WNY to NoVA
Registered User
- May 16, 2011
- 542
- 0
You're describing Capitalism at its finest. Why you're trying to paint it as a bad thing is baffling.
That little shelf above the urinals in the men's rooms was a stroke of frickin' genius.
was black in charge of sly and peters being on the radio everyday?
if so..aid****ingos
I'm taking credit for that one. Or at least I like to think that.
I saw a Giants game in San Francisco and sat in their 200 level - where I first saw the shelves. When the Sabres announced they were going to put up a suggestion box on their website - I waited for it to open and then pounced. Later that day or the next - Black was on the air talking about the suggestion box and joked about getting a request to add a shelf over the urinals to rest your beer. The rest is history.
In some cases, it means resorting to a form of legalized extortion. If a little old lady wants to watch the Hallmark Channel, she pays an additional six dollars a month on her cable bill for ESPN
Not on Time Warner in Buffalo. ESPN is already included on a lower tier than Hallmark. If a little old lady wants Hallmark, she's paying for 130 additional channels at $10 a month to get in that tier, with none of them being ESPN.
I stand corrected. I should have said if she wanted the History Channel or Lifetime or Oxygen or the Food Network (or any number of others) she has to pay for ESPN—by far the single most expensive station—to get the channel of her choice.
Its 1 tier up from basic cable and goes both ways. if someone wants just ESPN, they're also paying for all the channels they dont want like Lifetime and Oxygen and Food Network and 65 other channels that aren't ESPN.
I get the idea, we'd all like to be able to pay for only the channels we watch, but ESPN and/or sports tv is not the reason why they don't offer a la carte programming and pricing.
The median cost-per-subscriber that networks charge cable providers is 14 cents per month.
ESPN charges more than six dollars.
People who don't watch ESPN are nevertheless forced to pay for the exponentially most expensive single channel. The cable companies, of necessity, need to create a coercive economic model to cover that cost. There may be people whose obsession with sports negates their interest in the aggregation of all other human endeavors combined, and thus they may object to paying for channels that address the subjects that cover the more complete range of human thinking. But there are far more people who have to pay for ESPN though they don't want it, than people who watch only ESPN but are forced to subsidize those who want to watch CNN or Bravo or the National Geographic Channel.
I'm taking credit for that one. Or at least I like to think that.
I saw a Giants game in San Francisco and sat in their 200 level - where I first saw the shelves. When the Sabres announced they were going to put up a suggestion box on their website - I waited for it to open and then pounced. Later that day or the next - Black was on the air talking about the suggestion box and joked about getting a request to add a shelf over the urinals to rest your beer. The rest is history.
It seems to me, with Black gone, and Brandon in, this would mean more power for GMTM.
It seems to me, with Black gone, and Brandon in, this would mean more power for GMTM.
I don't think it mean more actual power, but it does firmly place Murray as the 'boss' of the Sabres. More perceived authority without additional duty or responsibilities. Brandon absorbs the tasks into a larger corporate sports umbrella, actually shrinking the overall Sabres compartment of Pegula sports. Doubt Murray has to worry about the day to day things, ticket sales, marketing, Disney on Ice, visits with cancer kids, he's just the roster guy building a fantasy team for Pegula.
Murray already reported to Terry Pegula and already had full control over hockey decisions (with Pegula obviously having veto power since he's the owner). That has not changed. Ted Black was strictly business.
Yep. The only reason this topic gets brought up was because Brandon was GM at one point so people felt paranoid about him sticking his hands in personnel decisions once be became president. It's a nonissue.
Will all soon be a distant past.
Cable Companies are going to have to change and start going A la carte or face extinction ...
Anyone concerned about the possibility that Brandon could be spreading himself too thin by running two organizations? I'm sure there are plenty of underlings and middle management to help him, but still - the thought had occurred to me.
Not really concerned. Several reasons:
1. Big opportunity for overlap / synergy between the two sports franchises in their functional organizations and division of labor/skills. It's not like the complexity doubles because their business are completely different and not complementary.
Several parallel functions I'm sure:
Operations: Logistics (transportation, leases, scheduling, etc.)
Customer facing: Ticet sales, fan promotions, broadcasting, etc.
Marketing- similar
Legal- probably merges / doubles. Just because, lawyers.
Purchasing/Finance/Accounting- very similar.
HR- (non-athlete) very similar
Hockey operations - different
Football operations - different
2. These are still comparatively small, comparatively simple organizations, with a lot of functional overlap.
3. Language, physical location, all the same.
4. IT systems may have some differences, but the footprint is small, so likely solvable.
From the terdburger, to sending out ticket increases on can appreciation day