Balsillie/Phoenix part V

[kdb209]

Hmmmm. Is there any cost to bid? Could I actually bid $5 on the Phoenix Coyotes, as long as I submit the bid to the court with the proper paperwork?

I'd do it, with the clause that I be allowed to relocate the team somewhere crazy.

I could then refer to myself as "an investor interested in bringing the NHL to _____."

$20M deposit just to bid - sorry. Maybe you and 4M of your closest friends could become "investors interested in bringing the NHL to _____."

http://www.nationalpost.com/sports/story.html?id=1663904

Judge sets rules for potential Coyotes auction
Sean Fitz-Gerald, National Post Published: Thursday, June 04, 2009

If you can afford a US$20-million deposit, and if you have proof you are filthy, stinking rich beyond the value of that deposit, you may be able to bid against Jim Balsillie for the Phoenix Coyotes.

Judge Redfield T. Baum laid out procedures for a potential auction in a conditional order filed yesterday by his Arizona bankruptcy court. Balsillie, the Canadian billionaire, made an offer of US$212.5-million for the Coyotes last month after owner Jerry Moyes filed the team for bankruptcy.

Anyone interested in making a competing bid - in writing - has until 5 p.m. local time in Phoenix on June 17 to take part in an auction that would begin five days later. Bidders will have to submit their offers to Moyes' attorneys, who will in turn share the information with lawyers representing the team's unsecured creditors.

 

[DaHabMan]

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=280970

saw this on tsn, dont know if it has been posted elsewhere or not, but paul kelly states that from the players perspective its time to pull the plug on the coyotes franchise and he asks the question "How much money must (a franchise) lose before someone says, ‘perhaps they ought not to be there?"

 

[Egil]

$20M deposit just to bid - sorry. Maybe you and 4M of your closest friends could become "investors interested in bringing the NHL to _____."

http://www.nationalpost.com/sports/story.html?id=1663904

Am I right in thinking that the condition of this order is the judge's ruling on relocation? This certainly makes it seem like the judge has a reasonable chance of ruling in favour of relocation.

 

[TheHMan]

Kelly's position on the subject was noted before. He's mainly in favor of moving Phoenix because a move like that would clearly drive up the cap (which is good for the players)


Personally, I can't say I disagree that much. There's one thing I would like to see from the league and it's stability. Phoenix is having problems along with many other clubs. I seem to see people bringing up points about winning and if Phoenix started winning, then they'd make money. I'm not sure how they're going to be winning anytime soon by consistently spending to the floor and bleeding money, so it seems like a no win situation for them right now.

The only hope is that someone comes in with a ton of cash and is willing to spend right to the cap. Given their entire history of losing money though, it doesn't seem like there are too many groups willing to purchase the Coyotes as is. I get the feeling that one way or the other, there won't be any serious bids to keep the Coyotes in Phoenix and Balsillie's proposal would at least give some kind of closure to the issue if it went through.

 

[KevFu]

$20M deposit just to bid - sorry. Maybe you and 4M of your closest friends could become "investors interested in bringing the NHL to _____."

http://www.nationalpost.com/sports/story.html?id=1663904

Refundable?

Oh well, looks like I'll have to partner with John Spano.

 

[mouser]

Am I right in thinking that the condition of this order is the judge's ruling on relocation? This certainly makes it seem like the judge has a reasonable chance of ruling in favour of relocation.

This is contingent on Moyes/Balsillie winning the relocation question Tuesday. If the NHL wins there will be a different auction process established for a later date.

I wouldn't read anything into the Judge's decision here signaling how he will rule Tuesday. The Moyes/Balsillie auction timeline proposal is very tight and the Judge has allowed the auction procedure and some other topics to proceed in parallel rather than waiting till relocation is answered.

 

[copperandblue]

This is contingent on Moyes/Balsillie winning the relocation question Tuesday. If the NHL wins there will be a different auction process established for a later date.

Is it possible for the judge to rule that the franchise can be relocated but still not give the purchaser the right to choose the destination without NHL approval?

 

[Egil]

This is contingent on Moyes/Balsillie winning the relocation question Tuesday. If the NHL wins there will be a different auction process established for a later date.

I wouldn't read anything into the Judge's decision here signaling how he will rule Tuesday. The Moyes/Balsillie auction timeline proposal is very tight and the Judge has allowed the auction procedure and some other topics to proceed in parallel rather than waiting till relocation is answered.

Yeah, reasonable wasn't the best word. I think it is clearly non-zero though, otherwise the judge would have decided a while ago and saved himself this work.

 

[TaketheCannoli]

Yeah, reasonable wasn't the best word. I think it is clearly non-zero though, otherwise the judge would have decided a while ago and saved himself this work.

The filings on both sides of the relocation argument are due today, and there will be oral arguments Tuesday the 9th. The Judge hasn't reviewed the filings nor heard the arguments yet, so I don't know if he knows which way he's leaning.

 

[Northern Dancer]

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=280970

saw this on tsn, dont know if it has been posted elsewhere or not, but paul kelly states that from the players perspective its time to pull the plug on the coyotes franchise and he asks the question "How much money must (a franchise) lose before someone says, ‘perhaps they ought not to be there?"

But I thought the NHLPA believed the owners all cooked the books to show losses and were making a fortune off the backs of the poor hard working players.

 

[mouser]

Yeah, reasonable wasn't the best word. I think it is clearly non-zero though, otherwise the judge would have decided a while ago and saved himself this work.

I would have originally had the same assumption myself, but after sitting through a couple of the court hearing I've developed an appreciation for how the Judge has conducted this case and learned a lot along the way. IMO he's done a very good and efficient job so far handling all the parties and issues.

He took some of the issues that many of us assumed would be critical--like the control question--and got them out of the way at least for the moment while allowing the core bankruptcy to proceed forward. For the most part he's avoiding preemptively shutting down any items that are dependent on key rulings like relocation. The ones he could delay he did, while the ones that were time sensitive (like the proposed late June Moyes/Balsillie auction) he's allowed to proceed, contingent on what happens in those key rulings. While he may already know how he expects to rule Tuesday, he still has an obligation to follow proper court protocol in handling the outstanding motions before that time.

 

[Egil]

I would have originally had the same assumption myself, but after sitting through a couple of the court hearing I've developed an appreciation for how the Judge has conducted this case and learned a lot along the way. IMO he's done a very good and efficient job so far handling all the parties and issues.

He took some of the issues that many of us assumed would be critical--like the control question--and got them out of the way at least for the moment while allowing the core bankruptcy to proceed forward. For the most part he's avoiding preemptively shutting down any items that are dependent on key rulings like relocation. The ones he could delay he did, while the ones that were time sensitive (like the proposed late June Moyes/Balsillie auction) he's allowed to proceed, contingent on what happens in those key rulings. While he may already know how he expects to rule Tuesday, he still has an obligation to follow proper court protocol in handling the outstanding motions before that time.

Couldn't he have rejected the relocation motion immediately?

 

[Faltorvo]

It's existence is in the court filings. The details are not public. It exists all right.

The document is in the court filings or just gary bettmans claim there is an offer?

If it's just GBs claim or statement that an offer exists, i find valid claim to be suspicious of it, seeing his track record lately in regards to PHO.

It would be silly or even an exaggeration to assume everything coming out of GBs mouth to be entirely forthcoming in regards to PHO.

 

[mouser]

Couldn't he have rejected the relocation motion immediately?

The Judge asked both sides in the hearing on the 27th if they were prepared to discuss the relocation topic at that time so he could reach a ruling. The NHL said yes. Moyes' lawyer said no--they wanted time to file more motions and prepare for that hearing. The Judge then scheduled the June 9th hearing primarily for that topic. Today is the deadline for both sides to file their motions, looking forward to find out if there's anything noteworthy in them.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=280970

saw this on tsn, dont know if it has been posted elsewhere or not, but paul kelly states that from the players perspective its time to pull the plug on the coyotes franchise and he asks the question "How much money must (a franchise) lose before someone says, ‘perhaps they ought not to be there?"

OF COURSE Paul Kelly is going to be all for pulling the plug on Phoenix and moving the team to Hamilton - it would mean more revenue generated, and thus more money for the players. In fact, Kelly would be all for moving the existing teams around in such away that teams were located in the 30 spots that maximized revenue for the players; if that meant 4 teams in Toronto and 3 teams in Montreal, while New York had one and places like Los Angeles/Anaheim, Dallas, Atlanta, Minnesota, and Buffalo no longer had a team, that would be just dandy for Kelly and the NHLPA. If that meant a team in London, Paris, Brisbane and Quito, that would be great for Kelly as well. If those teams happened to make a profit, ... well, that's nice - if they don't, it's not Kelly's problem. After all, it's not the union that has to shoulder losses - that's the problem of the owners. The players get their percentage whether the owners make $300 million or lose $300 million.

For Kelly and the NHLPA, the name of the game is "maximize HRR" through whatever means available. If Kelly could sell nightly stayovers at players' houses and have it count as HRR, you can bet he'd at least push the idea to the players. Kelly's job [as it should be] is to look out for the best interests of the players - and that means helping them get every last dollar they possibly can. The NHLPA is going to push for anything that is in their best interests first - and if it happens to be in the best interests of the owners, that's just pure luck.

The answer to Kelly's question: "as long as an owner is willing to shoulder losses incurred from operating in a given market, he is entitled to operate the team there for as long as he wishes - and there's nothing the NHLPA or fans of any other market can do about it." You know ... kind of like I've said for about 3 years now.

And no ... the NHLPA has no control in how or where [or even if] a team operates. Anyone who thinks they do should read Article 5 of the CBA.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

OF COURSE Paul Kelly is going to be all for pulling the plug on Phoenix and moving the team to Hamilton - it would mean more revenue generated, and thus more money for the players. In fact, Kelly would be all for moving the existing teams around in such away that teams were located in the 30 spots that maximized revenue for the players; if that meant 4 teams in Toronto and 3 teams in Montreal, while New York had one and places like Los Angeles/Anaheim, Dallas, Atlanta, Minnesota, and Buffalo no longer had a team, that would be just dandy for Kelly and the NHLPA. If that meant a team in London, Paris, Brisbane and Quito, that would be great for Kelly as well. If those teams happened to make a profit, ... well, that's nice - if they don't, it's not Kelly's problem. After all, it's not the union that has to shoulder losses - that's the problem of the owners. The players get their percentage whether the owners make $300 million or lose $300 million.

For Kelly and the NHLPA, the name of the game is "maximize HRR" through whatever means available. If Kelly could sell nightly stayovers at players' houses and have it count as HRR, you can bet he'd at least push the idea to the players. Kelly's job [as it should be] is to look out for the best interests of the players - and that means helping them get every last dollar they possibly can. The NHLPA is going to push for anything that is in their best interests first - and if it happens to be in the best interests of the owners, that's just pure luck.

The answer to Kelly's question: "as long as an owner is willing to shoulder losses incurred from operating in a given market, he is entitled to operate the team there for as long as he wishes - and there's nothing the NHLPA or fans of any other market can do about it." You know ... kind of like I've said for about 3 years now.

And no ... the NHLPA has no control in how or where [or even if] a team operates. Anyone who thinks they do should read Article 5 of the CBA.

it's a wonder Kelly isn't being forced out of the PA, for even suggesting that because isn't EVERYone in the Coyotes organization members of the NHLPA, Which would cover the existing labor contract?

 

[LadyStanley]

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=281013

CP on MLB/NFL/NBA joint amici curiae brief

The NFL, Major League Baseball and the NBA said in a joint brief that such a ruling "has the potential to undermine the business of professional hockey and other major league sports."

 

[william_adams]

OF COURSE Paul Kelly is going to be all for pulling the plug on Phoenix and moving the team to Hamilton - it would mean more revenue generated, and thus more money for the players. In fact, Kelly would be all for moving the existing teams around in such away that teams were located in the 30 spots that maximized revenue for the players; if that meant 4 teams in Toronto and 3 teams in Montreal, while New York had one and places like Los Angeles/Anaheim, Dallas, Atlanta, Minnesota, and Buffalo no longer had a team, that would be just dandy for Kelly and the NHLPA. If that meant a team in London, Paris, Brisbane and Quito, that would be great for Kelly as well. If those teams happened to make a profit, ... well, that's nice - if they don't, it's not Kelly's problem. After all, it's not the union that has to shoulder losses - that's the problem of the owners. The players get their percentage whether the owners make $300 million or lose $300 million.

Is it me or are you arguing both sides of this?? How is it not in Paul Kelly's interest to avoid relocations where losses would occur...?

 

[LadyStanley]

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=281013

CP on MLB/NFL/NBA joint amici curiae brief

A couple more interesting paragraphs (extracted from brief)

The brief filed by the other three sports leagues contends "there is no legal justification for abrogating the NHL's right ... to determine the owner of each NHL franchise and to determine the locations of where the NHL will present its collective product."

The leagues went on to contend that "even if there were a legal basis permitting such action, this court should not pursue such a course, which would encourage financially challenged franchises to enlist the aid of bankruptcy courts in an effort to circumvent established league rules that govern such league decisions."

 

[jkrdevil]

Is it me or are you arguing both sides of this?? How is it not in Paul Kelly's interest to avoid relocations where losses would occur...?

I think what Irish is saying is of course Paul Kelly wants this to happen, but Paul Kelly's opinion is irrelevant in the matter.

 

[william_adams]

I think what Irish is saying is of course Paul Kelly wants this to happen, but Paul Kelly's opinion is irrelevant in the matter.

yeah, that part i got (and agree with), but i didn't understand the point he was making about paul kelly not caring if teams moved and then started to lose buckets of dough.

 

[Fugu]

yeah, that part i got (and agree with), but i didn't understand the point he was making about paul kelly not caring if teams moved and then started to lose buckets of dough.

I think what he's trying to say is that players only have to worry about revenues, since they're guaranteed to get 54-57% of league HRR. Owners, on the other hand, have to worry about their costs, as a function of their own revenues and league-wide revenues (since that's how the cap is set). Life is easier if you never have to worry about first covering costs.

 

[LadyStanley]

http://vyous.com/sports/nhl/maplele...-glendale---sportsbusiness-daily-subscription
Paid access to article, but blurb states "Coyotes Management" had requested concessions of $15m from City of Glendale.

 

[william_adams]

I think what he's trying to say is that players only have to worry about revenues, since they're guaranteed to get 54-57% of league HRR. Owners, on the other hand, have to worry about their costs, as a function of their own revenues and league-wide revenues (since that's how the cap is set). Life is easier if you never have to worry about first covering costs.

ok i get that too. but i'm sure everyone wud agree that in general if revenues are higher in city A than city B then profits should in general be better too... costs aren't that different for teams in a cap world...

one of the beautiful things about this CBA is that the owners and players interests are generally aligned. if paul kelly thought that having a team in phoenix was good for the long-term growth strategy of the league then it would be in his interests to defend bettman and his attempt to keep the team in phoenix. he doesn't think so, so he has publicly come out to say that the team shud move...

Bettman (completely understandably) is trying avoid losing a team to a non-strategic area (ie no additional TV audience, no growth of the sport) without getting an expansion fee. Completely correct of him to do so IMO. If Ballsillie was trying to move the team to Las Vegas, i'd think the NHL would have MUCH less of a problem... (i don't think that if phoenix is still around that they'd put an expansion team in vegas, but whether or not phoenix is around i think they'd consider a team in Southern Ontario...)

which is why i think the endgame for this (barring any unexpected rulings from the court) is for phoenix to be sold to a non-ballsillie owner (who could potentially relocate to vegas in a few years if certain conditions (attendance etc) are met) AND then for expansion to be announced with southern ontario being one of the targets. big jim could get his team and the geographical strategy is not compromised. pretty sure big jim would have to pony up a lot more than 212.5mm tho...

 

[DuklaNation]

Phoenix faked their attendance #'s yet that gets little discussion. How many other teams do likewise. Its pretty obvious many of those struggling US markets have been inflating their attendance #'s for quite some time.