WildCard Posted August 18, 2016 Report Share Posted August 18, 2016 I don't know. But you were asking about before he met Kim. He said he didn't have the money to buy the Sabres in 2002 and he had already known Kim for over 10 years probably. (Moot point, as he has admitted he didn't know the Sabres were for sale anyway.) Ah, well fair enough Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted August 18, 2016 Report Share Posted August 18, 2016 (edited) A/B) Really? Say he cashed in some assets prior to buying the Sabres, couldn't he have bought the Bills? C) Exactly To the best of my recollection, Pegula didn't have really big money (not that any of us would sneeze at being worth a few hundred million) until certain natural resources were discovered on land his company owned. I believe the banned poster formerly known as Drane had the timeline all mapped out at some point so you could probably search it, but it was within the last decade that his personal wealth skyrocketed. I think he's even made mention of the fact that when Golisano bought the Sabres, he couldn't have, as he didn't have the resources at that time. Undoubtedly he was a wealthy man when he and Kim started dating and eventually got married, but he wasn't even close to a multibillionaire. So no, he couldn't have just cashed in some assets and purchased the Bills pre-Kim. Edited August 18, 2016 by TrueBlueGED Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted August 18, 2016 Report Share Posted August 18, 2016 To the best of my recollection, Pegula didn't have really big money (not that any of us would sneeze at being worth a few hundred million) until certain natural resources were discovered on land his company owned. I believe the banned poster formerly known as Drane had the timeline all mapped out at some point so you could probably search it, but it was within the last decade that his personal wealth skyrocketed. I think he's even made mention of the fact that when Golisano bought the Sabres, he couldn't have, as he didn't have the resources at that time. Undoubtedly he was a wealthy man when he and Kim started dating and eventually got married, but he wasn't even close to a multibillionaire. So no, he couldn't have just cashed in some assets and purchased the Bills pre-Kim. Alright, so now we wade into foggy territory and wonder who's responsible for that hike in profit. Do we dare? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted August 18, 2016 Report Share Posted August 18, 2016 It's iconic locally Maybe the stadium is, but the name isn't. Ralph's name never should have been on it anyway, since he was always bitching about the small market. Move games to Toronto for the money? Sure! Take my name off the stadium for money? Hell no! (I say this knowing full well the Toronto deal was worth substantially more than any naming rights deal. It's the optics maaaaan.) Alright, so now we wade into foggy territory and wonder who's responsible for that hike in profit. Do we dare? I'm not even remotely interested in venturing down that path, as we can't even begin to have the information necessary for such a venture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3putt Posted August 18, 2016 Report Share Posted August 18, 2016 A/B) Really? Say he cashed in some assets prior to buying the Sabres, couldn't he have bought the Bills? C) Exactly When they married East was a start up with about 300m in assets. They made their money primarily in real estate and mineral right acquisitions in the Marcelus Shale regions. They sold east for a multiple but retained privately some of the leaseholds in Kentucky and Tennessee. Everything that Terry earned from 300m on up is half hers. Individually "he" couldn't have bought the team without the combined wealth the was also hers. That's how it works when you say "for better or worse." Some times the better is really good but it is collective wealth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted August 18, 2016 Report Share Posted August 18, 2016 Maybe the stadium is, but the name isn't. Ralph's name never should have been on it anyway, since he was always bitching about the small market. Move games to Toronto for the money? Sure! Take my name off the stadium for money? Hell no! (I say this knowing full well the Toronto deal was worth substantially more than any naming rights deal. It's the optics maaaaan.) I'm not even remotely interested in venturing down that path, as we can't even begin to have the information necessary for such a venture. A) What do you say when you're going out to the stadium? :lol: B) Well, he was rich before, and rich after, so.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3putt Posted August 18, 2016 Report Share Posted August 18, 2016 Maybe the stadium is, but the name isn't. Ralph's name never should have been on it anyway, since he was always bitching about the small market. Move games to Toronto for the money? Sure! Take my name off the stadium for money? Hell no! (I say this knowing full well the Toronto deal was worth substantially more than any naming rights deal. It's the optics maaaaan.) I'm not even remotely interested in venturing down that path, as we can't even begin to have the information necessary for such a venture. Dick Cheney was responsible when he got the exemption in the Clean Water Act for disclosure of the contents of fracking fluid. Once the fracking was no longer subject to environmental laws and clean up costs, the value of shale gas rights went through the roof. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted August 18, 2016 Report Share Posted August 18, 2016 A) What do you say when you're going out to the stadium? :lol: B) Well, he was rich before, and rich after, so.... A) I just call it "the stadium". In fact, my only problem with the new naming rights deal is that it's apparently going to be a Field now, not a Stadium. Not a fan of that change. B) Sure, but $300 million isn't really in the same ballpark of rich as $3.5 billion. Dick Cheney was responsible when he got the exemption in the Clean Water Act for disclosure of the contents of fracking fluid. Once the fracking was no longer subject to environmental laws and clean up costs, the value of shale gas rights went through the roof. So I have to be thankful to a Sith lord for my football team remaining in Buffalo? :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3putt Posted August 18, 2016 Report Share Posted August 18, 2016 A) I just call it "the stadium". In fact, my only problem with the new naming rights deal is that it's apparently going to be a Field now, not a Stadium. Not a fan of that change. B) Sure, but $300 million isn't really in the same ballpark of rich as $3.5 billion. So I have to be thankful to a Sith lord for my football team remaining in Buffalo? :( You do...yes you do.For those with an interest in this issue I would recommend the documentary "Gasland". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted August 18, 2016 Report Share Posted August 18, 2016 A) I just call it "the stadium". In fact, my only problem with the new naming rights deal is that it's apparently going to be a Field now, not a Stadium. Not a fan of that change. B) Sure, but $300 million isn't really in the same ballpark of rich as $3.5 billion. So I have to be thankful to a Sith lord for my football team remaining in Buffalo? :( We all have our demons, in this case quite literally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted August 18, 2016 Report Share Posted August 18, 2016 Am I?. Yes. It's the same question; what has she done to earn the right of owner? Others have pointed to because she is married to him, close to him, and maybe she offered invaluable advice in his ear, or knows a lot about the business. I, personally, find this extremely hard to believe Try as I might, I can't understand what distinction you're trying to make. She earned the right to title of owner because she was kne of two (married) people who bought the team. When you buy something, you own it. I'm left to infer that you're saying because she's just his wife and he's the one with the money, she doesn't have a natural right to call herself an owner of the team, nor take on a FO position. Which--okely dokely, neighbour. The other stuff about not liking the way Pegula is allowing Brandon to run the teams (draft, stadium) doesn't really interest me that much. It will likely interest others. Good on 3putt for a 101 on marital property and the timing of the Pegulas' fortune growing from many millions to several billions. In all events, WC, I do hope you give some thought to what's being said here. Your take on what Mrs Pegula's rights are, and aren't, is one that could stand to grow, evolve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Posted August 18, 2016 Report Share Posted August 18, 2016 If you're the one who makes more money, and you ever tried to claim ownership to a higher percentage...how long do you think you'd be allowed to live in said house? :p You're on to something ... I'll throw this into the fire. When they purchased the Bills, Terry and Kim did so as joint owners with right of survivorship. From a legal standpoint that means upon either owners death, the asset in this case the Bills, would pass to the other without being subject to the defendants estate or estate tax. Terry even said that he expected Kim to survive him due to age differences. So the fact that both own it equally and one of the owners expects the other to outlive him and be an integral part of the franchise longer after he is gone, it makes sense that she is involved. It also helps defuse any talk of the team moving in the near future. As to the central question, Terry and Kim's combined ability to write a $1.4B check makes them qualified to be owners. The 1.4 wasn't Terry's or Kim's it was marital property. They both decided to spend it on the Bills. As to being mad at decisions made, your a fan, that accrues immediately. Whether your justified in thinking that your opinion matters to any owner, is where these arguments leave the rails. I have always maintained our opinions are our own and there is no fiduciary duty to anyone outside of shareholders and creditors. But that is just the way it is. You can get on the bus and get off anytime you want, but if you think you are going to influence the driver in any way I think is hubris. If Mrs. Neo DOES throw me out of the house, I'm showing up at yours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted August 18, 2016 Report Share Posted August 18, 2016 Apparently Ralph gave permission in 2024 to sell the naming rights.Stil not happy about it, but it takes some of the edge off of it Yes. Try as I might, I can't understand what distinction you're trying to make. She earned the right to title of owner because she was kne of two (married) people who bought the team. When you buy something, you own it. I'm left to infer that you're saying because she's just his wife and he's the one with the money, she doesn't have a natural right to call herself an owner of the team, nor take on a FO position. Which--okely dokely, neighbour. The other stuff about not liking the way Pegula is allowing Brandon to run the teams (draft, stadium) doesn't really interest me that much. It will likely interest others. Good on 3putt for a 101 on marital property and the timing of the Pegulas' fortune growing from many millions to several billions. In all events, WC, I do hope you give some thought to what's being said here. Your take on what Mrs Pegula's rights are, and aren't, is one that could stand to grow, evolve. We all have our opinions Smell. Please don't treat me like some rambling caveman though; that's the impression I get from this post. Probably not your intention however, so sorry if I'm jumping the gun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3putt Posted August 18, 2016 Report Share Posted August 18, 2016 You're on to something ... If Mrs. Neo DOES throw me out of the house, I'm showing up at yours. The key is under the mat :flirt: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted August 18, 2016 Author Report Share Posted August 18, 2016 What the actual happened in here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3putt Posted August 18, 2016 Report Share Posted August 18, 2016 We attempted to educate and inform instead of berate and belittle. I would call that a good thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted August 18, 2016 Report Share Posted August 18, 2016 We all have our opinions Smell. Please don't treat me like some rambling caveman though; that's the impression I get from this post. Probably not your intention however, so sorry if I'm jumping the gun I don't mean to treat you in any particular way. I'm responding to and trying to understand your position. I find your position (opinion) confusing, and possibly a little troubling on some level. It might help if you substantively responded to what I'd posted earlier today, or otherwise clarified what you mean when you talk about Mrs Pegula having, or not having, a right to do what she's doing with the team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted August 18, 2016 Report Share Posted August 18, 2016 I invent a Sabre-themed sex toy, the Simoanick, and it takes off. I make millions. I buy a sweet new crib and put the lady friend's name on the deed, because, ya know, you have to... duh... Has she earned the right to call herself owner of the house? Earn seems to be the hangup word here. The discussion I like better is whether sports owners in any way have earned the right to "run" their teams. It's the only industry I can think of where I would say no. You work your way up in the restaurant biz, learning all the ins and outs, and eventually get yourself that Boston Market franchise. Sure as hell, you go in on Day One and start running it. The lottery winner who just happens to love the chicken, not so much. I hope I win the PowerBall someday. I am going to buy Aud's law firm (assuming he works in a firm). I mean, I loved The Paper Chase, and I picked some stuff up from John Houseman, and I'd have some ideas on how to really run the place. Opinion might change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted August 18, 2016 Report Share Posted August 18, 2016 I invent a Sabre-themed sex toy, the Simoanick, and it takes off. I make millions. I buy a sweet new crib and put the lady friend's name on the deed, because, ya know, you have to... duh... Has she earned the right to call herself owner of the house? Earn seems to be the hangup word here. The discussion I like better is whether sports owners in any way have earned the right to "run" their teams. It's the only industry I can think of where I would say no. You work your way up in the restaurant biz, learning all the ins and outs, and eventually get yourself that Boston Market franchise. Sure as hell, you go in on Day One and start running it. The lottery winner who just happens to love the chicken, not so much. I hope I win the PowerBall someday. I am going to buy Aud's law firm (assuming he works in a firm). I mean, I loved The Paper Chase, and I picked some stuff up from John Houseman, and I'd have some ideas on how to really run the place. Opinion might change. That's illegal. Sorry. Back to my popcorn... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabel79 Posted August 18, 2016 Report Share Posted August 18, 2016 I invent a Sabre-themed sex toy, the Simoanick, and it takes off. I make millions. I buy a sweet new crib and put the lady friend's name on the deed, because, ya know, you have to... duh... Has she earned the right to call herself owner of the house? Earn seems to be the hangup word here. The discussion I like better is whether sports owners in any way have earned the right to "run" their teams. It's the only industry I can think of where I would say no. You work your way up in the restaurant biz, learning all the ins and outs, and eventually get yourself that Boston Market franchise. Sure as hell, you go in on Day One and start running it. The lottery winner who just happens to love the chicken, not so much. I hope I win the PowerBall someday. I am going to buy Aud's law firm (assuming he works in a firm). I mean, I loved The Paper Chase, and I picked some stuff up from John Houseman, and I'd have some ideas on how to really run the place. Opinion might change. WildCard, if you don't change now, this is your future... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted August 18, 2016 Author Report Share Posted August 18, 2016 (edited) I invent a Sabre-themed sex toy, the Simoanick, and it takes off. I make millions. I buy a sweet new crib and put the lady friend's name on the deed, because, ya know, you have to... duh... Has she earned the right to call herself owner of the house? Earn seems to be the hangup word here. The discussion I like better is whether sports owners in any way have earned the right to "run" their teams. It's the only industry I can think of where I would say no. You work your way up in the restaurant biz, learning all the ins and outs, and eventually get yourself that Boston Market franchise. Sure as hell, you go in on Day One and start running it. The lottery winner who just happens to love the chicken, not so much. I hope I win the PowerBall someday. I am going to buy Aud's law firm (assuming he works in a firm). I mean, I loved The Paper Chase, and I picked some stuff up from John Houseman, and I'd have some ideas on how to really run the place. Opinion might change. Edited August 18, 2016 by LGR4GM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted August 18, 2016 Report Share Posted August 18, 2016 I don't mean to treat you in any particular way. I'm responding to and trying to understand your position. I find your position (opinion) confusing, and possibly a little troubling on some level. It might help if you substantively responded to what I'd posted earlier today, or otherwise clarified what you mean when you talk about Mrs Pegula having, or not having, a right to do what she's doing with the team. I thought I had. If not,that post from PA pretty much sums it up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted August 18, 2016 Report Share Posted August 18, 2016 I thought I had. If not,that post from PA pretty much sums it up So in a nutshell, you think in a marriage you're only entitled to claim ownership of what you have directly earned the money to purchase? So let's say you earn 60% of the household income and your eventual wife owns 40%, is it your view that she only owns 40% of the house? How do you divvy that up, exactly? Do you take the family room, she gets the living room, then split the yard? I'm sorry, but I won't be as diplomatic as Smell: you view of marriage and property rights is cavemanish. Ownership through husband being not true ownership is very much an idea of property rights ripped from the 1800s when only white men could vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted August 18, 2016 Report Share Posted August 18, 2016 Thanks True. Now I'm scratching you off of my cave wall paintings I don't think it's fair to claim esteem for somebody else's accomplishments, sorry. No, I'm not dividing the house like some petty bastard, but I don't expect my wife to claim we earned a degree from such and such Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted August 18, 2016 Author Report Share Posted August 18, 2016 Thanks True. Now I'm scratching you off of my cave wall paintings I don't think it's fair to claim esteem for somebody else's accomplishments, sorry. No, I'm not dividing the house like some petty bastard, but I don't expect my wife to claim we earned a degree from such and such You don't earn a pro sports franchise, you buy one. Terrible example. The Pegulas bought a pro sports team. My can't one or both of them be involved in it? 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.