All About Ted Nolan

[SwampD]

But yet you talk about 'the guy in the oven room ... getting his pension stolen' when that didn't happen at all. The guys in 'the oven room' were on the same page w/ management. The drivers lost.

 

So when workers are on opposite sides, which side do you choose?

 

I've paid into a pension for 20 years. My own money, that came out of my take home pay. I have ZERO confidence that I will see any of that money when I retire do to some "corporate restructuring" (that's a nice Orwellian term) and have planned accordingly. I will view it as having been stolen, but I'm sure someone's unreasonable benefits will be to blame. I mean why does someone need a health plan after they've worked for a company for 30 years? That exec really needed his $20 million buyout after only being there 30 months.

 

In my perfect world, corporate execs, sorry, job creators, care more about creating jobs and keeping them than they do about raiding the cupboards before they burn the house down.

[LastPommerFan]

You are right that the owner of a corp cannot be legally forced to fund more equity, but if he doesn't want to do so, his only choice is to walk away and let the corp/team go bankrupt, which almost guarantees losing all of the equity -- which is what Moyes did. If he doesn't want that to happen, and there are operating losses, he needs to fund more equity -- which is what the owners of the Thrashers and just about every other money-losing team did and do.

 

The equity is only recaptured (or, if you prefer, "recuperated") upon sale IF the purchase price is sufficent to zero out the debt AND repay the equity that has been invested. There is no guarantee that this will happen -- it sure has heck didn't happen in the cases of the Coyotes and the Thrashers.

 

As for whether debt is transferred to new ownership -- this is a negotiated point -- and in any case is factored into the purchase price -- so e.g. a $150MM purchase price could be made up of $100MM in cash and $50MM in assumption of debt. And when the assumed debt is a material amount, it almost always means there is little to no equity "recuperation" benefitting the seller.

 

As for appreciating franchise values -- since your premise about operating losses is flawed, you are missing the real economic picture. If someone buys a team for $100MM, has to cover $75MM in operating losses over the next 10 years, and then sells the team for $140MM -- that's not a $40MM gain, it's a $35MM loss.

 

Let me ask you this: do you think there will be a number of bidders for the Bills at, say, an $800MM purchase price IF said bidders do not receive assurances from the NFL that they can move the team?

 

He actually has several choices, other than additional equity, two of which moyes took advantage of: He can loan the money to the corporation and become a creditor, rather than a share holder, or he can essentially force the league to fund the loss.

 

Moyes, and Gretzky, indeed did choose to self fund through debt, rather than additional equity, and the Bankruptcy court ruled, against the NHL's argument, that, indeed, they were legitimate creditors and entitled to some recuperation.

 

I'm not arguing that this endeavor has ZERO risk, I am arguing that it is significantly safer than most corporate equity investments. All of this as a result of several circumstances unique to sports. Would you claim that sports ownership is more risky that owning the Common Stock of a typical fortune 500 company?

 

 

In the assumed debt example, assuming the owner funded the required capital through self issued debt, rather than equity, you do not add the operating losses covered to the initial equity. The debt remains an asset to the former owner, so the capital gain is a simple sale price - purchase price equation, and the former owner walks away with a gain and a new owner obligated to repay the operating losses over some period of time.

 

As to you last question, no I don't expect that, which is why I expect the league to allow relocation, with a hefty relocation fee for the rest of the owners. The NFL is certainly, more than any other league, interested in maximum return for it's owners.

 

I've paid into a pension for 20 years. My own money, that came out of my take home pay. I have ZERO confidence that I will see any of that money when I retire do to some "corporate restructuring" (that's a nice Orwellian term) and have planned accordingly. I will view it as having been stolen, but I'm sure someone's unreasonable benefits will be to blame. I mean why does someone need a health plan after they've worked for a company for 30 years? That exec really needed his $20 million buyout after only being there 30 months.

 

In my perfect world, corporate execs, sorry, job creators, care more about creating jobs and keeping them than they do about raiding the cupboards before they burn the house down.

 

A world where industrial leaders care more about creating jobs than profits is communism. I mean that literally. I don't want to see that. Let's put some tighter child safety locks on the corporate cupboards, but I don't want business decisions to be based on hiring and retaining the maximum number of people.

[nfreeman]

He actually has several choices, other than additional equity, two of which moyes took advantage of: He can loan the money to the corporation and become a creditor, rather than a share holder, or he can essentially force the league to fund the loss.

 

Moyes, and Gretzky, indeed did choose to self fund through debt, rather than additional equity, and the Bankruptcy court ruled, against the NHL's argument, that, indeed, they were legitimate creditors and entitled to some recuperation.

 

I'm not arguing that this endeavor has ZERO risk, I am arguing that it is significantly safer than most corporate equity investments. All of this as a result of several circumstances unique to sports. Would you claim that sports ownership is more risky that owning the Common Stock of a typical fortune 500 company?

 

 

In the assumed debt example, assuming the owner funded the required capital through self issued debt, rather than equity, you do not add the operating losses covered to the initial equity. The debt remains an asset to the former owner, so the capital gain is a simple sale price - purchase price equation, and the former owner walks away with a gain and a new owner obligated to repay the operating losses over some period of time.

 

As to you last question, no I don't expect that, which is why I expect the league to allow relocation, with a hefty relocation fee for the rest of the owners. The NFL is certainly, more than any other league, interested in maximum return for it's owners.

 

Forcing the league to fund the losses was not an additional option -- it was a consequence of walking away and declaring bankruptcy.

 

And funding the operating losses by "loaning" money to the team is also not an additional option -- the BR court in the Coyotes case, as all BR courts in this situation do, viewed it as subordinated to the claims of the "true" creditors (i.e. third-party creditors) -- i.e. that kind of "loan" is treated as equity. It may be senior to the equity of the other owners, if there are any, but it is discharged in bankruptcy and is only paid if and to the extent that there is money left over after the real creditors are paid. An owner can't magically convert equity to debt by just calling it debt -- and Moyes sure as heck isn't getting his operating losses repaid by the NHL over time.

 

As for your question about whether owning a sports team is riskier than investing in the stock market -- I would say that investing $200MM in a sports team is less risky than investing $200MM in Apple stock -- but much riskier than investing $200MM in an S&P 500 index.

[SwampD]

A world where industrial leaders care more about creating jobs than profits is communism. I mean that literally. I don't want to see that. Let's put some tighter child safety locks on the corporate cupboards, but I don't want business decisions to be based on hiring and retaining the maximum number of people.

Socialism, not communism, and I'm fine with a certain level of it.

[darksabre]

 

Socialism, not communism, and I'm fine with a certain level of it.

 

We're clearly not getting it right at the moment, that's for sure.

[Doohickie]

Since the other thread has gone off the tracks regarding Twinkies and finances, it's time to start fresh.

 

When we last left out interim coach, he was on the verge of signing a contract that would remove the Interim tag from his title. Has anyone heard if he's signed yet?

[LastPommerFan]

Forcing the league to fund the losses was not an additional option -- it was a consequence of walking away and declaring bankruptcy.

 

And funding the operating losses by "loaning" money to the team is also not an additional option -- the BR court in the Coyotes case, as all BR courts in this situation do, viewed it as subordinated to the claims of the "true" creditors (i.e. third-party creditors) -- i.e. that kind of "loan" is treated as equity. It may be senior to the equity of the other owners, if there are any, but it is discharged in bankruptcy and is only paid if and to the extent that there is money left over after the real creditors are paid. An owner can't magically convert equity to debt by just calling it debt -- and Moyes sure as heck isn't getting his operating losses repaid by the NHL over time.

 

As for your question about whether owning a sports team is riskier than investing in the stock market -- I would say that investing $200MM in a sports team is less risky than investing $200MM in Apple stock -- but much riskier than investing $200MM in an S&P 500 index.

 

The NHL was funding the team prior to the bankruptcy. So no, it was not a consequence of the Bankruptcy. In fact, the NHL argued, ineffectively, that Moyes could not take the team into Chapter Eleven, because they were running the team.

 

Moyes lost a bunch of money on the phoenix debacle, but he didn't lose everything. The bankruptcy filing list $108M in debts, $104M of which were to Moyes himself, so no matter how they cut the payment of creditors, he got some of his. Also, Moyes is the exception. the other 99% of sports team transactions over the last three decades have been largely profitable. Moyes maybe lost 60-70% of his investment, which, interestingly, is approximately what the S&P 500 lost in that same time period (2006-2009).

 

Again, I'm not saying it's risk free, but these guys aren't putting their neck on the line like say, a private equity group buying a steel mill in Ohio. There are a bunch of unique-to-sports safeguards in place for big four sports owners.

 

Socialism, not communism, and I'm fine with a certain level of it.

 

It's all a sliding scale of grays (and reds), I suppose, but Ted Nolan sure as hell should be kept employed, regardless of the profit motive.

[Eleven]

Since the other thread has gone off the tracks regarding Twinkies and finances, it's time to start fresh.

 

When we last left out interim coach, he was on the verge of signing a contract that would remove the Interim tag from his title. Has anyone heard if he's signed yet?

 

He stated yesterday that his agent and the Sabres were down to brass tacks but were playing phone tag. My paraphrase.

Edited March 26, 2014 by Eleven

[Doohickie]

He stated yesterday that his agent and the Sabres were down to brass tacks but were playing phone tag. My paraphrase.

 

Thanks. I actually posted that post to a new thread because of all the other chatter than is in this one; seems like no one was talking about Nolan anymore. But the moderators merged it into this one.

Edited March 26, 2014 by Neuvirths Glove

[MattPie]

Who doesn't. (Though they can't hold a candle to a Ho-Ho. ;))

 

early 20s: loved Twinkies and ho-hos.

late 30s: I'd only eat them if I'd never had a home-made baked good in my life. They taste like plastic (but not as bad as Little Debbie's imposters).

[dEnnis the Menace]

early 20s: loved Twinkies and ho-hos.

late 30s: I'd only eat them if I'd never had a home-made baked good in my life. They taste like plastic (but not as bad as Little Debbie's imposters).

 

Try deep fried twinkies...

[apuszczalowski]

Since the other thread has gone off the tracks regarding Twinkies and finances, it's time to start fresh.

 

When we last left out interim coach, he was on the verge of signing a contract that would remove the Interim tag from his title. Has anyone heard if he's signed yet?

You could just get this whole discussion back on track by finding out if Nolan likes eating Twinkies/hostess products, and if he ever lost a ton of money on bad investments...........

 

early 20s: loved Twinkies and ho-hos.

late 30s: I'd only eat them if I'd never had a home-made baked good in my life. They taste like plastic (but not as bad as Little Debbie's imposters).

I wonder if this has more to do with changes in your tastes, or with changes to the quality of the product itself. I have noticed over the years some of the Hostess stuff has been tasting a little bit different....

[MattPie]

Try deep fried twinkies...

 

Oh, I have (and Snickers as well), but they still taste plastic.

[dEnnis the Menace]

Oh, I have (and Snickers as well), but they still taste plastic.

 

I thought they were amazing! as well as deep fried oreos!

[I am Defecting]

 

Well, this is just a bunch of incoherent psychobabble.

 

That's an important point. I don't think that it was unintelligible, but I'll give your criticism the attention that it deserves later this evening in a well-reasoned and structured response. Kudos

[Johnny DangerFace]

 

 

That's an important point. I don't think that it was unintelligible, but I'll give your criticism the attention that it deserves later this evening in a well-reasoned and structured response. Kudos

 

 

NOOOOOOOO.....

 

 

Just PM it to him or something.

[I am Defecting]

 

 

 

NOOOOOOOO.....

 

 

Just PM it to him or something.

 

Nah... I think I owe it to him.

 

 

Well, this is just a bunch of incoherent psychobabble.

 

Pardon me for taking so long to follow up. I was just about to respond, when my phone started vibrating. It was my alarm, signaling to me that it was time to go and pick up the chicken wings that I had ordered.

 

I got into the car, and headed out to the bar. There were a lot of people drinking there, but my order was take-out. I don’t drink anymore, and I feel a little uncomfortable around that scene. I had a vague fear that somebody would buy me shot. Worst case scenario, they’d get in my face about it. They were all drunk and merry, and I may have looked emotionless, like someone who could use a stiff drink. I didn’t want to take any chances, so I beat a retreat for the door as soon as soon as a paid for my wings.

 

They were hot wings. The sauce was good, but the wings were soggy. Why is it that I have to ask for extra crispy wings in order to get crispy wings? I remember as a teen, going out with friends for 10 cent wings, and they were big, and crispy, and the sauce would burn your face off. I paid 75 cents a piece tonight, and it’s like someone boiled and threw some sauce on them.

 

I would have been better off cooking my own wings. Tell you what, to save some money, I’ve been known to fry up some chicken legs, wing style, and it isn’t bad at all. It’s all about the oil temp. It’s funny, how legs cost so much less than wings nowadays. Someone ought to put wing style legs on the menu, and call them ostrich wings, or something like that. What do you think? Crazy?

 

I wonder what Ted Nolan would have done in my situation. He probably would have been polite about it, but he would have brought the wings back. He's not willing to put up with lack of effort, but he has his image to think about too. Do you think the cook at the bar was drunk? I would probably drink all the time if I worked at a bar. What do you think Nolan would have done if he found out? Do you think he would have put his arm around the guy, and been like, "we've all been there, but you've got a fryer to think about," or do you think he would have been hard on the guy?

 

I'm surprised that the Secret Service guy that was found passed out in the hallway didn't lose his job, but I'd be interested to hear how you think that Ted Nolan would have handled the situation.

 

 

[LastPommerFan]

:-)

[SwampD]

I think you need to find a new wing joint.

[Johnny DangerFace]

Iv always wondered this, but do most people prefer small chicken wings or the jumbo ones?

 

I live the small, crispy, extra saucy ones

[LGR4GM]

Down here they call them Buffalo Wings... it erks me. Also Jumbo wings would confuse the f##k out of ppl in this town.

[Taro T]

Down here they call them Buffalo Wings... it erks me. Also Jumbo wings would confuse the f##k out of ppl in this town.

EVERY PLACE outside of upstate NY calls 'em Buffalo wings. That's one you'll need to learn to accept.

 

The insistance of such a preponderance of places to bread 'em is what erk'd [sic] me.

[LGR4GM]

EVERY PLACE outside of upstate NY calls 'em Buffalo wings. That's one you'll need to learn to accept.

 

The insistance of such a preponderance of places to bread 'em is what erk'd [sic] me.

RIGHT! And they have Boneless Breaded Wings... don't lie to me those are chicken nuggets with hot sauce on them!

[I am Defecting]

Iv always wondered this, but do most people prefer small chicken wings or the jumbo ones?

 

I live the small, crispy, extra saucy ones

 

I think that the smaller ones taste better, but the jumbo's are better value. A lot of it will depend on how hungry I am, and how much capital I have, as to which I prefer on any given day. In a perfect socialist society, in which great chicken wings are a right of man, and not a luxury for the privileged few, I'd be happier with the smaller wings. Most days, though, seeing as I am on the maximum allowable benefit for food stamps, which equates to $6.30 per day per individual, and have little to show for my 40 hour work week, after collecting my meager paycheck, my thoughts turn to filling my stomach most cost-effectively, and I opt the roaster, or jumbo wing.

 

Some people prefer an older gamier tasting chicken, but in general, as a rule, the older a chicken gets, the tougher, and coarser it tastes. Modern hybrid chickens are slaughtered at 7-8 weeks and marketed at broilers, or slightly heavier fryers, and these birds make the better tasting wings. These are the wings of the bourgeoisie. They are most often neatly arranged on a plate, with celery, carrots, and a dainty wipe.

 

Many wing joints in the Buffalo, however, advertise their fare as "roaster wings," meaning they are bigger, though coarser, having come from a chicken that was slaughtered at 10 weeks and gained the subsequent mass. These are the wings of the proletariat, and they come in a cardboard box. This is a roundabout way of saying, that in a better, kinder, gentler world I'd be happily nibbling on dainty little gems; but in this cruel and oppressive Capital Dictatorship, I am eager to gnaw on any old chicken bone that they throw to me.

 

 

 

 

[LastPommerFan]

I would like your permission to bundle them and market them as a cubist novella.