Confirmed with Link: Sens acquire Callahan + pick for Condon + pick

[Micklebot]

Also that “it doesn’t make sense” to take a 5th instead of a 3rd if all it does is saving 2 M$... Well, it shouldn’t be a surprise anymore that this money (real money, not money in a video game) is much more valuable than a better pick, at least to Melnyk and HIS team.

Peoples issue seems to stem from the mixed messaging (Dorion talking about weaponizing capspace to get futures, Ruszkowski talking about losing out on Duchene and Stone being an opportunity to add because we need to hit the floor after all, Melnyk stating that we would be spending near the cap for FYOUS implying that would would be making moves now that are aimed at augmenting our chances in the future at the expense of the present) more so than not understanding that money is valuable. There's also the fact that the extent to which we are cost cutting seems almost unprecedented. Has there ever been a team that has had an expected salary commitment as far below the cap floor as we are going to have? I'd have to do some research but I don't even think Arizona was this extreme when they were in bankruptcy...

Having said that, I think this is likely the tacit admission by the org that nothing the team can currently do short of Melnyk selling will buy back fan's trust, at least not at the moment. Had we traded a 5th for Callahan and a 1st, I'm sure everyone would have been thrilled and applauded the move, but it wouldn't have put any bums in seats or moved the needle on the Season ticket drive. We can't add quality players, because the team is looking to tank, so what's left? The damage is already done, throwing some extra fuel on this tire fire isn't going to make any discernible difference, so you might as well cut costs as far as they can go.

The issue as I see it is there is no plausible end game other than praying that we win the lottery. Even then, as great as Lafrenierre looks, we aren't getting a McDavid or Crosby. With Melnyk at the helm, the only way I see fans coming back is with a really strong team, and if we aren't going to stack the deck in our favour and opt instead to put finances ahead of all else, we are going to need a lot of luck to make that happen.

 

[Tnuoc Alucard]

Selective amnesia can be a pain, feel free to use google to try and find a copy of the constitution. But if that proves to difficult, NHL.com's article on the expansion to Vegas said:

Source

Or Forbes, which wrote:

source

In the end though, the authority you should appeal to in order to settle the debate should not be a member of the media, not even if he's a credible guy like Mendes, a financial specialist like Forbes, or one that works for the league like Dan Rosen the latter two I've quoted, but the constitution which sets out the authorities of the league.

So forgive me if I take what you've heard on the radio with a grain of salt. The need to get the idea across, but typically aren't going to go into the pedantic details that have little relevance to their story.

We all know that HRR is divided 50/50 between the players and the Franchise owners.

If you read article 50.1 (b)(ii) of the NHL CBA, where it points out that revenues from the granting of a new franchise is not considered HRR, then wouldn't you agree that 100% of the expansion fee goes to the Franchise owner?

 

[Xspyrit]

Well you can't have it both ways.

When Pierre Dorion says that he really tried to sign Mark Stone, Erik Karlsson and Matt Duchene and made fair market offers, many on this board use that as irrefutable proof that the organization was not at fault for them leaving.

But then, when Pierre Dorion says he thinks this team is good enough to compete for the playoffs, those same people say that "you can't take everything literally."

Personally, I find it easy to believe that they « tried » to re-sign them BUT it doesn’t mean it was competitive enough. If it was, they would still be Sens now. So if they were able to sign them « at a discount » yes but based on everything, their offers were probably just not enough vs the market, and it most likely has a lot to do with the signing bonuses.

But if people expect them to say in the media « look our boss says we’re in big financial trouble so we can sign players if it’s way under the market », then I don’t know what to tell them except that they don’t really know how this world works (unfortunately)

But I can’t see players, even if loyal to the team that drafted them, taking huge discounts to play in Canada, smaller market like Ottawa, with heavy taxes and shitty weather while having to be an employee of the (worst) owner. Only hope long term is that Melnyk sells, before new stars emerge and need to get paid their UFA years...

 

[Micklebot]

We all know that HRR is divided 50/50 between the players and the Franchise owners.

If you read article 50.1 (b)(ii) of the NHL CBA, where it points out that revenues from the granting of a new franchise is not considered HRR, then wouldn't you agree that 100% of the expansion fee goes to the Franchise owner?

You're conflating not being HRR with revenue going directly to the owners. Non-HRR is still revenue for the org or league, not revenue directly to the owner. Expansion fees are centrally generated revenues that are not "derived or earned from, relating to or arising directly or indirectly out of the playing of NHL hockey games or NHL-related events in which current NHL Players participate or in which current NHL Players' names and likenesses are used" so they don't count as HRR. They are still league revenue though.

Now going back to the original discussion; I pointed out that you harp on expansion fees going to the owner (a false narrative made to disassociate it from the team's profitability), but later argued that cost savings achieved by trades don't go to EM, it's the org saves the money. If you're now going to contend than any non-HRR goes directly to the owner, then so too would cost savings. In the end, it doesn't much matter, the teams financial situation directly impacts EM's wealth, so being pedantic about whether it is money directly in his pocket, or savings for the team is largely irrelevant which is why I pointed out you're being selective about how to frame two similar impacts on the franchises finances in opposite fashions.

 

[Qward]

AP, Sports Illustrated and a dozen other news sources state the that expansion fee goes to the owners. Not to the team.

 

[Xspyrit]

The reason I am criticizing the trade is because we seem to lack any sort of plan.

What « plan » do we need? It’s the FIRST time this team goes into a FULL rebuild... The fans are not very used to that and it’s not even been 2 years yet (ECF just above 2 years ago; the team went in downward spiral after the trip to Sweden in November 2017)

Sure it really sucked that the owner decided to go into a full rebuild when we could have a core of Karlsson, Stone, Zibanejad, Duchene, Chabot, etc all under 30 y/o but the « plan » seems pretty simple (and very natural for a team going into a rebuild) : cutting expenses. It doesn’t take a genius to see that it’s first and foremost a FINANCIAL REBUILD, even though it was hard to believe it would go that far at the beginning... In Ottawa’s case, it just goes to the extreme (ala Arizona)

When I worked for Claridge back then, they were calling that “restructuration” which is not very different than other businesses. And you probably know how wealthy they are, still didn’t stop them for going into those “restructuration years”... and that would happen every time one of their businesses would not be financially healthy enough.

This is not really different here except that a sports team is public and has FANS who care about their team. Melnyk obviously see the Senators as one entity, and is not mixing it up with other venues from the rink, unfortunately (I do the same, with 2 small businesses, I don’t take funds from one business to feed the other one. I manage them totally independently). We know this entity is tied in heavy debt and Melnyk is taking some extreme measures to “restructure/rebuild/straighten/whatever” the team finances.

If it wasn’t any other business, nobody would care but unfortunately for us, we have to endure it.

Now, there’s still one question. We know Melnyk is not a very likeable personage, but the question is how much % is he lying about the team finances? Are the Senators financially healthy enough on their own or is he trying to recover the money he pocketed himself before? What is the “financial truth”? The sad thing is we will probably never know, it’s something that only his accountants really know.

That’s why when you take all this in consideration, you keep scratching your head reading many posts on this board... Why would people get upset for any little move separately when one global thing explains everything?

 

[Micklebot]

AP, Sports Illustrated and a dozen other news sources state the that expansion fee goes to the owners. Not to the team.

And Forbes and the NHL.com said it went to teams not the owners, what is your point?

Saying it goes to owners is a simplification to distinguish it is not HRR. Owners own the team so the team's non HRR revenue is simplified as "to the owner" for the reader's sake to make it clear that it isnt hrrand players don't get 50%. The league constitution dictates how centrally generated revenues are dispersed and that is to member clubs, not the owners there of.

Like i said before, the leaugue constitution trumps AP sports illustrated ect. In the end the distinctions isn't that important, i just take issue with framing expansion fees one way and cost cutting another when they both affect the operating profits of the team similarly.

 

[RaMai]

What « plan » do we need? It’s the FIRST time this team goes into a FULL rebuild... The fans are not very used to that and it’s not even been 2 years yet (ECF just above 2 years ago; the team went in downward spiral after the trip to Sweden in November 2017)

Sure it really sucked that the owner decided to go into a full rebuild when we could have a core of Karlsson, Stone, Zibanejad, Duchene, Chabot, etc all under 30 y/o but the « plan » seems pretty simple (and very natural for a team going into a rebuild) : cutting expenses. It doesn’t take a genius to see that it’s first and foremost a FINANCIAL REBUILD, even though it was hard to believe it would go that far at the beginning... In Ottawa’s case, it just goes to the extreme (ala Arizona)

When I worked for Claridge back then, they were calling that “restructuration” which is not very different than other businesses. And you probably know how wealthy they are, still didn’t stop them for going into those “restructuration years”... and that would happen every time one of their businesses would not be financially healthy enough.

This is not really different here except that a sports team is public and has FANS who care about their team. Melnyk obviously see the Senators as one entity, and is not mixing it up with other venues from the rink, unfortunately (I do the same, with 2 small businesses, I don’t take funds from one business to feed the other one. I manage them totally independently). We know this entity is tied in heavy debt and Melnyk is taking some extreme measures to “restructure/rebuild/straighten/whatever” the team finances.

If it wasn’t any other business, nobody would care but unfortunately for us, we have to endure it.

Now, there’s still one question. We know Melnyk is not a very likeable personage, but the question is how much % is he lying about the team finances? Are the Senators financially healthy enough on their own or is he trying to recover the money he pocketed himself before? What is the “financial truth”? The sad thing is we will probably never know, it’s something that only his accountants really know.

That’s why when you take all this in consideration, you keep scratching your head reading many posts on this board... Why would people get upset for any little move separately when one global thing explains everything?

Sounds all fairly reasonable, but there are those little signs that are disturbing...no stability in the front office, bare bones management group etc.
Just doesn't fit a true "rebuild"

 

[Xspyrit]

For the record, I think Dorion's thoughts change on a daily basis, and there is no plan of any kind, so I don't believe anything he says. For him, every day is groundhog day.

Wait, is there really people who believe that kind of stuff?

Financial plans are not really marketable, Dorion won’t come out to the medias and say “we’ve been struggling financially so it’s all about cleaning the mess. My boss has made it clear, and it was the condition of my 3 years extension where I’m making a good chunk of money to set up my family for a long time, that we will be going through a major financial restructuration. »

Of course they are going to use the words “young”, “culture”, “future”, “compete”, « unparalleled success » or whatever else that could create some hope and future sales to the customer base.

They know what they’re doing but unfortunately it’s not really what we would have wanted. Too late now, it is what it is

 

[NorthCoast]

This is not really different here except that a sports team is public and has FANS who care about their team. Melnyk obviously see the Senators as one entity, and is not mixing it up with other venues from the rink, unfortunately (I do the same, with 2 small businesses, I don’t take funds from one business to feed the other one. I manage them totally independently). We know this entity is tied in heavy debt and Melnyk is taking some extreme measures to “restructure/rebuild/straighten/whatever” the team finances.

Except this is incorrect. Because Melnyk has taken money out of the team to pay for his other businesses. It happened when he bought the team. He didn't pay it all in cash, because he wanted to keep his liquid cash in Biovale stocks/other ventures because he thought they would appreciate in value faster than the carrying costs of the sens debt. That's why billionaires take on debt. Not because they can't pay it off, but because they believe that they can beat the interest rate investing the money somewhere else. They do it all the time.

But he lost that gamble. No problem for the first ten years when he was paying off the interest himself. But now he is broke, and the team revenue has to cover the interest, tanking the player budget.

Is some of the debt from operations that should be paid of by team revenues? Yes. How much, as you said, we don't know.

But it is clear the original debt was never paid down and it's pretty clear that Melnyk is not willing to pay it down out of his pocket since it's officially in the teams name now and everybody has forgotten where it came from. So now we have to rebuild while carrying 5-10 mil in interest on money Melnyk took out of the business to fund his other projects and YES, this is going to lead fans to wonder if we would have made the same moves, and be more competitive again sooner, if had we not had Melnyk's debt around our neck.

Like maybe we trade Condon for a player/coach type leader, maybe a local guy, who has already won the cup, that is signed for longer than a year and is really committed to the city/rebuild, and can help the youth find their way. It's not like adding 1-2 mid-level players are going to make the difference whether we are int he lottery next year. But maybe it makes the difference between this year being a character building experience for the rookies vs being completely miserable raking up loss after loss after loss.

 

[AchtzehnBaby]

Except this is incorrect. Because Melnyk has taken money out of the team to pay for his other businesses. It happened when he bought the team. He didn't pay it all in cash, because he wanted to keep his liquid cash in Biovale stocks/other ventures because he thought they would appreciate in value faster than the carrying costs of the sens debt. That's why billionaires take on debt. Not because they can't pay it off, but because they believe that they can beat the interest rate investing the money somewhere else. They do it all the time.

But he lost that gamble. No problem for the first ten years when he was paying off the interest himself. But now he is broke, and the team revenue has to cover the interest, tanking the player budget.

Is some of the debt from operations that should be paid of by team revenues? Yes. How much, as you said, we don't know.

But it is clear the original debt was never paid down and it's pretty clear that Melnyk is not willing to pay it down out of his pocket since it's officially in the teams name now and everybody has forgotten where it came from. So now we have to rebuild while carrying 5-10 mil in interest on money Melnyk took out of the business to fund his other projects and YES, this is going to lead fans to wonder if we would have made the same moves, and be more competitive again sooner, if had we not had Melnyk's debt around our neck.

Like maybe we trade Condon for a player/coach type leader, maybe a local guy, who has already won the cup, that is signed for longer than a year and is really committed to the city/rebuild, and can help the youth find their way. It's not like adding 1-2 mid-level players are going to make the difference whether we are int he lottery next year. But maybe it makes the difference between this year being a character building experience for the rookies vs being completely miserable raking up loss after loss after loss.

Pretty sure Condon was done.

 

[NorthCoast]

Pretty sure Condon was done.

Great. Then send him down to the minors or buy him out and take more picks off TB in exchange for taking on their LTIR cap space.

The only reason to include Condon is to save money on the budget. And if the budget was totally determined by the market then I wouldn't care. We can afford what we can afford.

But when what we do with the budget (ie: any player) is determined by the market minus paying for EM's investment mistakes, that's a different story.


So yeah, it's obviously not really about Condon.

Condon is just the latest reminder that all player moves are in some part being affected by the player budget, which is in some part affected by the debt, which is in some part affected by the original debt from the team purchase, which is 100% a result of EM taking money out of the team.

 

[Tnuoc Alucard]

AP, Sports Illustrated and a dozen other news sources state the that expansion fee goes to the owners. Not to the team.

And I've heard this multiple times on the Local Sport Radio Station, and many people here are saying that EM is hanging on to the franchise, in order to get his share of the Seattle expansion fee .......... and some people, perhaps even Micklebot included, suggested that a new owenr could simply add the expected share of the the expansion fee into the price paid to EM to expedite the sale.

 

[Micklebot]

And I've heard this multiple times on the Local Sport Radio Station, and many people here are saying that EM is hanging on to the franchise, in order to get his share of the Seattle expansion fee .......... and some people, perhaps even Micklebot included, suggested that a new owenr could simply add the expected share of the the expansion fee into the price paid to EM to expedite the sale.

If the franchise has debt (hint, it does) then that debt has to be accounted for in the sale of the franchise. Melnyk could want to wait for the expansion fee so it could be used to pay down franchise debt, he could want to us it to pay himself from the franchise (he would then need to claim it as personal income and could be subject to taxation) or he could negotiate the expected expansion fee into the sale price of a sale. None of these options preclude the expansion fee from being dispersed by the league to the member clubs as per the league constitution's rules regarding centrally generated revenue sources.

It's nice that you've heard local sports radio say expansion fees are paid to the league, are they more reputable wrt financial details than Forbes? Do they have more direct inside sources to the league than the league run website's senior writer in Dan Rosen? Do they have more authority than the leagues constitution?

I guess what I'm getting at is if you're going to appeal to authority (even in the face of facts to the contrary) you should probably ensure the "authority" you chose is one that has expertise on the subject. The Forbes author I quoted for example actually specializes in the financial aspects of sports, I'll take their word over Steve Lloyd or Mendes', particularly when they are aligning with the actual controlling legal instrument which governs the leagues operations.

 

[Tnuoc Alucard]

Selective amnesia can be a pain, feel free to use google to try and find a copy of the constitution.

Well I've already posted the relevant clause of the NHL constitution, (↑ scroll up ↑) in an earlier post, and at least one other poster agrees with my assertion that the NHL espnaison fee is divvied up among the NHL owners.

And here is another article, that supports what I and other have been saying, but doubt you will accept as credible, but it does state ...

"Under the last collective agreement, any money the league took in via expansion fees or relocation deals was not included as hockey-related revenue (HRR), meaning that the owners pocketed that money without giving the players a cut. "

NHL Lockout: Is the NHLPA demanding hundreds of millions in additional dollars? (Updated)


So either everything I've read on this issue, and heard on the radio when they've talked about it, is dead wrong.

 

[Micklebot]

Well I've already posted the relevant clause of the NHL constitution, (↑ scroll up ↑) in an earlier post, and at least one other poster agrees with my assertion that the NHL espnaison fee is divvied up among the NHL owners.

And here is another article, that supports what I and other have been saying, but doubt you will accept as credible, but it does state ...

"Under the last collective agreement, any money the league took in via expansion fees or relocation deals was not included as hockey-related revenue (HRR), meaning that the owners pocketed that money without giving the players a cut. "

NHL Lockout: Is the NHLPA demanding hundreds of millions in additional dollars? (Updated)


So either everything I've read on this issue, and heard on the radio when they've talked about it, is dead wrong.

Did you bother to read the cba clause you quoted? If you did you would have seen it doesn't speak to how expansion fees are dispearsed just that they are not HRR, something nobody disagrees with. This off course makes sense because a collective bargaining agreement typically wouldn't expand on elements that one party has no stake in. The cba treats expansion fees the same way it treats interest on teams' bank account balances.

If you are going to draw a hard financial line between Melnyk and the business entities he owns, you can't pick and choose when to be pedantic about it. The articles you quote of course choose not explore the distinction between Melnyk and the team because for the most part it really isn't relevant to the point they are trying to make, but you want to have it both ways.

Anyways, i have told you where to find the answer, you can continue to ignore it and post irrelevant clauses of the CBA and articles that aren't worried about the distiction of team revenues vs money directly in owners pockets and instead are looking to highlight that it is not part of the HRR split, it won't change what the constitution dictates.

 

[Sweatred]

Did you bother to read the cba clause you quoted? If you did you would have seen it doesn't speak to how expansion fees are dispearsed just that they are not HRR, something nobody disagrees with. This off course makes sense because a collective bargaining agreement typically wouldn't expand on elements that one party has no stake in. The cba treats expansion fees the same way it treats interest on teams' bank account balances.

If you are going to draw a hard financial line between Melnyk and the business entities he owns, you can't pick and choose when to be pedantic about it. The articles you quote of course choose not explore the distinction between Melnyk and the team because for the most part it really isn't relevant to the point they are trying to make, but you want to have it both ways.

Anyways, i have told you where to find the answer, you can continue to ignore it and post irrelevant clauses of the CBA and articles that aren't worried about the distiction of team revenues vs money directly in owners pockets and instead are looking to highlight that it is not part of the HRR split, it won't change what the constitution dictates.

I 100% agree with this. Expansion fees go to the clubs and are not HRR. From there the club can do what they want with it based on their ownerships structure. Many clubs have complicated ownership structures and the NHL would have no interest in dividing up that transfer.

“Here is your cash, you do what you want with it”.

 

[Tnuoc Alucard]

Did you bother to read the cba clause you quoted? If you did you would have seen it doesn't speak to how expansion fees are dispearsed just that they are not HRR, something nobody disagrees with. This off course makes sense because a collective bargaining agreement typically wouldn't expand on elements that one party has no stake in. The cba treats expansion fees the same way it treats interest on teams' bank account balances.

If you are going to draw a hard financial line between Melnyk and the business entities he owns, you can't pick and choose when to be pedantic about it. The articles you quote of course choose not explore the distinction between Melnyk and the team because for the most part it really isn't relevant to the point they are trying to make, but you want to have it both ways.

Anyways, i have told you where to find the answer, you can continue to ignore it and post irrelevant clauses of the CBA and articles that aren't worried about the distiction of team revenues vs money directly in owners pockets and instead are looking to highlight that it is not part of the HRR split, it won't change what the constitution dictates.

You've "told me" where to find the answer..........but you can't seem to post the link.

The expansion fees, for both Las Vegas, and Seattle go to the owners, to do with as they see fit.

I've heard and read this from many sources, and have posted the links, and other posters have also heard/read this and agree with what I've said on this issue for a couple of years now.

For some reason you just can't seem to accept this, and claim to know where to find the definitive answer on this issue, but never seem to be able to post it.

I will accept what sport journalists have said, and the commentators on the local sports radio show that have discussed this issue a few time over the past few years ...... I think it's safe to say that if they were wrong, someone would have called in to correct the record, and I not read a retraction in any paper that I've read concerning expansion fees going directly to the owners.

So its all these sources, vs you, so you can insist you're correct, and ignore what I've posted, if you so choose ............... but with all I've read and heard, I'm pretty sure you're on an island by yourself.

"Expansion fees would be shared among owners, who would not have to share that money with players. That makes the admission of new franchises an attractive prospect to many existing teams."
NHL affirms it will get hefty fees from potential expansion teams


"While the NHL has been accused in the past of expanding to pad owner's pockets"
ESPN.com: NHL - NHL franchise fees: Is price right?



"Even better, at least from the owners’ perspective, is that the expansion fees won’t count as hockey-related revenue, which means it wouldn’t be shared with the players in the form of an increased salary cap. All of that money would essentially go directly into the owners’ pockets"
The Pros and Cons of NHL Expansion

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

Foreseeable Years Of Under Spending

Dorion's best moves have been for players that can't play due to injury.

Saving the boss money. The hell with the hockey team.

 

[scallionjj11]

Foreseeable Years Of Under Spending

Dorion's best moves have been for players that can't play due to injury.

Saving the boss money. The hell with the hockey team.

Thats gotta be against some kind of rule in the CBA

 

[BonkTastic]

You've "told me" where to find the answer..........but you can't seem to post the link.

The expansion fees, for both Las Vegas, and Seattle go to the owners, to do with as they see fit.

I've heard and read this from many sources, and have posted the links, and other posters have also heard/read this and agree with what I've said on this issue for a couple of years now.

For some reason you just can't seem to accept this, and claim to know where to find the definitive answer on this issue, but never seem to be able to post it.

I will accept what sport journalists have said, and the commentators on the local sports radio show that have discussed this issue a few time over the past few years ...... I think it's safe to say that if they were wrong, someone would have called in to correct the record, and I not read a retraction in any paper that I've read concerning expansion fees going directly to the owners.

So its all these sources, vs you, so you can insist you're correct, and ignore what I've posted, if you so choose ............... but with all I've read and heard, I'm pretty sure you're on an island by yourself.

"Expansion fees would be shared among owners, who would not have to share that money with players. That makes the admission of new franchises an attractive prospect to many existing teams."
NHL affirms it will get hefty fees from potential expansion teams


"While the NHL has been accused in the past of expanding to pad owner's pockets"
ESPN.com: NHL - NHL franchise fees: Is price right?



"Even better, at least from the owners’ perspective, is that the expansion fees won’t count as hockey-related revenue, which means it wouldn’t be shared with the players in the form of an increased salary cap. All of that money would essentially go directly into the owners’ pockets"
The Pros and Cons of NHL Expansion

You are taking literally what sports journalists have said in shorthand.

The money doesn't go directly into a random owners offshore account. It goes to the teams as a non-HRR payment, after which owners can do with as they wish...

Journalists have used this "goes into their pockets" shorthand because the money often finds its way to their personal accounts, but 99% of fans don't care about the accounting minutae involved in non-hockey financial transactions. Because that is INFINITELY boring. Because most people don't track non-hockey revenue banking details in their hockey pools. And nobody has called into sports shows to correct talking heads or journalists because nobody is actually that pedantic, that they would take the time to try and draw a ridiculous line in the sand over this sort of thing, because the average fan couldn't possibly care less.

These shorthands exist to save time in explaining largely uninteresting and mundane (to most hockey fans) financial banking details that largely don't even matter to like 99.999% of hockey discussions, except this one apparently.

 

[Blotto71]

Foreseeable Years Of Under Spending

Dorion's best moves have been for players that can't play due to injury.

Saving the boss money. The hell with the hockey team.

I like it, but feel the real plan - more than ever - really is Five Years Of Unmitigated Disaster Before Another Generational Star...

FYOUDBAGS

Prove me wrong Dorion.

 

[Ice-Tray]

I could be wrong, but I don’t think Mick and Drac are actually making the point of disagreement clear. One clear fact is that the expansion money is not HRR.

I think the discrepancy is whether the payment is made to each NHL team, where it becomes business money, just not part of HRR, in which case the owner can’t really just remove it from the company for their personal use.

Or....

Does the new team cut a personal cheque to each owner separate from the NHL team business. I think a direct payment to the owner would be the only way that it could go ‘straight into their pockets’.

It’s important to us I suppose because if it’s personal money EM can bank it or buy a new car or whatever, but if it’s team money, it would need to remain as part of team finances, perhaps paying down debt or something.

I could be wrong, just going by what various posters have posted about business vs personal finances.

 

[AchtzehnBaby]

The Counts references seem to point towards ownership, though I think as Mick pointed out it is figuratively stated. (Not sure if my grammar is correct here).

In the end it really doesn’t matter as EM can write his own cheques as he is the CEO and President of the company. I believe he has no board of directors to approve this type of action.

That being said, how money is spent in the organization under the NHL’s governance is not clear and I doubt there is anything that is that says though shall spend that $20M on re-signing players rather than paying down debts. As long as the organization meets it finance obligations towards the CBA.

Remember that time Condon ...

 

[topshelf15]

Lol,this team...TB was in cap hell,and we bail them out for next to nothing...Like the Zaitsev deal ,we help a rival because our owner cant afford to run the team....