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
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.

Balsillie/Phoenix Part VIII: It's dead, Jim

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-17-2009, 01:32 PM
  #101
SoCalPredFan
Registered User
 
SoCalPredFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Portland, OR
Country: United States
Posts: 259
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Committing fraud in order to purchase a team is good faith?
Huh?

What does that have to do with anything?

The bid by Freeman+8 other locals+Boots included a "good-faith effort" at keeping the team in Nashville.

JB's bid did no such thing, and actually blatantly went towards trying to sell tickets in Hamilton.

How are you guys not seeing this?

SoCalPredFan is offline  
Old
06-17-2009, 01:35 PM
  #102
Big Country
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 61
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox X Mulder View Post
A source says that luxury suites have been sold in Kansas City, based on the promise of an NHL team eventually landing there. Not that far off, but much quieter than, the Hamilton drive everyone seems to hate.


http://www.thespec.com/article/213113
An unnamed source says from a Hamilton newspaper. . . Doesn't pass the smell test.

Big Country is offline  
Old
06-17-2009, 01:36 PM
  #103
bbud
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,006
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by idhockey View Post
I believe the bids were sealed (and now I'm well out of my element here), but the NHL didn't want, for various reasons, to make those bids known at the time. But this doesn't refute my original assertion. The NHL claims (under penalty of perjury) to have found potential buyers for the franchise.
This is way to amusing then how is it JB has to play open fair up front but secret bids behind his back are just fine business practises , this one shoots your NHL plays by fair rules talk right off the map, which in effect is what the judge said as well i think he called it" Hearsay"

bbud is offline  
Old
06-17-2009, 01:37 PM
  #104
SoCalPredFan
Registered User
 
SoCalPredFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Portland, OR
Country: United States
Posts: 259
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Egil View Post
They were sooo committed to Nashville that they made sure to put attendance based escape clauses in the new lease. They were committed to 2 years, and no more (since it is trivial to ensure that you don't hit an attendance target).
2 years with a clause.

You're going to arguing that the "commitment" isn't there b/c the clause was at the 2 year mark?

Fact remains:
The local ownership group was committed trying to make it work. Fans, corporate sponsors, on-ice product, etc ... all need to work together to ultimately make Nashville a viable market. But it's about a good-faith effort to give the market that chance.

I get the feeling that this is an argument I'll simply never win at with you guys...

SoCalPredFan is offline  
Old
06-17-2009, 01:42 PM
  #105
bbud
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,006
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCalPredFan View Post
Huh?

What does that have to do with anything?

The bid by Freeman+8 other locals+Boots included a "good-faith effort" at keeping the team in Nashville.

JB's bid did no such thing, and actually blatantly went towards trying to sell tickets in Hamilton.

How are you guys not seeing this?
I dont dispute what you say about JB and his ticket sales i can say he was right up front no games so all fans knew what was happening and in defence of JBs position he was showing in very good faith he had support from enough fans to make this work , that makes sense .
Boots backroom deal still looks bad and it almost lost you the team later as well and sure did little to help GBs credibilty in any ways later , i dont have issues with fans or Nashville having a team they seem to have committed enough to keep it as of now end of story , Boots on other hand well Gb looks bad there no arguement it should never have been in question and plain bad leadership imo

bbud is offline  
Old
06-17-2009, 01:45 PM
  #106
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 16,113
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox X Mulder View Post
A source says that luxury suites have been sold in Kansas City, based on the promise of an NHL team eventually landing there. Not that far off, but much quieter than, the Hamilton drive everyone seems to hate.


http://www.thespec.com/article/213113
Except they were sold by AEG and not by Boots - and they were sold out long before the Boots/Preds soap opera. They were sold before the Sprint Center even opened.

AEG was long targeting a tenant for the Sprint Center - and the contracts on the luxury suites had escalator clauses that gretly increased the prices IF an NHL or NBA team was aquired.

kdb209 is offline  
Old
06-17-2009, 01:45 PM
  #107
Jake16
Registered User
 
Jake16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 1,320
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bitterman View Post
This isn't a house we're talking about here now is it? A hotel perhaps but trying to compare this to a home mortgage is just silly. A primary reason the team went into Bankruptcy is because the CoG thought they had them over a barrel and wouldn't offer the same concessions they were supposedly willing to offer GB & Reinsdorf. What was agreed to then means little now going forward under Bankruptcy protection and overplaying their hand will eventually reward them with pennies on the dollar.
You are off base here. You really have to read the Bryant and Hocking declarations filed by the City to understand what the $500M plus in damages is for, and I encourage you to do so. Very little of the calculated damages is rent. Most is lost tax and other revenue caused by the team leaving (all in present value dollars). Glendale didn't just build the arena, they contributed to the entire Westgate project. The Coyotes agreed those loses were real and signed the agreement confirming that that would be the amount due as liquidated damages should the team breach the Use Agreement - very difficult to get the court to cut them down based on some claim that they are now illusory or unreasonable.

That, however, is a different issue from whether the amounts can be capped under the Bankrupcty Code and those damags taken into account in determining the highest and best bid. The City argues a bid that moves the team triggers $500M in loses so that can't be the best bid when compared to a local one.


Last edited by Jake16: 06-17-2009 at 01:54 PM.
Jake16 is offline  
Old
06-17-2009, 01:46 PM
  #108
Fugu
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCalPredFan View Post
Fugu, you conveniently leave off the Freeman led local group and it's 70%+ piece of the bid involving Boots.

Boots' contract to bring a team to KC is irrelevant to the fact that the local ownership-led group was committed to Nashville. Escape clause or not, there was a commitment to the existing market that clearly was not there in JB's bid.
I'm not sure what is being argued. The reason JB's bids never got anywhere is because he had no intention of keeping the teams in their existing locations, especially for seven yrs regardless of financial condition.

I know that Freeman was the front man, but Boots certainly had some interesting options 'in case' the losses in Nashville did not abate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209 View Post
Yes. Freeman's group had been negotiating with Leipold long before Boots was in the picture. Boots was brought in to close the financing before the official purchase offer was presented.

It was NEVER a "Boots buying the Preds to move them to KC" situation - despite what "it is no secret that" ... .

And IIRC, (according to the folks here who actually read the sales agreement) there was no escape clause that allowed Boots to buy out the other owners. In fact he was specifically excluded from becoming a majority owner - unless all of the other owners voluntarily chose to sell.

But the tinfoil hat crowd is never satisfied.
Is that an escape clause?

 
Old
06-17-2009, 01:48 PM
  #109
Fugu
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCalPredFan View Post
Huh?

What does that have to do with anything?

The bid by Freeman+8 other locals+Boots included a "good-faith effort" at keeping the team in Nashville.

JB's bid did no such thing, and actually blatantly went towards trying to sell tickets in Hamilton.

How are you guys not seeing this?
What I'm seeing is a fraudster that never should have been bidding on an NHL team at all. The good faith aspect you mention pales in comparison on the morality theme you have going.

 
Old
06-17-2009, 01:48 PM
  #110
2525
yabba dabba doo
 
2525's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,799
vCash: 10199
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209 View Post
Except they were sold by AEG and not by Boots - and they were sold out long before the Boots/Preds soap opera. They were sold before the Sprint Center even opened.

AEG was long targeting a tenant for the Sprint Center - and the contracts on the luxury suites had escalator clauses that gretly increased the prices IF an NHL or NBA team was aquired.
http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Columnists...95880-sun.html

2525 is offline  
Old
06-17-2009, 01:49 PM
  #111
Fugu
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by idhockey View Post
An unnamed source says from a Hamilton newspaper. . . Doesn't pass the smell test.
Yes, it does. You asked for sources, you got one. Not good enough? Find your own to refute it.

 
Old
06-17-2009, 01:51 PM
  #112
Fugu
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209 View Post
Except they were sold by AEG and not by Boots - and they were sold out long before the Boots/Preds soap opera. They were sold before the Sprint Center even opened.

AEG was long targeting a tenant for the Sprint Center - and the contracts on the luxury suites had escalator clauses that gretly increased the prices IF an NHL or NBA team was aquired.
Who was contracted by AEG to head up the search for a team in KC?

 
Old
06-17-2009, 01:52 PM
  #113
bbud
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,006
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake16 View Post
Your. off base here. You really have to read the Bryant and Hocking declarations to understand what the 500M plus in damages is for, and encourage you to do so. Very little is rent. Most is lost tax and other revenue caused by the team leaving (all in present value dollars). Glendale didn't just build the arena, they contributed to the entire Westgate project. The Coyotes agreed those loses were real and signed the agreement confirming that that would be the amount due as liquidated damages should the team breach the Use Agreement - very difficult to get the court to cut them down based on some claim that they are now illusory or unreasonable. That is a different issue from whether the amounts are capped under the Bankrupcty Code.
well jake seems you have it all figured hold the NHL hostage to 500 mill bill or else and Canadians and their beer suck

bbud is offline  
Old
06-17-2009, 01:57 PM
  #114
pfp
Registered User
 
pfp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 659
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bleeney View Post
Take another look at my post. I quoted Ghost, who mentioned that the prices he listed were for 98% if the tickets. The $330-300 tix are for row A. Row B tix sell for $255-225.
And the cheapest seats are $9 if purchased in packages. The low prices I listed for other rinks were also for package deals.

Coyotes tickets are dirt cheap. And they still don't sell. And what's worse, the overwhelming majority of the Phoenix population does't even care if they leave. I've heard a few different sportwriters from Phoenix say exactly that during interviews.
I don't dispute that they have some of the lowest prices (perhaps even the lowest - I don't care to do the research). It's just not fair to exaggerate the diffeence by comparing other teams gate price to the Phoenix full season ticket prices.

Yes, there are probably 500-600 seats in the arena that can be had for $9/game when purchased for a full season. And don't fool yourself - those seats are always full.

I've found most the media in this town is only concerned with negative stories involving the coyotes so it's not too surprising that they only show comments from people who don't care about the team.

pfp is offline  
Old
06-17-2009, 01:58 PM
  #115
Snoil11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Germany
Country: Germany
Posts: 3,336
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Snoil11 Send a message via Yahoo to Snoil11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Yes, it does. You asked for sources, you got one. Not good enough? Find your own to refute it.
Don't want to take anything away from the report, but don't you find it surprising that no other of the very attentive Canadian media outlets has ever leaked this story?
Personally, I would have been (and probably would still be) all over it, if I were the Canadian media, cause this reeks of double-standard and hypocrisy (if true).

Snoil11 is offline  
Old
06-17-2009, 02:00 PM
  #116
jessebelanger
Registered User
 
jessebelanger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Did the binding offer require him to sign a seven yr no move contract?
Well, JB was selling season tickets for the team in a different location. If I wanted to keep the team in Nashville, and my prospective buyer went ahead and sold tickets for the team in another location, I would require a similar condition as well - wouldn't you?

Perhaps this condition was not required of any of the other buyers, but they were no selling tickets, or at least on the same scale, as JB was for the team in another location. And I would agree that a "source" saying that Boots was selling Tix in another location should be taken with a grain of salt.

It's pretty difficult to hide the sale of luxury suits to an NHL team in a city that lacks an NHL team - I find it hard to believe that only 1 "source" knew of these sales.

jessebelanger is offline  
Old
06-17-2009, 02:00 PM
  #117
SoCalPredFan
Registered User
 
SoCalPredFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Portland, OR
Country: United States
Posts: 259
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugo
I'm not sure what is being argued. The reason JB's bids never got anywhere is because he had no intention of keeping the teams in their existing locations, especially for seven yrs regardless of financial condition.

I know that Freeman was the front man, but Boots certainly had some interesting options 'in case' the losses in Nashville did not abate.
The underlined portion is my point. The NHL BoG is committed to an existing market. This has been shown time and time again throughout Bettman's tenure (Edm, Ott, Pitt, Nsh, etc.). Until the "local" options are exhausted, the NHL wants to keep a team where it is.

JB is simply not interested. Not. Interested.

Therefore, the NHL is not going to be interested in doing business with him ... until if/when a time comes where the local option is no longer an option. However, due to JB's actions towards the NHL in both the Nsh and Phx situations, the damage done may be too much for the NHL to ever honestly consider JB as an owner... and I wouldn't blame them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
What I'm seeing is a fraudster that never should have been bidding on an NHL team at all. The good faith aspect you mention pales in comparison on the morality theme you have going.
Morality theme? Please. It's about an honest effort to keep the team in its existing market. Is Boots a scum bag? Of course, but that's besides the point.

SoCalPredFan is offline  
Old
06-17-2009, 02:01 PM
  #118
Bitterman
Registered User
 
Bitterman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake16 View Post
Your. off base here. You really have to read the Bryant and Hocking declarations to understand what the 500M plus in damages is for, and encourage you to do so. Very little is rent. Most is lost tax and other revenue caused by the team leaving (all in present value dollars). Glendale didn't just build the arena, they contributed to the entire Westgate project. The Coyotes agreed those loses were real and signed the agreement confirming that that would be the amount due as liquidated damages should the team breach the Use Agreement - very difficult to get the court to cut them down based on some claim that they are now illusory or unreasonable. That is a different issue from whether the amounts are capped under the Bankrupcty Code.
Oh I know what the 500mm in damages were supposedly for but there's no way they could ever expect to be awarded anywhere near that. The intent was to lock the owner in and when heavy losses kept mounting on cheap tickets that couldn't attract flies the CoG decided to offer a sweeter deal to a perspective new owner than the current one. Even at that, CoG would have to permit major concessions on lease term and escape damages to even attract "interest" from Reinsdorf.

So, on one hand CoG thought they had Moyes by the tenders while they offered more concessions, without the taxpayers being aware it seems to Reinsdorf so the only out after being cornered was Bankruptcy. Once in Bankruptcy, whoever agreed to what prior matters little as we've seen with GM and Chrysler.

Bitterman is offline  
Old
06-17-2009, 02:01 PM
  #119
Big Country
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 61
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Yes, it does. You asked for sources, you got one. Not good enough? Find your own to refute it.
No, the burden of proof is still on Fox. First, it's logically impossible logically to prove a negative. Therefore, I can't prove that seats and lux. boxes were not sold.

Second, Fox's "evidence" wouldn't pass a 100 level critical thinking test in college.
The source is a newspaper that has a clear bias, and the original source is unnamed. The burden of proof still rests with Fox to demonstrate his original claim that Boots sold lux. boxes in KC.

Big Country is offline  
Old
06-17-2009, 02:05 PM
  #120
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 16,113
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox X Mulder View Post
Which says absolutely nothing about selling luxury suites at the Sprint Center - in fact it mentions absolutely nothing about either the Sprint Center or Luxury Boxes.

The luxury boxes were already sold out by AEG - makes it kind of hard for Boots to be selling them.

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/Econ/facul...youbuildit.pdf
Quote:
John Vrooman Interview with Kansas City Business Report: 15 Febraury 2007.

Why do you believe AEG "should have paid more or taken less"?
Most venue deals are between the City and the club. Recently, the NBA and NHL have become more
involved in local arena/stadium politics, although they bear none of the arena costs. In KC’s case AEG
has wedged itself smack in the middle of a complex deal that is hard enough to complete with just two
parties—let alone four. Frankly, there is not much left for the club in this deal. The Sprint Center
setup is completely backwards—it is so inside out that there isn’t even a team yet—the Sprint Center
is all dressed up with no place to go. Now we have AEG offering the Pittsburgh Pens a 50/50 split of
all venue revenues, before they have even decided to leave Pittsburgh. Hello—that’s the point--these
revenues are not AEG’s to begin with. AEG is taking all of the shots, but they can’t score. AEG may
have contributed $50 million to the deal, but this return on investment is way over the top. In venue
finance, two is company and three is a crowd—and this deal is way too crowded.

Do the math. If 72 suites have already been leased at an average of $100,000 a pop (they went for a
lot more
)
, then this yields an expected cash flow with a present value of $110 million over the life of
the arena. AEG has just doubled their money by luxury suite money alone. Frankly, this is money
should have gone to reduce KC’s public share of the arena. Now it should at least go to a prospective
team if KC wants bribe its owner away from his current home. Nice of AEG to offer fifty percent of the
revenues, when the money was not theirs to begin with. Based on their $50 million contribution for a
$276 million arena, AEG should receive no more than 18 percent—tops.

The good news for AEG is bad news for the city and new club. The naming rights have already been
sold, the luxury suites have already been sold
, and those revenues usually go to the City or the club.
Now you have AEG in the middle of the deal. This is like Clint Eastwood in the Fistful of Dollars (which
I saw for the first time in the KC Plaza): “The Rojos on one side of town, the Baxters on the other, and
me right in the middle.”—then he squints, lights a cigarillo, and we hear the stupid flute.

kdb209 is offline  
Old
06-17-2009, 02:07 PM
  #121
Brodie
voted best
 
Brodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Michigan
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 15,677
vCash: 500
I think Balsillie has a good idea with this overload Bettman's inbox with fan emails strategy. He's going to force the NHL's hand eventually.

Brodie is offline  
Old
06-17-2009, 02:08 PM
  #122
SoCalPredFan
Registered User
 
SoCalPredFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Portland, OR
Country: United States
Posts: 259
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brodie View Post
I think Balsillie has a good idea with this overload Bettman's inbox with fan emails strategy. He's going to force the NHL's hand eventually.
I think you're probably right. But I predict the joke will ultimately be on Balsillie, as it'll be a different ownership group that gets the 7th Canadian team (and 8th, 9th, etc.)...

SoCalPredFan is offline  
Old
06-17-2009, 02:11 PM
  #123
Egil
Registered User
 
Egil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 8,836
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCalPredFan View Post
2 years with a clause.

You're going to arguing that the "commitment" isn't there b/c the clause was at the 2 year mark?
That is an extremely short trigger with new ownership. It was also solely based on a single metric (attendance), which is super easy for an owner to manipulate through ticket prices, marketing, quality of team, etc. In essence, the group bought a team that they can move if they want too by simply tanking a single season (as the 2 year clause is attendance over 2 seasons). That is more of a "commitment" than Balsille, but it isn't like they agreed to keep the team in Nashville for a long time.


[/quote]
Fact remains:
The local ownership group was committed trying to make it work. Fans, corporate sponsors, on-ice product, etc ... all need to work together to ultimately make Nashville a viable market. But it's about a good-faith effort to give the market that chance.

I get the feeling that this is an argument I'll simply never win at with you guys...[/QUOTE]

Im sure you won't, just as our argument that there a ton of people who want a team in this area, and that there are FAR more people who want a team in this area than their are Coyotes season ticket holders and couch potatoes in Phoenix. Being told to go **** and wait your turn (which will never come) is beyond insulting.

Egil is offline  
Old
06-17-2009, 02:11 PM
  #124
Fugu
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snoil11 View Post
Don't want to take anything away from the report, but don't you find it surprising that no other of the very attentive Canadian media outlets has ever leaked this story?
Personally, I would have been (and probably would still be) all over it, if I were the Canadian media, cause this reeks of double-standard and hypocrisy (if true).
Not sure, Snoil. You'd have to do an exhaustive search to show it never was picked up. Thus the overarching point, the source is acceptable; and if there are questions about the veracity, you have to dig a bit deeper and at least find conflicting info. I personally don't like setting a standard where a group of posters can decide how legitimate a story is based on origin. The default then is to dismiss anything in the future from the unapproved sources.

 
Old
06-17-2009, 02:14 PM
  #125
bbud
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,006
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCalPredFan View Post
I think you're probably right. But I predict the joke will ultimately be on Balsillie, as it'll be a different ownership group that gets the 7th Canadian team (and 8th, 9th, etc.)...
That could be but im still of opinion NHL may one day be very sorry say JBs next tech adventure makes billions more and he does start a rival just to spite NHL , he may not win but he will for sure damage the NHL and as of now id want to consider the realistic option he has the ability all he would need is some help and i am sure he would find enough, it has happened before

bbud 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 07:32 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.