The Italian Kid Did It!

[Taro T]

1 hour ago, \GoBillsInDallas/ said:

You can complain about him all you want, but if he didn't step up to the plate and by the team in 2003 there would be no "Buffalo" Sabres today.

Very likely true.  As Hammister was woefully undercapitalized and almost certainly would've become the owner there was a very good chance that he'd've pulled an Art Modell with the team just like he did with the Destroyers or else that he'd've sold to Balsillie who would've moved the club.

It definitely would've been even more tumultuous.

[SHAAAUGHT!!!]

1 hour ago, inkman said:

Sit in silence in a meeting for 45 minutes?  That is pure psychopath behavior.  

This is actually a highly effective negotiation tactic.  People will become uncomfortable in silence and will just start talking to fill the space.  I’ve hit the 6 minute mark in negotiations before, but 45 minutes is next level.  Say what you will about Tommy Boy and his effectiveness, but there is no denying he is an expert negotiator.  

[Doohickie]

4 minutes ago, SHAAAUGHT!!! said:

Say what you will about Tommy Boy and his effectiveness, but there is no denying he is an expert negotiator.  

But he ended up eating it anyway, so what's the point?

[SHAAAUGHT!!!]

Just now, Doohickie said:

But he ended up eating it anyway, so what's the point?

Dynamics vary from company to company and industry to industry, but the intent of that tactic is to create a situation where someone finally caves and provides the information you want them to provide.  Secondary benefits/results from this tactic are below:

1) typically if the person responsible doesn’t eventually speak up or take responsibly they are either fired, put on notice, or lose a considerable amount of respect/clout which eventually leads to them finding a job elsewhere

2) it’s a message to everyone else in that room that if you make an avoidable mistake you better be ready to answer for it, or see #1 above

 

[PASabreFan]

1 hour ago, \GoBillsInDallas/ said:

You can complain about him all you want, but if he didn't step up to the plate and by the team in 2003 there would be no "Buffalo" Sabres today.

FTR my quote was sarcastic. Tom's a straight shooter. When he bought the team he said he didn't know a puck from a meatball. 15 years after the Drury affair he has no motive to lie. Unlike some fans he was probably over the whole thing within weeks. No need to cover things up years later. The owner vs. the stick boy's gf's uncle? I weigh the owner's word more.

[Taro T]

2 hours ago, PASabreFan said:

Lol. Taro knows more than the owner. Of course Tom is lying. He has to be. Otherwise Taro is full of it, and that's not possible.

Did not state that he was lying.  Said he left a huge piece of the story out of his retelling of it.  Which, BTW, Fearless Leader confirmed.  (You going to accuse him of being "full of it" too?)  Also, only in your world is claiming that somebody left something out of a story the same as claiming that person that was in the room doesn't know what actually happened in it.  Of course Golisano knows the whole story, but only you would believe he didn't leave ANYTHING out in the retelling.

Because in PA's world people never do that and they always tell a story in a manner that gives the reader or listener the most complete and accurate version so there is no reason to ever question any portion of it.  Even when the story came out in real time, PA will defer to the version of the one relating the story years later who might be trying to avoid looking bad because, well, guess you'll have to ask him that one.

[Weave]

1 hour ago, \GoBillsInDallas/ said:

You can complain about him all you want, but if he didn't step up to the plate and by the team in 2003 there would be no "Buffalo" Sabres today.

#stillanass

[Porous Five Hole]

40 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Very likely true.  As Hammister was woefully undercapitalized and almost certainly would've become the owner there was a very good chance that he'd've pulled an Art Modell with the team just like he did with the Destroyers or else that he'd've sold to Balsillie who would've moved the club.

It definitely would've been even more tumultuous.

OSP covers his acquisition in the book, and threw shade at everyone (Hamister, Pataki, and anyone else who tried to make the first deal work).  

[grinreaper]

55 minutes ago, SwampD said:

Is there a chapter devoted to what really went down with those dang geese?

I sent his office an offer to solve his problem but as expected never heard back from him. I had experience ridding them from a lakefront property that I owned and knew that about $125 and a couple of hours would do the trick. It would have been an easy way to solve the problem while eliminating the litigation. 

[MattPie]

1 hour ago, SwampD said:

Is there a chapter devoted to what really went down with those dang geese?

That's the next book, "Goose on the Loose: My Personal Bastogne".

[Eleven]

11 hours ago, woods-racer said:

He made his money in the check cashing business. Cashed checks and made a lot of money doing it to the people that could least afford it and then got lucky when he took a chance on a hockey team. He is what he is. OSP sums him up.

Thank you for sharing. I'm surprised anyone would actually read a book about him.

I thought Paychex is a payroll company, not a check cashing business.  Or did he own check cashing businesses before?

[grinreaper]

43 minutes ago, SHAAAUGHT!!! said:

This is actually a highly effective negotiation tactic.  People will become uncomfortable in silence and will just start talking to fill the space.  I’ve hit the 6 minute mark in negotiations before, but 45 minutes is next level.  Say what you will about Tommy Boy and his effectiveness, but there is no denying he is an expert negotiator.  

I had a so called boss that would ask a question, get an answer and then he would remain silent to see if he could get you to expand on your answer. He was obviously looking for someone to fill the silence with bs so he could use it against them. 

[Doohickie]

43 minutes ago, SHAAAUGHT!!! said:

Dynamics vary from company to company and industry to industry, but the intent of that tactic is to create a situation where someone finally caves and provides the information you want them to provide.  Secondary benefits/results from this tactic are below:

1) typically if the person responsible doesn’t eventually speak up or take responsibly they are either fired, put on notice, or lose a considerable amount of respect/clout which eventually leads to them finding a job elsewhere

2) it’s a message to everyone else in that room that if you make an avoidable mistake you better be ready to answer for it, or see #1 above

Kind of sounds like mental abuse to me.  I mean in a literal sense.

[grinreaper]

1 minute ago, Eleven said:

I thought Paychex is a payroll company, not a check cashing business.  Or did he own check cashing businesses before?

My understanding is that Paychex is simply a company that handles payroll for other businesses for a fee. Compare it to Walmart as a payroll company vs. 7-11 as a check cashing business. A pharmacy chain vs. a corner drug pusher. 

[inkman]

1 hour ago, Sakman said:

Agree, but do you think there's a chance he's exaggerating in the retelling of the story? My impression from the brief parts posted are that it's one of those directionally correct autobiographies rife with inaccurate details, exaggerations, and outright whoppers. I bet it was less than 5 minutes but felt like 45 for the people sweating out it out in front of a pissed off boss. 

It's funny though my first reaction was not that Golisano was a psycho (although in retrospect if it really was 45 minutes, he was a psycho) it was that here was another example of Regier being spineless.  If the other facts of the story are true, he obviously screwed up. Just admit it, take your lumps and move on for crying out loud. Or, if you think otherwise, tell the boss he's wrong and why. But being the GM and just sitting there in silence is weak.  

Yeah I’m sure he’s using a little artistic license there with the timeline.  Forty-five minutes in silence has to be an exaggeration.  

And calling yourself “The Italian Kid” when you are from Rochester is akin to calling yourself a mammal. 

[Porous Five Hole]

2 minutes ago, inkman said:

Yeah I’m sure he’s using a little artistic license there with the timeline.  Forty-five minutes in silence has to be an exaggeration.  

And calling yourself “The Italian Kid” when you are from Rochester is akin to calling yourself a mammal. 

Pretty sure anyone outside of WNY wouldn’t know that ROC was Italian-centric during his youth. 

[ISmelikZhitnik]

2 hours ago, inkman said:

Sit in silence in a meeting for 45 minutes?  That is pure psychopath behavior.  

That is called a negotiation tactic.  The next person to talk usually loses.  You say your piece then STFU and watch them squirm.  I had a call with my old boss go to 20 minutes of silence punctuated only by him asking if I was still on the line.  I confirmed and we went back to silence where he waited for something that wasn't happening.

Edited July 12, 2022 by ISmelikZhitnik

[nfreeman]

11 hours ago, woods-racer said:

He made his money in the check cashing business. Cashed checks and made a lot of money doing it to the people that could least afford it and then got lucky when he took a chance on a hockey team. He is what he is. OSP sums him up.

Thank you for sharing. I'm surprised anyone would actually read a book about him.

10 hours ago, Sakman said:

Just to provide an alternate view:

Paychex provides back-office operations for companies that are too small to justify creating their own AP, AR, etc. functions themselves when it's more cost efficient to outsource them. 

Buying a bankrupt asset and selling it when fortunes have turned is often called savvy business acumen. 

I know the guy is a bit of a pompous a-hole but I also see his name on various Children's hospitals in Upstate NY, so there is that. 

Exactly.  This is not even close to an exploitative check-cashing business.

 

10 hours ago, Taro T said:

He's telling the story in a manner that is different than what was told by multiple reliable sources at the time.  (None of which were columnists for the local newspaper.)  A deal was worked out for 5 years at ~$5.3/yr in October.  It sat waiting for weeks on some recent author's desk for approval.  By the time approval was finally granted, the other party suggested they table it until after the season.  So, while what he said may be technically accurate from a certain point of view (it's too late in the evening to parse his exact wording & as such will give him the benefit of the doubt), it is neglecting a HUGE component as to why the deal wasn't formalized.

This is IMHO too kind to OSP, whose description was elected-politician-level BS.

 

3 hours ago, PASabreFan said:

Lol. Taro knows more than the owner. Of course Tom is lying. He has to be. Otherwise Taro is full of it, and that's not possible.

WTF is this?  Do you seriously not think OSP is spinning here, or that people spin when they write books like this?  And why the insult?

[Weave]

16 minutes ago, ISmelikZhitnik said:

That is called a negotiation tactic.  The next person to talk usually loses.  You say your piece then STFU and watch them squirm.  I had a call with my old boss go to 20 minutes of silence punctuated only by him asking if I was still on the line.  I confirmed and we went back to silence where he waited for something that wasn't happening.

What was Golisano negotiating?  There was no negotiation taking place.  He knew who was responsible for contract details.  He was making the responsible person squirm.  To what end? Did he not think DR knew he ***** up?  Was he looking to rub Darcys nose in ***** over it?

It may be an effective negotiation tactic.  It is an awful leadership tactic. He was using it on his subordinates.  Seriously ***** way to communicate with your subordinates.

Edited July 12, 2022 by Weave

[inkman]

33 minutes ago, Weave said:

What was Golisano negotiating?  There was no negotiation taking place.  He knew who was responsible for contract details.  He was making the responsible person squirm.  To what end? Did he not think DR knew he ***** up?  Was he looking to rub Darcys nose in ***** over it?

It may be an effective negotiation tactic.  It is an awful leadership tactic. He was using it on his subordinates.  Seriously ***** way to communicate with your subordinates.

From everything I’ve been told, which is a lot by several individuals, Paychex wasn’t exactly teeming with progressive leadership.  

[Curt]

2 hours ago, SHAAAUGHT!!! said:

This is actually a highly effective negotiation tactic.  People will become uncomfortable in silence and will just start talking to fill the space.  I’ve hit the 6 minute mark in negotiations before, but 45 minutes is next level.  Say what you will about Tommy Boy and his effectiveness, but there is no denying he is an expert negotiator.  

Sounds like BS to me.  No way that a group of people sat in a room for 45 minutes waiting for someone to speak up.

[PASabreFan]

45 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

WTF is this?  Do you seriously not think OSP is spinning here, or that people spin when they write books like this?  And why the insult?

Why are you asking me why the insult?

I think in the big picture OSP left the events of July 2007 behind in August of 2007. I highly doubt it was top of mind then and certainly not at the time he wrote the book. The day of infamy lives on only in the minds of a few superfans.

Hardly anyone cares. I don't see why he wouldn't be telling the truth. To protect himself from scorn? Everyone knows who drove the franchise into a ditch... on purpose.

[That Aud Smell]

By all accounts and by his own words, Golisano is/was a monstrous as*hole.

He was also an enormously effective and successful (and, yes, imperfect) owner of my favourite hockey team.

[ISmelikZhitnik]

16 minutes ago, Weave said:

What was Golisano negotiating?  There was no negotiation taking place.  He knew who was responsible for contract details.  He was making the responsible person squirm.  For no good reason.

It may be an effective negotiation tactic.  It is an awful leadership tactic. He was using it on his subordinates.  Seriously ***** way to communicate with your subordinates.

Seems like it might have been warranted. When something goes wrong and a room full of highly paid professionals can't even muster a thought as to whose responsibility it was? Thats an accountability issue that wouldn't fly at Burger King. 

Maybe it makes Golisano a prick but I bet a lesson was learned that day: take ownership and treat it like its your own money.  If you don't want to stew for 45 minutes, take responsibility for your mistakes.  

[That Aud Smell]

2 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

I don't see why he wouldn't be telling the truth. To protect himself from scorn? Everyone knows who drove the franchise into a ditch... on purpose.

You evidently have a bizarre (or maybe no) understanding of how "the truth" works when pushed through the sausage grinder of an individual's ego and subjectivity. Even wonkier still when we add in the passage of time.