HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie
Notices

The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

CHL Class Action Part 2.5

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-01-2017, 07:43 AM
  #251
Bluefan75
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,353
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jason2020 View Post
Take Ottawa some say if it they put the team up for sale they could get $20 million for it not because of the hockey or player per say but the brand the 67s name is well known so is that a fair way to value if teams are swimming it in.
Why on earth would someone pay $20 million for a franchise with a "brand so well known" without a way to capitalize on that? You do realize that the brand being valuable means people buy tickets and merchandise and watch it on TV, right? It's not some abstract thing that doesn't result in money.

A person with enough money to pay $20 million for a franchise is not buying it to lose money. They pay $20 million for it because they expect they will make a return on that investment. Both through annual cash flow and capital appreciation. If neither of those were there, the price would be much lower.

Bluefan75 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2017, 07:46 AM
  #252
Bluefan75
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,353
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jason2020 View Post
1)That $300,000 for many teams would bankrupt them.

2)Many teams would not fold they would drop down to tier 2.

3)Teams that are sold will be for $1 just to off load it.
1)Based on..... the financials don't give enough info to know whether they are anything more than a smokescreen.

2)And lose out on the revenue that comes from being a CHL franchise, while maintaining said arena, etc. Ok.

3)Since we're being ridiculous here, I say they will sell for at least $2. And to guys named Chuck. New nicknames will be the Two-Buck Chucks.

Bluefan75 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2017, 07:47 AM
  #253
jason2020
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,708
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefan75 View Post
Why on earth would someone pay $20 million for a franchise with a "brand so well known" without a way to capitalize on that? You do realize that the brand being valuable means people buy tickets and merchandise and watch it on TV, right? It's not some abstract thing that doesn't result in money.

A person with enough money to pay $20 million for a franchise is not buying it to lose money. They pay $20 million for it because they expect they will make a return on that investment. Both through annual cash flow and capital appreciation. If neither of those were there, the price would be much lower.
The brand sells one example if the Ny Cosmos were up for sale a few months ago a group did offer $50 million but they would shut the soccer team down they only wanted the brand.

jason2020 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2017, 08:00 AM
  #254
Bluefan75
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,353
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jason2020 View Post
The brand sells one example if the Ny Cosmos were up for sale a few months ago a group did offer $50 million but they would shut the soccer team down they only wanted the brand.
And so if there is no team, the group is paying $50 million for what reason?

Bluefan75 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2017, 08:50 AM
  #255
fiveonfive
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 602
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefan75 View Post
Then enlighten me please.
You said "I didn't realize that the law allowed you to portray yourself as one thing in one instance, and another in another." so I was curios how literate you are at law. Do you have any qualifications in trademark or labour law? The user you were replying to definitely seems more aware of nuanced parts of the topic.

fiveonfive is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2017, 09:02 AM
  #256
Lempo
I heart Toby Enström
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Country: Finland
Posts: 4,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefan75 View Post
The CHL is most certainly going to attack the credibility of the plaintiff's arguments. Good for the goose/gander and all. If an expert like fiveonfive could explain how bringing up the trademark stuff would undermine the plaintiff's case, which I will allow is a possibility, albeit a small one from what I can tell, I'd love to hear it.
They have a good solid labor law case. The situations and conditions are such that the players are in employee-like state.

If they suddenly bring in the make-believy angle that the CHL itself thinks its a pro league based on their trademark application , it opens doors for the opponent to concentrate in contesting those premises and take the attention from the main issue and make a mess of the trial. The argument would waste court's time which may reflect badly on the plaintiffs. They might even end up having to pay the legal costs of both sides for that argument which adds little to nothing to the actual case in hand even if they won the case.

Why on earth would CHL say on public records they really think they are a pro league if their cunning plan was to lure people into thinking they are a love-for-hockey amateur league and pocket the hefty profits? It's just silly. Never go full silly in court of law.

Trademark is a tool of marketing; brand-creating and protecting it. It's a field of semi-serious BSing. Labor law on the other hand is a matter of mirthess and serious labor law people who have their own thing going. The trademark-related talk, what someone says their brand is about, has little credence in those circles. "BUT their TRADEMARK says...!" isn't gonna fly there, and saying such a thing would weight against the sayer's own credence. Not relevant to the legal labor questions at hand. They have their very own legal tests for determining if it is an employment situation in the eyes of law. You can't just fling unattached crap to see if some of it would stick.


Last edited by Lempo: 03-01-2017 at 09:18 AM.
Lempo is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2017, 10:06 AM
  #257
Bluefan75
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,353
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lempo View Post
They have a good solid labor law case. The situations and conditions are such that the players are in employee-like state.

If they suddenly bring in the make-believy angle that the CHL itself thinks its a pro league based on their trademark application , it opens doors for the opponent to concentrate in contesting those premises and take the attention from the main issue and make a mess of the trial. The argument would waste court's time which may reflect badly on the plaintiffs. They might even end up having to pay the legal costs of both sides for that argument which adds little to nothing to the actual case in hand even if they won the case.

Why on earth would CHL say on public records they really think they are a pro league if their cunning plan was to lure people into thinking they are a love-for-hockey amateur league and pocket the hefty profits? It's just silly. Never go full silly in court of law.

Trademark is a tool of marketing; brand-creating and protecting it. It's a field of semi-serious BSing. Labor law on the other hand is a matter of mirthess and serious labor law people who have their own thing going. The trademark-related talk, what someone says their brand is about, has little credence in those circles. "BUT their TRADEMARK says...!" isn't gonna fly there, and saying such a thing would weight against the sayer's own credence. Not relevant to the legal labor questions at hand. They have their very own legal tests for determining if it is an employment situation in the eyes of law. You can't just fling unattached crap to see if some of it would stick.
I think we see this going the same way. My concern would be, since the plaintiffs have pretty strong arguments, the CHL will need to muddy the waters with their "love of the game" argument, hoping they catch a judge whom that might resonate with. Which, being Canada, there is a chance that could happen.

If, as you say, these things are not relevant to the labor questions at hand, then it would stand to follow that "love of the game", "we don't do this for the money, look at our books" are really not relevant either. Would it not? And while I can see that in a strict legal sense, this is also a country that has had some seriously strange rulings based on not so solid grounds.

Given the fact hockey is involved, and this being Canada, despite what would seem logical, I can see a lot of "irrelevant" things being considered relevant.

Bluefan75 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2017, 10:08 AM
  #258
Bluefan75
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,353
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by fiveonfive View Post
You said "I didn't realize that the law allowed you to portray yourself as one thing in one instance, and another in another." so I was curios how literate you are at law. Do you have any qualifications in trademark or labour law? The user you were replying to definitely seems more aware of nuanced parts of the topic.
Other than a cursory interest in labor laws as it pertains to professional athletes, a course in university related to sports law, and staying at a holiday Inn Express last night, I'm certainly no expert. But while I can see what he is saying about strict relevance, I can't help but think it's wise to take an "all bets are off" approach when hockey is involved in Canada.

Bluefan75 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2017, 10:32 AM
  #259
Lempo
I heart Toby Enström
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Country: Finland
Posts: 4,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefan75 View Post
I think we see this going the same way. My concern would be, since the plaintiffs have pretty strong arguments, the CHL will need to muddy the waters with their "love of the game" argument, hoping they catch a judge whom that might resonate with. Which, being Canada, there is a chance that could happen.

If, as you say, these things are not relevant to the labor questions at hand, then it would stand to follow that "love of the game", "we don't do this for the money, look at our books" are really not relevant either. Would it not? And while I can see that in a strict legal sense, this is also a country that has had some seriously strange rulings based on not so solid grounds.

Given the fact hockey is involved, and this being Canada, despite what would seem logical, I can see a lot of "irrelevant" things being considered relevant.
I believe you are absolutely correct in your assessment that the issues you mention shouldn't have such a prominence in the case. In fact, CHL bringing them up, and the way how they have done with it, is a very good example of what would be muddying the water. The claim of "We can't afford it" would normally be filed under "bo-hoo" when employee matters are considered.

But, I don't know if Canada has such thing in their accepted priority of legal sources, but in our legal system among the highest "strongly obligating" sources of law, besides the law text itself there is "the custom of the land", so the culturally bounding ways of conduct that no one has ever bothered to write down as law because it's just to be taken so granted that things go by them. I could very well see that if the existence of high-quality junior hockey was considered to be in jeopardy a special consideration would be found to make the issue go away.

But, maybe that's exactly why the financial angle is being brought up so strongly here now: Will the league fold or will some of the teams just be sold and some adjustments be made if the players are to be considered employees?

The folks in London certainly picked a bad time for their "game-worn" jersey business to blow up.


Last edited by Lempo: 03-01-2017 at 10:39 AM.
Lempo is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2017, 10:47 AM
  #260
BadgerBruce
Registered User
 
BadgerBruce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 423
vCash: 500
To the best of my knowledge -- and I've read a ton of the documents attached to this class action certification hearing -- the CHL neither confirms nor denies that they operate a "professional league."

They do every now and again call themselves "a developmental hockey program for amateur student athletes," but that self-description, crafted by wordsmiths and vetted by attorneys, is intended to reframe the issue rather than address it.

The league does assert that the players are "Amateur student athletes." In other words, the CHL is saying, "it doesn't matter what WE are. What YOU (players) are is what matters." That's the reframing in a nutshell

In a variety of contexts -- IIHF, NCAA, Hockey Canada/USA Hockey Transfer Agreement, the a Trade Mark renewal application with the Intellectual Property Office -- the CHL either calls itself a professional league or is labelled as such by others.

But again, the league's position is that what THEY are is irrelevant. All that matters is what the PLAYERS are.

Is it possible to sign a contract to play ice hockey in a professional league but NOT be an employee under Alberta labour laws? The plaintiffs say "No," the league says "Yes."

BadgerBruce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2017, 10:47 AM
  #261
Bluefan75
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,353
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lempo View Post
I believe you are absolutely correct in your assessment that the issues you mention shouldn't have such a prominence in the case. In fact, CHL bringing them up, and the way how they have done with it, is a very good example of what would be muddying the water. The claim of "We can't afford it" would normally be filed under "bo-hoo" when employee matters are considered.

But, I don't know if Canada has such thing in their accepted priority of legal sources, but in our legal system among the highest "strongly obligating" sources of law, besides the law text itself there is "the custom of the land", so the culturally bounding ways of conduct that no one has ever bothered to write down as law because it's just to be taken so granted that things go by them. I could very well see that if the existence of high-quality junior hockey was considered to be in jeopardy a special consideration would be found to make the issue go away.

But, maybe that's exactly why the financial angle is being brought up so strongly here now: Will the league fold or will some of the teams just be sold and some adjustments be made if the players are to be considered employees?
I think one of the things that the CHL is counting on is that they aren't considered employees yet, legally. I think your points about irrelevance would be even stronger were they deemed employees, but unless I am totally out to lunch, I don't believe that has happened yet. The floodgates open on them if they can't stop that from happening, which is why they are going all in on keeping that from happening.

In which case, the CHL is trying to play up the love of the game angle, "we don't do this for the money" stuff , so they can have some kind of grounds to claim "they really aren't employees, just student-athletes playing some hockey on the side." Which kind of goes back to my point about the trademark thing, and claiming one thing when it suits you, then claiming the opposite when that suits you. How can you say they aren't employees when...

Personally, I think the draft, and the fact guys can be traded, make the employment case pretty cut and dry. Hard to argue it's about love of the game when a guy is traded for a 2026 draft pick.

Bluefan75 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-06-2017, 03:39 PM
  #262
MeHateHe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 596
vCash: 50
Bob Mackin, perhaps the only journalist in BC who pays attention to the sports/business/politics crossover, notes that the owners of BC's six WHL clubs have, while crying poverty, been throwing thousands of dollars at the ruling BC Liberals. And he finds it most interesting that clubs have done so in proximity to the province ruling arbitrarily that the clubs don't need to follow the minimum wage law.

http://thebreaker.news/miscellany/wh...e-law-changed/

For perspective, the Liberals (not really Liberal, per se, but rather a weird amalagam of centrists and right-wingers who stay together to keep the left-wing New Democrats out of office) raised about $12 million for the year, and will spend roughly that on the May 9 general election. So the hundreds of thousands raked in from the six team owners is not insignificant.

MeHateHe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-06-2017, 10:16 PM
  #263
Jeffrey93
Registered User
 
Jeffrey93's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,218
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefan75 View Post
Why on earth would someone pay $20 million for a franchise with a "brand so well known" without a way to capitalize on that? You do realize that the brand being valuable means people buy tickets and merchandise and watch it on TV, right? It's not some abstract thing that doesn't result in money.

A person with enough money to pay $20 million for a franchise is not buying it to lose money. They pay $20 million for it because they expect they will make a return on that investment. Both through annual cash flow and capital appreciation. If neither of those were there, the price would be much lower.
Capital appreciation is there......annual cash flow doesn't seem to be there for many teams.

If you buy a house for $490k.....does that mean you can toss nearly half a million dollars around whenever you please? Are you now wealthy?

No, you bought an asset...for whatever reason. And you hope that asset will increase in value. That doesn't mean you're expecting profits from it. It's an investment.

Jeffrey93 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-06-2017, 10:17 PM
  #264
Jeffrey93
Registered User
 
Jeffrey93's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,218
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MeHateHe View Post
Bob Mackin, perhaps the only journalist in BC who pays attention to the sports/business/politics crossover, notes that the owners of BC's six WHL clubs have, while crying poverty, been throwing thousands of dollars at the ruling BC Liberals. And he finds it most interesting that clubs have done so in proximity to the province ruling arbitrarily that the clubs don't need to follow the minimum wage law.

http://thebreaker.news/miscellany/wh...e-law-changed/

For perspective, the Liberals (not really Liberal, per se, but rather a weird amalagam of centrists and right-wingers who stay together to keep the left-wing New Democrats out of office) raised about $12 million for the year, and will spend roughly that on the May 9 general election. So the hundreds of thousands raked in from the six team owners is not insignificant.
The clubs have been giving money to a political party? Or...the owners of the clubs have been?

Enormous difference.

Jeffrey93 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2017, 01:02 AM
  #265
MeHateHe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 596
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey93 View Post
The clubs have been giving money to a political party? Or...the owners of the clubs have been?

Enormous difference.
Both clubs and owners.

MeHateHe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2017, 06:43 AM
  #266
Bluefan75
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,353
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey93 View Post
Capital appreciation is there......annual cash flow doesn't seem to be there for many teams.

If you buy a house for $490k.....does that mean you can toss nearly half a million dollars around whenever you please? Are you now wealthy?

No, you bought an asset...for whatever reason. And you hope that asset will increase in value. That doesn't mean you're expecting profits from it. It's an investment.
If you bought an asset without a pretty good read on whether it will increase in value or not, then you deserve what you get.

We're not talking about a house, your example makes no sense. You need a place to live. You don't need a hockey franchise. These guys are paying millions for a franchise. You do your due diligence when paying that kind of money. If you don't, you deserve what you get.

And how exactly is the asset going to appreciate in value if there is no cash flow? I know owners like to toss out having to put in money, etc., makes for a good story, and since the papers are not a court of law, who cares if it's the truth? A business' value is based on the present value of its future cash flows. There may be some goodwill in there, but you pay more for an asset that makes money, you pay less, or you do nothing but assume debt for an asset that is losing money but you believe can make money. But you don't buy an asset to lose money.

Bluefan75 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2017, 06:46 AM
  #267
Bluefan75
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,353
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey93 View Post
The clubs have been giving money to a political party? Or...the owners of the clubs have been?

Enormous difference.
Um, no.

Bluefan75 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-14-2017, 12:55 PM
  #268
BattleBorn
Global Moderator
Dead Dove-Do Not Eat
 
BattleBorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Carr.187 Km9
Country: Puerto Rico
Posts: 5,407
vCash: 500
Okay, I think I fixed my mistake.

Sorry, ladies and gents.

__________________
You pressed You, referring to me. That is incorrect. The correct answer is You.
BattleBorn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-14-2017, 02:20 PM
  #269
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 32,650
vCash: 500
... good job BB!

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-14-2017, 05:19 PM
  #270
BadgerBruce
Registered User
 
BadgerBruce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 423
vCash: 500
Thanks BB!!

And to ensure that this thread continues onward and upward .....

A class-action lawsuit seeking back wages and higher pay for Minor League Baseball players, which was previously denied in late 2016, was approved to move forward a few days ago by U.S. federal judge Joseph Spero in California.

"Lead plaintiff and former Miami Marlins farmhand Aaron Senne had sued Major League Baseball and its 30 teams, arguing that he and thousands of other former minor leaguers were paid less than the minimum wage."

http://ballparkdigest.com/2017/03/09...-suit-is-back/

Obviously, the minor league baseball class action is not the same as the class proceeding involving current and former CHL players, but I suspect the US Court ruling is of interest to both the plaintiffs and the defendants in the CHL action.

BadgerBruce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2017, 07:08 AM
  #271
Bluefan75
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,353
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadgerBruce View Post

Obviously, the minor league baseball class action is not the same as the class proceeding involving current and former CHL players, but I suspect the US Court ruling is of interest to both the plaintiffs and the defendants in the CHL action.
While I can see the interest, doesn't the fact the state of Washington(and possibly others, it's the only one I know definitively) put in some legislation to specifically exempt the WHL players from being classified employees? Or has a court thrown that law out since?

And I don't know how far MLB's anti-trust exemption reaches--I know labor has been scaled back, and does it touch the minors-- but I have to think that would create a completely different playing field in terms of these cases, no?

Bluefan75 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2017, 10:56 AM
  #272
MeHateHe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 596
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by BattleBorn View Post
Okay, I think I fixed my mistake.

Sorry, ladies and gents.
Thanks, dude.

MeHateHe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2017, 11:03 AM
  #273
MeHateHe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 596
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefan75 View Post
While I can see the interest, doesn't the fact the state of Washington(and possibly others, it's the only one I know definitively) put in some legislation to specifically exempt the WHL players from being classified employees? Or has a court thrown that law out since?

And I don't know how far MLB's anti-trust exemption reaches--I know labor has been scaled back, and does it touch the minors-- but I have to think that would create a completely different playing field in terms of these cases, no?
The British Columbia government did the same thing, in the shadiest way possible (an Order-in-Council, essentially a ministerial order that amends a regulation without altering the legislation); http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/...key%20)?5#hit1

And as I noted, coincidentally, some of the teams and some of the teams' owners are significant donors to the governing BC Liberal Party. Ron Toigo, who owns the Giants (among other businesses) has donated a couple hundred grand to the Liberals.

MeHateHe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2017, 05:46 PM
  #274
BadgerBruce
Registered User
 
BadgerBruce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 423
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MeHateHe View Post
The British Columbia government did the same thing, in the shadiest way possible (an Order-in-Council, essentially a ministerial order that amends a regulation without altering the legislation); http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/...key%20)?5#hit1

And as I noted, coincidentally, some of the teams and some of the teams' owners are significant donors to the governing BC Liberal Party. Ron Toigo, who owns the Giants (among other businesses) has donated a couple hundred grand to the Liberals.
Some provinces in Atlantic Canada (NB, NS) also ealtered existing legislation and/or regulations to create exemptions. I believe that Saskatchewan did the same thing.

However, the Quebec government, which was lobbied hard by QMJHL executives and team owners, chose to leave things as is.

Similarly, Ontario legislators have made no move to accommodate the OHL and my best guess is that they won't any time soon. In that province, UNIFOR is requesting a full blown government study of the OHL and the player compensation issues, and so the league is unable to make much headway in their lobbying efforts. Organized labour still has some political clout in Ontario.

My own take is that the CHL would need employment standards exemptions from every single provincial and state jurisdiction where they operate. I don't blame them one bit for trying to achieve this, but unless they can get Quebec and Ontario onside, they're just spinning their wheels.

BadgerBruce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-27-2017, 10:58 AM
  #275
BadgerBruce
Registered User
 
BadgerBruce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 423
vCash: 500
The judge in the Ontario case certified the class action earlier this morning, as reported by TSN's Rick Westhead via Twitter.

No ruling yet on the Alberta action and the Quebec one has not yet gone before a judge.

BadgerBruce is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:45 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. @2017 All Rights Reserved.