Options
NHL v Balsillie
Drowned Out
Posts: 6,056
Whadaya think, hockey fans?
The Great One has stepped down as coach...sounds like it was to avoid a conflict of interest and to keep the distractions to a minimum…
I haven’t been following this story all that closely…..why is the league so against Balsillie owning a team? Is it just the approach he’s taken – he’s stepped on toes and they don’t want him in the boys club? Or are they fighting this solely on behalf of one of the most powerful (and perpetually mediocre
) franchises in major sports – The Leafs? Should the NHL have the final say on ownership in their league, or should the owners (or creditors) be free to sell their asset as they see fit?
As a hockey fan, I think you can only support another team in S.Ontario….it’s not like the market can’t support it….and it would create an instant rivalry (or two).
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/700671
The Great One has stepped down as coach...sounds like it was to avoid a conflict of interest and to keep the distractions to a minimum…
I haven’t been following this story all that closely…..why is the league so against Balsillie owning a team? Is it just the approach he’s taken – he’s stepped on toes and they don’t want him in the boys club? Or are they fighting this solely on behalf of one of the most powerful (and perpetually mediocre
) franchises in major sports – The Leafs? Should the NHL have the final say on ownership in their league, or should the owners (or creditors) be free to sell their asset as they see fit?As a hockey fan, I think you can only support another team in S.Ontario….it’s not like the market can’t support it….and it would create an instant rivalry (or two).
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/700671
Sometime in the next week, Judge Redfield T. Baum will don his black and white gown, stroll into a Phoenix courtroom and decide the fate of the Phoenix Coyotes.
In doing so, he will either squash Canadian billionaire Jim Balsillie's dream of owning an NHL team or open up a Pandora's box of legal challenges that will keep the team in limbo for the foreseeable future.
If there was ever a no-win situation, this is it and the NHL has only itself and its dictatorial leader, Gary Bettman, to blame.
Cut it any way you like, it should never have come to this. The honourable judge, if he sticks to his knitting – he is a bankruptcy judge after all – has little choice but to rule in favour of the highest bid submitted for the team. That clearly is Jim Balsillie's $250 million. So what is the problem?
Well, for starters, Balsillie's bid comes with conditions, one of which is that he moves the team to Hamilton. Next is the fact that the team's major creditors support the bid submitted by the NHL – despite the fact that it is approximately $100 million less.
Are they crazy? Not really.
They feel that the lower bid is less likely to be challenged by Balsillie's camp, whereas if our man from RIM is successful, the NHL has "promised" to appeal the decision and seek a stay in the court order, thus leaving the creditors at bay once again as the appeal works its way through the courts. What is a judge to do?
Well, he could do his job. As a bankruptcy judge, he has to do what is best for the creditors; all of them. The NHL bid parses down the claim of former Coyotes owner Jerry Moyes from approximately $104 million to about $14 million, which he would have to share with the outgoing Coyotes coach, Wayne Gretzky, who has a claim for just over $22 million; how un-Canadian is that!
The Balsillie bid deals with both gentlemen as full creditors and even throws $50 million to the City of Glendale, effectively buying out the team's lease at Jobbing.com Arena.
But there is another oddity: the brainiacs running the City of Glendale are backing the NHL bid that gives them very little other than a promise to try and find a buyer who will keep the team in Phoenix. Hey guys: Nobody is going to buy your swampland; you may get someone to play there this season and possibly next, but that is it. The team is moving and $50 million is a lot more than you will ever see from the NHL straw man who eventually agrees to play the patsy.
Thus far, Judge Baum has shown little inclination to be bullied into a decision. His rulings on the minor issues debated in his court have been thoughtful, clear and precise. He has challenged the lawyers on both sides, cajoled and played the jester at times, but when the serious decisions have had to be made, he has been up to the task.
But this next decision is different. The consequences of ruling in Balsillie's favour are monumental and could change the way professional sports operate in North America. The leagues have always maintained that they own the right to decide the "who and where", who owns the team and where they play. And while the NHL continues to sing that song, the Toronto Maple Leafs are dusting off their blue and white legal briefs ready to challenge a move into "their territory." Oh to be a fly on the wall in Richard Peddie's office!
So, the choices: Rule in favour of the NHL and take a vacation knowing that you have done a disservice to the team's creditors but preserved the NHL's monopolistic hold on owners and territories. Or choose the righteous path and rule in favour of Balsillie, then sit back and watch the fireworks. This is the courageous decision, and one that perhaps comes with conditions such as requiring Balsillie to keep the team in Phoenix until he can strike a deal with the NHL, thus avoiding or limiting the uncertainty of legal challenges.
Of course, he cannot predict what the parties will do but a couple of things are clear: the NHL will never be successful in Phoenix and there is a deal to be done here. Perhaps it's time that someone took the leash and guided this hurt puppy across the border to her new home.
Judge Baum can make history or just be a part of it.
He strikes me as someone who is going to do the right thing. We shall see.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
I really haven't followed this a closely as I probably should have, but it seems to me that part of it is how Balsillie has acted, and partly because Bettman and the league don't want to give in and move the team.
Somewhat could be ego, and not admitting that they were wrong to put a team there, but I think a lot of it is to protect the image of the league. If every franchise who runs into ownership/economic troubles decides to sell to someone to move the team, it makes the league seem very unstable.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
It seems the league is screwing the Coyotes’ creditors out of $100 million …to maintain an appearance of stability? That’s doesn’t hold water when you consider that the team is bankrupt, can’t sell tickets, and can’t find a local buyer… I’m thinking it’s just so that the Leafs don’t have to go to court to defend ‘their turf’, and yes, to spite Balsillie.
I’d be interested to know how the other owners feel about the league devaluing the team from $250 million to $150 million…A crap franchise selling for $250 million would significantly raise the market value of most of the other franchises, wouldn’t it? If the league sticks to their ‘no more expansion’ stance, (ie: the owners won’t get anything out of Balsillie buying a team via expansion fees), his bid is def more beneficial to the rest of the league….except maybe the Leafs.
Sure, while we're at it, let's bring the Coyotes back to the 'peg...and make the Lightning the Quebec Nordiques
Yeah... you would think that the other owners would want the coyotes to sell for as much as possible.
I didn't think about the league shielding the Leafs from having to come out as the bad guy... Do you think that a team in Hamilton would hurt the Leafs? I don't know enough about the area/market.
I've only been to Hamilton once (to see PJ in '05), and that arena has A LOT of work to be done to get it NHL ready...
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
I think a team in Hamilton could hurt the Leafs a bit...they have some kind of no-competion clause with the league - no team can play within XXX km's of Toronto....from my understanding, it's never been legally challenged and the Leafs and league are avoiding that because they fear the outcome.
A new franchise might eat into their merchandise sales, possibly affect their advertising/tv rates etc eventually....but it's stupid to think that LA/Anaheim can coexist, and 3 teams can play in the NY area, but the biggest hockey market in the world can't support two teams? :roll: It's just greed on the part of the Leaf's owners (Ontario Teachers Pension Plan, I believe)...
I'm curious to hear what some Leaf or Coyotes fans think of this...like I mentioned, I haven't followed very closely either....I just looked into it last night after hearing Gretz quit - so my opinions may be ill-informed.
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=293208
Worse than the Igloo??? ......I'm sure Basile has the cash for major upgrades or even a new building so the Coops would only be temporary
I think its two part. Part 1 ego, Bettman does not want to admit that the NHL does not go over well in the southern US, I suspect that most people in Pheonix only want to see ice in their drink.
Part 2 money. Hamilton will get a team eventually, an expansion team, and the owners want the money from such team, just as I suspect Winnepeg, Quebec and maybe Halifax will get a team at some point. This is the only way most US owners make money is when the league expands and they charge huge expansion fees. Even the Detroit Red Wings play in front of many empty seats on most nights, I was at game 1 vs Anaheim last spring and the amount of empty seats was astonishing. For a sport that relys more on ticket sales than TV revenue to suirvive they have a real problem.
Yet in Canada we fill the seats every night in all cities, yet these US owners want to deny places like Hamilton, Quebec, Winnepeg and even Halifax teams.
I have often thought it would be a good idea for the 6 Canadian teams to leave the NHL add 4 More Candian teams, take the Stanley Cup (because its rightfully ours), and expand into the US and pick the proper cities who have an interest in hockey. Most importantly through Bettman and the gang of US owners out who seem only interested in immediate greed for the sake of long term growth.
And I think it would work, considering the NHL relies heavily on attendance, and Canadian teams draw.
Also I would name Wayne Gretzky Prime Minister and move league offices to Monteral, Toronto and Vancouver.
Why I am at it, I'd toss the shootout into the trash, its a team game, one or lost as a team, play 4 on 4 sudden death OT.
End of rant.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
so of $2.1 billion, that's $ 1.26 billion that the "top line" US markets and the 3 extra Canadian ones can made
I think it's dooable
we need a mutiny at the NHL offices in America
2003 ~ Toronto
2005 ~ London, Toronto
2006 ~ Toronto
2008 ~ Hartford, Mansfied I,
2009 ~ Toronto, Chicago I, Chicago II
2010 ~ Cleveland, Buffalo
2011 ~ Toronto I, Toronto II, Ottawa, Hamilton
2013 - London, Pittsburgh, Buffalo
That means 6 teams of a 30 team league generate 40% of the revenue, add 4 Canadian teams and expand properly into the US to cities that want and can support hockey we would have a better league, just make sure that we do not allow those current US owners in.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Definity Keep
Detroit
Chicago
Minnesota
New York Rangers
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Boston
Buffalo
Probably Keep
St. Louis
Wasington
Might Keep
San Jose
Los Angeles
Colorado
Carolina
No Way
Nasville
Anaheim
NY Islanders
New Jersey
Atlanta
Florida
Tampa Bay
2003 ~ Toronto
2005 ~ London, Toronto
2006 ~ Toronto
2008 ~ Hartford, Mansfied I,
2009 ~ Toronto, Chicago I, Chicago II
2010 ~ Cleveland, Buffalo
2011 ~ Toronto I, Toronto II, Ottawa, Hamilton
2013 - London, Pittsburgh, Buffalo
Sammi: Wanna just break up?
I think thats been proven year after year
2003 ~ Toronto
2005 ~ London, Toronto
2006 ~ Toronto
2008 ~ Hartford, Mansfied I,
2009 ~ Toronto, Chicago I, Chicago II
2010 ~ Cleveland, Buffalo
2011 ~ Toronto I, Toronto II, Ottawa, Hamilton
2013 - London, Pittsburgh, Buffalo
i agree with this - no reason whatsoever we have hockey teams in the south. Frankly Florida shouldn't have any sports except football as they don't support any of them. I think the Devils are an interesting case though becasue the reality of the Devils is if they weren't such a good franchise on the ice they would be out in a second - the fact is the little support they get is because they have been good for so long. If they ever go through a period where they suck they will be in serious trouble. Personally I'd love to see some of the small Canadian cities like Hamilton get a team - much better than crappy US cities. Hockey should have about 24 teams total
Who said anything about getting rid of teams, I am saying that without the Canadian teams the current structure of the NHL would fold. I am saying the 6 Canadian teams need to form their own league add 4 more Canadian teams and expand in the US adding 10 US teams. My bet is that current US teams would want in on the new league as opposed to having to actually expand. 40% of league revenues come from Canadian teams...thats 6 teams. All the US owners have proven to me is that can take great product, expand with way 2 many teams, forcing the talent to be watered down, and now on many nights teams don't score more goals than soccer teams. I personally prefer how the game was played pre 1992, and I never had a problem with fighting in hockey, apparently some people do, its been part of the game forever.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon