Jump to content

Pegula Sports Entertainment, behind the scenes


LGR4GM
 Share

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, inkman said:

They have been acting like Jabba the Donner for a long time now though.  Their cash flow is the sports teams and Buffalo businesses.  I believe Kim when she says they've reinvested heavily in the Bills.  Quite frankly, they needed to.  What does that leave them as revenue streams?  Sabres and Amerks are cash flow sieves.  So 716, the harbor center and the Bandits(?) are their cash cows. Yikes!  

I'm sure I'm at least 50% wrong but I want to get some folks thinking about.  

The teams have been the cash flow since July since they shut in their wells.

They've definitely put money into the Bills - that training facility from all accounts is truly state of the art.

I know Graham says the Sabres have had heavy losses.  Have seen other reports where they are modestly cashflow positive.  Expect the truth is somewhere in between.  But, until energy prices rebound, the Bills are ost likely their only real source of cash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, tom webster said:

I’m actually pretty surprised that everyone seems to be so negative about this.

1) it was naive wording it as “maintaining their lifestyle” but it’s the goal of every business owner. The point of incorporating is to make sure fluctuations in business don’t effect your personal wealth.

2) anyone who was there at the beginning will tell your the first few years were run without regard to profit. That is unsustainable no matter how wealthy you are.

3) they have made mistakes, their admitting their mistakes and they are actively correcting them.

4) if they really wanted to save money they would have vetoed at least a couple of JNOT’s moves which would probably have been a good idea.

The sky isn’t falling. Relax.

Haven't sniffed the playoffs in 9 years, you're right the sky isn't falling. It already crashed down. 

  • Thanks (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Theana745 said:

If you bite the hand that feeds you, there might not be a hand left anymore

I’m really sorry but I couldn’t take it anymore. This is the biggest BS theory in the history of theories. There’s far too much potential for wealth for the “hand” to just go away. If that hand can’t figure out business(as it appears that it can’t) then another hand will step in to make that money that the first hand couldn’t(and they’ll use the same workforce). You’re argument is an old sales pitch to give the wealthy a break that they don’t deserve. I’ve been doing this for almost 30 years. I’m not fooled.

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, tom webster said:

Thirty people, mostly fired or self serving employees out of a few hundred. I challenge you to find a work place that has a less percentage of disgruntled empliyees

I challenge you to find 30% of a workforce that's so disgruntled they want to talk about it. Also, what's that tell you? 30% of 100 ppl aren't happy... maybe there's a problem then. 

Edited by LGR4GM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, tom webster said:

Thirty people, mostly fired or self serving employees out of a few hundred. I challenge you to find a work place that has a less percentage of disgruntled empliyees

Reminded me of the other thing that stood out about the article.  Graham said "(r)epresentatives FOR Terry and Kim Pegula also provided information on the condition of anonymity."  That just seemed weird, especially when the next paragraph has quotes directly from K Pegula.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

I challenge you to find 30% of a workforce that's so disgruntled they want to talk about it. Also, what's that tell you? 30% of 100 ppl aren't happy... maybe there's a problem then. 

30 people out of about a thousand that have worked for them the last two years isn’t 30%. And Graham has been taking messages for four days. I’m surprised at the low mumber

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, tom webster said:

30 people out of about a thousand that have worked for them the last two years isn’t 30%. And Graham has been taking messages for four days. I’m surprised at the low mumber

You didn't say a thousand the first time. 

Why are you surprised? You're now assuming that all employees saw it. All responded who wanted to. That's not how this was gonna work. The fact it's that high and we heard different perspectives was very interesting. 

You can defend the pegulas, but it's been clear for several years that something is wrong. We're starting to see why. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Theana745 said:

 

Problem is the "garbage product" under normal conditions creates jobs for people. If you bite the hand that feeds you, there might not be a hand left anymore

So they can do whatever they want because they have money. That's essentially what you're saying. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

You didn't say a thousand the first time. 

Why are you surprised? You're now assuming that all employees saw it. All responded who wanted to. That's not how this was gonna work. The fact it's that high and we heard different perspectives was very interesting. 

You can defend the pegulas, but it's been clear for several years that something is wrong. We're starting to see why. 

A) I’m not defending the Pegulas, just making a point against all this doom and gloom about their solvency.

B) You are right, the team’s performance has been terrible, but again, I was just commenting on the business viability.

 C) In a quarantined society, with a top writer and twitter presence soliciting their responses, I know most of them saw it.

D) if you don’t think that disgruntled employees want to talk about it, you have not been looking at employer reviews closely.

People I respect, like and yes, even Love were part of layoffs and furloughs. Some of them upset, some of them understanding. Tim Graham did his usual solid job with the article. John Vogl showed his pettiness with some of his tweets. I’ve been among the most disappointed by the results of the team as well as the game day presentation.

However, I still don’t question their commitment and I am hopeful that the moves they are making will make more sense once normalcy returns, whenever that will be.

Edited by tom webster
  • Like (+1) 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Ruff Around The Edges said:

I am not here to stick up for the Pegulas in this case.

Let's just be fair: If the Sabres had 10 straight years of making the playoffs, 2 ECF's and 1 SC title, is this even being discussed? Does this article even exist?

All they have to do is win. Winning masks most if not all of this. The Pegulas have earned being an easy target for the lack of winning the Sabres have been doing, so that is the only way this will change.

 

Of course.  I think you have to consider that some of what is laid out in the article is exactly what is stopping that super successful alternate scenario from having come to fruition.

  • Like (+1) 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is just one more thing.  The team has been terrible for a decade, the owners don’t appear to be doing things particularly well, people don’t like working for them.  There are a lot more negative indicators for the Buffalo Sabres than positive ones.  It’s just sad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

So all 30 some odd ppl had vendettas? Sure. 

How am I suppose to help keep the Sabres here? 

Attend games, buy merchandise, spread word about them on social media 

11 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

So they can do whatever they want because they have money. That's essentially what you're saying. 

Yes. Until someone else gives them another offer. It's their business

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, tom webster said:

A) I’m not defending the Pegulas, just making a point against all this doom and gloom about their solvency.

B) You are right, the team’s performance has been terrible, but again, I was just commenting on the business viability.

 C) In a quarantined society, with a top writer and twitter presence soliciting their responses, I know most of them saw it.

D) if you don’t think that disgruntled employees want to talk about it, you have not been looking at employer reviews closely.

People I respect, like and yes, even Love were part of layoffs and furloughs. Some of them upset, some of them understanding. Tim Graham did his usual solid job with the article. John Vogl showed his pettiness with some of his tweets. I’ve been among the most disappointed by the results of the team as well as the game day presentation.

However, I still don’t question their commitment and I am hopeful that the moves they are making will make more sense once normalcy returns, whenever that will be.

You keep labeling them as disgruntled, that's fine. It doesn't mean that they are lying or wrong. We've witnessed the constant failure particular on the Sabres side. I take what was said with a grain of salt but I think what's being said logically fills in gaps in the reasoning behind so many missteps. 

8 minutes ago, Theana745 said:

Attend games, buy merchandise, spread word about them on social media 

Yes. Until someone else gives them another offer. It's their business

I will not being doing the first. Blind loyalty isn't my thing. 

That leads to the second, you're right it is their business. But I don't work for them and can criticize them. If they leave, someone else or something else will show up. 

Edited by LGR4GM
  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, tom webster said:

I’m actually pretty surprised that everyone seems to be so negative about this.

1) it was naive wording it as “maintaining their lifestyle” but it’s the goal of every business owner. The point of incorporating is to make sure fluctuations in business don’t effect your personal wealth.

2) anyone who was there at the beginning will tell your the first few years were run without regard to profit. That is unsustainable no matter how wealthy you are.

3) they have made mistakes, their admitting their mistakes and they are actively correcting them.

4) if they really wanted to save money they would have vetoed at least a couple of JNOT’s moves which would probably have been a good idea.

The sky isn’t falling. Relax.

How many mistakes are you allowed to make? Admitting mistakes doesn't make things better . They saved money by trading O'Reilly before his bonus was due. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

You keep labeling them as disgruntled, that's fine. It doesn't mean that they are lying or wrong. We've witnessed the constant failure particular on the Sabres side. I take what was said with a grain of salt but I think what's being said logically fills in gaps in the reasoning behind so many missteps. 

I will not being doing the first. Blind loyalty isn't my thing. 

That leads to the second, you're right it is their business. But I don't work for them and can criticize them. If they leave, someone else or something else will show up. 

Again it's your decision. Just don't be suprised one day you wake up and there's no more hockey in Buffalo 

Edited by Theana745
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Theana745 said:

Again it's your decision. Just don't be suprised one day you wake up and there's no more hockey in Buffalo 

It is and I'm not surprised every april so if the team moves, they move. I'm sick of having to be a good loyal little fan while the owners piss all over my team's legacy and threaten me. 

Either make the team good or move it out. I'm done being a hostage. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, nucci said:

How many mistakes are you allowed to make? Admitting mistakes doesn't make things better . They saved money by trading O'Reilly before his bonus was due. 

And if it was all about the money they could have saved $15-20 million this year and you could argue the on ice results would have been the same. They spent way over the cap this year.
There are two simultaneous arguments going on here. If the question is, has the team been good, then the answer is obviously no.

If the question is are they committed to building a winner and do they have the financial wherewithal, I believe the answer is yes.

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, tom webster said:

And if it was all about the money they could have saved $15-20 million this year and you could argue the on ice results would have been the same. They spent way over the cap this year.
There are two simultaneous arguments going on here. If the question is, has the team been good, then the answer is obviously no.

If the question is are they committed to building a winner and do they have the financial wherewithal, I believe the answer is yes.

 

I agree with this and with most of what you've said in this thread.

I do think though that there are 2 more questions: 

1.  Are the Pegulas competent at building a good organization, which presumably would lead to good on-ice results? 

2.  Are they greedy, insensitive jerks?

I think the article today essentially argues that the answers to both of these are "no."

Now, was the article -- and the assertions it made -- somewhat overblown and sensationalized, and likely based on sour grapes from people who have been let go?  Yes, almost certainly.  But it's undeniable that there has been a ton of turnover at PSE, and that the on-ice results have been awful.  So it's not unreasonable for people to connect the dots, and for people to be skeptical about the Pegulas until they demonstrate that they deserve the benefit of the doubt.

OTOH, one might think that their development efforts in Buffalo, their charity and the success with the Bills would buy them more goodwill than they seem to be getting here.  Of course, this is a Sabres board, and the Sabres have been freaking terrible.

  • Like (+1) 4
  • Thanks (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, tom webster said:

And if it was all about the money they could have saved $15-20 million this year and you could argue the on ice results would have been the same. They spent way over the cap this year.
There are two simultaneous arguments going on here. If the question is, has the team been good, then the answer is obviously no.

If the question is are they committed to building a winner and do they have the financial wherewithal, I believe the answer is yes.

 

Would agree with both of the bolded thoughts.

But could see some serious ST pain for them.  (Again, they're billionaires that are looking at serious ST cash frow impairments.)  Don't see any of their teams moving (the possible exception being the currently defunct women's hockey team) but can see some ST pain & also significant delays on a new football stadium & the massive renovations to the MMArena they were contemplating last year.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, nucci said:

How many mistakes are you allowed to make? Admitting mistakes doesn't make things better . They saved money by trading O'Reilly before his bonus was due. 

They did save money by trading him before the bonus deadline. But that's what is so fishy about it. They took back a ton of salary. ROR's deal lasted another couple seasons and you could say they'd save 20-30 million over the duration (I'm not doing the exact math on that, but 7.5 bonus + 15 for two solo seasons + 2 Sobotka-less seasons). But they took back three contracts whose cap hit was greater than ROR's 7.5/year. A trade partner could have been found that focused more on picks, or on say... just Berglund or just Bozak and picks so it'd be obvious there was cash savings. And now, they're still up near the cap, so it wasn't about generally paying less for the roster. And when you consider moving Scandella's 4M only to bring in Frolik's 4M, or retaining Bogo as long as they did... and then trading to take on Kahun's additional bonuses for next year...  the penny-pinching angle doesn't add up enough. Whoever decided it or ordered it panicked or grew disenchanted or <insert reasons> and moved the then-best player on the team for next-to-nothing then, and nothing at all on the roster now.

The wealthier you are the more mistakes you can afford.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Curt said:

This is just one more thing.  The team has been terrible for a decade, the owners don’t appear to be doing things particularly well, people don’t like working for them.  There are a lot more negative indicators for the Buffalo Sabres than positive ones.  It’s just sad.

The bolded is the most important, salient point in the thread. 

*All they have to do is win hockey games* and yet, they can seemingly only manage to continually add negative elements to that side of the ledger. The most shocking thing, for a long time, hasn't been any of the new revelations about this team, it's merely the fact they can somehow find a way to achieve so much bad, over such a long period of time, and not find *one* successful season along the way in a league where making the playoffs is a coin-flip.

Balls. 

Edited by Thorny
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...