Balsillie/Phoenix part V

[Fugu]

Mr. Basillie, ....please meet the Toronto Maple Leafs.

(Ya sure Jim, this will be done by the draft.)


http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/2009/06/04/kelley_leafs_nhl/

The Maple Leafs are prepared to fight even the NHL to defend their market.
***

"Nice gesture and sure to grab media attention, but unless it is the Toronto Maple Leafs parent company, Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment, or gets permission from MLSE, they should expect a court fight.

Sportsnet.ca has learned that the Leafs have no intention of ceding what they believe are their territorial rights and are prepared to go to court to defend them, whether it is expansion into their market or the bid by Research in Motion co-founder Jim Balsillie to relocate the Phoenix Coyotes to Southern Ontario.

That fight would likely include a battle with the National Hockey League if it were to cut a deal to allow either or any group in without the Leafs' permission.

"We've been told that the Leafs have made their feelings known to the league," a source with knowledge of the proceedings told sportsnet.ca. "It's our understanding that no matter who is behind this group the Leafs have no intention of allowing a second team into their marketplace and that they, not the National Hockey League, have the final say in this matter."

That would set the stage for a lawsuit of massive proportions against the league and its member teams. It would also set the Leafs against the NHL and what it perceives to be its right to determine where franchises go.

"(The Leafs) will sue the league if it attempts to bring a team to the marketplace without their permission and they will sue each of the individual member teams should any one of them bring a team to the marketplace to play that team without their permission. They believe they have that right under the NHL constitution," the source said."

At long last.... The 50,000 pound elephant speaks. Or would it be a 100,000 pound gorilla?

 

[Mayo Taco Monday]

At long last.... The 50,000 pound elephant speaks. Or would it be a 100,000 pound gorilla?

however much it weighs, it is one hell of a big leaf

 

[Laus723]

Imo, that's awesome! Balsille does a great job not steppin on toes, doesn't he?

 

[Fourier]

At long last.... The 50,000 pound elephant speaks. Or would it be a 100,000 pound gorilla?

Does the assertion that the Leafs have a defacto veto on any such move put them back in conflict with the Canadian Competition Bureau?

 

[Jake16]

At long last.... The 50,000 pound elephant speaks. Or would it be a 100,000 pound gorilla?

Its bigger than that. Way, way bigger.

 

[Jake16]

Does the assertion that the Leafs have a defacto veto on any such move put them back in conflict with the Canadian Competition Bureau?

That the Leafs, in time, will take a position contrary to the league's stated position to the CCB (i.e no single team has a veto, rather relocation issues are by majority or 3/4 vote) complicates things but I'm not sure its determinative of anything now becuase nothing has actually occured yet. (As the team has not been sold and moved with approval, giving the Leafs or Balsilie thei issue is not yet ripe.) The league and the "other 28" teams are going to be very, very careful to follow applicable legal precedent and avoid and antitrust violation.

My initial reaction to this news though is that with this new legal battle on the horizon, it sure makes it alot easier for any team on the fence to think about just voting 'no' to Balsilie's ownership application vote, bypassing the fight for now. Under the Fishman v. Wirtz case and the Levin v. NBA case that seems to be the "other 28" owners easiest way to sidestep the opening of this bee hive. Courts in those cases held that it is not an antritrust violation to just vote 'no' on ownership approval to someone you didn't like and did not think would make a good partner. The veto issue on the other hand may be a far trickier legal battle if either the Leafs or Balsilie acquires standing to bring such an action. So if I'm Columbus, St. Louis, San Jose or LA or some other team without a huge vested interest in this dispute I'm thinking its alot easier to just 'no' vote on Balsilie right now, maintaining the status quo.

Now teams have to actually be willing to go to bat for Balsilie and Hamilton...do the other 28 teams really have a burning desire to do that? 3 hours ago I thought the vote would be near unanimous against Balsilie on ownership transfer, now I'm certain.

 

[kombayn]

MLSE is asking for trouble, someone will crack that marketplace from them and if they have to do it legally, the MLSE is going to lose a pretty penny.

 

[Fourier]

That the Leafs, in time, will take a position contrary to the league's stated position to the CCB (i.e no single team has a veto, rather relocation issues are by majority or 3/4 vote) complicates things but I'm not sure its determinative of anything now becuase nothing has actually occured yet. (As the team has not been sold and moved with approval, giving the Leafs or Balsilie thei issue is not yet ripe.) The league and the "other 28" teams are going to be very, very careful to follow applicable legal precedent and avoid and antitrust violation.

My initial reaction to this news though is that with this new legal battle on the horizon, it sure makes it alot easier for any team on the fence to think about just voting 'no' to Balsilie's ownership application vote, bypassing the fight for now. Under the Fishman v. Wirtz case and the Levin v. NBA case that seems to be the "other 28" owners easiest way to sidestep the opening of this bee hive. Courts in those cases held that it is not an antritrust violation to just vote 'no' on ownership approval to someone you didn't like and did not think would make a good partner. The veto issue on the other hand may be a far trickier legal battle if either the Leafs or Balsilie acquires standing to bring such an action. So if I'm Columbus, St. Louis, San Jose or LA or some other team without a huge vested interest in this dispute I'm thinking its alot easier to just 'no' vote on Balsilie right now, maintaining the status quo.

Now teams have to actually be willing to go to bat for Balsilie and Hamilton...do the other 28 teams really have a burning desire to do that? 3 hours ago I thought the vote would be near unanimous against Balsilie on ownership transfer, now I'm certain.

kdb might want to chime in here, but it is my understanding that in order to satisfy the CCB the league changed the relocation rules to a simple majority. While I certainly agree that the Leafs and the NHL have done nothing yet, I am wondering how much noise would have to be made before the CCB is brought back into the mix.

I agree that Balsillie's chances of getting support are slim to none with none likely holding the big upper hand. This is why I would have thought it in the Leaf's best interests to simply keep quiet.

 

[Laus723]

Best post I've seen in a while. This is a great way of looking at it. A mismanaged team in Canada happens to be the most profitable team in the NHL.

Where has it gotten them??

Almost like the Penguins before Crosby, 80s Red Wings, the Hawks of a few years ago, etc?

And the Bruins of a few years, they were lower than Florida, guess they and the Hawks should've moved, too?

 

[GSC2k2*]

You still aren't addressing what you stated earlier. It was rather all-encompassing about having market presence to compete for the NA sports entertainment dollar.

And you are not acknowledging that you asked Leek for a marketing authority to state that the footprint philosophy is valid. He did so, in spades. Please be so kind as to acknowledge same.

If by this you mean just the TV dollars, well say that. There is more to the NA sports dollar than national TV money-- as the NHL knows. It's been said before, the league is a two and half billion dollar industry without the enormous TV deal. Would it be 'nice' to have? Maybe, if you're an owner, but from my perspective, it doesn't really change much in my viewing or accessibility options.

Quite the nonsequiter.

Regarding what NBC and/or others saying they need those cities. Well, they aren't really putting their money where mouth is, are they? When they start selecting the West games to broadcast nationally, THEN we're on to something. It's all well and good to say that, but then lapse into always selecting games that include 1 of 5 teams. If you only need certain teams in certain markets to be on national TV, why have the other teams? The national broadcasters clearly show they aren't interested. This isn't just about hockey either. The ratings for the NBA don't do as well when the big city teams aren't in the playoffs. The footprint is a myth as evidenced by the networks' own behavior at the national level.

Let's see - to review:

- you asked for a marketing authority regarding the veracity and validity of the footprint theory;

- Leek noted that Paul Kelly confirmed in an interview (and I heard the same interview on PTS last evening) that he had confirmed that the networks themselves had stated to him that a significant rights deal would not be feasible without NHL presence in significant markets like PHO;

- your effective response is the above, which seems to boil down to "the networks are lying".



Here are a little couple of hints which might clear things up:

1. When hockey teams are playing on television, it is not only fans for those two teams that watch said game;

2. When hockey teams are playing on television, it is not only fans from the two markets that watch said game;

3. That being said, when hockey teams are playing on television, it would seem intuitive that it is far more likely that the people tuning into said games would be hockey fans, albeit perhaps not fans of the two teams themselves (perhaps fans of a particular player on one if said teams, for instance);

4. When television networks are selling advertising in connection with national broadcasting, it is imperative for ad revenue maximization purposes that they offer an opportunity to attract viewers from many diverse markets. If one has a purely localized attraction, one is restricted to lower-cost ad buys from local advertising clients, like Joe's Local GM Dealer or Phil's Live Bait Shop on the Corner of Main and Elm in [fill in name of local market].

5. National advertising clients (that is, those parties who want to buy advertising for their multi-location operations in diverse areas of the nation) will pay more for a product that has fans/viewers in a number of diverse regions, as opposed to fans in fewer localized areas.

6. Accordingly, in order for a sport to attract national ad buys from national advertising clients, they need a national presence.

It baffles me why you don't get this, PARTICULARLY when the head of the NHLPA backs up the NHL's own high-level marketing executives in confirming that this is exactly how that particular industry conducts itself in its commercial valuation of the NHL's (or any sport's) television product.

You can disagree all you want, but the fact is that the NHL's broadcast partners believe that a broad footprint increases the NHL's value as a broadcast property. At the end of the day, the customer's belief drives the value. Whether you or I or the NHL beleives they act differently is of no consequence. The broadcast partner's view is the only relevant one, since they have, you know, the money.

 

[TaketheCannoli]

kdb might want to chime in here, but it is my understanding that in order to satisfy the CCB the league changed the relocation rules to a simple majority. While I certainly agree that the Leafs and the NHL have done nothing yet, I am wondering how much noise would have to be made before the CCB is brought back into the mix.

I agree that Balsillie's chances of getting support are slim to none with none likely holding the big upper hand. This is why I would have thought it in the Leaf's best interests to simply keep quiet.

I have to believe they planned to handle things quietly. I suspect a certain analyst who works for Rogers and has been a team president, GM and NHL coach probably has many friends in the BoG and among the general managers learned this. I know he is drinking buddies with Burke.

 

[GSC2k2*]

You see, that's it. Can someone please confirm that this is exactly the case?

Balsillie says that he's been told straight out that MLSE will never grant him the rights to put a team in Hamilton... my interpretation being, no matter what Territorial Fee amount he might pay. Or at least making it an amount that would be ridiculous even for Balsillie to pay.

While others are arguing that it's just that Balsillie refuses to pay any Territorial Fees.

Can someone show us some evidence as to which of these arguments is the truth?

The underlined portion is not accurate, IMO. In his interview with the Spec and Star (IIRC), he did not state this. His statement was that it became "apparent" to him. If he was expressly told that "straight out", he would have so stated it. He instead indicated what I noted above, which I interpret to be him drawing a conclusion from the NHL's actions. Whether or not it may be the right conclusion, they evidently did not tell him "straight out".

 

[oilers_guy_eddie]

I see Hamilton as a preferred location to fly into as there are less flights into the airport so it would be easier to get your teams charter in and out of. As well it is located close to both Buffalo and Toronto , you could fly into it play in Hamilton one night and take a bus to your next game in either Toronto or Buffalo.

My most recent trip, I flew into London Int'l Airport rather than Lester B Pearson, and was 1000% happier with my experience.

I'm sure that if there were a team in Hamilton, teams would much rather fly through there than through Toronto... except, once again: with airports of this size, you're likely looking at restricted hours of operation. A lot of smaller airports just shut down at 10pm or 11pm. Which could be a serious limitation to teams. If a team had a back-to-back with, say, Hamilton one night and Detroit the next, or Detroit one night and Hamilton the next, then they might not have the option of flying into/out of Hamilton that night. They might be forced to either travel on game day, or travel through Lester Pearson, which blows a huge hole in the argument that road trips through Hamilton would be less stressful for Northwest Division teams than road trips through Colorado.

Edmonton and Calgary might be affected,but the Senators will disppear from the national braodcasts of HNIC altogehter.

As it is they are only on in the aftenoon or the odd game when the Leafs are on the late braodcast.

The GTA boosters at HNIC will ensure that the new Toronto/Hamilton rivalry will be the central obsession at our national broadcaster.

That's the way I see it too. The Senators, even during some outstanding seasons, could hardly get on CBC at all. The Hamilton Whatdogs would do no better during the early time slot. The only way it would become, as Egil suggested, some kind of bonanza for HNIC would be if Hamilton games were on the late half of the double header, which would come at the expense of the Flames/Canucks/Oilers.

So, what's the thinking... that more people in Southern Ontario would be watching the Hamilton Whatdogs at midnight than viewers in Alberta or BC would be watching their home teams during prime-time? I absolutely don't buy it.

 

[GSC2k2*]

At long last.... The 50,000 pound elephant speaks. Or would it be a 100,000 pound gorilla?

Can you identify for us the quote in the article where the Leafs "speak"?

 

[jessebelanger]

What about having the Hamilton team play before the leafs?

 

[kdb209]

kdb might want to chime in here, but it is my understanding that in order to satisfy the CCB the league changed the relocation rules to a simple majority. While I certainly agree that the Leafs and the NHL have done nothing yet, I am wondering how much noise would have to be made before the CCB is brought back into the mix.

I agree that Balsillie's chances of getting support are slim to none with none likely holding the big upper hand. This is why I would have thought it in the Leaf's best interests to simply keep quiet.

The league changed the relocation rules by adopting a new league bylaw (Bylaw 36), not by amending the league's constitution.

(c) A proposed transfer of location receiving the affirmative votes of a majority of the Member Clubs present and voting shall be deemed to have been consented to by the League in the event that the prohibition on transfers recited in Section 4.2 of the Constitution is determined by counsel to the League specially retained for this purpose, based on all relevant factors, to be unlawful with respect to that proposed transfer.

The question then becomes - can this Bylaw take precedence over the Constitution itself (which required unanimous consent to modify Article 4).

In addition, the Leafs are banking on Paragraph 12.1 entitled "Unanimous Consent" which states: "Any provision of this Constitution may be amended at any meeting by unanimous consent of all members of the League present and voting. Article III, Article IV, Article IX and this Article XII shall not be amended except by unanimous consent of all members of the League present and voting. Any amendment of Article III, Article IV, Article IX or this Article XII shall be evidenced by an instrument in writing signed by all members of the League."

My guess is that Bylaw 36 would not necessarily override the Article 4 relocation rules - especially if the Leafs did not vote to approve the Bylaw (or if it was passed by anything other than a unanimous vote).

The other argument that could be made (in the League's favor) is that all Clubs agree to be bound by the "League Rules" (which include the NHL Constitution and the League Bylaws). The Leafs agreed to that when they signed the CBA.

 

[Fugu]

Can you identify for us the quote in the article where the Leafs "speak"?

Sense of humor, GC. Laughter is healthy, even for you.


Re: the marketing authority. Who did you quote?

I also didn't ask Leek for an authority the first time around, I asked him to expand on the statement about market presence and competing for the NA sports entertainment dollar. Had you waded through the entire thread before jumping on that one post, you'd see we cleared that part up.

 

[LadyStanley]

Collecting news stories

Just back from a few days away from high speed internet.

Here are some articles (some may be repeats, sorry; I'm still catching up on threads).


http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=280689
CP - GM Maloney planning for next season
Doesn't have budget $$; may need to get approval to re-sign RFAs, etc.
Getting most of their updates via media; sales having a hard time (not knowing what will happen)>


http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=280675
Balsillie's spokesman says submission is per rules
(Although listening to XM Home Ice they commented that nothing in the submission released addressed the issue of impact to Buffalo.)


http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/News/2009/06/02/9654741-cp.html
Balsillie's dream (to own NHL team) not likely to die if Phoenix sale falls through
CP story on his determination and relentlessness.


http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/News/2009/06/02/9654696-cp.html
CP story - Balsillie claiming Hamilton franchise will immediately be profitable


http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL/Phoenix/2009/06/02/9651661-sun.html
Winnipeg Sun on Balsillie's speech in Manitoba to business school


http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/story/2009/06/02/sp-wright-balsillie.html?ref=rss
CBC story on Balsillie's relocation submittal (lead by former CFL commish Wright); includes link to radio interview

http://msn.foxsports.com/nhl/story/9637366/Balsillie-still-open-to-auction-for-Coyotes
AP - Balsillie still open to auction



http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=555899
Timeline for Balsillie/Phoenix

http://www.bclocalnews.com/sports/national/46758672.html
Reuters: Balsillie receives US "antitrust approval" (whatever that means) in his bid to purchase Coyotes.

http://www.thespec.com/Sports/article/575847
One fan comments on Phoenix situation

"I look at the AHL [Hamilton] numbers and say 4,700 average fans in a hockey-starved market. If you compare that to here [3,500 for ECHL on top of the NHL 15,000], then Phoenix maybe is not such a bad hockey market. I just think it has been mismanaged from the beginning."

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2009/06/01/daily36.html
Bizjournal on Richard Rodier

“He certainly doesn’t mince words,†said Mayor Fred Eisenberger of Hamilton, Ontario, where Balsillie hopes to move the Coyotes. “If you were a medical doctor, he’d have a lousy bedside manner, but he’s very engaging and we’ve found him good to work with. I respect his passion for Mr. Balsillie, his passion for hockey and his directness in his approach.â€

http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2009/06/phoenix_home_sales_continue_at.php
Lots of foreclosed home sales helping reach records in Phoenix area.

http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/Local/2009/06/03/9657606-sun.html
London, Ontario firm Eagle Hockey would like $126.82 from bankrupt Phoenix (for some gloves).

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/...gretzky-the-coyotes-and-a-bounced-cheque.aspx
And a few others owed money (including Wayne's kid brother Keith who scouts for team).

http://www.fromtherink.com/2009/6/3/897211/the-coyotes-attendance-figures
Coyotes attendance figures

http://blog.coyoteshipcheck.com/2009/06/02/emergency-hearing-6209/
Notes from 6/2 emergency hearing

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2009/06/01/daily20.html
Bizjournal on relocation submission

http://www.fiveforhowling.com/2009/6/1/889154/phoenix-coyotes-free-agency-and
Blogger looking at the difficulties of signing free agents for Phoenix

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5gaDGtIXjPPJFm3vhchetMkbxY-pA
CP: GM Maloney says it's business as usual (WRT signings, draft)

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2009/06/01/daily30.html

Market research conducted as part of a possible relocation of the Phoenix Coyotes to Canada shows the Cardinals and National Football League catapulting in popularity among local sports consumers.
...
The surveys, conducted in late May for Balsillie by Hotspex Inc., show the Cardinals gaining favor in a Phoenix sports market traditionally dominated by the Phoenix Suns and Arizona Diamondbacks.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=280867
Balsillie does market research in Hamilton/Ontario

http://blogs.wsj.com/bankruptcy/2009/06/02/balsillie-says-he-can-afford-coyotes-but-phoenix-can’t/
Balsillie says he can afford Coyotes; Phoenix cannot

In his application to buy the Coyotes, Balsillie assured league officials that he’d have no problem coming up with the $212.5 million he offered for the team. The application said Balsillie’s personal net worth exceeds C$3 billion ($2.78 billion).
...
Phoenix has the 9th highest rate of foreclosures in the country and a 7.7% unemployment rate in April. Balsillie says these numbers show that the region doesn’t have the economic muscle to support its least favorite sports team.

Balsillie, however, didn’t mention that Hamilton’s unemployment rate climbed to 8.8% in March, as the city struggles with the contracting steel and manufacturing industries.

 

[BruinsBtn]

Mr. Basillie, ....please meet the Toronto Maple Leafs.

(Ya sure Jim, this will be done by the draft.)


http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/2009/06/04/kelley_leafs_nhl/

The Maple Leafs are prepared to fight even the NHL to defend their market.
***

"Nice gesture and sure to grab media attention, but unless it is the Toronto Maple Leafs parent company, Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment, or gets permission from MLSE, they should expect a court fight.

Sportsnet.ca has learned that the Leafs have no intention of ceding what they believe are their territorial rights and are prepared to go to court to defend them, whether it is expansion into their market or the bid by Research in Motion co-founder Jim Balsillie to relocate the Phoenix Coyotes to Southern Ontario.

That fight would likely include a battle with the National Hockey League if it were to cut a deal to allow either or any group in without the Leafs' permission.

"We've been told that the Leafs have made their feelings known to the league," a source with knowledge of the proceedings told sportsnet.ca. "It's our understanding that no matter who is behind this group the Leafs have no intention of allowing a second team into their marketplace and that they, not the National Hockey League, have the final say in this matter."

That would set the stage for a lawsuit of massive proportions against the league and its member teams. It would also set the Leafs against the NHL and what it perceives to be its right to determine where franchises go.

"(The Leafs) will sue the league if it attempts to bring a team to the marketplace without their permission and they will sue each of the individual member teams should any one of them bring a team to the marketplace to play that team without their permission. They believe they have that right under the NHL constitution," the source said."

MLSE deserves to have a non-playoff team for 100 years for this crap. They don't deserve to have the maple leaf in their name for this selfishness.

 

[Fugu]

Let's see - to review:

Oh goody, let's!

- you asked for a marketing authority regarding the veracity and validity of the footprint theory;

- Leek noted that Paul Kelly confirmed in an interview (and I heard the same interview on PTS last evening) that he had confirmed that the networks themselves had stated to him that a significant rights deal would not be feasible without NHL presence in significant markets like PHO;

- your effective response is the above, which seems to boil down to "the networks are lying".

I don't see a marketing authority being quoted, if you mean Kelly.

I also said the networks are speaking out of both ends. When they actually select those oh so important markets for their broadcasts (because we know they have some say in the matter), THEN you might have a point. In the meantime, they're just going after the eastern population centers. Footprint? Ha ha ha....

Here are a little couple of hints which might clear things up:

More like muddying the waters...

1. When hockey teams are playing on television, it is not only fans for those two teams that watch said game;

Not according to the NHL. Remember, they're trying to get rid of that tribalism.

2. When hockey teams are playing on television, it is not only fans from the two markets that watch said game;

Ditto. I'll grant you that they pick up a few of the fans that are a subset of the viewership in the other markets. On occasion, they'll get a channel surfer, who might for the first time say, Hey, it's hockey. How come I haven't figured out I like watching this stuff yet?

3. That being said, when hockey teams are playing on television, it would seem intuitive that it is far more likely that the people tuning into said games would be hockey fans, albeit perhaps not fans of the two teams themselves (perhaps fans of a particular player on one if said teams, for instance);

See my comments above. I don't like intuition, especially when it's not my own (which I know when to trust).

Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps....

4. When television networks are selling advertising in connection with national broadcasting, it is imperative for ad revenue maximization purposes that they offer an opportunity to attract viewers from many diverse markets. If one has a purely localized attraction, one is restricted to lower-cost ad buys from local advertising clients, like Joe's Local GM Dealer or Phil's Live Bait Shop on the Corner of Main and Elm in [fill in name of local market].

Hmmm. I thought the more ad revenue you garnered, the bigger the TV contract. Usually, if it's significant, the league gets guaranteed money, not just sharing of profit after production costs. That may just be me.

How long have we had this footprint thingy now?

5. National advertising clients (that is, those parties who want to buy advertising for their multi-location operations in diverse areas of the nation) will pay more for a product that has fans/viewers in a number of diverse regions, as opposed to fans in fewer localized areas.

This is getting boring. See my comment after #4.

Oh wait. No one has brought up how misleading Nielsen ratings are yet, so really there are a TON of hockey fan watching, only the networks haven't figured it out. The advertisers that are buying time are getting a steal. A steal I tell ya!

6. Accordingly, in order for a sport to attract national ad buys from national advertising clients, they need a national presence.

Accordingly, for a sport to get a multibillion dollar TV contract, they need lots of viewers. Where's the disconnect here?

It baffles me why you don't get this, PARTICULARLY when the head of the NHLPA backs up the NHL's own high-level marketing executives in confirming that this is exactly how that particular industry conducts itself in its commercial valuation of the NHL's (or any sport's) television product.

You can disagree all you want, but the fact is that the NHL's broadcast partners believe that a broad footprint increases the NHL's value as a broadcast property. At the end of the day, the customer's belief drives the value. Whether you or I or the NHL beleives they act differently is of no consequence. The broadcast partner's view is the only relevant one, since they have, you know, the money.

So let's review, to clear things up for you:

1. What are they broadcasting?
2. What are they paying the NHL for those broadcasts rights.

I thought so.

 

[TaketheCannoli]

Its bigger than that. Way, way bigger.

Please help me understand that comment. While most would acknowledge MLSE is the most influential owner in the league, they have no standing in this bankruptcy. Threatening legal action against Balsillie, the NHL, the individual owners etc. seems like noise. Couldn't anyone with the wherewithal, such as Balsillie, file similar actions?

On another topic, I am beginning to wonder whether it's such a slam dunk that a Hamilton franchise would be highly profitable. Most of the comments on this topic claim the pre-sale deposits for 10,000 season tickets in the aborted Predators fiasco as "proof". Wright claimed in his application for ownership that when polled, people in Hamilton claimed hockey is their favorite sport as additional proof as well. In following several other teams' finances, I've come to realize attendance alone won't drive a team to profitability. There are teams that can sell out every game and not achieve profitability.

Achieving profitability requires a large corporate presence in several ways. One key is the sale of luxury boxes/suites. The cost of each is such that it requires a large corporate commitment and the Copps renovation plan calls for 50 suites plus 20 additional "bunker suites." Additionally, a large number of "official sponsors" are required, and broadcasting agreements. Hamilton is not to my knowledge, home to large numbers of home offices that can pay for these items. TV and radio broadcasting revenues are very much in question, especially with the home territory issues and MLSE's position. The Judge has already stated he doesn't have authority to grant the same media rights as MLSE enjoys. Interestingly enough, Doug MacLean expressed the same doubts on PTS earlier this week.

 

[billy blaze]

lots of corporate presence within 1 hour drive of arena, quite alot that don't want to pay the ACC's box fees

 

[TaketheCannoli]

If memory serves right, I think I saw a figure of $500,000 per year for suites. Are there 50 companies willing to put up a half million dollars plus say another 12 companies willing to take on a major sponsorship role?

Then what about broadcast rights fees?

 

[billy blaze]

Just off the top of my head , these companies are all within a one hour 15 minute drive of the arena, and all could/would have the means to buy a corporate box, like I said just off the top of my head, probably many others and this does not include the Metro Toronto area- Rail service from downtown Toronto to Hamilton would leave a 10 minute walk to arena

Oakville- TDL ( Tim Horton's), Ford Motor Company, Mattamy Homes, First Canadian Title, Dominion of Canada General Insurance
Burlington- UPS, Gennum Corporation, Maple Leaf Foods, AIC
Hamilton- Hamilton Health Sciences, Arcelor - Mittal, Coppley Apparel, Orlick Industries, Fluke Transportation
Kitchener- Research in Motion, Toyota, Clarica Insurance, Manulife Financial, Schneiders Meats, Rockwell, Uniroyal
London- Ford, TD Canada Trust, London Life, 3m, Freightliner

 

[Jumptheshark]

I think no matter how this ends--it will give the nhl a b lack eye