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 XVI: Barbarian at the Gate

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-02-2009, 12:40 PM
  #51
Egil
Registered User
 
Egil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 8,832
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkrdevil View Post
It seems right now the the JB camp is having difficulties on getting Baum to bite on the veto theory. It also seems that their argument hinges on it.

Remains to be seen how the rest plays out.
It will be interesting, as it is certainly going to be almost impossible for JB and co to prove the Toronto Veto.

Egil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2009, 12:41 PM
  #52
rj
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Indiana
Posts: 1,137
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by lillypad33 View Post
Coyotes BK: JB atty cites March 07 email from Nville exex to Rodier saying moving to Ham is a problem, moving to KC isn't.

This is the reason why they're in court....
Nothing to do with Glendale.... everything to do with who gets to move them.
Yup, AEG and their arena that needs a tenant.

rj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2009, 12:41 PM
  #53
ComrieFanatic
Registered User
 
ComrieFanatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 6,669
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kivaerijo View Post
biaggio never HAD the team. he was a partial owner. it had more to do with the local ownership coming about and apparently leipold not liking balls way of business
This is from Wikipedia:

"The sale of the Predators to the Tennessee-based group was made possible after Del Biaggio agreed to enter into a partnership with the locally-based buyers. Under the terms of the agreement, Del Biaggio and a minority partner acquired about 27% of the club. Del Biaggio is said to have obtained limited concessions from his new partners and the league in exchange for his involvement, including:

* The right to buy out the other owners if the club incurred significant losses.
* The right to sell his stake to the other owners if and when the club became financially stable.
* The right to claim his share of any profits combined with full immunity from any cash calls that might be necessary"

The first two clauses imply to me that if the team had continued to fail, he had the right to buy out the owners and move them to KC. If they were successful, he wanted nothing to do with Nashville, and would be able to sell his stake to the rest of the owners. So pretty much he was helping the NHL by getting rid of JB and saving face by having a group with interests to keep the team in Nashville, while having full control over a potential move to KC. I may be interpreting this all wrong, but it appears to me that this deal is very similar to the one that JB wanted with Pittsburgh, expect the NHL wanted to forced him to sell the Pens back to the NHL if they were to fail after 7 years.

ComrieFanatic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2009, 12:42 PM
  #54
kivaerijo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: EastNashville
Country: United States
Posts: 1,394
vCash: 500
lilly pad,
by that statement, it doesnt seem it was about who gets the team, but where they were relocating to.

kivaerijo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2009, 12:42 PM
  #55
AZCOYOT
Registered User
 
AZCOYOT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Mesa, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 1,417
vCash: 500
I'm going to bet the judge decides nothing today..

AZCOYOT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2009, 12:45 PM
  #56
ComrieFanatic
Registered User
 
ComrieFanatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 6,669
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snoil11 View Post
What massive increase are you expecting that would benefit the league as a whole and not just the owner of said team?
An increase in team revenue means higher profits, which leads to more money being added to the revenue sharing program. Aside from that, having more successful franchises will help grow the league and increase franchise values around the league - Sponsors, and TV networks will have to pay more for rights if the league as a whole is more successful.

Also, while the NHLPA isn't involved in this matter, they would also gain from increased revenues since the salary cap is linked to league revenues.

ComrieFanatic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2009, 12:46 PM
  #57
kivaerijo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: EastNashville
Country: United States
Posts: 1,394
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ComrieFanatic View Post
This is from Wikipedia:

"The sale of the Predators to the Tennessee-based group was made possible after Del Biaggio agreed to enter into a partnership with the locally-based buyers. Under the terms of the agreement, Del Biaggio and a minority partner acquired about 27% of the club. Del Biaggio is said to have obtained limited concessions from his new partners and the league in exchange for his involvement, including:

* The right to buy out the other owners if the club incurred significant losses.
* The right to sell his stake to the other owners if and when the club became financially stable.
* The right to claim his share of any profits combined with full immunity from any cash calls that might be necessary"

The first two clauses imply to me that if the team had continued to fail, he had the right to buy out the owners and move them to KC. If they were successful, he wanted nothing to do with Nashville, and would be able to sell his stake to the rest of the owners. So pretty much he was helping the NHL by getting rid of JB and saving face by having a group with interests to keep the team in Nashville, while having full control over a potential move to KC. I may be interpreting this all wrong, but it appears to me that this deal is very similar to the one that JB wanted with Pittsburgh, expect the NHL wanted to forced him to sell the Pens back to the NHL if they were to fail after 7 years.
and the major word there that i see, is the "IS SAID TO HAVE".

its wikipedia, dont believe all of it.

all i am saying, is from your original post, the league didnt HAND him the team

kivaerijo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2009, 12:46 PM
  #58
Egil
Registered User
 
Egil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 8,832
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phogary Flayotes View Post
I'm going to bet the judge decides nothing today..
I think that was obvious like last month when he decided nothing

Egil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2009, 12:46 PM
  #59
WhipNash27
Quattro!!
 
WhipNash27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westchester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 16,525
vCash: 500
TSN also has a live stream going if anyone's interested:
http://tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=289668#YourCallTop

WhipNash27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2009, 12:46 PM
  #60
CanadianCommie
Cold North Comrade
 
CanadianCommie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Sherwood Park, AB
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,571
vCash: 500
the TO veto thing was probably a really bad angle to tackle.

CanadianCommie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2009, 12:47 PM
  #61
lillypad33
Registered User
 
lillypad33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Kitchener
Country: Canada
Posts: 336
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kivaerijo View Post
lilly pad,
by that statement, it doesnt seem it was about who gets the team, but where they were relocating to.
Exactly!
It's about the BOG selling to their buddies in K.C.

lillypad33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2009, 12:47 PM
  #62
CGG
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 416
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,447
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkrdevil View Post
It seems right now the the JB camp is having difficulties on getting Baum to bite on the veto theory. It also seems that their argument hinges on it.
Remains to be seen how the rest plays out.
There's also the argument that the NHL is only using their power to force through what's in their own best interests, first the Jerry bid, now their own bid, at the expense of the creditors. Conflict of interest if one of the bidding parties can rule out all other bids on the vaguely worded and highly subjective grounds of character and integrity.

CGG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2009, 12:48 PM
  #63
jkrdevil
UnRegistered User
 
jkrdevil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 30,790
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Egil View Post
It will be interesting, as it is certainly going to be almost impossible for JB and co to prove the Toronto Veto.
It is going to be near impossible because they are basically going to have to try and prove a negative.

I think if JB losses his undoing will be the Preds ticket sale in Hamilton. It goes back to what I said a while back ago, if you know you are facing resistance and may have to depend on antitrust laws to force your way in it is a good idea not to give them any reason to reject you outright as an owner. With the ticket sale he may have given the NHL a solid reason to reject him outright and at least hide the TO issue.

jkrdevil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2009, 12:50 PM
  #64
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 ComrieFanatic View Post
An increase in team revenue means higher profits, which leads to more money being added to the revenue sharing program. Aside from that, having more successful franchises will help grow the league and increase franchise values around the league - Sponsors, and TV networks will have to pay more for rights if the league as a whole is more successful.
This does not have to be beneficial to the teams, as was demonstrated by mouser, kdb and others in one of the earlier editions of the saga.

Snoil11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2009, 12:50 PM
  #65
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,908
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snoil11 View Post
What massive increase are you expecting that would benefit the league as a whole and not just the owner of said team?
Over-all league revenues increase and there is one less team receiving money for revenue sharing?

The NHLPA supported the move to Hamilton:
Quote:
Moreover, Kelly's group, with Healy mostly leading the charge, had taken a far broader interest in player safety issues; and in enhancing the quality of the on-ice product. They also sided publicly with the move to shift the money-losing Phoenix Coyotes to southern Ontario, on the grounds that if the players and owners were really, truly partners, then it was up to the league to maximize its revenue potential and anyone with half-a-brain in their head can conclude that the Toronto/Hamilton/Kitchener axis would be far more profitable than to pour another $30-million down the drain this year in that money pit known as the Coyotes.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...rticle1270789/

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2009, 12:53 PM
  #66
LeftCoast
Registered User
 
LeftCoast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,147
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by CGG View Post
There's also the argument that the NHL is only using their power to force through what's in their own best interests, first the Jerry bid, now their own bid, at the expense of the creditors. Conflict of interest if one of the bidding parties can rule out all other bids on the vaguely worded and highly subjective grounds of character and integrity.
I think this is the most compelling story. The NHL is acting as a creditor, bidder at auction and holds a veto over other bids. The ability to exercise a veto on the basis of "character and integrity issues" how can the auction process possibly serve the primary interest of the court in maximizing the returns to other creditors.

LeftCoast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2009, 12:53 PM
  #67
ComrieFanatic
Registered User
 
ComrieFanatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 6,669
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kivaerijo View Post
and the major word there that i see, is the "IS SAID TO HAVE".

its wikipedia, dont believe all of it.

all i am saying, is from your original post, the league didnt HAND him the team
No, they didn't "hand" him the team, but they seemed to make quite a few concessions, something they were unwilling to do with JB, and still aren't willing to make.

ComrieFanatic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2009, 12:53 PM
  #68
jkrdevil
UnRegistered User
 
jkrdevil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 30,790
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
Over-all league revenues increase and there is one less team receiving money for revenue sharing?

The NHLPA supported the move to Hamilton:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...rticle1270789/
First Kelly quickly backed off those statements.

Second, my understanding of how the NHL revenue sharing works is that the top 5 pay the bottom 5. Thus there would be no team off of revenue sharing just a new team would replace the Coyotes (if they no longer need it).

jkrdevil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2009, 12:54 PM
  #69
lillypad33
Registered User
 
lillypad33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Kitchener
Country: Canada
Posts: 336
vCash: 500
Seems like the judge has not accepted the Leopold testimony or the Veto testimony.... So actually nothing has happened yet?

lillypad33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2009, 12:56 PM
  #70
ComrieFanatic
Registered User
 
ComrieFanatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 6,669
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snoil11 View Post
This does not have to be beneficial to the teams, as was demonstrated by mouser, kdb and others in one of the earlier editions of the saga.
I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

ComrieFanatic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2009, 12:58 PM
  #71
rj
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Indiana
Posts: 1,137
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftCoast View Post
I think this is the most compelling story. The NHL is acting as a creditor, bidder at auction and holds a veto over other bids. The ability to exercise a veto on the basis of "character and integrity issues" how can the auction process possibly serve the primary interest of the court in maximizing the returns to other creditors.
It's a cartel acting as a cartel acts.

Quote:
Coyotes: Judge w/ BIG question: Nobody's found a case that forces a new member into a sports league that doesn't want him?
Couldn't the NFL-Al Davis lawsuit from the 1970s or 1980s be considered a precedent? That was where Davis sued to move to Los Angeles and the NFL didn't want him to, so Davis won a lawsuit and was able to move his team.

rj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2009, 12:58 PM
  #72
CGG
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 416
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,447
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ComrieFanatic View Post
I don't understand what you are trying to say here.
The point they try to make is that increasing overall revenues does not help all teams, since it drives up salary cap, etc. The very fact that some people (and possibly by extension, some owners) are actually arguing to have teams in crappy money-losing markets instead of prime revenue-generating markets in order to keep the salary cap down is a prime example of how screwed up this league really is.

CGG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2009, 12:58 PM
  #73
jkrdevil
UnRegistered User
 
jkrdevil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 30,790
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by lillypad33 View Post
Seems like the judge has not accepted the Leopold testimony or the Veto testimony.... So actually nothing has happened yet?
Well I would say so far it is looking better for the league than Balsillie, while he questioned Liepolds testimony he has also questioned JB pretty hard on the Hamilton Preds ticket sale, evidence of a leafs veto, and now precedent for the court to force an owner upon the league (which JB's team says this would have to be the first).

jkrdevil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2009, 01:00 PM
  #74
lillypad33
Registered User
 
lillypad33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Kitchener
Country: Canada
Posts: 336
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkrdevil View Post
Well I would say so far it is looking better for the league than Balsillie, while he questioned Liepolds testimony he has also questioned JB pretty hard on the Hamilton Preds ticket sale, evidence of a leafs veto, and now precedent for the court to force an owner upon the league (which JB's team says this would have to be the first).
Yes... I'm almost guessing that he's going to throw out Jim's bid in the next couple of minutes based on the precedent...

lillypad33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2009, 01:02 PM
  #75
ComrieFanatic
Registered User
 
ComrieFanatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 6,669
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkrdevil View Post
First Kelly quickly backed off those statements.

Second, my understanding of how the NHL revenue sharing works is that the top 5 pay the bottom 5. Thus there would be no team off of revenue sharing just a new team would replace the Coyotes (if they no longer need it).
My understanding of the revenue sharing program is that any team in the bottom half of revenues, with a market of under 2.5 million people, is eligible for revenue sharing.

ComrieFanatic is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 04:01 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.