nfreeman Posted March 25, 2014 Report Share Posted March 25, 2014 It's kind of a red herring, though. Golisano "lost" money every year yet somehow left 80MM richer. Not a bad return after only 5 years (or whatever it was). Owning a sports team is like flipping a house. The only question is are we just getting some new paint and tile and maybe some eye catching landscaping that looks great from the street, or are we getting the new en suite, walk-in closet and open floor plan when he sells it. It's like flipping a house in the sense that you have the upside and the risk of ownership, but it's different in that you can get killed by operating deficits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted March 25, 2014 Report Share Posted March 25, 2014 It's like flipping a house in the sense that you have the upside and the risk of ownership, but it's different in that you can get killed by operating deficits. There is no risk. Show me one owner that walked away with less money after they sold their team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted March 25, 2014 Report Share Posted March 25, 2014 (edited) There is no risk. Show me one owner that walked away with less money after they sold their team. The prior owner of the Coyotes. There's no such thing as no risk, especially in the NHL. The risk in fact is huge. There could be a major terrorist attack tomorrow and the value of NHL franchises could be cut in half. Edited March 25, 2014 by nfreeman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted March 25, 2014 Report Share Posted March 25, 2014 The prior owner of the Coyotes. There's no such thing as no risk, especially in the NHL. The risk in fact is huge. There could be a major terrorist attack tomorrow and the value of NHL franchises could be cut in half. Factor in all the losses he wrote off while he owned them, fold in some debt from other places, claim chapter 11 and wipe it all clean. There is no way Jerry Moyes left with less money after he gave the team up than before he got the team. There is no risk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I am Defecting Posted March 25, 2014 Report Share Posted March 25, 2014 (edited) I won't pretend that you were asking about Pegula's personal income. You were making the point that he wouldn't invest in the Sabres and the Harbor Center on a profit motive. That's the point that I will address, but it's worth noting that Pegula's estimated worth is 3 billion. That's not all in the bank, but if 2 billion of it were earning 2.5%, then he brings home $50 million every year, or an estimated $155 million interest since he bought the team. For a Florida resident, there's no state tax on that income. From what I understand, the NY state income tax for his bracket would be 8.82%, equaling $4,410,000 yearly, or an estimated $13,597,000 taxes that he has evaded, since he bought the team, by residing in Boca Raton, "Rat's Mouth," Florida, rather than Buffalo, "Beautiful River," NY. That's beside the point. The real reason that he lives in Rat's Mouth, as he was quick to point out, is that his daughter plays at tennis. That doesn't explain why East Management LLC has supposed headquarters in Florida, when much of their business is way up in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Our Fair City. I will spare everyone the trouble of looking it up, when I say that the corporate income tax rate (5.5%) in Florida is lower than in all of these other states. That's great if you're trying to make a profit, but if you're receiving $37 million in tax breaks, from Buffalo, and NYS, for your HarborCenter project, then it pays to also be headquartered in New York State. I'm not an accountant, and the lines are getting all blurry. If I were to guess, then I'd say that the profits get funneled to Florida, and the expenses get filed in New York. But that's beside the point. Want to work for the Sabres? This job was posted 5 days ago. http://www.linkedin.com/jobs2/view/12911386 "East Management Services, LP (EMS) is seeking an engineer with extensive drilling and production experience for a position based in its Pittsburgh, PA oil and gas headquarters. The position requires regular travel to fields within the Appalachian Basin and EMS’s Denver oil & gas office." That's the company that Joe Battista and Ed Kilgore now work for. I thought Pegula said, that if he wanted to make a profit, then.. why that carpet baggin' son of a... for God's sake Kilgore, why?! Now, at last, I will address the contention, that Pegula bought the Sabres as a dream, and is building the new ice complex, not for profit. And you say that I am crazy. If you believe that the NHL that has forced him to raise ticket prices; If you believe that $7 nachos, and $9 pints are the price of doing business; if you think for one minute that parking, ice time, room and board will be free in Hockey Heaven; and that the only way to win, is to lose with a league minimum salary cap figure, then you are the crazy one. He is not losing money, no, actually, he is taking what was yours. For those of you who live in the real Buffalo, and not the imagined Buffalo that will crumble without Terry, you know that the price of homes on the West Side are eclipsing 100k. They are talking about the Fruit Belt becoming gentrified. Warren Buffett is going to buy the Sabres, and we don't need no stinking-tax-evading, fake-write-off taking, guilt-trippin' wannabe-fanbois mooching off our hard-working, tax-payin', die-hard Sabres-cheering city. We don't need Pegula's greedy minstrels, telling us what to buy, and how to think. So go back to yer coal mine, chumps! We got windmills! Edited March 25, 2014 by Marcellus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted March 25, 2014 Report Share Posted March 25, 2014 Factor in all the losses he wrote off while he owned them, fold in some debt from other places, claim chapter 11 and wipe it all clean. There is no way Jerry Moyes left with less money after he gave the team up than before he got the team. There is no risk. This is not an answer -- it's just "these rich businessmen, they take writeoffs, they move stuff around, they declare bankruptcy and they screw us all." It's nonsensical, classic WNY fear and loathing of the wealthy. If there is no risk, why did it take the NHL 4 years to find a buyer for the Coyotes? And for that matter why did the NHL have to take over the Sabres? And why was no one other than TG interested in buying the Sabres -- and then only at a bargain-bin price? News flash: wealthy people lose money on investments all the time. Moyes absolutely lost over $100MM -- and probably over $200MM on the Coyotes. They were losing money hand over fist while he owned them and he received only about $10MM out of the $140MM purchase price paid by the NHL. This was after paying about $40MM in cash plus contributing much more in real estate assets to buy the team. Separately, the Thrashers lost over $120MM before the owners had to give up and sell it to a Winnipeg buyer. If you buy a house and keep it for 20+ years, you probably won't lose money. But if you bought a house in Florida or Arizona or Nevada in 2006 and then needed to sell it in 2009 -- you probably learned the hard way that there was indeed risk in owning an expensive asset. I won't pretend that you were asking about Pegula's personal income. You were making the point that he wouldn't invest in the Sabres and the Harbor Center on a profit motive. That's the point that I will address, but it's worth noting that Pegula's estimated worth is 3 billion. That's not all in the bank, but if 2 billion of it were earning 2.5%, then he brings home $50 million every year, or an estimated $155 million interest since he bought the team. For a Florida resident, there's no state tax on that income. From what I understand, the NY state income tax for his bracket would be 8.82%, equaling $4,410,000 yearly, or an estimated $13,597,000 taxes that he has evaded, since he bought the team, by residing in Boca Raton, "Rat's Mouth," Florida, rather than Buffalo, "Beautiful River," NY. That's beside the point. The real reason that he lives in Rat's Mouth, as he was quick to point out, is that his daughter plays at tennis. That doesn't explain why East Management LLC has supposed headquarters in Florida, when much of their business is way up in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Our Fair City. I will spare everyone the trouble of looking it up, when I say that the corporate income tax rate (5.5%) in Florida is lower than in all of these other states. That's great if you're trying to make a profit, but if you're receiving $37 million in tax breaks, from Buffalo, and NYS, for your HarborCenter project, then it pays to also be headquartered in New York State. I'm not an accountant, and the lines are getting all blurry. If I were to guess, then I'd say that the profits get funneled to Florida, and the expenses get filed in New York. But that's beside the point. Want to work for the Sabres? This job was posted 5 days ago. http://www.linkedin....2/view/12911386 "East Management Services, LP (EMS) is seeking an engineer with extensive drilling and production experience for a position based in its Pittsburgh, PA oil and gas headquarters. The position requires regular travel to fields within the Appalachian Basin and EMS’s Denver oil & gas office." That's the company that Joe Battista and Ed Kilgore now work for. I thought Pegula said, that if he wanted to make a profit, then.. why that carpet baggin' son of a... for God's sake Kilgore, why?! Now, at last, I will address the contention, that Pegula bought the Sabres as a dream, and is building the new ice complex, not for profit. And you say that I am crazy. If you believe that the NHL that has forced him to raise ticket prices; If you believe that $7 nachos, and $9 pints are the price of doing business; if you think for one minute that parking, ice time, room and board will be free in Hockey Heaven; and that the only way to win, is to lose with a league minimum salary cap figure, then you are the crazy one. He is not losing money, no, actually, he is taking what was yours. For those of you who live in the real Buffalo, and not the imagined Buffalo that will crumble without Terry, you know that the price of homes on the West Side are eclipsing 100k. They are talking about the Fruit Belt becoming gentrified. Warren Buffett is going to buy the Sabres, and we don't need no stinking-tax-evading, fake-write-off taking, guilt-trippin' wannabe-fanbois mooching off our hard-working, tax-payin', die-hard Sabres-cheering city. We don't need Pegula's greedy minstrels, telling us what to buy, and how to think. So go back to yer coal mine, chumps! We got windmills! Well, this is just a bunch of incoherent psychobabble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted March 25, 2014 Report Share Posted March 25, 2014 This is not an answer -- it's just "these rich businessmen, they take writeoffs, they move stuff around, they declare bankruptcy and they screw us all." It's nonsensical, classic WNY fear and loathing of the wealthy. If there is no risk, why did it take the NHL 4 years to find a buyer for the Coyotes? And for that matter why did the NHL have to take over the Sabres? And why was no one other than TG interested in buying the Sabres -- and then only at a bargain-bin price? News flash: wealthy people lose money on investments all the time. Moyes absolutely lost over $100MM -- and probably over $200MM on the Coyotes. They were losing money hand over fist while he owned them and he received only about $10MM out of the $140MM purchase price paid by the NHL. This was after paying about $40MM in cash plus contributing much more in real estate assets to buy the team. Separately, the Thrashers lost over $120MM before the owners had to give up and sell it to a Winnipeg buyer. If you buy a house and keep it for 20+ years, you probably won't lose money. But if you bought a house in Florida or Arizona or Nevada in 2006 and then needed to sell it in 2009 -- you probably learned the hard way that there was indeed risk in owning an expensive asset. I'd hate to cherry pick one thing when I agree with the rest of your post, but the "NHL taking over the Sabres" point is nonsense, and you know it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted March 25, 2014 Report Share Posted March 25, 2014 This is not an answer -- it's just "these rich businessmen, they take writeoffs, they move stuff around, they declare bankruptcy and they screw us all." It's nonsensical, classic WNY fear and loathing of the wealthy. If there is no risk, why did it take the NHL 4 years to find a buyer for the Coyotes? And for that matter why did the NHL have to take over the Sabres? And why was no one other than TG interested in buying the Sabres -- and then only at a bargain-bin price? News flash: wealthy people lose money on investments all the time. Moyes absolutely lost over $100MM -- and probably over $200MM on the Coyotes. They were losing money hand over fist while he owned them and he received only about $10MM out of the $140MM purchase price paid by the NHL. This was after paying about $40MM in cash plus contributing much more in real estate assets to buy the team. Separately, the Thrashers lost over $120MM before the owners had to give up and sell it to a Winnipeg buyer. If you buy a house and keep it for 20+ years, you probably won't lose money. But if you bought a house in Florida or Arizona or Nevada in 2006 and then needed to sell it in 2009 -- you probably learned the hard way that there was indeed risk in owning an expensive asset. This couldn't be further from the truth. I don't fear or hate the wealthy. In fact, I'd like to be wealthy someday. I'm just saying that it's what they do,… because it's what they do. Companies move debt and losses around all the time. Why do you think they stopped making Twinkies? It wasn't because people weren't eating Twinkies. And if someone bought a house in Florida in 2006, then they're as stupid as someone who would buy the Coyotes. The NHL took over because they wanted to keep them in Phoenix. If Moyes was allowed to sell to Balsillie, he would have come out ahead. I know that wealthy people lose money on investments all the time, but rarely when that investment is a sports team, and if they do, it's by design. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted March 25, 2014 Report Share Posted March 25, 2014 I'd hate to cherry pick one thing when I agree with the rest of your post, but the "NHL taking over the Sabres" point is nonsense, and you know it. Not sure what you mean here. The NHL had to take over the Sabres because no one was interested in buying them when Rigas went bankrupt. And the reason no one was interested in buying them was because of the risk (actually at that time more of a certainty) of financial loss. This couldn't be further from the truth. I don't fear or hate the wealthy. In fact, I'd like to be wealthy someday. I'm just saying that it's what they do,… because it's what they do. Companies move debt and losses around all the time. Why do you think they stopped making Twinkies? It wasn't because people weren't eating Twinkies. And if someone bought a house in Florida in 2006, then they're as stupid as someone who would buy the Coyotes. The NHL took over because they wanted to keep them in Phoenix. If Moyes was allowed to sell to Balsillie, he would have come out ahead. I know that wealthy people lose money on investments all the time, but rarely when that investment is a sports team, and if they do, it's by design. Your citing Twinkies just proved my point. "They" stopped making Twinkies because Hostess, the company that produced and sold them, went bankrupt. There was no sinister "they," nor was there any "moving profts and losses around" or other financial chicanery. Twinkies themselves were no doubt a profitable item for Hostess, but it was only one of many products made by Hostess, and their income did not support their cost structure, so they went bankrupt. You can rest assured that the owners of Hostess did not come away wealthier from the experience. (As it happens, another company bought Twinkies out of bankruptcy last year and has started manufacturing them again.) As for the NHL taking over -- yes -- they did so because they wanted to keep the Coyotes in Phoenix. Moyes knew when he bought the team that he wouldn't be allowed to sell it to anyone that wasn't approved by the NHL. That restriction was part of what he bought -- i.e. it was part of the risk he took on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted March 25, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 25, 2014 Not sure what you mean here. The NHL had to take over the Sabres because no one was interested in buying them when Rigas went bankrupt. And the reason no one was interested in buying them was because of the risk (actually at that time more of a certainty) of financial loss. The league needed someone to administer the team while in BK, so why not itself? Absolutely correct there. There was more than one interested buyer, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted March 25, 2014 Report Share Posted March 25, 2014 Not sure what you mean here. The NHL had to take over the Sabres because no one was interested in buying them when Rigas went bankrupt. And the reason no one was interested in buying them was because of the risk (actually at that time more of a certainty) of financial loss. Your citing Twinkies just proved my point. "They" stopped making Twinkies because Hostess, the company that produced and sold them, went bankrupt. There was no sinister "they," nor was there any "moving profts and losses around" or other financial chicanery. Twinkies themselves were no doubt a profitable item for Hostess, but it was only one of many products made by Hostess, and their income did not support their cost structure, so they went bankrupt. You can rest assured that the owners of Hostess did not come away wealthier from the experience. (As it happens, another company bought Twinkies out of bankruptcy last year and has started manufacturing them again.) As for the NHL taking over -- yes -- they did so because they wanted to keep the Coyotes in Phoenix. Moyes knew when he bought the team that he wouldn't be allowed to sell it to anyone that wasn't approved by the NHL. That restriction was part of what he bought -- i.e. it was part of the risk he took on. This is completely inaccurate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted March 25, 2014 Report Share Posted March 25, 2014 This is not an answer -- it's just "these rich businessmen, they take writeoffs, they move stuff around, they declare bankruptcy and they screw us all." It's nonsensical, classic WNY fear and loathing of the wealthy. If there is no risk, why did it take the NHL 4 years to find a buyer for the Coyotes? And for that matter why did the NHL have to take over the Sabres? And why was no one other than TG interested in buying the Sabres -- and then only at a bargain-bin price? News flash: wealthy people lose money on investments all the time. Moyes absolutely lost over $100MM -- and probably over $200MM on the Coyotes. They were losing money hand over fist while he owned them and he received only about $10MM out of the $140MM purchase price paid by the NHL. This was after paying about $40MM in cash plus contributing much more in real estate assets to buy the team. Separately, the Thrashers lost over $120MM before the owners had to give up and sell it to a Winnipeg buyer. If you buy a house and keep it for 20+ years, you probably won't lose money. But if you bought a house in Florida or Arizona or Nevada in 2006 and then needed to sell it in 2009 -- you probably learned the hard way that there was indeed risk in owning an expensive asset. Well, this is just a bunch of incoherent psychobabble. There were others, Mark Hamister was the other potential buyer but he lost out on them to Golisano Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted March 25, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 25, 2014 There were others, Mark Hamister was the other potential buyer but he lost out on them to Golisano Hamister comes immediately to mind, and I think there were other interested parties, too, but I can't take the time to dig through 2002 news today. Can we change the thread title to "some things about Ted Nolan, some things about Twinkies, and some other stuff"? (Just kidding. I know we have a long-standing tradition of thread divergence here and I like it.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted March 25, 2014 Report Share Posted March 25, 2014 This is completely inaccurate. Sorry, I would have written more but I have to go to work. It was going to be about distressed debt hedge funds or something like that. They are the "they" here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted March 25, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 25, 2014 Sorry, I would have written more but I have to go to work. It was going to be about distressed debt hedge funds or something like that. They are the "they" here. "They" is the union that didn't take Hostess seriously when informed that their demands would force a bankruptcy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastPommerFan Posted March 25, 2014 Report Share Posted March 25, 2014 Why did it take 4 years to sell the Coyotes? Because the people of Glendale stood up and said, "no, we will not carry the risk while you retain all the potential gain." In most pro-sport cities this doesn't happen. The city of Cincinnati took ALL the risk on the Bengals. Paul Brown et al. retained all the reward. Barring extraneous situations, the "risk" in owning a pro sports team is minimal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted March 25, 2014 Report Share Posted March 25, 2014 (edited) "They" is the union that didn't take Hostess seriously when informed that their demands would force a bankruptcy. The union was a convenient scapegoat for an ownership group that had no intention of making Twinkies. Kinda like tanking. oof Paging Marcellus. Edited March 25, 2014 by SwampD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted March 25, 2014 Report Share Posted March 25, 2014 The league needed someone to administer the team while in BK, so why not itself? Absolutely correct there. There was more than one interested buyer, though. Hamister comes immediately to mind, and I think there were other interested parties, too, but I can't take the time to dig through 2002 news today. Can we change the thread title to "some things about Ted Nolan, some things about Twinkies, and some other stuff"? (Just kidding. I know we have a long-standing tradition of thread divergence here and I like it.) IIRC, Hamister was the only other interested bidder (i.e. the only one that went beyond kicking the tires) and his bid didn't pass muster with the NHL because his ownership group didn't have enough equity. TG was effectively the only option. This is completely inaccurate. Sorry, I would have written more but I have to go to work. It was going to be about distressed debt hedge funds or something like that. They are the "they" here. You'll need to bring more facts to the table. What I posted is 100% accurate -- the company went out of business because of its financial results and sold off various pieces, including Twinkies, to different buyers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted March 25, 2014 Report Share Posted March 25, 2014 (edited) IIRC, Hamister was the only other interested bidder (i.e. the only one that went beyond kicking the tires) and his bid didn't pass muster with the NHL because his ownership group didn't have enough equity. TG was effectively the only option. You'll need to bring more facts to the table. What I posted is 100% accurate -- the company went out of business because of its financial results and sold off various pieces, including Twinkies, to different buyers. yup and the company that bought twinkie refused to agree to the unions demands from what I understood of the situation. So the unions went on strike Hostess said if they didn't come back they would liquidate the company and then they did indeed liquidate the company http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/national-international/NATL-Twinkies-Maker-Hostess-Going-Out-of-Business-179643161.html Edited March 25, 2014 by LGR4GM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted March 25, 2014 Report Share Posted March 25, 2014 yup and the company that bought twinkie refused to agree to the unions demands from what I understood of the situation. So the unions went on strike Hostess said if they didn't come back they would liquidate the company and then they did indeed liquidate the company http://www.nbclosang...-179643161.html This is what I mean about "fear and loathing of the wealthy." There was no shadowy "distressed debt hedge fund" that caused "they" to stop making Twinkies. The company couldn't stop losing money because of its cost structure. It wasn't "moving around profits and losses." So it went bankrupt and sold off various assets. This is what happens in a bankruptcy. More broadly, it's what happens in the world of big investments -- including sports teams. Some make money and some lose money -- and the bigger the investment, the bigger the potential for loss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted March 25, 2014 Report Share Posted March 25, 2014 This is what I mean about "fear and loathing of the wealthy." There was no shadowy "distressed debt hedge fund" that caused "they" to stop making Twinkies. The company couldn't stop losing money because of its cost structure. It wasn't "moving around profits and losses." So it went bankrupt and sold off various assets. This is what happens in a bankruptcy. More broadly, it's what happens in the world of big investments -- including sports teams. Some make money and some lose money -- and the bigger the investment, the bigger the potential for loss. Yea pretty much. I hate to say this because it is a slippery slope but in the case of Hostess they financially could not run the company at the level the Union thought it deserved and thus closed. The same things happen to hockey teams. Most teams aren't the Sabres with passionate fans and a billionaire owner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted March 25, 2014 Report Share Posted March 25, 2014 (edited) Why did it take 4 years to sell the Coyotes? Because the people of Glendale stood up and said, "no, we will not carry the risk while you retain all the potential gain." In most pro-sport cities this doesn't happen. The city of Cincinnati took ALL the risk on the Bengals. Paul Brown et al. retained all the reward. Barring extraneous situations, the "risk" in owning a pro sports team is minimal. No. It took 4 years because no credible buyer was interested in owning them based on the financial risk/reward proposition. Edited March 25, 2014 by nfreeman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted March 25, 2014 Report Share Posted March 25, 2014 Can we change the thread title to "some things about Ted Nolan, some things about Twinkies, and some other stuff"? Hmmm. Twinkies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted March 25, 2014 Report Share Posted March 25, 2014 "They" is the union that didn't take Hostess seriously when informed that their demands would force a bankruptcy. Correct. The teamsters fought bankruptcy hard. The bakers were on board as they had a reasonable deal and were where the value was added (thus the reason they had a reasonable deal). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted March 25, 2014 Report Share Posted March 25, 2014 This is what I mean about "fear and loathing of the wealthy." There was no shadowy "distressed debt hedge fund" that caused "they" to stop making Twinkies. The company couldn't stop losing money because of its cost structure. It wasn't "moving around profits and losses." So it went bankrupt and sold off various assets. This is what happens in a bankruptcy. More broadly, it's what happens in the world of big investments -- including sports teams. Some make money and some lose money -- and the bigger the investment, the bigger the potential for loss. Silver Point and Monarch are real entities. They really do exist. And they really do buy distressed debt and then move that debt around so that some are profitable and others become sacraficial lambs. I'm not passing a judgement on it, just saying that it is real and that it happens. It just always surprises me when everyone jumps on the guy in the oven room making 12 bucks an hour and gets his pension stolen for being unreasonable. Yet we look up to the silver-spooned douche sitting in his black glass office building in New Haven making millions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.