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

[LGR4GM]

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.

Now hold up for a moment. You are saying that Pegula will continue the Toronto series because "he'll have smart business guys and gals tell him it's a sound strategic financial decision to keep playing up there" However if he were to end that series it would be "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"

 

What you are saying then is that if Pegula ends the series he is meddling because it is smart financially to continue it and he should listen to his people. If he continues the series it will be because it is a smart financial decision and he is just a businessman trying to make money. So basically no matter which decision he makes you have already judged that decision as being either A) Meddling or B) Profiteering. In the end it is a Kobayashi Maru to you.

[X. Benedict]

 

 

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.

 

 

Not helpful.

 

 

 

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.

 

You asked for the page and that was correct. See 49.7 for Industry Growth Fund. The 75 percent thingy you are quoting is part of the Player Compensation redistribution package, which allows for the poorest clubs to recapture salary out of Escrow. It's a different animal.

Edited September 11, 2014 by X. Benedict

[Stoner]

lol @ X. and chz.

 

Now hold up for a moment. You are saying that Pegula will continue the Toronto series because "he'll have smart business guys and gals tell him it's a sound strategic financial decision to keep playing up there" However if he were to end that series it would be "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"

 

What you are saying then is that if Pegula ends the series he is meddling because it is smart financially to continue it and he should listen to his people. If he continues the series it will be because it is a smart financial decision and he is just a businessman trying to make money. So basically no matter which decision he makes you have already judged that decision as being either A) Meddling or B) Profiteering. In the end it is a Kobayashi Maru to you.

 

I said fair enough. You got me. This is one time I want the owner to meddle.

[shrader]

Now hold up for a moment. You are saying that Pegula will continue the Toronto series because "he'll have smart business guys and gals tell him it's a sound strategic financial decision to keep playing up there" However if he were to end that series it would be "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"

 

What you are saying then is that if Pegula ends the series he is meddling because it is smart financially to continue it and he should listen to his people. If he continues the series it will be because it is a smart financial decision and he is just a businessman trying to make money. So basically no matter which decision he makes you have already judged that decision as being either A) Meddling or B) Profiteering. In the end it is a Kobayashi Maru to you.

 

You make that Star Trek reference way too often. Anyway, ignored in this whole Toronto series discussion is that there is another side that would be involved in keeping it running. That other side just happens to be the group that set it up in the hopes of someday moving the team to Toronto, the same group that just got spurned in the sale (I'm making an assumption here about the Rogers' intentions, but I think it is a relatively safe one). At this point, what do they stand to gain by keeping this series alive?

[nfreeman]

There is NFW the Toronto series resumes. Frankly the question borders on trolling.

[Stoner]

There is NFW the Toronto series resumes. Frankly the question borders on trolling.

 

Such an asinine definition of trolling is in itself trolling. T to the 2. Well done.

 

lol @ X., chz and nfreeman. Damn, they're falling like stacks of wet dishes.

[Eleven]

There is NFW the Toronto series resumes. Frankly the question borders on trolling.

 

That depends on mutual consent, right? Isn't the contract still in place and both parties merely agreed to no game this season? (I am not certain, I am asking.)

[X. Benedict]

 

 

Such an asinine definition of trolling is in itself trolling. T to the 2. Well done.

 

lol @ X., chz and nfreeman. Damn, they're falling like stacks of wet dishes.

 

Yes. I'm trying to deceive you. That has been my plan all along.

 

I guess you've fatigued my ability to be helpful in the matter. Please merely accept that my initial belief that you'd get it was a form of respect.

.

 

 

 

[That Aud Smell]

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

 

I deal with dry business stuff like this for a living, but I have no appetite, at all, for it in connection with my status as a fan of my favorite teams.

[nfreeman]

Such an asinine definition of trolling is in itself trolling. T to the 2. Well done.

 

lol @ X., chz and nfreeman. Damn, they're falling like stacks of wet dishes.

 

So -- your response to the trolling accusation is "No, YOU'RE the one who's trolling?" And then you're congratulating yourself for winning the argument?

 

I'll say it again: speculating that TP would willingly resume the abomination that was the Toronto series in order to gouge a bit of cash out of the Bills is trolling.

 

That depends on mutual consent, right? Isn't the contract still in place and both parties merely agreed to no game this season? (I am not certain, I am asking.)

 

I think you're right. However, I don't think PA's speculation was driven by the possibility of contractual obligation.

[Stoner]

Yes. I'm trying to deceive you. That has been my plan all along.

 

I guess you've fatigued my ability to be helpful in the matter. Please merely accept that my initial belief that you'd get it was a form of respect.

.

 

I'm just asking for a copy and paste of the pertinent text that supports what you're saying. It's the same challenge you gave me.

 

So -- your response to the trolling accusation is "No, YOU'RE the one who's trolling?" And then you're congratulating yourself for winning the argument?

 

X. and chz are bailing out. They know they don't know what they're talking about. I called them on it.

 

 

I'll say it again: speculating that TP would willingly resume the abomination that was the Toronto series in order to gouge a bit of cash out of the Bills is trolling.

 

You, you're just crazily distorting what I've said. These are usually indications an argument is being lost.

 

The argument I've really won is that you shouldn't come to a fan message board to try and understand the intricacies of a 600-page collective bargaining agreement.

 

I deal with dry business stuff like this for a living, but I have no appetite, at all, for it in connection with my status as a fan of my favorite teams.

 

Why did my tickets go up so much the last couple of years? That's a question that's near and dear to the hearts of many fans.

[Hank]

Ticket prices went up because the market dictated that consumers would continue to purchase the product at an increased price.

[Stoner]

You asked for the page and that was correct. See 49.7 for Industry Growth Fund. The 75 percent thingy you are quoting is part of the Player Compensation redistribution package, which allows for the poorest clubs to recapture salary out of Escrow. It's a different animal.

 

No.

 

Paraphrasing directly from the CBA, from the section I quoted verbatim earlier: When a team that receives revenue sharing falls below a certain ticket revenue level (75% of the single-game league average), it can qualify for the Industry Growth Fund. A team can receive money to develop a plan and strategy to turn their financial situation around. But in return the team agrees to submit a three-year plan and be overseen by the league and oversight committee and could eventually lose revenue sharing status if the plan doesn't work.

[nfreeman]

You, you're just crazily distorting what I've said. These are usually indications an argument is being lost.

 

Here's what you said:

 

What becomes of the Toronto series? Should be a no-brainer.

Well, Terry came into Buffalo saying he didn't want to raise ticket prices. Then Ted Black et al took him aside and explained about the juicy league welfare check, and ticket prices, along with everything else, went way up. I can imagine Terry's at least smart enough to know that all the home games should be in OP, but I can also imagine the bean-counters would argue for the importance of regionalizing the franchise in Ontario, etc.

I'm still interested to see how the Toronto decision flushes out.

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."

 

How on earth is that not, to use my words, "speculating that TP would willingly resume the abomination that was the Toronto series in order to gouge a bit of cash out of the Bills?"

[Stoner]

How on earth is that not, to use my words, "speculating that TP would willingly resume the abomination that was the Toronto series in order to gouge a bit of cash out of the Bills?"

 

Gouge a bit of cash? The sound strategic financial decision I'm talking about is regionalizing the franchise. Do you think that concept is going to go away because MoneyBags bought the team? He won't let it be run like a business? I'm not speculating on what he'll decide. In fact I presented two scenarios, but you conveniently ignored the one where Terry does what's right. No big deal. I think it'll be an interesting decision to watch, that's all.

[That Aud Smell]

Why did my tickets go up so much the last couple of years? That's a question that's near and dear to the hearts of many fans.

 

Who ###### knows? There's myriad reasons why. It's a bid-ness, brother. I ain't got time to dissect that ######. Pass the nachos and get me a Blue Light while you're up.

 

Ticket prices went up because the market dictated that consumers would continue to purchase the product at an increased price.

 

Seems about right.

[darksabre]

The fun part here is where PA is taking ownership of ticket prices that he isn't subject to because he doesn't actually go to games.

[inkman]

The fun part here is where PA is taking ownership of ticket prices that he isn't subject to because he doesn't actually go to games.

Sorry there is no fun in this thread anymore. Life's too short, enjoy it a bit people. (Not directed at you)

[nfreeman]

Gouge a bit of cash? The sound strategic financial decision I'm talking about is regionalizing the franchise. Do you think that concept is going to go away because MoneyBags bought the team? He won't let it be run like a business? I'm not speculating on what he'll decide. In fact I presented two scenarios, but you conveniently ignored the one where Terry does what's right. No big deal. I think it'll be an interesting decision to watch, that's all.

 

I conveniently ignored one of the scenarios because the other scenario is the one that was being discussed.

 

If you posted that you were interested in seeing whether Pegula will decide that the Bills are going to start up a kiddie porn business on the side as a revenue enhancement measure, that you were hoping he wouldn't but that it could happen since he did raise Sabres ticket prices -- would everyone be required to give equal time to the "I hope he doesn't" part of the theory?

 

Or would the first part be so inflammatory and troll-like that of course it would dominate the conversation?

 

It's ridiculous on its face.

[tom webster]

I have no idea what the CBA actually says or any of the legal definitions and responsibilities it mandates .

 

I do know that a CBA agreed to in good faith that calls for revenue sharing requires that both parties do everything in their power to maximize those revenues while maintaining the integrity of the business.

The lawyers and accountants require 800 pages to ensure that. Some of us just need a handshake

[LastPommerFan]

There is absolutely no reason to believe that Terry Pegula won't move a home game to a neutral site nor that he will make decisions that are counter the best financial interest of the team and league to save the fans some money.

 

He has done both with the Sabres.

[Stoner]

I conveniently ignored one of the scenarios because the other scenario is the one that was being discussed.

 

If you posted that you were interested in seeing whether Pegula will decide that the Bills are going to start up a kiddie porn business on the side as a revenue enhancement measure, that you were hoping he wouldn't but that it could happen since he did raise Sabres ticket prices -- would everyone be required to give equal time to the "I hope he doesn't" part of the theory?

 

Or would the first part be so inflammatory and troll-like that of course it would dominate the conversation?

 

It's ridiculous on its face.

 

oh dear

 

The fun part here is where PA is taking ownership of ticket prices that he isn't subject to because he doesn't actually go to games.

 

Not true. I've been to several games the past two or three seasons. I don't buy my tickets off the rack, so you're right that the increases don't really affect me. I buy off StubHub or on the street.

 

This got my attention.

 

Details of how the ownership structure might change on the NHL side are not immediately clear, but Pegula probably needs to restructure things with the Sabres to appease the NFL, which has some strict guidelines for owners. That could mean transferring a controlling interest in the team to a family member. Either way, he surely would still be involved in some capacity.

 

http://www.cbssports.com/nhl/eye-on-hockey/24702649/reviewing-terry-pegulas-tenure-as-buffalo-sabres-owner

 

I remember when Ted Black talked about how he couldn't assume Terry's money would be around forever and that revenue sharing is important for some "future owner." Is that day closer than we think?

 

Also, recall that during his introductory press conference, Channel 2's investigative reporter Scott Brown asked Pegula how long he planned on owning the team, and Terry appeared to look toward his kids, saying something like, "The answer is sitting there."

[shrader]

I remember when Ted Black talked about how he couldn't assume Terry's money would be around forever and that revenue sharing is important for some "future owner." Is that day closer than we think?

 

Also, recall that during his introductory press conference, Channel 2's investigative reporter Scott Brown asked Pegula how long he planned on owning the team, and Terry appeared to look toward his kids, saying something like, "The answer is sitting there."

 

That's looking like a case of an uninformed writer. Most sources have been very clear about how the NFL has no rules against him owning both teams.

[spndnchz]

That's looking like a case of an uninformed writer. Most sources have been very clear about how the NFL has no rules against him owning both teams.

 

Yeah. because they are in the same market it's ok.

[shrader]

Yeah. because they are in the same market it's ok.

 

And as we went through in one of the threads the other day, there are at least two other owners who have a team in both the NFL and another league. I know I mentioned Paul Allen and Benson in New Orleans, and I'm pretty sure another guy was mentioned too, but I can't remember who (not Kroenke).