HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   The Business of Hockey (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=124)
-   -   Balsillie/Phoenix Part IX: 'Dorf on Hockey (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=654478)

LadyStanley 06-25-2009 01:17 AM

Balsillie/Phoenix Part IX: 'Dorf on Hockey
 
Welcome to the continuing story of a judge trying to find money in the desert to pay past debts.

Previous thread: http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=651896

Wetcoaster 06-25-2009 01:31 AM

It is the off season and with all the courses around Phoenix Dorf is golfing:
http://assets.slate.wvu.edu/resource...2422919_ml.jpg

MAROONSRoad 06-25-2009 01:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyStanley (Post 20043203)
Welcome to the continuing story of a judge trying to find money in the desert to pay past debts.

Previous thread: http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=651896

Is that a Star Trek reference? Geek out! :handclap:

GHOST

LadyStanley 06-25-2009 01:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GHOSTofMAROONSroad (Post 20043351)
Is that a Star Trek reference? Geek out! :handclap:

GHOST

Was meant to be a Muppet Show reference. :D

bbud 06-25-2009 02:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyStanley (Post 20043384)
Was meant to be a Muppet Show reference. :D

Lol dr bob doing some surgery on NHL for the season opener

LadyStanley 06-25-2009 11:36 AM

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL...21036-sun.html
Apparently the possibility of Tavares owning a piece of Phoenix (with Reinsdorf) and Florida isn't an issue. (And in the Molson family buying up the Candiens, with ties to Toronto.)
Quote:

Maybe the guy knew something, considering that there might be a cross-ownership issue involving the two teams if the sale of the Habs to the Molson family is approved.

"It's no big deal. It's just a (minor) thing," one Leafs executive said. "Cross ownership is allowed in the NHL."

The other three major sports leagues -- the NFL, NBA and Major League Baseball -- prohibit ownership stakes in more than one team, no matter how small that interest.

Fugu 06-25-2009 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyStanley (Post 20046567)
http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL...21036-sun.html
Apparently the possibility of Tavares owning a piece of Phoenix (with Reinsdorf) and Florida isn't an issue. (And in the Molson family buying up the Candiens, with ties to Toronto.)

Is this accurate? I was fairly certain that it was not allowed. Didn't Boots have to divest himself of his very small interest in the Sharks prior to acquiring his piece of the Predators? I thought the NHL added these types of rules after the Norrises were guilty of tampering in Chicago and NY (back before most of us were born).

LadyStanley 06-25-2009 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fugu (Post 20046634)
Is this accurate? I was fairly certain that it was not allowed. Didn't Boots have to divest himself of his very small interest in the Sharks prior to acquiring his piece of the Predators? I thought the NHL added these types of rules after the Norrises were guilty of tampering in Chicago and NY (back before most of us were born).

Could more be an issue WRT % of ownership. Boots in SJ had minority ownership, but was looking to be one of the largest WRT Nashville.

Let's see if I can get a call into Bettman today during the NHL Hour to get this answered. :D

MAROONSRoad 06-25-2009 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fugu (Post 20046634)
Is this accurate? I was fairly certain that it was not allowed. Didn't Boots have to divest himself of his very small interest in the Sharks prior to acquiring his piece of the Predators? I thought the NHL added these types of rules after the Norrises were guilty of tampering in Chicago and NY (back before most of us were born).

The rules on ownership of more than one franchise are contained in Article 13 of the NHL Constitution. There are also rules concerning loans among members/franchises. Keep in mind that the NHL does not always follow their own rules as we saw in the Boots saga.

See here, Article 13:

http://www.bizofhockey.com/docs/NHLConsitution.pdf

GHOST

GSC2k2* 06-25-2009 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fugu (Post 20046634)
Is this accurate? I was fairly certain that it was not allowed. Didn't Boots have to divest himself of his very small interest in the Sharks prior to acquiring his piece of the Predators? I thought the NHL added these types of rules after the Norrises were guilty of tampering in Chicago and NY (back before most of us were born).

Section 13 of the Constitution permits multiple "non-controlling" ownerships in certain circumstances, subject to a host of restrictions. Boots was required to divest because one of the criteria for non-controlling status is <30% ownership, and Boots was at that level.

GSC2k2* 06-25-2009 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GHOSTofMAROONSroad (Post 20046817)
The rules on ownership of more than one franchise are contained in Article 13 of the NHL Constitution. There are also rules concerning loans among members/franchises. Keep in mind that the NHL does not always follow their own rules as we saw in the Boots saga.

See here, Article 13:

http://www.bizofhockey.com/docs/NHLConsitution.pdf

GHOST

Please identify the provision where the NHL did not comply with its restrictions in the Boots "saga". I have reviewed it and could not see anything, but i would be interested in receiving information to the contrary.

kdb209 06-25-2009 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyStanley (Post 20043384)
Was meant to be a Muppet Show reference. :D

Coyoooooteeeees iiiinnnnn Spaaaace !!!!!!!

(yeah I know it's from Veterenarian's Hospital - but who here would get a Dr Bob reference).

And I don't know if anything will come of it - but there is a new Muppet Show movie and possible TV series in the works.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...-27-years.html

MAROONSRoad 06-25-2009 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GSC2k2 (Post 20047029)
Please identify the provision where the NHL did not comply with its restrictions in the Boots "saga". I have reviewed it and could not see anything, but i would be interested in receiving information to the contrary.

I guess it's arguable given that the loans to Boots were made by owners of member clubs and not the clubs themselves, but the loans did appear to at least violate the spirit of sub-Article 8.1 (b):

Quote:

8.1 Conflicting Interests and Loans

(b) No member shall, directly on indirectly, loan money to or become a surety or guarantor for...any other member of the League.
GHOST

LadyStanley 06-25-2009 12:44 PM

Darren Pang on NHL Live today.

Paraphrasing:
Pang's gut reaction:
Baum is a sports guy but understands ramifications of decisions; making priority to staying in Glendale.
Feels very confident that Reinsdorf's offer will be sufficient that team will stay in Phoenix playing at Glendale arena.

GSC2k2* 06-25-2009 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GHOSTofMAROONSroad (Post 20047247)
I guess it's arguable given that the loans to Boots were made by owners of member clubs and not the clubs themselves, but the loans did appear to at least violate the spirit of sub-Article 8.1 (b):



GHOST

Actually, that is completely 100% incorrect with respect to that provision.

8.1(b) says, in its entirety:

(b) No member shall, directly or indirectly, loan money to or become a surety or guarantor for a player of any other member of the League.

That provision refers to loans to players. I assume that you must have misread the provision and confused "player of" with "player or".

I must add that, regardless of the constitution, non-disclosure by Leipold/Anschutz was not cool, but I just wanted to clarify the point and correct you on your reference to that paragraph.

MAROONSRoad 06-25-2009 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GSC2k2 (Post 20047861)
Actually, that is completely 100% incorrect with respect to that provision.

8.1(b) says, in its entirety:

(b) No member shall, directly or indirectly, loan money to or become a surety or guarantor for a player of any other member of the League.

That provision refers to loans to players. I assume that you must have misread the provision and confused "player of" with "player or".

I must add that, regardless of the constitution, non-disclosure by Leipold/Anschutz was not cool, but I just wanted to clarify the point and correct you on your reference to that paragraph.

You are correct. I misread the article. I read it as "for a player or any other member" but as you state it is "for a player of any other member."

I wonder if there are any other provisions concerning the matter.

BTW, something is either correct or incorrect. To say something is "completely 100% incorrect" is therefore unnecessary and redundant.

GHOST

GSC2k2* 06-25-2009 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GHOSTofMAROONSroad (Post 20048069)
You are correct. I misread the article. I read it as "for a player or any other member" but as you state it is "for a player of any other member."

I wonder if there are any other provisions concerning the matter.

BTW, something is either correct or incorrect. To say something is "completely 100% incorrect" is therefore unnecessary and redundant.

GHOST

I absolutely, completely, fully, 100% agree with your latter point.

BTW, when I read 8.1(b) a few weeks ago for the first time, I had the same initial reaction as you apparently did. I did a double-take.

mouser 06-25-2009 01:26 PM

From the NHL Constitution article 13, it looks like this would be the case:

A Non-Controlling Owner can have Non-Controlling Ownership Interests in up to three different teams. One of the teams can be up to 30% and the other two teams up to 10% each.

There are restrictions on what constitutes a Non-Controlling owner include maximum allowed % share and level of influence over team decisions.

bbud 06-25-2009 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mouser (Post 20048448)
From the NHL Constitution article 13, it looks like this would be the case:

A Non-Controlling Owner can have Non-Controlling Ownership Interests in up to three different teams. One of the teams can be up to 30% and the other two teams up to 10% each.

There are restrictions on what constitutes a Non-Controlling owner include maximum allowed % share and level of influence over team decisions.

Not to argue any of these issues from what the contract says but, isnt owning shares in 2 or 3 teams just a bad idea if something came along -trades free agent issues i would think it could get a bit troubling why would NHL itself allow such other than to keep its own old boys club going .

mouser 06-25-2009 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wetcoaster (Post 20035875)
"Fun" and "math"??? Scary. I think you need to get out more.:D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourier (Post 20039530)
Hey! Watch what you say! I can put up with a lot around here but this post pretty much crosses the line!!!! :D

So does that mean it's a good or bad thing to mention all those college courses I took on quantum physics, electromagnetics and calculus/differential equations? ;)

mouser 06-25-2009 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bbud (Post 20049117)
Not to argue any of these issues from what the contract says but, isnt owning shares in 2 or 3 teams just a bad idea if something came along -trades free agent issues i would think it could get a bit troubling why would NHL itself allow such other than to keep its own old boys club going .

NHL's position seems to be that a person with ownership like that shouldn't have any operational say in things like trades, but it's not completely defined on something like an owner requiring a GM to trade a player. Here's the exact language:

[Non-Controlling Owner is defined as any owner who isn't a Controlling Owner as defined below.]

Quote:

"Controlling Owner" means, with respect to any Member Club or its franchise, any Person (whether or not an Owner) that:

(i) Has actual or effective control of the Member Club or its franchise, whether by contract, operation of law or otherwise;

(ii) Has any management or operational rights with respect to the Member Club or its franchise, excluding, for this purpose, any management or operational rights that such Person may have solely with respect to any Diversified Owner of that member Club that do not provide such Person with material management or operational rights with respect to the Member Club or its franchise; or

(iii) Has an aggregate direct or indirect Ownership Interest of 30% or more in a Member Club or its franchise, even if such Person has no management or voting rights of any kind with respect to the Member Club or its franchise



note:
"Diversified Owner" shall mean any Owner of a Member Club that has direct or indirect ownership interests in business or assets other than the Member Club such that the book value of the assets of the Member Club (or, if applicable, such Owner's Ownership Interest in the Member Club) and gross revenues of the Member Club (if and to the extent reflected in whole or in part in such Owner's financial statements), represent 5% or less of the book value of the assets and gross revenues, respectively, of the Owner in its most recent fiscal year.

GSC2k2* 06-25-2009 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mouser (Post 20049285)
So does that mean it's a good or bad thing to mention all those college courses I took on quantum physics, electromagnetics and calculus/differential equations? ;)

Nerd!!!!!!!!!!!!!

;)

bbud 06-25-2009 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mouser (Post 20049445)
NHL's position seems to be that a person with ownership like that shouldn't have any operational say in things like trades, but it's not completely defined on something like an owner requiring a GM to trade a player. Here's the exact language:

[Non-Controlling Owner is defined as any owner who isn't a Controlling Owner as defined below.]

I see the legal statement just saying it leaves an idea that some back room issues could happen where owners could be percieved in bad light even if nothing has or did happen and after Boots, now pension again why would they even want any chance it could be looked at is all i am saying , may be legal but with track record of NHL id wonder .

Brodie 06-25-2009 03:34 PM

Ah, Tim Conway.

Crazy_Ike 06-25-2009 03:47 PM

Quote:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...rticle1196051/
Canadiens president Bolvin:
Five of six Canadian franchises now represented as fully supporting Bettman against Balsillie, to the sure dismay of the "buttman hates canada" crowd on message boards. Are they unpatriotic greedy bums, or maybe, just maybe, they recognize how bad the Balsillie bid is to hockey, and to professional NA sports in general?

Cmon Vancouver I know you want to jump on the bandwagon!

:D


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:37 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.