X. Benedict Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 Well, he is offering to nearly TRIPLE the pay scale for an NHL head coach....and give him $50 million, who knows how much up front. So.....the "Small Market" revenue sharing thingie, where Sabres season ticket holders have seen their invoices go up 30% since Pegula purchased the team...and the on-ice results have gone cliff diving those 5 seasons..... How many people here defend Pegula because he HAS to raise prices for revenue sharing???? He HAS to!!! I'm sure setting the bar for a head coach like this will really lower costs league wide.....and in turn, the ticket holders. This move alone is going to to zap a solid $30-50 million a year from team profits....that is, unless they make it up somehow.....because they HAVE to!!! People can't keep trying to pop someone both ways. If you want Babcock at all costs.....you can't blame a guy for saying the revenue sharing issue is BS. It was to begin with. Huh? Coaches have nothing to do with sharing Hockey Related Revenue in the CBA. Coaches aren't even part of the CBA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 Huh? Coaches have nothing to do with sharing Hockey Related Revenue in the CBA. Coaches aren't even part of the CBA. I've been scratching my head for weeks now trying to figure out how what the team spends changes their revenue. Actually, things like this wind up creating at least a short term increase in revenue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 Huh? Coaches have nothing to do with sharing Hockey Related Revenue in the CBA. Coaches aren't even part of the CBA. Every team doesn't need 137 scouts....or an Omlette Station in the locker room...(and Espresso Bar!!). Every team, and owner, and business model......needs a head coach. Poor lil' small market, revenue sharing Buffalo just done gone out and offered close to 3x the $$$ to the projected former highest paid coach in the league. Do you think if Babcock signs for $50 million....the rest of the league is going to expect to average $1 million and change? Take it out of savings, take it out of checking.....your balance is about to go down...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 Every team doesn't need 137 scouts....or an Omlette Station in the locker room...(and Espresso Bar!!). Every team, and owner, and business model......needs a head coach. Poor lil' small market, revenue sharing Buffalo just done gone out and offered close to 3x the $$$ to the projected former highest paid coach in the league. Do you think if Babcock signs for $50 million....the rest of the league is going to expect to average $1 million and change? Take it out of savings, take it out of checking.....your balance is about to go down...... Call it what you will, but it has zero to do with revenue sharing or the CBA or how the pie is sliced up contractually. This is simply Pegula-money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastPommerFan Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 We're confusing profit and revenue again. Profit is not mentioned in the CBA and the players don't care about it because their pay is based off revenue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doohickie Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 So is there white smoke yet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 Call it what you will, but it has zero to do with revenue sharing or the CBA or how the pie is sliced up contractually. This is simply Pegula-money. We're confusing profit and revenue again. Profit is not mentioned in the CBA and the players don't care about it because their pay is based off revenue. Come on guys.....this isn't a CBA issue....it is a "I'm an owner of an NHL team and would like to make as much money as possible" issue. You both know the point I am making. Do you think ANY team is going to be happy with what Pegula has offered Babcock? If you are a true small market team that actually needs revenue sharing and can't afford a $50 million coach, (nobody has been able to afford a $20 million coach), then Pegula is giving it to you from both ends. He's waving his pompoms in your face, AND dipping into a welfare fund. And by dipping into the welfare fund, he is giving it to the fans as well. The top teams will be pissed with the offer, but at least they aren't taking the welfare money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kruppstahl Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 So is there white smoke yet? No, no new Pope. Wait! I mean, no new coach. Come on guys.....this isn't a CBA issue....it is a "I'm an owner of an NHL team and would like to make as much money as possible" issue. You both know the point I am making. Do you think ANY team is going to be happy with what Pegula has offered Babcock? If you are a true small market team that actually needs revenue sharing and can't afford a $50 million coach, (nobody has been able to afford a $20 million coach), then Pegula is giving it to you from both ends. He's waving his pompoms in your face, AND dipping into a welfare fund. And by dipping into the welfare fund, he is giving it to the fans as well. The top teams will be pissed with the offer, but at least they aren't taking the welfare money. As your avatar would suggest, I say: Dip it, whip it, and skip it! Two times over! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 Come on guys.....this isn't a CBA issue....it is a "I'm an owner of an NHL team and would like to make as much money as possible" issue. You both know the point I am making. Do you think ANY team is going to be happy with what Pegula has offered Babcock? If you are a true small market team that actually needs revenue sharing and can't afford a $50 million coach, (nobody has been able to afford a $20 million coach), then Pegula is giving it to you from both ends. He's waving his pompoms in your face, AND dipping into a welfare fund. And by dipping into the welfare fund, he is giving it to the fans as well. The top teams will be pissed with the offer, but at least they aren't taking the welfare money. Well, he is offering to nearly TRIPLE the pay scale for an NHL head coach....and give him $50 million, who knows how much up front. So.....the "Small Market" revenue sharing thingie, where Sabres season ticket holders have seen their invoices go up 30% since Pegula purchased the team...and the on-ice results have gone cliff diving those 5 seasons..... How many people here defend Pegula because he HAS to raise prices for revenue sharing???? He HAS to!!! I'm sure setting the bar for a head coach like this will really lower costs league wide.....and in turn, the ticket holders. This move alone is going to to zap a solid $30-50 million a year from team profits....that is, unless they make it up somehow.....because they HAVE to!!! People can't keep trying to pop someone both ways. If you want Babcock at all costs.....you can't blame a guy for saying the revenue sharing issue is BS. It was to begin with. Once again.....I'm not the one buying the tickets, so feel free to vote with your wallet. The 3rd season of Glee was just released on DVD..... I agree. He's setting a bad precedent that could raise issues in the near future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drunkard Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 I think it's pretty safe to assume yearly price increases regardless of how the team performs but at least Pegula is showing they are willing to continue to spend and not just pocket the additional money. Would the ones complaining rather he just pocket it or do you somehow think not offering to back up the Brinks truck to Babcock's front door is somehow going to lead to them stopping the annual price increases? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 I'm not excited by the numbers out there right now on Babcock, but if it gets him here then it's what matters to me. But we still don't know if those numbers are accurate. He's the only one reporting $50M. Others have reported $5-6M per which would mean that the $50M deal would need to be 8-10 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 I'm not excited by the numbers out there right now on Babcock, but if it gets him here then it's what matters to me. But we still don't know if those numbers are accurate. He's the only one reporting $50M. Others have reported $5-6M per which would mean that the $50M deal would need to be 8-10 years. Not necessarily. If they are giving him a signing bonus and other performance bonuses it could value the deal at 50mil but his actual yearly salary could be more like 6mil X5 or 6 years with a 10mil signing bonus. Add in other performance bonuses and you get 50mil over that 6 year span. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kruppstahl Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 I'm not excited by the numbers out there right now on Babcock, but if it gets him here then it's what matters to me. But we still don't know if those numbers are accurate. He's the only one reporting $50M. Others have reported $5-6M per which would mean that the $50M deal would need to be 8-10 years. The $50 million total package is not necessarily based on term x annual salary. A hefty signing bonus could easily be incorporated into the mix here. For example: 6 years, $6.5 million per year, $11 million signing bonus = $50 million. Or whatever else they decide to cook up to get Babs in the door. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 I didn't say the revenue sharing issue was BS. I didn't mention revenue sharing a-tall. I asked PAFan -- who has insinuated numerous times that since the Sabres were well under the cap this year, TP has gone cheap on them -- whether he still feels that way. He declined to answer. He also declined to answer whether he is on board with hiring Babcock. Both questions remain outstanding. As for GoDD's point: I can see the other owners being annoyed about the Sabres getting revenue sharing while opening up the vault for Babcock. However, in securing revenue sharing, the Sabres are just exercising their rights under the deal with the rest of the NHL. I would guess that plenty of other revenue sharing teams have spent big money on players here and there -- this is really no different from spending it on a coach in the context of whether the non-revenue-sharing owners are being taken advantage of. And the ticket price question has been done to death and is really neither here nor there in the context of Babcock's contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 (edited) Come on guys.....this isn't a CBA issue....it is a "I'm an owner of an NHL team and would like to make as much money as possible" issue. You both know the point I am making. Do you think ANY team is going to be happy with what Pegula has offered Babcock? If you are a true small market team that actually needs revenue sharing and can't afford a $50 million coach, (nobody has been able to afford a $20 million coach), then Pegula is giving it to you from both ends. He's waving his pompoms in your face, AND dipping into a welfare fund. And by dipping into the welfare fund, he is giving it to the fans as well. The top teams will be pissed with the offer, but at least they aren't taking the welfare money. I totally agree with this. And it will spill over into the public too. Everybody hates the spoiled rich guy — especially on top of tanking. If we start coming on, people will be hating on us out of jealousy. If we suck, people will enjoy rubbing it our faces. This is how the other half lives Sabrefans. Edited May 20, 2015 by dudacek Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 Come on guys.....this isn't a CBA issue....it is a "I'm an owner of an NHL team and would like to make as much money as possible" issue. You both know the point I am making. Do you think ANY team is going to be happy with what Pegula has offered Babcock? If you are a true small market team that actually needs revenue sharing and can't afford a $50 million coach, (nobody has been able to afford a $20 million coach), then Pegula is giving it to you from both ends. He's waving his pompoms in your face, AND dipping into a welfare fund. And by dipping into the welfare fund, he is giving it to the fans as well. The top teams will be pissed with the offer, but at least they aren't taking the welfare money. Actually it's a bit of both. TP is not going to be popular at the next owners meeting as he did just raise the cost of high-end coaching across the board. He will likely be popular with the players (and not just Sabres) as the owners will want to restore their profit margins back to what they are now (referring to when the new cost structure presumablby ripples through); and the way that happens is either by reducing costs (which just went up, so it's not likely that's happening) or by raising revenues (which the players essentially split 50-50 w/ ownership) so the increased coaching costs indirectly result in the salary cap going up which results in happy players. The way revenues go up whether it be through TV, tix, or concessions eventually comes from the fans. This won't be much of an issue in NYC (at least on Manhattan, it could be over in Brooklyn) or TO; but will not be helpful at all in AZ or FLA. As I'd stated in one of these threads earlier; I'm not happy with the Sabres doubling the top coaching salary (but wasn't overly concerned w/ the salary going up to $5MM/yr - go figure) as living in "small market land" is still too fresh in my memory to want to see the Sabres go into full out '90's Rags mode. And, if he's getting ~$5MM/yr; I'm ok w/ that as that seems to be about where his salary should be - again IMHO. Guess we'll find out where he lands tomorrow and what he's getting in a few days after that. I do want the Sabres to land Babcock; IMHO he is the top guy around currently; and maybe I'll come around to a "monstrous" salary for him as well, but right now there are some reservations. And I'd disagree that dipping into the "welfare fund" is giving it to the fans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 Well, he is offering to nearly TRIPLE the pay scale for an NHL head coach....and give him $50 million, who knows how much up front. So.....the "Small Market" revenue sharing thingie, where Sabres season ticket holders have seen their invoices go up 30% since Pegula purchased the team...and the on-ice results have gone cliff diving those 5 seasons..... How many people here defend Pegula because he HAS to raise prices for revenue sharing???? He HAS to!!! I'm sure setting the bar for a head coach like this will really lower costs league wide.....and in turn, the ticket holders. This move alone is going to to zap a solid $30-50 million a year from team profits....that is, unless they make it up somehow.....because they HAVE to!!! People can't keep trying to pop someone both ways. If you want Babcock at all costs.....you can't blame a guy for saying the revenue sharing issue is BS. It was to begin with. Once again.....I'm not the one buying the tickets, so feel free to vote with your wallet. The 3rd season of Glee was just released on DVD..... Since you don't buy tickets it doesn't matter, does it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony P Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 (edited) I'm a big fan of The c0ck. :blink: Ok, I know this is really late but......"the dwarf lives 'til we find c0ck merchant" Edited May 20, 2015 by Tony P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kruppstahl Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 Can't we take our collective panties out of a bunch and forget about these ancillary concerns for at least tonight? We don't even know if Babcock is coming to Buffalo, and if he does, well, who cares about the ancillary concerns. I personally have no stake, whatsoever, in the price structure associated with NHL coaching. Do you? Then why are we talking about it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 Can't we take our collective panties out of a bunch and forget about these ancillary concerns for at least tonight? We don't even know if Babcock is coming to Buffalo, and if he does, well, who cares about the ancillary concerns. I personally have no stake, whatsoever, in the price structure associated with NHL coaching. Do you? Then why are we talking about it? We're talking about it because we're interested in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Crotch Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 Only in Buffalo do people complain that the new owner is willing to pay top dollar for the best available coach. If Terry has enough money to do whatever he wants then... he should do whatever he wants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beerme1 Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 (edited) Well, he is offering to nearly TRIPLE the pay scale for an NHL head coach....and give him $50 million, who knows how much up front. So.....the "Small Market" revenue sharing thingie, where Sabres season ticket holders have seen their invoices go up 30% since Pegula purchased the team...and the on-ice results have gone cliff diving those 5 seasons..... How many people here defend Pegula because he HAS to raise prices for revenue sharing???? He HAS to!!! I'm sure setting the bar for a head coach like this will really lower costs league wide.....and in turn, the ticket holders. This move alone is going to to zap a solid $30-50 million a year from team profits....that is, unless they make it up somehow.....because they HAVE to!!! People can't keep trying to pop someone both ways. If you want Babcock at all costs.....you can't blame a guy for saying the revenue sharing issue is BS. It was to begin with. Once again.....I'm not the one buying the tickets, so feel free to vote with your wallet. The 3rd season of Glee was just released on DVD..... Gotta say man, as a season ticket holder who feels the beating year over year (doesn't everything in life work like that?) this would be a reward to me. Terry has tried in the past and failed with Darcy. I want to say this in a way that doesn't offend me. It 's nice to have an owner swinging a big Bab co ck! :w00t: Time to have some fun after years of garbage. Same thing for Bills STH. Good times are near my man. Don't get off the wagon. Most exciting times losers have seen and the ride up is going to be the best ever. We have earned this as fans. Edited May 20, 2015 by beerme1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matter2003 Posted May 20, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 I didn't say the revenue sharing issue was BS. I didn't mention revenue sharing a-tall. I asked PAFan -- who has insinuated numerous times that since the Sabres were well under the cap this year, TP has gone cheap on them -- whether he still feels that way. He declined to answer. He also declined to answer whether he is on board with hiring Babcock. Both questions remain outstanding. As for GoDD's point: I can see the other owners being annoyed about the Sabres getting revenue sharing while opening up the vault for Babcock. However, in securing revenue sharing, the Sabres are just exercising their rights under the deal with the rest of the NHL. I would guess that plenty of other revenue sharing teams have spent big money on players here and there -- this is really no different from spending it on a coach in the context of whether the non-revenue-sharing owners are being taken advantage of. And the ticket price question has been done to death and is really neither here nor there in the context of Babcock's contract. Pegula and cheap should never be used in the same sentence. He has shown he is unafraid of spending whatever he needs to spend to get what he wants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 Can't we take our collective panties out of a bunch and forget about these ancillary concerns for at least tonight? We don't even know if Babcock is coming to Buffalo, and if he does, well, who cares about the ancillary concerns. I personally have no stake, whatsoever, in the price structure associated with NHL coaching. Do you? Then why are we talking about it? Only in Buffalo do you find fans turning their team getting the top coach into a crisis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kruppstahl Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 We're talking about it because we're interested in it. Yes, but why? Pegula and cheap should never be used in the same sentence. He has shown he is unafraid of spending whatever he needs to spend to get what he wants. This is quite true. 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.