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.

Phoenix bankruptcy/ownership Part XIV: The Wrath of Baum

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-22-2009, 11:41 PM
  #101
DuklaNation
Registered User
 
DuklaNation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,842
vCash: 500
Despite what some might think, the owners voting JB down on integrity is weak. Especially considering the actions of past and current owners under GB's watch. Its a lame excuse with little support. And comparing a fraudster like Boots and a convicted felon like McNall to JB is insane.

Bottom line: owners follow Bettman like crackheads; Leafs wont let a team in Hamilton; GB still believes in keeping teams across the US to satisfy his [Mod: deleted] of a national TV contract.


Last edited by Fugu: 08-23-2009 at 09:37 AM. Reason: offensive
DuklaNation is offline  
Old
08-22-2009, 11:45 PM
  #102
RR
Moderator
 
RR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Cave Creek, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 8,299
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbud View Post
i would like to see where his expansion to those said markets hass provided any profits at this point other than expansion fees add up losses and near bankrupts and his own teams are miserable fails , the ones before him ok San Jose does well Anaheim holds on ok but Pho Nashville , Atlanta are barely surviving and we aill see more issues out of his strategy yet but you will blame someone else next so it wont matte, for what its worth Burkie would be 10x better smart knows the game and played i still think that matters.
Actually, bbud, I look at Bettman like any other CEO of a company. He serves at the pleasure of the owners and if they lose confidence in him they can fire him. Since he is still employed I must assume owners don't share your opinion that his tenure that includes expansion has been a failure, and that Burkie would be 10x better.

RR is offline  
Old
08-23-2009, 12:56 AM
  #103
2525
Registered User
 
2525's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,371
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbud View Post
i would like to see where his expansion to those said markets hass provided any profits at this point other than expansion fees add up losses and near bankrupts and his own teams are miserable fails , the ones before him ok San Jose does well Anaheim holds on ok but Pho Nashville , Atlanta are barely surviving and we aill see more issues out of his strategy yet but you will blame someone else next so it wont matter , for what its worth Burkie would be 10x better smart knows the game and played i still think that matters.
Have to disagree with you on this bbud.
Brian Burke is an egotistical, conceited, arrogant SOB.
His feud with Kevin Lowe re the Penner signing was one of the lowest, cheap shot, asinine actions I have ever seen in the NHL.

Bettman is a hundred times better than him.

2525 is offline  
Old
08-23-2009, 01:04 AM
  #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 DuklaNation View Post
Despite what some might think, the owners voting JB down on integrity is weak. Especially considering the actions of past and current owners under GB's watch. Its a lame excuse with little support.
So, in your opinion, Balsillie's dealings with Pittsburgh, Nashville, Montreal, Phoenix, the SEC, the CCB, and the league itself are all fine? Nothing rejectionworthy in any of it?

I just want to make sure, that is your argument. You're okay with all of that? Okay with his behavior in all of that?

Mod: deleted.


Last edited by Fugu: 08-23-2009 at 09:37 AM. Reason: qep
Crazy_Ike is offline  
Old
08-23-2009, 01:19 AM
  #105
RR
Moderator
 
RR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Cave Creek, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 8,299
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox X Mulder View Post
Have to disagree with you on this bbud.
Brian Burke is an egotistical, conceited, arrogant SOB.
His feud with Kevin Lowe re the Penner signing was one of the lowest, cheap shot, asinine actions I have ever seen in the NHL.

Bettman is a hundred times better than him.
Have to disagree with you on this Fox.
Gary Bettman is an egotistical, conceited, arrogant SOB.
His feud with Jim Balsillie re the Pens, Preds, and Coyotes was one of the lowest, cheap shot, asinine actions I have ever seen in the NHL.

Burkie is a hundred times better than him.

RR is offline  
Old
08-23-2009, 01:29 AM
  #106
bbud
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,684
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RousselRising View Post
Have to disagree with you on this Fox.
Gary Bettman is an egotistical, conceited, arrogant SOB.
His feud with Jim Balsillie re the Pens, Preds, and Coyotes was one of the lowest, cheap shot, asinine actions I have ever seen in the NHL.

Burkie is a hundred times better than him.
Ok RR is way to happy tonight and actually agreed with me lol

bbud is offline  
Old
08-23-2009, 01:32 AM
  #107
bbud
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,684
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox X Mulder View Post
Have to disagree with you on this bbud.
Brian Burke is an egotistical, conceited, arrogant SOB.
His feud with Kevin Lowe re the Penner signing was one of the lowest, cheap shot, asinine actions I have ever seen in the NHL.

Bettman is a hundred times better than him.
I will agree Burke can eb arrogant and all the rest but when its about hockey he does know the game and i do honestly say after yrs of having him in Vancouver [ not all great either] i do think he has a huge passion for the game and he dosnt care waht side of the border he is on its about the game is all .

bbud is offline  
Old
08-23-2009, 02:29 AM
  #108
RR
Moderator
 
RR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Cave Creek, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 8,299
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbud View Post
Ok RR is way to happy tonight and actually agreed with me lol
My + your = from my vantage point. Sorry, bbud. You're still invited to attend a Phoenix Coyotes home game in Glendale this year as my guest. Bring Fugu, too! Just let me know which game so I can get tickets close to my seats before they sell out.

RR is offline  
Old
08-23-2009, 06:57 AM
  #109
eliostar
Registered User
 
eliostar's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,283
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbud View Post
i would like to see where his expansion to those said markets hass provided any profits at this point other than expansion fees add up losses and near bankrupts and his own teams are miserable fails , the ones before him ok San Jose does well Anaheim holds on ok but Pho Nashville , Atlanta are barely surviving and we aill see more issues out of his strategy yet but you will blame someone else next so it wont matter , for what its worth Burkie would be 10x better smart knows the game and played i still think that matters.
The people who run the league want to have a national league, not a regional one.
They want to have a presence in those markets are are not going to a throw in the
towel because of a few setbacks. I don't think they envision a league that operates franchises in places like Hamilton or Saskatoon, at the expense of the likes of Atlanta
or Florida. I doubt they care what the commissioner knows about hockey, as long as he knows business . Some fans have a hard time coming to grips with the fact that the NHL is a business first and foremost.

eliostar is offline  
Old
08-23-2009, 08:10 AM
  #110
Fourier
Registered User
 
Fourier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Waterloo Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,287
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSC2k2 View Post
Unfortunately, my friend, I have to correct you on this point somewhat.

In the NHL's Memo to the BoG by the Executive Committee reporting on JB's application (as attached to Jeremy Jacobs' declaration), the options-backdating matter was raised as one of five issues that related to JB's character/integrity evaluation.

http://docs.bmcgroup.com/phoenixcoyo...9488_586_1.pdf

(see starting at page 25)

The five issues were:

1. JB's conduct re the Penguins transaction;

2. JB's conduct re the Predators;

3. The Competition Bureau investigation in 2006 and again in 2007;

4. JBN's involvement in wrongdoing at RIM in relation to the back-dating of options; and

5. JB's conduct in the current matter.

That being said, the focus of the Executive Committee appeared to be not so much focused on the back-dating itself (although that was not ignored) but rather on the fact that:

(a) In his interview in 2006, JB "Downplayed the significance of the ... investigation [and] characterized it as a 'non-issue'."

(b) JB has publicly attributed the entire affair to his lack of knowledge regarding accounting matters and US (as opposed to Canadian) accounting practices (Ed: note that JB is in fact an accountant, although he never practiced as a CPA) and has denied any intentional wrongdoing, despite the fact that the SEC findings directly contradict that "theory".

That all being said, the options-backdating matter consumed only 2 pages out of 20 relating to JB.

Accordingly, it seems clear that the options-backdating issue did play a slight role in the Executive Committee's considerations, although the focus was not so much related to the settlement as it was to the lack of candour with which JB handled the matter both publicly and in his ownership interviews (going to the central issue of trust).
A couple of points with respect to the backdating issue. First, I am not sure how the NHL could describe JB as being less than forthcoming wrt this process. RIM and its executives were the ones who took the lead on the investigation. The settlements in both Canada and the US note that the parties were co-operative. And as far as Balsillies public stance on the issue I know of no where where anyone suggested that JB's position at RIM was ever in serious doubt. But they did not hide the issue in any way. The company and the parties position was always that it was a serious error that would be appropriately dealt with. So if the NHL wass being "hoodwinked" on this one it could only be because no one on the Executive Committee had ever read a news paper and the league is completely unaware of this thing called Google.

As for your statement ..."despite the fact that the SEC findings directly contradict that "theory" ". You are no doubt aware that in this whole process any findings of intentional misconduct were targeted at Kavelman and Loberto, not at Balsillie or Lazaridis. As far as I know neither of these individuals was involved in Balsillie's bid to buy any NHL team. Furthermore, both cases were settled without admissions to any of the claims. As such where is it that Balsillie was being less than forthcoming wrt to his part in the affair during his dealings with the NHL.

I also find it curious that you wrote:

Quote:
(b) JB has publicly attributed the entire affair to his lack of knowledge regarding accounting matters and US (as opposed to Canadian) accounting practices (Ed: note that JB is in fact an accountant, although he never practiced as a CPA) and has denied any intentional wrongdoing,
I have to assume that the added ED: was not to suggest that by virtue of the fact that JB has an undergraduate accounting degree, he should have known about the issues asscociated with backdating. I say this because to say otherwise would be akin to suggesting that someone who graduated from medical school but never practiced should in principle be able to perform heart surgery.


Last edited by Fourier: 08-23-2009 at 08:19 AM.
Fourier is offline  
Old
08-23-2009, 09:43 AM
  #111
Northern Dancer
Registered User
 
Northern Dancer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,710
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaym3000 View Post
I agree - this really truly has very little to do with JB IMHO - this has everything to do with the MLSE not wanting hockey in their backyard - everything else is a smokescreen. I don't think anyone could argue that, but not for the attempts by JB to get a team and move it, the NHL would have been happy to have him (character issues and all) if he agreed to stay in Phoenix (or even if he said he wanted to move the team to Vegas or KC or anywhere other than S.O.). So all of this peripheral stuff is nothing but the NHL taking the attention off of the REAL cause of this fight. Call it a big diversion.
Obviously neither of us can prove our points with any facts. However I believe that MLSE would be open to a team in Hamilton IF the territorial fee was high enough. Why wouldn't they take the opportunity to cash a 150 million dollar cheque????

The reality is that IF an owner had to pay MLSE, then had to pay a re-location fee and if the owner had to build his own rink on top of paying for an existing franchise the team would be a financial disaster. That is why Balsillie wants the taxpayers of Hamilton to up-grade Copps, that is why Balsillie has never volunteered he would imdemnify MLSE or downplays the re-location fee. He wants to pay 212 million for a business that would cost anyone else 500-750 million (for a number) to establish.

And the worst part is he does this behind the skirt of being the quintessential Canadian and so many of us fall for it.


Last edited by Northern Dancer: 08-23-2009 at 09:52 AM.
Northern Dancer is offline  
Old
08-23-2009, 10:04 AM
  #112
billy blaze
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,480
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Dancer View Post
Obviously neither of us can prove our points with any facts. However I believe that MLSE would be open to a team in Hamilton IF the territorial fee was high enough. Why wouldn't they take the opportunity to cash a 150 million dollar cheque????

The reality is that IF an owner had to pay MLSE, then had to pay a re-location fee and if the owner had to build his own rink on top of paying for an existing franchise the team would be a financial disaster. That is why Balsillie wants the taxpayers of Hamilton to up-grade Copps, that is why Balsillie has never volunteered he would imdemnify MLSE or downplays the re-location fee. He wants to pay 212 million for a business that would cost anyone else 500-750 million (for a number) to establish.

And the worst part is he does this behind the skirt of being the quintessential Canadian and so many of us fall for it.

so you are saying that a team in Hamilton Ontario is worth more than the fabled Montreal Canadians?

billy blaze is offline  
Old
08-23-2009, 10:05 AM
  #113
Fugu
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Dancer View Post
Obviously neither of us can prove our points with any facts. However I believe that MLSE would be open to a team in Hamilton IF the territorial fee was high enough. Why wouldn't they take the opportunity to cash a 150 million dollar cheque????

The reality is that IF an owner had to pay MLSE, then had to pay a re-location fee and if the owner had to build his own rink on top of paying for an existing franchise the team would be a financial disaster. That is why Balsillie wants the taxpayers of Hamilton to up-grade Copps, that is why Balsillie has never volunteered he would imdemnify MLSE or downplays the re-location fee. He wants to pay 212 million for a business that would cost anyone else 500-750 million (for a number) to establish.

And the worst part is he does this behind the skirt of being the quintessential Canadian and so many of us fall for it.
This is where the disconnect happens for me.

A business cannot be worth more than what it might actually bring in in terms of revenue, profits or some other established metric.

In order for an indemnity fee to have some teeth, should it not be based on what realistic damages/losses would be to the team receiving the indemnity? To push the point, here's the definition of indemnity:
Quote:
in⋅dem⋅ni⋅ty
  /ɪnˈdɛmnɪti/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [in-dem-ni-tee] Show IPA
Use indemnity in a Sentence
–noun, plural -ties.
1. protection or security against damage or loss.
2. compensation for damage or loss sustained.
What would MLSE's losses be then?

As for the relocation fee, are you saying this is the difference between the cost of the franchise in one location vs the cost in the new location? In that sense, yes, there is a figure that is perhaps substantial, but it's going to be far less than the value of the Leafs or Habs, imo. (Thus not nearly as high as some here would state.)

Re: the arena. Copps arena already exists. If at some point it's reasonable to build a new arena, the owner and community can decide if that's in their best interests. It sure seems like cities like to get into arena building exercises, based on the 1990's trend.

 
Old
08-23-2009, 10:23 AM
  #114
Fugu
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by RousselRising View Post
On the remote chance JB gets to bid and wins, what is your estimation as to how much he's willing to pay to bring the team to Hamilton?
No idea. I do believe he would pay more than the current bid however, as long as it's (1) reasonable, quantifiable, and (2) makes business sense, e.g., the franchise cannot become an albatross or lame duck from day one.

Quote:
Moyes values the franchise at $67M in docs filed with the court, and the judge indicates reasonable relo fee is value in new market less value in current market. Paying a premium in BK court for the creditors is all well and good, but the relo fee is to compensate the league for the opportunity to play in Hamilton, and protect that territory for the franchise owner. Is $100M really that far-fetched?
Yes, but the valuation of a franchise is based on what someone is willing to pay to obtain it. I can see the CoG claim as being the only part of any settlement/transfer of ownership as being something outside the current value (extraordinary item).

Quote:
Indemnity will be contentious, but Hamilton does encroach on the territories of Toronto and Buffalo, and both franchises will argue vehemently that they'll be financially harmed. I agree that it will come down to a negotiated figure.
Yes. Buffalo and MLSE will have to show how they arrived at their damage figures.
Quote:
And the COG. Will he pay anything if ordered to, or will he walk? He started out agreeing to about $8M IIRC, and the COG wants $500M. He might be able to negotiate relo and indemnity, but not damages if ordered by the court. He can appeal, of course.
I don't think that figure can hold up in a bankruptcy court. If the team truly folded, Glendale would be left with nothing. Hence, this number also has to reflect the fact that nothing in life is guaranteed. Having made an "investment," Glendale is also at the mercy of market and economic conditions. I'm sure that bankruptcy courts have to deal with these matters all the time. Having said that, my gut says Glendale won't see anything remotely close to $500 MM if it ever comes to having the lease terminated in bankruptcy court.

 
Old
08-23-2009, 10:43 AM
  #115
bleeney
Registered User
 
bleeney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,834
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkrdevil View Post
If the NHL is going to put a second team in Southern Ontario they are probably going to have it be Toronto proper to better get the marquee value of a big city and better capitalize on a bigger market than Hamilton.
While Toronto might have "marquee" value as opposed to Hamilton, I wouldn't necessarily call it a bigger market, at least not as far as hockey is concerned. The rapidly changing demographic of Toronto due to immigration has knocked hockey off its perch as the number one sport among teens in the city. Half of Toronto's population was born outside of Canada. Basketball, soccer, and even cricket are their sports of choice. The long term implications of this are probably at the root of MLSEL's opposition to another team in the area. And who can blame them? Although they are still top dog on the Toronto sports scene, and are the most profitable franchise in the league, down the road they may have to actually produce in order to maintain that status. This does not mean that they are in jeopardy, it's just that they will have to do more than just ice a team and print tickets to continue making record profits.

When I grew up in Scarborough during the 70s, almost everybody played hockey. Enrollment in the numerous hockey associations under the umbrella of the SHA was bursting at the seams. Today, the SHA is almost dead. There hasn't been a publicly funded ice pad built in the city for decades (it's not politically correct). And it's rare to see kids playing road hockey, something we did non-stop, like the scene in Wayne's World. When I was a kid, every street had its own team and we'd play tournaments against each other (complete with bench-clearing brawls...hey, it was the 70s). Today, instead of road hockey, it's kids shooting hoops.

Things have changed in Toronto. Its junior teams (Marlboros, St. Mikes Majors) have failed miserably, and attendance for the AHL Marlies has been pathetic. But the OHL is thriving in the rest of southern Ontario. Arenas in London, Kitchener, Guelph etc. (all within driving distance of Hamilton) are packed. Minor hockey programs are still going strong when you get outside of the Toronto city limits. I live in Durham region, east of Toronto, and youth hockey is booming out here (the 905 belt is also where much of the Leaf fan base now resides). The results are obvious: The OHL always has a significant number of players selected in the NHL draft, but considering Toronto has almost 1/4 of Ontario's population (2.5 of 11.4M) it's astounding how few of the Ontario kids drafted are actually from the city.

Hamilton (or K/W) would have a base of about 3.5M to draw from. Although I can understand the Leafs opposing another team in the area, it's extremely unfair of the NHL to protect the interests of MLSEL by denying the huge number of hockey-mad people in southwestern Ontario a team within driving distance. There isn't a better hockey market anywhere.

The question is: What's more important to the NHL?

Maintaining the insane profits of the Teachers Pension Fund, or meeting the needs of passionate hockey fans?

bleeney is offline  
Old
08-23-2009, 10:47 AM
  #116
Crazy_Ike
Cookin' with fire.
 
Crazy_Ike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,079
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by billy blaze View Post
so you are saying that a team in Hamilton Ontario is worth more than the fabled Montreal Canadians?
How much do you think it would cost to install a new "fabled Montreal Canadiens" from scratch? In Montreal, with the current Canadiens already there?

Understand now?

It's not "worth more" than the Canadiens, its just how much it costs to break the lease and start a team up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bleeney View Post
Hamilton (or K/W) would have a base of about 3.5M to draw from. Although I can understand the Leafs opposing another team in the area, it's extremely unfair of the NHL to protect the interests of MLSEL by denying the huge number of hockey-mad people in southwestern Ontario a team within driving distance. There isn't a better hockey market anywhere.

The question is: What's more important to the NHL?

Maintaining the insane profits of the Teachers Pension Fund, or meeting the needs of passionate hockey fans?
Though your opinion of the strength of Hamilton isn't 100% shared by people who have tried to bring the NHL there before, the NHL still views it as a very lucrative expansion market (they've called it as much). And when the time comes, they are likely to get the Leafs to bow to league wishes.

The time will come when it makes financial sense to have an expansion and that people will accept more "dilution of talent". At that time, we'll see how Hamilton does.

The league will NEVER allow an outsider to dictate when this happens, or which franchise moves there. That would be a critical and crippling loss of power that would have serious to fatal consequences for other small market teams including those in Canada. Right now, it's not about the Leafs, no matter what the common joe might think.


Last edited by Crazy_Ike: 08-23-2009 at 10:53 AM.
Crazy_Ike is offline  
Old
08-23-2009, 11:06 AM
  #117
CHRDANHUTCH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Auburn, Maine
Country: United States
Posts: 16,045
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to CHRDANHUTCH Send a message via MSN to CHRDANHUTCH Send a message via Yahoo to CHRDANHUTCH
Quote:
Originally Posted by bleeney View Post
While Toronto might have "marquee" value as opposed to Hamilton, I wouldn't necessarily call it a bigger market, at least not as far as hockey is concerned. The rapidly changing demographic of Toronto due to immigration has knocked hockey off its perch as the number one sport among teens in the city. Half of Toronto's population was born outside of Canada. Basketball, soccer, and even cricket are their sports of choice. The long term implications of this are probably at the root of MLSEL's opposition to another team in the area. And who can blame them? Although they are still top dog on the Toronto sports scene, and are the most profitable franchise in the league, down the road they may have to actually produce in order to maintain that status. This does not mean that they are in jeopardy, it's just that they will have to do more than just ice a team and print tickets to continue making record profits.

When I grew up in Scarborough during the 70s, almost everybody played hockey. Enrollment in the numerous hockey associations under the umbrella of the SHA was bursting at the seams. Today, the SHA is almost dead. There hasn't been a publicly funded ice pad built in the city for decades (it's not politically correct). And it's rare to see kids playing road hockey, something we did non-stop, like the scene in Wayne's World. When I was a kid, every street had its own team and we'd play tournaments against each other (complete with bench-clearing brawls...hey, it was the 70s). Today, instead of road hockey, it's kids shooting hoops.

Things have changed in Toronto. Its junior teams (Marlboros, St. Mikes Majors) have failed miserably, and attendance for the AHL Marlies has been pathetic. But the OHL is thriving in the rest of southern Ontario. Arenas in London, Kitchener, Guelph etc. (all within driving distance of Hamilton) are packed. Minor hockey programs are still going strong when you get outside of the Toronto city limits. I live in Durham region, east of Toronto, and youth hockey is booming out here (the 905 belt is also where much of the Leaf fan base now resides). The results are obvious: The OHL always has a significant number of players selected in the NHL draft, but considering Toronto has almost 1/4 of Ontario's population (2.5 of 11.4M) it's astounding how few of the Ontario kids drafted are actually from the city.

Hamilton (or K/W) would have a base of about 3.5M to draw from. Although I can understand the Leafs opposing another team in the area, it's extremely unfair of the NHL to protect the interests of MLSEL by denying the huge number of hockey-mad people in southwestern Ontario a team within driving distance. There isn't a better hockey market anywhere.

The question is: What's more important to the NHL?

Maintaining the insane profits of the Teachers Pension Fund, or meeting the needs of passionate hockey fans?
who though controls much of the arenas in Toronto, especially if it's already a division of MLSE, bleeney?

remember the Lyle Abraham experiment of having a non-Leaf affiliate in TO, HOW well did that work once the Oilers were in effectively locked out of Toronto AFTER almost ending Hamilton's franchise.... Had Montreal not had the support in Quebec (OR THE FRANCHISE, to keep hockey in Hamilton), would there be hockey for Balsillie to place his franchise there because the Bulldogs franchise would still be owned by the Oilers and not be potentially on its way to OKC

CHRDANHUTCH is offline  
Old
08-23-2009, 11:15 AM
  #118
Northern Dancer
Registered User
 
Northern Dancer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,710
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
This is where the disconnect happens for me.

A business cannot be worth more than what it might actually bring in in terms of revenue, profits or some other established metric.

In order for an indemnity fee to have some teeth, should it not be based on what realistic damages/losses would be to the team receiving the indemnity? To push the point, here's the definition of indemnity:


What would MLSE's losses be then?

As for the relocation fee, are you saying this is the difference between the cost of the franchise in one location vs the cost in the new location? In that sense, yes, there is a figure that is perhaps substantial, but it's going to be far less than the value of the Leafs or Habs, imo. (Thus not nearly as high as some here would state.)

Re: the arena. Copps arena already exists. If at some point it's reasonable to build a new arena, the owner and community can decide if that's in their best interests. It sure seems like cities like to get into arena building exercises, based on the 1990's trend.
Probably a poor choice of words by me. I should have said territorial rights not indemntify. I do not know if there is a legal difference but my idea of territorial rights is that is a fee someone receives for allowing a competeitor (in the same product) to set up business in their legally protected area. (in this case the NHL)

To me it is a fee that establised by whatever the market will bare, thetre is no financial test involved.

Go to post # 2 in this thread, kdb209 has done some excellent work on this.

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=632589

Northern Dancer is offline  
Old
08-23-2009, 12:00 PM
  #119
GSC2k2*
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourier View Post
A couple of points with respect to the backdating issue. First, I am not sure how the NHL could describe JB as being less than forthcoming wrt this process. RIM and its executives were the ones who took the lead on the investigation.
You are mistaken on this, it would seem. While RIM agreed to do a "voluntary internal examination", you should not take that to mean anything other than the fact that their external auditors finally caught wind of what they were doing and demanded a series of financial statement re-statements. You should not take from that the idea that the RIM executives were blissfully unaware of the illegality of what they were doing.

The facts are laid out by the SEC in detail here:

http://docs.bmcgroup.com/phoenixcoyo...9488_586_3.pdf

Once you wade past the legal detail (ie the resultant misleading and inaccurate financials, etc and all that), you get to the nitty-gritty of the actual goings on within RIM. I recommend that you read them carefully and judge for yourself whether they square with the public spinning that RIM has engaged in on this matter.

The options-backdating went on for many years, with the full knowledge and direct participation of JB (and not merely in the sense of his being responsible for his direct reports). The record seems to be clear that everyone knew what they were doing, and that they intentionally concealed it by undertaking active steps (as opposed to merely passive steps like acts of omission) in that regard.

Quote:
The settlements in both Canada and the US note that the parties were co-operative. And as far as Balsillies public stance on the issue I know of no where where anyone suggested that JB's position at RIM was ever in serious doubt. But they did not hide the issue in any way. The company and the parties position was always that it was a serious error that would be appropriately dealt with.
Except that it was not a serious "error". It was a deliberate course of conduct. They were breaking the law, it is understood. What the record also indicates in clear fashion is that they KNEW they were breaking the law.

They hid the issue for 8 years, and actively did so. Once the auditors realized that the financials had accordingly been screwed, there was no way to hide it anyway.

Quote:
So if the NHL wass being "hoodwinked" on this one it could only be because no one on the Executive Committee had ever read a news paper and the league is completely unaware of this thing called Google.
In truth, Fourier, the way that the NHL would have been hoodwinked is in reading the newspapers and this thing called Google. As well, I would note that, at the time of the Pitt transaction when JB was telling them it was a "non-issue", there was not that much out there in the public domain. The settlement occurred only this year. Unless the Executive Committee had a time machine in 2007, it would be hard for them to rely on anything other than JB's representations at the time of his interview in 2006.
Quote:
As for your statement ..."despite the fact that the SEC findings directly contradict that "theory" ". You are no doubt aware that in this whole process any findings of intentional misconduct were targeted at Kavelman and Loberto, not at Balsillie or Lazaridis.
Not the case. Read and judge for yourself, as noted in the link above.
Quote:
As far as I know neither of these individuals was involved in Balsillie's bid to buy any NHL team. Furthermore, both cases were settled without admissions to any of the claims.
Not the case. THe SEC matters were settled without admissions, but that is because the OSC handled it. THe OSC settlement agreement was made on a without-prejudice basis with respect to any other proceedings, but not regarding the present one. THe parties agreed to the admission of all of the claims set forht in the settlement agreement.

http://www.osc.gov.on.ca/Enforcement...090127_rim.pdf
Quote:
As such where is it that Balsillie was being less than forthcoming wrt to his part in the affair during his dealings with the NHL.
Assuming that you read the links posted above, the answer to your question should be self-evident to a reasonable observer like you. If you can read all that and characterize the affair as a "non-issue", then we have a fundamental disagreement as to the meaning of that phrase.

Quote:
I also find it curious that you wrote:


I have to assume that the added ED: was not to suggest that by virtue of the fact that JB has an undergraduate accounting degree, he should have known about the issues asscociated with backdating. I say this because to say otherwise would be akin to suggesting that someone who graduated from medical school but never practiced should in principle be able to perform heart surgery.
Firstly, JB does not merely have an accounting degree. He completed all of the requisite obligations as a chartered accountant. He even lists "chartered accountant" on his resume. He simply is not licensed to practice chartered accountancy (since he is "otherwise occupied", shall we say ). As you know, many lawyers and accountants transform themselves into businessmen, but I assure you that they do not lose their legal/accounting backgrounds, in the sense that that background always forms a certain inescapable portion of the prism through which they see things (even if no longer the dominant aspect).

Secondly, your analogy is significantly misplaced. An officer knowing about his company's options granting requirements (particularly as they impact his own options) is in no way analogous to heart surgery. The better analogy would be whether a doctor who engages in family practice can prescribe Advil for a headache.

Thirdly, the record indicates that it was not an issue as to whether JB was aware of the backdating restrictions. Based on my reading of the evidence, it strains credulity to suggest that he was not aware.

Fourthly, the US GAAP vs CDN GAAP matter is a smokescreen which JB has used. The fact that RIM's options backdating created a disconnect between US and CDN GAAP requirements is merely a side effect to the misconduct. Whether JB knew of those GAAP differences is hardly the point. He was still involved in backdating options, which is in itself a violation of the securities rules. The fact that he was not fully aware of the accounting repercussions from that misconduct is irrelevant (although it is still itself a serious offence, don't get me wrong). To use a crude analogy of my own, it would be akin to a company giving bribes to someone to secure contracts and then getting nailed for misleading accounting by not properly recording those bribes in its accounting books, and the party responsible saying "well, how was I to know that it violated accounting rules?". Admittedly that is a crude analogy, but I am sure you get the gist of my point.

GSC2k2* is offline  
Old
08-23-2009, 12:16 PM
  #120
GSC2k2*
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
I don't think that figure can hold up in a bankruptcy court. If the team truly folded, Glendale would be left with nothing. Hence, this number also has to reflect the fact that nothing in life is guaranteed. Having made an "investment," Glendale is also at the mercy of market and economic conditions. I'm sure that bankruptcy courts have to deal with these matters all the time. Having said that, my gut says Glendale won't see anything remotely close to $500 MM if it ever comes to having the lease terminated in bankruptcy court.
You should be aware that the amount cited by the city of glendale is structured as a "liquidated damage" claim pursuant to the terms of the arena contract.

Under the law, liquidated damage claims are not subjected to the rules governing proof of damages, including your example of discounting for probability of outcomes. The law is pretty clear on this issue. What the damaged party simply has to do is to demonstrate that the damages are not based on a formula that is so wildly disconnected to the actual damages that it amounts to a de facto penalty clause.

In other words, the city in this case does not have to prove that their damages are equivalent to what the contractual formula provides. All they have to do is demonstrate that it is based on a formula that can calculate damages that are somewhere in the ballpark. As long as it is in the ballpark, the liquidated damages are fully enforceable, even if they are arguably significantly overstated. That is the law, and it really is pretty settled law at that. It also makes common sense, as one of the prime tenets of contractual law is that the courts should give deference to the ability of parties to contract freely with one another to the extent possible. IF the parties have freely agreed to a formula for damages in advance that, while inaccurate, was at least based on a reasonable effort by both parties to pre-estimate it and thereby establish their respective risks, the law provides that such a bargain is enforceable.

GSC2k2* is offline  
Old
08-23-2009, 12:42 PM
  #121
GSC2k2*
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bleeney View Post
While Toronto might have "marquee" value as opposed to Hamilton, I wouldn't necessarily call it a bigger market, at least not as far as hockey is concerned. The rapidly changing demographic of Toronto due to immigration has knocked hockey off its perch as the number one sport among teens in the city. Half of Toronto's population was born outside of Canada. Basketball, soccer, and even cricket are their sports of choice. The long term implications of this are probably at the root of MLSEL's opposition to another team in the area. And who can blame them? Although they are still top dog on the Toronto sports scene, and are the most profitable franchise in the league, down the road they may have to actually produce in order to maintain that status. This does not mean that they are in jeopardy, it's just that they will have to do more than just ice a team and print tickets to continue making record profits.

When I grew up in Scarborough during the 70s, almost everybody played hockey. Enrollment in the numerous hockey associations under the umbrella of the SHA was bursting at the seams. Today, the SHA is almost dead. There hasn't been a publicly funded ice pad built in the city for decades (it's not politically correct). And it's rare to see kids playing road hockey, something we did non-stop, like the scene in Wayne's World. When I was a kid, every street had its own team and we'd play tournaments against each other (complete with bench-clearing brawls...hey, it was the 70s). Today, instead of road hockey, it's kids shooting hoops.

Things have changed in Toronto. Its junior teams (Marlboros, St. Mikes Majors) have failed miserably, and attendance for the AHL Marlies has been pathetic. But the OHL is thriving in the rest of southern Ontario. Arenas in London, Kitchener, Guelph etc. (all within driving distance of Hamilton) are packed. Minor hockey programs are still going strong when you get outside of the Toronto city limits. I live in Durham region, east of Toronto, and youth hockey is booming out here (the 905 belt is also where much of the Leaf fan base now resides). The results are obvious: The OHL always has a significant number of players selected in the NHL draft, but considering Toronto has almost 1/4 of Ontario's population (2.5 of 11.4M) it's astounding how few of the Ontario kids drafted are actually from the city.

Hamilton (or K/W) would have a base of about 3.5M to draw from. Although I can understand the Leafs opposing another team in the area, it's extremely unfair of the NHL to protect the interests of MLSEL by denying the huge number of hockey-mad people in southwestern Ontario a team within driving distance. There isn't a better hockey market anywhere.

The question is: What's more important to the NHL?

Maintaining the insane profits of the Teachers Pension Fund, or meeting the needs of passionate hockey fans?
Mod: deleted.

The GTA is a hockey hotbed, but wait, it isn't, because hockey is on the downswing among kids and because of the influx of immigrants.

Hamilton would have a base of 3.5 mil to draw from, but in the biggest chunk of that drawing base (the city of Toronto), hockey is on the downswing among kids.

There is support for NHL teams here because the suburb OHL teams "are packed". Yet, whenever the question of AHL teams drawing poorly in a market (such as the Hamilton Bulldogs) has been mentioned, the standard response has been "well, you can't tell anything about a market from AHL attendance, look at TO And the Marlies; the Marlies do poorly but the Leafs are the king of hockey financial powers!!"

This post has some salient posts, but the thought process is all over the place. IT is arguable that this is a post against the idea of another Southern Ontario franchise, although I am positive that Bleeney does not intend it to be so.


Last edited by Fugu: 08-23-2009 at 02:23 PM. Reason: I don't see any 'due respect" just because it says so...
GSC2k2* is offline  
Old
08-23-2009, 01:05 PM
  #122
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 13,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Dancer View Post
Probably a poor choice of words by me. I should have said territorial rights not indemntify. I do not know if there is a legal difference but my idea of territorial rights is that is a fee someone receives for allowing a competeitor (in the same product) to set up business in their legally protected area. (in this case the NHL)

To me it is a fee that establised by whatever the market will bare, thetre is no financial test involved.

Go to post # 2 in this thread, kdb209 has done some excellent work on this.

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=632589
There are two categories of possible fees considered in the NHL Constitution:

a) Fees to the league for the value of the market opportunity in the new location [transfer fees]

b) Fees to individual teams for moving into their territory [indemnification fees]


The Judge has said that transfer fees are allowed, but has not said anything on indemnification fees TMK. JB's purchase agreement requires the court to rule there are no indemnification fees allowed.

mouser is online now  
Old
08-23-2009, 01:16 PM
  #123
bbud
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,684
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eliostar View Post
The people who run the league want to have a national league, not a regional one.
They want to have a presence in those markets are are not going to a throw in the
towel because of a few setbacks. I don't think they envision a league that operates franchises in places like Hamilton or Saskatoon, at the expense of the likes of Atlanta
or Florida. I doubt they care what the commissioner knows about hockey, as long as he knows business . Some fans have a hard time coming to grips with the fact that the NHL is a business first and foremost.
They have a National league what would 2 more teams in Canada do to make it regional i am lost on that argument and it is business why not make money where they can instead of lose more where they are? that is not smart business.
And i agree they dont care about fans as long as the work is done the way they like and fans are taking notice, but they will cut the hand that feeds them .

bbud is offline  
Old
08-23-2009, 01:19 PM
  #124
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 60,086
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mouser View Post
There are two categories of possible fees considered in the NHL Constitution:

a) Fees to the league for the value of the market opportunity in the new location [transfer fees]

b) Fees to individual teams for moving into their territory [indemnification fees]


The Judge has said that transfer fees are allowed, but has not said anything on indemnification fees TMK. JB's purchase agreement requires the court to rule there are no indemnification fees allowed.
I believe Baum has acknowledged there are territory indemnification fees as well based on legal precedent.

Where the problem comes is that he's willing to rule on "reasonable" (in the case of indemnification). So while $25mm was paid to LA by the Ducks like 15 years ago, what's a reasonable fee for Buffalo ($100m?) and Toronto ($200m?).

JB's original APA rejected payment of both transfer and indemnification fees.

LadyStanley is offline  
Old
08-23-2009, 01:40 PM
  #125
Death128
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 107
vCash: 1175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazy_Ike View Post
How much do you think it would cost to install a new "fabled Montreal Canadiens" from scratch? In Montreal, with the current Canadiens already there?

Understand now?

It's not "worth more" than the Canadiens, its just how much it costs to break the lease and start a team up.
Isn't this where the antitrust laws come in?

Death128 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 03:11 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.