HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
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 Part XIX: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Baum

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-12-2009, 06:31 PM
  #1
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 29,110
vCash: 500
Phoenix bankruptcy Part XIX: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Baum

A clever and bold examination of the male-psyche, set in the desert this time?

Not as grand a stage as an inter-continental pissing contest, but we ask..... Will Baum achieve the goal where no extremity is reached?


Continued from:
http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=679525


Last edited by mouser: 09-13-2009 at 10:07 AM. Reason: thread title capitalization
Fugu is offline  
Old
09-12-2009, 06:36 PM
  #2
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
A clever and bold examination of the male-psyche, set in the desert this time?

Not as grand a stage as an inter-continental pissing contest, but we ask..... Will Baum achieve the goal where no extremity is reached?


Continued from:
http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=679525
I have this bizarre vision of Slim Pickens as Major "King" Kong piggyback on Judge Baum

Can we expect "Noo-ku-lar Combat"?

Wetcoaster is offline  
Old
09-12-2009, 06:39 PM
  #3
billy blaze
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,480
vCash: 500
Veto

Nhl stated in court yesterday that the veto exists, clarified it exists for expansion not relocation, legal minds weigh in, can a distinction be made between the two, and does not the Maple Leafs holding veto threat over Hamilton possibly make it so any excuse will be used in further expansion ( should it happen) to not have the CCB weigh in, select anyone over Hamilton to keep the Leafs from exercising veto.

The veto threat is like the mob, the threat is more powerful sometimes than an action

billy blaze is offline  
Old
09-12-2009, 06:45 PM
  #4
Evil Doctor
Army Recruit
 
Evil Doctor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Cambridge, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,179
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
A clever and bold examination of the male-psyche, set in the desert this time?

Not as grand a stage as an inter-continental pissing contest, but we ask..... Will Baum achieve the goal where no extremity is reached?
Quite frankly I was a little perturbed when I came across this exchange...

Quote:

Balsillie: We want to know the ultimate answer...

Bettman: to bankruptcy...

Balsillie: relocation...

Bettman: and the ownership of the Phoenix Coyotes.

Baum: I have an answer...

Balisillie: You do? Well tell us!

Baum: But I have to take some time to think about it...

Bettman: Well how long will that take?

Baum: I will take 7 and a half....

Balsillie: What? Not until next Tuesday?

Baum: ...million years.

Balsillie and Bettman: HOW LONG???

Baum: I told you I had to think about it...

Evil Doctor is offline  
Old
09-12-2009, 06:50 PM
  #5
billy blaze
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,480
vCash: 500
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/sto...C-I78V04166919

Quote:
The NHL confirmed in court the Maple Leafs retain the right to veto the insertion of an expansion team in Hamilton, not an existing team seeking to relocate.
Brahm Resnick- Twitter

Quote:
Coyotes BK: Now on alleged Leafs veto. Judge: Why not fix NHL constitution if there's no veto? Goldfein: It refers to expansion, not relo.
9:55 AM Sep 2nd from UberTwitter


Last edited by billy blaze: 09-12-2009 at 07:03 PM.
billy blaze is offline  
Old
09-12-2009, 07:18 PM
  #6
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 55,453
vCash: 500
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/144296
Gretzky won't be behind the bench until he gets a new contract or ownership comes in that he'll be a part of.

LadyStanley is offline  
Old
09-12-2009, 08:20 PM
  #7
Eazy T
Registered User
 
Eazy T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,583
vCash: 500
I don't understand it; why does Baum delay the inevitable?
I was always under the impression we would find out who win the auction by friday? instead we have to wait again.

Eazy T is offline  
Old
09-12-2009, 08:30 PM
  #8
MsWoof
Registered User
 
MsWoof's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,839
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by House View Post
I don't understand it; why does Baum delay the inevitable?
I was always under the impression we would find out who win the auction by friday? instead we have to wait again.
What exactly is inevitable about it? We don't know which way he's going to rule. All this time hockey fans have been kept guessing because of all the submissions by both sides and Baum hasn't tipped his hand at all.

MsWoof is offline  
Old
09-12-2009, 08:46 PM
  #9
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by House View Post
I don't understand it; why does Baum delay the inevitable?
I was always under the impression we would find out who win the auction by friday? instead we have to wait again.
What do you not understand?

There are thousands of pages of documents, exhibits, depostions, testimony and now amended bids to be filed by Tuesday.

As Judge Baum noted in court on Friday:
"I have to make the decision and I have to write it, and whatever it is I have to write sufficiently enough that when those of you who are unhappy with it take it up to the appellate courts, they can understand the rationale," said Judge Baum. "And to say, "Judge, you ought to be able to do that in five business days,' I think that's unfair. I'm going to do it when I'm ready to do it."

Wetcoaster is offline  
Old
09-12-2009, 09:07 PM
  #10
popaclay
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 29
vCash: 500
Since the Leafs have already used their influence and essentially "vetoed" the move of the penguins by JB back in 2006, could the CCB not investigate that?

http://www.globalnational.com/story.html?id=1573800

popaclay is offline  
Old
09-12-2009, 09:17 PM
  #11
Crazy_Ike
Cookin' with fire.
 
Crazy_Ike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,501
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by popaclay View Post
Since the Leafs have already used their influence and essentially "vetoed" the move of the penguins by JB back in 2006, could the CCB not investigate that?
They already have and found nothing. Don't believe everything you read. Your link is missing critical context.

Crazy_Ike is offline  
Old
09-12-2009, 09:19 PM
  #12
Brodie
watcher on the walls
 
Brodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Michigan
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 12,091
vCash: 500
The titles just keep getting better

Brodie is offline  
Old
09-12-2009, 09:20 PM
  #13
popaclay
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 29
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazy_Ike View Post
They already have and found nothing. Don't believe everything you read. Your link is missing critical context.
Do you think that think that letter was available when the CCB did there initial investigation?

popaclay is offline  
Old
09-12-2009, 09:24 PM
  #14
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by popaclay View Post
Since the Leafs have already used their influence and essentially "vetoed" the move of the penguins by JB back in 2006, could the CCB not investigate that?

http://www.globalnational.com/story.html?id=1573800
When the CCB looked at the proposed Predators transfer they also considered the earlier Penguins matter:
Quote:
The Bureau conducted interviews and obtained relevant records, including emails and letters, from numerous parties, such as prospective purchasers and vendors of NHL franchises, NHL governors and senior NHL officials, for the purpose of examining the policies applied by the NHL and determining the circumstances surrounding the proposed acquisition of the Nashville Predators. In addition, the Bureau considered the circumstances relating to an earlier attempt by Mr. Balsillie to purchase the Pittsburgh Penguins franchise in 2006. The Bureau also consulted the NHL's Constitution, By-Laws and applicable policies in order to gain a greater understanding of the processes applicable to requests for transfers of ownership or relocation of NHL franchises.
If new evidence or information comes to light then they can re-consider the issues. It would seem that given the volume of materials and admissions during the Phoenix case there may be sufficient grounds for a re-examination. As the CCB noted in its decision:
Quote:
Readers should exercise caution in interpreting the Bureau's assessment. Enforcement decisions are made on a case-by-case basis and the conclusions discussed in this backgrounder are specific to the present matter and are not binding on the Commissioner of Competition (the "Commissioner").
...
The Bureau determined that a non-relocation covenant would not raise concerns under the Act where the predominant purpose of such a covenant is not to limit or prevent competition, but to ensure that the owner is committed to promoting the franchise within the local community. In addition, under the NHL's procedures, owners of a franchise may seek to have the seven-year non-relocation covenant waived or varied at some later date. In assessing the propriety of a non-relocation covenant, the Bureau will consider all the relevant facts and circumstances and may have concerns where it concludes that in the circumstances, a non-relocation covenant was directed at preventing competition or was not directed toward achieving legitimate business interests.
...
The Bureau understands that applications for relocation of NHL franchises are considered as a last resort when a team is no longer financially viable in its present location or is unable to secure appropriate arrangements for arena facilities. As outlined in greater detail above, restrictions on the relocation of a franchise can serve a number of legitimate interests of the league; including, ensuring spectator interest by preserving traditional team rivalries and encouraging investment by municipalities in arena construction and related infrastructure.

The Bureau found no instance where a "veto" was exercised by an incumbent team to protect its local territory from entry by a competing franchise. Since at least 1993, no franchise has been permitted to exercise a veto to prevent a team from entering into its local territory. Further, under the NHL's rules and procedures, in respect of the proposed relocation of a franchise to Southern Ontario, the NHL would not permit any single team to exercise a veto, but would only require a majority vote. The Bureau may have concerns under the Act if a single team were entitled to exercise a veto to prevent a franchise from entering into its local region within Canada, but such concerns would have to be evaluated having regard to the facts and law applicable at the time such an event occurred.
Lots of "weasel words" in that opinion.

Basically if the CCB wants to they can look at the issue again from the perspective of the Coyotes case and also determine if the NHL fully disclosed all relevant information to them in the prior investigation.

Wetcoaster is offline  
Old
09-12-2009, 09:32 PM
  #15
popaclay
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 29
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
When the CCB looked at the proposed Predators transfer they also considered the earlier Penguins matter:

If new evidence or information comes to light then they can re-consider the issues. It would seem that given the volume of materials and admissions during the Phoenix case there may be sufficient grounds for a re-examination. As the CCB noted in its decision:


Lots of "weasel words" in that opinion.

Basically if the CCB wants to they can look at the issue again from the perspective of the Coyotes case and also determine if the NHL fully disclosed all relevant information to them in the prior investigation.

It sure seems that the Leafs believe they have the veto at least from the memo. The timeline suggests that the NHL changed their stance about the acquisition by JB around the time of the memo.

popaclay is offline  
Old
09-12-2009, 09:54 PM
  #16
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by popaclay View Post
It sure seems that the Leafs believe they have the veto at least from the memo. The timeline suggests that the NHL changed their stance about the acquisition by JB around the time of the memo.
It would seem to me that is certainly something the CCB should look into. They have the power to compel production of documents and examine under oath.

Maybe it is time to actually start using some of their powers?

The US anti-trust people do not appear to be such wussies and Congress and their Senate even gets involved with hearings on such matters.

Wetcoaster is offline  
Old
09-12-2009, 10:07 PM
  #17
popaclay
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 29
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
It would seem to me that is certainly something the CCB should look into. They have the power to compel production of documents and examine under oath.

Maybe it is time to actually start using some of their powers?

The US anti-trust people do not appear to be such wussies and Congress and their Senate even gets involved with hearings on such matters.
I agree! Would it ever be nice to have some other options for NHL hockey in Southern Ontario.

popaclay is offline  
Old
09-12-2009, 10:14 PM
  #18
GSC2k2*
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by billy blaze View Post
Veto

Nhl stated in court yesterday that the veto exists, clarified it exists for expansion not relocation, legal minds weigh in, can a distinction be made between the two, and does not the Maple Leafs holding veto threat over Hamilton possibly make it so any excuse will be used in further expansion ( should it happen) to not have the CCB weigh in, select anyone over Hamilton to keep the Leafs from exercising veto.

The veto threat is like the mob, the threat is more powerful sometimes than an action
There is a distinction to be drawn.

In the case of relocation, the legal rights that are protected are the rights of the franchise owner to sell his franchise free of improper anti-competitive restrictions.

In the case of expansion, the rights that would be impinged (and which the CCB or anti-trust enforcement brach in the US would be protecting) would be the rights of purported interested parties with whom the league does not have a contractual relationship and has no legal obligation.

In short, no business has an obligation to expand itself into certain markets. If the NHL wishes to select certain markets in lieu of other markets, that is their choice.

Can you lay out a scenario about which you are thinking, so that we can apply the law to a particular fact scenario? I am having trouble with your concept. I would think that, for the next expansion, the league (given the narrowing of market opportunities that was not present for previous expansions, when there were MANY different candidates) will announce target markets from which it would wish to receive bids, as opposed to a "come one, come all" approach..

GSC2k2* is offline  
Old
09-12-2009, 10:14 PM
  #19
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by popaclay View Post
I agree! Would it ever be nice to have some other options for NHL hockey in Southern Ontario.
Let me be clear all I am advocating is for the Canadian Competition Tribunal to quit kow-twing to the NHL and start asking some hard questions.

It has taken an American to make that point and perhaps get the CCB moving in the proper direction:
Quote:
A U.S. sports law professor suggested it was about time Canadian competition officials raised concerns about the possibility of a veto.

"I've learned that the NHL has some bizarre, mystical hold on Canadian government officials," said Stephen Ross of Pennsylvania State University.

"Can you imagine another industry which is of huge importance to Canadians, where Canadian consumers are being denied access to a product that they vigorously demand, all because of an anti-competitive agreement between 30 wealthy owners, 24 of whom are American?"
Remember we never made a move against Alan Eagleson despite the fact that much of his criminal behaviour took place in Canada. It took the FBI and the US Justice Department to finally make Canadian authorities sit up and take notice as they just kept sliding the complaints into the "Do Not Disturb" basket.

Last time I checked Canada was still a sovereign nation but you would not know it from the way this brief has been handled by the CCB.

Wetcoaster is offline  
Old
09-12-2009, 10:23 PM
  #20
billy blaze
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,480
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSC2k2 View Post
There is a distinction to be drawn.

In the case of relocation, the legal rights that are protected are the rights of the franchise owner to sell his franchise free of improper anti-competitive restrictions.

In the case of expansion, the rights that would be impinged (and which the CCB or anti-trust enforcement brach in the US would be protecting) would be the rights of purported interested parties with whom the league does not have a contractual relationship and has no legal obligation.

In short, no business has an obligation to expand itself into certain markets. If the NHL wishes to select certain markets in lieu of other markets, that is their choice.

Can you lay out a scenario about which you are thinking, so that we can apply the law to a particular fact scenario? I am having trouble with your concept. I would think that, for the next expansion, the league (given the narrowing of market opportunities that was not present for previous expansions, when there were MANY different candidates) will announce target markets from which it would wish to receive bids, as opposed to a "come one, come all" approach..
of course they will, and they will have the owners already as they did in Florida and Anaheim, thus once again skipping S. Ontario and the "threat" of legal action from the Leafs against the league if they deny their right to use their veto, and the CCB against the league should a veto be used.

billy blaze is offline  
Old
09-12-2009, 10:26 PM
  #21
GSC2k2*
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by billy blaze View Post
of course they will, and they will have the owners already as they did in Florida and Anaheim, thus once again skipping S. Ontario and the "threat" of legal action from the Leafs against the league if they deny their right to use their veto, and the CCB against the league should a veto be used.
Quite the foolproof argument that you have going there. Either there is a veto because one is expressly used, or a veto must be there because it is not used.

Yes indeed, quite the position.

GSC2k2* is offline  
Old
09-12-2009, 10:29 PM
  #22
popaclay
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 29
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSC2k2 View Post
There is a distinction to be drawn.

In the case of relocation, the legal rights that are protected are the rights of the franchise owner to sell his franchise free of improper anti-competitive restrictions.

In the case of expansion, the rights that would be impinged (and which the CCB or anti-trust enforcement brach in the US would be protecting) would be the rights of purported interested parties with whom the league does not have a contractual relationship and has no legal obligation.

In short, no business has an obligation to expand itself into certain markets. If the NHL wishes to select certain markets in lieu of other markets, that is their choice.

Can you lay out a scenario about which you are thinking, so that we can apply the law to a particular fact scenario? I am having trouble with your concept. I would think that, for the next expansion, the league (given the narrowing of market opportunities that was not present for previous expansions, when there were MANY different candidates) will announce target markets from which it would wish to receive bids, as opposed to a "come one, come all" approach..
Hypothetically, if the Leafs vetoed another team moving to the Toronto area, as a consumer am I not hurt?

popaclay is offline  
Old
09-12-2009, 10:32 PM
  #23
billy blaze
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,480
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSC2k2 View Post
Quite the foolproof argument that you have going there. Either there is a veto because one is expressly used, or a veto must be there because it is not used.

Yes indeed, quite the position.
now your getting it, threat of the veto is more powerful than the actual veto

billy blaze is offline  
Old
09-12-2009, 10:34 PM
  #24
bbud
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,662
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSC2k2 View Post
Quite the foolproof argument that you have going there. Either there is a veto because one is expressly used, or a veto must be there because it is not used.

Yes indeed, quite the position.
The Veto obviously is implied and has been over a long term , agreed without written use to use as evidence it may matter little but it can have effects on actions regardless.

bbud is offline  
Old
09-12-2009, 10:38 PM
  #25
Irish Blues
____________________
 
Irish Blues's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country: St Helena
Posts: 21,804
vCash: 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
Lots of "weasel words" in that opinion.

Basically if the CCB wants to they can look at the issue again from the perspective of the Coyotes case and also determine if the NHL fully disclosed all relevant information to them in the prior investigation.
But as noted several times previously, you're parsing the statement at the wrong point and ignoring, "... but such concerns would have to be evaluated having regard to the facts and law applicable at the time such an event occurred. Based on the CCB's wording in their decision, it's possible that a veto could exist and be legally valid and acceptable - depending on the facts and law applicable at the time such an event occurred.

Unless you're able to argue that the CCB should act on a theoretical incident [and the CCB's statement clearly indicates it's not going to do this], then we're back to "did the Leafs actually cast a veto to prohibit the move of a team to the Hamilton market?"

Rumor, innuendo, and come on, we all know the NHL is sticking up for the Leafs doesn't meet the "at the time such an event occurred" threshold the CCB has stated must be met to warrant further investigation - because they don't constitute an occurrence of an event. Things that would constitute an occurrence of an event that would meet the threshold the CCB has stated could include but not be limited to:
-- an actual veto cast by the Leafs to prohibit a team moving into Hamilton [which hasn't happened yet]
-- an actual veto cast by any other team to prohibit a team moving into its market [again, hasn't happened yet]
-- actual documents between the NHL and the Leafs where the League states it will act according to the wishes of the Leafs franchise wrt franchise moves into the Southern Ontario area [no, I haven't seen or heard of any of these documents either]
-- actual documents between the NHL and any other teams doing the same [again, haven't heard of them]
-- any "quid pro quo" agreement between any team or teams whereby one team or group of teams acts at the behest of another team in preventing a franchise relocation into the territorial market of an existing team [haven't seen or heard of any such deals]

In short: in the absence of an actual act that prohibited a franchise relocation and/or documents showing that parties colluded to prohibit a franchise relocation, the CCB has nothing more than a theoretical allegation - and it refuses to act on such allegations in the absence of actual evidence.

Irish Blues 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 05:47 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.