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.

Leafs under Rogers ownership. [Hypothetically]

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-07-2011, 01:10 PM
  #1
HamiltonFan
bettman's a Weasel
 
HamiltonFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 296
vCash: 500
Leafs under Rogers ownership. [Hypothetically]

Just wondering if anyone thinks that the Leafs, if purchased by Rogers, would be more likely to relinquish their de facto veto over another team in the southern ontario market.
There may be 2 reasons that I can think of. As a publicly traded company with financial responsibility to the shareholders, would it be financially beneficial to take the approximate $100 million windfall they would reap from the 2nd southern ontario team (SO2), considering that it would likely not affect their profitability even with the presence of an SO2?
One of the arguments that is often brought up is that an SO2 team wouldn't affect the Leafs, but might affect the raptors. This doesn't necessarily have to be true, as scheduling can be accomodated for all 3 teams. For instance, the raptors play a lot of sunday afternoon games. If the SO2 team made sunday night their 'regular' night, then that's a good starting framework to have all 3 teams playing at different times.
The other factor is that rogers is obviously among other things a tv company, and their main reason for purchasing mlse is to have teams to feed their tv content. If they were to allow an SO2 team in the league under the condition that rogers gets the SO2 teams tv rights, then that would be another huge benefit. Thoughts?

HamiltonFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2011, 01:52 PM
  #2
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 23,111
vCash: 500
I unfortunately dont think that should Rogers acquire MLSE we'll see any changes with respect to its posturing in denying another teams existence in the Southern Ontario marketplace. IMO, they absolutely should fight the awarding of an expansion franchise or relocation to within the GTA proper for a myriad of reasons, however, Hamilton makes sense on almost every level, and would do nothing but increase revenues short & long term for MLSE (& the Sabres). Obviously the league's more than aware of it, and regardless of whoever owns the Leafs I think its inevitable that a team will eventually wind up in The Hammer, Assuming both the Leafs & the Sabres' agree, the multi-million dollar question is how much will they receive in territorial rights fee's from the owners in Hamilton?. You mention $100M going to the Leafs. Id say thats light by a yard or more. And Buffalo?. You could well be looking at $350M+ just in indemnification fee's, never mind the premium you'd pay for the franchise be it expansion or relo. Its a pretty daunting prospect, made all the muddier by Messr's Balsillie & Rodier.

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2011, 01:59 PM
  #3
Kebekoi
Registered User
 
Kebekoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Matane, QC
Country: Martinique
Posts: 1,470
vCash: 500
There's no veto. As told by Bettman : the new team need 50%+1 for a relocation and 75%+1 for expansion. Leafs and Sabres amount for 6.66% of the teams.

I think that the territorial fees will shut their mouths.

Kebekoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2011, 02:05 PM
  #4
wjhl2009fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 9,043
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HamiltonFan View Post
Just wondering if anyone thinks that the Leafs, if purchased by Rogers, would be more likely to relinquish their de facto veto over another team in the southern ontario market.
There may be 2 reasons that I can think of. As a publicly traded company with financial responsibility to the shareholders, would it be financially beneficial to take the approximate $100 million windfall they would reap from the 2nd southern ontario team (SO2), considering that it would likely not affect their profitability even with the presence of an SO2?
One of the arguments that is often brought up is that an SO2 team wouldn't affect the Leafs, but might affect the raptors. This doesn't necessarily have to be true, as scheduling can be accomodated for all 3 teams. For instance, the raptors play a lot of sunday afternoon games. If the SO2 team made sunday night their 'regular' night, then that's a good starting framework to have all 3 teams playing at different times.
The other factor is that rogers is obviously among other things a tv company, and their main reason for purchasing mlse is to have teams to feed their tv content. If they were to allow an SO2 team in the league under the condition that rogers gets the SO2 teams tv rights, then that would be another huge benefit. Thoughts?
Its one thing for them to allow another team its another thing for them to own 2 teams which i don't think the league would allow.

wjhl2009fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2011, 02:13 PM
  #5
The Messenger
Registered User
 
The Messenger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,224
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HamiltonFan View Post
Just wondering if anyone thinks that the Leafs, if purchased by Rogers, would be more likely to relinquish their de facto veto over another team in the southern ontario market.
There may be 2 reasons that I can think of. As a publicly traded company with financial responsibility to the shareholders, would it be financially beneficial to take the approximate $100 million windfall they would reap from the 2nd southern ontario team (SO2), considering that it would likely not affect their profitability even with the presence of an SO2?
One of the arguments that is often brought up is that an SO2 team wouldn't affect the Leafs, but might affect the raptors. This doesn't necessarily have to be true, as scheduling can be accomodated for all 3 teams. For instance, the raptors play a lot of sunday afternoon games. If the SO2 team made sunday night their 'regular' night, then that's a good starting framework to have all 3 teams playing at different times.
The other factor is that rogers is obviously among other things a tv company, and their main reason for purchasing mlse is to have teams to feed their tv content. If they were to allow an SO2 team in the league under the condition that rogers gets the SO2 teams tv rights, then that would be another huge benefit. Thoughts?
Ownership makes no difference. As long as any prospective party wanting to put a team in Hamilton is willing to pay the proper (whatever that is but it would be huge) territorial fees to Buffalo and Toronto then it is unstoppable. Every team in the NHL that was located in another team's juristiction has paid territorial fees. Hamilton should be no different. (heck NJD had to pay 3 teams, Rangers, Islanders and Flyers)

The Messenger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2011, 02:16 PM
  #6
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 23,111
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wjhl2009fan View Post
Its one thing for them to allow another team its another thing for them to own 2 teams which i don't think the league would allow.
Huh?. I dont read where he's suggesting they own 2 teams?. Thats' verboten, unless your names Big Jim Norris & its 1952, when he owned the Blackhawks, his daughter & son the Wings, lent enough money to the Bruins to pretty much own them & call the shots; managed & ran MSG & fronted the Rangers enough cash to be defacto owner. 4 of 6 teams controlled by one guy.... And you know what wjhl?. Its debatable as to whether or not MLSE actually does own an NHL team at the moment.

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2011, 02:40 PM
  #7
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,450
vCash: 500
http://www.insidehalton.com/communit...article/926437

NHL to Burlington?

Melrose Munch is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2011, 02:45 PM
  #8
Ryan34222
Registered User
 
Ryan34222's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Hamilton
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,147
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
I unfortunately dont think that should Rogers acquire MLSE we'll see any changes with respect to its posturing in denying another teams existence in the Southern Ontario marketplace. IMO, they absolutely should fight the awarding of an expansion franchise or relocation to within the GTA proper for a myriad of reasons, however, Hamilton makes sense on almost every level, and would do nothing but increase revenues short & long term for MLSE (& the Sabres). Obviously the league's more than aware of it, and regardless of whoever owns the Leafs I think its inevitable that a team will eventually wind up in The Hammer, Assuming both the Leafs & the Sabres' agree, the multi-million dollar question is how much will they receive in territorial rights fee's from the owners in Hamilton?. You mention $100M going to the Leafs. Id say thats light by a yard or more. And Buffalo?. You could well be looking at $350M+ just in indemnification fee's, never mind the premium you'd pay for the franchise be it expansion or relo. Its a pretty daunting prospect, made all the muddier by Messr's Balsillie & Rodier.
whatsss up!!
uhh when you say Hamilton do you mean the city that can't figure out where to put a simple TiCat/PanAm stadium.. couldn't imagine the gong show that is aka the City Council if a team ever came here..
they should just turn Old Copps into a Euro sized arena (assuming Bulldogs are splitting) host a bunch of tourneys, some other Countries would probably like the chance to play on a bigger rink in the WJ's..just a though


Last edited by Ryan34222: 01-07-2011 at 03:25 PM.
Ryan34222 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2011, 02:50 PM
  #9
Ryan34222
Registered User
 
Ryan34222's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Hamilton
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,147
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by getty images View Post
"Paletta says he has no plans to build any arena without a tenant lined up. Still, he says Hamilton’s past failures to land a team aren’t daunting to him."

past present future.. w/e its Hamiltons MO

Ryan34222 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2011, 03:25 PM
  #10
Shawa666
Registered User
 
Shawa666's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Québec, Qc, Ca
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,374
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wjhl2009fan View Post
Its one thing for them to allow another team its another thing for them to own 2 teams which i don't think the league would allow.
It's not allowed. When Molson merged with Carling-O'Keefe, the new company had to sell the Nordiques as it also owned the Canadiens

Shawa666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2011, 03:56 PM
  #11
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,450
vCash: 500
Ryan the ticats lose money. IMO its not wise to throw away tax money on an asset that has lost money for 25 years.

Melrose Munch is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2011, 04:01 PM
  #12
wjhl2009fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 9,043
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan34222 View Post
whatsss up!!
uhh when you say Hamilton do you mean the city that can't figure out where to put a simple TiCat/PanAm stadium.. couldn't imagine the gong show that is aka the City Council if a team ever came here..
they should just turn Old Copps into a Euro sized arena (assuming Bulldogs are splitting) host a bunch of tourneys, some other Countries would probably like the chance to play on a bigger rink in the WJ's..just a though
Sure they may host the odd tournemant now and then but they would not likely get a whole bunch.Don't forget there are other big ice rinks around that are not used as they should be.

wjhl2009fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2011, 04:19 PM
  #13
Ryan34222
Registered User
 
Ryan34222's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Hamilton
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,147
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by getty images View Post
Ryan the ticats lose money. IMO its not wise to throw away tax money on an asset that has lost money for 25 years.
not that i want to hijack this thread but in a 90 year old Stadium yes they lose $.. besides the "tax" money (basically a gift) being offered up is going to be spent regardless.. whether here or in another city..
Hamilton is also throwing in its Future funds.. which to my knowlegde was not a burden on the tax payers..

Ryan34222 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2011, 04:21 PM
  #14
wjhl2009fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 9,043
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan34222 View Post
not that i want to hijack this thread but in a 90 year old Stadium yes they lose $.. besides the "tax" money (basically a gift) being offered up is going to be spent regardless.. whether here or in another city..
Hamilton is also throwing in its Future funds.. which to my knowlegde was not a burden on the tax payers..
Yes the money is going to be spent is spending it on a arena or stadium the best way to go at this point no.

wjhl2009fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2011, 04:24 PM
  #15
Ryan34222
Registered User
 
Ryan34222's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Hamilton
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,147
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wjhl2009fan View Post
Sure they may host the odd tournemant now and then but they would not likely get a whole bunch.Don't forget there are other big ice rinks around that are not used as they should be.
a little is better than being empty.. lol
NHL size? i only suggested Copps because the only nhl sized arena i know that basically empty

Ryan34222 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2011, 04:28 PM
  #16
Ryan34222
Registered User
 
Ryan34222's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Hamilton
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,147
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wjhl2009fan View Post
Yes the money is going to be spent is spending it on a arena or stadium the best way to go at this point no.
can't spend the money on anything else if you are refering to the Hostco $ being offered to Hamilton

Ryan34222 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2011, 04:32 PM
  #17
wjhl2009fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 9,043
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan34222 View Post
can't spend the money on anything else if you are refering to the Hostco $ being offered to Hamilton
If your just talking about the money from the gov yes and no while yes they have the money but it for the most part is not there to do as they please.More times then not the are conditions tied to the money meaning you can't apply to the gov and get funding for one project then cancel that project and keep the money you would have to give the cash back.

wjhl2009fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2011, 04:42 PM
  #18
Ryan34222
Registered User
 
Ryan34222's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Hamilton
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,147
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wjhl2009fan View Post
If your just talking about the money from the gov yes and no while yes they have the money but it for the most part is not there to do as they please.More times then not the are conditions tied to the money meaning you can't apply to the gov and get funding for one project then cancel that project and keep the money you would have to give the cash back.
sorry i am not following..

the money being offered from Hostco for a Pan am Stadium.. must be spent on a stadium.. and must have a Legacy tenant ie the Tigercats.

the Future Funds which is basically in an account already does have some limitations to what it can be used for.. but a stadium does fall within those limits..

Ryan34222 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2011, 05:11 PM
  #19
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,450
vCash: 500
hostco did say it is not about the ticats twice in a interview with raise the hammer.

Panam stadium does not have to have a legacy tenant. Just a legacy. Like high school sports.

Which is why Hamilton will approve a 6k stadium and get it funded by hostco. Ticats will attept to build a stadium in aldershot without tax money.
http://www.raisethehammer.org/

Quote:
It's not about providing a stadium for the Hamilton Tiger-Cats. If that's part of a solution, terrific, but that's not our mandate
Ian Troop from his mouth.


Last edited by Melrose Munch: 01-07-2011 at 05:52 PM.
Melrose Munch is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2011, 05:18 PM
  #20
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,450
vCash: 500
Rogers will own the sports market. Hard to say when they will replace the Rogers centre.

Melrose Munch is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2011, 05:53 PM
  #21
Frank Booth
Registered User
 
Frank Booth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Lumberton, USA
Country: United States
Posts: 324
vCash: 500
Perhaps Rogers would do to the Leafs what they did to the news departments of the CITY-TV stations that they took over.

Frank Booth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2011, 06:09 PM
  #22
htpwn
Registered User
 
htpwn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Poland
Posts: 13,481
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by getty images View Post
Did anybody else immediately think of Glendale when they first read this? Small city that is trying to create a sports district?

Obviously there are some very important differences though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan34222 View Post
a little is better than being empty.. lol
NHL size? i only suggested Copps because the only nhl sized arena i know that basically empty
MTS Centre?
Sprint Center?

Quote:
Originally Posted by getty images View Post
Rogers will own the sports market. Hard to say when they will replace the Rogers centre.
Don't get your hopes up. Every time that question has come up, Rogers has shut it down. They are very happy with the Skydome because it can host events a regular baseball park can't and can do it year-round. Not to mention it is in the perfect location.

htpwn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2011, 06:44 PM
  #23
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,450
vCash: 500
I've heard that. And it makes a profit.

Melrose Munch is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2011, 11:04 PM
  #24
Ryan34222
Registered User
 
Ryan34222's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Hamilton
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,147
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by getty images View Post
hostco did say it is not about the ticats twice in a interview with raise the hammer.

Panam stadium does not have to have a legacy tenant. Just a legacy. Like high school sports.

Which is why Hamilton will approve a 6k stadium and get it funded by hostco. Ticats will attept to build a stadium in aldershot without tax money.
http://www.raisethehammer.org/



Ian Troop from his mouth.
just a point or 2 raisethehammer is not exactly a trusted source.. they've been known to make a few things up
and if this is legit..its the very first i've heard Troop say that, maybe they've changed their position being so close to deadline.. Feb 1st

as far Aldershot, love the site.. works great for everyone. hopefully they can get done in 2 weeks what Hamilton couldnt do in 2 years...

Ryan34222 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2011, 11:12 PM
  #25
Ryan34222
Registered User
 
Ryan34222's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Hamilton
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,147
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by htpwn View Post

MTS Centre?
Sprint Center?
well ones not empty and the other i wouldnt host a WJ's at..
copps, once bulldogs leave, will be basically empty.

change the ice size and maybe Hamilton host the WJs every few years..

Ryan34222 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 04:17 PM.

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.