| Author |
 Topic  |
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
 Posted - 05/09/2009 : 05:09:13
|
Beans - no one is arguing that a team needs to be moved as soon as it is losing money. I didn't say that, at least (no one else did either to my knowledge), and to bring forth a straw man like that is ridiculous.
What I am saying is that if you are losing money from the very first year you moved there, for every year afterward, and if you lose about $200 million for the league for the last 8 years and are looking to lose another estimated $30 million this year (wiki) - then yes, THAT TEAM NEEDS TO MOVE.
There are always mitigating factors that need to be considered when a team gets into financial trouble and one considers it worth saving or not - unfortunately, Phoenix has none of them.
Phoenix is not in a traditional hockey market.
Phoenix does not have a long or storied history of success.
Phoenix does not have a huge public outcry or petition to save the team.
Phoenix's losses have everything to do with an apathetic market for hockey (not mismanagement, etc).
A cool head and an even perspective would be able to see that teams like Edmonton, New Jersey and the Islanders have huge mitigating factors, besides the fact that none of them has lost so much money for so long; they all have long winning histories; and it can be argued that in Edmonton's case at least that there is a rabid fan base (certainly NJ and NY are not non-traditional hockey markets).
Try another argument to defend Bettman and the governors, go ahead! Just not this straw man . . .
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
 |
|
|
OILINONTARIO
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
816 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2009 : 05:26:30
|
| Saw a report about this yesterday on The Score, and I've got to say, I was amused at the pronunciation of Balsillie's name. Phonetically, the reporter spoke about the various attempts of Jim Ballsily to purchase an NHL franchise. Similar to words like clumsily, one would assume the etymology of this surname to be traced to someone who became notorious for behaving in a particularly "ballsy" manner. Strangely appropriate. |
|
|
|
Guest6008
( )
|
Posted - 05/09/2009 : 07:28:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Slozo, completely agree with one piece. Phoenix is not a hockey town. It is a perfect example of a novelty. For the first few seasons, it worked. But the were never a winning team and Phoenix is not a hockey city (like others in Canada) where fans would watch the same team lose year after year, in some cases for over 40 years.  (Couldn't resist)
However, I still don't like the way Balsillie is going about it. If it was such a good idea, don't people think the Board of Governors would have tossed out Bettman and allowed either of the two other buy and move deals that Balsillie has failed on??? This is bigger than Bettman.
And that brings up another thought. There have been many franchises move in the past 20 years. Not a single one of them were ever considered for Southern Ontario. And this is not sarcastic, but if there is so much money there, and such a sustainable hockey market, why is Balsillie the only person willing to put the money up to fund a team there???
beans can you say expansion dollars if someone move a team already existing nhl doesnt get their cut expansion franchise nhl gets what 400 million last expansion correct me if im wrong was 215 million |
|
|
|
Guest6008
( )
|
Posted - 05/09/2009 : 07:31:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest6008
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Slozo, completely agree with one piece. Phoenix is not a hockey town. It is a perfect example of a novelty. For the first few seasons, it worked. But the were never a winning team and Phoenix is not a hockey city (like others in Canada) where fans would watch the same team lose year after year, in some cases for over 40 years. (Couldn't resist)
However, I still don't like the way Balsillie is going about it. If it was such a good idea, don't people think the Board of Governors would have tossed out Bettman and allowed either of the two other buy and move deals that Balsillie has failed on??? This is bigger than Bettman.
And that brings up another thought. There have been many franchises move in the past 20 years. Not a single one of them were ever considered for Southern Ontario. And this is not sarcastic, but if there is so much money there, and such a sustainable hockey market, why is Balsillie the only person willing to put the money up to fund a team there???
beans can you say expansion dollars if someone move a team already existing nhl doesnt get their cut expansion franchise nhl gets what 400 million last expansion correct me if im wrong was 215 million
and ps 80 percent of ontarios pop is in southern ontario only moose up north no offence to north |
|
|
|
JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2308 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2009 : 08:53:27
|
Hey Bean's, my point with regards to Winnipeg, Edmonton and Calgary franchises was, what side of the fench did Bettman sit on then when those franchise's in there worst season generated more of a fan base and merchandise sales than any of the troubled southern teams. I truly believe if the canadian $ hadn't increase in value, public support had not have been so loud we would not have an Alberta NHL team. I think Bettman, himself, would have brokered a deal if he thought he could replace our 4 million fan base.
As to whether hockey should or could move to southern ontario, in this economy why does an owner who has made repeated attempts to buy a nhl franchise not deserve the chance if he is willing to take the risk. Shouldn't he have a say where the go. By what way could Basillie have taken to own an NHL franchise. He tried to by one by the book and if he made an offer to Montreal they would turn him down because of potential relocation.
Penquins only playing in Pitsburg now cause Mario took equity vs. the shaft not because the league intervened and they got Crosby/Malkin in the draft.
I here Bettman claim he helped Ottawa, Im not familiar with this. What is he talking about. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2009 : 09:28:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA
Hey Bean's, my point with regards to Winnipeg, Edmonton and Calgary franchises was, what side of the fench did Bettman sit on then when those franchise's in there worst season generated more of a fan base and merchandise sales than any of the troubled southern teams. I truly believe if the canadian $ hadn't increase in value, public support had not have been so loud we would not have an Alberta NHL team. I think Bettman, himself, would have brokered a deal if he thought he could replace our 4 million fan base.
As to whether hockey should or could move to southern ontario, in this economy why does an owner who has made repeated attempts to buy a nhl franchise not deserve the chance if he is willing to take the risk. Shouldn't he have a say where the go. By what way could Basillie have taken to own an NHL franchise. He tried to by one by the book and if he made an offer to Montreal they would turn him down because of potential relocation.
Penquins only playing in Pitsburg now cause Mario took equity vs. the shaft not because the league intervened and they got Crosby/Malkin in the draft.
I here Bettman claim he helped Ottawa, Im not familiar with this. What is he talking about.
Whoa, big time wrong. Bettman was one of the people who spearheaded the Canadian/Small Market Team Subsidy. It was basically that if a team could gain enough support through season tickets, the NHL would support the team with a financial injection to compensate for things like the variance in US vs American Dollar.
Most know that without that NHL support, for the better part of a decade, that there would be only 4 teams in Canada as Calgary and Edmonton would have both been gone! |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2009 : 09:41:33
|
Slozo, I am not arguing that the Phoenix team needs help, but I am not on the side that a move is the only answer. Living in a city that went through it, moving was definately not the answer when this team was in trouble. Above this, I am definately not in agreement that some Cowboy can decide on his own where he thinks a team should be. Just for a second, even if you don't agree, imagine if the new "Hamilton" team gets in trouble financially. Does the NHL have any responsibility in that??? Nope. None at all.
Regardless, many on here disagree with me on many points. That's not the point of this topic and maybe I have been going a little off tangent. My support has never been with "Bettman." It's always been with the NHL. And I don't agree with the way that Balsillie is going about his business.
I have posed the same question/statement in my last 2 posts and people are avoiding it like the plague.
Let's put it this way:
Warren Buffett, the richest (or 2nd richest) man in the world is thinking about slowing down. But, he wants something to do in his twilight and decides an NHL team would be nice to have in Omaha Nebraska. So, he works with George Gillette (who is having troubles selling razors these days) and together, they work out a plan for Buffett to buy the team on a condition that it is relocated. He is willing to pay $600 million to make this happen which is nearly double the current valuation of the Montreal Franchise. As soon as it's annouced, 15,000 people from Nebraska sign up to a website to bring the 25th NHL team to the US. It's now up to the Bankruptcy Courts in Canada to decide. In the mean time, the NHL is trying to stop the deal. But, Warren Buffet has enough money to literally fund the most expensive hockey team for the next century and he has fan and corporate support in Omaha. Good bye Montreal Canadiens, hello Omaha Oracles.
a) Is the NHL right in getting involved and try to stop the deal??
b) Should the courts be able to decide the fate of the Canadiens??
c) Should the NHL Board of Directors have a say in the matter???
If you answered "yes" to any of those questions and you are in agreement with Balsillie's current actions, it's my opinion you are being hipocritical. Just because one might agree that a team would work in Southern Ontario does not make the way Balsillie is doing it appropriate. |
|
|
|
Guest2975
( )
|
Posted - 05/09/2009 : 15:00:06
|
Hmmm....are the canadian's making money right now. Why did the current ownership put them up for sale. If Warren Buffet wants to buy an NHL team I say what do we call Warren's team. Kidding but to be frank why not. What is the downside of taking a money losing team in a failing market and transplanting them in a money making market. If the money man wants to pay to play why not. (Im not a hab's fan)
I would rather have the NHL reserve him the right's to any team once they have decided to relocate a team. He should put a deposit down and once one becomes available thru expansion or failing market, it be awarded to him. Bettman and the NHL brass do not want to play with Jim Balsillie. |
|
|
|
Guest2975
( )
|
Posted - 05/09/2009 : 15:27:12
|
Beans
a) Is the NHL right in getting involved and try to stop the deal??
b) Should the courts be able to decide the fate of the Canadiens??
c) Should the NHL Board of Directors have a say in the matter???
a)Not unless they have a valid excuse to keep the team in a failing market.
b)Yes, yes, yes and yes
c)Yes but only in the matter of location. If it is a matter of money or personality making the offer I believe their right's should be limited. Why should Jerry Moyse take less than full value for this franchise? In the end Jerry Moyse is losing control of this franchise because NHL infused money in to the failing franchise.
Give him the franchise and work towards a suitable location both parties can agree upon. Cooperation and compremise. |
|
|
|
JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2308 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2009 : 15:30:01
|
| Sorry last to post were by me. Why is this not in the active topics list?? |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2009 : 16:28:59
|
Beans - you keep hammering away at the same strawman argument:
"If we let Balsillie move Phoenix, any team that loses money at some point could be in danger of being moved, even original six teams or storied franchises like the Canadiens or Oilers"
I am not avoiding YOUR argument like the plague . . . in fact, I answered it already. And, you continue to posit ridiculous scenarios - like your Buffet buying the Canadiens - as if it is remotely close to the Phoenix issue! Let's go through the mitigating factors again that I feel might limit Bettman and the governors in any decision to approve a franchise move:
1. The franchise in Phoenix has little to no historical success. Been in the playoffs, but no Stanley Cup or finals appearance. Any other team that has had financial trouble for periods of time but has a decent amount of history - this team would get a bit more consideration for staying / financial support in my mind.
2. The franchise in Phoenix has never made money. Uh, I'm not even sure if there is another example of this . . . but anyways, a team that is losing money now, but has made decent money before, would get some leeway as well. In this case, it's been a losing proposition the whole time.
3. The franchise in Phoenix is not an original six team, or even one of the 24 teams from 1974. The longer the franchise has been in the NHL, the more effort one would make to keep it there.
4. Phoenix does not have a huge fanbase. In fact, it can be argued that . . . it has little to no fanbase. One wonders why a team was put there at all in the first place, but then again, there are teams in Carolina and Anaheim and San Jose that used to be in the same boat, but they built up some fanbase. Well, Phoenix just hasn't done that.
So your grand example of Montreal . . . fails on all counts. It's an original six team; they've consistantly made money, and lots of it; they have a ton of historical success (the most, in fact); and they have a huge fanbase, arguably the second largest if not the largest. All those factors combined would make it a clear "no move" decision for the league, clearly.
Give me another example, please!
btw - if a new Hamilton team got in trouble financially, then I guess it wasn't such a good idea IF (and this is a big if) it is because of poor fan support. Remember, a team can lose money for a bit while having great fan support, through mismanagement, bad arena/deals, etc. Not going to happen though - already shown to have rabid fan support.
Does the NHL need money waved in front of its nose before the hamster starts running in the cage up there and they realise they could MAKE money instead of LOSE money on a franchise that up till now has no success, no long history, and no fanbase in its current location?!?
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
hanley6
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
674 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2009 : 20:30:34
|
the NHL needs to somehow get rid of Gary Bettman if they want to improve. Really I mean Hockey is a Canadian game Bettman is American and he knows nothing about hockey by the way, All he cares about is taking away our Canadian teams and bringing hockey into places that don't care about hockey at all... Pheonix is backrupt for a good reason, simply because Pheonix is not at all a good hockey Market city, and never will be... Bettman if you ever had a brain, stop trying to bring in Cities in the states where NHL hockey is under Baseball, basketball, football, college basketball, college football, college baseball and sadly even under soccor also known as American football... Hockey is a Canadian sport Mr Bettman and you can't take that away from us, Any where in Canada is a better hockey Marketing City than anything you have brought in to the NHL since you took over.
The NHL truy needs to get rid of Bettman before he gets rid of all the Canadian teams. And Beans you truly need to stop and think about things about what is better for the NHL before you try sticking up for Bettman. |
|
|
|
hanley6
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
674 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2009 : 20:44:07
|
| other teams that come to mind that would obviously be better off in Canada, Pheonix, the Uniondale (New York) Islanders, Minnesota Wild, Columbus Blue Jackets, Pittsburgh Penguins, Atlanta Thrashers, Nashville Predators etc... |
Edited by - hanley6 on 05/09/2009 20:44:54 |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2009 : 22:08:13
|
Slozo, you are swaying the arguement in your favor by making these statement about history and past success and what ever else. Bottom line, if Balsillie can make this kind of move for a franchise where he wants it, there is nothing stopping anyone else to do the exact same thing to any other team. Period.
Bottom line, you still have not answered any of the three questions I have posed. They are not hard. Simple yes or no without all the stuff in between would be nice.
I have never once disagreed that a team would work in Southern Ontario, but there is a right way and wrong way for this to happen. No different than any other "real world" franchise. It's a corporate decision, not a renegade owner who calls the shots. Regardless if you or I or anyone else agrees or disagrees with where teams are or no, there is a process that 29 other owners follow. Why is Balsillie any different???
Please try to understand, I am not arguing the validity of a team in Hamilton or anywhere else in Southern Ontario. I am arguing the way it is happening because it's simply wrong in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2009 : 22:13:30
|
What three questions?
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2009 : 22:22:14
|
Warren Buffett, the richest (or 2nd richest) man in the world is thinking about slowing down. But, he wants something to do in his twilight and decides an NHL team would be nice to have in Omaha Nebraska. So, he works with George Gillette (who is having troubles selling razors these days) and together, they work out a plan for Buffett to buy the team on a condition that it is relocated. He is willing to pay $600 million to make this happen which is nearly double the current valuation of the Montreal Franchise. As soon as it's annouced, 15,000 people from Nebraska sign up to a website to bring the 25th NHL team to the US. It's now up to the Bankruptcy Courts in Canada to decide. In the mean time, the NHL is trying to stop the deal. But, Warren Buffet has enough money to literally fund the most expensive hockey team for the next century and he has fan and corporate support in Omaha. Good bye Montreal Canadiens, hello Omaha Oracles.
a) Is the NHL right in getting involved and should try to stop the deal??
b) Should the courts be able to decide the fate of the Canadiens??
c) Should the NHL Board of Directors have a say in the matter???
|
Edited by - Beans15 on 05/09/2009 22:22:49 |
|
|
|
hanley6
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
674 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2009 : 22:25:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Slozo, you are swaying the arguement in your favor by making these statement about history and past success and what ever else. Bottom line, if Balsillie can make this kind of move for a franchise where he wants it, there is nothing stopping anyone else to do the exact same thing to any other team. Period.
Bottom line, you still have not answered any of the three questions I have posed. They are not hard. Simple yes or no without all the stuff in between would be nice.
I have never once disagreed that a team would work in Southern Ontario, but there is a right way and wrong way for this to happen. No different than any other "real world" franchise. It's a corporate decision, not a renegade owner who calls the shots. Regardless if you or I or anyone else agrees or disagrees with where teams are or no, there is a process that 29 other owners follow. Why is Balsillie any different???
Please try to understand, I am not arguing the validity of a team in Hamilton or anywhere else in Southern Ontario. I am arguing the way it is happening because it's simply wrong in my opinion.
.
how is it wrong??????????????? How is it right for Bettman to keep it in Pheonix??? Phoenix is a poor hockey Market, if anything it would be wrong to keep it in Phoenix... |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2009 : 22:32:44
|
Oh, the questions on THAT scenario. Ok, I'll bite.
a) NHL would be right to get involved, because moving a financially successful team, one of the original 6, the most storied franchise in the history of the game,that team absolutely must stay in Montreal - otherwise it would rip the fabric of the league apart, nevermind the riots that would halt all business for a month in Quebec! Of course they would stop that deal, and they'd be right to.
b) Courts decide the fate of Canadiens . . . no, I personally don't think they should, but they might. My personal vote for who decides is a court - the court of public opinion, true democracy in action (note: people vote with their wallet as well)!
c) Well, of course - the board of directors must have a say in the matter, and only if they were all on shrooms and PCP would they in their wildest dreams make a stupid decision like move the Canadiens . . . or, as another example, put a hockey team in the middle of the desert, and keep it there for over 10 years to continuously lose money. 
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2009 : 22:36:13
|
Hanley, it's not Bettman. There are rules in the NHL. You can't just move a team because you bought it. And it the other 29 owners who have a say as well. If they all say yes, Bettman can do nothing about it. He has zero voting ability on the Board.
Take a look at this article.
http://www.cb-bc.gc.ca/eic/site/cb-bc.nsf/eng/02641.html
The entire article is from the Canadian Competition Bureau the last time Balsillie tried to do this. Basically saying that the NHL has the control over where teams are. I guess Balsillie didn't like that answer so now he is trying US courts.
Again, I can not stress enough. I am not arguing a team in Canada. I am not arguing the team in Phoenix is in trouble. I am not arguing that Phoenix is not a market that hockey will work in. But that is not my point. I am arguing that Balsillie's actions (and Jerry Moyes because he is not faultless in this) are dangerous to the NHL and set a precident that people are not considering.
If Balsillie can move a team because he bought it, so can anyone who buys a team from that day forward. That is a very dangerous thing to the future of the NHL.
|
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2009 : 22:44:40
|
Slozo, just so I am clear. It would be right for the NHL to get involved with blocking the Canadiens from moving because they have the history, the original 6, etc.
I don't want to put words into you mouth, so let's dig a little deeper. What if the team that was to be moved was Vancouver, Calgary, or Edmonton? All of which are in 'hockey markets' but 2 of the 3 have gone through 10 of the past 15ish years as money losing ventures. In fact, the Edmonton Oilers lost money every year from 1993 until 2002 and finally got out of debt completely after their Cup Finals apperance. What if it was Ottawa?? Hell, they lost $5 million just a few years back and they have no Cup. Less than 20 years in the league.
I hear you that the Canadiens moving is absurd. But what about one of these teams??? Without the hindsight of knowing that Edmonton puts in the 6th most profits in the NHL today and only 3 years ago they lost money.
And to add to this, let's say the potential move site is a reasonably viable market. Maybe a Portland or Seattle for example.
Would your answers be the same?? |
|
|
|
hanley6
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
674 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2009 : 23:25:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Hanley, it's not Bettman. There are rules in the NHL. You can't just move a team because you bought it. And it the other 29 owners who have a say as well. If they all say yes, Bettman can do nothing about it. He has zero voting ability on the Board.
Take a look at this article.
http://www.cb-bc.gc.ca/eic/site/cb-bc.nsf/eng/02641.html
The entire article is from the Canadian Competition Bureau the last time Balsillie tried to do this. Basically saying that the NHL has the control over where teams are. I guess Balsillie didn't like that answer so now he is trying US courts.
Again, I can not stress enough. I am not arguing a team in Canada. I am not arguing the team in Phoenix is in trouble. I am not arguing that Phoenix is not a market that hockey will work in. But that is not my point. I am arguing that Balsillie's actions (and Jerry Moyes because he is not faultless in this) are dangerous to the NHL and set a precident that people are not considering.
If Balsillie can move a team because he bought it, so can anyone who buys a team from that day forward. That is a very dangerous thing to the future of the NHL.
doesn't sound dangerous to me, why keep a team where you aren't getting any support? low fan base, low marketing. It would make sense to move your team to a place where people love hockey. No danger in that. its dangerous to keep teams in Cities where hockey isn't watched |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2009 : 23:45:00
|
Ok, Hanley, 5 years ago you would have had to move Calgary, Edmonton, and Ottawa.
Last year, you would have had to move 12 teams, including Philadelphia, Washington, Boston, and Buffalo. Hell, Edmonton made a profit (6th biggest in the league!) but only brought in $85 million in revenue in 2008. That's only a million more than Tampa Bay!! Better move them both!!
According to your logic, if a team has low attendance and is not making money, move them. Well, Buffalo fits that criteria. So let's move Buffalo out, and move a team from Phoenix into the same area.
Great plan, where do I sign up! |
|
|
|
hanley6
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
674 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2009 : 00:28:31
|
dude, what I am saying is simple. Move the teams away from the Cities that dont give a damn about Hockey and move them to the Cities that do, or you're going to have financial problems for sure... ya cant say it any more clear that... Phoenix will never be a Hockey Marketing City it would be better off in Hamilton or anywhere in Canada.
Hell, Brantford Ontario would be better financially than Phoenix. |
Edited by - hanley6 on 05/10/2009 00:42:43 |
|
|
|
Guest7022
( )
|
Posted - 05/10/2009 : 07:35:46
|
I think Hanley,,,,,,,Is Gary Bettmen.............
|
|
|
|
Guest4094
( )
|
Posted - 05/10/2009 : 12:25:02
|
beans quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Ok, Hanley, 5 years ago you would have had to move Calgary, Edmonton, and Ottawa.
Last year, you would have had to move 12 teams, including Philadelphia, Washington, Boston, and Buffalo. Hell, Edmonton made a profit (6th biggest in the league!) but only brought in $85 million in revenue in 2008. That's only a million more than Tampa Bay!! Better move them both!!
According to your logic, if a team has low attendance and is not making money, move them. Well, Buffalo fits that criteria. So let's move Buffalo out, and move a team from Phoenix into the same area.
Great plan, where do I sign up!
ok beans if were doing riduculos scenarios what if asteroid hit air canada centre and destoyed the arena the leafs wnat to move to hamilton because they can now sell the arena land for 1 billion dollars but bettman says no. The teachers pension suffers a huge hit and they now have to work until they are 50. sorry 1.Seriously if an owner is losing money year after yr after yr does he have to keep spending until hes broke
2. Is a franchise in phoenix viable now in the Past or in the future
3. If you personally seen your hard earned fortune going down the drain would you do something or wait until your broke and the nhl decides to sell it for you with no return.
4. If your the players union should you be subsidizing the coyotes (in effect the poor franchises work as a drag on the salary cap due to loss of revenue). Interstingly head of union has already came out in favor of team in southern ont.
5. if you are offerd 215 million whould you take less.
6. If 10 people came to a leaf game because they suck all year for a year and basically gave up on them ever winning a cup. Should you still have pay the players salarys.
7. If you owned a tim hortons in a crime infested neighbourhood and you sold one coffe a month would they force you to stay ther until you were broke. Or lets say warren buffet wanted to buy it would tim hortons say no. Or would they say ok but lets talk well decide were it goes. or would they JUst say we dont like you and we dont want to play with you warren because we are in control.
8. How much money is an owner required to lose.
9. if 10 teeams out of 30 went under or couldnt afford to operate without help from the other 20 teams and the league was being pulled down by the 10. would you be okay if the league folded.
10. If you ran the league would you put a team in nunuvit.
11. If you spent 6mths negoating to by pitts in good faith and according to the rules set out nby nhl. And you where clear with your intentions and had a deal in place(i know wahat you are goiing to say but they had the is dotted and t crossed other wise why would the nhl embarass mario by announcing the deal and then when jim went to sign it hand him a 12 page addendum . PS would you agree to buy a house for a set price and have the paperwork set 2 mths before and then when you went to pick up the keys the owner (actually not even the owner) said oh yeah this is addendum you have to sign right now as you have tv interview to say you bought the house(team) dont read it has you got 10 min. or no deal |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2009 : 15:48:02
|
Well, I guess I have to respond.
Before you even started numbering, if the building blew up in Toronto, there would definately be a temporary home of the Leafs. But, they would have to stay in their market. Much like any other team that has built a new building. It is never outside the market of the original location.
1) No, the owner does not have to keep spending until they are broke. They can sell the team or petition to move the team. Either of which, Moyes has done. He is trying to make more (significantly more) than the franchise is worth at the same time as completely screwing the Glendale Arena and City of Glendale out of a lease.
2) I never said the franchise in Phoenix is viable, but that is not the arguement. The arguement is if it's right for Balsillie to buy and move a team without league support.
3) This is not the case. There are reportedly 3 other offers on the table, one very serious and definately at or above market value for the team. Again, it's a ploy to have the US courts involved in the decision rather than in the hands of the NHL Board of Governors where it belongs.
4) The NHLPA is subsidizing at least 12 teams in the league who all lose money. Should they all be moved to Hamilton??
5) I wasn't offered $212 million. I was offered nothing. The Bankruptcy court was offered $212 million. That all goes to creditors.
6) Yep, you always have to pay the salaries. That's part of the employment contract and completely irrelevant of where the team plays or how many people show up.
7) Really confused by this, but I will try. No, you can close up shop. No, Tim Horton's can not force you to stay open. Yes, Warren Buffett can buy it and make it what ever he wants, unless he wants it to still be a Tim Hortons. If so, he has to have the support of Corporate.
8) An owner can make or lose as much as they want. That is their choice.
9)This is the exact situation of the NHL today. 18 teams make money, 12 do not. Those 12 share revenues with the 18 making money. This is the way the world works. Not different than Canada as a whole. When Alberta is making tons of money, more money goes to the Federal Government. They Feds then split this money to places that are not doing as well (NewFoundland, BC Lumber, Ontario Auto). Does that mean Alberta should leave Canada so they can make more money??
10)Nope, I would not put a team anywhere. I would support the current teams and if relocation was required, I would let professionals with education, knowledge and experience tell me where a team should go. Not some Billionarrie with a dream.
11) I have no idea what anything in this portion really means. If the question is would I buy something after the contract was changed, No.
95% of this has nothing to do with the fact that the NHL contols it's oown fate. Not a single owner. |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2009 : 19:28:00
|
Beans - apply my rules to the Oilers, and you get your answer. Sorry, but I'm sick and tired of repeating myself for obvious answers.
1. Were the Oilers losing money because of mismanagement, high salaries, low Canadian dollar, or poor fan support?
Everything except for fan support. So, that's a big reason not to move the team.
2. Do the Oilers have a winning history?
Yes, big-time. 5 Stanley Cups, and the best player to ever lace up skates will always be remembered as an Oiler . . . as will a host of other superstar HOFers. Great winning tradition.
btw - how come the NHL kept a city like Edmonton but kicked out Winnipeg, who had less of a "losing streak" than Edmonton had? Winning tradition, stars of the game, fan support.
Next scenario!
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
hanley6
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
674 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2009 : 20:58:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest7022
I think Hanley,,,,,,,Is Gary Bettmen.............
yeah, good one |
|
|
|
Thrasher
Rookie
Canada
155 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2009 : 21:09:56
|
I agree with Beans. I do think the team needs to be moved, but the way its happening now its dumb. If i were to win the Lottery, have enough money to buy a team and move it where i want? I would put the Thrashers in my back yard. If the league thinks its for the best for Phoenix to stay, then it should. They know the numbers, if they start losing too much money, then they can look at moving a team or two.
And i was watching Sportcenter tonight, and they said they were looking at the Thrashers????? Does anyone else know about this? I would LOVE to see them in Canada.
Kovalchuk. Tourny MVP. Sick
I Promise I didn't give her the STD, I'm not a sharing person. |
|
|
|
hanley6
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
674 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2009 : 21:27:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
Beans - apply my rules to the Oilers, and you get your answer. Sorry, but I'm sick and tired of repeating myself for obvious answers.
1. Were the Oilers losing money because of mismanagement, high salaries, low Canadian dollar, or poor fan support?
Everything except for fan support. So, that's a big reason not to move the team.
2. Do the Oilers have a winning history?
Yes, big-time. 5 Stanley Cups, and the best player to ever lace up skates will always be remembered as an Oiler . . . as will a host of other superstar HOFers. Great winning tradition.
btw - how come the NHL kept a city like Edmonton but kicked out Winnipeg, who had less of a "losing streak" than Edmonton had? Winning tradition, stars of the game, fan support.
Next scenario!
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
exactly, A team can win lots of games and still lose lots of money because of no fan support. When a team has no fan support it is time to move them... Winnipeg had more fan support than Phoenix ever has had and Gary Bettman had no problem moving Winnipeg to Phoenix. Now someone wants to move a deadend bankrupt Phoenix team to Hamilton and Bettman has a huge problem with that... Bettman is American, He wants to steal the Canadian game and he doesn't even give a damn about the game. He's already changed the game (not for the better).. If you want the NHL to be more successful move the teams that have no fan support to Cities that love the game and you'll see a huge improvement... |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 05/11/2009 : 07:50:33
|
Seriously, for the last time, STOP ARGUING THE MERITS OF A TEAM IN SOUTHERN ONTARIO!! I never disagreed with this. I am not as sold on it as others, but I never said it completely wouldn't work. You guys are completely missing my point.
IT BALSILLIE'S ATTEMPTS AT WORKING AROUND THE RULES THAT I HAVE AN ISSUE WITH.
He tried with Pittsburgh, and failed with the League. He tried with Nashville and he failed again, this time with the Canadian Competition Bureau agreeing with the NHL. Finally, he is trying with an American Court. It's a joke.
And Slozo, you are incorrect about something. The Oilers had very limited fan support in the mid-90's. They were not selling out the smallest area in the NHL, and had to scramble every year for 4-5 years to get the 12,500 season ticket holders to qualify for the small market subsidy from the NHL. And the only reason the Oilers stayed in Edmonton was that Subsidy, along with a group of 37 Edmontonians who bought the team. Without that, they were gone. History or not. That would have been a bad thing for the league. |
Edited by - Beans15 on 05/11/2009 08:13:50 |
|
|
|
Matt_Roberts85
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
936 Posts |
Posted - 05/11/2009 : 10:44:30
|
I think Phoenix needs 2 teams....
There is no "I" in team, but there is an "M" and an "E". |
|
|
|
Odin
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
350 Posts |
Posted - 05/11/2009 : 11:30:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Slozo, completely agree with one piece. Phoenix is not a hockey town. It is a perfect example of a novelty. For the first few seasons, it worked. But the were never a winning team and Phoenix is not a hockey city (like others in Canada) where fans would watch the same team lose year after year, in some cases for over 40 years. (Couldn't resist)
However, I still don't like the way Balsillie is going about it. If it was such a good idea, don't people think the Board of Governors would have tossed out Bettman and allowed either of the two other buy and move deals that Balsillie has failed on??? This is bigger than Bettman.
And that brings up another thought. There have been many franchises move in the past 20 years. Not a single one of them were ever considered for Southern Ontario. And this is not sarcastic, but if there is so much money there, and such a sustainable hockey market, why is Balsillie the only person willing to put the money up to fund a team there???
Actually Beans, you have posted many times questioning the viability of another southern Ontario team. The one above is just one. There were others where you were comparing popualtions etc.
One of the reasons why a team hasn't been placed in Hamilton is one of the major ones that nobody seems to have mentioned. The Toronto Maple Leafs. As one of the most powerful franchises in sport, they have done everything to block this from happening.
Second, you talk of rules and the proper way to go about things. Bottom line is this: this is a business. And while I agree that the board has its rules of how to go about business, this is the real world where rules sometimes clash. Balsillie is a business man who knows what he wants and made a VERY substantial and well thought out offer. The offer is made to the current owner AS WELL as the court, but I don't believe the Coyotes are that far in hock. He would get the excess.
But Balsillie IS actually playing by the rules: the rules of the business world. It would be an act of insanity for the judge to accept anybody's offer but his, unless a better offer comes. Balsillie was VERY up front about what his intentions are.
It is what it is. An offer. He just doesn't want to keep it in a market that has NEVER proven itself, and you can't blame him for that. The difference between this and other scenarios of similar nature is the deafening silence from the so called fan base. That to me more than anything is an indication that the league REALLY got this one wrong. It happens. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 05/11/2009 : 12:15:45
|
Odin, you are right that I have said in the past bringing up points about similar locations with multiple teams. I don't believe that I said I agreed or didn't agree. I was just bringing up the information. I am not as sold on it working as others. I personally think bringing a team of Hamilton will put Buffalo in trouble and/or take profit from the Maple Leafs. At best, you will have a cyclical situation of 2 of the 3 teams doing well and the other not doing well.
Regardless.
You are correct again, this is the rules of the business world. And in the business world, it's the corporation who makes the decisions on where franchises are and/or if they move.
Again, going back to the Tim Horton's analogy. If your corner Timmy's is lined up around the block and some guys shows up wanting to build a 2nd Timmy's on the other corner, can he do it??? No. It's up to Timmy's corporate to say where the new locations are.
Why is the NHL any different?? I bet 1000-1 that the people that are in the line up for their morning double-double would love another locations on the other corner. Less line up, same great product. But alas, as I said countless times, it's Timmy's call.
This is no different. Regardless if you think a team in Hamilton would work or not, this is not Balsillie's choice. It's the NHL's.
And even more importantly, I don't think people are seeing the forrest for the trees here. If Balsillie can move a team without the NHL's blessing, what's to stop anyone else from doing it?? Again, complete loss of control by the NHL and the other 29 owners. It's simply not right, and not acceptable in the business world. There is a reason to have a corporate office and franchises. If you don't like the rules, don't buy the franchise.
|
|
|
|
Odin
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
350 Posts |
Posted - 05/11/2009 : 13:16:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Odin, you are right that I have said in the past bringing up points about similar locations with multiple teams. I don't believe that I said I agreed or didn't agree. I was just bringing up the information. I am not as sold on it working as others. I personally think bringing a team of Hamilton will put Buffalo in trouble and/or take profit from the Maple Leafs. At best, you will have a cyclical situation of 2 of the 3 teams doing well and the other not doing well.
Regardless.
You are correct again, this is the rules of the business world. And in the business world, it's the corporation who makes the decisions on where franchises are and/or if they move.
Again, going back to the Tim Horton's analogy. If your corner Timmy's is lined up around the block and some guys shows up wanting to build a 2nd Timmy's on the other corner, can he do it??? No. It's up to Timmy's corporate to say where the new locations are.
Why is the NHL any different?? I bet 1000-1 that the people that are in the line up for their morning double-double would love another locations on the other corner. Less line up, same great product. But alas, as I said countless times, it's Timmy's call.
This is no different. Regardless if you think a team in Hamilton would work or not, this is not Balsillie's choice. It's the NHL's.
And even more importantly, I don't think people are seeing the forrest for the trees here. If Balsillie can move a team without the NHL's blessing, what's to stop anyone else from doing it?? Again, complete loss of control by the NHL and the other 29 owners. It's simply not right, and not acceptable in the business world. There is a reason to have a corporate office and franchises. If you don't like the rules, don't buy the franchise.
Well, it sounded to me based on the context you were using that you were questioning it, and you kind of reinforced it here. I am not touching the Timmy's analogy, because you are comparing apples to oranges. The team would be going into an entirely different city, and that will not affect the Leafs. They already have a huge fan base. As for Buffalo, I am not entirely convinced that they are going to be affected anyway. If they are then it is mainly because of Canadian fans going to watch. They should be able to stay here if they want. Besides which, there is going to be compensation.
Timmy's is a huge corp with what? 5000 locations? The NHL is a boys club with 30 locations. That is the difference here. It is MUCH easier to micromanage 30 than 5000, and that is exactly what Bettman is doing here. I think its egos, the biggest being Bettman losing his dream of southern US hockey. And I also think he has the "I'm in charge!" syndrome.
And Slozo already answered your question of precedence. You keep glossing over it, but the question has been answered. This isn't a normal case. Most teams don't go to bankruptcy, and because it has gone that far, a good chunk of control has been taken from the board. In normal cases, the board has full control of the situation, and that IS the difference here. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 05/11/2009 : 13:25:32
|
It is not me glossing over anything. In fact, people keep bring up the 'world of business' thing, yet when there is a rebuttel, then here comes "The NHL is different" piece. Really, people are continously contricting themselves.
So let's compare Apples to Apples than. Name me one pro sports league anywhere in the world that allows owners to sell teams and move them without league support???
Good luck finding one. |
|
|
|
Guest0579
( )
|
Posted - 05/11/2009 : 13:48:35
|
If the NHL is forced to move Phoenix out of Phoenix then Bettman would have to admit that he messed up moving Winnipeg there in the first place. And, based on how thickheaded he seems to be, Bettman will never admit that he was wrong for the rest of his life on that one. When Bettman is gone, Balsille might get a team. But I doubt Bettman will be gone in the forseeable future. He's been around for a long time. And the Board of Governors seem to put up with him. So NO to a team for Balsille.
The NHL is a clubhouse for the owners. And, with every other exclusive club, there is no way the members are going to allow Balsille to bash his way in with his RIM money and try to tell them how it is. |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 05/11/2009 : 14:41:24
|
Well Beans, we do agree on one thing - Toronto definitely has exerted it's weight in the back rooms of the NHL to do everything it can do to stop another hockey team coming to southern Ontario. I actually wouldn't be surprised if there had been some secret deal when Ottawa came into the league again - something along the lines of (from Toronto ownership): "We'll let Ottawa in, and won't fight it, as long as you don't let any other team into southern Ontario".
What Bettman didn't count on was a long tradition of middling/losing teams in Toronto culminating in an uproar of fans demanding another team - and, a guy who wouldn't stop trying to get a team just because a little Napolean-type commissioner told him 'no way bud'. And, I suppose, the whole Phoenix experiment has a lot of Bettman's pride mixed in there, no doubt about it.
But Beans, what should be discussed isn't Balsillie's improprieties in the business world in trying to acquire a horrible failure of a franchise, overpay for it, and put it into a market where it will make money hand over fist; no, what should be discussed is, why is Bettman forcing the NHL to lose more money, instead of making it? Whatever fan support might leave Buffalo, it will be more than made up for by a franchise making at least as much money as Phoenix is losing right now . . . and I don't see Toronto taking that big a hit.
It's time to kick the big fat Toronto pig over and let another franchise at the money-making trough of hockey in southern Ontario!
(this analogy brought to you by swine flu: it's bacon-licious!)
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
Guest7113
( )
|
Posted - 05/11/2009 : 15:51:31
|
I only see one problem with drawing parallels to Tim Hortons, really.
In terms of good business practices, isn't it fiscally irresponsible to maintain a franchise in an area with a demographic that doesn't support it?
If my company decided to start selling snow in the Yukon 10 years ago, and repeated market research over that 10 years hammer home the point that it was a stupid idea, the question shouldn't be whether or not to move it - it should be where and when. Feasibility of another Southern Ontario franchise aside, the problem I see is that the league -should- want to move the Coyotes because it's a failed venture. The "similar" examples provided (Edmonton, Calgary, etc) can hardly be classified similarly.
I see your point that you think potential owners need to jump through all the appropriate hoops to move a team (instead of the brash behaviour we've seen in the past few weeks). It's great that they want to excercise their right to control the location of these franchises, but the main issue (and one that our good friend Mr Billionaire is making indirectly) is that a fiscally responsible league would want to move this team back to Canada.
I like Winnipeg, but I'd settle for Southern Ontario, too. The new arena is great, seating roughly 18,000 at maximum capacity. Ikea (who previously stated they wouldn't set up shop here before we reached 1,000,000 people) even has plans to set up the world's largest Ikea here within the next few years. I realize this has nothing to do with hockey, but at least -some- people are recognizing the fact that we're not a small town. ;) |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 05/11/2009 : 21:29:54
|
Still missing my point. People continue to go back to Phoenix being a weak market and that is not my point. Not even a little bit. Sure, I am not as big an advocate as other are on another team in the GTA, but that's irrelevant.
People don't seem to get it through their head that the issue at hand is not where the team should be. It's the fact that Balsillie is trying to take the NHL out of the decision making process. That is the piece that is dead wrong.
And on another note, isn't there a little bit of a question where there is another group, how are interested in moving Atlanta to Hamilton(through the proper NHL channels) but the city of Hamilton is saying they will only work with Balsillie??? I don't get it. If the issue is having a team in the GTA, wouldn't the city work with anyone willing to fund and support a team?? |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Balsillie to buy the Phoenix Coyotes? 
