Balsillie/Phoenix part III

[GSC2k2*]

i am following the issue...


the process is like any old "rule" in the old schoool boys club that never been challenged often and battle tested .... it can eventually fall and we might witness it today....


the team is BLEEDING MONEY it has an offer of 212

BETTMEN who is very close FRIENDS with JERRY RIENDORF has an offer of 130 million......how isnt there a conflict of interest with Bettmen(claims to be supposed owner now) trying to promote Jerry over Jim?

Anyone who uses the term "old school boys club" immediately loses credibility in this discussion, sorry. That is a ridiculous expresison that has been used about the NHL so often that it has become part of the "Hockey Fan Canon of Accepted Wisdom That We Never Need to Think About, 'Cause, Heck, Everyone Knows That and Everyone Says It".

As much as I loathe using analogies around here, I will tell you that, if the NHL is an "old boys club", then every business which is a partnership, from your local garage to whatever else you might care to mention where there are multipel owners, is an "old boys club". It is a foolish expression.

As for your assertion that Bettman and Reinsdorf are "CLOSE FRIENDS", please demonstrate how you know this.

You do realize why Reinsdorf is a candidate to own the team, don't you? Please tell me that you do (hint: it's not merely because Reinsdorf owns the Bulls).

 

[Kencaid]

That's not different than most of the teams in out west except Colorado. The Ducks have been on VS 4 times since they won the Cup, and NBC once (I'm talking regular season only), the Kings I think once in the same time frame (when they were in London). West = no ratings, I don't think it really has much to do beyond that, which is why I've been in favor of ESPN picking up a Western Conference-dominated package with the NHL.

I like the idea of getting espn to show more west coast games, however in reality the NHL has focused primarily on the east coast teams, as the east tends to play a more open high offense style game compared to alot of western teams (the western teams play better hockey imo, are generally tougher, bigger, and are better as a whole when on the ice). Getting ESPN to show west coast games is a great idea, but they are gonna want pens/caps in there as well. I really think this would be going in the right direction for the NHL by getting ESPN to show games, allowing for more western games to be shown nationally in the US. I don't think this would help the coyotes much however, they need to win first.

But thats for another topic, onto the failboat. Yesterday it seemed that this board was starting to the favour the NHL's position going into court, but now it seems the tides have turned. There seems to be more and more going in favour of Moyes than before. This really suprises me, i thought this was going to be shut down easily by the NHL, but it seems like its going into overtime.

One thing that is scaring me regarding southern US teams as a whole is the fact that the main success story in Carolina is turning out to not be as rosy as I had thought. Somewhere in this thread it was pointed out that it took 2 rounds of playoff games to break even?? Thats terrible. For a team to be financially viable long term IMO, if the team is in the top 8 in the conference it needs to atleast break even before the playoffs (it would be nice if everyone were the leafs/habs/rangers ect., but thats not reasonable). I think given the current economic conditions however i do beleive that carolina would break even before the playoffs, and will continue to be profitable, i just hope the management group can continue to suceed and build a solid team long term.

 

[MountainHawk]

I like the idea of getting espn to show more west coast games, however in reality the NHL has focused primarily on the east coast teams, as the east tends to play a more open high offense style game compared to alot of western teams (the western teams play better hockey imo, are generally tougher, bigger, and are better as a whole when on the ice). Getting ESPN to show west coast games is a great idea, but they are gonna want pens/caps in there as well. I really think this would be going in the right direction for the NHL by getting ESPN to show games, allowing for more western games to be shown nationally in the US. I don't think this would help the coyotes much however, they need to win first.

But thats for another topic, onto the failboat. Yesterday it seemed that this board was starting to the favour the NHL's position going into court, but now it seems the tides have turned. There seems to be more and more going in favour of Moyes than before. This really suprises me, i thought this was going to be shut down easily by the NHL, but it seems like its going into overtime.

One thing that is scaring me regarding southern US teams as a whole is the fact that the main success story in Carolina is turning out to not be as rosy as I had thought. Somewhere in this thread it was pointed out that it took 2 rounds of playoff games to break even?? Thats terrible. For a team to be financially viable long term IMO, if the team is in the top 8 in the conference it needs to atleast break even before the playoffs (it would be nice if everyone were the leafs/habs/rangers ect., but thats not reasonable). I think given the current economic conditions however i do beleive that carolina would break even before the playoffs, and will continue to be profitable, i just hope the management group can continue to suceed and build a solid team long term.

Though two rounds of playoffs was reasonable, if not good under the cap. The Flyers used to need 5-6 home playoff games (pre-cap) to make money, which essentially meant a conference finals berth.

 

[GKJ]

I'm not really favoring one side of the other really, I think we should just all wait and see what happens. Obviously everyone thinks they're right

 

[GSC2k2*]

i wouldnt say that to be honest.....
sure he might not get PHX BUT Bettmen still loses .

Basillie has took a spot light to the dealings of the NHL and everyone can now see what goes on ........


Jim will stand back if he cant take PHX and wait and he will come again .............Nhl regardless of a win in PHX has got exposed

Actually, they have been exposed as an organization that keeps its stuff together pretty tightly. I suspect that some teams wish they could run their own ship as tightly.

 

[Artyukhin*]

Actually, they have been exposed as an organization that keeps its stuff together pretty tightly. I suspect that some teams wish they could run their own ship as tightly.

yup thats why there inside business dealings are all over the press now in court...nice eh.....

USED TO BE is what you should maybe have used ....


will see , i think there biggest fight is yet to come .

 

[MountainHawk]

I'm not really favoring one side of the other really, I think we should just all wait and see what happens. Obviously everyone thinks they're right

While, in the end, it doesn't matter much to me if Phoenix stays or goes, I think the anti-trust issue is just absolutely critical for the NHL to either (a) prevail on or (b) not be tested on because they win some other way.

If the court determines this is an anti-trust violation, what else falls by the way side:

(a) What right does the NHL have to enter the CBA in behalf of all teams, even if they all don't agree?

(b) What right does the NHL have to enter national TV deals?

(c) What right does the NHL have to tell teams who they have to play, where, and when?

 

[BeardyCanuck03]

I have no problem with that but as long as the NHL controls the process not the owner.

ps. if Moyes thought the franchise was long term unprofitable then why did he snooker himself with an iron-cald 30 year lease?????

It can't be exclusively the owner or the league looking there needs to be a partnership to make it work. The league cannot completely control where an owner wants to run his business.

In terms of Moyes and the Glendale arena, who knows what he was thinking. I'm pretty sure no matter what the lease was on that arena the Coyotes were going to fail out in Suburbs (a largely undeveloped area too). The only reasoning that comes to mind would be "If you build they will come".

Balsillie's chances are slim, but if he can find a way to buy the Coyotes I have a hard time believing that they will not moved to Hamilton within 2 years. The only reason Bettman doesnt' want to move a team to Southern Ontario is because he wants to expand there when the economy recovers because the expansion fee will be enormous.

All this being said, if the Coyotes are still in Phoenix in 2 years, I'll be suprised, they'll be in Kansas City or Portland if its not Hamilton.

 

[mouser]

i am following the issue...


the process is like any old "rule" in the old schoool boys club that never been challenged often and battle tested .... it can eventually fall and we might witness it today....


the team is BLEEDING MONEY it has an offer of 212

BETTMEN who is very close FRIENDS with JERRY RIENDORF has an offer of 130 million......how isnt there a conflict of interest with Bettmen(claims to be supposed owner now) trying to promote Jerry over Jim?

Because the purchase conditions required by the prospective new owners aren't equal.

 

[The Pouzar]

Though two rounds of playoffs was reasonable, if not good under the cap. The Flyers used to need 5-6 home playoff games (pre-cap) to make money, which essentially meant a conference finals berth.

IIRC the Flyers were always one of the teams that spent heavily on salaries precap. The new system was supposed to allow teams to control one of their major expenses and make more franchises profitable without needing playoff revenues to break even. I'm guessing that the Flyers don't need to make the playoffs to turn a profit anymore, but for a team to need to make it to the second round to break even , shows how serious the revenue issues are for many teams. It also demonstrates that the huge win that was sold when the new CBA was announced may not have been so great.

 

[kdb209]

If the court determines this is an anti-trust violation, what else falls by the way side:

(a) What right does the NHL have to enter the CBA in behalf of all teams, even if they all don't agree?

The same right the NHLPA has to enter the CBA on behalf of all players, even if they all don't agree.

The Non Statutory Labor exemption. The product of Collective Bargaining are generally exempt from anti trust challenges.

(b) What right does the NHL have to enter national TV deals?

The Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 grants professional sports leagues an antitrust exemption to pool broadcast rights and sell national broatcast packages.

(c) What right does the NHL have to tell teams who they have to play, where, and when?

Because the franchise agreement and other contracts between the league and the teams say so.

Just because (hypothetically) specific ownership & relocation clauses of the NHL Constitution and Bylaws may be stricken down, does not mean that any of the other founding agreements between the league and teams are suddenly nullified.

Any such existential challenge to the league would very likely result in suspension or revocation of a franchise.

 

[Northern Dancer]

It can't be exclusively the owner or the league looking there needs to be a partnership to make it work. The league cannot completely control where an owner wants to run his business.
In terms of Moyes and the Glendale arena, who knows what he was thinking. I'm pretty sure no matter what the lease was on that arena the Coyotes were going to fail out in Suburbs (a largely undeveloped area too). The only reasoning that comes to mind would be "If you build they will come".

Balsillie's chances are slim, but if he can find a way to buy the Coyotes I have a hard time believing that they will not moved to Hamilton within 2 years. The only reason Bettman doesnt' want to move a team to Southern Ontario is because he wants to expand there when the economy recovers because the expansion fee will be enormous.

All this being said, if the Coyotes are still in Phoenix in 2 years, I'll be suprised, they'll be in Kansas City or Portland if its not Hamilton.

And that is the crux of this entire thread. If they can't then why would any sane owner want to be part of that League?

I'm really getting to think that to show the absurdity of rogue ownersip that the League should call Balsillies's bluff let him fork over his 212 million U.S. let him move to Hamilton, wait till the cheque clears then announce expansion by two teams, one to K-W, the other to Toronto using the ACC in co-operation with the Leafs.

 

[GSC2k2*]

your suggesting Mr. Shumway isnt telling the truth to the court then?

Quote:
According to Mr. Shumway, Mr. Bettman persuaded Mr. Beasley to provide up to $15-million in lease concessions. Then in private chats with Mr. Shumway and Mr. Moyes, he said he could get even more. Mr. Shumway wasn't convinced. He'd calculated that even if the club received $24-million worth of breaks, it would still be $4-million in the hole.

Actually, Mr. Shumway did not quite say that in his affidavit. While parts of his affidavit are a bit messed up, and he is not using commonly-understood accounting or even business terminology, he is saying that the team AND arena collectively would lose $4 million, but ONLY after taking into account $18 million in depreciation (the majority of which is player contract depreciation). Depreciation, as you may or may not know, is not a cash item.

On an operating basis, Shumway confirmed that the team would make $3.4 million.

You should also be aware that the plan to extract $24 million in concessions was Shumway's - not the NHL. He asserted in his affidavit that he put together the numbers.

you should further be aware that the above numbers were inclusive of an operating loss on the arena end of ~$7 million. you should also be aware that the arena losses included significant and disproportionate expenses allocated from non-Coyote businesses to the hockey team (also not a cash item).

Shall i go on, or are you coming to the realization that the Globe either:

(a) dumbs stuff down for its readers, or
(b) selectively quotes from the affidavit to tell the story that it wants to tell, or
(c) doesn't have the business acumen to understand what is in the affidavits, or
(d) all of the above.

 

[Artyukhin*]

Actually, Mr. Shumway did not quite say that in his affidavit. While parts of his affidavit are a bit messed up, and he is not using commonly-understood accounting or even business terminology, he is saying that the team AND arena collectively would lose $4 million, but ONLY after taking into account $18 million in depreciation (the majority of which is player contract depreciation). Depreciation, as you may or may not know, is not a cash item.

On an operating basis, Shumway confirmed that the team would make $3.4 million.

You should also be aware that the plan to extract $24 million in concessions was Shumway's - not the NHL. He asserted in his affidavit that he put together the numbers.

you should further be aware that the above numbers were inclusive of an operating loss on the arena end of ~$7 million. you should also be aware that the arena losses included significant and disproportionate expenses allocated from non-Coyote businesses to the hockey team (also not a cash item).

Shall i go on, or are you coming to the realization that the Globe either:

(a) dumbs stuff down for its readers, or
(b) selectively quotes from the affidavit to tell the story that it wants to tell, or
(c) doesn't have the business acumen to understand what is in the affidavits, or
(d) all of the above.

why does Bettmen say in his own email that not much interest in a team losing 40 million a season ....?


Garys number way off to?was his use of 40 mm just a ball park?

but this is looking more and more difficult since no one seems to be excited about a team losing 40mm.

 

[GSC2k2*]

And that is the crux of this entire thread. If they can't then why would any sane owner want to be part of that League?

I'm really getting to think that to show the absurdity of rogue ownersip that the League should call Balsillies's bluff let him fork over his 212 million U.S. let him move to Hamilton, wait till the cheque clears then announce expansion by two teams, one to K-W, the other to Toronto using the ACC in co-operation with the Leafs.

Never mind K-W or even the ACC. You know what would kill a Hamilton franchise stone-cold, flat on its back, bottom-of-the-league dead?

A team in Mississauga.

 

[LadyStanley]

i think many know its the second paragraph is more the truth .....protecting TO and Buffalo at pretty much at all costs.....right or wrong i think thats clear to many...Heck even Walter Gretzky said to move PHX.

All I recall Walter saying is that he didn't think his son would be interested in moving (and declines the offer or renaming a possible new arena after him).

You cant tell me that there is still expansion money left from the 90s? That was all gone before the lockout. The whole "doing well" thing is a smoke screen by GB to make the NHL look stable when in fact some teams are really struggling. Any business would do that though so I can't blame him for that.

Nope. What I tried to express was that "things were good" in the 1990s due in part to the windfall of expansion fees.

http://www.torontosun.com/sports/hockey/2009/05/19/9497001-sun.html

Gretzky is set to earn $6.5 million US this coming season and $8 million the following season -- and Reinsdorf wants nothing to do with paying a coach five or six times the league average coaching salary.

Gretz may be willing to renegotiate and/or just take his agreed $$ if there is a change of ownership and go.

 

[BeardyCanuck03]

And that is the crux of this entire thread. If they can't then why would any sane owner want to be part of that League?

I'm really getting to think that to show the absurdity of rogue ownersip that the League should call Balsillies's bluff let him fork over his 212 million U.S. let him move to Hamilton, wait till the cheque clears then announce expansion by two teams, one to K-W, the other to Toronto using the ACC in co-operation with the Leafs.

Are you trying to say that, no sane owner would buy a team that they can't control where they could potentially move it to? If so I would agree.

I don't think its a bluff by Balsillie, I'm pretty certain he is dead set on moving a team to Southern Ontario. In terms of your proposed expansion teams, lol, I don't think the Leafs or the Sabres would be happy with one extra team in their area let alone three.

If the court rules in favour of Moyes, the biggest obstacle I see in the way of Balsillie is the NHL board of governers. If he can get by them I don't see the NHL willing to go through with any anti trust proceedings.

 

[Artyukhin*]

All I recall Walter saying is that he didn't think his son would be interested in moving (and declines the offer or renaming a possible new arena after him).



Nope. What I tried to express was that "things were good" in the 1990s due in part to the windfall of expansion fees.



Gretz may be willing to renegotiate and/or just take his agreed $$ if there is a change of ownership and go.

yes and it since come out that Jerry Reinsdorf bid has a condition of NO GRETZKY goodbye to wayne...

Basillie deal get Wayne 22 million

Jerrys deals gets Wanye ? atleast no job and who knows about money he is owed


..We also heard Walter say PHX should be moved .

 

[Artyukhin*]

Let just say for saying sake ....


If Basllie was bidding 212 million to move the Yotes to Winnipeg would they be in court right now?

 

[Jake16]

yes and


..We also heard Walter say PHX should be moved .

Walter Gretzky has about as much relevance to this issue as Eric Lindros' mom.

 

[Artyukhin*]

just one other thing...


Lets say the court holds the lease... team cant move for 25 more years or what ever ...

Jerry Reinsdorf buys the team keeeps losing money...does he have to go bankrupt to move Phx ?

 

[Artyukhin*]

Walter Gretzky has about as much relevance to this issue as Eric Lindros' mom.

your disrespecting Walter seriously .

 

[King_Stannis]

but ONLY after taking into account $18 million in depreciation (the majority of which is player contract depreciation). Depreciation, as you may or may not know, is not a cash item...

But the cash for those assets was paid for up front, no? So within the period, the depreciation expense is a non-cash item. But on the whole, that money was laid out there up front, I am assuming.

In other words, if you pay $12 Million for an asset and over three years you take in $10 million in revenue, your pockets are still $2 million lighter at the end of those three years. It matters only from a tax and reporting perspective how the revenue and depreciation expense falls within each year. The owner, if he is smart, will see that he outlayed more cash than he took in over the period.

Depreciation is simply an accounting and tax item that prevents you from expensing large items all at once. You are still paying for them, though.

 

[LadyStanley]

Regarding the hearing today, is there any way we can get the raw proceedings, before they're sanitized by azcentral.com or TSN? Thanks.

BOH mod mouser is planning on attending hearing.

ps. if Moyes thought the franchise was long term unprofitable then why did he snooker himself with an iron-cald 30 year lease?????

I think Moyes came on board after that lease was in place. (So can't blame him for that.)

 

[y2kcanucks]

But the cash for those assets was paid for up front, no? So within the period, the depreciation expense is a non-cash item. But on the whole, that money was laid out there up front, I am assuming.

In other words, if you pay $12 Million for an asset and over three years you take in $10 million in revenue, your pockets are still $2 million lighter at the end of those three years. It matters only from a tax and reporting perspective how the revenue and depreciation expense falls within each year. The owner, if he is smart, will see that he outlayed more cash than he took in over the period.

Depreciation is simply an accounting and tax item that prevents you from expensing large items all at once. You are still paying for them, though.

You would probably be interested in the statement of cash flows, and this would be more clearly outlined there.

Depreciation is a non-cash expense, yes, but it also goes a long way at determining the value of an entire entity. If I own a car, and I paid $20k for it, and decide to sell it in 5 years, that car is worth significantly less than what I initially paid for it. Over the years the car had lost value, and if I'm not generating any revenue from that car I'm essentially losing money (because the re-sale value is now lower as a result of its depreciation).