Toggle sidebar

Balsillie puts in $212.5 mil offer for the Coyotes

  • Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
Status
Not open for further replies.
ranold26 said:
Here are the bankruptcy documents that were filed..

http://www.scribd.com/doc/14999927/Phoenix-Coyotes-Bankruptcy-Petition
Click to expand...

Wow color me unimpressed.

Take out the debt Jerry Moyes owes to himself and there's .............well a lot of little creditors that add up to 6 million, if I am reading right this it really not that drastic.

Explain to me how a bankruptcy court is going to look upon 95% of the unsecured debt being held by the 92% owner.

Where are the Two Hundred Million in operational losses? Are there secured debts that are not being accounted for in this document?
 
*Sigh* Why did I click on this thread? I already know 99% of the posts on this thing.

American Jingoism vs. Canadian Jingoism
Small market vs. Big market
Balisillie vs. the BOG (NOT BETTMAN)
Balisillie vs. Buffalo Ownership/Toronto ownership/Detroit Ownership


Ok, now for some thoughts.

I am a Nashville fan living near Buffalo. I have a unique view of this. I have a **** load of friends in Hamilton and have visited the city. I have heard the opinions of both sides and reasonings for both. My opinion of Balisillie is low but I wasn't much of a fan either of teams moving from Canada to the US and vice versa. (Or did Canada forget the large amount of revenue sharing going from Big US teams to the praries in the 90's and the Flames moving from Atlanta to Calgary?)

Here's the situation in a nut shell:

Balls wants his team and is showing ZERO patience with it. He's pissed off the BOG, and don't insult the people's intellegence in saying Bettman he's just a mouthpiece for the real power the owners. he wants into the club but I'm willing to gamble that he will find some buyer's remorse if he does get in because I'm willing to find there will be some collusion amongst the other owners to prevent trades ETC to him.

Detroit is going to fight like hell because this will prevent them from moving to the East. Buffalo and Toronto will fight like hell because of the eatting away at market share. A move to Hamilton will be great for that city because it's a deserving market which is hungry for hockey. It will kill Buffalo, not just the team but the city. Buffalo losing the Bills wouldn't matter much because the team is based in Orchard Park which is in East Bum**** in terms of the Sabres which is based in the middle of the city and much like the Preds in Nashville, drives the downtown area. Not to mention the allenating the fans of Phoenix from the sport of hockey. It's like the crusaders going to Jerusalem and realizing it's hard trying to convert the heathens to Christianity and running away and taking their bibles with them.

If it was a healthier economy this wouldn't be so bad but a move would not only put two bullets to the head of Phoenix but also Buffalo as well.
 
digger18 said:
I really dont know why Bettman is so intent on keeping Balsille form owning a team and moving it to Canada? All 6 Canadian rinks have been packed to the rafters for quite a few games now. There is not a more passionate fanbase in the wolrd when it comes to hockey. The Maple Leafs have a huge fan base across the country, I just cant see a team in Hamilton taking all that much away from the Leafs gold mine. Not to mention it would be a bus ride rivialy created that would cut down travel exsenses as well as build even more passion for the game of hockey, in an area already full of it. No offense to the people of Phoenix who truly love the game, but its clear the team isnt working down there, something needs to be done. I would not be surprised to see another Southern team or 2 following the Coyotes bankruptcy route and at least one of them ending up in Winnipeg eventually to. Putting teams where there are hoards of passionate hockey fans is just good buisness if you ask me!
Click to expand...

this is why they don't want ballsillie, because they fear the domino effect which in their minds would negate any chance of the billions of dollars a US national tv contract would get them.
let's face it. they can't even get a good one now with only 6 canadian teams imagine if there were 9 or 10 in the future.
 
go kim johnsson 514 said:
Suspending operations might be more likely than outright folding them.
Click to expand...

Do you mean that they would essentially "put the team on hold" until they could find a buyer that would keep the team in Phoenix? Wouldnt they still have to either release all the players from their contracts or hold a dispersal draft?
 
HotToddy said:
Wow color me unimpressed.

Take out the debt Jerry Moyes owes to himself and there's .............well a lot of little creditors that add up to 6 million, if I am reading right this it really not that drastic.

Explain to me how a bankruptcy court is going to look upon 95% of the unsecured debt being held by the 92% owner.

Where are the Two Hundred Million in operational losses? Are there secured debts that are not being accounted for in this document?
Click to expand...

From what I understand that is only the unsecured debt...the Two hundred million is the secured debt...I believe in bankruptcy only the unsecured debt is relieved.
 
BigFatCat999 said:
*Sigh* Why did I click on this thread? I already know 99% of the posts on this thing.

American Jingoism vs. Canadian Jingoism
Small market vs. Big market
Balisillie vs. the BOG (NOT BETTMAN)
Balisillie vs. Buffalo Ownership/Toronto ownership/Detroit Ownership


Ok, now for some thoughts.

I am a Nashville fan living near Buffalo. I have a unique view of this. I have a **** load of friends in Hamilton and have visited the city. I have heard the opinions of both sides and reasonings for both. My opinion of Balisillie is low but I wasn't much of a fan either of teams moving from Canada to the US and vice versa. (Or did Canada forget the large amount of revenue sharing going from Big US teams to the praries in the 90's and the Flames moving from Atlanta to Calgary?)

Here's the situation in a nut shell:

Balls wants his team and is showing ZERO patience with it. He's pissed off the BOG, and don't insult the people's intellegence in saying Bettman he's just a mouthpiece for the real power the owners. he wants into the club but I'm willing to gamble that he will find some buyer's remorse if he does get in because I'm willing to find there will be some collusion amongst the other owners to prevent trades ETC to him.

Detroit is going to fight like hell because this will prevent them from moving to the East. Buffalo and Toronto will fight like hell because of the eatting away at market share. A move to Hamilton will be great for that city because it's a deserving market which is hungry for hockey. It will kill Buffalo, not just the team but the city. Buffalo losing the Bills wouldn't matter much because the team is based in Orchard Park which is in East Bum**** in terms of the Sabres which is based in the middle of the city and much like the Preds in Nashville, drives the downtown area. Not to mention the allenating the fans of Phoenix from the sport of hockey. It's like the crusaders going to Jerusalem and realizing it's hard trying to convert the heathens to Christianity and running away and taking their bibles with them.

If it was a healthier economy this wouldn't be so bad but a move would not only put two bullets to the head of Phoenix but also Buffalo as well.
Click to expand...

This guy knows what he's talking about! A move to Hamilton would KILL the Buffalo Sabres. The NHL cannot allow that to happen.

Plus, the NHL needs a team in Phoenix, if they want to compete with the europeans long term they need to gain a national presence across the United States. You look at the NHL map and they've got the Northeast fully penetrated and have recently expanded that area of strength as Columbus and Minnesota have done well. They've gotta continue to expand their reach, and Phoenix is a solid stomping ground to do so.

Adding another team in a hockey rich area doesn't serve the purposes of the league. It will be proftiable, but has little to no long term growth potential.
 
Even if the NHL has the legal authority to revoke the franchise, that is going to have large implications for future borrowing by any NHL club. So large that I don't think this is a viable option, as any revocation is going to screw over a lot of creditors.
 
jfried said:
Plus, the NHL needs a team in Phoenix, if they want to compete with the europeans long term they need to gain a national presence across the United States. You look at the NHL map and they've got the Northeast fully penetrated and have recently expanded that area of strength as Columbus and Minnesota have done well. They've gotta continue to expand their reach, and Phoenix is a solid stomping ground to do so.

Adding another team in a hockey rich area doesn't serve the purposes of the league. It will be proftiable, but has little to no long term growth potential.
Click to expand...

By this logic Minnesota should never have gotten another NHL team ahead of another non-hockey market.

If Phoenix isn't profitable in the short term, why look to the long term How long should the league let the organization bleed money until they decide that it is unsustainable and hockey will never grow to the levels required, or how long are we willing to wait for it to become a legitimate hockey market? 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? As well as hundreds of millions of dollars of lost revenue?

And how is the NHL not in a position to compete with the Europeans long term? And why would we need failing hockey markets to do so? Is the KHL expanding to the hockey hotbeds of Madrid and Lisbon? I don't get that point at all. Surely the thing to best "compete" with the Europeans is having a league full of economically successful teams.
 
Wheels said:
Considering that MLSE wouldn't allow an OHL team to play out of Maple Leaf Gardens, and how resistant they've been to any team even remotely near their territory (Hamilton, K/W), I highly doubt they'd consent to having another team play out of the arena that they own.
Click to expand...

That's interesting, because just last week Paul Kelly Executive Director of the NHLPA recently suggested on Fan 590 that the only way MLSE approves a second franchise is if they play at the ACC. That way the Leafs get some form of territorial compensation, an additional revenue stream and eliminate a potential competitor for concerts/events in a new arena in Southern Ontario.

Seems like a win/win for MLSE and while they no longer have veto rights, they probably have significant influence with the Board of Governors. I assume MLSE could block placement of any team in Southern Ontario unless they were satisfied with the arrangement.

Would Balsillie agree to placing the team in Toronto and the ACC? Could that be the key to his success in this?
 
If Balsile moves the team anywhere else he would have a team by now. Don't think the NHL wants a team there. If the Coyotes are relocated it would be in a good market.
 
Roughneck said:
By this logic Minnesota should never have gotten another NHL team ahead of another non-hockey market.

If Phoenix isn't profitable in the short term, why look to the long term How long should the league let the organization bleed money until they decide that it is unsustainable and hockey will never grow to the levels required, or how long are we willing to wait for it to become a legitimate hockey market? 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? As well as hundreds of millions of dollars of lost revenue?

And how is the NHL not in a position to compete with the Europeans long term? And why would we need failing hockey markets to do so? Is the KHL expanding to the hockey hotbeds of Madrid and Lisbon? I don't get that point at all. Surely the thing to best "compete" with the Europeans is having a league full of economically successful teams.
Click to expand...

Minnesota successfully brings Wisconsin & Dakota into the NHL loop. You've gotta give people a home team to cheer for if you expect them to watch games on National TV. The NFL does a good job of this; most locations in the USA are within a decent radius of an NFL team.

When thinking about long term competition you've gotta think about what will help you suceed in teh long term, and pay for it as an investment in the short term. If Phoenix doesn't work in the short term, you've gotta find somewhere else to expand the league's reach.

The NHL isn't in a position to compete with the europeans long term because they've been victim of a fragmented hockey system. Whether it be the KHL or some other organization, a Swedish-Finnish-Russian Leauge is coming. They'll expand starting in the hockey hotbeds (Czech, Swiss) and slowly move into Western Europe and be in a position where they may develop into #3 behind soccer & rugby. The sporting competition is not nearly as intense in europe. You've gotta make Phoenix successful in order to get the big TV deal. A league that has Canada and the Northeastern United States cannot compete with Europe.
 
Something that amazes me is the belief that still persists that Bettman somehow unilaterally "runs" the league, acting in his own conniving interests and against the wishes of the owners that he's duped.

Bettman is a representative of the owners. He acts on their whims, for their whims. That said, Bettman has no power to act against the behest of the owners--you know, THE VOTING BODY THAT HAS ULTIMATE SAY. Bettman didn't "block" Balsillie from buying the Penguins or the Predators. The most accurate statement would be that Balsillie blocked himself through his attempts to circumvent due process and the proper channels when buying a team(even if there was a latent intent to eventually relocated it). However, putting even that aside, the OWNERS, with Bettman as a mouthpiece, blocked those sales.

I think that it's the fact that a lot of the hockey fans that post on messageboards, and thus get caught up in a sort of "groupthink," are 24 and below. People today need a tangible "villain." One person that manifests whatever cause is irking them. In the same way that a lot of Americans needed Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein to focus on after 9/11...ignoring the other parties and factors involved...many hockey fans, often dewy-eyed and nostalgic for "good old days" that they weren't even alive to experience, need a central figure to revile. Balsillie represents Batman, taking on the Joker(Bettman). One party to cheer for, one to root against. I'm not saying I don't understand...but the humor and frustration will never go away, for me.

I have no interest in arguing the viability or solvency of the Coyotes. Ultimately, I'm for expansion, not relocation. All I WILL comment on is that I believe that the NHL will never sign off on a sale that is contingent on relocation. That's not to say that they wouldn't allow a team to move after the fact...but as a term of sale, absolutely not. And nor should they.
 
leek said:
That's interesting, because just last week Paul Kelly Executive Director of the NHLPA recently suggested on Fan 590 that the only way MLSE approves a second franchise is if they play at the ACC. That way the Leafs get some form of territorial compensation, an additional revenue stream and eliminate a potential competitor for concerts/events in a new arena in Southern Ontario.

Seems like a win/win for MLSE and while they no longer have veto rights, they probably have significant influence with the Board of Governors. I assume MLSE could block placement of any team in Southern Ontario unless they were satisfied with the arrangement.

Would Balsillie agree to placing the team in Toronto and the ACC? Could that be the key to his success in this?
Click to expand...

Thank-you.......thank-you!

It's a win win for both sides.
I'm not saying it will happen though.
Also perhaps Tannenbaum or the OTPF will sell their shares in MLSE and buy the Coyotes and place them in ACC. (makes sense since they have a great relationship now and it would be even better when they can help each other make more money)
 
Does anyone recall the reports that JB was in contact with MLSE during the Nashville offer? Presumably to negotiate a TV deal or merchandising rights?
Wouldn't MLSE stand to gain a long term revenue stream this way? To me, this sort of negotiation is potential motivation for them to support a relocation and waive/limit their demand for territorial compensation.

Buffalo, as mentioned, would be the strongest opponent of existing franchises. Any speculation on what other teams would vote against it? Do we assume ALL American teams dislike it because it hurts potential TV contracts, or are owners happier about one more source of revenue sharing?


Mod: put the link to the article here.
(someone quotes an article from the Spector discussing MLSE's options)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ward Cornell said:
Thank-you.......thank-you!

It's a win win for both sides.
I'm not saying it will happen though.
Also perhaps Tannenbaum or the OTPF will sell their shares in MLSE and buy the Coyotes and place them in ACC. (makes sense since they have a great relationship now and it would be even better when they can help each other make more money)
Click to expand...

Playing at the ACC is not a win-win; it completely dilutes the Leaf brand and there's no amount of money you could place on that for MLSE. They'll let the team go to Waterloo or Hamilton before they let them set foot on downtown soil.
 
I'll leave the legal interpretations to the qualified posters like gscarpenter.

I'm not on either side of this argument if it's Phoenix vs. Balsillie. I am truly unsure why some feel the NHL can't succeed, expand it's footprint or gain top of mind awareness without a team in Phoenix.

I don't think the NFL was hurt overall when it left Baltimore or LA or St. Louis or Cleveland. Was the NBA hurt when the Bullets left Baltimore, the Royals left Cincinnati and subsequently moved from Kansas City to Sacramento or the Clippers left San Diego for LA (or even when they left Buffalo)? Many NBA franchises have moved. Sports leagues seem to have some regular franchise movement every decade or so.

Why would the NHL be any different?
 
jfried said:
Playing at the ACC is not a win-win; it completely dilutes the Leaf brand and there's no amount of money you could place on that for MLSE. They'll let the team go to Waterloo or Hamilton before they let them set foot on downtown soil.
Click to expand...

I don't agree. Kelly clearly has information we can't get, and I would have to assume he actually talks to people like Richard Peddie about these situations in performance of his job with the NHLPA.
 
leek said:
I'll leave the legal interpretations to the qualified posters like gscarpenter.

I'm not on either side of this argument if it's Phoenix vs. Balsillie. I am truly unsure why some feel the NHL can't succeed, expand it's footprint or gain top of mind awareness without a team in Phoenix.

I don't think the NFL was hurt overall when it left Baltimore or LA or St. Louis or Cleveland. Was the NBA hurt when the Bullets left Baltimore, the Royals left Cincinnati and subsequently moved from Kansas City to Sacramento or the Clippers left San Diego for LA (or even when they left Buffalo)? Many NBA franchises have moved. Sports leagues seem to have some regular franchise movement every decade or so.

Why would the NHL be any different?
Click to expand...

It's not a problem because those leagues have teams in the area. If you lose the Coyotes, you've got a whopping total of 2 teams between St. Louis and California; and St. Louis is already sort of out there on its own. There's too many people in the sunbelt to have that small a footprint. It prohibits your ability to get a national tv deal.
 
Here is an interesting bit from the The Hamilton Spectator on the subject.

http://www.thespec.com/News/BreakingNews/article/560883

It of course covers all same bits everywhere else is covering but it does add one bit of info that isn't covered anywhere else. There is another person, possibly an existing owner, is also interested in Copps, putting Jim in a race for the Dogpound. So while Balsillie is launching a full frontal attack, someone else is using the diversion to launch is own stealth attack.

Overall, the NHL is fighting a losing battle, there are too many franchises up for sale, too many teams losing money, too much pressure for moving to Hamilton that they can't keep it up without perminately damaging themselves. Even if Bettman succeeds here, there will be no stomach left for the next battle that will ensue right after this one.
 
jfried said:
Minnesota successfully brings Wisconsin & Dakota into the NHL loop. You've gotta give people a home team to cheer for if you expect them to watch games on National TV. The NFL does a good job of this; most locations in the USA are within a decent radius of an NFL team.
Click to expand...

No TV station gives a crap about North Dakota or Wisconsin. No TV station except FSN Minnesota gives a crap about Minnesota either. New York, LA, Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia, Boston. Those are the cities national TV cares about the most.

When thinking about long term competition you've gotta think about what will help you suceed in teh long term, and pay for it as an investment in the short term. If Phoenix doesn't work in the short term, you've gotta find somewhere else to expand the league's reach.
Click to expand...

Like where? Albuquerque?

The NHL isn't in a position to compete with the europeans long term because they've been victim of a fragmented hockey system. Whether it be the KHL or some other organization, a Swedish-Finnish-Russian Leauge is coming. They'll expand starting in the hockey hotbeds (Czech, Swiss) and slowly move into Western Europe and be in a position where they may develop into #3 behind soccer & rugby. The sporting competition is not nearly as intense in europe. You've gotta make Phoenix successful in order to get the big TV deal. A league that has Canada and the Northeastern United States cannot compete with Europe.
Click to expand...

You don't need Phoenix for any sort of a TV deal. You don't need Florida, Nashville, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Minnesota, Columbus, Washington, Carolina, Nashville, St. Louis, NY Islanders, New Jersey, Anaheim, San Jose, Tampa Bay or Atlanta for a national TV deal either.
And soccer is popular enough in Europe to make hockey an afterthought, especially in Western Europe (and rugby is only poular in the British Isles and France, with a very niche following in Italy). As I mentioned, thinking hockey needs Phoenix to compete with Europe is akin to thinking a European league needs Lisbon to compete with North America.
 
BigFatCat999 said:
Yeah win/win for Toronto

Lose/Lose for Phoenix and Buffalo
Click to expand...

Phoenix is in no different of a situation than QC or Winnipeg. They couldn't find an owner that could do what's needed. It's business.

If the team is located in Toronto, how does Buffalo lose? I'm not calling you out or disagreeing. How would it effect the Sabres if another team was playing in the ACC?
 
Roughneck said:
No TV station gives a crap about North Dakota or Wisconsin. No TV station except FSN Minnesota gives a crap about Minnesota either. New York, LA, Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia, Boston. Those are the cities national TV cares about the most.



Like where? Albuquerque?



You don't need Phoenix for any sort of a TV deal. You don't need Florida, Nashville, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Minnesota, Columbus, Washington, Carolina, Nashville, St. Louis, NY Islanders, New Jersey, Anaheim, San Jose, Tampa Bay or Atlanta for a national TV deal either.
And soccer is popular enough in Europe to make hockey an afterthought, especially in Western Europe (and rugby is only poular in the British Isles and France, with a very niche following in Italy). As I mentioned, thinking hockey needs Phoenix to compete with Europe is akin to thinking a European league needs Lisbon to compete with North America.
Click to expand...

Those are the teams they want in the National games, but they don't want national games if people all across the western united states aren't going to watch.

KC, Portland, Seattle, New Orleans, Houston. Take your pick; each of them helps to establish the game and grow the amount of people who watch hockey. Hamilton just means that people who used to watch Sabres or Leafs will now watch Coyotes.

Having Phoenix isn't about putting them in the national games; its about spreading the popularity of hockey throughout the sunbelt. You can't do that with basically 1 team in between Atlanta and California. Hockey will always be an afterthought in europe, but that market is big enough to support an afterthought better than hockey would do if held to the Northeast.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom