| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
 Posted - 06/01/2009 : 08:44:17
|
Hey Slozo, you might want to take a look at the State of the League address that Bettman did the other day as well as the NHL constituation. He specifically talks about the League By-Laws you are saying do not exist. They are clear in black and white.
Here a link to the Press Conference Transcript:
http://slapshot.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/31/commissioner-gary-bettmans-state-of-the-nhl-news-conference/
Here's a link that has some of the legal doc files in the bankruptcy court which included the NHL Constitution
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/v5/co...oyotesDaly.pdf
- NHL ByLaw 35 (Transfer of Franchise Ownership): pages 58-59
- NHL ByLaw 36 (Transfer of Franchise Location): pages 79-83
- NHL and NHL Enterprises licensing agreement: pages 61-77
I would like to hear if your opinions are the same if you actually take the time to read through this.
It is very clear, established and agreed to by the Competition Bureau of Canada when Balsillie wanted to buy the Preds and move them as well.
http://www.cb-bc.gc.ca/eic/site/cb-bc.nsf/eng/02641.html
Who's not following the process???? |
 |
|
|
aps86
Top Prospect
USA
9 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2009 : 09:57:42
|
Clearly the fans of Southern Ontario would be better fans than those in Phoenix. However, I don't buy into all of the rhetoric that the finances necessarily make sense. Frankly, fans aren't where sports should be making money (directly anyways). Why does everyone keep building new arenas? It's not because they can fit an extra 2,000 people in there. It's because new arena=more space for sponsors to buy loge boxes, more opportunities to sell advertising space in a well planned way.
And we aren't talking about your local businesses that you probably do business with every day. I'm not sure that these southern steel towns are going to have US Steel and Mittal (which own the "local" steel companies in Hamilton) ready to throw down the big bucks for those suites. Multi-nationals dominate the NYC area. However, the Nassau Memorial Collisseum was built in the early seventies. They are losing money because their facilities for sponsors suck. NYC is more capable than any city in the world to have three franchises and using that line of reasoning as to why Ontario could use another by comparison completely misses the point. It does NOT matter if every little boy in NYC lies awake at night thinking about lifting the Stanley Cup or not. It matters more that his father's big company has a loge box to take out of town clients to games.
Similarly, putting a team in Copps Colisseum is an awful idea. If Balsillie wants to bring a team to town, he has best be ready to throw in for a new arena, not just renovate one that is 25 years old - and invoke a 20 year lease on the building. So, basically, he would have one of the oldest buildings in the league with no intentions to build a new one that is up to snuff.
Finally, simply saying that look at all the Canadian teams and how they are profitable also misses the point. All the hockey-crazed folks in Southern Ontario already have vicious loyalties to their own teams they've cheered for since childhood. Do you really think there are a lot of die-hard Leafs fans sitting around Hamilton saying to themselves, 'If they put a team in my backyard, I am going to cheer for them instead of my Leafs.' Of course not! Success is based on tradition in those markets.
More to the point, the question of why these Canadian teams are making money while US teams are losing it is NOT about ticket revenue or jersey sales. It is about TV contracts and the US teams got royally screwed by Gary Bettman on this one. Sure, the initial revenue stream from Versus is better, but the exposure is exceedingly limited. Who is going to sweep in and pay for another big TV contract in Canada? I'm not saying that the money isn't there, but no one is going to. Instead, the CBC will further spread the wealth around by adding one more team to its lineup (and showing fewer games and less money to <insert your favorite Canadian team here>.
All that being said, Phoenix is a bad US market, but better alternatives exist. Why is Phoenix bad? Sure, it's in the desert. Sure, it's in the US. Sure, their kids don't play hockey. They do however, have a fair bit of multi-national operations going on and a large population to draw upon. They are a 4 sport city though. Hockey competes directly against a well-established basketball franchise in the Suns for sponsorships. This is an uphill battle they will continue to lose. In the fall, they have the Cardinals playing also and the spring brings a dozen MLB teams to town (a unique situation - they are almost all in the greater Phoenix area, while in Florida, they are very spread out). During the hockey season, there are too many alternatives in Phoenix for fans and sponsors alike.
How about Kansas City? They have a world-class facility. The Chiefs and Royals are perrenial under-achievers in the NFL and MLB. There is no basketball team. There is a metro population of 2 million. Many multi-nationals have some presence in KC, 4 Fortune 500 companies make their HQ there, along with 9 other Fortune 1000 companies. Major international law firms are based there. It's a midwestern banking hub. None of this can be said about Hamilton.
I think it's a bad standard to set that you can buy any team and move them as you like. Balsillie originally tried to buy the Penguins under the fascade that he would keep them in Pittsburgh. The deal fell through when he was revealed to be a liar. What other stunts would he pull as an owner? Moving franchises is appropriately regulated by league offices. It affects a variety of people and interests. I think advocating for Balsillie is downright dangerous to every NHL franchise - not just the Coyotes and others that are not profitable. |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 06/02/2009 : 05:30:21
|
First off - a warm welcome to aps86, I think you just broke the record for longest and most thoughtful first post, nicely done.
Now, to Beans:
Press Conference Transcript (see your link)
Has there ever been as big a liar in the history of the NHL? This ex-lawyer talks out of both sides of his mouth at the same time . . . like I said before, it didn't take long for him to start with the bald-faced lies and misrepresentations, but I'll . . . aw, you guys read the link that Beans gives yourself, then read the comments afterward. Make sure you read the question and answer period, where Bettman flat out lies about the merits of Phoenix losing money every year it's been in the league as being "healthy", tries to compare teams with history and success (Pittsburgh, Ottawa, etc) with a team (Phoenix) that has no history where they are and no success, attendance in Columbus as being good fan support, a comprehensive television deal (non-existant) isn't/wasn't their main objective, and giving the reason for southern expansion as "we want to expand our footprint and connecting with fans in more places than before" as if those 200 fans spread across the southern states have more pull than the 150,000 fans (who already have an NHL team in their area) who signed up in two weeks to try to get another franchise while big-money sponsors are already lined up to get a piece of the pie . . . oh, and the hilarious answer to "have you looked into the viability of another franchise in southern Ontario? - Uh, no, we haven't looked into that but . . . blah blah blah lawyer weasel speak . . . we totally have our heads up our asses and we can't piss off the Toronto owners who have my balls in a very tight vice so no, I can't look there". I may have misquoted there, lol.
. . . and when you're done that, my friends, and you've cleaned up the coffee or tea you spilled from your shirt, google "save the phoenix coyotes" and try to find the pictures of the huge fan support there, and try to find a list of names to save the team that is anywhere close to 2% of what "make it seven" has signed up to bring another hockey team back to Canada.
Globe and Mail article link - court docs:
Page not found. Would love to read through the rules during a slow spot at work, so I'll wait on that. Seriously Beans, I've looked for the supposed rules that Balsillie hasn't followed this time around - and found nothing. But I am open to having my mind changed, if only by actual concrete evidence, rather than the constant stream of media supported press releases by the NHL to paint a negative picture of Balsillie and a good one for themselves in a massive PR campaign.
Competetion Bureau/Preds link
Like I would give any credence to a gov't institution that has allowed a record number of takeovers and mergers in Canada, so that now we are controlled by the fewest number of major corporations ever and in an environment where corporations rule the politicians through lobbying, payoffs and threats. What a joke!
It is clear and established that big business and big money ALWAYS win, nothing else. NEWSFLASH: gov't institutions lie all the time to give you a false sense of democracy
aps86 - I will get you some responses on your write-up, as I want it in a seperate post - I agree on some points, disagree on others
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 06/02/2009 : 08:58:00
|
Alright Slozo, try this link. You might have to save the PDF to your PC, but this one should work.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/v5/content/pdf/CoyotesDaly.pdf
Anyways, back to your point. Actually, first a question. Are you in politics??? The reason I ask is you have a talent in exploiting certain points while completely disregarding others. 
For example, I can not argue that the fans in Southern Ontario have stepped up and those in Glendale have not. I also can not argue that the corporate sponsers that have been announced are solid and the support from the City of Hamilton, the Province, and even my main man Stevie Harper is very impressive. However, you completely disregard the interested of the Leafs and the Sabres. Completely. You have not provided a stitch of anything other than your very strong opinion to rebute the potential negative impacts to those franchises if a third is added into the fold. You have balked at the facts of the New York area and their inability to sustain 3 NHL teams and simple say because the fans in TO are more passionate, it will not be a problem. Then, there are acusations of lies around Bettman, but Balsillie is the 2nd man in history with the ability to walk on water. More than anything else, the rules and regulations of the NHL (posted above in the NHL Constituation) are completely ignored. No other owner or prospective owner was granted the same privliages that Balsillie expects. The Board of Governors runs the NHL within an legally accepted framework. But that piece is completely ignored because the "suits" are just denying the fans in Southern Ontario of a team. It was even posted previously that this type "buy and move" strategy that Balsillie is doing is ok for this situation because it's just Phoenix and it's not a hockey town, but if Montreal or a different Canadian team was being purchased in the same manor to be moved to the States, it would be expected that the NHL step in and stop that.
ring-ring...............ring-ring..............Hello Pot?? It's the Kettle calling |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 06/02/2009 : 11:27:47
|
Why would I mention Toronto and Buffalo? They have nothing to do with Balsillie's bid, other than a financial compensation deal that they would be entitled to. They have no specific vote on whether the Coyotes can be moved or not, or where they are to be moved, other than the fact that Toronto probably has more than half of the board of governors in their pockets in terms of influence.
What's to mention?
Do you seriously think Toronto is the only team entitled to rape the fans of profits, to make be able to demand the kind of exorbitant prices in a failing economy that would make PT Barnum blush?!? We're talking RECORD PROFITS for the Leafs, year after year it seems . . . and OH NO!!! Another team might only allow them a kind mugging instead of a full-on financial assault in terms of ticket prices . . . it's not even debateable if Toronto makes a huge profit or not in southern Ontario with another team or two there - only how much.
My only real question would be is the other team viable? Balsillie has already proven that over and over and over again to me, no study done by the NHL can refute season tickets sold to a team that doesn't even exist yet outnumbering most of the southern teams already in existence!
And Buffalo? Buffalo has ALWAYS been a marginal city for hockey . . . which is why they would receive compensation from a Hamilton team because they would, indeed, be a bit hurt by it. But that's the cost of doing business, and why if I was running a sports franchise, I wouldn't locate an NHL team in Buffalo. Not enough fans.
Isn't that the whole "competetive market" you mentioned was being protected by staunch gov't agencies? You know, the one where failing business are ALLOWED TO FAIL, and new markets with a lot of money to give are allowed to be exploited by ALL COMPETITORS?
I've balked at New York? Did New Jersey or the Isles get the kind of massive fan support and pre-team ticket sales that Balsillie has gotten? And when was a huge market with very little hockey interest comparable to a market almost as huge with unparallelled amounts of interest? Sorry, I know it's the closest potential comparison, but it's really pretty different.
I'll read the link later, busy today.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2308 Posts |
Posted - 06/02/2009 : 14:25:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Hey Slozo, you might want to take a look at the State of the League address that Bettman did the other day as well as the NHL constituation. He specifically talks about the League By-Laws you are saying do not exist. They are clear in black and white.
Here a link to the Press Conference Transcript:
http://slapshot.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/31/commissioner-gary-bettmans-state-of-the-nhl-news-conference/
I read the first link which you posted. Here is an interesting side bar to that article on the right hand side of the article you asked us to read.
:
Tuesday
Jim Balsillie gets U.S. antitrust approval for his proposed move of the Phoenix Coyotes to Hamilton, an application for which he submitted to the N.H.L. on Monday. In his submission to the league, Balsillie proposes that the Hamilton team play in the Northwest Division of the Western Conference, alongside Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver and Minnesota. The Colorado Avs would shift to Phoenix's old spot in the Pacific Division.
Also in the application, Balsillie cites as supporting evidence the Coyotes' losses of $316 million since the team moved from Winnipeg in 1996; Phoenix's poor home and road attendance (28th and 29th, respectively, in the league); polls showing that only 20 per cent of Phoenix residents identify themselves as hockey fans; and Phoenix's standing as one of cities hardest-hit by the current recession and mortgage crisis. :
Weird how the 2 articles clash at the heart of the points here. The article you wanted my to point out shows Bettman defending the Phoenix Coyotes stating he doesn't run out on a franchise and its fans. At the rate the team is losing money he could afford to move all 500 fans with the team.
I read the other article from the "competition bureau" and it states 7 years for a relocation clause in a Franchise contract. This 7 year period insures to the Sponsors stability in a location. Well I'm sorry the Coyotes have been in Phoenix longer than 7 years have shown no growth or revenue potential and there is a viable market elsewhere. |
Edited by - JOSHUACANADA on 06/02/2009 14:26:52 |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2009 : 04:54:57
|
aps86 - You make some good points about the arena, very good points.
It is probably one of the weakest spots in Balsillie's bid, but this is what happens in business and politics - to get the support he wanted, I am sure that certain parties had vested interests in Copps, and made it a contingency in the deal. I am certain that as a businessman interested in turning a good profit, Balsillie realises that a new arena would be the better way to go, and was forced into this Copps thing. He also realises, however, that the first important move is to get the team, after which all sorts of things can change if you know what I mean.
Your point about southern Ontarians having "vicious loyalties" is wrong, however. I know it is wrong, because most of my friends are crazy hockey fans, and they ALL would love to be able to catch an NHL hockey game in Hamilton or Kitchener or wherever nearby. Every person I have a casual conversation with on street level has this opinion. It has actually been amazing to watch how the staunchest of Leaf fans, people I wouldn't quite describe as hockey fans so much as pure "homers", they all chime in with the "I would totally love to be able to see some games at Copps since I never get to see the Leafs anyways". But really, as much as the rest of the country likes to paint us all with a broad brush of ignorance, the southern Ontario market is without a doubt the most knowledgable and LEAST likely to only support their hometown (Toronto) in terms of ticket sales. Every just plain loves hockey, wants to see it at its highest level, and yes, in the end, wouldn't mind seeing their favourite team - which may or may not be Toronto.
You make solid points about Kansas City being a good location (except for the fact that it's in the states, and hockey would die there as well, methinks) and Hamilton not measuring up. I've heard similar opinions from people I really respect, Bob McCowan on the radio is one. He says he supports a move to southern Ontario, but thinks that Hamilton is not the way to go - another team in the GTA is, whether it be Toronto proper or Markham or Vaughn or whatever. I can't say I really disagree, as the logic is all there as you point out - advertising dollars (sponsors) really make or break the team. But that being said, I am already hearing more than one company on the radio advertising their product as being in support of Balsillie's bid for a team in Hamilton . . . which is incredible, and unprecedented stuff. In the end, I don't think it will really matter where the team is located - even in Kitchener, or Barrie, or London, the money would come in because companies aren't stupid - everyone knows that there is huge money to be made here in this underserved market, we're talking big, big money. Why else would Tim Horton's, an already huge, successful franchise, advertise so heavily about supporting a team that doesn't exist? Everyone wants to get their foot in the door, and right now, the door is crowded with feet.
And lastly, I disagree with your assertion that advocating for Balsillie is dangerous for the NHL. I would counter with the argument that, it is dangerous for the NHL to suppress competition through cronyism and collaboration, and that they need to be called on their illegal actions. And in the end, it isn't the NHL per se as much as Toronto exerting its influence on the NHL, I feel. Still, when Bettman comes out with retarded lines like "we've never done a study on the viability of another franchise in southern Ontario" which just happens to the biggest and most successful market ever, it makes it clear to everyone that they are all thick as thieves in stonewalling any other team coming into there, at all costs.
As opposed to being a dangerous thing to support Balsillie, I think it is the right thing to do - it would promote accountability for other sports leagues. The message would be: watch it, you better let the markets decide, and you better not try to illegally corner a market and shut out all competitors - you will get burned.
You should be giving the people what they want.
WE WANT MORE NHL HOCKEY!!!
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2308 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2009 : 10:35:06
|
Although I agree with everthing else you say here Slozo. Balsillie may be the right guy doing all the wrong things, pissing off all the wrong people to get this franchise back in Canada. I agree with what he wants to do and support him if he succeeds, but there is flaws in his reasoning. I agree Copp's might not be the best long term arena for a relocating franchise and Hamilton might not be the right place to relocate a team.
We as hockey fans want this to happen so bad and want the management to fail on this one point, to prove that us as customer's can demand change for the better of this game. This may not be the right time to draw a line in the sand. |
|
|
|
aps86
Top Prospect
USA
9 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2009 : 11:08:25
|
Slozo-
I think that you're missing the point I'm making about the loyalties. Simply going to games doesn't make a franchise successful. So if the fans don't completely buy into the team (buying merchandise, consciously or unconsciously patronizing their sponsors, having an interest in a winning team) as opposed to just really liking hockey (buying tickets to see their favorite teams come to town, going out to the game with an old sweater on and none of the home team's merchandise), the franchise can struggle.
Just because teams are in the US does not mean they will fail. I think this is really more about placing teams in opportune markets. Phoenix was a bad option. We all know this, but there were lots of reasons besides just being a US city.
Putting another team in the GTA may work, but it would always be a secondary franchise - like the Mets, the White Sox, or the Islanders. Granted, at some point all those teams have had success.
I think my point about Balsillie was misunderstood though. Look at Balsillie's history. Every time a team mentions going on sale, he immediately comes in and says we are moving it to Southern Ontario. So what is to say that some billionaire with a dislike for the Leafs can't sit and wait until they go on sale and move them to a city of his choosing. Now I know you want to say that Balsillie isn't malicious in his motives, but he certainly isn't doing it purely because Phoenix is a failing market. He tried to buy the Penguins a couple years ago which was emerging from bankruptcy and had in the past been and presently is successful. In that purchase attempt, he tried to used lies and manipulation to excise the Penguins from a good hockey market. If you let Balsillie do that with no strings attached, you open a pandora's box and I don't want to know what is inside. I don't think he's a bad guy and I love my Blackberry, but I think he could pave the way for others to take far more damaging actions that could harm the NHL.
|
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2009 : 18:37:44
|
Here's the thing. Here is the list of things that have to happen for Basillie to have a chance.
1) The mediator has to agree that Moyes had control of the team.
2) The Judge then has to go againts the multi-billion dollar industries of Baseball, Football, Basketball, and Hockey (and all the gambling money that goes with it) and agree that Balsillie's offer is good and the team can move.
3) The Board of Governor's then have to agree (by 2/3rd) that Balsillie is an acceptable owner.
4) The other 29 owners then have to agree to the move by 3/4 majority.
5) Buffalo then has to waive their 'home territory' rights which states that any team within a 50 mile radius of a proposed new or relocated team has exclusive rights to veto the move.
I just don't see it happening.
|
|
|
|
Porkchop73
PickupHockey Pro
640 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2009 : 03:36:55
|
Beans I would like to thank you for your earlier links. They without a doubt showed Bettman is a lying weasel and contradicts himself constantly. How he can honestly sit there and say Pheonix was a healthy franchise and is only going through a down period is beyond me. They have lost an average of 10mil a year since they became a franchise.
I also cannnot find where Balsille has broken any rules while putting forth his bid to purchase the Coyotes. The only one bending the rules is Bettman. Everytime he opens his mouth he sticks his foot right in it. The other night on CBC good ol Ron McLean had him squirming with some excellent questions. How the owners keeping this lying weasel in control now I have no idea. He is making the NHL look very poor in this whole Coyotes deal.
Also to your last post. On 3 of the 5 points you are correct.
Point#2 - the judge does not have to go against all other sports, he only has to judge in the best interest the creditors related to the case in front of him.
Point#5) Buffalo does not have to waive the territorial rights, they can recieve a one time compensation fee. Which I think buffalo would love the 70 some million dollars. |
|
|
|
Rambo2305
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
546 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2009 : 05:32:47
|
During Bettman's intermission interview with Ron McLean during Game 3, Bettman dug himself into a much, much deeper hole.
Quotes such as "Phoenix is a strong hockey town", "there are many people in Phoenix that want to buy the team", "they don't lose money", and "Jim's deal is not as much as it should be" proved that the NHL commissioner, has no clue what he says half the time, and attempts to stick to the script.
First of all, currently, the Coyotes are valued at $184 Million US, Balsille is offering $28 Million more as incentive and as re-payment for relocation. So to say his offer is too little, is absolute crock.
I noticed the comment regarding the $300+ Million the franchise has lost since moving from Winnipeg. That number is closer to $400 Million following the 08-09 season.
As for fan support, there are currently 56 Members of the "Save the Coyotes" website, meanwhile, there are over 100,000 members of the "Bring number 7" website. So to say Phoenix has the same support as Hamilton, or any other possible Canadian hockey market, is ridiculous. Even with the fans they have, in Q1 of this year, over 42,000 homes went for foreclosure in the Glendale area, so even thee fans they have, can barely support the team or new arena for that matter.
Also, Bettman stating that if Balsille buys the team and "moves it as he pleases", it will set a standard for any owner to run from the fans in bad times. Not true, Balsille is filing all the proper paperwork and going through the proper process in which the NHL Board of Directors approves the move. The B of D will approve it if it makes sense and the possible relocation area can sustain a team (in simple man terms, if it means more money!).
Last year the NHL provided the franchise with over $30 Million in support, when asked, Bettman said "I don't know what you are talking about". So if you're suppose to be "running the league", should you not know where $30 Million runs off too?
Come to think of it, I'm not sure why I wrote this post. After all, the judge will grant the Phoenix owner the power to sell the team as he please. It's simple, just because the NHL lent the team some money, does not make them the controlling figure. The owner never signed over the rights, he simply took a loan. By selling the team for $212 Million (Balsille's deal), he breaks even, and also has the extra money to pay off the NHL. Therefore leaving the franchise in no debt, allowing them to start from scratch with an owner that's passionate, crazy...sometimes, and want to win.
"Most people spend time and energy going around problems, rather than trying to solve them" - Henry Ford |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2009 : 08:30:47
|
"Here is the list of things that have to happen for Balsillie to have a chance (at obtaining and moving the Phoenix team)"
He ALREADY has a chance at doing this, and this is it! He has been stonewalled, ignored, and given bad PR by the NHL and the complicit media (who have mostly backed the NHL up to this point), he's been told face to face apparently by Bettman that he will "never get an NHL club" . . . but that worm is turning, my friends. His court papers are all in order, he has done everything in his power to make the strongest case possible, and he has the money to sustain a powerful campaign that won't allow the NHL to drain him through a long and expensive process. He is making the most of his chance already, I'd say. Whether or not he is successful is yet to be determined.
"1) The mediator has to agree that Moyes had control of the team."
Funny that you phrase it this way - because in legalese, what actually has to happen is the NHL has to prove that they had control of the team, to thwart the bid. This is, in my opinion, a poor bluff that blew up in their face. Moyes had control of the team, and the NHL loaned them money . . . how they will prove as a creditor that they had control of the team is beyond me, and frankly, it's not going to happen. That's a precedent that the NHL shouldn't want, if you think about it.
"2) The Judge then has to go againts the multi-billion dollar industries of Baseball, Football, Basketball, and Hockey (and all the gambling money that goes with it) and agree that Balsillie's offer is good and the team can move."
Has to go against . . . their wishes to be the sole controller of badly failing franchises and prevent competition, you mean. Balsillie's bid to move the team to a more profitable city that means more money for the league is curious, in that the top execs for all the major sports are against getting more money and a healthier team. Corruption much?
To the second point, the judge has to decide whether a bid that is twice as large as the one put forward by Reisendorf is good . . . um, yeah, I think that's a no-brainer! And, he has to decide whether or not the team can move . . . maybe, maybe not. I have a feeling that if Balsillie wins that first battle (gets control of the team), the judge/arbitrator will be finished, and Balsillie will have to fight the NHL to move the team in a different court perhaps. Passing the buck is popular in the US court decisions involving landmark cases.
"3) The Board of Governor's then have to agree (by 2/3rd) that Balsillie is an acceptable owner."
Yeah, they do the vote thingy, which will likely be decided by Toronto doing their utmost to make it a no-go. The court's decision in point 2), however, may circumvent this need - unlikely, but it is possible (the judge could rule that securing the funds for all creditors takes precedence over league rules concerning moving teams).
"4) The other 29 owners then have to agree to the move by 3/4 majority."
Again, probably, unless the judge rules totally in favour of Balsillie.
"5) Buffalo then has to waive their 'home territory' rights which states that any team within a 50 mile radius of a proposed new or relocated team has exclusive rights to veto the move. "
Wrong. I just read through the entire link you posted, and no where does it state this. It states that they have to be COMPENSATED if within their territory, which of course is par for the course and which Balsillie is willing to do. In fact, it is expressly stated in the legal declaration from William Daly on behalf of the NHL that no single team/person has veto power under NHL rules, whether it is the owners or governors.
And boy, reading through that long document, does it ever sound sanctimonious and "open and shut" for the NHL . . . which leads me to suspect that it is full of lies, many of which I hope are quite proveably so by Balsillie and his team of lawyers. Bill Daly and the NHL have a long beautiful record of lying, misrepresentation, and back-room deals, and I can't wait until I eventually see Balsillie's "statement".
Oh wait - you mean the media only printed out one side of the story? Only the link to the NHL's officially stated position, eh? I guess stating Balsillie's side on his behalf allows them to utterly discredit and undermine him in the public eye . . . how utterly corporate of them.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
aps86
Top Prospect
USA
9 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2009 : 09:16:04
|
| The NHL contends (and I agree that Daly and Bettman lie alot) that a stipulation of the loan given to Moyes was that the NHL would have control of the franchise. If this is in writing, it seems like Beans'#1 is a slam dunk for the NHL. I'm guessing they are right on this point also because the loan was inherently risky and it is typical that a large creditor in this type of loan deal would retain some kind of control of the business they are loaning to, typically not day-to-day operations, but certainly large scale business like selling the team. |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2009 : 10:01:19
|
At first, I thought the same thing, aps86: but then I remembered all the public statements that the NHL has made regarding the ownership of the Phoenix Coyotes in the past.
They never mentioned that they had taken over control of Phoenix - not until Balsillie's bid, that is. In fact, they had publicly declared the Coyotes to be a franchise that was in no trouble at all, with Moyes at the helm, and all rumours to the contrary to be false.
I am guessing those many statements will be gien to the court by Balsillie's lawyers, making that "slam dunk" for the NHL a rim shot that just might bounce out.
I prefer the analogy of hitting the crossbar, myself.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
Odin
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
350 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2009 : 10:05:38
|
| That is exactly what I have been wondering. If the NHL did take control of the team, would there not be paperwork on that somewhere? |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2009 : 11:05:18
|
Yes, Odin - there should be paperwork, and we're not just talking a sheet of paper with the NHL rules on it stating that as of this date, the NHL was the de facto owner of the team. We're talking a legal document handing over control and making it official.
I think the key thing in the "who was the de facto owner" might be transactions made, contracts signed, etc and whose signature is at the bottom.
To my knowledge, the NHL (and Bill Daly) has never done anything as the official Coyotes ownership to indicate that they had control, and obviously they made public statements that indicated Moyes was the owner and that everything was going great for Phoenix.
No proof, and their argument goes POOF!
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
Rambo2305
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
546 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2009 : 11:29:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
Yes, Odin - there should be paperwork, and we're not just talking a sheet of paper with the NHL rules on it stating that as of this date, the NHL was the de facto owner of the team. We're talking a legal document handing over control and making it official.
I think the key thing in the "who was the de facto owner" might be transactions made, contracts signed, etc and whose signature is at the bottom.
To my knowledge, the NHL (and Bill Daly) has never done anything as the official Coyotes ownership to indicate that they had control, and obviously they made public statements that indicated Moyes was the owner and that everything was going great for Phoenix.
No proof, and their argument goes POOF!
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
In Bettman's interview a couple days ago on the CBC, he stated that the Coyotes are being managed and operated by the Pheonix ownership group, not the NHL. Also, the judge ruled that Moyes has the majority say accoriding to the documentation (before taking a break in the hearings).
"Most people spend time and energy going around problems, rather than trying to solve them" - Henry Ford |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2009 : 16:06:52
|
APS86, take a look at pages 9-11 on the link I posted. I speaks about the proxy ownership and the requirements that Moyes apparently signed off on. Ultimately, you are dead right as is Slozo. If there is the proper documents regarding the Proxy Control, NHL wins and we go no further. If not, that arguement goes up "Poof" and it's in the judges hands on to step two.
Another point is that the Judge has to not only focus on the best interests of the creditors, but also has to be ethical and ensure that the purchaser's rights are protected. Hypothetically speaking, the Judge allows Balsillie's bid. But, the Board of Governors deny the move. Then what?? Balsillie has a team but no league to play in. So he then doesn't buy the team and the creditors get nothing. Or, if Balsillie paid the money, he goes back after the state of Arizona to get his money back.
There is more than just the creditors at stake.
And finally, why is it so hard to fathom that in a franchise system, there are rules and regulations that all must follow to be part of the franchise??? It's no different in any other pro sports league or big business. Follow the rules or you are not part of the league/business. Who owns the team and who moves the team is not up to a single owner.
I go back to my Tim Horton's alalogy. I can not pick any location I want to build a Tim Horton's. They have to approve it. Period.
The NHL Constitution is now posted. It specifically talks about the rights of the NHL, the rights of the current owners, the role and responsiblity of the Board of Governors and other owners in terms of ownership and relocation of teams.
But, I guess these are all lies, developed in the past 6 weeks to keep a floudering team in a poor hockey market.
Ok folks. I am stepping aside on this one. I well definately been reading post from others, but honestly, I can't continue debating with people who refuse to see more than one side of the argument. And, I am simply saying the same things over and over and hearing the same things over an over. There is no point to going further.
However, I will dig around and when I find a reliable source to the 50 mile Rule, I will post that link.
I'll leave you with this. If it was the Leafs, Canadiens, Canucks, Flames, Oilers or Senators that were in the same situation as Phoenix is today, with an arrogant American owner stepping in to buy a team and move them to a more profitable location would you feel the same way??? Would you think it was a brilliant idea or would you expect the NHL to step in and say something about it???
IF the whole Proxy Ownership thing comes out to not be true, I will cast the first stone at Bettman. However, I will back him, or any other person, who stands by having rules and regulations in respect to the greatest league of sport in the world. What he is doing today is not only for Phoenix. It's for any Phoenix in the future. I would expect him to do the same thing for the Canadian teams as well.
Enjoy
|
|
|
|
Guest4597
( )
|
Posted - 06/04/2009 : 17:01:55
|
| Halifax is the best option for an NHL team in Canada PERIOD |
|
|
|
leigh
Moderator
Canada
1755 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2009 : 17:25:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by aps86I think it's a bad standard to set that you can buy any team and move them as you like. Balsillie originally tried to buy the Penguins under the fascade that he would keep them in Pittsburgh. The deal fell through when he was revealed to be a liar. What other stunts would he pull as an owner? Moving franchises is appropriately regulated by league offices. It affects a variety of people and interests. I think advocating for Balsillie is downright dangerous to every NHL franchise - not just the Coyotes and others that are not profitable.
Welcome Aps86! Gotta say I love the post! Pretty insightfull all the way through. Specifically, I couldn't agree with you more on your last paragraph (quoted above) As much as I'd like to see another Canadian team I think the way in which Jim is doing this is wrong. The decision to move a franchise should be the Board of Governors, not his, nor the court's.
Keyword here is FRANCHISE, which is "the right or license granted by a company to an individual or group to market its products or services in a specific territory". As anyone in business knows, the benefit to being a franchisee is that you get to feed off the success of an already established brand, but in return you must follow the rules and guidelines that they set out; one of which is that you can't move it to a new location or encroach upon someone else's location without the permission of the franchisor (in this case the League and the Board of Governors)
As much as I'd like to see a 7th team in Canada (and an eigth, ninth etc.) I couldn't in good concience sign the petition knowing that it is someone trying to circumvent fundamental rules established and maintained by everyone else. A win by Balsillie will lead to lead to anarchy within the league...what possible control will remain with the NHL? (rhetorical question) |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2009 : 21:26:20
|
This "anarchy" argument is a false lead, set out by corporate powers, so that real competition will never exist, only cronyism.
What have we seen so far for people who follow the NHL's sanctified rules and regulations that supposedly protect competition while also protecting the owners of existing franchises?
I must repeat again, because many here are used to turning on the radio or tv and listening to the news, thinking they are getting a pretty fair take on the story . . . IT IS A TOTALLY ONE-SIDED REPRESENTATION OF THE SITUATION AT HAND. I fully realised this when I listened to Balsillie's interview with Bob McCowan, and heard what he had to say. A soft-spoken, intelligent and humble guy who was very careful about what he said and how he said it in terms of getting ahead of himself.
These rich owners that sidled themselves into the league did it through favours, friends and backroom deals, for the most part. This is corporate north america, after all, so don't even kid yourself for a second that just anyone actually has a chance to get a team.
Has anyone wondered why there is no big stink coming from Buffalo about this bid? Why is that not being reported, seeing as how it is prominent by its absence.
Has anyone wondered or looked at what hoops Anaheim had to jump through, how New Jersey got their franchise? Does anyone think for a second that during this expansion era that there wasn't the humungous demand for NHL hockey in the greater Toronto area that would have eclipsed any fan base in LA or NY by at least double?
Yes, of course franchises must have rules and regulations and laws . . . included in that is the rule of commerce and profit, which means that if one is losing money for a long time, something has to give, especially when you have no fan support. It is all so different a picture with a huge fanbase, something Phoenix will never have.
Leigh, when one is being stonewalled, lied to, and shut-out, and they already aren't playing by any set of fair or moral rules known to man, wouldn't that force you into being a bit crafty about getting what you want, if you were determined to do so?
Because with the way the NHL has acted and treated Balsillie, I actually feel it is my moral duty to stand up against them and put my name to the paper for a 7th team in Canada.
A win for Balsillie is a win for the NHL following it's OWN DAMN RULES. Your "anarchy" situation can only happen if there are a bunch of Phoenixes due to cronyism and protectionism, AND if there are a bunch of billionnaires who are passionate about buying a team and moving it to a huge market where they can start making money.
Wait a minute . . . this "anarchy" sure sounds a lot like capitalism!
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
Edited by - n/a on 06/04/2009 21:27:16 |
|
|
|
Porkchop73
PickupHockey Pro
640 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2009 : 14:38:47
|
Slozo I could not agree more to your last post. Balsille has tried every way to get a franchise and play within Bettmans rules. Now he has found a legal loop hole in the NHL rules to lawfully go after a franchise. He has not done anything wrong legally, morally or otherwise. I have seen many posts in this topic that simply do not understand the legal aspect of bankruptcy proceedings. Now I am not going to post the 120 pages of legal text involved in rules and regulations of bankruptcy, I will leave that up to someone else who has the time, but the most important thing in any bankruptcy is the protection and repayment to the creditors. Quite literally the NHL constitution nor any rule applies in the bankruptcy case. They can be taken as information but really do not apply. That is why the panic from Bettman and all other major league sports. In laymans terms the only thing that matters is who owns the business and who needs to get paid. The judge has to determine the best way to get that payment out to the people who are owed money.
Now if Balsille is somehow granted ownership of the Coyotes under his current offer that includes movement of the franchise to Hamilton then that is the offer that is accepted and he can do exactly as his offer states. The NHL rules cannot stop this if the judge rules in favor of Balsille being the purchaser. There is however a whole other round of legal proceedings the NHL can file.
I do not disagree with what others say about the NHL having the final say in there franchise locations and owners, how else can they control their business. However in this particular case, legally because the filing of bankruptcy the NHL no longer has control of the Pheonix Coyotes (that has not been proven yet, Moyes looks to be the rightful owner still)and the NHL cannot enforce the rules of the NHL constitution until a new owner is established. Should Balsille be approved as owner under the provisions of his bid with the relocation clause the NHL has no option but relocate the franchise then they can enforce the rules.
So Beans and others you are correct with your standpoint. Under normal situations the NHL rules apply and I do not dispute that, but this is not a normal situation I am trying to get the point across that the US bankruptcy laws will supercede the constitution of the NHL, and under US law an owner has the right to operate their franchise without loss or file for bankruptcy protection. It happens thousands of times every year. I have seen several franchises ripped down only to be rebuilt at a different location with a new owner. This is the reality of business. It is the only way owners protect themselves against the greed of corporations just like the NHL.
So to have the standpoint that what Balsille is doing is wrong has to be looked at from two points. Legally, he is not doing a thing wrong. From the corporation of the NHL viewpoint he is side stepping every rule they have. I support Balsille because Bettman has made his own rules to avoid Balsille getting ownership and eventually moving his team where he wants. Now Balsille is essentially using the NHL rules against themselves. It is actually a brilliant move to expose Bettman for the weasel that he is. Now Bettman is back tracking and lying to cover his previous lies. I truly believe the owners in the NHL will have no choice but to fire Bettman after this is all done, no matter how it turns out. |
|
|
|
JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2308 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2009 : 16:57:30
|
Ok, a bankruptcy court judge cannot approve a relocation proposal from a prospective buyer. He can only confirm ownership rights and satisfy creditor's but he cannot decide relocation rights. This would infringe upon the NHL rights to govern. This is not the loophole that Basillie is trying to get through.
Why they are fighting this so bad is, after the judges decision Basillie could become an owner without there approval. I think the only danger the NHL has right now is they dont want Basillie to be an owner of any franchise. This is because of the there constitution, he would have to take ownership and run the franchise from its present location, after waiting out the waiting period 7 years, then he would have the right to relocate. This is not what his offer is proposing.
Jerry Moyer filed bankruptcy protection prior to the NHL trying to releave him from control of the franchise. The NHL cannot dismiss an owner from control/ownership after an owner files for bankruptcy, because technically the league is a creditor. Jim basillie did not file for bankrutcy. Jerry Moyers did, so stop saying Basillie is circumventing the rules. He made an offer to purchase and submitted a relocation proposal. Neither breaks the rules.
Once ownership is decided, whether or not Moyers has the right to seek bankruptcy protection, the NHL still has the ability to vote down the relocation proposal. The business does not relocate automatically and then the NHL get to enforce there rules.
If I am wrong on this please let me know. |
Edited by - JOSHUACANADA on 06/05/2009 17:03:20 |
|
|
|
Porkchop73
PickupHockey Pro
640 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2009 : 17:28:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA
Ok, a bankruptcy court judge cannot approve a relocation proposal from a prospective buyer. He can only confirm ownership rights and satisfy creditor's but he cannot decide relocation rights. This would infringe upon the NHL rights to govern. This is not the loophole that Basillie is trying to get through.
Why they are fighting this so bad is, after the judges decision Basillie could become an owner without there approval. I think the only danger the NHL has right now is they dont want Basillie to be an owner of any franchise. This is because of the there constitution, he would have to take ownership and run the franchise from its present location, after waiting out the waiting period 7 years, then he would have the right to relocate. This is not what his offer is proposing.
Jerry Moyer filed bankruptcy protection prior to the NHL trying to releave him from control of the franchise. The NHL cannot dismiss an owner from control/ownership after an owner files for bankruptcy, because technically the league is a creditor. Jim basillie did not file for bankrutcy. Jerry Moyers did, so stop saying Basillie is circumventing the rules. He made an offer to purchase and submitted a relocation proposal. Neither breaks the rules.
Once ownership is decided, whether or not Moyers has the right to seek bankruptcy protection, the NHL still has the ability to vote down the relocation proposal. The business does not relocate automatically and then the NHL get to enforce there rules.
If I am wrong on this please let me know.
Essentially you are very correct, the judge cannot determine relocation but because Balsilles bid does include a relocation clause and if the judges decision is that Moyes is the rightful owner, then the Bankruptcy filing proceeds as normal during which Balsille could be deemed the most appropiate purchaser likely through auctioning of the franchise. Balsilles bid also includes the fact that if the NHL does not allow immediate relocation then the NHL will cover the losses incurred by the franchise for each of the the 7 years he has to wait to move his franchise. It is all business, this is just happening in the public eye where it normally would not happen. This is actually all very normal in Bankruptcy cases we all just don't see it up front like this.
I am sure that Bettman will pull a magic purchaser out his rear and keep his failing project in Pheonix for 7 more years then relocate it to place of his choice. I am also sure he will make sure that Balsille will never have anything to do with a NHL franchise as long as his great weaselness is in charge.
If I made it seem like the relocation was automatic, I did not mean that as much as I meant that if Balsilles becomes an owner the relocation of the franchise will happen one way or another.
The one thing I do not agree with Balsille on is that he sets up the actual relocation and states that he is going to bring the franchise to Hamilton before actually going through the process and then announcing it. |
|
|
|
aps86
Top Prospect
USA
9 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2009 : 02:15:19
|
So, hypothetically, what happens if the court decides that Balsillie does have the right to purchase the franchise but the league has the right to determine the team's location/relocation? I think Balsillie will still follow through and continually try to move the Coyotes.
Interestingly, this is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If he is clear that he wants to move the team from the get-go, no one will pay for those sponsorships, fans won't invest their interest in the team, and the franchise goes deeper into economic despair. And Balsillie's argument is bolstered. Don't believe me? Check Pittsburgh's ticket sales before (already with Crosby) the decision to stay in town versus after (hint: half empty arena went to sold out every game since). Letting Balsillie own the team in Phoenix is as good as already moving it to Hamilton. He'll force the issue within two years and has the money to endure the losses along the way.
Moving the team to Hamilton would put me a day trip away from more hockey, but I can't say that I think it will be a better entertainment and general sports market than KC or Indy or PHX.
GO PENS!!!
Andrew |
|
|
|
JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2308 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2009 : 09:04:57
|
Actually porkchop, if Basillie loses his fight to buy the Coyotes and the NHL (Bettman) assumes control of the Coyotes, the current ownership group has already been located in Phoenix longer than the 7 year waiting period. Essentially Moyers move to Bankruptcy protects the future owner from incurring a penalty from Glendale if they break the lease. NHL (Bettman) or current minority owner, if his bid was approved, could pickup and move asap to a place like KC. Im assuming they would get immediate endorsement from the other NHL Governers for such a move.
If that happens, the only way that Basillie will ever own a franchise is if he grossly overpays for both the rights to a franchise thru expansion and pays TO and Buffalo a kings ransom for territorial rights.
It would be cheaper to start a brand new league WHA with 6 teams in the southern Quebec, Ontario, New York region than the course of action he has taken. If Basillie made this proposal to the other groups interested in buying bankrupt/struggling NHL franchises, the NHL would have to wake up and include these propective owners to purchase a franchise. If not they would lose market share to a competitive league.
Thats how I would proceed If I had a cagillion dollars. |
|
|
|
Guest6004
( )
|
Posted - 06/06/2009 : 14:47:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA
Actually porkchop, if Basillie loses his fight to buy the Coyotes and the NHL (Bettman) assumes control of the Coyotes, the current ownership group has already been located in Phoenix longer than the 7 year waiting period. Essentially Moyers move to Bankruptcy protects the future owner from incurring a penalty from Glendale if they break the lease. NHL (Bettman) or current minority owner, if his bid was approved, could pickup and move asap to a place like KC. Im assuming they would get immediate endorsement from the other NHL Governers for such a move.
If that happens, the only way that Basillie will ever own a franchise is if he grossly overpays for both the rights to a franchise thru expansion and pays TO and Buffalo a kings ransom for territorial rights.
It would be cheaper to start a brand new league WHA with 6 teams in the southern Quebec, Ontario, New York region than the course of action he has taken. If Basillie made this proposal to the other groups interested in buying bankrupt/struggling NHL franchises, the NHL would have to wake up and include these propective owners to purchase a franchise. If not they would lose market share to a competitive league.
Thats how I would proceed If I had a cagillion dollars.
Me too i would get together with prospective purchasers , the group that wanted to buy the nhl and the nhlpa and offer them a partnership(true partnership where they have a real say in all hockey related matters) Create a 6 team super league with teams in Toronto New York ,Kansas City ,Winnipeg,Detroit, Kitchener-Waterloo . Toronto detroit and new York because they are big centres, kc winnipeg because they have arena Kw because pop base close to 7 million people surrounding area hour drive. And then steal draft picks (no salary cap)nhl free agents, Or even buy whole teams and move them into your league phoenix wont be the only team to file for bankruptcy.Model it after nfl with profit sharing among owners.
This whole anarchy scenario is hogwash name 6 centers that can support nhl franchise . And did any of the other leagues fall apart. ettman has said the nhl hasnt studied another team in southern ont. Either he is lying or incompetent or has a plan. Beans the yotes case is being decided by 300 yr old constitution. but you think 30 individuals should decide yotes fate. If bettman is being upright and reasonable in his dealings he has nothing to worry about. But if he is operating illegally and preventing or blocking basille from obtaining a franchise look out.Basille has proven there is a need , a desire and option of putting a team in southern ont and he is a desirable owner why is bettman blocking him. No expansion team has been offered. Bettman is getting so caught up in his lies he is going to trip himself. |
|
|
|
Porkchop73
PickupHockey Pro
640 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2009 : 15:52:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA
Actually porkchop, if Basillie loses his fight to buy the Coyotes and the NHL (Bettman) assumes control of the Coyotes, the current ownership group has already been located in Phoenix longer than the 7 year waiting period. Essentially Moyers move to Bankruptcy protects the future owner from incurring a penalty from Glendale if they break the lease. NHL (Bettman) or current minority owner, if his bid was approved, could pickup and move asap to a place like KC. Im assuming they would get immediate endorsement from the other NHL Governers for such a move.
If that happens, the only way that Basillie will ever own a franchise is if he grossly overpays for both the rights to a franchise thru expansion and pays TO and Buffalo a kings ransom for territorial rights.
It would be cheaper to start a brand new league WHA with 6 teams in the southern Quebec, Ontario, New York region than the course of action he has taken. If Basillie made this proposal to the other groups interested in buying bankrupt/struggling NHL franchises, the NHL would have to wake up and include these propective owners to purchase a franchise. If not they would lose market share to a competitive league.
Thats how I would proceed If I had a cagillion dollars.
Very true and I had gotten caught up in the rest of the deal to really think of that aspect of this whole scenerio. However we already know the other league option had already failed terribly in two attempts. Bobby Hull recently tried the WHA again and the current KHL in Russia are supposed to have provided that competition but failed miserably. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2009 : 06:26:18
|
Well, the war may continue, but this appears to be a pretty big lose for the Balsillie bid (this time). Balsillie says that he will continue to work with the NHL on a relocation fee but realistically, we can all count on at least one more season of NHL hockey in Glendale.
One thing I found very interesting is that the judge did not speak much(at least from what the media is saying) about the existing rules. The decision was based mostly because of the short amount of time to decide so many things. Kinda keeps the door open. However, the judge did say that the NHL relocation rules are not breaking any antitrust or competition laws. Call that one a tie I guess. But, the judge did say that the NHL can't stop Balsillie from becoming the owner of the team through the bankruptcy process. But the judge will not force the NHL to allow a move. At least not today.............
However, one thing is going to be interesting during these economic times. It is a strong opinion of many that the NHL will be running Phoenix next season and they are expecting another losing season (as high as $30 million). That's $1 million+ out of the pockets of every other owner in the league. They will not tolerate this for long.
Good Battle gents. It was fun. Frustrating (I'm sure for all of us at times) but fun none the less. This should have happened in July. Would have given us something to talk about through the summer!
Here's the TSN link.
http://tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=281971
|
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2009 : 06:58:33
|
I don't see it as any huge loss at all for Balsillie, despite the fact that the media might portray it as such.
Balsillie has explicitly stated that he would be willing to give the team another year in Phoenix if necessary, but that it would be doable for this year, with all sorts of proposals and whatnot for how to do that logistically. Well, the judge didn't like that, so it's not moving anywhere until next year.
So yeah, the door is definitely still open! WIDE open, I'd say.
Even though the NHL was found to not be breaking any intitrust laws, the important nugget was this: Balsillie, or anyone, can become the owner of the team through the bankruptcy process, and the NHL CANNOT STOP THAT FROM HAPPENING.
Full stop.
That means, if someone is willing to win a bidding war over a failing franchise, they can have it, despite the NHL's feelings on the matter.
Can you take a wild stab at who might win that bidding war over the Phoenix Coyotes?
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2009 : 11:07:25
|
Hey Slozo, you are right. This kinda does set a precedent regarding ownership. It has alway required Board approval before today. This judge is saying that the NHL can't stop a bankrupcty situation. However, if the Judge upheld the movement piece(stating it's not against Antitrust/Competition), is he not saying that the location is still a matter in the control of the NHL?? I think if there were not 4 other confirmed potential owners, this would have been a completely different story.
However, I think this whole court thing might be the begin of the end for Bettman. Sure, all the owners were happen when the revenues were increasing. However, if the revenues decrease and there is at least one franchise being completely propped up by the profitable teams, how long will the old boys club keep GB around?? And how long with the players accept an escrow of 25%??? CBA's coming up in 2010-2011.
The landscape of the NHL might be changing in the next 18 months. I think there are still some of the Board of Governors who agree with Bettman and are not happy about the Balsillie thing, but I think there are others who do not agree and more than likely some that are more on the fence than there were before this situation. |
|
|
|
Rambo2305
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
546 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2009 : 12:18:41
|
Ok, as much as I want another NHL team in Canada, if one went to Hamilton, no matter how much money Balsillie pumped into it, it would FAIL!
Hamilton's economy is horrible right now, they'll barely be able to support the CFL's Tiger-cats this year, can they really support an NHL team? Not to mention Hamilton can be compared to Oshawa, which is no compliment at all...
The smartest place to relocate an NHL team in Canada would be Winnipeg. They already have an NHL calibre arena, enough corporate sponsorship (finally), and the fans there want a team again! The unfortunate thing we have to realize, there aren't many places in Canada that can support a team, with the exception of Winnipeg, the GTA would be another fit simply because there's a huge fan base that would support another team in Toronto (3 Million people).
Back to Hamilton, the arena upgrades alone would be killer, the numbers Balsillie stated are far too low, Copps pretty much needs to be gutted and rebuilt, and if thats the case, might as well build a new arena. But that would take a couple years, while Winnipeg has an arena waiting to be used.
Believe me, number 7 would be amazing, but not in Hamilton....
"Most people spend time and energy going around problems, rather than trying to solve them" - Henry Ford |
|
|
|
Porkchop73
PickupHockey Pro
640 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2009 : 16:59:53
|
Well Gentlemen, I can eat crow when need be. I believe the judge has done the proper thing. Balsilles push to get this solved just did not leave enough time to get proper items in place like negotiating a proper relocation fee. A good call by the judge that is actually in the interest of both parties. I do not think the judge ruled that relocation is the right only of the NHL as much as he just did not see enough time was being allowed for each group to come to a reasonable solution. Essentially with Balsilles threat to pull out if judgement was not made by the 22nd of June was just not a reasonable time in the eyes of Judge Redfield Baum. Good call I say. What i would like to see now is Balsille and the NHL work together at a great solution that is good for RimJim and the NHL.
Everyone else agrees change is necessary, why not work together to make it happen. |
|
|
|
JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2308 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2009 : 09:38:33
|
Did anyone read whether the judge has indicated who is in control of the franchise, and if the application for bankruptcy was in the rights of Moyers. From what I have read so far the is no indication that the NHL has legally assumed control of this franchise. By the way the news have suggested the NHL must decide upon the relocation submittal by Basillie. The judge indicated he was watching the process to insure the NHL did Basillie due diligence of at least investigating, whether his relocation to Hamilton is in the best interest for the league.
One of the other statements made by the judge which surprised me was the Board of Governers cannot deny Basillie a Franchise application, if he waves his relocation conditions. The board of Governers has previously approved Basillie for a prior ownership application. Why does Basillie not try for Buffalo, Montreal, Atlanta or Carolina franchises and run them at there current location and/or have preseason games and a few in-season games in Hamilton to prove the market viability.
My money would be on a Hamilton/Buffalo situation which would essentially tap the same market and not incur a penalty from the Leafs. |
|
|
|
Rambo2305
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
546 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2009 : 12:34:47
|
People aren't looking at this deal 100%...there are far too many moving parts against Balsillie. Every card has to fall in place for this to go through.
Time for Canada to admit it, the Coyotes won't be moving to Hamilton, no number 7....at least not for a while...
"Most people spend time and energy going around problems, rather than trying to solve them" - Henry Ford |
|
|
|
hanley6
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
674 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2009 : 03:20:44
|
| I am not happy with the call... personally I think it's a huge mistake to keep a team in Pheonix.. It's not a good hockey Market.. they have lost over $300 million dollars since 1996, thats pretty bad... how do you think that is going to change. And if they get rid of Gretzky as a coach how are they going to get any fan support??????? It doesn't matter who owns Phoenix they are going to lose money, that's just how it is.... Wanna make some money bring it to Canada where it belongs... After all Hockey is Canada's game... Personally I think their should be 15 Canadian teams and only 15 American teams |
|
|
|
aps86
Top Prospect
USA
9 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2009 : 08:49:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by hanley6
I am not happy with the call... personally I think it's a huge mistake to keep a team in Pheonix.. It's not a good hockey Market.. they have lost over $300 million dollars since 1996, thats pretty bad... how do you think that is going to change. And if they get rid of Gretzky as a coach how are they going to get any fan support??????? It doesn't matter who owns Phoenix they are going to lose money, that's just how it is.... Wanna make some money bring it to Canada where it belongs... After all Hockey is Canada's game... Personally I think their should be 15 Canadian teams and only 15 American teams
15 and 15? Seriously? Unless you are just blinded with Canadian pride, you cannot really be serious. What are 15 Canadian markets that could be successful? Evenly divided among the population, each team's draw would be just over 2 million people. That would drive down the cost of advertising in current and future Canadian NHL venues. Still, many of the 2 million would not be in easy driving distance to a game and thus not buying tickets, not seeing the ads. TV time would be increasingly split and ultimately, you would see fewer games for your favorite NHL team on the tube.
A better question, would this lead to any kind of growth in the league's fan base? With a population nearly 10 times the size of Canada, the NHL needs the US - and not just good hockey markets like Detroit, New York, Buffalo, and Pittsburgh. Pushing teams further from the population of the US is not helpful to establishing the NHL brand in the US. Extricating a team from Phoenix would leave the league without any real southwestern US presence. This is the 5th largest city in the US with more than 4 million people in the metro area. It may not be the best place to get people who are already diehard fans out to the game, but it is a good place to generate entertainment dollars. Go to an Angels game outside of LA - most people are not there to watch baseball, they are there for the event. Really, look at baseball games around the country and you will find this to be true. That's the kind of brand the NHL should shoot for in Phoenix. I live in Portland right now, and have become a big Blazers fan. But watching basketball isn't why I went to every Friday or Saturday night game (and a lot of Tuesday and Wednesday night games). When I move away, I will go to see the Blazers play in other NBA venues around the country and before I moved out here, I was never an NBA fan. I went because it was the place to be in town - where the social life of the town takes off. When I go out to a Portland Timbers (soccer) game on a Thursday, they nearly sell out, but half the seats are open because people are up socializing. I think hockey has done the least of the major four sports to create this event like atmosphere that is needed in non-traditional hockey markets, which is really how these "bad" hockey markets should be addressed. They are only "bad" if you treat them the same as you would if they were in Toronto.
To build a fan base, you need to have a presence in the southwest. I think Las Vegas may be a better market to create the prototype for this event atmosphere in the NHL. |
|
|
|
Rambo2305
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
546 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2009 : 10:33:34
|
A 15/15 split between the US and Canada would kill the NHL. First off, Canada is home to roughly 30 Million people, while the US is home to 300 Million. So right there we can see that Canada doesn't have 15 cities large enough to support a team. How many cities does Canada have that even have more then 200,000 people? Right now, the only viable places for a 7th NHL team in Canada is Winnipeg or a 2nd team in Toronto. Nowhere else in Canada can support a team. Hamilton may be larger then most cities/towns in Canada (Hamilton is still a tiny place), but they have a stuttering economy and are praising the lords that US Steel opened its mills in Hamilton again...
Also, its not just about having a team, you have to think about a players desire to play for that respective team. If I had the option to play in NY, Toronto, LA etc. With more then jsut a game to play, night life, media attention, or overall buzz to the city, I'd rather go there instead of a farmers market in Saskatoon or Regina (all due respect lol)...
"Most people spend time and energy going around problems, rather than trying to solve them" - Henry Ford |
|
|
|
JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2308 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2009 : 11:15:26
|
10-11 teams is possible TO#2, Hamilton, Okanagon Valley(Kelowna, Kamloops, Vernon), Winnipeg, Quebec City and a maritime city like Halifax. All of these markets could draw a decent fan base and you could make an arguement about Regina/Saskatoon although Sask always seems to be the last possible option. 15 is stretching it though.
I could see a team in Las Vegas, Seattle or Kansas City. But for any of these options to happen one has to acknowledge the southern states are not the only place to throw away money for the betterment of the NHL Brand. Pheonix is the least likely of all the current team to bring new fans to the sport.
Some would say (although, I somewhat disagree) Atlanta, Carolina and Tampa would also be considered failed experiments. To warm a climate and if the team is not successful the market fails. Las Vegas may be the only new warmer climate I would temp fate with, but only because of the atmosphere of show business. Probable the only Hotter than Hell town that can sell a cold climate game. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Balsillie to buy the Phoenix Coyotes? 
