HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

Balsillie/Phoenix Part IX: 'Dorf on Hockey

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-25-2009, 01:17 AM
  #1
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 57,468
vCash: 500
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

LadyStanley is offline  
Old
06-25-2009, 01:31 AM
  #2
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,910
vCash: 500
It is the off season and with all the courses around Phoenix Dorf is golfing:

Wetcoaster is offline  
Old
06-25-2009, 01:33 AM
  #3
MAROONSRoad
f/k/a Ghost
 
MAROONSRoad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Maroons Rd.
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,069
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyStanley View Post
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!

GHOST

MAROONSRoad is offline  
Old
06-25-2009, 01:36 AM
  #4
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 57,468
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GHOSTofMAROONSroad View Post
Is that a Star Trek reference? Geek out!

GHOST
Was meant to be a Muppet Show reference.

LadyStanley is offline  
Old
06-25-2009, 02:24 AM
  #5
bbud
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,677
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyStanley View Post
Was meant to be a Muppet Show reference.
Lol dr bob doing some surgery on NHL for the season opener

bbud is offline  
Old
06-25-2009, 11:36 AM
  #6
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 57,468
vCash: 500
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.

LadyStanley is offline  
Old
06-25-2009, 11:39 AM
  #7
Fugu
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyStanley View Post
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).

 
Old
06-25-2009, 11:49 AM
  #8
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 57,468
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
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.

LadyStanley is offline  
Old
06-25-2009, 11:51 AM
  #9
MAROONSRoad
f/k/a Ghost
 
MAROONSRoad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Maroons Rd.
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,069
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
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

MAROONSRoad is offline  
Old
06-25-2009, 11:59 AM
  #10
GSC2k2*
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
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* is offline  
Old
06-25-2009, 12:03 PM
  #11
GSC2k2*
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GHOSTofMAROONSroad View Post
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.

GSC2k2* is offline  
Old
06-25-2009, 12:05 PM
  #12
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,698
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyStanley View Post
Was meant to be a Muppet Show reference.
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

kdb209 is offline  
Old
06-25-2009, 12:15 PM
  #13
MAROONSRoad
f/k/a Ghost
 
MAROONSRoad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Maroons Rd.
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,069
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSC2k2 View Post
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

MAROONSRoad is offline  
Old
06-25-2009, 12:44 PM
  #14
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 57,468
vCash: 500
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.

LadyStanley is offline  
Old
06-25-2009, 12:51 PM
  #15
GSC2k2*
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GHOSTofMAROONSroad View Post
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.

GSC2k2* is offline  
Old
06-25-2009, 01:05 PM
  #16
MAROONSRoad
f/k/a Ghost
 
MAROONSRoad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Maroons Rd.
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,069
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSC2k2 View Post
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

MAROONSRoad is offline  
Old
06-25-2009, 01:16 PM
  #17
GSC2k2*
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GHOSTofMAROONSroad View Post
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.

GSC2k2* is offline  
Old
06-25-2009, 01:26 PM
  #18
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 12,382
vCash: 500
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.

mouser is offline  
Old
06-25-2009, 02:00 PM
  #19
bbud
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,677
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mouser View Post
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 .

bbud is offline  
Old
06-25-2009, 02:09 PM
  #20
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 12,382
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
"Fun" and "math"??? Scary. I think you need to get out more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourier View Post
Hey! Watch what you say! I can put up with a lot around here but this post pretty much crosses the line!!!!
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 is offline  
Old
06-25-2009, 02:19 PM
  #21
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 12,382
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbud View Post
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.

mouser is offline  
Old
06-25-2009, 02:43 PM
  #22
GSC2k2*
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mouser View Post
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!!!!!!!!!!!!!


GSC2k2* is offline  
Old
06-25-2009, 03:15 PM
  #23
bbud
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,677
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mouser View Post
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 .

bbud is offline  
Old
06-25-2009, 03:34 PM
  #24
Brodie
see you space cowboy
 
Brodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Michigan
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 12,329
vCash: 500
Ah, Tim Conway.

Brodie is offline  
Old
06-25-2009, 03:47 PM
  #25
Crazy_Ike
Cookin' with fire.
 
Crazy_Ike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,820
vCash: 715
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!


Crazy_Ike is offline  
Closed Thread

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 04:42 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.