have a plan in order to qualify for/already receiving revenue sharing.

 

1. True. To satisfy Revenue Sharing with the Players as per the CBA.

 

2. Also True. To qualify for the Industry Growth Fund as per the CBA from the higher revenue clubs. (about $4 million dollars)

 

 

The NHLPA players supervise the committee that reviews these.

The Sabres can't opt out. It is required.

 

That's the best I can do.

Edited September 11, 2014 by X. Benedict

[SwampD]

This is about the nicest compliment that I ever could have dreamed of. A good vendetta! This pleases Yuri. I apologize in advance for what I am about to say.

 

I take the 290 to the 33 into work. Leaving Cheektowaga, and entering Buffalo, there is a sign that says, Welcome to Buffalo. This name, Buffalo, I always thought was a great name. Apparently it isn't something the city is extremely proud of. Today 97 Rock though it would be good to supplant our once proud name with a giant green sign, claiming it to be Pegulaville. I'm a voice in the wilderness, and here is what is blasting from the airwaves: He put a logo on the floor. Don't step on the logo! Don't step on it. It is a sacred logo! Don't talk bad about Kim and Terry! They are God's gift to Buffalo! They are proof that God loves Buffalo!

 

If I took down that sign, you know damn well I'd have been video taped and arrested. I'm not joking. He is your new roman emperor. I suspect it's what you've always wanted, because you are hopeless little peasants and really excellent fans. In fact, the great thing about football, is that you can watch it without having to think about important things. Actually, football is the important thing, Go and name your children "Terry," now. Thank God you won't have to choose Maria, or Martin, or Abraham, or Joan, and now have a proper hero.

 

There might be some merit to the tanking argument, and how can I argue against the welcome addition of the Harbor Center? It's a good thing that the Sabres and Bills will be staying in Buffalo, and it would really would be nice to have a new stadium in the city. But here's what's going to happen. All of a sudden, you're going to hear that Terry doesn't have any more money. And gradually you will find out that all of this land that he has rights to in New York is worthless until the moratorium is lifted. You will hear that buying the Bills really set him back, and we can't afford top free agents, much less a new stadium, and you will begin to feel sorry for this man who "saved Buffalo." You will write to your congressman, form fan coalitions, put up signs, and flood social media, because if fracking isn't allowed in New York State the Bills and Sabres might even have to be sold. You will be angry with those who are against it. You'll be the most persistent and loyal ###### fans in the nation, because that's exactly what Pegula needs from you so he can pocket another 4 billion dollars. You will be an unstoppable, unreasonable force, a proletarian uprising. Then, you'll all cheer, hooray for Terry! Our savior! Finally, they've allowed fracking! Go Bills!

 

Typical peasant-think. Hopelessly naive and thinking only about football. In Pegula we Trust?! Can we be this dumb? Yes, we can.

CBA aside, if you accept the fact that they are eventually going to frack, and they are, then I'm glad that it's at least by a local interest who is putting the money back into the region.

 

1. True.

 

2. True.

Then why the qualifier? Just say they are required to have a plan.

 

Like PA, I don't buy your answer.

Edited September 11, 2014 by SwampD

[X. Benedict]

CBA aside, if you accept the fact that they are eventually going to frack, and they are, then I'm glad that it's at least by a local interest who is putting the money back into the region.

 

 

Then why the qualifier? Just say they are required to have a plan.

 

Like PA, I don't buy your answer.

 

 

 

The Players made a concession in the last CBA. In lieu of a higher percentage of the total NHL gate (revenue sharing), they agreed to have some money set aside (the players are taking a lower percentage) and placed in the Industry Growth Fund, this was Fehr's idea to offer greater incentive for clubs increasing revenue. It was a players concession to the owners. Players take a lower percentage of total revenue, and some revenue is set aside to grow the game in smaller markets. For the Sabres, who have deep pockets, it really isn't much of an incentive to get $4 million, but they have to comply with their deal with the players.

Edited September 11, 2014 by X. Benedict

[Stoner]

1. True. To satisfy Revenue Sharing with the Players as per the CBA.

 

2. Also True. To qualify for the Industry Growth Fund as per the CBA from the higher revenue clubs. (about $4 million dollars)

 

 

The NHLPA players supervise the committee that reviews these.

The Sabres can't opt out. It is required.

 

That's the best I can do.

 

Where's all that in the CBA? What page?

[X. Benedict]

Where's all that in the CBA? What page?

 

Without looking it up. I believe it is page 219. There is a section on it.

[sabills]

Things I don't care about right now: Ticket prices at Sabres games.

 

Jesus Christ people. Take it to a different thread.

 

EDIT: This one seems appropriate: http://forums.sabrespace.com/topic/21880-the-trial-of-terry-pegula/page__st__280

Edited September 11, 2014 by sabills

[Hank]

Things I don't care about right now: Ticket prices at Sabres games.

 

Jesus Christ people. Take it to a different thread.

 

EDIT: This one seems appropriate: http://forums.sabrespace.com/topic/21880-the-trial-of-terry-pegula/page__st__280

 

Doesn't every thread eventually become about pegula's evilness?

[SwampD]

Things I don't care about right now: Ticket prices at Sabres games.

 

Jesus Christ people. Take it to a different thread.

 

EDIT: This one seems appropriate: http://forums.sabres...a/page__st__280

Why wouldn't we talk about the new owner of the Bills and his possible motives in a thread about the new owner of the Bills?

 

I'm just as thrilled about this as the next guy (I think), but I've had my fill of ball washing and listening to grown men cry on the radio over a football team.

[shrader]

MSG West, CSN Buffalo, FS Buffalo, (is CBS Sportsnet going city by city now or does NBC plan to rebrand some of the CSN's?); to me, they'd all be the same. A lot of national programming (or in MSG's case, NYC programming - which IMHO is just as worthless ;)) w/ possibly an evening local sports wrapup to start.

 

Even though TP has the bucks to make an Empire resprout, the only way I see him doing a true Empire relaunch would be as a gift to the community. Which doesn't make sense.

 

Like you're suggesting, it's clearly not a viable option. If there was money to be had with, it would have happened by now. How long has it been since WNSA/Empire went away anyway? If he's going to spend more money as "a gift to the community" I'd much rather it be more development along the lines of the Harbor Center. Far more people would benefit that way.

[dEnnis the Menace]

since we're this far off topic: ZFG about the CBA and revenue sharing...I'm going to buy 300 level tickets to a handful of games every year no matter what. Bills and Sabres game.

[Stoner]

Things I don't care about right now: Ticket prices at Sabres games.

 

Jesus Christ people. Take it to a different thread.

 

EDIT: This one seems appropriate: http://forums.sabres...a/page__st__280

 

The moderators can move it. But as long as we're into Empire etc., it seems like the thread is just going where it's going.

 

But I can bring it back. This all started when I asked what would become of the Toronto series and someone replied to the effect that, why even ask, of course it's gone.

 

My reply was that Terry wanted to do the right thing and not ride into town a multibillionaire, saying he didn't care about making money, and then raise ticket prices for a crappy product, in the midst of a lingering great recession. But he did. Clearly his business advisers (AKA three accountants and a funeral) talked him into it, so they could increase revenues and not potentially lose a chunk of revenue sharing. "Run it like a business."

 

Terry I would have to believe wants badly to end the Toronto series. But, again, he'll have smart business guys and gals tell him it's a sound strategic financial decision to keep playing up there. What will Terry decide? Taking a home game out of Buffalo and raising Sabres ticket prices quite dramatically are roughly morally equivalent. Will he say, "Welp, guys, you're the experts. Whatever. Where are my Cheetos?" Or will he do what I hate: meddle. "I'm the owner. No Toronto series. We'll bite the bullet."

[sabills]

Why wouldn't we talk about the new owner of the Bills and his possible motives in a thread about the new owner of the Bills?

 

I'm just as thrilled about this as the next guy (I think), but I've had my fill of ball washing and listening to grown men cry on the radio over a football team.

 

I think if we're going into deep analysis of the NHL CBA we're a little past his motives for the Bills.

 

Spoiler: He wants to make money. So do the rest of them.

 

 

 

Average ticket price in the NHL last year: 168.58. Average Sabres ticket price: 141.41. Seems reasonable to me.

 

http://blog.tiqiq.co...et-prices-team/

Edited September 11, 2014 by sabills

[LGR4GM]

Will he say, "Welp, guys, you're the experts. Whatever. Where are my Cheetos?" Or will he do what I hate: meddle. "I'm the owner. No Toronto series. We'll bite the bullet."

Your definition of meddling for an owner is not allowing his team, that he owns, to play a home game in a random city. That to you is 'meddling'?

[SwampD]

I think if we're going into deep analysis of the NHL CBA we're a little past his motives for the Bills.

 

Spoiler: He wants to make money. So do the rest of them.

 

 

 

Average ticket price in the NHL last year: 168.58. Average Sabres ticket price: 141.41. Seems reasonable to me.

 

http://blog.tiqiq.co...et-prices-team/

I thought the sole purpose of each, as was stated, was "to win a Stanley Cup" and "to win a Super Bowl"?

 

 

:devil:

[Stoner]

The Players made a concession in the last CBA. In lieu of a higher percentage of the total NHL gate (revenue sharing), they agreed to have some money set aside (the players are taking a lower percentage) and placed in the Industry Growth Fund, this was Fehr's idea to offer greater incentive for clubs increasing revenue. It was a players concession to the owners. Players take a lower percentage of total revenue, and some revenue is set aside to grow the game in smaller markets. For the Sabres, who have deep pockets, it really isn't much of an incentive to get $4 million, but they have to comply with their deal with the players.

 

Again, unless I'm misreading badly, the Industry Growth Fund contribution doesn't kick in unless you fall below 75% of league-average per-game ticket gates, which the Sabres haven't done. They've raised prices presumably so that they don't have to qualify for that help, and don't have to be subject to the business plan requirement, league and committee overview, and possible loss of revenue sharing down the road.

 

Without looking it up. I believe it is page 219. There is a section on it.

Not helpful.

 

Your definition of meddling for an owner is not allowing his team, that he owns, to play a home game in a random city. That to you is 'meddling'?

 

Fair enough. It's meddling in the sense that as an owner with no experience in a particular business, you hire people with expertise to run things for you. It's a far lesser degree of meddling than Terry telling Darcy he wanted to go on a spending spree in the summer of 2011, and criminy that German boy sure can wheel. Terry at least has the business chops to hang with Russ Brandon.

[spndnchz]

The CBA is wasted on you.

[Stoner]

The CBA is wasted on you.

 

Nonsense. And weak sauce. I was told to read it. I did. I am quoting it. Stop snip snipping little pieces out of context and show me where I'm wrong.