Of course. But all I'm saying is that if he had selected a market with less attached than Hamilton he would have made it seven years ago.
Balsillie puts in $212.5 mil offer for the Coyotes
- Thread starter Egil
- Start date
-
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
Of course. But all I'm saying is that if he had selected a market with less attached than Hamilton he would have made it seven years ago.
TaketheCannoli
RIP
I'm not an attorney, but I have some experience with franchising.
I owned several franchises and my agreements conveyed the right to operate a business using the franchisor's name and materials in a defined territory. If I wanted to move or add another franchise in another area, I was required to either find a franchisee who wanted to sell their territorial rights (and possibly their business as well), and get approval from the franchisor for the purchase or purchase the franchise for that territory from the franchisor. If they would have rejected my application, I would have been well within my rights to buy a franchisee's business, but I would not have been able to use the franchisor's name, materials, etc.
I don't know if this applies to NHL franchises, having never read the master agreement, but if the NHL operates like most franchisors that I've encountered, the agreement only covers the current territory.
If so, a buyer could buy the Coyotes business, apply for the franchise and then operate in Phoenix. That buyer could offer to purchase an additional territory and the franchisor would have the right to sell or not to sell that territory as they see fit.
I hope any of the attorneys that post here could tell me if this is close to the truth.
I owned several franchises and my agreements conveyed the right to operate a business using the franchisor's name and materials in a defined territory. If I wanted to move or add another franchise in another area, I was required to either find a franchisee who wanted to sell their territorial rights (and possibly their business as well), and get approval from the franchisor for the purchase or purchase the franchise for that territory from the franchisor. If they would have rejected my application, I would have been well within my rights to buy a franchisee's business, but I would not have been able to use the franchisor's name, materials, etc.
I don't know if this applies to NHL franchises, having never read the master agreement, but if the NHL operates like most franchisors that I've encountered, the agreement only covers the current territory.
If so, a buyer could buy the Coyotes business, apply for the franchise and then operate in Phoenix. That buyer could offer to purchase an additional territory and the franchisor would have the right to sell or not to sell that territory as they see fit.
I hope any of the attorneys that post here could tell me if this is close to the truth.
TaketheCannoli
RIP
RTN
Be Kind, Rewind
- Aug 28, 2008
- 2,054
- 3
Never happened before?
You're kidding, right? Franchises are franchises. There is nothing particularly unique about sports franchises, sorry.
Franchises go bankrupt all the time. Every day.
And it is quite easy to establish one's credentials, if you have some.
There has never been a sports franchises that has gone bankrupt and sold with the only condition being that the team is moved to another country. That has NEVER happened before. Most owner pretend to keep the team where it is then move it.
No, it's hard to establish credentials on the internet. For example, I have law training, but I would never be dumb enough to post personal information (ex. transcript) on HF.
Last edited:
Agreed, I just wonder what the total ticket sale percent is as I would think the per game percent of Canadian sales might be greater than season.
Who are you calling anonymous? Them's fightin words!
Muck Fichigan
Haha, it's on!
Certainly Columbus is a large city, but it's rise has been fairly quick and quiet. How many people nationwide know it's the largest city in Ohio? How many know it's the 15th largest in the whole country? I've read articles with comments wondering "Why Columbus?" and the like... people in this country are stupid and would rather see teams in crumbling urban centers they've heard of (like Cleveland) as opposed to having to learn new cities.
TaketheCannoli
RIP
Brodie- while Columbus is not in the dire straits of say Cleveland (or Detroit), business ain't so great here either.
I believe corporate sponsorships are getting harder and harder to sell. This is effecting almost every franchise and will in fact even effect....GASP....the Leafs.
I think the day could come when Columbus could lose the Blue Jackets, if the economy doesn't turn around. I suspect even Ohio State won't be immune from this economy.
I believe corporate sponsorships are getting harder and harder to sell. This is effecting almost every franchise and will in fact even effect....GASP....the Leafs.
I think the day could come when Columbus could lose the Blue Jackets, if the economy doesn't turn around. I suspect even Ohio State won't be immune from this economy.
MayDay
Registered User
Probably not much different. Season-ticket sales have been capped at 14,500 (in a 18,600 seat arena), with a waiting list to get on it.
That means that for any given game, the large majority of seats are held by STHs, and there's only about 4000 single game tickets. Even if we went overboard and assumed that half of those 4000 are bought by Canadians, it still wouldn't change the overall ratio by all that much.
Totally. I'm not going to lie, I see a day when the NHL ceases to exist occurring in my lifetime.
BigFatCat999
First Fubu and now Pred303. !@#$! you cancer
mouser
Business of Hockey
Purchase Agreements:
http://multimedia.thestar.com/acrobat/6e/71/a9f645864415819eb433ce5d112a.pdf
http://multimedia.thestar.com/acrobat/3f/8d/33555e1449e2aae4e0be159eb84a.pdf
http://multimedia.thestar.com/acrobat/6e/b4/92a5fdd047af9fcbad7e8e87687e.pdf
They reveal unsurprisingly that Balsillie/Moyes plan to request that the bankruptcy court overrule any objections by the NHL to change in ownership and relocation of the franchise.
http://multimedia.thestar.com/acrobat/6e/71/a9f645864415819eb433ce5d112a.pdf
http://multimedia.thestar.com/acrobat/3f/8d/33555e1449e2aae4e0be159eb84a.pdf
http://multimedia.thestar.com/acrobat/6e/b4/92a5fdd047af9fcbad7e8e87687e.pdf
They reveal unsurprisingly that Balsillie/Moyes plan to request that the bankruptcy court overrule any objections by the NHL to change in ownership and relocation of the franchise.
LadyStanley
Registered User
I have never seen/heard the NHL come out and say they are 100% against a team in Hamilton.
There are issues with territorial rights that may persuade them that other locations may be a "better" option.
And of course, Versus may want a "redo" of contracts should there be a relocation (nevermind one outside of the US). But Phoenix was on Verus for *one* game last season. (Heck, San Jose was only on Versus three times all season, the only US national TV coverage during RS, and only once from home.) Toronto was on Versus three times; Ottawa twice, Vancouver once, Montreal three times; Calgary and Edmonton none.
Why is Gary Bettman against relocation?
For those of you that understand the business aspect of hockey, why do you think Gary Bettman is so against having another team in Canada?
I have a business education (BBA heavily focused in marketing) and I do not understand why the commissioner is so against this move. Why does the commissioner insist on teams LOSING money every year? To top it off, the guy claims that teams are financially stable, yet franchises file for bankrupcy.
Does this not remind you of GM/Ford a couple years ago? Claiming all was well and rosy until the problem was way too big to fix?
I agree that Mr. Bastille terms and conditions aren't ideal, but from a business and money making aspect... doesn't it make sense? Instead of having a team in a hockey dead market competing for dollars against MLB, NBA and NFL... who wouldn`t want to put a team in a hockey crazed market where there is one competing franchise (Maple Leafs). Corporate sponsors in the GTA would jump all over this opportunity as well.
You have a franchise that has been BLEEDING money every year. It's no secret that the Coyotes have been in financial mess for years now. Corporate sponsors won't touch this team as they don't see it is a profitable venture. The Coyotes aren't the only franchise losing millions each year either.
To me, it appears that Gary Bettman is basing his decisions off of emotion and personal beliefs, rather than business and money making sense.
For those of you that understand where Bettman is coming from, can you please enlighten a massive group that just doesn`t get it (myself included).
For those of you that understand the business aspect of hockey, why do you think Gary Bettman is so against having another team in Canada?
I have a business education (BBA heavily focused in marketing) and I do not understand why the commissioner is so against this move. Why does the commissioner insist on teams LOSING money every year? To top it off, the guy claims that teams are financially stable, yet franchises file for bankrupcy.
Does this not remind you of GM/Ford a couple years ago? Claiming all was well and rosy until the problem was way too big to fix?
I agree that Mr. Bastille terms and conditions aren't ideal, but from a business and money making aspect... doesn't it make sense? Instead of having a team in a hockey dead market competing for dollars against MLB, NBA and NFL... who wouldn`t want to put a team in a hockey crazed market where there is one competing franchise (Maple Leafs). Corporate sponsors in the GTA would jump all over this opportunity as well.
You have a franchise that has been BLEEDING money every year. It's no secret that the Coyotes have been in financial mess for years now. Corporate sponsors won't touch this team as they don't see it is a profitable venture. The Coyotes aren't the only franchise losing millions each year either.
To me, it appears that Gary Bettman is basing his decisions off of emotion and personal beliefs, rather than business and money making sense.
For those of you that understand where Bettman is coming from, can you please enlighten a massive group that just doesn`t get it (myself included).
I'm certain the league is against Hamilton for more reasons than that. For example the asset is too good to ever actually monetize. Who's to say in better times they can't get $350 million for a team in southern Ontario? Why should they take the risk of losing that bargaining chip?
May Day 10
Registered User
I meant that generally. I have no real plan. At least better revenue sharing needs to exist if all 30 teams can maintain business indefinitely. As it is now, there will always be fires burning around the NHL. It used to be Buffalo and Pittsburgh. Now its going to be Phoenix. Then Atlanta will have trouble. Then Tampa.... Then the Islanders. Then Buffalo and Phoenix again. Then Carolina after not making the playoffs for 3 straight years..... and so on...
Its tough. You have some very profitable teams pulling in most of the revenue, and the players cut is inflated due to few teams. I think a 'stronger' revenue system is needed... doesnt have to be utopian.
Dumpster Flyers
Registered User
- Jun 21, 2006
- 5,931
- 1,233
My guess is the sunk cost fallacy. They already put in a whole bunch of capital to move the team, market it, and maintain it. When it's moved, all those investments are "lost".
SoCalPredFan
Registered User
How on earth do Balsillie/Moyes actually think the courts can prevent the NHL from objecting to one its franchises relocating? Even if, for a second, the courts did overrule and side with Balsillie/Moyes, who could enforce the NHL to allow the rogue team to play in its league.
It's a franchise. It has to operate within the guidelines set up by the franchiser (the NHL and its BOG).
Am I missing something here?
-t
May Day 10
Registered User
Larry Quinn said 20% I believe. However, with all the Leaf fans, Hab fans, and to a lesser extent, Ottawa fans who come down... it is easy to skew the numbers to where you see fit. Those fans will still come down: Hamilton or no Hamilton.
CapsWolverinesUSA
Registered User
- Jan 3, 2007
- 5,244
- 56
This is 100% right. The bankruptcy court has no authority or jurisdiction to order the NHL to allow a franchise to be relocated. Because relocation is a condition of the Balsillie offer, the offer can't even be accepted by the bankruptcy court. Any attempt to accept a conditional offer minus the condition is viewed as nothing more or less than a counter-offer, which Balsillie won't agree to.
Balsillie's only real option is to either convince the NHL to agree prior to the sale (fat chance) or reduce his bid, buy the team as-is, and then fight for relocation once he owns the team. Like Al Davis has done in the past, going to court to try and move a team you already own has a much higher probability of success than trying to get a court to order the NHL to allow you to move it as a condition of purchase.
SoCalPredFan
Registered User
Exactly.
What is JB trying to do? He can't possibly NOT know this. What is his end game here?
Is it a PR-stunt to try and rally the Canadian populace to somehow force the NHL & BOG to "monetize the asset" of the S.Ontario market and monetize it with JB?
What people are missing is that antitrust laws would come into play, not the bankruptcy court. The latter would decide how best to dispense with the assets to recover as much money as possible for the creditors. If you assume that Moyes can sell the Coyotes to Balsillie, the NHL then would have to challenge an owner on his ability to move the team. See Davis vs NFL. (kdb209 has posted here on numerous occasions on this very topic)
BogsDiamond
Anybody get 2 U yet?
- Mar 16, 2008
- 1,132
- 79
That's a great way of putting it.
It's like me putting in a bid on a bankrupt business and saying "I'll only buy this business if Meagan Fox has to make out with me every day for the next 10 years".
The court can't speak for the lovely Ms. Fox.
It might have been in JB's best interest to simply buy the franchise and fight the relocation later.
Heck, he could have gone the "Major League" route and sold off all the decent players on his team and filled the roster with ex-cons and washed-up players. Nobody will show up and he'll get to move.
CapsWolverinesUSA
Registered User
- Jan 3, 2007
- 5,244
- 56
I don't see your point. Whatever anti-trust issues would arise around the relocation of the franchise would only come up AFTER Balsillie has bought the Coyotes minus the relocation condition. Right now, he has made no indication that he is willing to do that.
Assuming that the Moyes bankruptcy filing is deemed legit (and I think it probably will be), the Bankruptcy court must dispense with the assets. But you can't just dispense the assets on a whim. You need concrete purchasing procedures to be followed. The whole point is that Balsille's offer CANNOT be accepted as currently composed. The court cannot accept the conditional offer when it has no authority to impose the condition. It would be a legally invalid acceptance. So, until Balsillie amends his offer and buys the team without conditions, there is no anti-trust issue to be had, because Balsillie has no stake in the direction of the franchise.
There are a few people who have predicted that this would happen, thanks to the revenue gap. The only stronger revenue sharing system possible would be substantially more revenues coming from central funds. Absent that, you really are saying that more money has to be transferred from the richer teams to the weaker ones. The "ideal" would be all 30 teams sharing equally in all revenues... but that isn't fair given the disparity in franchise values, what teams have invested and their expected ROI, and that they manage costs/budgets differently. What differentiates the NBA from the NHL is their larger TV contract and merchandising, which contributes over $30 million per year to each team.
The current system would work if the majority of the growth was happening in the weaker markets. If the larger teams maintained status quo and let the weaker catch up, then things work okay. Personally I think the gap was just too large, and then the growth (and I don't mean percentage but actual $$) was in the places that were doing okay regardless. Finally, the recession hit which perhaps is just accelerating the process in some cases, if not being the cause of it altogether.
- Status
