| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| admin |
Posted - 05/05/2009 : 23:22:56
With his offer of $212.5 million for the Phoenix Coyotes, will the NHL finally allow Jim Balsillie to own an NHL franchise? |
| 40 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 11/25/2009 : 10:06:52
quote:
Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA
Beans, Bettman saying it was never about the southern Ontario region or GTA was Bettmans way of side steeping the question. A question he refuses to answer. His closest answer was to state no study has been done with regards to the viability of a southern Ontario team. In my mind if the NHL ever does that study, your going to see which owner wears the pants in the ownership group.
The question that should be asked to Bettman, after the public outcry in Winnipeg, Quebec City, Southern Ontario and GTA, why has no study been done? Why are they afraid to study the possible viability of relocation markets. Why beat a dead horse in markets which are not supporting a franchise and then have no quick exit strategy. This does not seem like smart management. I agree work with the cards given, but why not play 2 hands and double your odds.
I think you are missing something here. You can blame Bettman all you want, but it's the other owners that allow "that team" to wear the pants. Rightfully so I might add. The Leafs make more revenue tha any other team. Further more, the entire league not counting the Leafs contributes $75.1million to profits. The Leafs ALONE contribue $66 million.
It's like selling the goose once you get one golden egg. The owners are not morons. They are multimillionairres for a reason. One of those reasons is that they don't give away a sure thing. The Leafs make money. Why risk that in any way?? Say what you want about adding a team and still making money, the Leafs (and for sure the Sabres) would not make as much money with another team in the area. Even if two teams in the GTA make the same money or even more than the Leafs do today, you are also doing that at double the current operating costs.
What people don't seem to understand is that some where alone the lines, sports because a business first and foremost. If you think you count as a fan, you are wrong. As long as the money is coming in, the fans are irrelevant.
Bettman wasn't side stepping the question in my opinion. This court battle still would have happened if the team was bankrupt and a prospective owner was trying to move the team anywhere else. Balsillie is a brilliant business man in his own right and was amazing at getting Joe Fan to make this about Canada and hockey and not about the business and the rules.
Unfortunately, Business is only about the money. Nothing else matters.
|
| Tiller33 |
Posted - 11/24/2009 : 21:06:47
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
The things that I though Bettman explained quite well in the interview is that this never was about the GTA market or Balsillie. It was always about th NHL's rules and specifically, who owns a team and where it is. Obviously, the NHL wants to do what they can to keep teams where they are. But they also smart enough to move the team when there are NO other options. There were and still are options in Phoenix. I do agree there are better markets, but until EVERYTHING is exhaused, they will try to keep the team there.
And don't bring up Winnipeg or Quebec. The NHL was committed to both teams staying, but when no owner wants to buy the teams there, it has not choice but to move.
I agree the GTA is an untapped market, but I am not sure that Southern Ontario is the way to go. Honestly, I think that a system much like the Lakers and Clippers have would work well. The ACC is open enough in the winter(or should be) to have 2 teams play out of there.
If only the Leafs would share some of their world.
The interview does clarify that but i believe it is still a major factor because lets face it bettman isn't gonna come out and say he's a money grubbing whore.
The clippers lakers analogy could work in theory but like you said MLSE won't be inviting anyone into their universe without a vested intrest.
From everything that was thrown around during all this to be placing the team in the KW area actually makes most sense to me. You distance the team from Buffalo, not that it matters in the long run, the area has a stable population of 2 - 3 million between Cambridge, Kitchener-Waterloo and Guelph and easy access via the 401 to the remainder of Southern Ontario. As a resident of the northern GTA i know the hassle of actually getting to the ACC so an easily accessed arena away from the downtown centre would be nice, something similar to Ottawa with Scotia Bank Place in Kanata.
Also I agree economics is what doomed Winnipeg and Quebec but I also agree that the league sure wasn't willing to bail them out at all costs as they are with the Coyotes so I feel for both cities in that respect.
There's a lot of dirty old occ's around thats the problem |
| willus3 |
Posted - 11/24/2009 : 16:17:29
quote:
Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA
Beans, Bettman saying it was never about the southern Ontario region or GTA was Bettmans way of side steeping the question. A question he refuses to answer. His closest answer was to state no study has been done with regards to the viability of a southern Ontario team. In my mind if the NHL ever does that study, your going to see which owner wears the pants in the ownership group.
The question that should be asked to Bettman, after the public outcry in Winnipeg, Quebec City, Southern Ontario and GTA, why has no study been done? Why are they afraid to study the possible viability of relocation markets. Why beat a dead horse in markets which are not supporting a franchise and then have no quick exit strategy. This does not seem like smart management. I agree work with the cards given, but why not play 2 hands and double your odds.
Because silly. They have to put a team in Kansas first. 
Bettman has a similar mission to grow palm trees in Antarctica.
|
| JOSHUACANADA |
Posted - 11/24/2009 : 15:52:51
Beans, Bettman saying it was never about the southern Ontario region or GTA was Bettmans way of side steeping the question. A question he refuses to answer. His closest answer was to state no study has been done with regards to the viability of a southern Ontario team. In my mind if the NHL ever does that study, your going to see which owner wears the pants in the ownership group.
The question that should be asked to Bettman, after the public outcry in Winnipeg, Quebec City, Southern Ontario and GTA, why has no study been done? Why are they afraid to study the possible viability of relocation markets. Why beat a dead horse in markets which are not supporting a franchise and then have no quick exit strategy. This does not seem like smart management. I agree work with the cards given, but why not play 2 hands and double your odds. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 11/24/2009 : 12:49:12
The things that I though Bettman explained quite well in the interview is that this never was about the GTA market or Balsillie. It was always about th NHL's rules and specifically, who owns a team and where it is. Obviously, the NHL wants to do what they can to keep teams where they are. But they also smart enough to move the team when there are NO other options. There were and still are options in Phoenix. I do agree there are better markets, but until EVERYTHING is exhaused, they will try to keep the team there.
And don't bring up Winnipeg or Quebec. The NHL was committed to both teams staying, but when no owner wants to buy the teams there, it has not choice but to move.
I agree the GTA is an untapped market, but I am not sure that Southern Ontario is the way to go. Honestly, I think that a system much like the Lakers and Clippers have would work well. The ACC is open enough in the winter(or should be) to have 2 teams play out of there.
If only the Leafs would share some of their world. |
| Tiller33 |
Posted - 11/24/2009 : 12:22:41
The bottom line of it all at the end of the day is how is a team that's losing between $30-50 million a year marketable to anybody with the business sense to have the money to afford it, except a rabid hockey fan with the pockets as deep as balsille. If bettman is willing to momve the team toan acceptable market (out of the southern US) then he may be able to attract other suitors. Balsille would dump a hundred million into that team and keep it in glendale for a few years just to move it back to canada.
The sticking point is, as has already been mentioned, not that the league doesnt want a team in southern ontario, its that they want the expansion revenue from it when the times comes, inevitably there will be a second franchise in the GTA its just too much of an untapped market not to have one.
There's a lot of dirty old occ's around thats the problem |
| JOSHUACANADA |
Posted - 11/24/2009 : 11:23:02
Good interview questions, and your right all the right questions asked. Bettman truly is the king of deflecting questions and not truly answering them. How he answers the questions lets you know no matter how you change the question, he is not going to answer the question the way you want him to.
Funny, he was booed during the final but deflected because of the circumstance. What would have happened if Detroit won and he still was booed.
The answer of Gretzky salary hasn't come up? I'd like to get an answer to that question from Walter Gretzky, No way Wayne or Gary answer that one.
How does he figure Moyers had no right to go to Bankruptcy? An owner who is losing money and is likely to lose all rights and further money thru NHL proposed sale has no rights to bankruptcy? I'd agree if he said the circumstance of Moyers bankruptcy is suspect. Who know what the league promised Moyers to forestall bankruptcy to that point.
I see the results at this point have clearly screwed the prior owner. Creditors got payed, NHL bought for cheap and Bettman (representing the Ownership group) Clearly won. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 11/23/2009 : 17:24:24
Pretty good interview. The guy doing the interview sure didn't pull any punches!!
So that's Bettman's side. We heard Balsillie's side all summer.
The truth is somewhere in the middle.
At the least, Gary B didn't look weak. |
| just1n |
Posted - 11/23/2009 : 16:41:29
I read a pretty good interview that Maclean's Magazine did with Gary Bettman, so I thought I would share. It's a little easier to digest than watching Gary and Ron McLean talk during the Finals I think, and he has some valid points when given the time to explain. Worth a read I thought...
http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/11/17/the-interview-gary-bettman/ |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 10/01/2009 : 17:47:09
Bettman buys his votes??? What?? Who do you think signs Bettman's paychecks?? The owners have significantly more money than Bettman ever will. He doesn't have enough cash to buy the votes of the owners..
Now, if you said he produces huge revenues and the overall franchise values in the NHL have gone through the roof in Bettman's reign, I would have agreed. But he doesn't buy any votes. You can bet you life that the owners gave Bettman the authority to do the whole court things. If they weren't behind that, he would have been fired faster than Paul Kelly was!
|
| JOSHUACANADA |
Posted - 10/01/2009 : 16:49:03
Beans that is like saying all of the conservatives/liberals always vote with there heart. They dont want cowboys in the league telling them what to do. That I'll agree with that, but dont you think they see whats really going on here. Do you really think the boys in Atlanta/Tampa werent looking at Moyers thinking, why didn't I think of that. They were saying to themselves if Moyers wins they were going to make some calls to get there teams to profitable markets ASAP. Beside we already proved Bettman buys his votes. That was his court contention when the NHL paid Pheonix's bills |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 10/01/2009 : 16:15:10
Well, I can't see owners selling to get away from themselves. They are the Board of Governors after all.
And one has to remember that the Board of Governors are basically Bettman's boss. They were involved from the start and backed everything that Bettman was doing.
I was watching Off the Record today and Landberg asked Darren Dreger if he has been in contact with many of the owners through the entire Phoenix thing. Dreger stated he has been in contact with virtually all of the owners or their reps. The next question was if the owners were really unanimous in keeping Balsillie out and Dreger said, with no hesitation. Yes, they all wanted to keep him out. |
| JOSHUACANADA |
Posted - 10/01/2009 : 15:28:16
Actually, this is a lose lose scenerio. Now the judge hasn't put a value on the team and hasn't said how much Moyers and Gretzky were to recieve. The NHL has now stated its possible intent to relocate the team and will reap the benifits of any profits of that transaction. Why is a league in the business of shafting owners and turning a profit by relocating a busted team. No mediation was ordered by the judge and future owners can expect the same treatment.
Listen I'm not arguing Basillies or Moyers point of view, I'm arguing against the tactics of the league. They have basically designed it so Moyer's could not sell it directly to a relocating owner who would pay the most for the franchise. They have blamed Gretzky salary in part of the downfall of this franchise. They have also in court fillings said they believe neither Moyers or Gretzky are due any amount of money due to there affiliation with the Coyotes.
After this fiasco I wouldn't be surprised if a few owners looked to sell there franchise's even at a reduced rate to get away from the trainwreck, which is the NHL. (Refering solely to the Board of Governers and Bettman) |
| brentrock2 |
Posted - 10/01/2009 : 15:12:39
Not much to say here but I'd say Yes.
HABS RULE!!
brentrock2 |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 10/01/2009 : 08:30:41
DONE!! At the least this phase is complete. Judge Baum basically told Balisillie he's out. He can appeal, but he can't come back with another bid. The NHL can come back with another the bid. It appears the only reason the NHL bid was tossed as well was because the NHL would not pay Gretzky or Moyes. The Judge said they are a legitimate creditors as any other.
Regardless, although I never argued that Balsillie would be a bad owner or that a team wouldn't work in Hamilton(although I think that would team would have negative effects in the long run(, I never liked Balsillie's approach. I like the ruling in the way that the NHL should have the right to control where their franchises are.
I am also happy the NHL didn't win the team either. I think in this case, justice was served.
Now, find an eff'n owner that can buy the team and either make a run of it in Phoenix or move to relocate somewhere within the rules of the NHL constitution.
http://tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=293208 |
| JOSHUACANADA |
Posted - 09/10/2009 : 17:55:45
I read the article and found very little information unbiased as Beans put it.
At the end of the day even the Judge says both partys spent the day arguing the relocation fee? Does that mean a relocation is now expected by both parties?
But if you sift through the crap, Basillie's expert is a 1 time incompetant witness who has been considered a competant witness on several occasions. He is clearly low balling the relocation fee at only $10-$12 million. Both his and the NHL are way out I dont even expect them to meet in the middle.
The Nhl's offer has been hammered by Baum because it does not pay any more than $2 million to the estate and give's nothing to the arena landlord company. Baum will not approve a bid that pays the estate 1.5% of the sale value, period.
The city is backing the NHL's bid, no doubt! This is the only bid on the table that see's the city recieve any income from a tenant.
The NHL's expert thinks the relocation fee should be half the value of the franchise and the franchise should be valued at half the value of the Leafs when located in Hamilton. (Why the NHL is opposing relocation if it increase potential value of franchise is anybodys guess) So the value currently is $140 million by the NHL's own bid adn they still feel the relocation fee should be between $110-$200 million. Wow my calculator must be broken I cant make it figure into 50% of the leagues bid here, even if I agreed the relocation should be half which I dont, shouldn't it be around $70 million.
Gretzky is not on Employment status with league currently? Who is the coach in 7-8 days come training camp. |
| n/a |
Posted - 09/10/2009 : 17:17:14
Interesting article, yes.
Laughable though that a National Post article gets labelled as "unbiased", however. In this case it may be true as both parties represent "big business" to some degree, but newspapers are very biased sources of information, and the NP is one of the worst.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 09/10/2009 : 15:42:54
In my opinion and very interest and reasonably unbiased opinion from the court room today.
*** Read the page from the bottom up, it will make more sense and the first post is on the bottom of the page***
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/postedsports/archive/2009/09/10/live-blog-auction-day-in-phoenix.aspx |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 09/10/2009 : 07:58:45
Slozo....what happened to:
6. Beans ends up with a Leafs logo?
All kidding aside, even when the decision comes down, it's unlikely this thing will end. It's gonna be an ongoing thing for some time i'd say...... |
| n/a |
Posted - 09/10/2009 : 05:05:33
Has there ever been a topic like this on pickuphockey that we thought was "done" as many times as this one has gone through? And to think it might end tomorrow, or next week or the week after that . . . aw, who am I kidding, this'll NEVER end, lol!
I really, really had to laugh out loud about the Nashville Preds owner, who the NHL chose over Balsillie, getting jailed as a common criminal. How IN YOUR FACE OBVIOUS is it now that Bettman's and the governor's rejection of Balsillie has NOTHING to do with his character? The only reason they use arguments like that in the first place is that it's subjective, and unquantifiable, and heck, it's always easy to smear a successful businessman, inevitably they have stepped on some heads on their way up the ladder. Balsillie is no saint, but compared to most of the governors, he looks like the Socratic ideal of morality!
The things I am cheering most for, in order of want:
1. Bettman gets fired, and hopefully, jailed (wishful thinking).
2. Canada gets back a hockey franchise, whether it's Hamilton, or Winnipeg, or Kitchener or Halifax. As well, it is set up to succeed, not fail.
3. The NHL is successfully sued for defamation of character by Balsillie, is prevented from owning one of its own franchises, and has to pay damages that far exceed their bid for a franchise in the first place.
4. After the dust settles, because of the nut-kicking the NHL receives, they are forced to actually cowtow to the Canadian hockey public more, and at least one other failing American franchise also moves back to Canada, better serving their most loyal fans.
5. Balsillie gets to own a hockey franchise, because dammit, he deserves to have one after all this.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Porkchop73 |
Posted - 09/09/2009 : 17:44:20
We will find out tomorrow, as they say in poker.....they have gone ALL IN!!!! |
| JOSHUACANADA |
Posted - 09/09/2009 : 11:59:58
Heres a link for the story about Ice Edge dropping out, Basillie's bid increase as well as Moyers objection to have the NHL's bid disqualified.
http://sports.ca.msn.com/top-stories/cbc-article.aspx?cp-documentid=21598808 |
| JOSHUACANADA |
Posted - 09/09/2009 : 11:58:11
Now that Basillie's bid includes an amount tailor made to Glendale and the NHL has put forth a # for relocation. Do you guys feel different about the position of either Basillie or the NHL. As I said in the beginning if it becomes a dollar amount that Basillie has to come up with he will go to the level he is required to get this deal done. I also heard there is no precident for the Leafs or Buffalo to recieve compensation during a relocation.
Only precident was thru expansion. If this going to happen the only condition I cant see the NHL or the Judge waivering on is the relocation ASAP which Basillie is pushing for. I mean the would have to reorganize the Conferences prior to the Season start. I can see the NHL caving on that last Stipulation.
The last thing I heard was Moyers has filed to have the NHL offer disqualified based on ""The NHL bid violates the distribution scheme of the bankruptcy code by paying lower-priority creditors before higher-priority creditors … Under all the cases cited by the debtors and the NHL, the NHL bid cannot be approved as a matter of law," said Thomas Salerno, Moyes's lawyer."
All in all this battle is actually getting interesting again |
| Odin |
Posted - 08/31/2009 : 11:27:48
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Now, getting to the bankrupcy thing. Not being hugely up to speed with the entire legal side, my understanding is that the person who files the bankrupcy always goes to the back of the bus in the creditor line up. If, and it's a big if, there is money left after all the other creditors are paid, then the person who filed for bankrupcy will get the scraps. That is why Moyes is fighting for Balsillie's bid. It's the only way he sees any money.
And I guess what I was saying is that how can the NHL as the owner of the team, pay off themselves as a creditor?? This happens daily in business around the world. A company gets a loan, they can't pay it, and in return the loaner gets stake in the loanee's company. Same thing here. The NHL bids $140 and they don't get their $30 million back. It would be the same things as they offering $170 million and taking their $30.
It's a moot point.
Back to this then. The problem here is that the money owed to the league isn't part of the bid. Thats why its specious reasoning. If they don't bid, they get in line like everybody else. The ampount they are owed isn't part of the equation. They are two completely separate amounts. Anyways, the judge can actually decide himself who is entitled to what cash regardless of what side deals have been cut.
Further Beans, even taking that amount into consideration, which the court won't, its STILL $40M or so below Balsillie's. |
| Odin |
Posted - 08/31/2009 : 11:20:16
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
quote:
Originally posted by Porkchop73
What is interesting about the bid and I think that the judge will find interesting is, the NHL states in their bid that they will move the franchise should they not be profitable. This is essentially what Balsilles bid is except he is citing the 30 mil already lost per seasons as proof. The NHL is saying they will do what Balsille wants to do. I think judge Redfield Baum (who seems to be smart and fair)will recognize this and allow the relocation in Balsille bid because the NHL says it will move the team anyway.
The NHL slipped up big time here, I think they will lose the support of all other sport leagues now. They also better step up and buy each struggling franchise, I know I would expect that if I owned one. If not I would file chapter 11 and make it happen all over again.
Funny thing is, I think Balsille is secretly getting exactly what he wanted which is Bettman and the NHL exposed for the crooked weasels that they are.
I also wonder what the NHLPA thinks about the NHL's bid?
I think(and I might be wrong) is that the NHL is saying the will move the team if a new owner and business plan is not successful in Phoenix. They are not moving it now. That's different and I also think that if Balsillie simply would have bought the Coyotes without his contigency to move the team, he would be the owner already. IF Balsillie was 1/2 the business man people thing he is, he would have bought Phoenix, put together a legitimate strategy to run it in Phoenix and gave it a go. If it didn't work, the NHL Board wouldn't have a leg to stand on for relocation.
Although I completely agree that this is the biggest of the blunders from all sides in the NHL getting into franchise ownership. It's bad bad news.
And, I am thinking the NHLPA has their own issues to deal with these days.
This is untrue as well. The NHL is on record as saying if they do not get a new lease renegotiated, by the end of the year, the team is gone. Therefore, the judge will likely take the higher bid seeing as its going to move anyways, or Glendale will have to come off their stance that they will not renegotiate the lease. |
| Odin |
Posted - 08/31/2009 : 11:17:11
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
quote:
Originally posted by Odin
If the NHL is truly serious about this, then they better up their bid. From what I've seen, the offer is $140M, which is good for 3rd best.
Yes but no. As the NHL is listed as a creditor in the amount of $30+ million, that would be assumed debt. If a creditor buys something, they become a creditor to themselves?? Nope. So, in the grand scheme of things, this deal is worth $170ish million as the $140 million would go to the other creditors. Balsillie's deal is $212.5 but once $30+ million is given to the NHL, the deal is closer between $170 and $180 million.
The NHL deal is comparable to the Balsillie deal in that respect.
However, I would not be surprised in the NHL wins the team, the next owner will have to give the NHL their $30 million back.
Thats really specious reasoning there Beans. If you're going to tka eout the NHL's claim, then you have to take out ALL the creditors claims. That has nothing to do with it. The price paid is $212.5M period. How that gets distributed after the fact is meaningless. Balsillies checkbook will show a payment of $212.5, which is what he will pay. The NHL will show a payment of $140M, then what? Do they pay themselves back $40M? If thats the case, then they are really paying $100M. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 08/28/2009 : 14:55:57
Now, getting to the bankrupcy thing. Not being hugely up to speed with the entire legal side, my understanding is that the person who files the bankrupcy always goes to the back of the bus in the creditor line up. If, and it's a big if, there is money left after all the other creditors are paid, then the person who filed for bankrupcy will get the scraps. That is why Moyes is fighting for Balsillie's bid. It's the only way he sees any money.
And I guess what I was saying is that how can the NHL as the owner of the team, pay off themselves as a creditor?? This happens daily in business around the world. A company gets a loan, they can't pay it, and in return the loaner gets stake in the loanee's company. Same thing here. The NHL bids $140 and they don't get their $30 million back. It would be the same things as they offering $170 million and taking their $30.
It's a moot point. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 08/28/2009 : 14:55:09
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
BTW - where are my apologies about the whole Tim Horton's location smackdown that I got, and which was easily disproven by my map? I love it how when someone tees off on a poster (me, in this case), and then another person piles in on the condemnation, but then when their assertions are proven false by HARD, PHYSICAL EVIDENCE (ie - the physical store locations in Toronto): all I hear is crickets! lol
Accountability, people.
As for the topic at hand, the actions of the NHL look suspiciously like those of extreme desperation . . . they are really on the ropes here, and this is their very last gambit. They are "all-in" at this point.
All up to the judge now: does he/she hold the creditor's interests higher, or the interests of keeping the team in Phoenix higher?
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
If you are asking for the apology from me, it's not coming. I never said that there couldn't be a Timmy's close to another Timmy's. I said Timmy's corporate has rules based on markets when a franchisee signs on. It does not say that there could never be another Timmy's in the area, but there are stipulations regarding when and if another Timmy's comes in as well as compensation/right of refusal of the new location from the original owner.
I read it in an actual signed establishment contract of a close friend who currently owns a Timmy's. I will not go into any further detail out of respect for my friend and his business.
So if you map trumps that because I can't post it. So be it. But I will not appologize for anything I have said.
|
| JOSHUACANADA |
Posted - 08/28/2009 : 13:13:28
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
quote:
Originally posted by Odin
If the NHL is truly serious about this, then they better up their bid. From what I've seen, the offer is $140M, which is good for 3rd best.
Yes but no. As the NHL is listed as a creditor in the amount of $30+ million, that would be assumed debt. If a creditor buys something, they become a creditor to themselves?? Nope. So, in the grand scheme of things, this deal is worth $170ish million as the $140 million would go to the other creditors. Balsillie's deal is $212.5 but once $30+ million is given to the NHL, the deal is closer between $170 and $180 million.
The NHL deal is comparable to the Balsillie deal in that respect.
However, I would not be surprised in the NHL wins the team, the next owner will have to give the NHL their $30 million back.
Not an expert at negotiating a sale or bankruptcy, but I believe all bid have been presented to the Judge and include negotiated payback to creditors which does not mean debt by the NHL notwithstanding. I dont think this bid automatically means the NHL gets stiffed or you add that to the proposed bid amount. Some bids have include Moyers recieving some of the proceeds, others have payed him nothing. Other bids include all or most to the major creditor others are quite a bit small to the major creditor.
I think the reason the NHL doesn't need to out bid buyer #2 ice edge is their bid comes with an stipulation that 5 games to be played in Saskatoon. Not exactly a bid without strings.
Basically I dont think you automatically add 30 million to the NHL's bid, it may come up during the bidding process during the bankruptcy sale allowing the NHL to be negotiable while the auction takes place. |
| n/a |
Posted - 08/28/2009 : 07:59:03
BTW - where are my apologies about the whole Tim Horton's location smackdown that I got, and which was easily disproven by my map? I love it how when someone tees off on a poster (me, in this case), and then another person piles in on the condemnation, but then when their assertions are proven false by HARD, PHYSICAL EVIDENCE (ie - the physical store locations in Toronto): all I hear is crickets! lol
Accountability, people.
As for the topic at hand, the actions of the NHL look suspiciously like those of extreme desperation . . . they are really on the ropes here, and this is their very last gambit. They are "all-in" at this point.
All up to the judge now: does he/she hold the creditor's interests higher, or the interests of keeping the team in Phoenix higher?
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 08/28/2009 : 06:34:51
quote:
Originally posted by Porkchop73
What is interesting about the bid and I think that the judge will find interesting is, the NHL states in their bid that they will move the franchise should they not be profitable. This is essentially what Balsilles bid is except he is citing the 30 mil already lost per seasons as proof. The NHL is saying they will do what Balsille wants to do. I think judge Redfield Baum (who seems to be smart and fair)will recognize this and allow the relocation in Balsille bid because the NHL says it will move the team anyway.
The NHL slipped up big time here, I think they will lose the support of all other sport leagues now. They also better step up and buy each struggling franchise, I know I would expect that if I owned one. If not I would file chapter 11 and make it happen all over again.
Funny thing is, I think Balsille is secretly getting exactly what he wanted which is Bettman and the NHL exposed for the crooked weasels that they are.
I also wonder what the NHLPA thinks about the NHL's bid?
I think(and I might be wrong) is that the NHL is saying the will move the team if a new owner and business plan is not successful in Phoenix. They are not moving it now. That's different and I also think that if Balsillie simply would have bought the Coyotes without his contigency to move the team, he would be the owner already. IF Balsillie was 1/2 the business man people thing he is, he would have bought Phoenix, put together a legitimate strategy to run it in Phoenix and gave it a go. If it didn't work, the NHL Board wouldn't have a leg to stand on for relocation.
Although I completely agree that this is the biggest of the blunders from all sides in the NHL getting into franchise ownership. It's bad bad news.
And, I am thinking the NHLPA has their own issues to deal with these days. |
| Porkchop73 |
Posted - 08/28/2009 : 06:28:46
What is interesting about the bid and I think that the judge will find interesting is, the NHL states in their bid that they will move the franchise should they not be profitable. This is essentially what Balsilles bid is except he is citing the 30 mil already lost per seasons as proof. The NHL is saying they will do what Balsille wants to do. I think judge Redfield Baum (who seems to be smart and fair)will recognize this and allow the relocation in Balsille bid because the NHL says it will move the team anyway.
The NHL slipped up big time here, I think they will lose the support of all other sport leagues now. They also better step up and buy each struggling franchise, I know I would expect that if I owned one. If not I would file chapter 11 and make it happen all over again.
Funny thing is, I think Balsille is secretly getting exactly what he wanted which is Bettman and the NHL exposed for the crooked weasels that they are.
I also wonder what the NHLPA thinks about the NHL's bid? |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 08/27/2009 : 14:02:24
quote:
Originally posted by Odin
If the NHL is truly serious about this, then they better up their bid. From what I've seen, the offer is $140M, which is good for 3rd best.
Yes but no. As the NHL is listed as a creditor in the amount of $30+ million, that would be assumed debt. If a creditor buys something, they become a creditor to themselves?? Nope. So, in the grand scheme of things, this deal is worth $170ish million as the $140 million would go to the other creditors. Balsillie's deal is $212.5 but once $30+ million is given to the NHL, the deal is closer between $170 and $180 million.
The NHL deal is comparable to the Balsillie deal in that respect.
However, I would not be surprised in the NHL wins the team, the next owner will have to give the NHL their $30 million back. |
| Guest9838 |
Posted - 08/27/2009 : 10:48:00
Latest News today...
So in the NHL's bid, there is a provision to move the team if it performs badly (financially) or if a "suitable" buyer isn't found who wants to keep the team in Phoenix.
This is looking worse on the league by the day.
http://www.thestar.com/Sports/article/687119
|
| Odin |
Posted - 08/27/2009 : 09:45:32
If the NHL is truly serious about this, then they better up their bid. From what I've seen, the offer is $140M, which is good for 3rd best. |
| JOSHUACANADA |
Posted - 08/27/2009 : 09:43:36
You know since the beginning I've thought the likelyhood of Basillie getting this team was farfetched at best but sided with him because I truly want more Canadian content in this league. I just cant believe how far the league has gone to stop his attempt. I think if they would have taken a different approach to this all along, Basillie wouldn't have had a chance. There have been too many underhanded tricks done by both Moyers and the NHL to say Basillie is unworthy based on his character. What does this say about the character of the current ownership group and the board of governers.
I am actually starting to believe Basillie might actually stand a chance here. I just wish he was flexible on the location of his offer rather than being inflexable on Hamilton. I personally wish he would have chosen another location. |
| umteman |
Posted - 08/26/2009 : 21:51:53
Well at least this soap opera has kept the off season from being as boring as it usually is.
Did you hear about the retired proctologist? He spent 40 years saying "what's a place like this doing in a girl like you?" |
| redneck76ca |
Posted - 08/26/2009 : 21:42:38
If the NHL is essentially the Board of Governors (which represent the owners) and they go an buy a team in the NHL there must be conflict of interest, IMO.
And you are right Beans, if the NHL buys and then sells the Coyotes then it is collusion as well. Weird situation. I'm still pulling for Balsillie, but Bettman just upped the ante. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 08/26/2009 : 20:33:27
quote:
Originally posted by Porkchop73
All I have to say is BINGO redneck, this has collusion written all over this if they turn and sell it to Reinsdorf in any way at all. It actually opens up any other franchise that declares bankruptcy to legal actions against the NHL. A truly desperate and dangerous move by the NHL. I wonder if all owners agree with this? If anyone wondered who are the real crooks, they got their answer today.
As I said above, although without any facts behind it, one can assume that Bettman/the NHL does not have the authority to allocate that kind if dollar amount and/or own a franchise in the NHL without the support of the Board to which each team has a rep. So one can assume reasonably confidently that the NHL has the support of the Board. If not, we would have heard reports of an emergency meeting of the Board and Sir Gary would be out on his anus.
I agree with the Collusion if Reinsdorf get his hands on the team, but would it not be collusion if the NHL sells it to anyone???
This move by the NHL is as dirty as any of Balsillie's moves. I'm now Switzerland.
Here's a pretty layman's report on what happens next and details out what the NHL gets to do if they are the new owner. On a side note, Darren Dreger and Ryan Rishaug are the two reasons TSN is the best hockey network around. Seriously, great, honest, clean reporting. I dig it. |
| Porkchop73 |
Posted - 08/26/2009 : 15:30:25
All I have to say is BINGO redneck, this has collusion written all over this if they turn and sell it to Reinsdorf in any way at all. It actually opens up any other franchise that declares bankruptcy to legal actions against the NHL. A truly desperate and dangerous move by the NHL. I wonder if all owners agree with this? If anyone wondered who are the real crooks, they got their answer today. |
|
|
