Botterill Returning Next Season- Kim Pegula

[kas23]

5 minutes ago, Kruppstahl said:

Never say never.  I can easily see them selling the Sabres, if the whole thing becomes to big a pain in their ass.

I would not see them replace the team with another.

I.E., they will retain the Bills and no more.  2 teams is too big a load, as they are finding out now.

And they will never keep an NHL franchise over an NFL franchise.

The NFL ownership is the big game these sorts of people are after.

In fact, had the 2 Buffalo teams become available in reverse order, I think Pegula would have gone for the Bills, and then declined to buy the Sabres.

 

 

Selling the franchise is a different scenario. In this case, they would no longer own the team, investment money would likely be recouped. New owner would be open to move team then. 

[Stoner]

6 minutes ago, Kruppstahl said:

Never say never.  I can easily see them selling the Sabres, if the whole thing becomes to big a pain in their ass.

I would not see them replace the team with another.

I.E., they will retain the Bills and no more.  2 teams is too big a load, as they are finding out now.

And they will never keep an NHL franchise over an NFL franchise.

The NFL ownership is the big game these sorts of people are after.

In fact, had the 2 Buffalo teams become available in reverse order, I think Pegula would have gone for the Bills, and then declined to buy the Sabres.

You nailed it in the last sentence. As Terry said in 2015, "I'm perceived as being a hockey guy ahead of football; there just happened to be a hockey team in sale four years ago in town that preceded the availability of the Bills. I'm a football guy."

IMVHO, Terry buys the Sabres as prelude to buying the Bills. Establish his bona fides.

[That Aud Smell]

2 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

You nailed it in the last sentence. As Terry said in 2015, "I'm perceived as being a hockey guy ahead of football; there just happened to be a hockey team in sale four years ago in town that preceded the availability of the Bills. I'm a football guy."

IMVHO, Terry buys the Sabres as prelude to buying the Bills. Establish his bona fides.

I basically take that as fact nowadays.

Edited June 5, 2020 by That Aud Smell

[Stoner]

We've gone back and forth on the non-movement clause. nfreeman will never accede to it, so there's confusion, then we move on.

In the interest of clarity, I think there are two questions here with fairly simple answers.

1. Why are the Sabres still in Buffalo? They're still here because Golisano stepped up when they were in dire straits (bankrupt and supported by the league, which didn't want them to move, but the first potential buyer was not viable, which took all bets off the table), then he sold the team to people who would never move the team. The contract stipulation seems almost moot. I just cringe at the common sentiment that although the Pegulas are terrible owners, "they kept the Sabres in Buffalo." The implication is that the team was in danger of relocating. It's almost like people mix up the events surrounding the sale of the team to Golisano and then his sale to Pegula. Terry approached Golisano, through Quinn. The Sabres were not in dire straits and in danger of moving.

2. Could the Sabres be moved by the Pegulas using some contract loophole? The answer to that is, no one knows for sure. So I guess in the end I agree with nfreeman, but the confusion need not exist. The existence of some loophole shouldn't lead to credit to the Pegulas for not using it.

[Weave]

55 minutes ago, kas23 said:

I get that Sabres news is slow and we all want something to discuss, but this moving the Sabres is a complete nonstarter. The Pegulas have invested an enormous amount of money in the Buffalo area, especially around the arena. They would stand to lose all of this if they were to move. Then they would be tasked with running 2 sport teams in different cities. All those synergies dissolve. It’s not happening. I never say never, but I think I may make an exception in this case. 

Any good business person knows that you don’t make future decisions based on sunk costs.  The cash the Pegulas sunk into the Sabres won’t matter if it makes business sense to sell the team.

[nfreeman]

11 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

We've gone back and forth on the non-movement clause. nfreeman will never accede to it, so there's confusion, then we move on.

In the interest of clarity, I think there are two questions here with fairly simple answers.

1. Why are the Sabres still in Buffalo? They're still here because Golisano stepped up when they were in dire straits (bankrupt and supported by the league, which didn't want them to move, but the first potential buyer was not viable, which took all bets off the table), then he sold the team to people who would never move the team. The contract stipulation seems almost moot. I just cringe at the common sentiment that although the Pegulas are terrible owners, "they kept the Sabres in Buffalo." The implication is that the team was in danger of relocating. It's almost like people mix up the events surrounding the sale of the team to Golisano and then his sale to Pegula. Terry approached Golisano, through Quinn. The Sabres were not in dire straits and in danger of moving.

2. Could the Sabres be moved by the Pegulas using some contract loophole? The answer to that is, no one knows for sure. So I guess in the end I agree with nfreeman, but the confusion need not exist. The existence of some loophole shouldn't lead to credit to the Pegulas for not using it.

What you are glossing over here is that TG was demonstrably willing to sell the team at a handsome profit.  We have no idea how much or how little he cared about selling to an owner who would keep the team in Buffalo.

Here's an alternative fact pattern: 

- TP's offer never materializes, so TG continues to own the team.

- The cap continues to rise from $39MM when he bought it (NB that the Sabres' payroll that year was $28MM), to $60MM 6 years later (when he actually sold it), to  $81.5MM today.

- As the cap and floor rise, the team incurs increasingly large operating losses. 

- TG, who was never interested in owning a team that lost, say, $5MM per year, gets increasingly antsy as his cash burn mounts and, after running up about $20MM in losses over 4 years, decides to sell the team. 

- He initially wants to sell to someone who will keep the team in Buffalo, but no one materializes who will do so and pay a competitive price.

- After another 2 years and $10MM of operating losses, TG says "to heck with this" and decides that he'll sell to whomever will write him a respectable check. 

- The new owner tells the NHL that he'll keep the team in Buffalo if it reaches break-even within 3 years -- but if it doesn't, he wants to be able to leave.

- The NHL, realizing that this is the best that they are going to do, agrees.

 

Now:  what is more realistic:  this scenario, or the magical appearance of a billionaire who doesn't care about funding operating losses and is determined to keep the team in Buffalo come hell or high water?

That's why "keeping the team in Buffalo" is really freaking real.

[sabremike]

A few years back the league only allowed Dundon to buy Carolina if he agreed that the league would let him relocate on the 12th of Never. The league will never let anyone buy the Sabres unless they agree to those same conditions.

[nfreeman]

17 minutes ago, sabremike said:

A few years back the league only allowed Dundon to buy Carolina if he agreed that the league would let him relocate on the 12th of Never. The league will never let anyone buy the Sabres unless they agree to those same conditions.

Y'know what fans from cities like Buffalo shouldn't do?  They shouldn't blithely dismiss the chances of losing their teams with "it'll never happen."

Oakland and San Diego, both of which are bigger cities than Buffalo, have just recently lost their NFL teams, and Buffalo would've probably lost the Bills if TP hadn't bought them.  And the NFL is a much stronger league than the NHL.

[thewookie1]

27 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

Y'know what fans from cities like Buffalo shouldn't do?  They shouldn't blithely dismiss the chances of losing their teams with "it'll never happen."

Oakland and San Diego, both of which are bigger cities than Buffalo, have just recently lost their NFL teams, and Buffalo would've probably lost the Bills if TP hadn't bought them.  And the NFL is a much stronger league than the NHL.

Stronger yes, but the NHL honestly wants a team in Buffalo. We bring in great TV ratings, we have US dollars instead of Canadian dollars which would happen in any move to Hamilton and we are a rather old franchise at this point. Not to mention most other owners would rather move Florida before moving a team in a hockey hotbed. The Panthers hemorrhage money and just look plain embarrassing with their crowd sizes to the point even players have poked fun at it. The one other point of serious contention would be whatever small fear the NHL would have that if the Sabres were to leave they would very likely lose their most consistent National TV viewership numbers. We don’t have population density but we certainly help their average ratings. 

[Stoner]

5 hours ago, nfreeman said:

What you are glossing over here is that TG was demonstrably willing to sell the team at a handsome profit.  We have no idea how much or how little he cared about selling to an owner who would keep the team in Buffalo.

This is from the story linked above that you claimed to have read:

Quote

Majority owner B. Thomas Golisano revealed Thursday he turned down an earlier purchase offer that would have involved shifting the team to another city -- even though the offer was for $70 million more.

 

[Broken Ankles]

2 hours ago, nfreeman said:

Y'know what fans from cities like Buffalo shouldn't do?  They shouldn't blithely dismiss the chances of losing their teams with "it'll never happen."

Oakland and San Diego, both of which are bigger cities than Buffalo, have just recently lost their NFL teams, and Buffalo would've probably lost the Bills if TP hadn't bought them.  And the NFL is a much stronger league than the NHL.

I agree with the sentiment of the bold but SanDiego is not an example to use.   The Spanos family is regretting this move now and they haven’t even played one game in their new luxury building.  It cost them $550 million to move and they seemingly have lost far more fans than they have gained in LA.  San Diego never had great support for the team.  The county has over 3 million people and could barely fill a stadium (leagues smallest) of 50k seats.   And half of those seats were opposing fans.   I’ve seen the Bills play San Diego many times and it’s a neutral field.  It’s a ***** home game for the Pats and Steelers.  Buffalo and the Sabres share a symbiotic relationship.   They need each other for reasons shared by @thewookie1.  The cities of San Diego and Oakland didn’t need their franchises.  Buffalo needs the Sabres.  Ratings, polls for county taxes to pay for new stadiums confirmed this. Not saying it could never happen, only that a different set of circumstances have to play out before it would.  

[dudacek]

I don’t know if I can handle 6 months of arguments about the Sabres future in Buffalo.

Can somebody please make up a good trade rumour or complain about the response when Milan Lucic hit Miller?

[nfreeman]

2 hours ago, PASabreFan said:

This is from the story linked above that you claimed to have read:

 

Quote

Majority owner B. Thomas Golisano revealed Thursday he turned down an earlier purchase offer that would have involved shifting the team to another city -- even though the offer was for $70 million more.

Leaving aside the pleasant tone of your post, have you now come around to believing and trusting OSP?  When during his ownership tenure you had nothing but antipathy and mistrust for him?

Again:  it is manifestly self-serving for OSP to claim, without any verification, that he heroically ensured the team would stay in Buffalo.

Perhaps the offer was made and the NHL made it clear to him that the answer was no sale if moving the team immediately was a condition.  in that situation, one could claim that one "turned down a better offer" and be technically accurate while still being highly misleading.

Or perhaps one of his golfing/tennis/yachting/exploiting the proletariat oligarch buddies was yukking it up with him after an afternoon of lobster and champagne at a fancy club in a tax haven and boisterously told OSP that he'd dig out $260MM from the floor of his Maybach and give it to him for the Sabres as long as he could move them to his ranch in Montana.

Perhaps a million things.  But not this, at least not based on just OSP's vague and unsupported statements:  OSP wasn't going to lose a ton of $$ to keep the Sabres in Buffalo. 

 

1 hour ago, Broken Ankles said:

I agree with the sentiment of the bold but SanDiego is not an example to use.   The Spanos family is regretting this move now and they haven’t even played one game in their new luxury building.  It cost them $550 million to move and they seemingly have lost far more fans than they have gained in LA.  San Diego never had great support for the team.  The county has over 3 million people and could barely fill a stadium (leagues smallest) of 50k seats.   And half of those seats were opposing fans.   I’ve seen the Bills play San Diego many times and it’s a neutral field.  It’s a ***** home game for the Pats and Steelers.  Buffalo and the Sabres share a symbiotic relationship.   They need each other for reasons shared by @thewookie1.  The cities of San Diego and Oakland didn’t need their franchises.  Buffalo needs the Sabres.  Ratings, polls for county taxes to pay for new stadiums confirmed this. Not saying it could never happen, only that a different set of circumstances have to play out before it would.  

I agree that there are significant differences between the 3 situations.  But there is one overriding similarity:  it always comes down to the Benjamins, and if there is a significant net economic loss associated with keeping a team in city XYZ, including Buffalo, no sports league is going to insist on keeping a team in that city.

[MakeSabresGrr8Again]

8 minutes ago, dudacek said:

I don’t know if I can handle 6 months of arguments about the Sabres future in Buffalo.

Can somebody please make up a good trade rumour or complain about the response when Milan Lucic hit Miller?

What response?

[Stoner]

18 minutes ago, dudacek said:

I don’t know if I can handle 6 months of arguments about the Sabres future in Buffalo.

Can somebody please make up a good trade rumour or complain about the response when Milan Lucic hit Miller?

It was a good goal!

[Marvin]

49 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

Leaving aside the pleasant tone of your post, have you now come around to believing and trusting OSP?  When during his ownership tenure you had nothing but antipathy and mistrust for him?

Again:  it is manifestly self-serving for OSP to claim, without any verification, that he heroically ensured the team would stay in Buffalo.

Perhaps the offer was made and the NHL made it clear to him that the answer was no sale if moving the team immediately was a condition.  in that situation, one could claim that one "turned down a better offer" and be technically accurate while still being highly misleading.

Or perhaps one of his golfing/tennis/yachting/exploiting the proletariat oligarch buddies was yukking it up with him after an afternoon of lobster and champagne at a fancy club in a tax haven and boisterously told OSP that he'd dig out $260MM from the floor of his Maybach and give it to him for the Sabres as long as he could move them to his ranch in Montana.

Perhaps a million things.  But not this, at least not based on just OSP's vague and unsupported statements:  OSP wasn't going to lose a ton of $$ to keep the Sabres in Buffalo. 

 

I agree that there are significant differences between the 3 situations.  But there is one overriding similarity:  it always comes down to the Benjamins, and if there is a significant net economic loss associated with keeping a team in city XYZ, including Buffalo, no sports league is going to insist on keeping a team in that city.

I am not going to sit here and keep watching B. Thomas Golisano continually denigrated on these points.  Here are the facts as I know them.  Disagree all you like; ignore me, ban me, block me, who cares -- but these are unimpeachable sources.  No, I will not take questions.

Bolded: I have a friend who wrote the contract.  The condition not to move the Sabres is in there and it should be iron clad.  Moreover, Larry Quinn would not have signed off on selling his part of the team had that stricture not be in the contract.  Moreover, the same friend was in on the contract talks between BTG, Jeremy Jacobs, and Robert Rich to ensure that the Bills do not leave.  BTG was the point person for the group because he came out and said, "I would not allow the Sabres leave the area because it is bad for the area.  I will do the same for the Bills," when asked after he sold the Sabres to Terry Pegula several years ago (I believe it was the next press conference).  Moreover, as it turned out, because the Sabres were largely very good and entertaining during his tenure (remember the season ticket waiting list?), he did not lose money on the Sabres overall in any season after The Great Lockout.  (Beforehand, he lost quite a bit.)

Italicised: I know from one of Jim Balsillie's late friends (who got me tickets to the World Series in Toronto and has luxury boxes in ACC and KBC; I have known his son for almost 40 years) that it was he who offered BTG 50% more than the team was valued to sell.  BTG had only one cast-iron condition: The Sabres could not leave Buffalo for 50 years, bankruptcy or no.  JB balked.  I have independent confirmation from multiple sources in the PHWA of these details.

Underlined: The NHL went out of its way to keep the Sabres in Buffalo during the bankruptcy.  Maybe after a decade of failure, we are not as important, but I don't think we've fallen off the table.  Moreover, LQ will fight tooth and nail to keep the team in Buffalo if it comes down to it.  That's aside from TP's daughters are big Sabres fans and view themselves as part of a Stanley Cup dynasty.  (That last bit is first-hand from their mouths during the 2nd intermission of the game 8 April 2011.)

[freester]

13 minutes ago, Marvin, Sabres Fan said:

I am not going to sit here and keep watching B. Thomas Golisano continually denigrated on these points.  Here are the facts as I know them.  Disagree all you like; ignore me, ban me, block me, who cares -- but these are unimpeachable sources.  No, I will not take questions.

Bolded: I have a friend who wrote the contract.  The condition not to move the Sabres is in there and it should be iron clad.  Moreover, Larry Quinn would not have signed off on selling his part of the team had that stricture not be in the contract.  Moreover, the same friend was in on the contract talks between BTG, Jeremy Jacobs, and Robert Rich to ensure that the Bills do not leave.  BTG was the point person for the group because he came out and said, "I would not allow the Sabres leave the area because it is bad for the area.  I will do the same for the Bills," when asked after he sold the Sabres to Terry Pegula several years ago (I believe it was the next press conference).  Moreover, as it turned out, because the Sabres were largely very good and entertaining during his tenure (remember the season ticket waiting list?), he did not lose money on the Sabres overall in any season after The Great Lockout.  (Beforehand, he lost quite a bit.)

Italicised: I know from one of Jim Balsillie's late friends (who got me tickets to the World Series in Toronto and has luxury boxes in ACC and KBC; I have known his son for almost 40 years) that it was he who offered BTG 50% more than the team was valued to sell.  BTG had only one cast-iron condition: The Sabres could not leave Buffalo for 50 years, bankruptcy or no.  JB balked.  I have independent confirmation from multiple sources in the PHWA of these details.

Underlined: The NHL went out of its way to keep the Sabres in Buffalo during the bankruptcy.  Maybe after a decade of failure, we are not as important, but I don't think we've fallen off the table.  Moreover, LQ will fight tooth and nail to keep the team in Buffalo if it comes down to it.  That's aside from TP's daughters are big Sabres fans and view themselves as part of a Stanley Cup dynasty.  (That last bit is first-hand from their mouths during the 2nd intermission of the game 8 April 2011.)

If Atlanta, a much larger and more affluent city,  can lose a team twice , Buffalo could easily lose a team.   We all need to be very thankful for the Pegulas and their desire to keep the teams in Buffalo. 

[nfreeman]

1 hour ago, Marvin, Sabres Fan said:

I am not going to sit here and keep watching B. Thomas Golisano continually denigrated on these points.  Here are the facts as I know them.  Disagree all you like; ignore me, ban me, block me, who cares -- but these are unimpeachable sources.  No, I will not take questions.

Bolded: I have a friend who wrote the contract.  The condition not to move the Sabres is in there and it should be iron clad.  Moreover, Larry Quinn would not have signed off on selling his part of the team had that stricture not be in the contract.  Moreover, the same friend was in on the contract talks between BTG, Jeremy Jacobs, and Robert Rich to ensure that the Bills do not leave.  BTG was the point person for the group because he came out and said, "I would not allow the Sabres leave the area because it is bad for the area.  I will do the same for the Bills," when asked after he sold the Sabres to Terry Pegula several years ago (I believe it was the next press conference).  Moreover, as it turned out, because the Sabres were largely very good and entertaining during his tenure (remember the season ticket waiting list?), he did not lose money on the Sabres overall in any season after The Great Lockout.  (Beforehand, he lost quite a bit.)

Italicised: I know from one of Jim Balsillie's late friends (who got me tickets to the World Series in Toronto and has luxury boxes in ACC and KBC; I have known his son for almost 40 years) that it was he who offered BTG 50% more than the team was valued to sell.  BTG had only one cast-iron condition: The Sabres could not leave Buffalo for 50 years, bankruptcy or no.  JB balked.  I have independent confirmation from multiple sources in the PHWA of these details.

Underlined: The NHL went out of its way to keep the Sabres in Buffalo during the bankruptcy.  Maybe after a decade of failure, we are not as important, but I don't think we've fallen off the table.  Moreover, LQ will fight tooth and nail to keep the team in Buffalo if it comes down to it.  That's aside from TP's daughters are big Sabres fans and view themselves as part of a Stanley Cup dynasty.  (That last bit is first-hand from their mouths during the 2nd intermission of the game 8 April 2011.)

You are certainly free not to take questions, and I appreciate this contribution, but still:

- there's a world of difference between "it is ironclad" and "it should be ironclad."

- LQ's arrangements with TG almost certainly required LQ to sell his share when TG sold the team. 

- What talks regarding the Bills was TG involved in?  Neither he nor Rich nor Jacobs owned the Bills.

- The Balsillie story is questionable, as there was no way the NHL was going to let Balsillie in as an owner after he tried to force his way in.

- LQ has zero ability to affect whether or not the Sabres stay here.

 

Having said all of that, I don't think there's a significant risk of the team moving or that the NHL wouldn't prefer for the team to stay in Buffalo.  The main reason I think the team is staying though is that I don't think the Pegulas want to sell. 

I also don't think TG was a bad guy.  I just think it's highly likely that the no-move clause probably evaporates if the Sabres don't hit certain financial results, and that that is an important factor that should be considered when praising TG and/or refusing to acknowledge the city's great good fortune that the Pegulas materialized, want to keep the team here and threw a ton of money at building the organization as well as the downtown area surrounding the arena.

 

 

 

[Sabres Fan in NS]

On 6/5/2020 at 10:50 AM, Taro T said:

Al Davis moved his Raiders twice against league wishes.  The NFL seems to be stronger than the NHL.  Really doubt the NHL could completely prevent a move by a determined out of town owner.  IMHO, the thing that gives Buffalo its greatest protection from losing its team is having well capitalized owners committed to staying in Buffalo.  

For the times, the Knoxes were that.  When they no longer were relatively, that's when the criminals got involved (fortunately, their business needed the Sabres to be viable in Buffalo even though their ethics were compromised). Golisano definitely fit the bill & the Pegulas raise that a notch, though their apparent ST cash flow issues are problematic.

This is the correct view on this matter.  I do not believe the Sabres will ever relocate.  While extremely unlikely, IMO it is more possible that they would fold instead, which I do not believe will ever happen.  So, we are stuck with them, warts and all ... LOL!!

I also do not believe for a second the short term cash flow nonsense coming out of the Pegula's mouths.

[Stoner]

16 minutes ago, New Scotland (NS) said:

This is the correct view on this matter.  I do not believe the Sabres will ever relocate.  While extremely unlikely, IMO it is more possible that they would fold instead, which I do not believe will ever happen.  So, we are stuck with them, warts and all ... LOL!!

I also do not believe for a second the short term cash flow nonsense coming out of the Pegula's mouths.

Aha! NS, of course! I'd love for you to expound on this, as this financial dum dum never understood how the Pegulas were reduced to eating boxed macaroni and cheese (which is better than any mac and cheese anywhere, any time).

[Stoner]

10 hours ago, nfreeman said:

I also don't think TG was a bad guy.  I just think it's highly likely that the no-move clause probably evaporates if the Sabres don't hit certain financial results, and that that is an important factor that should be considered when praising TG and/or refusing to acknowledge the city's great good fortune that the Pegulas materialized, want to keep the team here and threw a ton of money at building the organization as well as the downtown area surrounding the arena.

I've acknowledged it, several times. I even wrote that Terry is almost everything you want in an owner — except for the meddling, the not hiring good people and getting out of the way. People can say he's changed, that he's focused on the Bills, then I hear about him watching game film and calling JB up to three times a day. Parole is denied ipso facto (U.S. vs. Soupy Sales circa 1975, Peoples Court that lady with the broken bird feeder).

[Stoner]

11 hours ago, Marvin, Sabres Fan said:

I am not going to sit here and keep watching B. Thomas Golisano continually denigrated on these points.  Here are the facts as I know them.  Disagree all you like; ignore me, ban me, block me, who cares -- but these are unimpeachable sources.  No, I will not take questions.

Bolded: I have a friend who wrote the contract.  The condition not to move the Sabres is in there and it should be iron clad.  Moreover, Larry Quinn would not have signed off on selling his part of the team had that stricture not be in the contract.  Moreover, the same friend was in on the contract talks between BTG, Jeremy Jacobs, and Robert Rich to ensure that the Bills do not leave.  BTG was the point person for the group because he came out and said, "I would not allow the Sabres leave the area because it is bad for the area.  I will do the same for the Bills," when asked after he sold the Sabres to Terry Pegula several years ago (I believe it was the next press conference).  Moreover, as it turned out, because the Sabres were largely very good and entertaining during his tenure (remember the season ticket waiting list?), he did not lose money on the Sabres overall in any season after The Great Lockout.  (Beforehand, he lost quite a bit.)

Italicised: I know from one of Jim Balsillie's late friends (who got me tickets to the World Series in Toronto and has luxury boxes in ACC and KBC; I have known his son for almost 40 years) that it was he who offered BTG 50% more than the team was valued to sell.  BTG had only one cast-iron condition: The Sabres could not leave Buffalo for 50 years, bankruptcy or no.  JB balked.  I have independent confirmation from multiple sources in the PHWA of these details.

Underlined: The NHL went out of its way to keep the Sabres in Buffalo during the bankruptcy.  Maybe after a decade of failure, we are not as important, but I don't think we've fallen off the table.  Moreover, LQ will fight tooth and nail to keep the team in Buffalo if it comes down to it.  That's aside from TP's daughters are big Sabres fans and view themselves as part of a Stanley Cup dynasty.  (That last bit is first-hand from their mouths during the 2nd intermission of the game 8 April 2011.)

While the Pegulas selling the team is my top choice, I'd accept the two adult kids taking over as acceptable. I'm guessing they're in their late 30s, early 40s. If they did a good job, they could be grooming the youngest trio to one day take over. I have no idea where they live and what their lives are like, but in as much as both are hockey fans (and at least one of them in said to be a big Sabres fan), it's hard to believe they would turn down the offer. Either way, hey hey, ho ho, Terry Pegula has got to go.

[Stoner]

Confirmed that Mike is about 43 and Laura is about 38 (couldn't nail down the exact birthdate). Their time is now!

[Stoner]

15 hours ago, nfreeman said:

Leaving aside the pleasant tone of your post, have you now come around to believing and trusting OSP?  When during his ownership tenure you had nothing but antipathy and mistrust for him?

Antipathy is a deep-seated feeling of dislike. I don't think my feelings about OSP went to that level. I am antipathetic towards TP for sure. Trust was never really the issue either. Like many fans (most?), I thought he was cheap. The co-captains, video scouting, not spending to the cap, keeping a status-quo GM, LQ of course, those were the issues. The day Harrington got Tom so flustered he blurted out that he gave Larry and Darce only one edict: at least break even was one of the greatest days of my life, right up there with the day my second wife, Vivian, died in a suspicious car crash.

With time feelings are smoothed out. We do it with presidents. Jimmy Carter was probably a disaster, but most remember him kindly enough. He restored a sense of decency to the White House and not one bullet was fired in anger during his term (most think some should have been, sure). It's like that with Tom. I mainly remember him now as the guy who truly saved the Sabres and brought, some how, some way, good times. He admitted not knowing a hockey puck from a meatball, yet a few years later he was standing with his hands on his head after Briere scored in OT in Game 6. That's my enduring image of him. Then... he went and sold the Sabres for much less than he could have gotten while putting a no-move clause in the contract.

Sitting here in 2020, my feelings about him 10 and 15 years ago cannot lead me to believe he was still a bum in February 2011.

[Brawndo]

3 hours ago, PASabreFan said:

Confirmed that Mike is about 43 and Laura is about 38 (couldn't nail down the exact birthdate). Their time is now!

Michael appears to be Persona non grata with Terry and Kim. His Twitter Account is not followed by any of the Official Team Accounts,  The Younger Ones all are.  When He and His Wife were expecting a child, he tweeted at the Sabres with the two of them holding a Sabres Onesie as the announcement. There was no response from the Sabres. I might be reading too much into this, but it matches with other rumblings I have heard.

So I would probably exclude him from taking over