HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Toronto Maple Leafs (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=17)
-   -   News Article: Balsillie back in the bidding (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=670190)

Leafs4Eva 08-05-2009 09:39 PM

Balsillie back in the bidding
 
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/stor...t.html?ref=rss

Quote:

im Balsillie's attempt to buy the Phoenix Coyotes and relocate them to Hamilton, Ont., may not be dead yet.

An Arizona judge decided Wednesday to allow "any and all bidders" to be involved in a court-ordered auction for the bankrupt National Hockey League team on Sept. 10.

Previously, only bidders who were willing to keep the club in the desert were to be involved.

Balsillie, a Canadian billionaire businessman, has offered $212.5 US million for the team on the condition it be allowed to move to Hamilton.

But the NHL, which has been funding the club, wants the team to stay in Arizona where it has lost tens of millions since moving from Winnipeg in 1996.

Baum, who acknowledged that "this decision probably expands the issues for the auction," called a hearing for next Monday to deal with any possible arguments from all sides as to how the case should proceed.

LeafErikson* 08-05-2009 09:41 PM

I'm willing to bet he ups his offer this time around.

Acekicker123 08-05-2009 09:43 PM

C'mon Jimmy!

Transplanted Caper 08-05-2009 09:45 PM

He's not getting a team. The NHL has already rejected him. Regardless of the desire for another team in Canada - and I think it's there among many owners - they're not going to let Balsillie own it. If he gets this through the courts it will wind up being one of worst days in NHL history. A few years down the road expect the phrase "Hindsight is 20/20" to be uttered quite a bit when an owner sandbags a good market b/c he can make more $$ through the courts, or an owner winds up in trouble and can only get out of debt by moving a good team to a random market.

LeafErikson* 08-05-2009 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Transplanted Caper (Post 20678937)
He's not getting a team. The NHL has already rejected him. Regardless of the desire for another team in Canada - and I think it's there among many owners - they're not going to let Balsillie own it. If he gets this through the courts it will wind up being one of worst days in NHL history. A few years down the road expect the phrase "Hindsight is 20/20" to be uttered quite a bit when an owner sandbags a good market b/c he can make more $$ through the courts, or an owner winds up in trouble and can only get out of debt by moving a good team to a random market.

The precedent will be the fact the Coyotes are hemouraging money. They won't allow a team in a healthy market to be removed.

I look at it this way. Had Moyes been in trouble financially because of his personal finances only, and needed to deal the team, this wouldn't have even come about. But since the issue stems directly from the fact the team really isn't viable, and the offers made don't really satisfy the debt inherited, the team will have to move.

The team is bleeding cash from its' ass! The band aid solutions the NHL is throwing at it in the way of Reinsdorf et al. is laughable. "20/20 hindsight" if the team is moved to SW Ontario will be that it was a good move. Is Balsillie a loveable owner? No, he's a bit of a dick. Does moving the team to SW Ontario make the best sense for the NHL. I bet if you talked to a Bettman, or Daley in person, one on one, they'd admitt that direction is the most viable.

Transplanted Caper 08-05-2009 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeafErikson (Post 20678961)
The precedent will be the fact the Coyotes are hemouraging money. They won't allow a team in a healthy market to be removed.

I disagree. In my eyes the precedent is set by giving a Court the power to override the NHL's ability to decide where and when a team moves. Remember, the hockey team is only one part of it. Phoenix may not be a great market, but the on ice product is only one part of it - the owner is hemorrhaging money b/c of his other interests as well.

Dark Knight 08-05-2009 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Transplanted Caper (Post 20678937)
He's not getting a team. The NHL has already rejected him. Regardless of the desire for another team in Canada - and I think it's there among many owners - they're not going to let Balsillie own it. If he gets this through the courts it will wind up being one of worst days in NHL history. A few years down the road expect the phrase "Hindsight is 20/20" to be uttered quite a bit when an owner sandbags a good market b/c he can make more $$ through the courts, or an owner winds up in trouble and can only get out of debt by moving a good team to a random market.

I completely agree.

Even if he's the highest bidder, by a wide margin, its unlikely NHL gives him the team. Balsille's actions early were a bit surprising, and lead to an unusual route to own an NHL franchise. Not only did it piss the NHL off, but I think the bad blood between them will be more than enough to block Balsille off the NHL map.

It'll be interesting to see if indeed Balsille ups his offer by a lot. The reason is if Balsille's offer is close to twice as much as anyone else's, and the NHL still refuses to give him the team, then something is wrong.

LeafErikson* 08-05-2009 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Salsabil (Post 20678992)
I completely agree.

Even if he's the highest bidder, by a wide margin, its unlikely NHL gives him the team. Balsille's actions early were a bit surprising, and lead to an unusual route to own an NHL franchise. Not only did it piss the NHL off, but I think the bad blood between them will be more than enough to block Balsille off the NHL map.

It'll be interesting to see if indeed Balsille ups his offer by a lot. The reason is if Balsille's offer is close to twice as much as anyone else's, and the NHL still refuses to give him the team, then something is wrong.

It would stink of pride, and resentment. However, at this point, that kind of decision really wouldn't surprise me.

LeafErikson* 08-05-2009 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Transplanted Caper (Post 20678981)
I disagree. In my eyes the precedent is set by giving a Court the power to override the NHL's ability to decide where and when a team moves. Remember, the hockey team is only one part of it. Phoenix may not be a great market, but the on ice product is only one part of it - the owner is hemorrhaging money b/c of his other interests as well.

Ya, he is. But focus on the market only is what matters. I'm under the impression that this team has not turned a profit one season in the desert. And over the past few seasons have lost at times as much as 40-60 million. The fact they still exist there is astonishing.

If Balsillies bid satisfies the creditors better than any other bid, it's foolish to turn it away. Take personal grudge, or vendetta out of it. The NHL has to swallow some pride here, and do what's best for the league.

The NHL can avoid setting any potential negative precedent by allowing the sale to go through to Balsillie, relocating the team to SW Ontario, and admitting it's mistake in moving to Phoenix in the first place.

Doubleyah 08-05-2009 10:37 PM

Ballsillie obviously will not go away unless Bettman & Daly figure out a way to put a restraining order against JB that prohibits him from placing any of his money within 500 miles of any team ..EVER.

So if Ballsillie can win the bid in whatever scenario, there needs to be a comprimise/settlement before hand in order for everyone to get out of this with a little dignity. ie. JB publicly apologizes to the NHL and the board of governers for attempting to circumvent the process, and basically eats as much crow as he can and attributes his indiscretion to his "deep passion for the sport". The NHL (dishes some line that Pheonix is rellocating due to failure from the previous ownership groups, not because the team was not viable there - and that since there is too much to sort out with the Hamilton territory claims by Toronto and Buffalo, in order to ensure its back to business as usual for the League as soon as possible, Ballsillie gets unanimous approval from the board as an owner of an NHL franchise... in Winnipeg. Hamilton will be evaluated as a potential expansion franchise (where the league gets to cash in) at some point in the (distant) future.

JB Gets his team
"Make it Seven" happens
League secures the eventual Southern Ontario expansion fee "cash cow"
Pheonix isn't hopelessly labelled unviable in NHL terms
Bettman gives JB a bitter-sweet victory (gets his team, but not where he wanted)
Creditors get paid
Moyes gets paid
The two fans in pheonix are dissapointed, but ultimately indifferent about the move.

Schenn 08-05-2009 10:38 PM

I really want Jimmy to get the Yotes.

Anthrax442 08-05-2009 10:44 PM

The judge will make Buttman his beotch

MLHS Joe C 08-06-2009 12:45 AM

The Oakland Raiders moved to LA through bankruptcy without the NFL wanting it. It didn't destroy the NFL, and this wouldn't destroy the NHL.

Steve466 08-06-2009 01:00 AM

Isn't the NHL supposedly run as a business? How does it make business sense to take a lower offer to keep the team in Phoenix where it will continue to lose money, rather than take the higher offer to bring it to a city where it will unquestionably make a ton of money? From a business standpoint, this makes no sense at all.

Jaysfanatic* 08-06-2009 01:10 AM

I think they need to compromise. If Balsille is certain the team is going to lose money, then he needs to tell the NHL alright, we'll try Phoenix for a while. But you have to pay a little bit of this as well. If it continually loses money, even if I attempt to bring in the best team possible, then I can move it.

canada83 08-06-2009 01:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeafErikson (Post 20678961)
The precedent will be the fact the Coyotes are hemouraging money. They won't allow a team in a healthy market to be removed.

I look at it this way. Had Moyes been in trouble financially because of his personal finances only, and needed to deal the team, this wouldn't have even come about. But since the issue stems directly from the fact the team really isn't viable, and the offers made don't really satisfy the debt inherited, the team will have to move.

The team is bleeding cash from its' ass! The band aid solutions the NHL is throwing at it in the way of Reinsdorf et al. is laughable. "20/20 hindsight" if the team is moved to SW Ontario will be that it was a good move. Is Balsillie a loveable owner? No, he's a bit of a dick. Does moving the team to SW Ontario make the best sense for the NHL. I bet if you talked to a Bettman, or Daley in person, one on one, they'd admitt that direction is the most viable.

+ 1

hullsy47 08-06-2009 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve466 (Post 20680923)
Isn't the NHL supposedly run as a business? How does it make business sense to take a lower offer to keep the team in Phoenix where it will continue to lose money, rather than take the higher offer to bring it to a city where it will unquestionably make a ton of money? From a business standpoint, this makes no sense at all.

itd be nice if bettman looked at the othr people nvolved in bankrupcty .....i been there .the creditors lke to get paid too .....u know the old saying?"u like to be kissed a bit while your being ...ed ? i think its been way too long another nhl franchise hasnt come to canada.hell u could sell 20000 season tickets in saskatchewan too .just call them the roughridders ... lmao

Hurt 08-06-2009 07:39 AM

Hypothetically.. What would happen if one day Bettman is like 'We're moving the Leafs to Kansas City'. What would happen?

dissociater 08-06-2009 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Transplanted Caper (Post 20678937)
He's not getting a team. The NHL has already rejected him. Regardless of the desire for another team in Canada - and I think it's there among many owners - they're not going to let Balsillie own it. If he gets this through the courts it will wind up being one of worst days in NHL history. A few years down the road expect the phrase "Hindsight is 20/20" to be uttered quite a bit when an owner sandbags a good market b/c he can make more $$ through the courts, or an owner winds up in trouble and can only get out of debt by moving a good team to a random market.

The problem is, you can only get money through the courts if it's Bankruptcy court. Meaning, it won't be a good market if the team is going bankrupt.

The scenario you're proposing doesn't seem possible, or at least probable. The only way I could see a good hockey market go to bankruptcy court would be if the owners intentionally bombed the team, intentionally losing money to the point that he literally owes more money than he has assets in (not a favorable position) and hopes that he somehow makes a profit in the bankruptcy courts (he probably won't). On top of that, if it IS a good hockey market, there will likely be a lineup of good buyers from that market willing to take another shot at it.

bobermay 08-06-2009 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Th4thurt (Post 20681812)
Hypothetically.. What would happen if one day Bettman is like 'We're moving the Leafs to Kansas City'. What would happen?

He would get shot. :laugh:

Courage* 08-06-2009 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Transplanted Caper (Post 20678981)
I disagree. In my eyes the precedent is set by giving a Court the power to override the NHL's ability to decide where and when a team moves. Remember, the hockey team is only one part of it. Phoenix may not be a great market, but the on ice product is only one part of it - the owner is hemorrhaging money b/c of his other interests as well.

But the NHL lost that right when the franchise ended up in serious debt. Right now, the court is just to rule that those creditors have every right to be satisfied, it's not their fault Bettman insists on continuing his expansion boondoggle for the sake of principle. If the NHL wants to arrogate itself the right to decide where its franchises are located, they must also assume some responsibility when those franchises fail. The Reisdorf offer falls short of assuming that responsibility. And it's no wonder: Reisdorf isn't stupid enough to get elbow deep into a failing (failed?) venture.

mooseOAK* 08-06-2009 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Th4thurt (Post 20681812)
Hypothetically.. What would happen if one day Bettman is like 'We're moving the Leafs to Kansas City'. What would happen?

Men in white clothes would take him away. I don't think you know what Bettman's job is.

Hurt 08-06-2009 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mooseOAK (Post 20681907)
Men in white clothes would take him away. I don't think you know what Bettman's job is.

It's hypothetical. Lighten up:help:

The Messenger 08-06-2009 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeafErikson (Post 20678897)
I'm willing to bet he ups his offer this time around.

Well so he should after-all he is getting a free rink in Hamilton courtesy of you and me so he should have lots of money to throw around.

It kills (and embarasses me) that Canadians in their blind patriot love of hockey cannot see that Balsillie is just as much looking for a free ride as any of the other bidders. He is NO white knight in shinning armour !!!!

I wonder if the taxpayers in Hamilton paid any attention to the taxpayers of Glendale and what happens when you have an owner who decides he can do anything he wants with a franchise despite what the NHL deems fair to the League and that particular city.

asdf 08-06-2009 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Courage (Post 20681905)
But the NHL lost that right when the franchise ended up in serious debt. Right now, the court is just to rule that those creditors have every right to be satisfied, it's not their fault Bettman insists on continuing his expansion boondoggle for the sake of principle. If the NHL wants to arrogate itself the right to decide where its franchises are located, they must also assume some responsibility when those franchises fail. The Reisdorf offer falls short of assuming that responsibility. And it's no wonder: Reisdorf isn't stupid enough to get elbow deep into a failing (failed?) venture.

That's what I don't fully understand. There is the argument that nobody should be able to tell the league who owns a team and where they are located, and that seems reasonable.

But what if a team is in very bad shape (like Phoenix) and the owner wants to try and get out of the mess? How can the league put up a roadblock to prevent him from doing that?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:41 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.