HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

Phoenix bankruptcy/ownership Part XVI: Barbarian at the Gate

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-02-2009, 01:24 PM
  #101
cleduc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,801
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Egil View Post
Bresnik's twitter implies that the judge doesn't take Lepold's testimony seriously, which is most of if not all of the NHL's justification. Balsille has also admitted a mistake with the Predators in Hamilton stuff, which hurts, not helps, the reasoning of a poor business partner used by the NHL.
The term sheet the judge was asking for re Leipold was in the court filings. I think Leipold is on pretty steady ground there. Balsillie tried to change that deal.

cleduc is offline  
Old
09-02-2009, 01:24 PM
  #102
CGG
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 416
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,275
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnashville View Post
He was not. The local group had the bid but it would have been highly financed. More like his bid was brought in by Leipold to avoid them financing it more. He was at that time was thought to be a billionaire.
Ya, I don't think anyone ever accused Boots of being a billionaire. Kinda hard to stomach two separate NHL owners having to lend the guy $17 million, which would amount to pocket change for the average "billionaire".

It was documented somewhere that Gary brought in Boots to save the day, and even bragged about it afterwards, how good of a deal it was, etc. No doubt in my mind that Nashville was supposed to fail, at which point Gary and Boots would have moved them to KC. Let's not forget, Boots was under contract with AEG at the time to find a tenant for the KC arena.

CGG is offline  
Old
09-02-2009, 01:26 PM
  #103
CGG
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 416
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,275
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cleduc View Post
The term sheet the judge was asking for re Leipold was in the court filings. I think Leipold is on pretty steady ground there. Balsillie tried to change that deal.
Daly also admitted in his deposition that JB was perfectly within his rights to walk away from that deal and refuse to put up the non-refundable $10 million.

CGG is offline  
Old
09-02-2009, 01:26 PM
  #104
ComrieFanatic
Registered User
 
ComrieFanatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 6,647
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnashville View Post
He was not. The local group had the bid but it would have been highly financed. More like his bid was brought in by Leipold to avoid them financing it more. He was at that time was thought to be a billionaire.
I've having trouble finding a good article that states what was in it for Del Baggio. Did he at all stand to benefit from the team failing?

ComrieFanatic is offline  
Old
09-02-2009, 01:26 PM
  #105
Don LXXIX
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: SoCal
Posts: 78
vCash: 500
however there is precedent for the court and the NHL rejecting Basillie....if it is done fairly....there seems to be no precedent for a court to force an applicant into the league against their wishes.

Don LXXIX is offline  
Old
09-02-2009, 01:27 PM
  #106
Egil
Registered User
 
Egil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 8,832
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkrdevil View Post
While not in a bankruptcy situation Levin v NBA held that owners can choose their ownership partners and can reject an owner for any reason or no reason at all provided it isn't illegal. Mid-South Grizzlies v NFL used the same principle in its rulings. The NHL cited both cases in its brief.

So if the judge does rule in favor of the NHL he will probably lean on those previous cases.
a) Neither was in Bankruptcy
b) The leagues in question were not bidding for those teams.

Both make very large differences to the case, and ruling like that would be precedent setting. I can see the judge rejecting Balsille bid on the relocation issue while rejecting the NHL's blocking of membership (hence Balsille would be allowed to bid on the team with no relo). But I just can't see the judge ruling sure you can reject bidders for no reason and then bid yourselves for less money.

Setting the precedent that an interested party that stands to profit from rejecting a larger bid by bidding themselves would be a disastrous ruling and would get exploited in other no sport areas.

Egil is offline  
Old
09-02-2009, 01:27 PM
  #107
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,517
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rj View Post
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.
No. Raiders dealt with a relocation by an existing owner, not the approval of a new owner.

There however is precedent in rejecting an owner on arbitrary grounds (Fishman v Estate of Wirtz, Levin v NBA, Mid South Grizzlies v NFL). The court in Levin held that it was not an anti trust violation to reject an owner for any reason (or no reason) as long as that reason wasn't in violation of other laws (ie civil rights discrimination).

kdb209 is online now  
Old
09-02-2009, 01:29 PM
  #108
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
Please keep the discussions re: Nashville/Boots related to the topic at hand which is the situation in Phoenix.

Snoil11 is offline  
Old
09-02-2009, 01:34 PM
  #109
RR
Moderator
 
RR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Cave Creek, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 8,086
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Egil View Post
a) Neither was in Bankruptcy
b) The leagues in question were not bidding for those teams.

Both make very large differences to the case, and ruling like that would be precedent setting. I can see the judge rejecting Balsille bid on the relocation issue while rejecting the NHL's blocking of membership (hence Balsille would be allowed to bid on the team with no relo). But I just can't see the judge ruling sure you can reject bidders for no reason and then bid yourselves for less money.

Setting the precedent that an interested party that stands to profit from rejecting a larger bid by bidding themselves would be a disastrous ruling and would get exploited in other no sport areas.
The NHL would not profit. It would incur additional expenses in running the team and if it sells above the bid price that profit goes to the estate.

RR is offline  
Old
09-02-2009, 01:35 PM
  #110
WhipNash27
Quattro!!
 
WhipNash27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westchester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 15,533
vCash: 500
IMO the fact that the NHL is making their own lower bid to stop a higher bid should make the NHL lose. There's no way that should be allowed and if it is, IMO it would set a dangerous precedent. If the NHL was bidding more than Balsillie then it'd be another story. The only thing that would make it work out properly is that Balsillie is bidding on the condition of moving the team. That IMO is the only way the NHL gets out of this.

WhipNash27 is offline  
Old
09-02-2009, 01:35 PM
  #111
RR
Moderator
 
RR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Cave Creek, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 8,086
vCash: 500
from HCKYFAN:

"During the break I took the time to go to the bathroom and actually witnessed a handshake between Bettman and Balsille."

RR is offline  
Old
09-02-2009, 01:35 PM
  #112
Egil
Registered User
 
Egil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 8,832
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209 View Post
No. Raiders dealt with a relocation by an existing owner, not the approval of a new owner.

There however is precedent in rejecting an owner on arbitrary grounds (Fishman v Estate of Wirtz, Levin v NBA, Mid South Grizzlies v NFL). The court in Levin held that it was not an anti trust violation to reject an owner for any reason (or no reason) as long as that reason wasn't in violation of other laws (ie civil rights discrimination).
I think the NHL bidding themselves and the bankruptcy makes these nothing more than a useful starting point for the current situation.

Anyways, it be back on in the courtroom

Coyotes BK: JB's atty Susan Freeman at bat. Offers up JB to testify about Leipold offer.

Egil is offline  
Old
09-02-2009, 01:36 PM
  #113
Alberta Yote
Owns the Yotes
 
Alberta Yote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In your kitchen
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,697
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RousselRising View Post
from HCKYFAN:

"During the break I took the time to go to the bathroom and actually witnessed a handshake between Bettman and Balsille."
There's your side deal, let's wrap this up now.

Now, any report on whether either washed their hands prior to said handshake?

Alberta Yote is offline  
Old
09-02-2009, 01:37 PM
  #114
CGG
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 416
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,275
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RousselRising View Post
The NHL would not profit. It would incur additional expenses in running the team and if it sells above the bid price that profit goes to the estate.
Wrong. Relocation fees aren't included in the "Profit". So if the NHL sells the team to KC for $240 million, the estate gets $0 extra as the deal would be structured as $140 million for the team and a $100 million relo fee.

CGG is offline  
Old
09-02-2009, 01:37 PM
  #115
ComrieFanatic
Registered User
 
ComrieFanatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 6,647
vCash: 500
Back to Bettman's new clause of giving net profits to the creditors: Does the NHL's have a deal to re-pay the creditors up front or will the repayment be made with profits from the sale of the team?

ComrieFanatic is offline  
Old
09-02-2009, 01:38 PM
  #116
RR
Moderator
 
RR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Cave Creek, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 8,086
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CGG View Post
Wrong. Relocation fees aren't included in the "Profit". So if the NHL sells the team to KC for $240 million, the estate gets $0 extra as the deal would be structured as $140 million for the team and a $100 million relo fee.
Didn't say they did.

RR is offline  
Old
09-02-2009, 01:39 PM
  #117
Richter35
Registered User
 
Richter35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,361
vCash: 500
the handshake sounds VERY interesting. it hasn't seemed up until now the Gary and JB are buddies.

Richter35 is offline  
Old
09-02-2009, 01:41 PM
  #118
ComrieFanatic
Registered User
 
ComrieFanatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 6,647
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CGG View Post
Wrong. Relocation fees aren't included in the "Profit". So if the NHL sells the team to KC for $240 million, the estate gets $0 extra as the deal would be structured as $140 million for the team and a $100 million relo fee.
I think that is why it's important that they determine the fair value for relocation before anything is decided on. I'm sure the judge and the creditors are well aware of the fact that relocation fees aren't included as profit.

ComrieFanatic is offline  
Old
09-02-2009, 01:41 PM
  #119
CGG
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 416
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,275
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RousselRising View Post
Didn't say they did.
You said the NHL wouldn't profit, I was merely pointing out that they certainly would profit, thanks to that asterisk about the relocation fees not counting towards the Net Profit calcluation that goes to the estate.

CGG is offline  
Old
09-02-2009, 01:42 PM
  #120
RR
Moderator
 
RR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Cave Creek, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 8,086
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ComrieFanatic View Post
Back to Bettman's new clause of giving net profits to the creditors: Does the NHL's have a deal to re-pay thecreditors up front or will the repayment be made with the relocation profits?
AIUI, NHL claims its $140M bid makes all creditors whole (less Grtezky and Moyes). The "profit" issue is if the league sells the team for more than $140M (relo fee not included) it gives those profits to the bankrupt estate.

RR is offline  
Old
09-02-2009, 01:42 PM
  #121
Egil
Registered User
 
Egil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 8,832
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richter35 View Post
the handshake sounds VERY interesting. it hasn't seemed up until now the Gary and JB are buddies.
My guess is that both of them love the battle, like how two opposing generals in a battle often have respect for the other, even though they want to quash them like insects.

Egil is offline  
Old
09-02-2009, 01:44 PM
  #122
jkrdevil
UnRegistered User
 
jkrdevil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 30,568
vCash: 500
anyone know how long this hearing is supposed to last?

jkrdevil is offline  
Old
09-02-2009, 01:44 PM
  #123
Egil
Registered User
 
Egil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 8,832
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RousselRising View Post
AIUI, NHL claims its $140M bid makes all creditors whole (less Grtezky and Moyes). The "profit" issue is if the league sells the team for more than $140M (relo fee not included) it gives those profits to the bankrupt estate.
Has the judge ruled on Moyes claim yet (you always seem to assume it isn't valid but I don't think that has been decided).

Egil is offline  
Old
09-02-2009, 01:44 PM
  #124
NotBad*
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,728
vCash: 500
Big Buisness is Big Buisness.

Heck I went golfing with the guy who orchestrated a hostile take over of my company.... I took enjoyment of marrying his daughter

NotBad* is offline  
Old
09-02-2009, 01:45 PM
  #125
Egil
Registered User
 
Egil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 8,832
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkrdevil View Post
anyone know how long this hearing is supposed to last?
All day I think. Resnik suggests they are scheduled to discuss every issue except the Glendale lease.

Egil 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 02:12 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.