just read on the tsn site that balsillie has several prominent letters of recommendation from elite members of business, government and the arts.
Balsillie/Phoenix part V
- Thread starter mouser
- Start date
- Status
jessebelanger
Registered User
- Feb 18, 2009
- 2,361
- 4
For me, it's a "business" topic, in that we are discussing the operational side of the league, rather then the on-ice product. The power-struggle is part of this operation.
I had a long response to the rest of your post but figured I'd let someone else tackle it
Ok guys, I think the realignment debate has run its course in this thread for now, as there are no actual news how JB's realignment proposal would influence the legal battle or the behavior of the BoG.
Therefore, please stick to the legal and business aspects of the Balsille/Phoenix/NHL situation in this thread. For those interested in the realignment talk, there are two threads on the NHL talk board:
http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=644671
http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=639729
Therefore, please stick to the legal and business aspects of the Balsille/Phoenix/NHL situation in this thread. For those interested in the realignment talk, there are two threads on the NHL talk board:
http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=644671
http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=639729
Last edited:
MAROONSRoad
f/k/a Ghost
Coyotes buying their own tickets?
I posted this in the previous thread:
A few posters questioned me regarding a source for the bolded part re. Moyes purchasing tickets. That's just something I've read in a few media reports, i.e., that Moyes was buying Coyotes' tickets last season to boost attendance.
Here's an example of such report:
Link:
http://www.azcentral.com/sports/coyotes/articles/2009/05/18/20090518biz-coyotes0518.html
I have no idea of the validity of such reports, although it could go some way in explaning the discrepancy between the "turnstile" and "paid" attendance figures above.
The fact remains, however, that only 10,942 fans on average attended Coyotes games for the 08/09 regular season (assuming such figure is not challenged by the NHL or others in court).
GHOST
I posted this in the previous thread:
A few posters questioned me regarding a source for the bolded part re. Moyes purchasing tickets. That's just something I've read in a few media reports, i.e., that Moyes was buying Coyotes' tickets last season to boost attendance.
Here's an example of such report:
Link:
http://www.azcentral.com/sports/coyotes/articles/2009/05/18/20090518biz-coyotes0518.html
I have no idea of the validity of such reports, although it could go some way in explaning the discrepancy between the "turnstile" and "paid" attendance figures above.
The fact remains, however, that only 10,942 fans on average attended Coyotes games for the 08/09 regular season (assuming such figure is not challenged by the NHL or others in court).
GHOST
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/sports/Bettman+would+allow+Islanders+move/1660784/story.html
There was that story in the Ottawa Citizen this morning. I really got to wonder if Bettman would allow Balsillie to purchase the Islanders off of Wang and then move them to Hamilton. They'd also be able to pick up John Tavares and move him close to home as well. Kind of OT, but I wonder if this might be Balsillie's next target.
There was that story in the Ottawa Citizen this morning. I really got to wonder if Bettman would allow Balsillie to purchase the Islanders off of Wang and then move them to Hamilton. They'd also be able to pick up John Tavares and move him close to home as well. Kind of OT, but I wonder if this might be Balsillie's next target.
Ah so it's your contention that the monies JB will be paying the city for the lease is considered "next to nothing " ?
Comparitive to what those buildings netted the city in the past years.
Interesting article... I think there's a couple key differences to note however (not that it makes it right) which I think a lot of people will miss out on.
1. The threat of movement is common practice to try and get funding for new arenas/permission to build them. Like Seattle with the Sonics; a large portion of the blame can be placed on local government, not the League as a whole. Bettman should fight for the Islanders in Long Island; but if a new arena isn't coming then there really is no choice (like there was in Pittsburgh before the new building got approved). This isn't that different from the Phoenix situation, where there are new owners willing to keep the team there... Balsillie is trying to circumvent this.
2. NHL Strategy - Phoenix represents a key television market for the NHL. The Islanders were just an opportunity to get more money out of the New York market (similar to Hamilton trying to get more money out of the Toronto/Buffalo market). This seems to be overflooded by New Jersey coming in aswell, with all 3 teams attendance less than desired. Since NJ has a brand new arena; and the Rangers are obviously not going anywhere; the Islanders seem the logical ones to move.
Moving the Islanders to KC, Vegas, Seattle or Portland would open up the NHL's reach, strengthen the non-eastern seabord presence (helping it compete with the big 3), and should strengthen the league overall.
While the Rangers & Devils will likely miss the Islander rivalry, a move would likely bring Boston into the division.
Someone pull up the list of games the national broadcasters in the US have televised the past 2-3 years.
Other than Detroit, the Western Conference, representing 15 teams - yes, HALF of the NHL - hardly ever make the cut. Now that Chicago is coming back to life, that may tip ever so slightly in the other direction, Chicago being such an insignificant media market and all.
The part about the on-ice product being a factor is bunk. If it were, the Ducks and Sharks should have been televised more frequently than, you know, the Rangers. What's the tally at now anyway, as far as Eastern teams being televised on the so-called national game as opposed to a Western team?
The footprint is a figment of someone's overactive imagination.
Jake16
Registered User
Simply stated, the "business" decision for the league is this:
1. The league believes that the franchise operations in Phoenix can be turned around and that it can be a viable market (3rd largest city in Western Conf.);
2. League believes that it has an owner (Reinsdorf, Breslow,...) that is willing to purchase the team and keep it in Phoenix (likely subject to certain conditions like attandance thresholds);
3. The "business opportunity" for a franchise in S. Ontario belongs to the league and can be sold as an expansion franchise by the league at the approriate time;
4. The League belisves that at the right time, it can sell the expansion franchise to Balsilie or whoever else and charge say a $350M franchise fee;
5. If that is done the league and the other 29 teams share in that acquisition price (10-12 per team); If done Balsilies' and Moyes' way, the league and the 29 teams get nothing. Essentially Moyes usurps that business opportunity for himself, screwing the other 29 teams out of their share of any money.
6. Balsilie's and Moyes' plan calls for no additional payments to the Leafs and Sabres for infringing on their "home territory." The leugue believes there should be something.
So there is some "business" rationale for what the NHL is doing in this dispute.
In trying to attack my point; you just proved it. They need to increase their presence in the West and Phoenix is a big market to do it in.
7. The League needs a national TV deal for long term sustainability. They aren't going to get that while they have 1 team in the sunbelt between Atlanta & California.
I have still never got a decent answer to this bizarre line of reasoning. Where was this "I'm getting screwed over" sentiment when Hartford moved to Carolina, Minnesota moved to Dallas, etc.? The league itself has never got a cent for any relocations in the past, why start now?
If they don't want to move a team to Hamilton, holding out for an expansion fee, all that says is the market of Hamilton is worth millions, while the lesser hockey markets of Raleigh, Dallas, Denver and Phoenix were worth absolutely nothing to the league. Which in a roundabout way proves that Hamilton is a better market than the rest of these places, and should have a team. The league is basically saying they will gladly do worse overall (with a team in PHX instead of Hamilton) to keep alive the dream of future expansion fees, even though they already over-expanded and have several teams in trouble. Why has their strategy somehow changed? Why didn't they prop up a team in Winnipeg losing millions a year so they could rake in lucrative expansion money for a team in Phoenix??
In essence, the league is basically blocking this move because Hamilton is too good of a hockey market and is worth something as an expansion location. How does this make any sense at all? Aren't we supposed to have 30 healthy franchises in the best 30 hockey markets in North America? Replace Hamilton with KC and I'm sure the sale would have gone through already.
Ever been to Dallas?
Edit: Never mind. 1 team = Dallas. I'll work on my reading skills.
Last edited:
David_99
Registered User
Ah, I get it. Woops. My bad. But the league has 0 teams in the northern states west of Minnesota, no one seems too worried about that.
I did nothing of the sort. They've had a presence in the West for quite some time, but the national networks don't have much stomach for it....
Phoenix is a big market, but are you saying that a successful franchise there (on-ice) would somehow change broadcast habits? Did anything change after Anaheim won the Cup? As an aside, it's quite amazing how overlooked they were as a team. They have an outstanding talent in Getzlaf, and one of the best defenses in the league. One could make a case for the Sharks and the season they had during the regular season.... Yet... did we hear much about any of them? Nope. We know where the camera was pointed. Why wasn't NBC or VS falling over themselves to get these teams on the air more frequently? They're among the best on-ice products in the world, and in a couple of the biggest media markets in the country-- even bigger than Phoenix.
There are fifteen teams in the Western Conference. What is preventing NBC, ESPN (assuming they had a contract with the league), and VS from broadcasting more Western games? They can pick from Phoenix, Anaheim, San Jose, LA, Dallas, Colorado, Minnesota, Nashville, Columbus, Detroit, Chicago, and St. Louis as far as US-based teams.
Why aren't they doing it? The footprint argument apparently has no legs upon which to stand.......
Raleigh, Dallas, Denver and Phoenix all serve(d) a purpose to the league in trying to open up new markets which in the long run would contribute more revenue to everyone in the form of a widespread american appeal to the game. Colorado & Dallas (which was the one team I was referring to) basically connected the massive gap from St. Louis to California. Raleigh exposed hockey to the less metropolitan areas of the sunbelt and problably laid a bit of the foundation for Nashville & Atlanta. Phoenix is there to strengthen the presence in the southwest.
They're blocking this move because it serves no purpose other than a cash generator, so in order for them to allow it, they want the cash to replace the lost future league value as a result of no Phoenix team.
Meanwhile the NHL has to spend money in order to keep the revenue-challenged teams competitive; or in extreme cases like this one, keep Phoenix operational while also incurring legal fees. A $400 million expansion fee, inclusive of indemnity fees to a couple of the franchises, would leave what, $10 millionish per team?
Why isn't this like some shell game, just moving money around without really coming up with 'more' money?
Thanks for that well-spelled out reply. Now may I be permitted to ask what I guess is a purely speculative question, and hope to get an honest speculative answer, again from whoever.
If Balsillie had come along in this Coyotes situation and told the League that he decided that he just wanted an NHL franchise and that he'd move it to Kansas City, with a promise to keep the team there (at mimimum 10 years), would this circus now be in court?
Here are my points:
1. Toronto doesn't want another team in their backyard. MLSE wants to keep control of everything north, west, and south of them (in the province). They were already forced to give a piece of their eastern Ontario pie to Ottawa. (Location, huge NHL influence, and a business irritation)
2. Buffalo also isn't keen about having another team very near by. It's a small market team and any % of fans that might more often go to another team's games would be hurtful, even if only mildly. (Location, and business)
3. Detroit almost certainly doesn't want another team in the east, especially one just east of them. If there's ever hope of Detroit being put in the Eastern Conference, such a situation makes even less likely. (location, and future realignment)
4. Chicago, St. Louis, Atlanta, Colorado, Vancouver, and now possibly the whole Northwest Division, or even teams like Boston, and Pittsburgh or Philadelphia - - - one or more could be negatively effected with respect to alignment if Hamilton gets a team. The League now has a number of established Divisional groupings that want to protect those alignments and, in doing so, where a new team is located has huge significance. (Location, and alignment)
* Now, if a new team went to Kansas City, Las Vegas, Houston, Seattle, Portland, or hell even Winnipeg then very few in the League would be up-in-arms trying to stop it. And this is particularly true if that new team is replacing another team in the West.
Yes okay, "business" is a significant part of all this, but just as much so, no, even more so, it's about WHERE Balsillie wants to put his team.
If this particular team is lost, there is nothing that prevents the NHL from placing another team in the greater Phoenix area, assuming an owner would be willing to make a go of it. If the current location of the arena is a problem, they might in fact be better off by leaving-- and THEN placing a new team in Scottsdale. They'd also be able to collect a franchise fee.
I did nothing of the sort. They've had a presence in the West for quite some time, but the national networks don't have much stomach for it....
Phoenix is a big market, but are you saying that a successful franchise there (on-ice) would somehow change broadcast habits? Did anything change after Anaheim won the Cup? As an aside, it's quite amazing how overlooked they were as a team. They have an outstanding talent in Getzlaf, and one of the best defenses in the league. One could make a case for the Sharks and the season they had during the regular season.... Yet... did we hear much about any of them? Nope. We know where the camera was pointed. Why wasn't NBC or VS falling over themselves to get these teams on the air more frequently? They're among the best on-ice products in the world, and in a couple of the biggest media markets in the country-- even bigger than Phoenix.
There are fifteen teams in the Western Conference. What is preventing NBC, ESPN (assuming they had a contract with the league), and VS from broadcasting more Western games? They can pick from Phoenix, Anaheim, San Jose, LA, Dallas, Colorado, Minnesota, Nashville, Columbus, Detroit, Chicago, and St. Louis as far as US-based teams.
Why aren't they doing it? The footprint argument apparently has not legs upon which to stand.......
The national networks don't have the stomach for it because people in the west don't care for the most part. Its up to the NHL to then decide whether to admit defeat and wait of MLS to take your sponsorship dollars, and all of your players go to some sort of Pan-Europe hockey league; or to continue fighting to make people in the west care. The NHL has committed to the latter.
The way to do that is to have the hockey presence, good teams, and local rivalries to drum up bar-talk.... or do you have a better suggestion?
Hmmm... National TV deal... I wonder, how many people, in the southwest let's say, watch the NHL on TV outside of Dallas, Denver, and Phoenix? Hey, didn't I just read somewhere in the previous Balsillie thread that there were something like 7,000 people in Phoenix who regularly watched the NHL on TV? Honestly, I don't remember, that number just rings a bell.
And again, what about the rest of Texas, Colorado, Arizona, Louisiana, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Utah, Nevada.... how many people outside of Dallas, Denver, and Phoenix watch the NHL on TV?
National TV deal, covering the southwest... hah.
Yes, because none of those other markets are tested, other than Winnipeg. The latter would almost certainly require revenue sharing to stay afloat, especially if the CAD ever decides to head south too...
Furthermore, adding expansion teams to any of those cities would mean an even bigger NHL. Yeah, I love that idea....
And moving teams from current locations to any of those would mean that (a) someone screwed up in putting teams in these 'preferred' markets in the first place; and/or (b) someone really screwed up managing a team in a preferred location. Why are the current cities ahead of the list you just generated anyway? Could be that they had an arena, but if they're failing so much so that relocation is on the docket (hypothetically), wouldn't the move mean they're going to a less desirable market?
I think the problem remains that the NHL has saturated the market. There really aren't ANY options left that are no-brainers (other than Hamilton if you remove the territorial concerns, which are legit concerns). There is no city remaining that has everything: population/media, an NHL-ready arena, demand for hockey, no risk for a new franchise, an owner with deep pockets who is passionate about the sport, and being somehow more desirable than current NHL cities.
Exactly! If the NHL really wants a team in Phoenix, and it has owners ready to put a team there, then Phoenix can get the new "expansion" franchise with all the expansion fees that go with it. Oh sure, expansion fees for a team in Phoenix probably wouldn't be as much as they'd be for a team in Hamilton, but I seriously don't think that difference is worth having this court battle over. And the simple fact is that MLSE does NOT want another team in southern Ontario... expansion fees gained or lost there isn't the issue.
TaketheCannoli
RIP
That's a fair question. I think the answer lies in a few details: The owners of those franchises applied to the BoG to move the teams and received approval. The groups that applied to move those teams actually owned the franchises, which is a requirement of the NHL constitution. Neither Carolina nor Dallas were in the home territory of an existing franchise. The latter of those two movements was 12 years ago. One might argue the league has a right to modify policies and it's constitution in 12 years.
In the short view yes. On the other hand, if the league wants to compete for the sports entertainment dollar in North America, it needs a presence in these markets.
There was no arena nor any qualified prospective owners willing to buy the Jets.
In essence, the league is blocking this move because:
Moyes doesn't own the rights to Hamilton
Placing a franchise in Hamilton will have a detrimental impact on both the Leafs and the Sabres.
Balsillie's contract has specifically excluded territorial payment of any kind to anyone other than Moyes.
There are several additional issues, like the voiding of BoG voting rights by filing bankruptcy, media rights etc. They are covered in earlier posts.
Last edited:
- Status
