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.

Manitoba Moose / MTS Centre group talking to NHL - Part II

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-26-2010, 07:10 PM
  #601
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 57,376
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ps241 View Post
so when you say the former gets to be used against any claims do you mean "value of relocatable franchise ($150)"?? or do you mean the latter "relocation fee ($50 million) gets used against claims?
The $150m would offset the NHL purchase price from bankruptcy court and any "profit" would be used toward claims.

LadyStanley is offline  
Old
03-26-2010, 10:42 PM
  #602
ps241
atta boy JMo
 
ps241's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 12,607
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyStanley View Post
The $150m would offset the NHL purchase price from bankruptcy court and any "profit" would be used toward claims.
very interesting and something i hadn't heard before....thx

so if i have this right.....If the NHL sells the team to a new owner that relocates the Coyotes the NHL only get back their purchase price and they are entitled to no additional money for relocation that would all be deemed profit and therefore be used towards claims


if i have that correct what is the upside for the NHL to charge a relocation fee? is it a standard fee and there is no way around charging it? is it because the NHL would not want to set a president of a low relocation fee and they would give up future value for the NHL in case of a relocation? is it a good will gesture or was the relocation fee established when they acquired the team as part of the conditions of purchase?

ps241 is offline  
Old
03-27-2010, 01:43 AM
  #603
bromine
Registered User
 
bromine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: WPG
Posts: 341
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gump Hasek View Post
I'll preface my comments by stating that I'm by NO means a Scott Taylor fan, period. That said, Scott Taylor works for the wildly financially successful minor league baseball team, the Winnipeg Goldeyes.

http://www.goldeyes.com/

My understanding is that he does broadcast & office work for them. Part of his job is selling season tickets & luxury suites during the off-season. That involves soliciting business from Winnipeg's business community. If he stated that many in Winnipeg's business community are optimistic a team will be returning to the city soon, I believe him.
Scott Taylor will tweet and write articles that are optimistic, and join in the rumour spreading about the return of the NHL to Winnipeg on Wednesday, and then write a piece about how it's never ever going to happen on Thursday.

here's one of his pessimistic pieces:
http://blog.rogersbroadcasting.com/s...cn%3D(referral)

and an excerpt:
Quote:
The newspapers and the radio rightsholder have spoken. The rumour that swept Winnipeg (the one that started inside the MTS Centre), for better than six weeks has officially been buried. Dead. The Thrashers aren’t coming. The Coyotes aren’t coming. Nobody’s coming to Winnipeg.

And why would they? I have asked repeatedly for someone to help me (and I mean “help me”) with the financials of an NHL team and nobody will. Nobody can. Especially not now, in the midst of a recession that is just starting to smack Winnipeg.
The above article is in stark contrast to other articles he's written, basically saying that the return of NHL hockey is inevitable.

The man is borderline insane.

bromine is offline  
Old
03-27-2010, 02:03 AM
  #604
Jeffrey93
Registered User
 
Jeffrey93's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,315
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ps241 View Post
very interesting and something i hadn't heard before....thx

so if i have this right.....If the NHL sells the team to a new owner that relocates the Coyotes the NHL only get back their purchase price and they are entitled to no additional money for relocation that would all be deemed profit and therefore be used towards claims


if i have that correct what is the upside for the NHL to charge a relocation fee? is it a standard fee and there is no way around charging it? is it because the NHL would not want to set a president of a low relocation fee and they would give up future value for the NHL in case of a relocation? is it a good will gesture or was the relocation fee established when they acquired the team as part of the conditions of purchase?
Relocation fees aren't always charged.

Generally it is the value of the destination market minus the value of the current market.

It's to keep the league from losing potential expansion cash. If markets are similar or one is under-performing and the other is expected to perform quite well that might balance it out. I'm not entirely sure if there is a format used to determine this.

Although, from what I have looked up the NHL has never charged a relocation fee. I could have sworn I read an instance or two where they did....maybe not? Either way, numerous moves have occurred in the NHL without a relocation fee:
- Minnesota to Dallas
- Winnipeg to Phoenix
- Hartford to Carolina

No fees were paid in any of those relocations. Here is a table listing all relocations and the fees paid. It shows how the NHL generally doesn't charge for relocation:
Year - League - Franchise - Fee (millions)
1993 NHL Minnesota North Stars to Dallas Stars - none
1995 NFL Los Angeles Raiders to Oakland - none
1995 NFL Los Angeles Rams to St. Louis - $29
1995 NHL Quebec Nordiques to Colorado Avalanche - none
1996 NFL Cleveland Browns to Baltimore Ravens - $29
1996 NFL Houston Oilers to Nashville - $29
1996 NHL Winnipeg Jets to Phoenix Coyotes - none
1997 NHL Hartford Whalers to Carolina Hurricanes - none
2001 NBA Vancouver Grizzlies to Memphis - $30
2002 NBA Charlotte Hornets to New Orleans- $30
2005 MLB Montreal Expos to Washington Nationals - $450

Link

Jeffrey93 is offline  
Old
03-27-2010, 02:19 AM
  #605
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 ps241 View Post
they don't have to buy out the lease from my understanding.........the lease reverts to the Moyes estate after the sub-least with the NHL expires this June.
I believe there is a lot of misunderstanding regarding this issue.

Judge Baum never ruled on Glendale's claim for specific performance of the lease or the liquidated damage clause which would amount to the 100s of millions in damages (as it was not necessary for him to do so).

However, what we do know is that Glendale supported the NHL's bid against Balsille's offer which included $50 million to the city for the lease. The city of Glendale decided to support the NHL bid over Balsillie's.

And what was the NHL's bid which Glendale agreed to and Judge Baum gave his stamp of approval? The NHL agreed to only a "partial lease assignment agreement" from Moyes (or the bankruptcy estate) that will terminate on the day after the Stanley Cup is awarded in 2010.

After that date, the city of Glendale, in my view, will have recourse only to the bankruptcy estates' remaining funds (very little left after the secured creditors), any personal guarantees enforceable against Moyes made in respect of the lease, and any claims against the NHL made by the city in respect of any agreement to approve the NHL's bid (if any).

GHOST

MAROONSRoad is offline  
Old
03-27-2010, 04:41 AM
  #606
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 ps241 View Post
i take everything Scott says with a huge grain of salt.....he has probably led the league in biting on every rumor that the Jets would return.....when it comes to this topic he has historically lacked accuracy but I'm not saying he's wrong this time....just that he is one of the last guys i would rest my hopes on when it comes to the NHL returning to Winnipeg

When the big Thrashers to the Peg story broke i was in Arizona and i was excited at the prospects of Winnipeg returning to the NHL.....then the more i looked into it the more it appeared the story started (or was reported first) at 92 city FM and i thought.....oh god here goes Scott cranking up the locals again!
Did I say Scott was 100% credible? No, I did not. I just posted a link. Does Scott have some connections to the Winnipeg business community? Yes, he does.

Contrary to your bolded statement, Scott Taylor has been a long-time naysayer of the idea that the NHL could return to Winnipeg. He has no real insider info, though, and no stakes in the matter, which makes him flip-flop. Add to that: he lost his job at the Winnipeg Free Press as the Jets beat reporter and won't get it back.

I find it very amusing that a lot of people have shown up lately, but can't read between the lines or understand the nuances of certain posts. However, I expect more of that going forward not less.

GHOST

MAROONSRoad is offline  
Old
03-27-2010, 08:57 AM
  #607
ps241
atta boy JMo
 
ps241's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 12,607
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GHOSTofMAROONSroad View Post
Did I say Scott was 100% credible? No, I did not. I just posted a link. Does Scott have some connections to the Winnipeg business community? Yes, he does.

Contrary to your bolded statement, Scott Taylor has been a long-time naysayer of the idea that the NHL could return to Winnipeg. He has no real insider info, though, and no stakes in the matter, which makes him flip-flop. Add to that: he lost his job at the Winnipeg Free Press as the Jets beat reporter and won't get it back.

I find it very amusing that a lot of people have shown up lately, but can't read between the lines or understand the nuances of certain posts. However, I expect more of that going forward not less.

GHOST
i never said you thought ST was 100% credible.

i have personally found Scott to bite on every rumor....and yes he also flip flops all the time......he's all over the map

i assume you mean me with showing up lately.......I'm not attacking you on this i have gained allot of knowledge from your posts on this topic its Scott Taylor i have the issue with

ps241 is offline  
Old
03-27-2010, 10:39 AM
  #608
GSC2k2*
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey93 View Post
Relocation fees aren't always charged.

Generally it is the value of the destination market minus the value of the current market.

It's to keep the league from losing potential expansion cash. If markets are similar or one is under-performing and the other is expected to perform quite well that might balance it out. I'm not entirely sure if there is a format used to determine this.

Although, from what I have looked up the NHL has never charged a relocation fee. I could have sworn I read an instance or two where they did....maybe not? Either way, numerous moves have occurred in the NHL without a relocation fee:
- Minnesota to Dallas
- Winnipeg to Phoenix
- Hartford to Carolina

No fees were paid in any of those relocations. Here is a table listing all relocations and the fees paid. It shows how the NHL generally doesn't charge for relocation:
Year - League - Franchise - Fee (millions)
1993 NHL Minnesota North Stars to Dallas Stars - none
1995 NFL Los Angeles Raiders to Oakland - none
1995 NFL Los Angeles Rams to St. Louis - $29
1995 NHL Quebec Nordiques to Colorado Avalanche - none
1996 NFL Cleveland Browns to Baltimore Ravens - $29
1996 NFL Houston Oilers to Nashville - $29
1996 NHL Winnipeg Jets to Phoenix Coyotes - none
1997 NHL Hartford Whalers to Carolina Hurricanes - none
2001 NBA Vancouver Grizzlies to Memphis - $30
2002 NBA Charlotte Hornets to New Orleans- $30
2005 MLB Montreal Expos to Washington Nationals - $450

Link
You should probably read the comments in that link, Jeffrey. AS I noted therein, sworn declarations and deposition testimony in the PHO bankruptcy case stated quite unequivocally that COL and CAR both entailed relocation fees. As well, in respect of WINN, there was in fact relocation fees charged "in kind".

In fairness to James, he was simply quoting a "study" from a prof that was about as unacademic a study as one could imagine. Given the discrepancies noted above just off the top of one's head, it is highly unreliable and should be dismissed as a source.


Last edited by GSC2k2*: 03-27-2010 at 12:16 PM.
GSC2k2* is offline  
Old
03-27-2010, 11:22 AM
  #609
Gump Hasek
Spleen Merchant
 
Gump Hasek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: 222 Tudor Terrace
Posts: 7,956
vCash: 2043
Quote:
Originally Posted by bromine View Post
Scott Taylor will tweet and write articles that are optimistic, and join in the rumour spreading about the return of the NHL to Winnipeg on Wednesday, and then write a piece about how it's never ever going to happen on Thursday.

here's one of his pessimistic pieces:
http://blog.rogersbroadcasting.com/s...cn%3D(referral)

and an excerpt:


The above article is in stark contrast to other articles he's written, basically saying that the return of NHL hockey is inevitable.

The man is borderline insane.
Your reply has absolutely nothing to do with what I've said.

I stated that Scott Taylor has a job that entails interacting and soliciting Winnipeg's business community. Some in this thread took issue with his statement that many in Winnipeg's business community were optimistic that a team would be returning soon. I simply stated that he is well placed to gauge that opinion.

Next time you reply to someone, it would be constructive if you actually addressed something they've said.

Gump Hasek is offline  
Old
03-27-2010, 11:28 AM
  #610
bromine
Registered User
 
bromine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: WPG
Posts: 341
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gump Hasek View Post
Your reply has absolutely nothing to do with what I've said.

I stated that Scott Taylor has a job that entails interacting and soliciting Winnipeg's business community. Some in this thread took issue with his statement that many in Winnipeg's business community were optimistic that a team would be returning soon. I simply stated that he is well placed to gauge that opinion.

Next time you reply to someone, it would be constructive if you actually addressed something they've said.
Hey... I wasn't specifically adressing what you said. I guess it seemed like that. Sorry.

It was more of a "while we're on the topic of Scott Taylor, here's some stuff about him that I find annoying..."

Didn't mean to try to discredit your point. I was just making a point of my own that was somewhat related.

bromine is offline  
Old
03-27-2010, 12:28 PM
  #611
ps241
atta boy JMo
 
ps241's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 12,607
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GHOSTofMAROONSroad View Post
I believe there is a lot of misunderstanding regarding this issue.

Judge Baum never ruled on Glendale's claim for specific performance of the lease or the liquidated damage clause which would amount to the 100s of millions in damages (as it was not necessary for him to do so).

However, what we do know is that Glendale supported the NHL's bid against Balsille's offer which included $50 million to the city for the lease. The city of Glendale decided to support the NHL bid over Balsillie's.

And what was the NHL's bid which Glendale agreed to and Judge Baum gave his stamp of approval? The NHL agreed to only a "partial lease assignment agreement" from Moyes (or the bankruptcy estate) that will terminate on the day after the Stanley Cup is awarded in 2010.

After that date, the city of Glendale, in my view, will have recourse only to the bankruptcy estates' remaining funds (very little left after the secured creditors), any personal guarantees enforceable against Moyes made in respect of the lease, and any claims against the NHL made by the city in respect of any agreement to approve the NHL's bid (if any).

GHOST
this is what i had taken from the information i had read to this point as well and it makes me wonder what the upside is for the NHL to charge a $50 million dollar relocation fee to a new owner?

perhaps its to give them cover on the shortfall between the bids between Balsillie and the NHL?

ps241 is offline  
Old
03-27-2010, 01:42 PM
  #612
TrentSteele
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 259
vCash: 500
I think that Scott Taylor is actually mocking all of the rumours. I'm basing that on his previous tweets. He doesn't believe it will happen, so I think the tone he is trying to convey is a sarcastic one.

Either way, he's an idiot, and his opinion means nothing.

TrentSteele is offline  
Old
03-27-2010, 10:58 PM
  #613
ovi1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: WINNIPEG
Country: Canada
Posts: 74
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GHOSTofMAROONSroad View Post
Did I say Scott was 100% credible? No, I did not. I just posted a link. Does Scott have some connections to the Winnipeg business community? Yes, he does.

Contrary to your bolded statement, Scott Taylor has been a long-time naysayer of the idea that the NHL could return to Winnipeg. He has no real insider info, though, and no stakes in the matter, which makes him flip-flop. Add to that: he lost his job at the Winnipeg Free Press as the Jets beat reporter and won't get it back.

I find it very amusing that a lot of people have shown up lately, but can't read between the lines or understand the nuances of certain posts. However, I expect more of that going forward not less.

GHOST
Read between my lines...ITS NOT PHOENIX. Move on

ovi1 is offline  
Old
03-28-2010, 12:59 AM
  #614
Puckschmuck*
Doan Shall Be Boo'ed
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,937
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovi1 View Post
Read between my lines...ITS NOT PHOENIX. Move on
Then who is it, ovi1? Because Winnipeg WILL get a team, it's just a matter of who.


Last edited by Puckschmuck*: 03-28-2010 at 01:09 AM.
Puckschmuck* is offline  
Old
03-28-2010, 01:14 AM
  #615
Jeffrey93
Registered User
 
Jeffrey93's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,315
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wpg Guy View Post
Then who is it, ovi1? Because Winnipeg WILL get a team, it's just a matter of who.
They will?

Jeffrey93 is offline  
Old
03-28-2010, 02:33 AM
  #616
Free Torts
Registered User
 
Free Torts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,694
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey93 View Post
They will?
[contrarian]No. They won't. It'll be Kansas City, Las Vegas, Newport News, Houston and Toktoyaktuk, then possibly Winnipeg. [/contrarian]

Free Torts is offline  
Old
03-28-2010, 07:35 AM
  #617
yukoner88
Registered User
 
yukoner88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Dawson City, YT
Posts: 3,059
vCash: 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by KJP View Post
[contrarian]No. They won't. It'll be Kansas City, Las Vegas, Newport News, Houston and Toktoyaktuk, then possibly Winnipeg. [/contrarian]
I've actually been there befor, they wouldn't have to build a new arena as the Arctic Ocean freezes up pretty good and lord knows the 1000 ppl who live there have tonnes of money to support the team, Inuvik might be a better option as their arena is newer and more up to date

yukoner88 is offline  
Old
03-28-2010, 12:58 PM
  #618
Doug Smail
Registered User
 
Doug Smail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Flora and McGregor
Country: Canada
Posts: 312
vCash: 500
ive been away all weekend. so whats going on now? a vote from the cog on tues? winnipeg might be getting the thrashers instead? this is so complicated and dramatic it should be on daytime tv!

Doug Smail is offline  
Old
03-28-2010, 02:50 PM
  #619
Puckschmuck*
Doan Shall Be Boo'ed
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,937
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey93 View Post
They will?
Sooner than Hamilton will.

Puckschmuck* is offline  
Old
03-28-2010, 02:51 PM
  #620
hockeydadx2*
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,147
vCash: 500
The question is, would Thomson be willing to spend more $$ and get an expansion franchise? Or is he only interested in a cut-rate situation like Balsillie was?

hockeydadx2* is offline  
Old
03-28-2010, 02:52 PM
  #621
Hamilton Tigers
Registered User
 
Hamilton Tigers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Hamilton
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,297
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wpg Guy View Post
Sooner than Hamilton will.
I can accept later, rather than never.

Go Winnipeg!

Hamilton Tigers is offline  
Old
03-28-2010, 02:56 PM
  #622
Puckschmuck*
Doan Shall Be Boo'ed
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,937
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeydadx2 View Post
The question is, would Thomson be willing to spend more $$ and get an expansion franchise? Or is he only interested in a cut-rate situation like Balsillie was?
Good question. As someone with a relatively unlimited supply of funds, it will be interesting to see what decision he makes if we don't indeed get a team for next season. That will really tell us how much Thomson wants a team in the city. Only time will tell. I suspect that as someone who has been investing for an NHL team in Winnipeg through acquiring shares in the MTS Centre and builing the Mooseplex, I would say that he will be patient if required.

Puckschmuck* is offline  
Old
03-28-2010, 02:58 PM
  #623
Puckschmuck*
Doan Shall Be Boo'ed
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,937
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamilton Tigers View Post
I can accept later, rather than never.

Go Winnipeg!
I would rather see three floundering US teams relocated to Canada for next season if I had any say in the matter.

Puckschmuck* is offline  
Old
03-28-2010, 04:10 PM
  #624
dkehler
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 865
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Steen View Post
All, OVI has been banned on all the local boards in Winnipeg. Not because he against NHL in Winnipeg but because he trolls and just states rumours that have already proven to be true or not true. He is just looking for arguments.. MTSC is an example how he always says it is not suitable even though Bettman has spoke about this recently. As for the business of an NHL team in Winnipeg losing money? How would he possibly know that... ?
And further, stating things as if they were proven facts, i.e. Winnipeg will 100 percent not be getting a team next year, is nothing more than trolling. Opinions are one thing, and everyone is entitled to theirs, but it's clear that ovi just likes to rile people up with respect to this issue. He has been banned multiple times on other boards.

dkehler is offline  
Old
03-29-2010, 02:19 PM
  #625
Fugu
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Thread closed due to some news of Thomson's involvement as a back-up if sale of the Coyotes fails to keep the team in Phoenix.
New thread:

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=756363

 
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 04:58 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.