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, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

Balsillie/Phoenix part IV

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-22-2009, 05:58 PM
  #101
Egil
Registered User
 
Egil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 8,827
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake16 View Post
Certainly the language in the clause on page 23 of the APA is not drafted so narrowly.

As it stands right now, the Conditions in his conditional APA are not being satisfied. Besides these, the condition in the APA that the sale by auction be finalized by June 29 is certainly not going to happen.
I think it is fair to say that he is shooting for the moon with the first offer.

Egil is offline  
Old
05-22-2009, 06:02 PM
  #102
kombayn
Registered User
 
kombayn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 213
vCash: 500
It's going to be a Catch-22, if Balsillie gets the team, he has to pay territorial rights otherwise the NHL won't approve the relocation. The NHL will be idiots to block guaranteed money from players and owners.

kombayn is offline  
Old
05-22-2009, 06:11 PM
  #103
Brodie
I'm a jackhammer
 
Brodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Michigan
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 13,892
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MayDay View Post
Yeah, but this argument doesn't really hold water.

Any fans that would boycott the Sabres for blocking a Hamilton franchise are people who are eager to become fans of that Hamilton franchise if it ever materializes, and so don't represent business for the Sabres in either event. People who are so eager to become fans of a new Hamilton team that they would boycott Buffalo for blocking it, probably aren't Sabres fans to begin with.
That's a catch-22, though... because if they aren't Sabres fans then what are the Sabres worried about?

Brodie is offline  
Old
05-22-2009, 06:17 PM
  #104
Crazy_Ike
Cookin' with fire.
 
Crazy_Ike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,079
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by doug mckenzie View Post
That's a problem for Balsillie, not the league. The league can operate the Coyotes exactly the way they have been for the entire season if they need to.

Only the people trying to move the team have a huge time pressure here.

Crazy_Ike is offline  
Old
05-22-2009, 06:19 PM
  #105
Brodie
I'm a jackhammer
 
Brodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Michigan
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 13,892
vCash: 500
Breslow is committing financial suicide by buying the Yotes... there has to be deeper pockets than him in his group.

Brodie is offline  
Old
05-22-2009, 06:21 PM
  #106
jessebelanger
Registered User
 
jessebelanger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,352
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brodie View Post
That's a catch-22, though... because if they aren't Sabres fans then what are the Sabres worried about?
well..those people are obviously a small sample.. there are plenty of people in southern ontario that get their fix of hockey by going to sabres games. the people boycotting are not what the sabres are worried about..

jessebelanger is offline  
Old
05-22-2009, 06:32 PM
  #107
Proboscis
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 210
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Egil
Quote:
Originally Posted by gscarpenter2002
Quote:
Again, read the definition of "home territory".
Two things:

#1 I don't see anything forcing a team to play in their "home" city. So like you could say that London was your city, and then play somewhere else inside your 50 mile radius (I believe that is allowed).

#2 The 4.3 section saying no home territory shall be granted in an existing home territory suggests that a cut out section is allowed. I also see no language forbidding a club from giving up part of its territory, which again, would allow for a cut out portion.
I agree with number 2. gscarpenter2002, what is the wording in the definition of "home territory" that forces me to get your consent if I try to set up shop one foot outside of your home territory if I am willing to give up that portion of my home territory that would overlap with yours? I am still not getting it and I am still of the opinion that you are not correct.

Proboscis is offline  
Old
05-22-2009, 06:32 PM
  #108
Brodie
I'm a jackhammer
 
Brodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Michigan
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 13,892
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jessebelanger View Post
well..those people are obviously a small sample.. there are plenty of people in southern ontario that get their fix of hockey by going to sabres games. the people boycotting are not what the sabres are worried about..
But that begs the question: if we assume most people who go to Sabres games from Ontario are Sabres fans, why would they run out on them after 30-some years? There is no reason that Hamilton, Toronto and the Niagara region can't all support three separate teams.

Brodie is offline  
Old
05-22-2009, 06:39 PM
  #109
RR
Registered User
 
RR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Cave Creek, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 8,306
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyScholar View Post
And you honestly think there are businessmen interested in buying the team, keeping it in Phoenix
Yes

Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyScholar View Post
...and losing tens of millions of dollars each year?
No

Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyScholar View Post
These benevolent buyers are so concerned about the hockey tradition in Arizona that they'll take yearly $40 million losses and keep the team in Phoenix?
No.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyScholar View Post
We'll be back in the same situation in a few years.
No we won't, unless new owners prove as incompetent as those who've owned the franchise so far. But if it's Reinsdorf I think his track record demonstrates if anyone can succeed, it is him.
With good ownership; a good front office that is already in place; a good core of young players with NHL experience that is here now; and a good, more affordable coach, Phoenix will make it.

RR is offline  
Old
05-22-2009, 06:42 PM
  #110
jkrdevil
UnRegistered User
 
jkrdevil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 30,808
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brodie View Post
But that begs the question: if we assume most people who go to Sabres games from Ontario are Sabres fans, why would they run out on them after 30-some years? There is no reason that Hamilton, Toronto and the Niagara region can't all support three separate teams.
I think the number of people the Sabres might lose if a team moves in greater than the number of people they will lose in boycotts if they work with the league to block.

I think most people aren't paying attention to the day-to-day working of what is going on with this. They hear a team might move to Hamilton and pretty much that's it with occasional updates. So the number of people that the Sabres would lose in a boycott is minimal.

However the number of fans they could lose if a team moves in is greater. My guess going to Hamilton for those fans would be more convenient than going into Buffalo and that itself would convince fans who go to several Sabres games a year to support the new team. Some more might remain Sabres fans but choose to catch them coming into Hamilton rather than track down to Buffalo.

jkrdevil is offline  
Old
05-22-2009, 06:50 PM
  #111
RR
Registered User
 
RR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Cave Creek, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 8,306
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Egil View Post
Yes, but he would pay Phoenix's creditors less. He is also surely willing to go higher than $212.5 mil, but exactly how high is unknown.
Sure about that? I'm not. I don't think he wants to pay one penny more than what he is offering. He doesn't want to pay territorial fees to the league, or compensatory fees to Toronto or Buffalo. His deal is he wants a team, AND he wants to blow up the NHLs ability to control who joins the league and where teams play. That's the deal he seeks.

RR is offline  
Old
05-22-2009, 06:52 PM
  #112
Proboscis
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 210
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proboscis View Post
I agree with number 2. gscarpenter2002, what is the wording in the definition of "home territory" that forces me to get your consent if I try to set up shop one foot outside of your home territory if I am willing to give up that portion of my home territory that would overlap with yours? I am still not getting it and I am still of the opinion that you are not correct.
Below is the full wording I have on territorial rights. gsc, hopefully it will help you answer my question (quoted above).


Quote:
CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE IV

TERRITORIAL RIGHTS

4.1. Definitions. For the purposes of this Article:
(a) "Home club" means the member at whose arena a game is played.
(b) "Visiting club" means a member whose team is playing at the arena of another member.
(c) "Home territory," with respect to any member, means: Each Member Club shall have
exclusive territorial rights in the city in which it is located and within fifty miles of that
city's corporate limits.
(d) "News" includes reports, descriptions and accounts of hockey games. .
(e) "Broadcasts" and "broadcasting" mean and include publication or dissemination by radio, telegraph, telephone or television. -

4.2. Territorial Rights of League. The League shall have exclusive control of the playing of hockey games by Member Clubs in the home territory of each member, subject to the rights hereinafter granted to members. The members shall have the right to and agree to operate professional hockey clubs and play the League schedule in their respective cities or boroughs as indicated opposite their signatures hereto. No member shall transfer its club and franchise to a different city or borough. No additional cities or boroughs shall be added to the League circuit without the consent of three-fourths of all the members of the League. Any admission of new members with franchises to operate in any additional cities or boroughs shall be subject to the provisions of Section 4.3.

4.3. Territorial Rights of Members. Each member shall have exclusive control of the playing of hockey games within its home territory including, but not being limited to, playing in such home territory of hockey games by any team owned or controlled by such member or by other members of the League. Subject only to the exclusive rights of other members with respect to their respective home territories as hereinabove set forth, nothing herein contained shall be construed to limit the right of any Member Club to acquire any interest in any hockey team, whether professional or amateur in any league which recognizes and honors the territorial rights, contracts and reserve lists of the National Hockey League, except as limited by Section 8.1(a) of this Constitution. No other
member of the League shall be pemiitted to play games (except regularly scheduled League games with the home club) in the home territory of a member without the latter mernber’s consent. No franchise shall be granted for a home territory within the home territory of a member, without the written consent of such member.

4.4. Property Rights of Home Club. Each member hereby irrevocably conveys, grants and assigns forever all the right, title and interest which it has or may have in and to each hockey game played by its team as a visiting club and in the news of said game (including without limitation ofthe foregoing, the right to collect, disseminate and
sell and to license others to collect, disseminate and sell the news of said game, whether by radio, telephone, television, telegraph or other means), to the member in whose home territory said game is played.

Proboscis is offline  
Old
05-22-2009, 06:55 PM
  #113
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 4,466
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bitterman View Post
Incentives? I can't imagine Buffalo being able to do anything that would appease fans who lost a chance to get an NHL franchise. For a reasonable price, Buffalo can be bought.

As for other locations in SO, none of them have anything close to an NHL sized arena.
While nothing could "appease" them from the fact that they don't have an NHL hockey team in Hamilton, they still need to reach out and try to maintain a good repoire so those fans come to Sabres games.

Depending on you how define reasonable, yeah. To the Sabres, the dollar amount of their expected losses is reasonable. That number might not be so reasonable to JB.

Long Island doesn't have an NHL sized arena either, but that team's not going anywhere.

KevFu is online now  
Old
05-22-2009, 07:27 PM
  #114
Bitterman
Registered User
 
Bitterman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RousselRising View Post
No we won't, unless new owners prove as incompetent as those who've owned the franchise so far. But if it's Reinsdorf I think his track record demonstrates if anyone can succeed, it is him.

With good ownership; a good front office that is already in place; a good core of young players with NHL experience that is here now; and a good, more affordable coach, Phoenix will make it.
Reinsdorf isn't stupid either so the concessions he'll demand is a much shorter lease term and an escape clause (rumored to be 2 years) to relocate should the losses continue. Now that the water has been poisoned in Phoenix, the financial losses next year will be huge regardless.

Until the dust settles, will the 29 other owners be happy to help share the burden of those losses for the sake of Bettman keeping his pride? What are current owners thinking about the way Bettman cuts the legs out from under a fellow owner while secretly offering a sweeter deal to someone else?

Bettman is on very delicate ground here and there a lot of owners quietly wondering if Bettman wouldn't hesitate to do the same to them.

Bitterman is offline  
Old
05-22-2009, 07:36 PM
  #115
SoCalPredFan
 
SoCalPredFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Portland, OR
Country: United States
Posts: 259
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bitterman View Post
Until the dust settles, will the 29 other owners be happy to help share the burden of those losses for the sake of Bettman keeping his pride? What are current owners thinking about the way Bettman cuts the legs out from under a fellow owner while secretly offering a sweeter deal to someone else?

Bettman is on very delicate ground here and there a lot of owners quietly wondering if Bettman wouldn't hesitate to do the same to them.
Hey Bitterman, you do realize that Bettman is merely a spokesman/whipping boy FOR the actual owners, right?

You make it seem as though he's an independent mastermind, plotting and strategically developing every move the league makes. The OWNERS actually make the rules and drive the direction of the league (including approving expansion / relocation). Not Bettman.

Yes, that's right. NOT Bettman.

SoCalPredFan is offline  
Old
05-22-2009, 07:36 PM
  #116
Bitterman
Registered User
 
Bitterman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
Long Island doesn't have an NHL sized arena either, but that team's not going anywhere.
Nassau Coliseum is the 3rd oldest building in the NHL which is why Wang is trying to get a new arena built. The reason he's talked of moving is because the new arena project is being blocked.

Bitterman is offline  
Old
05-22-2009, 07:52 PM
  #117
MAROONSRoad
f/k/a Ghost
 
MAROONSRoad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Maroons Rd.
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,068
vCash: 500
Coyote Legal Documents Received - A Full Legal Information Download

I haven't had a chance to look at these documents, but the link in the thread titled above does not appear to work any longer. Does anyone have a link that works? I assume the link is time sensitive.

Here's the link btw:

http://www.azb.uscourts.gov/wCalDeta...Y%2007,%202009

If anyone knows how I can access the documents without paying via PACER, I'd appreciate your advice.

Thanks,

GHOST

MAROONSRoad is offline  
Old
05-22-2009, 07:52 PM
  #118
rojac
HFBoards Sponsor
 
rojac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Waterloo, ON
Posts: 7,564
vCash: 500
So can anyone tell me why I should, as a Toronto Maple Leafs fan in Waterloo Ontario, support RIMJim's efforts to move a team to Hamilton? What's in it for me?

rojac is online now  
Old
05-22-2009, 08:32 PM
  #119
The Pouzar
Registered User
 
The Pouzar's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: The Kop
Country: Canada
Posts: 162
vCash: 500
The talk of the league suspending the operations of the Coyotes or any other team for that matter is ridiculous. The compensation they would have to pay to the NHLPA would probably be at a minimum whatever the cap ceiling is for next year. By reducing the number of available NHL contracts by 50, the League would be manipulating the scarcity of an job for a possible player. It wouldn't effect those at the top end of the salary structure but it would definitely effect the salaries of those at the lower end of the market . Before they could even think of suspending/folding a team they would have to reach an agreement with the PA or face a lawsuit from them.

The Pouzar is offline  
Old
05-22-2009, 08:37 PM
  #120
The Pouzar
Registered User
 
The Pouzar's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: The Kop
Country: Canada
Posts: 162
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rojac View Post
So can anyone tell me why I should, as a Toronto Maple Leafs fan in Waterloo Ontario, support RIMJim's efforts to move a team to Hamilton? What's in it for me?
With the increased competition for your hockey dollar, hopefully MLSE would become more accountable to their fans and put a quality team on the ice. I've heard that MLSE doesn't need to put a winner on the ice, because they are so secure in their market that they can get away with losing.


Last edited by The Pouzar: 05-22-2009 at 08:48 PM.
The Pouzar is offline  
Old
05-22-2009, 08:44 PM
  #121
MayDay
Registered User
 
MayDay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Mount Kisco, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 10,667
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thomand52 View Post
With the increased competition for your hocker dollar, hopefully MLSE would become more accountable to their fans and put a quality team on the ice.
Just like the Kings did after the Ducks entered their market!

Oh, wait.

MayDay is offline  
Old
05-22-2009, 09:09 PM
  #122
Bucky Katt
Registered User
 
Bucky Katt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,444
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proboscis View Post
I agree with number 2. gscarpenter2002, what is the wording in the definition of "home territory" that forces me to get your consent if I try to set up shop one foot outside of your home territory if I am willing to give up that portion of my home territory that would overlap with yours? I am still not getting it and I am still of the opinion that you are not correct.
Quote:
4.1. Definitions. For the purposes of this Article:
(c) "Home territory," with respect to any member, means: Each Member Club shall have
exclusive territorial rights in the city in which it is located and within fifty miles of that
city's corporate limits.

4.3. Territorial Rights of Members. No franchise shall be granted for a home territory within the home territory of a member, without the written consent of such member.
It clearly states in 4.3 that if you attempt to establish a franchise which has an overlapping home territory that you must get the consent of the member you are overlapping with. How exactly do you plan on "giving up" a portion of the 50 mile radius around the city limits of your new franchise?

Bucky Katt is offline  
Old
05-22-2009, 09:18 PM
  #123
Rob
Registered User
 
Rob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: New Brunswick
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,606
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCalPredFan View Post
Hey Bitterman, you do realize that Bettman is merely a spokesman/whipping boy FOR the actual owners, right?

You make it seem as though he's an independent mastermind, plotting and strategically developing every move the league makes. The OWNERS actually make the rules and drive the direction of the league (including approving expansion / relocation). Not Bettman.

Yes, that's right. NOT Bettman.
We don't know what the owners think about this situation. They aren't allowed to speak.

Rob is offline  
Old
05-22-2009, 09:53 PM
  #124
GSC2k2*
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GHOSTofMAROONSroad View Post
I haven't had a chance to look at these documents, but the link in the thread titled above does not appear to work any longer. Does anyone have a link that works? I assume the link is time sensitive.

Here's the link btw:

http://www.azb.uscourts.gov/wCalDeta...Y%2007,%202009

If anyone knows how I can access the documents without paying via PACER, I'd appreciate your advice.

Thanks,

GHOST
That link never was for the documents - only a court timetable. Pm me your email and I will send you the documents.

GSC2k2* is offline  
Old
05-22-2009, 10:05 PM
  #125
GSC2k2*
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proboscis View Post
I agree with number 2. gscarpenter2002, what is the wording in the definition of "home territory" that forces me to get your consent if I try to set up shop one foot outside of your home territory if I am willing to give up that portion of my home territory that would overlap with yours? I am still not getting it and I am still of the opinion that you are not correct.
I am nearly at a loss as to how to explain it to you in a different way. Perhaps this will help.

Firstly, I am assuming that you understand that the constitution is a contract between the 30 member clubs.

Under the law (as well as normal english, for that matter), the word "shall" is mandatory. This contrasts with permissive terms like "may".

Accordingly, when the term "home territory" states:

(c) "Home territory," with respect to any member, means: Each Member Club shall have
exclusive territorial rights in the city in which it is located and within fifty miles of that
city's corporate limits.

that means that the term must be used to represent that meaning and that meaning alone. There is no discretion for a team to decide that its territory means something else. The constitution states that the definition means that and that alone.

When you look at the sentence "No franchise shall be granted for a home territory within the home territory of a member, without the written consent of such member", again the mandatory term is used. The term "home territory" has been mandatorily defined in section 4.1 above as the city in which the team is located and 50 miles from the city limits.

IF you can understand the meaning of the term "shall", I don't see where you can go off the rails.

I hope that helps.

GSC2k2* 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 04:33 PM.

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.