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.

December 2009 NHL Board of Governors meeting

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-11-2009, 02:04 PM
  #1
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 56,803
vCash: 500
December 2009 NHL Board of Governors meeting

Thought that putting one thread together so that all the topics on the agenda, etc. can be found in one location might be a good idea (espcially as there is talk of Ice Edge submitting a letter of intent to purchase the Coyotes that may be mixed up among another of other topics).

Date: December 15/16
Location: Pebble Beach, California


http://tsn.ca/columnists/darren_dreger/?id=301862
Dreger talks about the agenda items.

LadyStanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2009, 03:34 PM
  #2
Ernie
Registered User
 
Ernie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,121
vCash: 500
It boggles my mind that somone is actually willing to go back in to Phoenix. If the uber-rich have money to throw around like that, I wouldn't mind if they sent some my way!

Ernie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2009, 08:11 PM
  #3
CHRDANHUTCH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Auburn, Maine
Country: United States
Posts: 15,039
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 LadyStanley View Post
Thought that putting one thread together so that all the topics on the agenda, etc. can be found in one location might be a good idea (espcially as there is talk of Ice Edge submitting a letter of intent to purchase the Coyotes that may be mixed up among another of other topics).

Date: December 15/16
Location: Pebble Beach, California


http://tsn.ca/columnists/darren_dreger/?id=301862
Dreger talks about the agenda items.
don't know if this means anything, LS, BUT NHL Network is reporting that the NHL has signed the LOI submitted by IEH....

CHRDANHUTCH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2009, 02:42 AM
  #4
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 56,803
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRDANHUTCH View Post
don't know if this means anything, LS, BUT NHL Network is reporting that the NHL has signed the LOI submitted by IEH....
(See owner thread too.)

WRT BOG agenda/discussion....

AFAIK, the BOG never initiated an in depth review/investigation/vetting of Ice Edge after meeting with them in Chicago (to approve them as owners). So, that should be done.

In addition, there's the issue of the five neutral site games originally proposed by Ice Edge. (I haven't seen anything that indicates that's still part of their proposal, or not, but I haven't read articles in the past six+ hours.) This would need to be discussed/debated and decided to allow/not (prior to final approval/phase of ownership transfer).

LadyStanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2009, 02:59 AM
  #5
MAROONSRoad
f/k/a Ghost
 
MAROONSRoad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Maroons Rd.
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,069
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyStanley View Post
(See owner thread too.)

WRT BOG agenda/discussion....

AFAIK, the BOG never initiated an in depth review/investigation/vetting of Ice Edge after meeting with them in Chicago (to approve them as owners). So, that should be done.

In addition, there's the issue of the five neutral site games originally proposed by Ice Edge. (I haven't seen anything that indicates that's still part of their proposal, or not, but I haven't read articles in the past six+ hours.) This would need to be discussed/debated and decided to allow/not (prior to final approval/phase of ownership transfer).
Actually, the largest issues in my mind are a) how well capitalized is the group and b) what is their agenda?

GHOST

MAROONSRoad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2009, 12:25 PM
  #6
MAROONSRoad
f/k/a Ghost
 
MAROONSRoad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Maroons Rd.
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,069
vCash: 500
Spector mentions various issues which may concern the BOG ahead of the meeting.

Aside from the Phoenix situation:

Quote:
• In Dallas, Sportsbusiness Journal reports that owner Tom Hicks is funding Stars’ losses using a reserve of cash from a $525 million loan he defaulted on last March. Major League Baseball was forced to forward money to Hicks’ Texas Rangers last season as his financial troubles mounted, and it is unknown whether the NHL has already helped Hicks make payroll this season, or if they may yet asked to be..

• In Tampa, ownership squabbles continue, with neither Len Barrie nor Oren Koules able to buy the other partner out. Despite the NHL’s claim that the Lightning averages 14,403 fans per game, the people who run the arena report an average turnstile count of 10,576 through the first 12 games at the 22,000 capacity St. Pete Times Forum...Shortly, season-ticket revenues and the $15 million the team received in revenue sharing will run out. Then what?...The rumour mill has the Lightning available for less than $100 million.

• In Columbus, the Blue Jackets are desperate to rewrite the lease at Nationwide Arena, with losses of $12 million per season beginning to grow. Even with the NHL’s inflated attendance numbers, the Blue Jackets still do not report 15,000 fans per game at home.

• In Nashville, attendance is still the third worst in the NHL, and the team is at risk of losing $7 million in funding from the Metro Council, an arm of the civic government. Also, principal owner David Freeman has admitted to a "short-term personal liquidity problem" caused by a need to settle with the IRS.

• In Carolina, yet another team on the receiving end of revenue sharing, NHL reported attendance is down more than 2,000 per game from the previous season...

The body of work down south has several governors ready to take a hard look at going back into Canada..."There is certainly room for more franchises in Canada," a governor said. "It seems to me there are more willing people who want to run a franchise in Canada than there has been for a long time. The Canadian dollar is doing great."...A second team in the Air Canada Centre — home of the Toronto Maple Leafs — makes the most sense for the league, with Winnipeg second. Hamilton and Quebec City, though both vocal advocates, need to erect NHL calibre buildings before the league will give those cities serious attention.
Link:

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/2009/12/10/spector_wha/

GHOST

MAROONSRoad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2009, 12:53 PM
  #7
vivianmb
Registered User
 
vivianmb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,882
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GHOSTofMAROONSroad View Post
Spector mentions various issues which may concern the BOG ahead of the meeting.

Aside from the Phoenix situation:



Link:

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/2009/12/10/spector_wha/

GHOST
well the league certainly has some work to do.

vivianmb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2009, 10:41 AM
  #8
Fugu
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
http://www.kuklaskorner.com/index.ph...hotstove_talk/

Hotstove group mentions that, for the first time, a working group of the BOG will be able to review expenditure at the league office level?


Seriously? The Governors have never been able to review spending? How's that even possible?

  Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2009, 10:46 AM
  #9
GSC2k2*
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
http://www.kuklaskorner.com/index.ph...hotstove_talk/

Hotstove group mentions that, for the first time, a working group of the BOG will be able to review expenditure at the league office level?


Seriously? The Governors have never been able to review spending? How's that even possible?
I seriously doubt that. I suspect that the governor who Lebrun allegedly spoke to (and keep in mind that there is a big, big difference between quoting an "owner" and a "governor") simply meant that HE had not been involved in such a review.

The league is required by law to file public statements as part of their non-taxable status.

GSC2k2* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2009, 11:30 AM
  #10
Fugu
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSC2k2 View Post
I seriously doubt that. I suspect that the governor who Lebrun allegedly spoke to (and keep in mind that there is a big, big difference between quoting an "owner" and a "governor") simply meant that HE had not been involved in such a review.

The league is required by law to file public statements as part of their non-taxable status.
Yes, and even I have seen a copy of those statements. Nevertheless the statements would simply allocate money to the appropriate line. The devil may be in the details, and it did sound like someone wanted the details.

That said, I doubt they have time to discuss all these things in one meeting. The Phoenix situation is quite convoluted with several scenarios that need to be discussed, with attached dollar figures. It is the owners' money after all, and lots of it. The possibility of relocation? That could be a month long meeting. The implication that everyone but ONE team being in favor of placing a second team in TO? Fascinating. Does Tampa even get mention?

And of course, revenue projections, and cap implications will be updated.

Can you get me into the meeting? I promise to sit quietly in the back and just listen.

  Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2009, 02:21 PM
  #11
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 56,803
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Can you get me into the meeting? I promise to sit quietly in the back and just listen.
I'd love to put a bugged boutonniere on one of the attendees.

LadyStanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2009, 02:29 PM
  #12
GSC2k2*
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Yes, and even I have seen a copy of those statements. Nevertheless the statements would simply allocate money to the appropriate line. The devil may be in the details, and it did sound like someone wanted the details.

That said, I doubt they have time to discuss all these things in one meeting. The Phoenix situation is quite convoluted with several scenarios that need to be discussed, with attached dollar figures. It is the owners' money after all, and lots of it. The possibility of relocation? That could be a month long meeting. The implication that everyone but ONE team being in favor of placing a second team in TO? Fascinating. Does Tampa even get mention?

And of course, revenue projections, and cap implications will be updated.

Can you get me into the meeting? I promise to sit quietly in the back and just listen.
You can get a lot done in two days of Board meetings. A lot of this stuff will be set out in reports written and distributed before the meetings.

GSC2k2* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2009, 02:34 PM
  #13
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 56,803
vCash: 500
With the recent discussion in the Hicks thread (http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=624215), I've got to think that's on the agenda as well.

LadyStanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2009, 03:27 PM
  #14
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 56,803
vCash: 500
Concussions, head injuries, head hunting

http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/more_...BlVAxouOqhjAwI

Brooks takes NHLPA to task for not responding to the recent issue of hits to the heads/suspensions.



Edit: merged into December BOG thread as it's on the discussion list.


Last edited by LadyStanley: 12-14-2009 at 04:00 PM.
LadyStanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2009, 04:07 PM
  #15
Fugu
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSC2k2 View Post
You can get a lot done in two days of Board meetings. A lot of this stuff will be set out in reports written and distributed before the meetings.

Right. You're saying no one will have questions, or everyone will back the recommended course of action on all matters (assuming someone makes those recommendations)? With issues as serious to pocketbooks as some of these appear to be?

Okay.

I guess the answer is no to the other question.

  Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2009, 04:11 PM
  #16
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,298
vCash: 500
Ive heard it floated several times now, this idea that sure, you can put another team in Southern Ontario, a second tenant in the ACC paying rent to MLSE. Perhaps several years there while building a new arena would lessen the market indemnification needed? But it seems a bold statement.

It always makes me do a double take when i remember that the nhl itself is actually a not for profit organization. But in light of some of the recent trends towards centralization of resources in the nhl, is there a point where that status becomes hard to maintain?

Perhaps its my willingness to gamble with other peoples money, but im amazed how many are so incredulous that entrepreneurs would make this gameble in Phoenix, 26 year lease and all. To me it seems a no brainer for good businessmen to take that gamble, it is a great one.

I can speak from experience in Ottawa, the worries over the future of the team were very damaging to ticket sales. It was hard to sell out at high prices, there was much angst among the fan base. But the marketing act of melnyk, to inspire confidence, to say im here for the long haul, that low cost marketing decision paid off in the magnitute of 10's of millions of dollars in Ottawa. And the comparisons between the Ottawa team then and the Phoenix team now are striking.

When the market cycle returns to a peak from its valley, looking well timed with phoenixes playher development cycle, and potential business marketing and restructing schedule, that this ice edge group could succeed seems a no brainer to me. I even like the non threatening revenue generating safe house games in saskatoon for slow nights. But again, its not my money, easy for me to say i guess.

thinkwild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2009, 04:59 PM
  #17
GSC2k2*
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Right. You're saying no one will have questions, or everyone will back the recommended course of action on all matters (assuming someone makes those recommendations)? With issues as serious to pocketbooks as some of these appear to be?

Okay.

I guess the answer is no to the other question.
No, no, I am still assuming lots of discussion. You can get lots done. Keep in mind that not everything on the agenda needs to be definitively resolved once and for all.

The answer to the second question was classified, of course. You should know that.

GSC2k2* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2009, 05:03 PM
  #18
GSC2k2*
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild View Post
Ive heard it floated several times now, this idea that sure, you can put another team in Southern Ontario, a second tenant in the ACC paying rent to MLSE. Perhaps several years there while building a new arena would lessen the market indemnification needed? But it seems a bold statement.

It always makes me do a double take when i remember that the nhl itself is actually a not for profit organization. But in light of some of the recent trends towards centralization of resources in the nhl, is there a point where that status becomes hard to maintain?

Perhaps its my willingness to gamble with other peoples money, but im amazed how many are so incredulous that entrepreneurs would make this gameble in Phoenix, 26 year lease and all. To me it seems a no brainer for good businessmen to take that gamble, it is a great one.

I can speak from experience in Ottawa, the worries over the future of the team were very damaging to ticket sales. It was hard to sell out at high prices, there was much angst among the fan base. But the marketing act of melnyk, to inspire confidence, to say im here for the long haul, that low cost marketing decision paid off in the magnitute of 10's of millions of dollars in Ottawa. And the comparisons between the Ottawa team then and the Phoenix team now are striking.

When the market cycle returns to a peak from its valley, looking well timed with phoenixes playher development cycle, and potential business marketing and restructing schedule, that this ice edge group could succeed seems a no brainer to me. I even like the non threatening revenue generating safe house games in saskatoon for slow nights. But again, its not my money, easy for me to say i guess.
Well said. It is by no means a guaranteed investment sucess, as I know you would agree, but it is the classic example of buying low. The idea that hockey can succeed in some well-populated southern markets (DAL, SJ, etc.) but absolutely never in PHO seems strange.

GSC2k2* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2009, 05:16 PM
  #19
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,910
vCash: 500
Brooks seems to be ignoring recent history.

The NHLPA under Paul Kelly did bring this to the forefront and were dismissed by the NHL GM's and owners at the time.
Quote:
The NHL Players Association, before it self-immolated these last 8-10 weeks, was eager to mitigate hits to the head last spring, when then-executive director Paul Kelly attempted to convince players and GMs alike that something needed to be done. Approximately 550 players were polled on the matter, and some 70 percent said they wanted the hits penalized, based on three conditions:

1. The victim was in a vulnerable position (unable to protect himself) when struck.

2. Per the judgment of a referee, the hit was reckless in nature or deemed a targeted hit to the head.

3. The vulnerable player was struck by any part of an opponent’s body, including the shoulder, or an opponent’s equipment (stick, helmet, etc).

“Much of the focus there,’’ said Kelly, “was on legal shoulder-to-head hits - the targeted hits to the head.’’

The GMs, much of their attention at the time drawn to concerns over staged fighting, gave the NHLPA proposal little more than lip service. Now they sound as if they are ready to embrace it.
http://www.boston.com/sports/hockey/...ent/?page=full

Paul Kelly's take on the NHL finally looking at the issue seriously:
Quote:
“I am pleased they are taking a hard look at the issue.We, the PA, expressed our concerns over the increase of head injuries and made our suggestions for the GMs to consider.

“I’m heartened to hear that the matter is getting a greater degree of attention and conversation. It’s unfortunate that it has taken injuries of 3-4 players lately to reach this point.’’
So contrary to what Brooks says the NHLPA was out in front of this issue.

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2009, 04:00 PM
  #20
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 56,803
vCash: 500
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=302339

BOG to look at economy

LadyStanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2009, 04:21 PM
  #21
Fugu
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Pierre LeBrun

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/blog/...=lebrun_pierre

Quote:
So what else will happen at the meetings? One NHL governor suggested that the agenda, led by the Phoenix situation, was "pretty vanilla, reads like any other year," but he predicted the tone of the meeting would not be.

"People want to know what's going on, more than ever," he said.

Perhaps sensing the board's anxiety, the league decided to form a breakout group to examine a review of league office finances. "This is unheard of as far as I can remember," the governor said.


A league source confirmed the breakout group was a first, but downplayed the significance, saying it was only appeasing the governors who wanted to get a more detailed look at the league office budget.

The owners gather in the midst of tough financial times, much of it caused by the global recession. According to internal reports another governor shared with us, team sponsorship sales, as well as the sale of suites and premium seats, are down in most NHL markets, and markedly down in some cases. If that's the case, how can the salary cap possibly not go down next season? Well, because the Canadian dollar is up to 95 cents U.S. these days, a major bonus for the league since the six Canadian NHL teams reap more than a third of league revenues.

"So, in other words, ticket sales and sponsors are down, but the Canadian currency makes up the difference," the governor said.

Other agenda items:
A second breakout group of governors will examine the future of digital media. "This is a big deal," one NHL governor said. "There's a lot of money to be made in this area."
A report from NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly on concussions, a detailed 12-year study of how the league has handled them, etc.
A report from NHL director of hockey operations Colin Campbell on head shots, picking up from last month's GM meetings, where the group decided to take a hard stance on blindside hits.


  Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2009, 06:47 PM
  #22
Ernie
Registered User
 
Ernie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,121
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSC2k2 View Post
Well said. It is by no means a guaranteed investment sucess, as I know you would agree, but it is the classic example of buying low. The idea that hockey can succeed in some well-populated southern markets (DAL, SJ, etc.) but absolutely never in PHO seems strange.
Problem is they're probably facing $100m of losses before they could imagine turning a profit. If they were buying the franchise for $50m I could see the business case. But not at the $150m they're spending.

Ernie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-15-2009, 09:26 PM
  #23
Fugu
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
LeBrun reported that Daly had to leave California due to family medical emergency. Bettman is expected to cover his presentations.


Also some grumbling is expected if the Coyotes are given a full share of revenue sharing as the league wants to do. Some BOG members would like it to be by the book:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/blog/...=lebrun_pierre

  Reply With Quote
Old
12-15-2009, 09:33 PM
  #24
wjhl2009fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 9,043
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild View Post
Ive heard it floated several times now, this idea that sure, you can put another team in Southern Ontario, a second tenant in the ACC paying rent to MLSE. Perhaps several years there while building a new arena would lessen the market indemnification needed? But it seems a bold statement.

It always makes me do a double take when i remember that the nhl itself is actually a not for profit organization. But in light of some of the recent trends towards centralization of resources in the nhl, is there a point where that status becomes hard to maintain?

Perhaps its my willingness to gamble with other peoples money, but im amazed how many are so incredulous that entrepreneurs would make this gameble in Phoenix, 26 year lease and all. To me it seems a no brainer for good businessmen to take that gamble, it is a great one.

I can speak from experience in Ottawa, the worries over the future of the team were very damaging to ticket sales. It was hard to sell out at high prices, there was much angst among the fan base. But the marketing act of melnyk, to inspire confidence, to say im here for the long haul, that low cost marketing decision paid off in the magnitute of 10's of millions of dollars in Ottawa. And the comparisons between the Ottawa team then and the Phoenix team now are striking.

When the market cycle returns to a peak from its valley, looking well timed with phoenixes playher development cycle, and potential business marketing and restructing schedule, that this ice edge group could succeed seems a no brainer to me. I even like the non threatening revenue generating safe house games in saskatoon for slow nights. But again, its not my money, easy for me to say i guess.
The ottawa team before melnyk did have money issue but the thing that got me is they got very little help from the goverment.I may be wrong but i think they even had to pay for the overpass i am not sure if there are to many teams in any league that have to do that.

wjhl2009fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-15-2009, 10:17 PM
  #25
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 56,803
vCash: 500
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/sharks/...son-in-europe/

Sharks' Pollak @ the meetings. Confirms Sharks are on list of teams to head to Europe to open season. Not much other news (written 2 hours before Bettman briefing @ 6pm PT).

LadyStanley 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 07:15 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.