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.
I was listening to Roger Lajoie last night and he made a point that kind of hit home. It was his opinion that with 24 Americian owners that it makes much more sense to them that if a team goes to Southern Ontario that it needs to have "Toronto" in the name in order to be an easier sell for the American franchises. No disrespect to KW, Hamilton and Vaughn, but these cities are not well known to Americans and maybe viewed as "small time" cities and therefore hard to sell to the US public.

Thoughts?

In my opinion, if the NHL is forced to move the Yotes to Southern Ontario, they would definiately perfer the team to be in Toronto (except for the Leafs of course).

Sounds like typically Toronto-centric arrogence to me, I don't think it matters to real hockey fans. For the record I would perfer Hamilton as the name for it's historically connitation but I can live with Ontario. I just can't see, say Philadelphia fans staying home just because they happen to be playing Hamilton that night....
 
Sounds like typically Toronto-centric arrogence to me, I don't think it matters to real hockey fans. For the record I would perfer Hamilton as the name for it's historically connitation but I can live with Ontario. I just can't see, say Philadelphia fans staying home just because they happen to be playing Hamilton that night....


This is a point of view of American owners that was conveyed by Roger. I happen to agree with it as it does make sense that a team with the name "Toronto" in it is an easier sell than a team with the name "Hamilton, KW or Vaughn" in it. I'm not trying to disrespect people from these areas and I'm not even from Toronto but it does make sense to me.
 
This sounds like advertising to me! :naughty:




The Coyotes arena was in Glendale was in built in partnership with the city. Absent a bankruptcy, the team would have had to pay a huge fine (~$750 million) as a termination fee to break the lease (lease term was 30 yrs).

The terms of the sale are between the seller and the buyer. The buyer can stipulate that he will only go through with the agreement if he can move the team. The seller has now taken one step that breaks the tie with the current arena-- filed for bankruptcy.
This is as good a point as any to make a pretty important clarification.

People seem to be under the misunderstanding that, if you file for Chapter XI, you automatically get to terminate leases or other "executory contracts". Without getting into it TOO deeply, that is a completely incorrect understanding.

When you file for Chapter XI, you have the ability to apply to the bankruptcy court to allow you to reject certain contracts (such as the lease). It is far, FAR from automatic, though. The courts have full discretion to decide whether or not to allow the bankrupt to do so. Keep in mind that the lessor is a creditor as well, and their interests are no less worthy of protection than that of any other party in whatever category of creditors they fall under (they may be secured or unsecured).

The fact is that the courts will look dimly upon a mere transparent attempt to use the bankruptcy procedures to extricate oneself from a lease deal.

Should the NHL come forth with a plan that protects the largest-value creditor in the entire bankrupt estate - and notwithstanding that Moyes ignored their potential claims in calculating the value of creditor claims, the City has the mosty money at stake to the tune of $700 million - that will be viewed very favourably by the courts, i would imagine.

The point - do not in any way assume that the lease is automatically going away. Bankruptcy law does not work that way.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
... I'm listening to Jian Ghomeshi on CBC and he just compared Balsilie to Charlie Brown trying to kick the football that Bettman-Lucy is holding. I smiled.

You know, I'm not entirely convinced this is Balsillie's real play. This might be no more than NHL flypaper, tying the league up in a financial and legal quagmire in Phoenix, while a silent partner makes a move elsewhere. The fact that another investor shows up at the same time, interested in Copps at the same time as this is going on probably isn't a coincidence....
 
One of Ottawa's founders Bruce Firestone, recently wrote that his plan was to buy a lot of cheap farm land, a bit risky as it had yet to be zoned, and then by building an arena there, would see the surrounding land prices rise enough to give him a real estate windfall that would be enough to pay his expansion fee.

Surely balsillie has land holdings near his company and has plans to put a new major city on the map through development he will profit from?

I wouldve thought Hamilton was just a temporary home, like Ottawa's first years in the 10,000 seat civic center, until he he builds a new arena and launches the growth and world recognition of a new major urban area in southern ontario.

But all those arguments about why a bankruptcy judge should get to overturn a majority decision of the bog as per its constition seem unpersuasive to me. Balisillies condition of sale may as well be that the phoenix owners must provide him with a working bag of fairy dust. Surely the condition makes the offer unable to be accepted?

If Balsillie wanted to buy an expansion team in southern ontario, do you think he'd get it for less than $250 mil?
 
Thoughts from the Buffalo media. Buffalo will certainly vote no to relocation, especially if it's to Hamilton.

http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/columns/story/663758.html

Buffalo News said:
During times like these it’s good to have friends in high places in the National Hockey League office, friends such as the commissioner, who realizes the folly in siphoning fans from one hockey market to another. Forget No-Goal. Nothing could be more important to Buffalo Sabres fans than the health of the franchise, a concern Gary Bettman has repeatedly addressed by helping the team through its bankruptcy and protecting its territory from outside invasion.

Bettman’s affinity for Buffalo, one of the league’s more dynamic and rabid markets, comes in handy whenever there’s talk of relocating an existing team to southern Ontario. And there will always be talk so long as Canadian Black- Berry magnate Jim Balsillie hangs vulture- like over disabled franchises, waiting to execute the swoop-and-relocate maneuver.

Hamilton is the city most often associated with Balsillie’s relocation attempts, even though it’s conceded that Copps Coliseum requires full-scale renovations in order to become NHL-ready. Such a placement would severely impact the Sabres, who could expect a sharp decline in their Canadian fan base the minute the first puck is dropped. And that could jeopardize the well-being of a franchise that has stabilized by building a solid season ticket-base that includes Canadian subscribers.

The NHL has made it abundantly clear, time and again, that Hamilton is a no-go because of the damage it would inflict upon the Sabres, although Balsillie remains undeterred.
 
I wouldve thought Hamilton was just a temporary home, like Ottawa's first years in the 10,000 seat civic center, until he he builds a new arena and launches the growth and world recognition of a new major urban area in southern ontario.

The move for most teams nowadays is to stay away from suburban arenas, and move to downtown arenas, simply because suburban arenas lack character and doesn't inspire sports fans as well as discurage attendance in games.

New Jersey recently moved to Newark in an attempt create a character for the team beyond simply being another NYC team. The Islanders are in trouble mostly because of their location and would do well to consider a move to Brooklyn if they want to stay in the NYC area.

Hamilton is an older established city with a downtown arena that could easily be upgraded for cheaper than building new. The nightlife that will develop around the team will only enhance the experience, and create stronger fan attachments than what you would get out in the suburbs. In due to time I suspect that Ottawa's next arena will be built downtown, and both will be the better for it...
 
Does the NHL take over club operations until a Reinsdorf (or someone else) makes a bid? How long would they want to run the club, awaiting a new owner? Moyes couldn't find anyone local over the past few months.
It would be interesting for a new owner to buy into the franchise, and take stewarship of the ironclad lease at Glendale.
Didn't the Nashville bid have some outs in the lease based on season ticket numbers?
 
Thoughts from the Buffalo media. Buffalo will certainly vote no to relocation, especially if it's to Hamilton.

http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/columns/story/663758.html

:shakehead According to the Sabres about 11% of their fan base is Canadian. So for the sake of arguement lets make this 2000 fans per game. The Region of Niagara has a population of approx. 300,000 and how many of those fans come from outside of this area and how many of those would change their allegience? If the fans of the Sabres are so rabid (and I accept this characterization) how does this threaten them in anyway.

"Oh I really love the Sabres but I rather go to Hamilton and cheer for them...."

Riiiiiiighhtt.......and I thought Hamiltonians had self-esteem problems....
 
Why dont they try moving the team to Scottsdale?


The move for most teams nowadays is to stay away from suburban arenas, and move to downtown arenas, simply because suburban arenas lack character and doesn't inspire sports fans as well as discurage attendance in games.

[..]

In due to time I suspect that Ottawa's next arena will be built downtown, and both will be the better for it...


I can see the logic in downtown arenas, but Ottawa is an example of a suburban success story. Although it used to be 10 km of farmland from city limits, the city has annexed the arena now, and there is so much development around the arena that the farmland between the old city limits and the arena is now almost gone. The team is well situated there now, there are very few complaints anymore in ottawa about arena location once the team got on sound footing.

It is very doubtful that an arena will be built in downtown ottawa in the next couple of generations. The city isnt structured properly to accomodate it. And it isnt necessary to the teams success anytime soon. That arena is probably paid for now, he got it dirt cheap out of bankruptcy court. In this case, as bettman helped be an orderly process. Any owner of ottawa will be making a lot of money off that arena in that location with that team in this city for the forseeable future. Downtown unneeded here. Ottawa's team is a suburban success story
 
Does the NHL take over club operations until a Reinsdorf (or someone else) makes a bid? How long would they want to run the club, awaiting a new owner? Moyes couldn't find anyone local over the past few months.
It would be interesting for a new owner to buy into the franchise, and take stewarship of the ironclad lease at Glendale.
Didn't the Nashville bid have some outs in the lease based on season ticket numbers?

It did, but they've since been nullified, since the team met its attendance threshold last season and this season. I believe it's now five years before the lease can even be called into question again.
 
Salaries are still too high. The cap is a great thing, and ideologically, tied to revenue should create strong competition.


The problem in the NHL is that there are 4-8 teams who basically print money, 6-10 teams that struggle.... and the rest can turn a profit if they have a good season with playoffs. If not, they join the 6-10 struggling franchises.

No matter what the teams who make a lot of money will over-pay for players and salaries get out of hand.

You put in a much lower cap, and the NHLPA screams that they only get 30% of league-wide revenue.

You make a socialized revenue sharing system with a cap (which is the easiest/best option IMO). That may be the only way to ensure that all these markets can be competitive forever. It would also give complete control to the NHL. The Leafs and Rangers may not like it though.

Please tell me what your Utopian scheme would do to the franchise values of the teams that are printing the money? Maybe the NHL should incorporate and have 30 equal shares, but that differential ($$$) has to come from somewhere. Or are you suggesting that they just dispense with capitalism and property rights altogether and steal the assets of the bigger teams-- they can live in a commune together too to get the full effect.
 
This is as good a point as any to make a pretty important clarification.

People seem to be under the misunderstanding that, if you file for Chapter XI, you automatically get to terminate leases or other "executory contracts". Without getting into it TOO deeply, that is a completely incorrect understanding.

When you file for Chapter XI, you have the ability to apply to the bankruptcy court to allow you to reject certain contracts (such as the lease). It is far, FAR from automatic, though. The courts have full discretion to decide whether or not to allow the bankrupt to do so. Keep in mind that the lessor is a creditor as well, and their interests are no less worthy of protection than that of any other party in whatever category of creditors they fall under (they may be secured or unsecured).

The fact is that the courts will look dimly upon a mere transparent attempt to use the bankruptcy procedures to extricate oneself from a lease deal.

Should the NHL come forth with a plan that protects the largest-value creditor in the entire bankrupt estate - and notwithstanding that Moyes ignored their potential claims in calculating the value of creditor claims, the City has the mosty money at stake to the tune of $700 million - that will be viewed very favourably by the courts, i would imagine.

The point - do not in any way assume that the lease is automatically going away. Bankruptcy law does not work that way.

That's a good clarification. My point was to illustrate that Moyes buys himself time and protection from creditors by filing for bankruptcy. It also is the only means available to him to potentially rid himself of the lease since the city indicated there was no way they'd ever remove it. If he was being pressured to pay up, and/or make a decision he did not favor or lose any further financial support (or support with numerous strings)... this was the best path for him to take.

I haven't looked at the lease agreement, but the fact that there is a clause that addresses termination of the lease in a bankruptcy scenario will also be taken into account by the court in deciding how to prioritize creditors.
 
Talk about revision, propaganda much? At no point did Balsillie remove his deal from the table. He was fully prepared for the team to remain in Nashville for the short term and to fight it out with BoG, legally if he had to. Leopold was forced to take the lesser deal from the Freeman group backed by 'Boots'. If the NHL actually played by there own rules, the Freeman group would never have been accepted as NHL owners because 'Boots' would never have passed the due dilligence process. Of course Bettman was behind it, the BoG only meet once a month, and they never dealt with the Nashville issue until after Leopold took his haircut.

Then surprise, surprise, Leopold ends up as owner of the Wild.

I call shenanigans.....

You forgot the part about Boots signing up for a three yr minimum stay, while JB was offered seven yrs-- under the old lease terms. Or was that Pittsburgh? Or both? Too many shenanigans to track.
 
Here is a link to a Hamilton Spectator article explaining Balsillie's side of the legal arguement...

http://www.thespec.com/News/BreakingNews/article/561686

One highlight showing why the NHLPA care....



And one further interesting item...



That is a price people in Hamilton have to pay to watch the Bulldogs. You can't field an NHL team with AHL money....


If you guys are paying that much to watch AHL hockey? .... There's this old saying about a fool and his money... :naughty:
 
If you guys are paying that much to watch AHL hockey? .... There's this old saying about a fool and his money... :naughty:

It's supply and demand. Not everyone pays, but the people who like to see hockey at this level, and have no better options will pay. I don't see how this is humorous, Stevie.
 
"The Phoenix Coyotes have never posted a profit since moving to Arizona in 1996," the lawyers write, adding that where most NHL teams get half their revenue from ticket sales, the Arizona franchise gets only 40 per cent. Its tickets, at an average price of $37.45, are more than $12 a seat below the league average.

That is a price people in Hamilton have to pay to watch the Bulldogs. You can't field an NHL team with AHL money....

Not this season, though...
http://www.hamiltonbulldogs.com/individual_tickets

Edit: And judging by the price of their flex packs, the people won't have to pay it next season either:
http://www.hamiltonbulldogs.com/flex_packs
 
:shakehead According to the Sabres about 11% of their fan base is Canadian. So for the sake of arguement lets make this 2000 fans per game. The Region of Niagara has a population of approx. 300,000 and how many of those fans come from outside of this area and how many of those would change their allegience? If the fans of the Sabres are so rabid (and I accept this characterization) how does this threaten them in anyway.

"Oh I really love the Sabres but I rather go to Hamilton and cheer for them...."

Riiiiiiighhtt.......and I thought Hamiltonians had self-esteem problems....

I wonder what they mean by the term "fan base" as many people here in the Niagara Region go to Sabre games but are not Sabre fans.
 
I was listening to Roger Lajoie last night and he made a point that kind of hit home. It was his opinion that with 24 Americian owners that it makes much more sense to them that if a team goes to Southern Ontario that it needs to have "Toronto" in the name in order to be an easier sell for the American franchises. No disrespect to KW, Hamilton and Vaughn, but these cities are not well known to Americans and maybe viewed as "small time" cities and therefore hard to sell to the US public.

Thoughts?

In my opinion, if the NHL is forced to move the Yotes to Southern Ontario, they would definiately perfer the team to be in Toronto (except for the Leafs of course).

I think that's a totally stupid argument. For one, the team would probably be called Ontario. For another, Columbus is sort of an anonymous city... most of the time I hear the name mentioned it's in reference to the much smaller city in Georgia. The league certainly didn't care about that.
 
I've not seen it specifically, but I've seen allusions in a variety of sources to possible concessions that Glendale might make (one assumes WRT lease).

Perhaps Phoenix pundits will ask those questions and there might be more substance than just vague feelings about lease remedies.




http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/news?slug=rm-coyotes050609&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

Yahoo Sports' Ross McKeon feels that Phoenix should move (to Canada) and provides a history of the Scottsdale/Glendale plans. He does take Balsillie to task for "putting the cart before the horse" once again. Also says that move to KC would not be a good idea (at this time).
 
Here is a link to a Hamilton Spectator article explaining Balsillie's side of the legal arguement...

http://www.thespec.com/News/BreakingNews/article/561686

One highlight showing why the NHLPA care....



And one further interesting item...



That is a price people in Hamilton have to pay to watch the Bulldogs. You can't field an NHL team with AHL money....

Article also confirms the target is Hamilton:

http://www.thespec.com/News/BreakingNews/article/561686

"The debtors believe the team has a higher value in Hamilton, Canada," the documents conclude, providing the first glimpse that Hamilton is the target of the team's move, rather than the broader geography of southern Ontario.
 
I wonder what they mean by the term "fan base" as many people here in the Niagara Region go to Sabre games but are not Sabre fans.

That 11% number is the approximate number of Sabres season-ticket holders from southern Ontario.

I highly doubt that many people are Sabres season-ticket subscribers who are not Sabres fans.
 
I'm going to go out on a limb here, call me crazy... but I think if Balsillie had made it his goal to move a team to Winnipeg, it would have already happened. The NHL is very against a team in Hamilton for a variety of reasons, and his dedication to his goal has killed him.
 
I'm going to go out on a limb here, call me crazy... but I think if Balsillie had made it his goal to move a team to Winnipeg, it would have already happened. The NHL is very against a team in Hamilton for a variety of reasons, and his dedication to his goal has killed him.

Problem is, he won't be able to maximize his potential return by owning a team in Winnipeg, or Quebec for that matter.
 
Move them to Seattle.

You solve the division problem and you get a great American market that just lost its basketball team.

The only problem with that brilliant idea is that they don't have an arena. If the powers that be didn't see fit to build a new arena for the Sonics, then they sure as hell aren't going to build one for a hockey team on the come.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad