Kim Pegula - Interview on Women and the NFL

[josie]

Speaking for myself, this could get ugly. Or more to the point, BE ugly... :lol:

I'll just show your calves.

 

Never fear. 

[Stoner]

Yes. Right. I think that is what you are saying. And maybe quite a bit more, too.

Do we really need the last little jab? Like, maybe, just maybe, WildCard is truly evil, and he is just showing us what he thinks won't horrify us too much.

 

People can disagree. The idea of a couple earning an academic degree together is odd to me. Maybe it's a new age thing. Maybe it's what modern husbands say. It certainly could be true. Wife foots the bill. Wife tutors. Wife drives the husband to class a long distance. Wife organizes study groups. But if wife is doing her thing and the husband's thing is to go to school, the shared accomplishment seems a bit over the top. Cue up the commencement music and husband and wife striding across the stage together...

Edited August 18, 2016 by PASabreFan

[That Aud Smell]

Do we really need the last little jab? 

 

It wasn't a jab. I legitimately thought there may be more that's being left unsaid.

 

 

Like, maybe, just maybe, WildCard is truly evil, and he is just showing us what he thinks won't horrify us too much.

 

Oh, stop. I'm not calling anyone evil and you know it. I think some conceptions he may hold about these matters could benefit from some new ideas and information.

 

 

The idea of a couple earning an academic degree together is odd to me. Maybe it's a new age thing. Maybe it's what modern husbands say. It certainly could be true. Wife foots the bill. Wife tutors. Wife drives the husband to class a long distance. Wife organizes study groups. But if wife is doing her thing and the husband's thing is to go to school, the shared accomplishment seems a bit over the top. Cue up the commencement music and husband and wife striding across the stage together...

 

I understand that it may seem odd. Last I checked (and it's been a while), it's a fairly settled legal principle in New York State. And it's not contingent on the factors you're sketching out above. In fairness, I have no idea how other jurisdictions might treat higher degrees and licensures.

 

Even setting that aside, I stand by what I said above regarding how I view what I've done and accomplished during the course of my marriage. I owe everything to my gal, and she to me. What I have is hers, and what she has is mine. That's what we meant when we said what we said on that hot and humid day way back in the distant 1990s. (The DJ played Montell Jordan and House of Pain.)

 

HIT IT:

 

 

I understand you may see that as new age

[TrueBlueGED]

As someone with a bit of experience with this...earning an advanced degree is absolutely a labor of love and sacrifice. Not just for the individual doing it, but for those close to them. The amount of time needed to pour into it, the sheer number of times you have to say "Sorry, I can't, I have to study"...having an understanding and supportive (emotionally, if not financially) partner is unspeakably helpful. A less than great partner can easily leave aspirations (regards to both the education and relationship) in shambles.

 

I think that's what Smell means by the degree belonging to he and his wife.

[That Aud Smell]

As someone with a bit of experience with this...earning an advanced degree is absolutely a labor of love and sacrifice. Not just for the individual doing it, but for those close to them. The amount of time needed to pour into it, the sheer number of times you have to say "Sorry, I can't, I have to study"...having an understanding and supportive (emotionally, if not financially) partner is unspeakably helpful. A less than great partner can easily leave aspirations (regards to both the education and relationship) in shambles.

 

I think that's what Smell means by the degree belonging to he and his wife.

 

Appreciate that, sir.

 

That is definitely a big part of it. There are other things, too, though. Like that time when I was thinking about not pursuing a prestigious in-program opportunity -- because, really, I didn't have the bona fides for it and some other hotshot was going to get it for sure -- and my wife would have none of it and urged me to throw my hat in the ring. That wound up working out really well for me. 

 

Stuff like that. And a whole lot more, too.

Edited August 18, 2016 by That Aud Smell

[Neo]

Expand on this?

First and foremost, I was directing nothing toward you or anyone else!

 

I get fidgety when we link "earn" with "use". As TBPHD points out, concepts get conflated. I think the two are as different as mangos and aardvarks.

 

Examples cited here regarding earnings include money and college degrees. I earn or earned both under as clear a set of guidelines as can be, I suppose. They're some fraction of my total life. As others have pointed out, the money's shared in my marriage. What I do with my property, nearly all of which I've derived from my earnings, is my decision regardless of how it's earned as long as I'm earning and using it legally. Substitute "we" for "I" and you can include my wife. I've made good choices and bad. I over simplify and call that the view of half of our society. I suspect that's optimistic and have accepted I'm actually in the minority.

 

Linking earning with use and inviting the opinion of others introduces "should, deserve and fair". All are legitimate concepts by themselves unless you allow them to trespass or until you allow them to be determinative. When "should, deserve and fair" trespass, suddenly you've opened the door to policy discussions that make choices for me and subject my property to confiscation. I fidget. Again, I've over simplified and identified this view as belonging to half of America. Opportunity arises for those who take and for those who represent the philosophy of taking.

 

I'm a simple man. "Earn, should, deserve and fair" are words that dress confiscation, and the limiting of choice, in moral or ethical clothing and then invite them into discussions where they don't belong.

 

I'll not take my neighbor's lawnmower. No one would. Unless, of course, I can look at the lawnmower as something he didn't earn, shouldn't have, doesn't deserve, and as something it would be fair to me to have. Now, I have a rationale to take based on such virtuous concepts.

 

Language interests me.

Edited August 19, 2016 by N'eo

[That Aud Smell]

Whoa

[dudacek]

Is it too late for the Republicans to substitute Neo for Trump?

[Neo]

Is it too late for the Republicans to substitute Neo for Trump?

I inhaled.

[3putt]

So you're a Libertarian

[Neo]

So you're a Libertarian

I like the thought, but I consent to being governed way too much to satisfy earnest Libertarians.

 

Maybe I'm a pragmatic Libertarian who chooses not to fight every fight.

Edited August 19, 2016 by N'eo

[3putt]

The key is still under the mat :).

Edited August 19, 2016 by 3putt

[Drunkard]

This whole conservation is starting to get a little wonky. Both of the Pegulas have the right to run the Bills and Sabres by mere fact that they had the money to purchase them, the sales were approved by the leagues, and they paid the money. That's all that's required to be an owner and as an owner how they decide to run things is their business. They don't have to earn anything or have any experience or qualifications whatsoever other than paying the funds and getting approval by the leagues (which has already been done).

 

The degree thing is a completely different matter though. Yes a spouse of either gender can be instrumental in helping the other spouse achieve some milestone (earning a degree, passing the bar, passing the CPA exam, becoming a doctor, etc.) but that doesn't make that distinction shared in any way shape or form. It may and probably should be accounted for in the division of property if the relationship ends, but that is purely financial and not actually sharing the achievement. If a guy marries a woman who is pre-med and she becomes a successful surgeon after they get married and then they get divorced he may be entitled to up to half her income/wealth in part because he supported her financially while she was in school or whatever but that doesn't make him a doctor. The degrees won't have his name on them and he sure as hell wouldn't be putting on scrubs and showing up to perform a surgery. If a woman marries a dude who ends up going to law school and he passes the bar her name won't be on the degree, she won't be an esquire, and she won't be qualified to represent people in court.  

[That Aud Smell]

If a guy marries a woman who is pre-med and she becomes a successful surgeon after they get married and then they get divorced he may be entitled to up to half her income/wealth in part because he supported her financially while she was in school or whatever but that doesn't make him a doctor. 

 

True. But I also don't think anyone - myself included - was remotely suggesting that.

[Drunkard]

True. But I also don't think anyone - myself included - was remotely suggesting that.

 

Then the degrees aren't shared only the income derived from them are. I wasn't trying to single anyone out with my post either, just trying to clarify. Marriage may be a 50/50 partnership but personal distinctions are still personal is all I'm stating.

[WildCard]

Then the degrees aren't shared only the income derived from them are. I wasn't trying to single anyone out with my post either, just trying to clarify. Marriage may be a 50/50 partnership but personal distinctions are still personal is all I'm stating.

Boom

[That Aud Smell]

Then the degrees aren't shared only the income derived from them are. I wasn't trying to single anyone out with my post either, just trying to clarify. Marriage may be a 50/50 partnership but personal distinctions are still

personal is all I'm stating.

 

Yeah. I would still beg to differ based on what I've outlined above (no need to repeat here). There are more aspects to degrees and licenses than who holds the paper (and who does the job) and what income they derive. 

 

Of course, it would have been silly to suggest that the spouse "shares" the degree or license to the point that s/he could show up to perform a procedure on a patient, prepare an audited financial statement, create a set of designs, etc. 

[Drunkard]

Boom

 

I agree with you on the degrees and certification type stuff but not the ownership and running the teams stuff because those are basically just financial requirements other than league approval and since they bought the team together they both got approved when the sales went through. Kim isn't really qualified to run either team but neither is Terry. They both have a right to but luckily they decided to let others with experience (besides maybe Russ Brandon and his supposed marketing genius) to actually steer the ship. 

[That Aud Smell]

I agree with you on the degrees and certification type stuff but not the ownership and running the teams stuff because those are basically just financial requirements other than league approval and since they bought the team together they both got approved when the sales went through. Kim isn't really qualified to run either team but neither is Terry. They both have a right to but luckily they decided to let others with experience (besides maybe Russ Brandon and his supposed marketing genius) to actually steer the ship. 

 

I'm struck anew that there was (is) a debate over whether people who buy and own a business have a right, are entitled, to take an active role in the business's management.

 

And you're right: The stuff about earning degrees, etc. is a horse of a different colour than buying a business. The talk came about as we were discussing the concept of marital assets.

[Stoner]

I'm struck anew that there was (is) a debate over whether people who buy and own a business have a right, are entitled, to take an active role in the business's management.

 

And you're right: The stuff about earning degrees, etc. is a horse of a different colour than buying a business. The talk came about as we were discussing the concept of marital assets.

I don't think you have the question right. What did Kim do to earn the title of owner? I expanded on it and perhaps clarified the original question: what did Kim do to earn the right to run a professional football team on the business or football side or both?

[SwampD]

I don't think you have the question right. What did Kim do to earn the title of owner? I expanded on it and perhaps clarified the original question: what did Kim do to earn the right to run a professional football team on the business or football side or both?

Is she doing either of those things?

[Eleven]

Is she doing either of those things?

 

She's not doing anything on the football side except for hosting potential head coaches for interviews, and none of us should care what she's doing on the business side.

[3putt]

I don't think you have the question right. What did Kim do to earn the title of owner? I expanded on it and perhaps clarified the original question: what did Kim do to earn the right to run a professional football team on the business or football side or both?

She was part of a group of two people that was able to pay the purchase price. That's it that is all that is necessary. Do you own a car? A cell phone? A computer? The only requirement is that you are able to pay the purchase price. Your constant whining about qualifications and the obligations the Pegulas owe you or anyone else is a) a fiction in your mind b) tiresome. No rephrasing needed. You are wrong. They owe an obligation to meet league rules and applicable law. That's it.

[Stoner]

She's not doing anything on the football side except for hosting potential head coaches for interviews, and none of us should care what she's doing on the business side.

It sounds like she wants to get up to speed one day and work on the football side. And of course the business side matters to the football side.

[3putt]

It sounds like she wants to get up to speed one day and work on the football side. And of course the business side matters to the football side.

She can name herself head coach if she wants to, why does it matter?