2012 NHL Off-Season Thread.

[scv]

The Draft is today, and NHL Free-Agency begins on July 1st. Since the Playoffs are over, I think it's good to have a place to discuss moves of teams that don't have their own separate thread.

Recognized Media Sources (http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=801084).

This link is from HFBoards and includes the majority of the sources that are considered reputable. Generally most Twitter sources that are not recognized journalists are usually shady, as well as various fan blogs.

2012 NHL Free Agents List (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1159847).

News so far:

Ottawa re-sign Erik Karlsson (7 years, $6.5M cap hit) ‎
Minnesota re-sign Josh Harding (3 Years/$1.9M cap hit) ‎
St. Louis re-sign Barret Jackman (3 years, $3.17M cap hit)
Philadelphia trade Sergei Bobrovsky to Columbus for #45 pick + 2 4th Round Picks.

Rumours:

Supposedly Rick Nash, Jordan Staal and of course Luongo are all on the trade block. There are also indications that Patrick Kane, Keith Yandle and Bobby Ryan are also being offered.

Yakupov might be sliding.. I doubt it will happen, but some sources suggest that the Oilers may pass at #1, and even Columbus at #2....

[scv]

Anaheim trades Lubomir Visnovsky to NYI for a 2012 2nd Round Pick.

Washington trades Cody Eakin and 54th overall to Dallas for Mike Ribeiro,

[MaximDude]

Aww crap, Montreal takes Galchenyuk, now what do the Leafs do? :(

[MaximDude]

Oh great another defenseman for the Leafs in Morgan Rielly. Don't know much about him, but I wish the Leafs would draft good forward one day. Ughhhhhh. :cry:

[Geologic]

Aww crap, Montreal takes Galchenyuk, now what do the Leafs do? :(


Take a d-man.

Done

[MaximDude]

Take a d-man.

Done

:(

I only wish Burke would get another pick and take Grigorenko or something, but of course that will never happen.......

[Balanar08]

:(

I only wish Burke would get another pick and take Grigorenko or something, but of course that will never happen.......

I was hoping for Galchenyuk and Grig. Who knows he might pull a trade since he was talking to the Minnesota GM.

[scv]

Pittsburgh trades Jordan Staal to Carolina for Brandon Sutter, the 8th overall Pick and Brian Dumolin.

Very nice return for a potential UFA. I guess Carolina thinks they have a better chance of signing him because of his brother.

[Geologic]

Wow! Staal to Carolina for Sutter, Dumolin, and 8th pick back to Pittsburgh.

[MaximDude]

Things are getting fun now! :)

Cmon Burke get us another pick and get a C!

[got_it_4_cheap]

Aww crap, Montreal takes Galchenyuk, now what do the Leafs do? :(

if only leafs lost a few more games, could have got Galchenyuk

habs finally get a C

good chance this kid will be way better than scott gomez

it works out for habs, gomez has two years left in his contract, Galchenyuk should be nhl ready in 2 years

The Pittsburgh Penguins have traded Jordan Staal to the Carolina Hurricanes in exchange for a 1st round pick (8th overall), Brandon Sutter and Ryan Dumoulin.

[wszeto28]

Huge loss for the pens but they were probably gonna lose him in free agency anyways so the return was pretty good. Sutter will probably be a 20 goal scorer in Pittsburgh.

Steal was good on the pk so big loss there. It'll be interesting seeing him play with Eric.

[MaximDude]

Damn, bye bye Grigorenko. Sabres take him. Now what Burke? Guess we aren't doing anything else. :(

[Manatus]

Interesting, 8 out of the top 10 picks were defensemen. So really once you consider that Yakupov was nailed on to be #1, 8 out of 9 teams went after d-men.

Not a bad return for the Penguins for Staal. He's probably worth more but they were put on the spot knowing he wasn't going to sign. Now the Hurricanes need to go after Marc. Has an NHL team ever had 4 brothers on the ice at the same time?

[BornRuff]

Interesting, 8 out of the top 10 picks were defensemen. So really once you consider that Yakupov was nailed on to be #1, 8 out of 9 teams went after d-men.

Not a bad return for the Penguins for Staal. He's probably worth more but they were put on the spot knowing he wasn't going to sign. Now the Hurricanes need to go after Marc. Has an NHL team ever had 4 brothers on the ice at the same time?

Four would have to be a record. It doesn't look like Jared is all that promising to make the team though.

Three brothers playing together has apparently happened more than once.

The Nordiques had a boatload of Stastnys for a few years.

Not nearly as surreal as having two generations of Howes playing together in Hartford. Must have been strange to hear someone yelling "Dad! Dad! I'm open!" in the middle of an NHL game.

[Manatus]

Not nearly as surreal as having two generations of Howes playing together in Hartford. Must have been strange to hear someone yelling "Dad! Dad! I'm open!" in the middle of an NHL game.

Must have sucked to have opponents taunting you that you're not even the best player in your family.

Plus c'mon, even if he doesn't deserve it on merit, you would absolutely have to call Jared up for one meaningless end of season game just so you can say you did.

[scv]

Pittsburgh trades Zbynek Michalek to Phoenix for Harrison Ruopp, Marc Cheverie and a 3rd Round Pick.

Bit surprising, Michalek played very well and he gets traded for almost nothing. I'm guessing that Pittsburgh is trying to clear up cap room for a player like Parise, Suter or even both.

It works out well for Michalek, as the only reason he left Phoenix were due to the ownership issues, and those appear to be settled for now.

[BongoBong]

Washington trades Cody Eakin and 54th overall to Dallas for Mike Ribeiro,

Surprised Ribeiro went for so little, even if he is on the last year of his contract. Real solid pickup for Washington.

[BornRuff]

Must have sucked to have opponents taunting you that you're not even the best player in your family.

Plus c'mon, even if he doesn't deserve it on merit, you would absolutely have to call Jared up for one meaningless end of season game just so you can say you did.

When that better member of your family is Gordie Howe, I think you can live with it.

I'm sure they might call him up for shits and giggles at some point if they really wanted to make history like that, but since Jared has struggled just to stay on the AHL team, making a run at an NHL roster spot seems outlandish at this point.

[VCR]

Are premiums paid for pending UFAs?


http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=399374

Dennis Wideman Signed By Flames For 5-Years, $5.25 Million
‎

[Jimboski]

Are premiums paid for pending UFAs?


http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=399374

Dennis Wideman Signed By Flames For 5-Years, $5.25 Million
‎

I read your post and was confused.. No way he's getting paid $1M/Year Lol.

[VCR]

I read your post and was confused.. No way he's getting paid $1M/Year Lol.

Yeah, 5.25M per season! That's the price that's paid.

[VCR]

http://twitter.com/#!/DarrenDreger


Darren Dreger ‏@DarrenDreger

Expect the Penguins to announce Sidney Crosby's contract extension on Sunday. Over $100 million dollars with an AAV of close to $9 mil per.

[thelefteyeguy]

http://twitter.com/#!/DarrenDreger

i guess you got to do what you got to do....9mil for a loose brain...cracked bone in the neck ....or whatever his diagnose is.

[scv]

Are premiums paid for pending UFAs?

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=399374

Dennis Wideman Signed By Flames For 5-Years, $5.25 Million
‎

Looks like the lack of a CBA isn't precluding crazy over-payments for mid-level players. It's almost a guarantee that the Flames will be trying to pawn this contract off after the third year.


i guess you got to do what you got to do....9mil for a loose brain...cracked bone in the neck ....or whatever his diagnose is.

Pretty much. I don't have any problems with this contract, and in a way he took a discount because the cap hit is the same as his previous contract.

The bidding war would probably raise the price past $11 Million if he became a UFA, simply because he's the best player in the game when healthy.

[dankup]

I was watching Sportsnet 590 this morning on TV. Didn't catch the majority of it though.. can someone explain quickly why the NHL might go into a lockout in October or next year? That was the main topic covered there.

[scv]

The current NHL CBA expires on Sept 15th. Both sides have some grievances, some of which are with how revenue sharing is structured, as well as the salary cap.

I don't really expect a lockout mainly due to the potential ramifications, but there still is an off-chance that there will be one.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=399319
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NHL_Collective_Bargaining_Agreement

[dchimera]

Are premiums paid for pending UFAs?


http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=399374

Dennis Wideman Signed By Flames For 5-Years, $5.25 Million
‎

And Crosby just got signed for 12-years, $8.7 Million/year

http://sports.nationalpost.com/2012/06/28/it-looks-like-sidney-crosby-will-not-be-leaving-the-penguins-anytime-soon/

[VCR]

The bidding war would probably raise the price past $11 Million if he became a UFA, simply because he's the best player in the game when healthy.

I wonder what BornRuff has to say about your commentary!

[scv]

Jonathan Quick re-signs with LA. 10 years, $58 Million.

Probably a circumvention deal. I'm guessing they purposely did it now while they still can. Hard to say that Quick isn't worth it, although a 10 year deal is a risk.

Edit: It looks like Jonathan Bernier has asked to be traded. Not much of a surprise there, and supposedly Bernier was told that he would be traded after the Quick deal was done.

[BornRuff]

Jonathan Quick re-signs with LA. 10 years, $58 Million.

Probably a circumvention deal. I'm guessing they purposely did it now while they still can. Hard to say that Quick isn't worth it, although a 10 year deal is a risk.

Edit: It looks like Jonathan Bernier has asked to be traded. Not much of a surprise there, and supposedly Bernier was told that he would be traded after the Quick deal was done.

I doubt there is any cap circumvention happening in that deal, since Quick is only 26. He likely isn't planning on retiring before the end of that contract.

Lets hope that Toronto takes a decent run at Bernier. I would love to see him in Toronto.

[scv]

I doubt there is any cap circumvention happening in that deal, since Quick is only 26. He likely isn't planning on retiring before the end of that contract.

Lets hope that Toronto takes a decent run at Bernier. I would love to see him in Toronto.

You're probably right, for some reason I was thinking he was older. I'm guessing the deal is front-loaded, but Quick will most likely finish it and get another contract.

I wonder what Bernier's value will be in the end. Supposedly LA rejected a 1st and a prospect earlier, so this might be around what it will take.

[VCR]

Lets hope that Toronto takes a decent run at Bernier. I would love to see him in Toronto.

What kind of swing do you think they will make?

In other words, if you were the Leafs' GM what would be the most you'd be willing to offer for Bernier versus a trade offer for Luongo?

He seems to be regressing in his career behind Quick. He needs a change of scenery but he's a risky pick up for a team that needs solid goaltending to help them make the playoffs next season.

[VCR]

I wonder what Bernier's value will be in the end. Supposedly LA rejected a 1st and a prospect earlier, so this might be around what it will take.

His trade value is at an all-time low. I would be surprised if they can get a 1st and a decent prospect right now. The Kings might hang on to him and see if he can re-stablish himself in the NHL before dealing him next season.

[VCR]

http://twitter.com/NHL_Oilers


Edmonton Oilers ‏@NHL_Oilers

The Edmonton Oilers have agreed to terms with Justin Schultz. More details to come.

[BornRuff]

http://twitter.com/NHL_Oilers

I wonder what their sales pitch was "You want to play in our top pairing? Sure, why the hell not."

[VCR]

I wonder what their sales pitch was "You want to play in our top pairing? Sure, why the hell not."

Yeah, it was probably the best place to go to maximize his performance bonuses.

[scv]

I wonder what their sales pitch was "You want to play in our top pairing? Sure, why the hell not."

Apparently the Oilers were the only team to guarantee ice time. I'm not too surprised he chose the Oilers, as they have so many defensive holes they need to fill.

[BornRuff]

Apparently the Oilers were the only team to guarantee ice time. I'm not too surprised he chose the Oilers, as they have so many defensive holes they need to fill.

That is pretty much what I was getting at.

While I think it is pretty crazy that you can have a college kid demanding guaranteed ice time from an NHL club(much less any player demanding guaranteed ice time), the Oilers have shown such a neglect for defense over the years that a guy like him could probably stick around in the lineup regardless.

I think this kind of stuff should be ironed out of the CBA in this next round though. It is kind of a stupid situation.

[VCR]

That is pretty much what I was getting at.

While I think it is pretty crazy that you can have a college kid demanding guaranteed ice time from an NHL club(much less any player demanding guaranteed ice time), the Oilers have shown such a neglect for defense over the years that a guy like him could probably stick around in the lineup regardless.

I think this kind of stuff should be ironed out of the CBA in this next round though. It is kind of a stupid situation.

That's the power of being a UFA. You've got leverage.

[VCR]

Apparently the Oilers were the only team to guarantee ice time. I'm not too surprised he chose the Oilers, as they have so many defensive holes they need to fill.

Yeah, just looking at their current roster on defense, was a guarantee that he would get ice time! I can certainly understand why he chose the Oilers. It will be interesting to se how he develops. The Canucks could have drafted him but took Sauve a couple of picks earlier, instead.

[VCR]

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=399634


The Nashville Predators and forward Paul Gaustad have agreed to a four-year, $13 million contract.

[scv]

Signings so far:

Carolina re-signs Jordan Staal - 10 years/$6M Cap Hit. I would how Pittsburgh feels about Staal taking the same offer that he rejected from them...

Ray Whitney to Dallas - 2 years/$4.5M Cap Hit.

Dustin Penner re-signs with LA - 1 year/~$3M Cap Hit.

Brad Boyes (1y/$1M) and Matt Carkner (3y/$1.5M Cap Hit) to the Islanders.

Adam Burish to San Jose - 4 years/$1.8M Cap Hit.

Filip Kuba to Florida - 2 years/$4M Cap Hit.

Edmonton re-signs Ryan Smyth - 2 years/$2.25M Cap Hit.

Ottawa trades Nick Foligno to Columbus for Marc Methot.

[Supercooled]

Columbus still has a team? :p
No more phaneuf vs foligno bouts.

[scv]

P.A. Parenteau to Colorado, 4 years, $4M Cap Hit. Risky contract for a player with only one good year on a bad team, but it's better than a Ville Leino deal at least. Colorado at this point still has not reached the Cap Floor.

Montreal signs Brandon Prust - 4 years. $2.5M Cap Hit. Another over-payment, but the usual at this time of year.

Mikael Samuelsson to Detroit - 2 years, $3M Cap Hit.

Bryan Allen to Anaheim - 3 years, $3.5M Cap Hit.

Sheldon Souray to Anaheim - 3 years, $3.66M Cap Hit. +35 Contract, so the cap hit is guaranteed regardless of retirement.

[GP Legend]

Carolina re-signs Jordan Staal - 10 years/$6M Cap Hit. I would how Pittsburgh feels about Staal taking the same offer that he rejected from them...

Yeah, but unlike in Pittsburgh, he will be getting top-6 minutes. He won't be behind Crosby and Malkin.

[scv]

Calgary signs Jiri Hudler - 4 years/$4m Cap Hit. Probably another 9 or 10 seed for Calgary this year.

Montreal re-signs Carey Price - 6 years/$6.5M Cap Hit. A lot for Price, but Montreal needed to keep him.

Buffalo trades Derek Roy to Dallas for Steve Ott and Adam Pardy.

Alexander Radulov to CSKA Moscow - 4years. Rumoured to be getting $9.2 Million/year after tax.....

Dallas signs Jaromir Jagr - 1 year/$4.5M Cap Hit.

[scv]

Minnesota signs Ryan Suter and Zach Parise. Both deals are 13 years/$98 Million each, so ~7.54M Cap Hit.

Around what was expected for Parise, while more than expected for Suter. Major coup for Minnesota in any case, since both Parise and Suter are just entering their primes now.

[Wilmega]

hnnnnggg big day for Minny...but those long term contracts yeeesh. These clubs will all regret those deals after about year 4 or 5. What ever happened to Rick Dipetro lol - worse long term contract in all time.

[DavidY]

Apparent breakdown of the contract(s):

2012-13 - $12 million 2017-18 - $9-million 2021-22 - $6-million

2013-14 - $12-million 2018-19 - $9-million 2022-23 - $2-million

2014-15 - $11-million 2019-20 - $9-million 2023-24 - $1-million

2015-16 - $9-million 2020-21 - $8-million 2024-25 - $1-million

2016-17 - $9-million

With the last three years basically written off...it works out to $9.4M per year for the first 10 years. Signing bonus(es) vs. salary?

Dave

[VCR]

NHL collective bargaining: The issues

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/opinion/2012/06/nhl-collective-bargaining-the-issues.html

[Beradon]

hnnnnggg big day for Minny...but those long term contracts yeeesh. These clubs will all regret those deals after about year 4 or 5. What ever happened to Rick Dipetro lol - worse long term contract in all time.Don't forget Roberto Luongo.
These teams are all thinking if the player and his skills last for half the contract, anything more would be a bargain down the road. Unfortunately I can't think of a player whose long term contract has paid off for a team.

On another note: Parise, Suter, Heatley, Setoguchi, a deadly combo? I wonder if the Wild is finished with doing any more deals.

[1226]

Apparent breakdown of the contract(s):

2012-13 - $12 million 2017-18 - $9-million 2021-22 - $6-million

2013-14 - $12-million 2018-19 - $9-million 2022-23 - $2-million

2014-15 - $11-million 2019-20 - $9-million 2023-24 - $1-million

2015-16 - $9-million 2020-21 - $8-million 2024-25 - $1-million

2016-17 - $9-million

With the last three years basically written off...it works out to $9.4M per year for the first 10 years. Signing bonus(es) vs. salary?

Dave

“We’re not making money and that’s one reason we need to fix our system. We need to fix how much we are spending.” – Craig Leopold, April 11, 2012

[scv]

Shea Weber signs an Offer Sheet with the Flyers - 14 years / $110M :-0

Nashville has 7 days to match. The compensation is four 1st Round Picks if they elect not to.

[VCR]

Shea Weber signs an Offer Sheet with the Flyers - 14 years / $100M+ :-0

Nashville has 7 days to match. The compensation is four 1st Round Picks if they elect not to.

Would be interesting to see how the contract is exactly structured with respect to upfront bonus money and AAV and how much + is there to the 100M.

[TheRealVinsanity]

Wow.... the Predators could be losing Suter and Weber in one off season.

[wszeto28]

Contract sounds unreasonable but he'll only be 40 years old when it ends. Lots of defencemen play until their 40.

I wouldn't know what to do if I were Nashville. Four 1st round picks is crazy lol.

[1226]

Damn players! They're ruining the league, accepting these massive contracts offered to them! Holding a gun to the owners heads! They should say "No, Mr. Owner, that's too much money!"

I guess the teams have no other choice but to force a work stoppage.

[scv]

Would be interesting to see how the contract is exactly structured with respect to upfront bonus money and AAV and how much + is there to the 100M.

According to Darren Dreger:


Weber will receive $14 mil in each of 1st 4 years. $12 mil in next 2 yrs. $6mil in following 4 yrs...then $3mil and $1mil, $1mil,$1mil,$1mil

I think Nashville will match. A signed Weber is worth more than 4 low 1st Round Picks, if they do decide that they can't afford him in a year. I am a bit surprised that there wasn't a $20M+ signing bonus thrown in, although 68M in the 1st 5 years is crazy in itself.

[wszeto28]

Damn players! They're ruining the league, accepting these massive contracts offered to them! Holding a gun to the owners heads! They should say "No, Mr. Owner, that's too much money!"

I guess the teams have no other choice but to force a work stoppage.

What doesn't make sense is that the owners are complaining about these long term contracts yet they are the ones offering them.

[1226]

What doesn't make sense is that the owners are complaining about these long term contracts yet they are the ones offering them.

Yeah that's what I was getting at.

[1226]

According to Darren Dreger:

I think Nashville will match. A signed Weber is worth more than 4 low 1st Round Picks, if they do decide that they can't afford him in a year. I am a bit surprised that there wasn't a $20M+ signing bonus thrown in, although 68M in the 1st 5 years is crazy in itself.

I think Dreger's got an extra $1M on the end there. What he listed would be a 15 year $111M contract.

So assuming that's the case, what this really is is an "11 year, $107M and then retire" contract, so average $9.7M. Or 10 year, $104M and then retire ($10.4M/yr).

Won't somebody save these clearly destitute owners?!

[VCR]

According to Darren Dreger:

I think Nashville will match. A signed Weber is worth more than 4 low 1st Round Picks, if they do decide that they can't afford him in a year. I am a bit surprised that there wasn't a $20M+ signing bonus thrown in, although 68M in the 1st 5 years is crazy in itself.

NAS will either match or negotiate a trade with PHI within the seven day window to not not match the offer sheet and in lieu of not matching, receive players and/or picks back. I read a report that they were discussing trade possibilities, so the offer sheet puts a definite deadline on whether they can negotiate a deal that works for both parties.

[VCR]

https://twitter.com/DarrenDreger


Darren Dreger ‏@DarrenDreger

Won't spent much time scouring for Weber trade details, but I've heard Preds wanted Couturier, Schenn and something else from Flyers. Ouch.

10:46 AM - 19 Jul 12 via Twitter for BlackBerry®

[scv]

More contract details:

First year is $1M with a $13M signing bonus. Second year is the same, with the $13M due on July 1st. Effectively Weber will be paid $27M before he would be eligible for a trade.

[1226]

NAS will either match or negotiate a trade with PHI within the seven day window to not not match the offer sheet and in lieu of not matching, receive players and/or picks back. I read a report that they were discussing trade possibilities, so the offer sheet puts a definite deadline on whether they can negotiate a deal that works for both parties.

According to Kypreos, there is a $13M signing bonus in EACH of the first four years, meaning Nashville would be on the hook for $27M to keep him for a single year (have to pay 2 signing bonuses & 1 year salary before they can trade him) so if Weber does want out there's no way they can match. And with the Flyers knowing that, they have no incentive to offer anything in trade in greater value than four (late) 1st rounders. Still could be significant, but it won't be otherworldly.

[VCR]

According to Kypreos, there is a $13M signing bonus in EACH of the first four years, meaning Nashville would be on the hook for $27M to keep him for a single year (have to pay 2 signing bonuses & 1 year salary before they can trade him) so if Weber does want out there's no way they can match. And with the Flyers knowing that, they have no incentive to offer anything in trade in greater value than four (late) 1st rounders. Still could be significant, but it won't be otherworldly.

It will be interesting to see if the Flyers' strategy works and they only give up the compensatory picks. If it does, then it's indeed a bold move that deserves its props. Apparently the Canucks didn't think this would be an effective strategy, so they didn't go this route but they could be proven wrong in less than a week!

[1226]

It will be interesting to see if the Flyers' strategy works and they only give up the compensatory picks. If it does, then it's indeed a bold move that deserves its props. Apparently the Canucks didn't think this would be an effective strategy, so they didn't go this route but they could be proven wrong in less than a week!

Not only will it IMO most likely turn out to be a successful move for the Flyers, it's going to be huge for Weber regardless. If there are any salary rollbacks like after the last lockout, his $13M x 4 signing bonuses will be immune. That'll save him millions over a similarly paid player whose contract is made up primarily of "salary".

[Supercooled]

Is Webber now potentially the highest paid D-man? Wow, that is insane numbers. He isn't even that good, is he? These contracts are getting close to those of the NBA and MLB. Crazy.

[SoGood]

Is Webber now potentially the highest paid D-man? Wow, that is insane numbers. He isn't even that good, is he? These contracts are getting close to those of the NBA and MLB. Crazy.

highest paid? with an avg cap hit of 7.85M I believe he is.
He's THAT good...he can move the puck, he's physical, he has the 2nd best shot in the league for a defenceman
He's a better deal than Suter at 7.53M cap hit for sure.

Contacts aren't even close to NBA/MLB values
Mediocre NBA players get about $5M a year where top end players max out at about $15-$20M per year. MAX contracts are 5yrs at about $100M
MLB top end players are in the same range as NBA players but with long term, that's why there's 10yr $200M deals

[kramerz80]

highest paid? with an avg cap hit of 7.85M I believe he is.
He's THAT good...he can move the puck, he's physical, he has the 2nd best shot in the league for a defenceman
He's a better deal than Suter at 7.53M cap hit for sure.

Ya I remember that shot he took from the point while playing on team Canada that went right through the mesh!

[VCR]

Is Webber now potentially the highest paid D-man? Wow, that is insane numbers. He isn't even that good, is he? These contracts are getting close to those of the NBA and MLB. Crazy.

Given the structure of his contract, as pointed out in an earlier post, he will be amongst the highest paid pro athlete in NA pro team sports, period, for the next year. 27M will be paid to him within a one year period. 1M salary, and 26M signing bonuses paid in two installments during the year.

[wszeto28]

Rick Nash to Rangers is possibly going on right now.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=401276

[zalapski]

Dubinsky, Erixson and 1st believed to be 3 of 4 pieces included in Nash trade - according to TSN's Dreger.

Fourth piece expected to be Kreider, Hagelin, or Anisimov. Would jump on Hags.

EDIT: Anisimov it is. Sather just robbed Howson.


Rick Nash to Rangers is possibly going on right now.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=401276

[thrifthunter]

Columbus FAIL! But what else is new?

[TheRealVinsanity]

Not a diehard hockey fan but I know who Rick Nash is. So who won this?

[scv]

Finally. Not really a good return, but not that horrible either, although I'm a bit surprised that a good prospect like Kreider wasn't included. Clb was never going to get equal value, and while Howson isn't exactly the best negotiator, his hands were a bit tied by the NTC.

[thelefteyeguy]

Dubinsky, Erixson and 1st believed to be 3 of 4 pieces included in Nash trade - according to TSN's Dreger.

Fourth piece expected to be Kreider, Hagelin, or Anisimov. Would jump on Hags.

EDIT: Anisimov it is. Sather just robbed Howson.


oh man...where was Burke....wtf


oh yeah...Nash didnt want to go to Toronto lol



NASH-OUT 2-TIMES!

[thelefteyeguy]

like the nba...the team with the superstar usually wins out.

[Maxman]

Not a diehard hockey fan but I know who Rick Nash is. So who won this?


Rick Nash continues to make millions while picking where he wants to play.

NYR are stuck paying $7+ million a year for 50+ points.

CBJ gets a bunch of stiffs.

Fans in Columbus have few reasons to pay for tickets.

Only winner is Nash!

[thelefteyeguy]

Rick Nash continues to make millions while picking where he wants to play.

NYR are stuck paying $7+ million a year for 50+ points.

CBJ gets a bunch of stiffs.

Fans in Columbus have few reasons to pay for tickets.

Only winner is Nash!

i'd argue NYR fans win too....and Sather is looking pretty good right now...

[wszeto28]

Richards, Gaborik, and Nash all on one line. Wowwww that's scary lol.

[Wilmega]

Blue Jackets got nothing for Nash

[thelefteyeguy]

feel really sorry for NYI....the altantic is sooooo stacked.

[alifromca]

What offers were made by the other clubs that Nash would allow a trade to? And of those, which was the best?


Dubinsky, Erixson and 1st believed to be 3 of 4 pieces included in Nash trade - according to TSN's Dreger.

Fourth piece expected to be Kreider, Hagelin, or Anisimov. Would jump on Hags.

EDIT: Anisimov it is. Sather just robbed Howson.

[phomp]

What offers were made by the other clubs that Nash would allow a trade to? And of those, which was the best?

This. It is so easy to look at a trade and say that a team got robbed but it ignores the circumstances surrouding the trade. High profile players that demand a trade (especially with a no trade clause) have not historically drawn a big return or what is percieved as fair value. Even worse is that the player in this case was limiting the choices, and we are in a cap system where that even further limits choices and avaliable options.

Teams know this and offer based on that. How can you say he got robbed when he made what he believes was the best deal he could based on circumstance - one of them being that he pretty much had to trade Nash with a limited amount options to where he could. Maybe the deal is lopsided and Columbus got less than they should have for Nash but given the situation Howson did not have much choice.

[thrifthunter]

Rick Nash continues to make millions while picking where he wants to play.

NYR are stuck paying $7+ million a year for 50+ points.

CBJ gets a bunch of stiffs.

Fans in Columbus have few reasons to pay for tickets.

Only winner is Nash!

LOL you must be new to hockey. Nash is a perennial 35 goal guy and can easily put up 70 points in a season(considering that is roughly his average/82 games over the past 5 years). In modern day NHL that is what you'd expect to pay for those numbers. Now that he isn't the only decent player for opposition defense to focus on he will get more time and space and probably more production.

[Maxman]

LOL you must be new to hockey. Nash is a perennial 35 goal guy and can easily put up 70 points in a season(considering that is roughly his average/82 games over the past 5 years). In modern day NHL that is what you'd expect to pay for those numbers. Now that he isn't the only decent player for opposition defense to focus on he will get more time and space and probably more production.


Yes, I must be new to hockey! :facepalm:

Please, oh wise one, inform the masses how many times Rick Nash has "easily" put up 70 points in a season! How about how many times he has scored 35 goals in a season?

I await your edumacation!

[thelefteyeguy]

i know you're not new to hockey....but giving richards a gaborik and nash on the wing seems mighty formidible...else if there is a chemistry problem...Nash on the second line would be trouble for most opponents. But again it looks great on paper...we'll see next season.

[DavidY]

Wow, I expected that the Blue Jackets would have received a bit more than what they got. 5 months of waiting and this is what get transacted. Would have been interesting to see what Detroit would have traded....but, being a division rival, this was a no go.

Apparently, the Blue Jackets were also talking to the Canucks, but they weren't willing to give up and decimate their team. How can the Canucks decimate their team considering what little the Rangers gave up....an acting job by Gillis IMO.

Howson should waited until August or September....there was news that, as early as this weekend, Nash was considering expanding his list of acceptable teams....Washington and Carolina??

Dave

[VCR]

Apparently, the Blue Jackets were also talking to the Canucks, but they weren't willing to give up and decimate their team. How can the Canucks decimate their team considering what little the Rangers gave up....an acting job by Gillis IMO.


I believe Gillis was referring to early discussions when the BJ's first offered Nash for trade (before the trade deadline). He had a very high asking price back then. I believe Skinner from CAR, Couture from SJ. I suspect he would have wanted back Kesler from VAN. In a sense it would "decimate" the depth at C and they would have had to keep a disgruntled Hodgson and not make the trade for Kassian. I don't think the Canucks were that aggressive in pursuing Nash after their initial contact.

With the trade with NYR, they got a quantity of decent quality players and prospect and a pick, although none of them have the proven quality like the the three examples I listed above.

[wszeto28]

Wow, I expected that the Blue Jackets would have received a bit more than what they got. 5 months of waiting and this is what get transacted. Would have been interesting to see what Detroit would have traded....but, being a division rival, this was a no go.

Apparently, the Blue Jackets were also talking to the Canucks, but they weren't willing to give up and decimate their team. How can the Canucks decimate their team considering what little the Rangers gave up....an acting job by Gillis IMO.

Howson should waited until August or September....there was news that, as early as this weekend, Nash was considering expanding his list of acceptable teams....Washington and Carolina??

Dave
Howson wasn't in a really good position. People have to understand that he had to trade him or else he would lose him next season for nothing. I think most GM's knew that and weren't willing to give up too much given that could get a crack at him next season without losing anything.

It would've been interesting to see him in Carolina. Staal brothers + Nash is an amazing line too.

[DavidY]

Howson wasn't in a really good position. People have to understand that he had to trade him or else he would lose him next season for nothing. I think most GM's knew that and weren't willing to give up too much given that could get a crack at him next season without losing anything.

It would've been interesting to see him in Carolina. Staal brothers + Nash is an amazing line too.

Lose Nash next season?!?!...He is still under contract with a cap hit of $7.8M...much like Luongo with a bigger cap hit, but less term. All Howson got was a second line player (Dub), third liner (Ans) and a decent prospect and 1st rounder (likely in the 20's)...for Nash, a minor league and a 3rd rounder. He needed at least either Kreider, Stepan or Hagelin..to make it decent.

Dave

[wszeto28]

Lose Nash next season?!?!...He is still under contract with a cap hit of $7.8M...much like Luongo with a bigger cap hit, but less term. All Howson got was a second line player (Dub), third liner (Ans) and a decent prospect and 1st rounder (likely in the 20's)...for Nash, a minor league and a 3rd rounder. He needed at least either Kreider, Stepan or Hagelin..to make it decent.

Dave
Hm, my mistake. For some reason I had thought this whole time that his contract was expiring at the end of next season. I guess I was confusing it with someone else's contract.

With that said, Howson still wasn't in a good position given that Nash had already declared that he wanted out.

[thrifthunter]

Yes, I must be new to hockey! :facepalm:

Please, oh wise one, inform the masses how many times Rick Nash has "easily" put up 70 points in a season! How about how many times he has scored 35 goals in a season?

I await your edumacation!

You gotta be kidding?

His entire CAREER averge per 82 games is 35 goals. 289(career goals)/674(career games) = 0.43 goals per game. 0.43 * 82 = 35.26 goals per 82 games.
And like I said, his average per 82 games over the past 5 seasons is roughly 70 points(actually a little over 71).
He has had 2 40+ goal seasons, 3 35+ goal seasons, and 7 30+ goal seasons.
If you don't think that warrants 7mil then yeah either you a new to hockey or absolutely clueless about the business side of it.
Yes, I am one wise motha****a!

[Maxman]

You gotta be kidding?

His entire CAREER averge per 82 games is 35 goals. 289(career goals)/674(career games) = 0.43 goals per game. 0.43 * 82 = 35.26 goals per 82 games.
And like I said, his average per 82 games over the past 5 seasons is roughly 70 points(actually a little over 71).
He has had 2 40+ goal seasons, 3 35+ goal seasons, and 7 30+ goal seasons.
If you don't think that warrants 7mil then yeah either you a new to hockey or absolutely clueless about the business side of it.
Yes, I am one wise motha****a!


You're a joke. His 82 game average only matters if he plays 82 games. Try again.

Good job not answering the questions though smart guy.

Rick Nash has easily scored 35 goals only 3 times in 9 seasons.

Rick Nash has easily scored 70 points in a season ONCE in 9 seasons.

Rick Nash has scored less than 60 points FIVE times in 9 seasons.


Oh, and the ONLY season in which Rick Nash actually played ALL 82 games - last year - and he scored a whopping 30 goals and 59 points.

Consider yourself educated, motha****a!

[thrifthunter]

You're a joke. His 82 game average only matters if he plays 82 games. Try again.

Good job not answering the questions though smart guy.

Rick Nash has easily scored 35 goals only 3 times in 9 seasons.

Rick Nash has easily scored 70 points in a season ONCE in 9 seasons.

Rick Nash has scored less than 60 points FIVE times in 9 seasons.


Oh, and the ONLY season in which Rick Nash actually played ALL 82 games - last year - and he scored a whopping 30 goals and 59 points.

Consider yourself educated, motha****a!

You're an idiot. Nash hasn't had any real injury issues his entire career. If you don't think he is worth the dough then compare him to other 7mil players and you will see he is. You are likely just a disgruntled leafs fan spitefully spewing garbage to make yourself feel better about him wanting no part of that joke of a team.

[VCR]

Not only will it IMO most likely turn out to be a successful move for the Flyers, it's going to be huge for Weber regardless. If there are any salary rollbacks like after the last lockout, his $13M x 4 signing bonuses will be immune. That'll save him millions over a similarly paid player whose contract is made up primarily of "salary".

Well, the move turned out to be a failure for the Flyers. Unless you deem having NAS controlling his NHL destiny for the next 14 years successful.

I found this twitter comment from Dreger to be curious:

https://twitter.com/DarrenDreger/status/227861877160570880


Now that Nashville has matched, expect Titan Sports to ask for a no trade or modified no trade clause for Weber. Can't be traded for 1 year

https://twitter.com/DarrenDreger/status/227862152776658946


A modified NTC would help Weber control the process if the Preds choose to trade him after the 1 year restriction.

lol. Unless something is lost in translation, why would the Preds voluntarily "help" Weber control the process if the Preds choose to trade him after the 1 year restriction?

[TheRealVinsanity]

Big mistake for Weber not to have a no trade clause in his contract. Looks like the Preds will have a lot of the leverage now.

[Maxman]

You're an idiot. Nash hasn't had any real injury issues his entire career. If you don't think he is worth the dough then compare him to other 7mil players and you will see he is. You are likely just a disgruntled leafs fan spitefully spewing garbage to make yourself feel better about him wanting no part of that joke of a team.


Why don't you back up your stupidity with facts! Nash has averaged under 75 games per season over his 9 year career.

Let's see... missed 6 games with a back injury (2011), missed 17 games (rest of 2005/6 season) with a knee injury, concussion in 2002, ankle injuries, shoulder injuries.

But again, the ONLY season in which he played 82 games, he only managed 30 goals and 29 assists for 59 points. I guess he could have "easily" scored 35 and 70, if he wanted to....


And, nope, not a Leafs fan!

[VCR]

Big mistake for Weber not to have a no trade clause in his contract. Looks like the Preds will have a lot of the leverage now.

I think an NTC/NMC couldn't be part of the OS. But could be added afterwards as an amendment. They apparently had a verbal agreement with PHI to include one. I think that's what Weber's agent was saying. Now they want NAS to include one, even though they weren't the ones that negotiated the contract.

[TheRealVinsanity]

I think an NTC/NMC couldn't be part of the OS. But could be added afterwards as an amendment. They apparently had a verbal agreement with PHI to include one. I think that's what Weber's agent was saying. Now they want NAS to include one, even though they weren't the ones that negotiated the contract.

Why on earth would the Preds do that?

[VCR]

Why on earth would the Preds do that?

That's why I asked the question! Maybe to show that they are fully committed to have Weber on their team for the long-run and thus "repair" any hard feelings the two parties may have? Other than that, can you think of any other reasons?

[thelefteyeguy]

woh woh woh....Max is def'n not a Leafs fan...hahaha

[thrifthunter]

You think averaging 75 games a year is low? LMAO! Anyways, the dude has missed 17 games in the past 5 seasons COMBINED! You call that injury issues? There was one season where he missed significant time, and the past 6 seasons have proved him to have rock solid durability once again. You want to talk about players with injury issues you talk about the likes of Markov, Crosby, Gaborik, Gagne etc.. But Rick Nash? Get outta here!

YEP, you are both new to hockey(and contact sports in general) and clueless about the business side of it.


Nash is an excellent hockey player, period.

[megalison]

Nash is good, but he's not elite. He's never going to score over a 100 points, hell not even 85 I think. I think its fair to say that he's a 70 point player, and this year with NY I wouldn't be surprised if he surpasses that. Is he worth his contract? Probably.. but at that number its not a great deal either. Had Columbus been a perennial playoff team, I think Nash would be considered a strong playoff performer as well.

[thrifthunter]

Nash is good, but he's not elite. He's never going to score over a 100 points, hell not even 85 I think. I think its fair to say that he's a 70 point player, and this year with NY I wouldn't be surprised if he surpasses that. Is he worth his contract? Probably.. but at that number its not a great deal either. Had Columbus been a perennial playoff team, I think Nash would be considered a strong playoff performer as well.

I agree his contract is not a great deal, but fair like you said. The only great deals were done before the cap has risen so high so not really comparable. You know guys like the Sedins would get 8mil in todays market, same with Datsyuk and Zetterberg. So while their deals look great today, at the time they were done they looked fair(based on the cap, AT THE TIME). Detroit got lucky, what else is new?

Same with Nash, at the time his deal was done it was fair and in todays market it still is.

If somebody wants to point out bad deals then look no farther than Gomez and Horcoff!! LOL

[Maxman]

You think averaging 75 games a year is low? LMAO! Anyways, the dude has missed 17 games in the past 5 seasons COMBINED! You call that injury issues? There was one season where he missed significant time, and the past 6 seasons have proved him to have rock solid durability once again. You want to talk about players with injury issues you talk about the likes of Markov, Crosby, Gaborik, Gagne etc.. But Rick Nash? Get outta here!

YEP, you are both new to hockey(and contact sports in general) and clueless about the business side of it.


Nash is an excellent hockey player, period.


I guess you weren't a Mathlete in high school, were you! Nash has missed 19 games over the last five seasons. But ONE LAST TIME - the ONLY season in which he played ALL 82 games, he only scored 30 goals and 29 assists. I never claimed he had injury issues, I simply stated that it is rare for him to play 82 games after you used some ridiculous little formula to state he's a 35 goal man (if only he could manage a full season).

Again, evidence would prove me correct, and you, well... lacking!

I never said he wasn't a good player. But I also never made the claim that he could EASILY score 35 goals and 70 points a season. I am simply refuted your ignorant statement and have asked you to provide facts to support your position. Instead, you simply act like an infantile fanboy.

[VCR]

http://www.mmafighting.com/ufc/2012/7/25/3187218/los-angeles-kings-trash-ufc-on-twitter-then-delete-tweet

Los Angeles Kings Trash UFC on Twitter, Then Delete Tweet


What does any of this have to do with MMA? Well, as SBNation blogger Jen Neale points out, with the UFC coming to town for UFC on FOX on Aug. 4 at the Kings' home building, the Staples Center, the company extended an invite to the Stanley Cup champs, only to be met with this response from the Kings' official Twitter account: "Sorry, the Cup is only for those who play a real sport."

lol. The Kings twitterer might end up with a foot in his mouth!

[Jimboski]

http://www.mmafighting.com/ufc/2012/7/25/3187218/los-angeles-kings-trash-ufc-on-twitter-then-delete-tweet

Los Angeles Kings Trash UFC on Twitter, Then Delete Tweet



lol. The Kings twitterer might end up with a foot in his mouth!

LOL, I love the response that the UFC responded with!



Update: The UFC has recently responded on Twitter "Our checking line > your checking line"

http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1256193/checkingline_medium.jpg

[wszeto28]

Semin to the Hurricanes!!

1 year/7M contract. Crazy!! The guy had like 54 points last year lol.

At least if it doesn't work out, it's just one year but still lol.

[thrifthunter]

Semin to the Hurricanes!!

1 year/7M contract. Crazy!! The guy had like 54 points last year lol.

At least if it doesn't work out, it's just one year but still lol.

What the problem is? It is a zero risk deal!
The guy does have some excellent offensive years under his belt. He was playing in an extremely defensive minded system last year. He can easily be a point a game player again.

[scv]

What the problem is? It is a zero risk deal!
The guy does have some excellent offensive years under his belt. He was playing in an extremely defensive minded system last year. He can easily be a point a game player again.

Agreed. The potential reward is huge, and the salary doesn't matter much when you still have another $12M in cap space like Carolina.

A motivated Semin is one of the best 2-way players in the NHL, and at worst he'll be a 50pt defensively responsible forward. The reputation for laziness is still there, but this is a good a chance as any for him to work past it.

[zalapski]

Hurricanes signing Semin to a one-year deal should be a great move. They needed a top-six forward and they managed to land one. Question is will he play with Eric or Jordan and will he show up during the playoff dance? GM Rutherford saw a need and made things happen. Over-paid perhaps but a single year contract gives them options during the season.

Some eastern teams have strengthened but not the Buds.


What the problem is? It is a zero risk deal!
The guy does have some excellent offensive years under his belt. He was playing in an extremely defensive minded system last year. He can easily be a point a game player again.


Agreed. The potential reward is huge, and the salary doesn't matter much when you still have another $12M in cap space like Carolina.

A motivated Semin is one of the best 2-way players in the NHL, and at worst he'll be a 50pt defensively responsible forward. The reputation for laziness is still there, but this is a good a chance as any for him to work past it.

[Jimboski]

Good signing by the canes, 1 year deal Is like the best you can get to see If he can mesh with the team and what not.

[scv]

All new contracts must be filed by 5pm EST today, to guarantee that the contracts are approved before the CBA expires at 5pm EST tomorrow.

[VCR]

Brooklyn Nets owner not interested in buying an NHL team

Jason Brough

Sep 27, 2012, 4:20 PM EDT


http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2012/09/27/brooklyn-nets-owner-not-interested-in-buying-an-nhl-team/


Developer Bruce Ratner is the majority owner of the Barclays Center, and he’s been “trying like hell” to convince the New York Islanders to move into his arena once their lease at the Nassau Coliseum expires in 2015.

The Barclays Center isn’t an ideal option for the Isles, or any NHL team for that matter. Its seating capacity for hockey is just 14,500, which would make it the smallest in the league.

Does anyone know why it wasn't designed in the first place for BOTH basketball AND hockey if the majority owner of the arena wanted NHL hockey to be playing there regularly?

[1226]

Brooklyn Nets owner not interested in buying an NHL team

Jason Brough

Sep 27, 2012, 4:20 PM EDT


http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2012/09/27/brooklyn-nets-owner-not-interested-in-buying-an-nhl-team/



Does anyone know why it wasn't designed in the first place for BOTH basketball AND hockey if the majority owner of the arena wanted NHL hockey to be playing there regularly?

It was originally but they ended up going with the cheaper basketball-centric design. Hockey is/was an afterthought in that building. Ratner was never serious about getting an NHL team in there but if he could have his cake and eat it too (the cheaper design AND get a new tenant), he was sure going to try, albeit after the fact.

Could also be doing a favor for Charles Wang to give him a little extra leverage with Nassau County.

[VCR]

It was originally but they ended up going with the cheaper basketball-centric design. Hockey is/was an afterthought in that building. Ratner was never serious about getting an NHL team in there but if he could have his cake and eat it too (the cheaper design AND get a new tenant), he was sure going to try, albeit after the fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barclays_Center


The original design of the arena, by renowned architect Frank Gehry, would have the arena's roof feature a park open only to residents of the Atlantic Yards complex, ringed by an open-air running track that doubled as a ice skating rink in winter with panoramic vistas facing Manhattan year-round; but those roof plans were scrapped due to Gehry's design being projected to put the cost of the arena at $1 billion, which was seen as being too expensive. Gehry's design was eventually replaced in September 2009 by the current Becket/SHoP design, which puts the arena costs at $800 million, though the final cost of the entire project is currently projected to be $1 billion.[2]


Whereas the original Gehry design would have featured a hockey configuration with capacity typical of the arenas used in the National Hockey League, the final design for Barclays Center is designed mainly for basketball use. It can nevertheless accommodate an NHL-size rink, though the arena will only be able to seat 14,500 fans in its hockey configuration, which would give it the lowest seating capacity in the NHL.[12]

You would have figured in an final 800M design, they would have been able to cut other costs in their design rather than potentially losing a guaranteed 45 dates in the arena. It would have been a lot more convincing if they had done so. The new seattle arena is pegged @490M US, where did the extra 310M go in the Barclay's Center?



Could also be doing a favor for Charles Wang to give him a little extra leverage with Nassau County.

I wonder how that helps the Barclays Center to give Wang extra leverage to build his own state-of-the-art stadium in close proximity where they'd be competing for concerts/exhibitions.

[1226]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barclays_Center





You would have figured in an final 800M design, they would have been able to cut other costs in their design rather than potentially losing a guaranteed 45 dates in the arena. It would have been a lot more convincing if they had done so. The new seattle arena is pegged @490M US, where did the extra 310M go in the BC to with the knowledge that the final cost entire project pegged at 1B?

Who knows. Ask the owners of Key Arena why they completely disregarded hockey under the guise of cost-savings when they re-did it back in the mid-90's. Consensus is the Sonics didn't want the competition and I guess they had the clout to pull it off.

Maybe the Nets said they didn't want the competition and now Ratner's just paying lip service.


I wonder how that helps the Barclays Center to give Wang extra leverage to build his own state-of-the-art stadium in close proximity where they'd be competing for concerts/exhibitions.

Yeah probably not. Thought they might be buddies or something. Although in NYC terms, where the Barlcays Center is situated is light years from Nassau County. I don't know how much real competition there would be.

[VCR]

It was originally but they ended up going with the cheaper basketball-centric design. Hockey is/was an afterthought in that building. Ratner was never serious about getting an NHL team in there but if he could have his cake and eat it too (the cheaper design AND get a new tenant), he was sure going to try, albeit after the fact.

Could also be doing a favor for Charles Wang to give him a little extra leverage with Nassau County.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-24/nhl-islanders-to-move-to-brooklyn-s-barclays-arena-ny-post-says.html

With the announcement that the NYI signing a 25 year lease @ Barclays Center, in hindsight, Mr. Wang and his business advisors should have been a minority partner to Ratner, and his investment in the project, pay for the upgrade and increased cost to make it Hockey Friendly design like pretty much all modern multi-purpose arenas built these days. That would have given him a lot more leverage with Nassau County and he'd have a much viable back up plan as part owner of Barclays Center when the deal with Nassau County fell through.

Wayne Gretzky once called the NJD, a "Mickey Mouse" Organization.

Is it fair to say the way the NYI has handled their arena situation, "Goofy"?

[1226]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-24/nhl-islanders-to-move-to-brooklyn-s-barclays-arena-ny-post-says.html

With the announcement that the NYI signing a 25 year lease @ Barclays Center, in hindsight, Mr. Wang and his business advisors should have been a minority partner to Ratner, and his investment in the project, pay for the upgrade and increased cost to make it Hockey Friendly design like pretty much all modern multi-purpose arenas built these days. That would have given him a lot more leverage with Nassau County and he'd have a much viable back up plan as part owner of Barclays Center when the deal with Nassau County fell through.

Wayne Gretzky once called the NJD, a "Mickey Mouse" Organization.

Is it fair to say the way the NYI has handled their arena situation, "Goofy"?

Yeah totally bizarre. Does Wang exclusively make snap decisions?

Now who knows how much it's going to cost to reno the Barclays Center into something that vaguely resembles a hockey arena (that's IF it's possible at this point). The current hockey setup is just ludicrous. For the most part they only have seats around 2/3 of the rink. A full 1/3 will be pretty much empty. And I think it's a safe bet the remaining 2/3 "full view" seats aren't exactly going to have optimal sight lines. I mean look at this ridiculous seat map:

http://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/sports/2012/06/26/26-islanders-seating-chart.o.jpg/a_560x375.jpg

[BornRuff]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-24/nhl-islanders-to-move-to-brooklyn-s-barclays-arena-ny-post-says.html

With the announcement that the NYI signing a 25 year lease @ Barclays Center, in hindsight, Mr. Wang and his business advisors should have been a minority partner to Ratner, and his investment in the project, pay for the upgrade and increased cost to make it Hockey Friendly design like pretty much all modern multi-purpose arenas built these days. That would have given him a lot more leverage with Nassau County and he'd have a much viable back up plan as part owner of Barclays Center when the deal with Nassau County fell through.

Wayne Gretzky once called the NJD, a "Mickey Mouse" Organization.

Is it fair to say the way the NYI has handled their arena situation, "Goofy"?

I do not really think it is realistic to make that kind of an investment simply for leverage in a deal for another arena, or as a backup plan. That is serious money that you wouldn't throw at a project unless you planned to actually move there. The costs of upgrading the place for hockey would be pretty much a complete waste if they did not move.

[BornRuff]

Yeah totally bizarre. Does Wang exclusively make snap decisions?

Now who knows how much it's going to cost to reno the Barclays Center into something that vaguely resembles a hockey arena (that's IF it's possible at this point). The current hockey setup is just ludicrous. For the most part they only have seats around 2/3 of the rink. A full 1/3 will be pretty much empty. And I think it's a safe bet the remaining 2/3 "full view" seats aren't exactly going to have optimal sight lines. I mean look at this ridiculous seat map:

http://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/sports/2012/06/26/26-islanders-seating-chart.o.jpg/a_560x375.jpg

Wang has certainly demonstrated that he does not always make the best business decisions, but I do not necessarily think this was a snap decision. They have been working on finding a new home for a very long time and have gone through many different attempts to make it work. Overall this is probably the only workable solution without completely moving the team to a different market.

[VCR]

I do not really think it is realistic to make that kind of an investment simply for leverage in a deal for another arena, or as a backup plan. That is serious money that you wouldn't throw at a project unless you planned to actually move there. The costs of upgrading the place for hockey would be pretty much a complete waste if they did not move.

They would still have part ownership of the building if they decided to invest money into the project like what Prokhorov did with the Nets. They could have sold their share if/when the Nassau arena was approved -- which it wasn't.

They didn't hedge and put all their hopes into getting a building built and now they are left as second class tenants in a building that is flawed for hockey. How much are they going to lose in the long run?

[1226]

Wang has certainly demonstrated that he does not always make the best business decisions, but I do not necessarily think this was a snap decision. They have been working on finding a new home for a very long time and have gone through many different attempts to make it work. Overall this is probably the only workable solution without completely moving the team to a different market.

Sure, the only workable solution now after he painted himself into a corner by not hedging his risk. He bet on getting free money from the local gov't and lost. And he looks like a chump (once again) for it.

I mean, just look at that arena setup! ^

[BornRuff]

They would still have part ownership of the building if they decided to invest money into the project like what Prokhorov did with the Nets. They could have sold their share if/when the Nassau arena was approved -- which it wasn't.

They didn't hedge and put all their hopes into getting a building built and now they are left as second class tenants in a building that is flawed for hockey. How much are they going to lose in the long run?

Prokhorov invested the money because he wanted to move the team there, not as a backup plan or as leverage for some other negotiation.

The part you bolded appears to be the part you ignored. Paying 8 or 9 figures towards modifying an arena to better accommodate hockey is ludicrous if you are not actually sure you will be using it for hockey. You don't get that back when you try to resell.

That is obviously on top of putting up hundreds of millions of dollars to buy a significant stake in the billion dollar arena. Assuming you can get your money back, you still lose 10's of millions in transaction costs. That is not necessarily a safe assumption, since there is a reason why so few arena projects go forward without significant public money.

I know Wang has not appeared to be a very smart owner over the years, but do you really think he is this dumb? Nobody spends that much money just as a backup plan or leverage.

[BornRuff]

Sure, the only workable solution now after he painted himself into a corner by not hedging his risk. He bet on getting free money from the local gov't and lost. And he looks like a chump (once again) for it.

I mean, just look at that arena setup! ^

How do you really hedge in a situation like this? Very few arenas are built without tons of public support.

[1226]

How do you really hedge in a situation like this? Very few arenas are built without tons of public support.

Well evidently he expected too much. He played chicken with public officials and lost. Maybe he assumed he could wait out the current regime in hopes a more like-minded one replaced them (didn't happen). Seemingly as a last ditch effort he tried to win over the public and have the constituents pressure the gov't for him. Apparently he overestimated that support as they put it to a vote (a $400M bond) and it failed. That was over a year ago (Aug/11). Was there maybe still time to alter the Barclays Center plans if he reacted at that point? Surely it at least would've been cheaper to reno it then than now. Instead he waits until the Barclays Center is completely finished (14+ months later) and then decides he wants in.

What could he have done? Get in on the ground floor with Ratner at a time when he knew he needed a new arena and Ratner wanted a second tenant.

Sure business is all about gambles and you win some and lose some. But this guy loses a lot. And at some point (maybe now) you just have to consider him a bad at this business.

[BornRuff]

Well evidently he expected too much. He played chicken with public officials and lost. Maybe he assumed he could wait out the current regime in hopes a more like-minded one replaced them (didn't happen). Seemingly as a last ditch effort he tried to win over the public and have the constituents pressure the gov't for him. Apparently he overestimated that support as they put it to a vote (a $400M bond) and it failed. That was over a year ago (Aug/11). Was there maybe still time to alter the Barclays Center plans if he reacted at that point? Surely it at least would've been cheaper to reno it then than now. Instead he waits until the Barclays Center is completely finished (14+ months later) and then decides he wants in.

What could he have done? Get in on the ground floor with Ratner at a time when he knew he needed a new arena and Ratner wanted a second tenant.

Sure business is all about gambles and you win some and lose some. But this guy loses a lot. And at some point (maybe now) you just have to consider him a bad at this business.

I think when you look back at how many of the most laughable hockey decisions in the whole league have been made under his watch, it certainly is hard to argue that he is good at this business. The Yashin and DiPietro contracts, hiring and firing a GM within about a month and replacing him with the backup goalie.

At this point, it undoubtedly would have been better for them to be in on the ground floor. That would have meant being in prior to like 2009 when the design was finalized. By August of last year, the building had already been under construction for well over a year. The building wasn't going to become longer at that point, and they were not about to hold up construction to make any major changes that would risk not having the building ready for this years NBA season.

So the difference between signing now and last year is probably not much. They can do some work in the off seasons to make the building a bit better for hockey, and make the best of what they have.

[VCR]

I do not really think it is realistic to make that kind of an investment simply for leverage in a deal for another arena, or as a backup plan. That is serious money that you wouldn't throw at a project unless you planned to actually move there. The costs of upgrading the place for hockey would be pretty much a complete waste if they did not move.


They would still have part ownership of the building if they decided to invest money into the project like what Prokhorov did with the Nets. They could have sold their share if/when the Nassau arena was approved -- which it wasn't.

They didn't hedge and put all their hopes into getting a building built and now they are left as second class tenants in a building that is flawed for hockey. How much are they going to lose in the long run?


Prokhorov invested the money because he wanted to move the team there, not as a backup plan or as leverage for some other negotiation.

The part you bolded appears to be the part you ignored. Paying 8 or 9 figures towards modifying an arena to better accommodate hockey is ludicrous if you are not actually sure you will be using it for hockey. You don't get that back when you try to resell.

That is obviously on top of putting up hundreds of millions of dollars to buy a significant stake in the billion dollar arena. Assuming you can get your money back, you still lose 10's of millions in transaction costs. That is not necessarily a safe assumption, since there is a reason why so few arena projects go forward without significant public money.

I know Wang has not appeared to be a very smart owner over the years, but do you really think he is this dumb? Nobody spends that much money just as a backup plan or leverage.


What could he have done? Get in on the ground floor with Ratner at a time when he knew he needed a new arena and Ratner wanted a second tenant.


As 1226 pointed out, the optimum time would have been BEFORE the final design decisions were made to make it a basketball centric arena. Mr. Wang should have shown "serious interest" that he was willing to move to Brooklyn if Nassau County wasn't willing to commit to replace their existing decrepit building. For example, The Katz Group tried to leverage an even better deal then they already negotiated with EDM Officials when they "visited" Seattle but it was not seen as a credible threat. Brooklyn, on the other hand, would have been credible given its close proximity to Nassau county and market size, and you would put pressure on Nassau County to make a commitment at that time to build a new arena or have Mr. Wang have the justification to re-locate his team elsewhere.

But unless verified otherwise, it appears that Mr. Wang and Co. were convinced they could get their own building built in Nassau County but it backfired and now they are left with a plan B that is less than what it could have been if he had a contingency plan.

[BornRuff]

As 1226 pointed out, the optimum time would have been BEFORE the final design decisions were made to make it a basketball centric arena. Mr. Wang should have shown "serious interest" that he was willing to move to Brooklyn if Nassau County wasn't willing to commit to replace their existing decrepit building. For example, The Katz Group tried to leverage an even better deal then they already negotiated with EDM Officials when they "visited" Seattle but it was not seen as a credible threat. Brooklyn, on the other hand, would have been credible given its close proximity to Nassau county and market size, and you would put pressure on Nassau County to make a commitment at that time to build a new arena or have Mr. Wang have the justification to re-locate his team elsewhere.

But unless verified otherwise, it appears that Mr. Wang and Co. were convinced they could get their own building built in Nassau County but it backfired and now they are left with a plan B that is less than what it could have been if he had a contingency plan.

Nobody has argued against the fact that if they were going to commit to making Barclays their long term home, it would have been better to do so before it was built and hopefully get them to design it better. Realistically, that would have had to commit to 4-5 years ago.

The part where you are way off in lala land is the idea that they would get the developers to fundamentally change the design of this billion dollar arena just as a "contingency plan", or a plan to pressure Nassau County into building another arena.

[VCR]

The part where you are way off in lala land is the idea that they would get the developers to fundamentally change the design of this billion dollar arena just as a "contingency plan", or a plan to pressure Nassau County into building another arena.

If they weren't assured that they would have gotten Nassau County to build a new arena, they should have had a back-up plan. From all indications, they didn't have one. How much are they going to lose in the long run for not buying that extra "insurance" by not investing in the Barclays Center? He gambled and lost.

[BornRuff]

If they weren't assured that they would have gotten Nassau County to build a new arena, they should have had a back-up plan. From all indications, they didn't have one. How much are they going to lose in the long run for not buying that extra "insurance" by not investing in the Barclays Center? He gambled and lost.

They clearly did have a backup plan. You just saw it go into action.

They would have easily lost 9 figures had they paid to make fundamental changes to that building and then not actually use it for hockey.

[VCR]

They clearly did have a backup plan. You just saw it go into action.

They would have easily lost 9 figures had they paid to make fundamental changes to that building and then not actually use it for hockey.

How much more money they will lose in the long run being a *tenant* in a building with no ownership stake that only seats ~15K for hockey with their "back up" plan?

[BornRuff]

How much more money they will lose in the long run being a *tenant* in a building with no ownership stake that only seats ~15K for hockey with their "back up" plan?

They have never averaged over 15k in attendance in any season since 2001. Most season they are well below that, getting down into the 11k range. It is hard to lose revenue from fans that you don't have. The new arena has much better revenue generating amenities, such as corporate boxes and more concessions. It also has incredible accessibility by public transit. If they end up filling all the seats in that place, they will be way ahead of where they are now.

If it is better for them to have an ownership stake is something that is impossible for us to judge. If they own a significant part of the project, they have hundreds of millions of dollars invested. As with any investment that could go up or down in value.

[VCR]

They have never averaged over 15k in attendance in any season since 2001. Most season they are well below that, getting down into the 11k range. It is hard to lose revenue from fans that you don't have.

Your past numbers are largely irrelevant given that they are moving to a different part of New York. More populous 2.5M in Brooklyn versus 1.34M in Nassau County. In a modern arena where people will go there for the building experience as much as watching the team because it's the "place to go" for at least initially. If they did commit, you'd imagine, they'd find a way to break their existing lease with Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum and moved to Barclays Center if there is/was a season in 12/13.

Plus they will likely be paying a premium in their lease and ticket revenue would be very important.


The new arena has much better revenue generating amenities, such as corporate boxes and more concessions. It also has incredible accessibility by public transit. If they end up filling all the seats in that place, they will be way ahead of where they are now.

Yeah, BUT ........they are just a *tenant*, not the owners, so how much would they get with the revenue generating amenities? That is the point.


If it is better for them to have an ownership stake is something that is impossible for us to judge. If they own a significant part of the project, they have hundreds of millions of dollars invested. As with any investment that could go up or down in value.

Obviously, but a couple of thing that lingers is why does this building cost twice the amount @1B over the projected cost of proposed Seattle and Edmonton Arenas? How much more would it have cost to have utilize a "hockey friendly" design?

[VCR]

The distance between MSG and Barclays arenas is under 7 miles looking at google maps. It's been pointed out that there's three NHL teams around the New York Area (NYR, NYI, and NJD), two in the LA area (ANA, LAK) ...... yet there is only one team in the world's largest hockey market, TOR.

The next step is to get a second team there. Either via relocation or expansion (the former preferred, imo).

[1226]

The distance between MSG and Barclays arenas is under 7 miles looking at google maps. It's been pointed out that there's three NHL teams around the New York Area (NYR, NYI, and NJD), two in the LA area (ANA, LAK) ...... yet there is only one team in the world's largest hockey market, TOR.

The next step is to get a second team there. Either via relocation or expansion (the former preferred, imo).

Yeah I still can't believe LA got a second team (apparently due to the popularity of a f**king kids movie) before Toronto. LA is more than double the size of Toronto but probably has one tenth the hockey fans. Of course the big TV money's in the states, blah, blah, blah. Still think having the multiple teams in US cities is redundant though. Each team has their tiny core base of fans that is probably not much larger than the capacity of the rink (look at local TV ratings for regular season games). But the coveted non-fans (which in US cities is a massive number and is what makes Bettman salivate) who hopped on the Ducks bandwagon when they made their cup run 5 years ago are probably the same ones who were suddenly huge Kings fans last year.

IMO, even if you are a total Bettman disciple , I think the second LA team is better served in Kansas City (who has an existing kick-*ss hockey-ready arena (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprint_Center)), Houston (5th largest TV market in America), Seattle, etc. Of course if you're a fan of hockey and have at least half a brain, that team obviously belongs in Toronto. Frankly I wouldn't be surprised if that city could support 3 teams (Leafs, Markham, and Hamilton). (obviously I'm ignoring the roadblocks the Leafs & Sabres could put up)

I think it's at least arguable due to their sheer size (3.5x the size of Toronto) and at least moderate interest in the sport, that NY can support 2 teams. But clearly 3 doesn't work. The Devils and Islanders simply don't draw and similar to my LA example, when the Devils make deep runs into the playoffs do they really generate any significant amount of new fans that the Rangers wouldn't if they went on a run? If the Devils left, is there any chance their core fans would simply stop watching hockey? Stop going to games? No of course not, because there are now TWO alternatives a short subway ride away. The NHL is wasting a franchise in NJ. I can't imagine anyone arguing the league wouldn't be better off with the Devils in one of KC, Houston, Seattle, etc. I don't like having ill will towards people who have really done nothing wrong, but I really hope the Devils go in the tank and attendance drops off to such an embarassing level that Bettman has little choice but to allow a move. You have to think, win or lose, the Devils are going to lose at least some fans to the new Brooklyn-based Islanders. Hopefully perennial poor records will do the rest.

[VCR]

Frankly I wouldn't be surprised if that city could support 3 teams (Leafs, Markham, and Hamilton). (obviously I'm ignoring the roadblocks the Leafs & Sabres could put up)


With the recent ownership change to Bell/Rogers for the Leafs, I see the Sabres as more of a roadblock. I assume geographic restrictions is judge by distance and it's interesting that Buffalo can apparently claim territorial rights in a different country.

Anyway, territorial rights payments can be made to both Buf and TO, and have those restrictions lifted in such a lucrative market such, it makes so much sense.

In fact, I could see a second team playing in the ACC, either their temp. (if they build an arena in Markham) or permanently like what we have with the Lakers & Clippers. Having them play at the ACC on a permanent basis would obviously benefit the Leafs ownership (having another high-end tenant filling at least 45 dates plus potential for Playoffs) and lets not forget the regional TV rights which would likely go to Rogers/Bell or a combination of the two.

[VCR]

... break their existing lease with Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum and moved to Barclays Center if there is/was a season in 12/13.

On a semi-related note, it's pretty obvious why they didn't try to break the lease this season, due to the agreement being signed on after the NHL season started (or rather didn't start) and building availability to the Barclay's Centers already being committed.

But I think we will see the NYI try to move their the following season and negotiate a settlement to get out of their existing lease at Nassau and play @ Barclays, next season in 13/14.

If they don't do so, it would seem to indicate to me that they don't think the net benefit (i.e. profits) generated from moving to Barclays earlier exceed the cost of getting out of their current lease with Nassau and that would be telling on how much of an improvement it is financially the move actually is.

Tell me I'm wrong.

[BornRuff]

On a semi-related note, it's pretty obvious why they didn't try to break the lease this season, due to the agreement being signed on after the NHL season started (or rather didn't start) and building availability to the Barclay's Centers already being committed.

But I think we will see the NYI try to move their the following season and negotiate a settlement to get out of their existing lease at Nassau and play @ Barclays, next season in 13/14.

If they don't do so, it would seem to indicate to me that they don't think the net benefit (i.e. profits) generated from moving to Barclays earlier exceed the cost of getting out of their current lease with Nassau and that would be telling on how much of an improvement it is financially the move actually is.

Tell me I'm wrong.

Or how much it costs to break a multi year lease on a stadium.

[BornRuff]

Your past numbers are largely irrelevant given that they are moving to a different part of New York. More populous 2.5M in Brooklyn versus 1.34M in Nassau County. In a modern arena where people will go there for the building experience as much as watching the team because it's the "place to go" for at least initially. If they did commit, you'd imagine, they'd find a way to break their existing lease with Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum and moved to Barclays Center if there is/was a season in 12/13.

Plus they will likely be paying a premium in their lease and ticket revenue would be very important.

Everything you are saying suggests that they will be better off in this new building. We have no idea how much they are paying for this lease or the old lease, so we can't judge that. There must be some degree of discount for the less than ideal hockey setup.


Yeah, BUT ........they are just a *tenant*, not the owners, so how much would they get with the revenue generating amenities? That is the point.

Every NHL team makes money from corporate boxes and concessions regardless of if they own the arena.


Obviously, but a couple of thing that lingers is why does this building cost twice the amount @1B over the projected cost of proposed Seattle and Edmonton Arenas? How much more would it have cost to have utilize a "hockey friendly" design?

You could probably do some research to find answers to these questions. The building would have had to been made longer. Any redesign part way through development would obviously have it's own costs associated with it.

[BornRuff]

With the recent ownership change to Bell/Rogers for the Leafs, I see the Sabres as more of a roadblock. I assume geographic restrictions is judge by distance and it's interesting that Buffalo can apparently claim territorial rights in a different country.

Anyway, territorial rights payments can be made to both Buf and TO, and have those restrictions lifted in such a lucrative market such, it makes so much sense.

In fact, I could see a second team playing in the ACC, either their temp. (if they build an arena in Markham) or permanently like what we have with the Lakers & Clippers. Having them play at the ACC on a permanent basis would obviously benefit the Leafs ownership (having another high-end tenant filling at least 45 dates plus potential for Playoffs) and lets not forget the regional TV rights which would likely go to Rogers/Bell or a combination of the two.

What do you think changed with the new ownership?

The only difference I see right now is that if a new team tried to compete directly with the Leafs, they will probably have trouble negotiating a TV deal.

[VCR]

What do you think changed with the new ownership?

The only difference I see right now is that if a new team tried to compete directly with the Leafs, they will probably have trouble negotiating a TV deal.

The answer is obvious. The new ownership of the Leafs (i.e. Rogers/Bell) will directly profit from having another team in Toronto by adding another lucrative Sports Property for their broadcasting divisions.

Where else will the regional rights for the local team go to besides Rogers Sportsnet and/or TSN? I would imagine the rights being shared.

They would have to minimize the amount of games they overlap on the same night or rather same time, via scheduling to maximize their return in viewership.

Why would they have trouble "negotiating a deal" with either Rogers and/or Bell? It's a net benefit for both Rogers and/or Bell to have the rights to another local nhl team in TO.

[VCR]

If they don't do so, it would seem to indicate to me that they don't think the net benefit (i.e. profits) generated from moving to Barclays earlier exceed the cost of getting out of their current lease with Nassau and that would be telling on how much of an improvement it is financially the move actually is.

Tell me I'm wrong.


Or how much it costs to break a multi year lease on a stadium.

Uhh, what did you write in your response that was different then what I wrote (re: bolded parts)?

[BornRuff]

Yeah I still can't believe LA got a second team (apparently due to the popularity of a f**king kids movie) before Toronto. LA is more than double the size of Toronto but probably has one tenth the hockey fans. Of course the big TV money's in the states, blah, blah, blah. Still think having the multiple teams in US cities is redundant though. Each team has their tiny core base of fans that is probably not much larger than the capacity of the rink (look at local TV ratings for regular season games). But the coveted non-fans (which in US cities is a massive number and is what makes Bettman salivate) who hopped on the Ducks bandwagon when they made their cup run 5 years ago are probably the same ones who were suddenly huge Kings fans last year.

IMO, even if you are a total Bettman disciple , I think the second LA team is better served in Kansas City (who has an existing kick-*ss hockey-ready arena (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprint_Center)), Houston (5th largest TV market in America), Seattle, etc. Of course if you're a fan of hockey and have at least half a brain, that team obviously belongs in Toronto. Frankly I wouldn't be surprised if that city could support 3 teams (Leafs, Markham, and Hamilton). (obviously I'm ignoring the roadblocks the Leafs & Sabres could put up)

I think it's at least arguable due to their sheer size (3.5x the size of Toronto) and at least moderate interest in the sport, that NY can support 2 teams. But clearly 3 doesn't work. The Devils and Islanders simply don't draw and similar to my LA example, when the Devils make deep runs into the playoffs do they really generate any significant amount of new fans that the Rangers wouldn't if they went on a run? If the Devils left, is there any chance their core fans would simply stop watching hockey? Stop going to games? No of course not, because there are now TWO alternatives a short subway ride away. The NHL is wasting a franchise in NJ. I can't imagine anyone arguing the league wouldn't be better off with the Devils in one of KC, Houston, Seattle, etc. I don't like having ill will towards people who have really done nothing wrong, but I really hope the Devils go in the tank and attendance drops off to such an embarassing level that Bettman has little choice but to allow a move. You have to think, win or lose, the Devils are going to lose at least some fans to the new Brooklyn-based Islanders. Hopefully perennial poor records will do the rest.

As a fan of Toronto(not just the sports teams) I want to point out that Markhan and Hamltion are NOT Toronto! :)

The second team in LA made sense at the time since it was the middle of the Gretzky years in LA, so hockey was doing well there, and it was one of the largest media markets in North America.

The New York metro area, which includes all three teams, has more then three times the population of the Toronto Metro area, and has historically been a great hockey market. If the Devils didn't play such boring hockey and the Islanders were not so woefully mismanaged, they could both be successful. They have both had their time in the sun.

I honestly don't think any of these teams are in locations where they can't make it work, but then again, I'd rather see them move then get into some weird expansion team stuff.

[BornRuff]

Uhh, what did you write in your response that was different then what I wrote (re: bolded parts)?

I am telling you that it might simply be that the costs of breaking a multi year stadium lease might be so high on that all this is really telling of is the cost of breaking a stadium lease.

[BornRuff]

The answer is obvious. The new ownership of the Leafs (i.e. Rogers/Bell) will directly profit from having another team in Toronto by adding another lucrative Sports Property for their broadcasting divisions.

Where else will the regional rights for the local team go to besides Rogers Sportsnet and/or TSN? I would imagine the rights being shared.

They would have to minimize the amount of games they overlap on the same night or rather same time, via scheduling to maximize their return in viewership.

Why would they have trouble "negotiating a deal" with either Rogers and/or Bell? It's a net benefit for both Rogers and/or Bell to have the rights to another local nhl team in TO.

A new franchise in Toronto would cut into the money that Toronto makes as the sole team in this massive hockey market.

They would make money on the TV deal, but they would lose value and income on their 1.3 billion dollar investment in MLSE the more the fan base is split.

[VCR]

A new franchise in Toronto would cut into the money that Toronto makes as the sole team in this massive hockey market.

They would make money on the TV deal, but they would lose value and income on their 1.3 billion dollar investment in MLSE the more the fan base is split.

There is also an untapped fanbase in the Toronto area that are hockey fans and are NOT Leafs fans that a new team will be able to tap into. i.e. The "anything but the Leafs" fans in Ontario.

And what proof do you have that they would lose value and income on their 1.3B investment, when we know:

1) They will get a 1/29 cut of the re-location or expansion fee;
2) They will get a lucrative, negotiated settlement from having another team being within their marketplace i.e. territorial rights fee, along with Buffalo;
3) They i.e. Bell/Rogers will likely or rather obviously get the rights to lucrative regional broadcasting deal;
4) They could likely be a premium tenant in the ACC at a minimum of a couple of years (if the Markham Arena is actually build) or be a permanent tenant there (i.e. Clippers and Lakers share the same arena) -- the latter of course would be what the Leafs would prefer and that would probably play a part in how much territorial rights fee is paid

I see more upside than any potential downsides with this arrangement both for the Leafs and the NHL as a whole. The second team in TOR, imo, would easily be a TOP 10 -15 team in revenue in its first year of existence. (That is probably an under-estimation) and profitable.

The practical thing to do, imo, would be to have the liability that is the PHX franchise re-locate there in the next season and that would be of benefit to the league as a whole -- including the Leafs.

[BornRuff]

There is also an untapped fanbase in the Toronto area that are hockey fans and do NOT Leafs fans that a new team will be able to tap into. i.e. The "anything but the Leafs" fans in Ontario.

And what proof do you have that they would lose value and income on their 1.3B investment, when we know:

1) They will get a 1/29 cut of the re-location or expansion fee;
2) They will get a lucrative, negotiated settlement from having another team being within their marketplace i.e. territorial rights fee, along with Buffalo;
3) They i.e. Bell/Rogers will likely or rather obviously get the rights to lucrative regional broadcasting deal;
4) They could likely be a premium tenant in the ACC at a minimum of a couple of years (if the Markham Arena is actually build) or be a permanent tenant there (i.e. Clippers and Lakers share the same arena) -- the latter of course would be what the Leafs would prefer and that would probably play a part in how much territorial rights fee is paid

I see more upside than any potential downsides with this arrangement both for the Leafs and the NHL as a whole. The second team in TOR, imo, would easily be a TOP 10 -15 team in revenue in its first year of existence. (That is probably an under-estimation) and profitable.

The practical thing to do, imo, would be to have the liability that is the PHX franchise re-locate there in the next season and that would be of benefit to the league as a whole -- including the Leafs.

It is just common sense that part of the value of the team is based on their dominance of this particular market. They have cultivated a huge fan base and become experts at extracting money from that fan base. Slicing that up would diminish that part of the value of their franchise.

Getting expansion fees, a settlement for their territorial rights, a possible new tenant in the AAC, etc, was never appealing enough to make past owners welcome a new team in the GTA, so I don't see why that would change now. Are you sure that the ACC can accommodate two NHL teams and an NBA team when all of their seasons overlap?

The broadcast deal would be pretty challenging. Money is really the only motivator here, and any money gained from broadcasting the other teams would have to be weighed against possible damage to their own team. The new team may be wary of having their broadcast rights in the hands of a direct competitor anyways. It would likely work best if one of the teams sold their interest in MLSE and bought into the new franchise.

[VCR]

It is just common sense that part of the value of the team is based on their dominance of this particular market. They have cultivated a huge fan base and become experts at extracting money from that fan base. Slicing that up would diminish that part of the value of their franchise.

That's why there are territorial rights fees are paid when a team enters an existing franchise's market. Did that stop Anaheim from coming into the League? Did it stop the NYI?


Getting expansion fees, a settlement for their territorial rights, a possible new tenant in the AAC, etc, was never appealing enough to make past owners welcome a new team in the GTA, so I don't see why that would change now.

The previous owners where the OTPP, not the current owners (i.e. Bell/Rogers) who could also leverage the advantage of being two Media companies that own television, radio and wireless interest and would use them as premium content.


Are you sure that the ACC can accommodate two NHL teams and an NBA team when all of their seasons overlap?

Uhhhh, can you explain to me how the Staples Center in LA, manages to host both the Clippers, Lakers (NBA) and the Kings (NHL) in the same building?


The broadcast deal would be pretty challenging. Money is really the only motivator here, and any money gained from broadcasting the other teams would have to be weighed against possible damage to their own team. The new team may be wary of having their broadcast rights in the hands of a direct competitor anyways.

What other realistic option would the new team have other than TSN or Sportsnet or its affiliates? Of the regional TV deals for every Canadian team, how many of them aren't carried by either a Bell or Rogers owned broadcasting station?



It would likely work best if one of the teams sold their interest in MLSE and bought into the new franchise.

Why do you think so?

[BornRuff]

That's why there are territorial rights fees are paid when a team enters an existing franchise's market. Did that stop Anaheim from coming into the League? Did it stop the NYI?

The previous owners where the OTPP, not the current owners (i.e. Bell/Rogers) who could also leverage the advantage of being two Media companies that own television, radio and wireless interest and would use them as premium content.

We are just going around in circles right now, but there really has been no indication that the fees paid to teams for having another team enter their market is anywhere near enough to make that an attractive prospect. If you ask the league, teams have no ability to stop another team form entering their market, but we are not talking about if they can stop it, just if they would be more or less welcoming than previous owners.

I don't think that the prospect of all of that media stuff would be that attractive to them unless they had ownership of the new team. They are already working to do all of that with the Leafs, and I don't know if they would really want to work with a competitor to do the same thing. I don't think there is all that much untapped demand for hockey in Canada in terms of the media realm. Pretty much everyone in Canada who is going to be a hockey fan already watches some team on TV regularly. There is a ton of extra demand for tickets, but on the TV/other media side, the number of teams doesn't really change people's access, so that is where you will see a lot more of fans just being shuffled from other teams rather than new viewership. Clearly the owners of the Leafs wont have much interest in shifting viewers from the product they own to the product they just broadcast.


Uhhhh, can you explain to me how the Staples Center in LA, manages to host both the Clippers, Lakers (NBA) and the Kings (NHL) in the same building?

It was a simple question. Has it ever been done with two hockey teams and an NBA franchise? How much time does the ACC sit dormant in the winter?


What other realistic option would the new team have other than TSN or Sportsnet or its affiliates? Of the regional TV deals for every Canadian team, how many of them aren't carried by either a Bell or Rogers owned broadcasting station?

That is kind of the point, the only realistic options are also the owners of your direct competition.


Why do you think so?

Then each team would have a natural home and there would be no conflict of interests. They could each promote their own team 100% and have no worries about hurting their own business interests by doing so.

[chadjustine]

It is just common sense that part of the value of the team is based on their dominance of this particular market. They have cultivated a huge fan base and become experts at extracting money from that fan base. Slicing that up would diminish that part of the value of their franchise.

I largely agree with you. However, I think the TO market is a bad example. If Im not mistaken (and please, TO people, correct me if I am), I read somewhere - I think it was last year - that there was an 18 year waiting list for seasons tickets for the Leafs. If thats true, I really dont think the attendance rates would suffer all that much.

If anything, I wonder if it would benefit them. If attendance does start to drop even a bit (from the 104% capacity they are playing at), wouldnt it force management to actually try and ice a good team? Cause honestly .. it doesnt feel like MLSE gives a toss if they win or lose and really, why should they? The market is so big and the fan base is so die hard that they will be there - win or lose. There is simply no other viable option for hockey in the area (without crossing the border anyway). Throw another team in Markham/Hamilton/'x' that has even a modicum of success? The Leafs have to, in turn, get better. Net win for them and the fans.

[BornRuff]

I largely agree with you. However, I think the TO market is a bad example. If Im not mistaken (and please, TO people, correct me if I am), I read somewhere - I think it was last year - that there was an 18 year waiting list for seasons tickets for the Leafs. If thats true, I really dont think the attendance rates would suffer all that much.

If anything, I wonder if it would benefit them. If attendance does start to drop even a bit (from the 104% capacity they are playing at), wouldnt it force management to actually try and ice a good team? Cause honestly .. it doesnt feel like MLSE gives a toss if they win or lose and really, why should they? The market is so big and the fan base is so die hard that they will be there - win or lose. There is simply no other viable option for hockey in the area (without crossing the border anyway). Throw another team in Markham/Hamilton/'x' that has even a modicum of success? The Leafs have to, in turn, get better. Net win for them and the fans.

A new team would easily sell a ton of tickets, but it is impossible for them to do so without having an impact on ticket prices for the Leafs. The current demand for tickets drives the current ticket prices. As well, the money they can make off other revenue streams is also based on their current dominance.

I don't really buy the idea that the Leafs don't try to put a good team on the ice. Even so, if you take it from the perspective of the owners, nobody really wants to be forced to try harder.

[VCR]

We are just going around in circles right now, but there really has been no indication that the fees paid to teams for having another team enter their market is anywhere near enough to make that an attractive prospect. If you ask the league, teams have no ability to stop another team form entering their market, but we are not talking about if they can stop it, just if they would be more or less welcoming than previous owners.

I don't think that the prospect of all of that media stuff would be that attractive to them unless they had ownership of the new team. They are already working to do all of that with the Leafs, and I don't know if they would really want to work with a competitor to do the same thing. I don't think there is all that much untapped demand for hockey in Canada in terms of the media realm. Pretty much everyone in Canada who is going to be a hockey fan already watches some team on TV regularly. There is a ton of extra demand for tickets, but on the TV/other media side, the number of teams doesn't really change people's access, so that is where you will see a lot more of fans just being shuffled from other teams rather than new viewership. Clearly the owners of the Leafs wont have much interest in shifting viewers from the product they own to the product they just broadcast.

I'm not talking about demand in Canada, I'm specifically talking about the demand in the Toronto area. Toronto is a much bigger Hockey Market then New York and it will have two teams playing home games within 7 miles of each other very soon. I don't see it more as the pie just being divided but the pie growing larger and then divided. Being a hockey fan in the Toronto area doesn't necessarily mean they support or watch the Leafs. I'm sure there is a big "anything" but the Leafs mentality among many there, especially those who weren't born there and/or moved there from other parts of the country and would rather support a new local team if they were given the chance to and/or be given a better chance or more opportunities to watch the visiting team instead, like the two time defending Presidents' Trophy winner, the Vancouver Canucks.


It was a simple question. Has it ever been done with two hockey teams and an NBA franchise? How much time does the ACC sit dormant in the winter?

If it could be done with two NBA franchises and one NHL franchise, why couldn't it be done the other way around? The main technical challenge would be to add an additional home team NHL dressing room in that building and perhaps some office space. However, I think there is a tower connected to the building that could be used for some office space if needed.


That is kind of the point, the only realistic options are also the owners of your direct competition.

So what? That's the price to enter the lucrative Toronto market. It hasn't been maxed out, there's a lot more to gain with a second team. It's done in LA with Basketball, it could be done successfully with hockey in Toronto. The Leafs are like the Lakers but without the on-ice success. The new team would be like the Clippers.


Then each team would have a natural home and there would be no conflict of interests. They could each promote their own team 100% and have no worries about hurting their own business interests by doing so.

I doubt either would want to give up the Leafs and splitting MLSE could get messy as it's obvious that the Leafs is the golden jewel of the company given how it performs in the balance sheet.

[VCR]

The new team may be wary of having their broadcast rights in the hands of a direct competitor anyways. It would likely work best if one of the teams sold their interest in MLSE and bought into the new franchise.

Or maybe Rogers and Bell et al. can obtain a minority stake in the second Toronto team. BTW, Bell already has a 18% minority stake (http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl/story/2011/12/09/sp-nhl-canadiens-bell.html) in the Habs.

[BornRuff]

Or maybe Rogers and Bell et al. can obtain a minority stake in the second Toronto team. BTW, Bell already has a 18% minority stake (http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl/story/2011/12/09/sp-nhl-canadiens-bell.html) in the Habs.

I don't think the NHL will allow them to own three different teams. I think the two was already a bit iffy.

[BornRuff]

I'm not talking about demand in Canada, I'm specifically talking about the demand in the Toronto area. Toronto is a much bigger Hockey Market then New York and it will have two teams playing home games within 7 miles of each other very soon. I don't see it more as the pie just being divided but the pie growing larger and then divided. Being a hockey fan in the Toronto area doesn't necessarily mean they support or watch the Leafs. I'm sure there is a big "anything" but the Leafs mentality among many there, especially those who weren't born there and/or moved there from other parts of the country and would rather support a new local team if they were given the chance to and/or be given a better chance or more opportunities to watch the visiting team instead, like the two time defending Presidents' Trophy winner, the Vancouver Canucks.

I don't think there is all that much untapped demand for hockey in Toronto in terms of the media market. I don't think there are that many people who would become hockey fans who are not already watching some team. Hockey is pretty ubiquitous in Toronto.

That is pretty much why the NHL has been less interested in expanding in Canada than in US markets. They have been really focused on growing the media side of the business, and there is more potential for growth in untapped US markets compared to our already hockey saturated market.

There is clear potential to sell a lot of tickets and make a ton of additional money that way, but on the media side, it is likely to be more fans just switching from other teams rather than actual new hockey fans being created, and those fans are already watching hockey on TSN and Sportsnet.


If it could be done with two NBA franchises and one NHL franchise, why couldn't it be done the other way around? The main technical challenge would be to add an additional home team NHL dressing room in that building and perhaps some office space. However, I think there is a tower connected to the building that could be used for some office space if needed.

I am not sure we can really go anywhere with this since neither of us have any actual knowledge of the feasibility of this. I would bet they probably could make it work, though I have no idea if it is something either team would want to do long term.

As far as I know, the owner of the Staples centre doesn't own either of the NBA teams, so I think that might make the situation a bit easier.


So what? That's the price to enter the lucrative Toronto market. It hasn't been maxed out, there's a lot more to gain with a second team. It's done in LA with Basketball, it could be done successfully with hockey in Toronto. The Leafs are like the Lakers but without the on-ice success. The new team would be like the Clippers.

This was kind of the original point, that working out a TV deal would be difficult for the new team.


I doubt either would want to give up the Leafs and splitting MLSE could get messy as it's obvious that the Leafs is the golden jewel of the company given how it performs in the balance sheet.

For the right price, anything can be worked out. A new franchise in Toronto would be a huge cash cow as well.

[Mr.Sea]

If a team came to Markham, I would try to get season seats.

[BornRuff]

If a team came to Markham, I would try to get season seats.

I am sure the only limitation to how fast they could sell season tickets would be the speed at which they could process the sales.

With the number of companies that have their head office up there, I'm sure they would do ok selling corporate boxes too.

[Mr.Sea]

I am sure the only limitation to how fast they could sell season tickets would be the speed at which they could process the sales.

With the number of companies that have their head office up there, I'm sure they would do ok selling corporate boxes too.

They wouldn't be the Maple Leafs though. I grew up watching the Leafs because they were the team to watch if you lived here. However, if there is another team - and provided I could occasionally go and watch one of their games, I would most definitely be interested in getting season tickets.

You are right, regardless - the tickets will sell FAST.

[VCR]

They wouldn't be the Maple Leafs though. I grew up watching the Leafs because they were the team to watch if you lived here. However, if there is another team - and provided I could occasionally go and watch one of their games, I would most definitely be interested in getting season tickets.

You are right, regardless - the tickets will sell FAST.

Toronto area is the best place to re-locate a struggling franchise. The Leafs would also benefit in that they are one of the 'have' teams subsidizing the struggling franchises like PHX and having a second team in the Toronto area, whether it be at the ACC or the proposed Markham Arena, would yield another 'have' team to support the other remaining 'have not' in the league's revenue sharing plans.

Furthermore, a second team in TO would likely mean that the Leafs would have the amount of games shown nationally reduced to accommodate the second Toronto team to be shown nationally. That would mean that they get more regional games where they get all of the revenue, not 1/30 of it from the national broadcasts.

[BornRuff]

Toronto area is the best place to re-locate a struggling franchise. The Leafs would also benefit in that they are one of the 'have' teams subsidizing the struggling franchises like PHX and having a second team in the Toronto area, whether it be at the ACC or the proposed Markham Arena, would yield another 'have' team to support the other remaining 'have not' in the league's revenue sharing plans.

Furthermore, a second team in TO would likely mean that the Leafs would have the amount of games shown nationally reduced to accommodate the second Toronto team to be shown nationally. That would mean that they get more regional games where they get all of the revenue, not 1/30 of it from the national broadcasts.

Revenue sharing is pretty minor in the NHL. The change in their revenue sharing payments would be insignificant.

Almost all of the Leaf's games are broadcast nationally and I have never heard them complain about that.

All of these attempts to make it seem like the Leafs would want competition are pointless. It has been made very clear that they have no desire to have another team enter their territory.

[VCR]

Revenue sharing is pretty minor in the NHL. The change in their revenue sharing payments would be insignificant.

Uh, the Leafs, being the most profitable club in the NHL, paid the most into revenue sharing @ $20M under the past CBA (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/globe-on-hockey/its-not-always-easy-owning-the-maple-leafs/article4634268/).

Do you think that's an insignificant amount to them?

In that linked article, Mirtle suggests it will likely increase with the new CBA:


Mirtle @ G&M wrote:

What’ll be interesting is how a new collective bargaining agreement affects Toronto, as revenues sharing is expected to be increased substantially leaguewide and the Leafs already paid in the highest share at $20-million.




Almost all of the Leaf's games are broadcast nationally and I have never heard them complain about that.

Actually, less than half of them are broadcasted nationally. According to the Toronto Star (http://www.thestar.com/sports/article/1093199--maple-leaf-sports-plans-broadcast-gamble), 46 Leafs games are shown regionally @ they pocket the entire 700K as their own revenue (for 34.5M) and not have it shared as those national games are with the 29 other teams. Having an extra 5-10 games being only shown regionally to accommodate a second Toronto team to the national schedule, you can imagine how much added revenue they count as their own (before they have to give a portion back in revenue sharing).


All of these attempts to make it seem like the Leafs would want competition are pointless. It has been made very clear that they have no desire to have another team enter their territory.

Was that before or after the majority purchase by Rogers/Bell and their media interests and expiry of the CBA where it's been speculated that Revenue Sharing will likely put more of a burden on them to pick up the tab on the 'have nots' like PHX?

[BornRuff]

Uh, the Leafs, being the most profitable club in the NHL, paid the most into revenue sharing @ $20M under the past CBA (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/globe-on-hockey/its-not-always-easy-owning-the-maple-leafs/article4634268/).

Do you think that's an insignificant amount to them?

In that linked article, Mirtle suggests it will likely increase with the new CBA:

When you compare it to the NFL or the MLB, it is pretty minor. Revenue is shared between the bottom 15 teams, so one team doing better wont change the number of teams eligible to collect, and I don't think it would reduce the amount they have to pay into revenue sharing at all.


Actually, less than half of them are broadcasted nationally. According to the Toronto Star (http://www.thestar.com/sports/article/1093199--maple-leaf-sports-plans-broadcast-gamble), 46 Leafs games are shown regionally @ they pocket the entire 700K as their own revenue (for 34.5M) and not have it shared as those national games are with the 29 other teams. Having an extra 5-10 games being only shown regionally to accommodate a second Toronto team to the national schedule, you can imagine how much added revenue they count as their own (before they have to give a portion back in revenue sharing).



Was that before or after the majority purchase by Rogers/Bell and their media interests and expiry of the CBA where it's been speculated that Revenue Sharing will likely put more of a burden on them to pick up the tab on the 'have nots' like PHX?

Many of the games termed as "local" are still broadcast nationally. I do not believe that teams lose money for having more games broadcast nationally.

[VCR]

When you compare it to the NFL or the MLB, it is pretty minor. Revenue is shared between the bottom 15 teams, so one team doing better wont change the number of teams eligible to collect, and I don't think it would reduce the amount they have to pay into revenue sharing at all.

Previous system under expired cba explained below:

http://basketball.about.com/od/nba-vs-nbapa/ss/Revenue-Sharing-And-North-Americas-Major-Pro-Sports-Leagues_4.htm

There were several conditions attached. The bottom 15 are eligible but they have to meet certain conditions and "Teams in markets with more than 2.5 million television households cannot qualify for revenue sharing."


Many of the games termed as "local" are still broadcast nationally. I do not believe that teams lose money for having more games broadcast nationally.

No. That is wrong. You're confusing the HNIC where they will sometimes air a specific game to a certain market i.e Winnipeg only when it conflicts with a Leafs game at the same time. TSN and CBC holds the national rights, where they can broadcast the games they carry around the country. The broadcast fee is split among the 30 teams. Just like the US national games on NBC, those are split among the 30 teams. I am out of market, so I can say this with certainty. You stated, "Almost all of the Leaf's games are broadcast nationally" ... that is an incorrect statement. We only get the games that are broadcasted nationally not the local games. The only way to see all the Leafs games is to pay extra and buy the Centre Ice Package.

[BornRuff]

Previous system under expired cba explained below:

http://basketball.about.com/od/nba-vs-nbapa/ss/Revenue-Sharing-And-North-Americas-Major-Pro-Sports-Leagues_4.htm

There were several conditions attached. The bottom 15 are eligible but they have to meet certain conditions and "Teams in markets with more than 2.5 million television households cannot qualify for revenue sharing."



No. That is wrong. You're confusing the HNIC where they will sometimes air a specific game to a certain market i.e Winnipeg only when it conflicts with a Leafs game at the same time. TSN and CBC holds the national rights, where they can broadcast the games they carry around the country. The broadcast fee is split among the 30 teams. Just like the US national games on NBC, those are split among the 30 teams. I am out of market, so I can say this with certainty. You stated, "Almost all of the Leaf's games are broadcast nationally" ... that is an incorrect statement. We only get the games that are broadcasted nationally. The only way to see all the Leafs games is to get the Centre Ice Package.

TSN has made deals to broadcast Leafs games that are technically "local" nationally, so they end up with many more national games than other teams.

More to the point though, It would be foolish to assume that the Leafs are giving up revenue because more of their games are broadcast nationally. They would make sure that they are making at least as much from these extra nationally broadcast games as they would if they were local. It is similar to how revenue from the Winter Classic is split up between all teams, but only after the team that lost a home game is compensated.

[IslandLady]

TSN should pack up and head to Russia. The talks would start very fast if they did. Might be a bit more boring to watch, but I would give it a go

[VCR]

TSN has made deals to broadcast Leafs games that are technically "local" nationally, so they end up with many more national games than other teams.

With the TSN deal, their "regional" games are allowed to be broadcasted national according to wiki due to a special agreement between the NHL and the other Canadian franchises. This is an exception. So all 17 games on TSN are broadcated nationally. CBC has a stipulation where they can max out at broadcasting 26 Leafs games. But we don't get to see any of their games on Rogers Sportsnet or Leafs TV games (and that's a huge chunk of games) here unless you subscribe to Centre Ice Package.

re:


Almost all of the Leaf's games are broadcast nationally and I have never heard them complain about that.


see this thread on the 2011/12 season:

http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=144094

Half their games that were broadcasted last season (41) -- this number includes the pre-season games were only available regionally (i.e. to the local Toronto market). The Centre Ice package required to watch the rest, outside of their Broadcasting territory.


More to the point though, It would be foolish to assume that the Leafs are giving up revenue because more of their games are broadcast nationally. They would make sure that they are making at least as much from these extra nationally broadcast games as they would if they were local. It is similar to how revenue from the Winter Classic is split up between all teams, but only after the team that lost a home game is compensated.

According to this wiki link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_broadcasting_contracts_in_Canada), 10 of their "regional" games are broadcasted nationally. So add that to the Sportsnet and Leafs TV regional games and that's their total that they keep to themselves.

I'm not sure why you are using the comparison to the Winter Classic as it's a special event. I assume the home team is DET but given the Leafs participation and the special nature of the event, they [Leafs] will probably get some extra compensation for participating in it.

[VCR]

As far as I know, the owner of the Staples centre doesn't own either of the NBA teams, so I think that might make the situation a bit easier.


AEG owns 30% (http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/27/sports/la-sp-nba-arenas-20110928) of the Lakers.

Anyway, based on this discussion, I still think the optimal move for the NHL would be to relocate the PHX franchise to Toronto. Have it play in the ACC. Have MLSE gain a silent/minority interest in the second team.

However, I get the feeling they will exhaust every opportunity to try to get it to work in PHX before entertaining these thoughts.

Any potential conflict of interest i.e. trades involving the two teams would be subject to increased scrutiny i.e. voided if determined the trade wasn't above board by the NHL. They can just get around it by just having a tacit agreement to not make any trades with each other. Which isn't that big of a loss as for example, Canucks haven't made any meaningful trades with their closets division rivals i.e. Flames and Oilers in decades.

The benefits of such a move for the NHL would far outweigh the potential negatives, imo.

Tell me I'm wrong.

[BornRuff]

With the TSN deal, their "regional" games are allowed to be broadcasted national according to wiki due to a special agreement between the NHL and the other Canadian franchises. This is an exception. So all 17 games on TSN are broadcated nationally. CBC has a stipulation where they can max out at broadcasting 26 Leafs games. But we don't get to see any of their games on Rogers Sportsnet or Leafs TV games (and that's a huge chunk of games) here unless you subscribe to Centre Ice Package.

re:



see this thread on the 2011/12 season:

http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=144094

Half their games that were broadcasted last season (41) -- this number includes the pre-season games were only available regionally (i.e. to the local Toronto market). The Centre Ice package required to watch the rest, outside of their Broadcasting territory.



According to this wiki link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_broadcasting_contracts_in_Canada), 10 of their "regional" games are broadcasted nationally. So add that to the Sportsnet and Leafs TV regional games and that's their total that they keep to themselves.

I'm not sure why you are using the comparison to the Winter Classic as it's a special event. I assume the home team is DET but given the Leafs participation and the special nature of the event, they [Leafs] will probably get some extra compensation for participating in it.

The comparison is that teams don't lose money for extra national exposure. When teams are asked to do additional things, such as give up a home game for a special event or have more games broadcast nationally, they are compensated for that. Your assertion is that they are somehow made worse off by having this many games broadcast nationally, and will be better off if they end up with fewer games nationally broadcast, but that simply isn't the case.

[VCR]

The comparison is that teams don't lose money for extra national exposure. When teams are asked to do additional things, such as give up a home game for a special event or have more games broadcast nationally, they are compensated for that. Your assertion is that they are somehow made worse off by having this many games broadcast nationally, and will be better off if they end up with fewer games nationally broadcast, but that simply isn't the case.

Games involving them that are regional, they keep all the broadcasting fees, national broadcasts (i.e. CBC HNIC, TSN, NBC ecetera), the broadcasting rights fee is shared equally among the 30 teams.

Do you disagree with that?

[BornRuff]

AEG owns 30% (http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/27/sports/la-sp-nba-arenas-20110928) of the Lakers.

Anyway, based on this discussion, I still think the optimal move for the NHL would be to relocate the PHX franchise to Toronto. Have it play in the ACC. Have MLSE gain a silent/minority interest in the second team.

However, I get the feeling they will exhaust every opportunity to try to get it to work in PHX before entertaining these thoughts.

Any potential conflict of interest i.e. trades involving the two teams would be subject to increased scrutiny i.e. voided if determined the trade wasn't above board by the NHL. They can just get around it by just having a tacit agreement to not make any trades with each other. Which isn't that big of a loss as for example, Canucks haven't made any meaningful trades with their closets division rivals i.e. Flames and Oilers in decades.

The benefits of such a move for the NHL would far outweigh the potential negatives, imo.

Tell me I'm wrong.

You are right that they will exhaust all possible options before moving Phoenix. Glendale has invested so much money and put so much work into trying to keep the team there, the league really has to play ball. Teams like Atlanta were easier to move because they didn't have the same sort support from the local government.

Having MLSE owning two teams in the same city probably isn't going to fly. Bell's stake in Toronto and Montreal is already pretty iffy. Getting into agreements not to trade with each other and having to scrutinize transactions between the teams doesn't really make sense for the league. It's not like there would be any shortage of people wanting to own an NHL franchise in Toronto, so I don't see any reason for them to go down that road.

In terms of the benefits, it really depends on what the goals are. They will obviously sell a lot of tickets, but it is kind of regressive in terms of their goal of increasing their media footprint.

[BornRuff]

Games involving them that are regional, they keep all the broadcasting fees, national broadcasts (i.e. CBC HNIC, TSN, NBC ecetera), the broadcasting rights fee is shared equally among the 30 teams.

Do you disagree with that?

I think you would be pretty foolish to assume that the special deal to broadcast more of Toronto's games nationally doesn't include the Leafs being compensated at least as much as they would have earned if it were a strictly regional broadcast.

[VCR]

I think you would be pretty foolish to assume that the special deal to broadcast more of Toronto's games nationally doesn't include the Leafs being compensated at least as much as they would have earned if it were a strictly regional broadcast.

The 10 games or so League games that are broadcasted on TSN "nationally" but are considered "regional" they would would get the entire amount. Remember, they apparently needed special permission to broadcast the regional games on a national basis and it was only for a select amount of their regional games. RSN and Leafs TV games are not broadcasted nationally and the only way for an out of market consumer to see them would be via the Centre Ice Package.

All games classified as "national" the broadcast fee is considered league revenue and divided equally among the 30 member franchises.

[VCR]

Having MLSE owning two teams in the same city probably isn't going to fly. Bell's stake in Toronto and Montreal is already pretty iffy. Getting into agreements not to trade with each other and having to scrutinize transactions between the teams doesn't really make sense for the league. It's not like there would be any shortage of people wanting to own an NHL franchise in Toronto, so I don't see any reason for them to go down that road.

Having them own a minority stake would possibly ease the resistance that they may have and insure that they can co-operate and sign a long-term lease in operating another NHL team @ the ACC.

[VCR]

You are right that they will exhaust all possible options before moving Phoenix. Glendale has invested so much money and put so much work into trying to keep the team there, the league really has to play ball. Teams like Atlanta were easier to move because they didn't have the same sort support from the local government.

Toronto is the best market to re-locate a struggling franchise. It will play itself out but the deal between the government and new PHX ownership still hasn't been done yet.



Having MLSE owning two teams in the same city probably isn't going to fly. Bell's stake in Toronto and Montreal is already pretty iffy. Getting into agreements not to trade with each other and having to scrutinize transactions between the teams doesn't really make sense for the league. It's not like there would be any shortage of people wanting to own an NHL franchise in Toronto, so I don't see any reason for them to go down that road.

I don't think it's that big of a deal. A lot of teams, especially division rivals, don't trade with other, like the previous examples I gave. But I would say the second team, MLSE would only have a minority interest in the team and the majority owner would be independent of the existing owners of MLSE.



In terms of the benefits, it really depends on what the goals are. They will obviously sell a lot of tickets, but it is kind of regressive in terms of their goal of increasing their media footprint.

No. Not only would they increase their ability to maximize revenue generation in the ACC, but they would increase their media footprint as it will give them more content.

[VCR]

Toronto is the best market to re-locate a struggling franchise.

This paper supports that statement:

"The New Economics of the NHL: Why Canada Can Support 12 Teams"

Tony Keller & Neville McGuire
The Mowat Centre
April 11, 2011

http://www.mowatcentre.ca/research-topic-mowat.php?mowatResearchID=31

[BornRuff]

This paper supports that statement:

"The New Economics of the NHL: Why Canada Can Support 12 Teams"

Tony Keller & Neville McGuire
The Mowat Centre
April 11, 2011

http://www.mowatcentre.ca/research-topic-mowat.php?mowatResearchID=31

Nobody is arguing that a second team in Toronto wouldn't make money.

[VCR]

Nobody is arguing that a second team in Toronto wouldn't make money.

It's also arguing why MLSE might accept a second team there as well ..........

see pages 18-19 (which re-iterates many of the points' I've made earlier):


Fan demand is strong enough to support second teams in
Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver—but likely not a second
privately-owned, NHL-sized arena in each of those cities. But
that’s a problem that can be solved. It has been before.
In the early 1990s, the Toronto Raptors’ original owners started
construction of the Air Canada Centre, at a time when Toronto
already had one major arena: the Leafs’-owned Maple Leaf Gardens.
The Raptors and their ACC were eventually bought out
by MLSE, but for a time MLSE was looking at building its own
replacement for Maple Leaf Gardens, which would have given
Toronto two privately-owned, competing, big league arenas.

The buyout of the Raptors and the consolidation of two teams
in one building was the most rational business decision for all
parties, reducing construction and carrying costs by half, and
almost certainly raising rental rates for outside concerts and
other events, since the market now has only one big arena,
rather than two competing buildings. The Raptors and their
arena came to Toronto as business partners of the Leafs, not
competitors. MLSE doubled the number of major league tenants
without doubling the number of arenas, thereby increasing the
profitability of the building, and that of both teams.

A replay of the Leafs’ partnership with the Raptors, and the
maintenance of a one-arena city, would almost certainly be the
best way, and perhaps the only way, for a second NHL team to
come to Toronto, Vancouver or Montreal. If a second Toronto area
NHL team were to consider building an 18,000 seat arena,
as the Raptors once did, threatening to seriously undercut
the profitability of both the Leafs and the Air Canada Centre,
MLSE’s best bet would be to turn threat into opportunity. It
could seek to develop an arena partnership with the Newcomers
or even seek to own the second franchise, although that is
not currently permitted in the NHL. The Newcomers and the
Leafs could then both play in the Air Canada Centre, reducing
one another’s costs. Both teams would benefit. The approach
has been used by a number of competing teams in multi-team
cities. For example, New York’s two NFL teams shared Giant
Stadium for years, and they are now 50-50 partners in the New
Meadowlands Stadium. In Los Angeles, two NBA teams share
the Staples Center—and the NHL’s L.A. Kings also call Staples
home, which could be a model for a second team in Toronto.

re: "or even seek to own the second franchise, although that is
not currently permitted in the NHL."

Bell's minority ownership of the Habs and their recent approval of getting co-majority share of the Leafs by the NHL is acknowledgment that the league does allow ownership into multiple franchises although, I would doubt they would allow majority ownership in two franchises.

[BornRuff]

The 10 games or so League games that are broadcasted on TSN "nationally" but are considered "regional" they would would get the entire amount. Remember, they apparently needed special permission to broadcast the regional games on a national basis and it was only for a select amount of their regional games. RSN and Leafs TV games are not broadcasted nationally and the only way for an out of market consumer to see them would be via the Centre Ice Package.

All games classified as "national" the broadcast fee is considered league revenue and divided equally among the 30 member franchises.

Since the NHL is a private organization, there is probably no way to figure out the exact rules on this, but there is no way in hell that when the NHL decides they want to broadcast one more of a certain team's games nationally, that team loses money, and visa versa.

If the teams get the full amount from regional broadcasts and 1/30th of the money from national broadcasts, then obviously a regional broadcast is very valuable and the team would not give that up without compensation. Any variation in the number of regional vs national broadcasts would just be a switch from games they were compensated for to games that they can now make money off of regionally(if in fact the system is that simple). The compensation for those additional national games would have to be at least what they would make from a regional broadcast, so they would likely be worse off if they lost those national games.


Having them own a minority stake would possibly ease the resistance that they may have and insure that they can co-operate and sign a long-term lease in operating another NHL team @ the ACC.

Toronto is the best market to re-locate a struggling franchise. It will play itself out but the deal between the government and new PHX ownership still hasn't been done yet.

I don't think it's that big of a deal. A lot of teams, especially division rivals, don't trade with other, like the previous examples I gave. But I would say the second team, MLSE would only have a minority interest in the team and the majority owner would be independent of the existing owners of MLSE.

There is a difference between not trading with another team by choice and having an actual rule that certain teams can't trade with each other. It is simply a needless complication. There are more than enough people willing to own a franchise in Toronto, so there is no need to get into a convoluted situation like this.


No. Not only would they increase their ability to maximize revenue generation in the ACC, but they would increase their media footprint as it will give them more content.

Pumping more content into the same market doesn't increase your footprint.

[BornRuff]

It's also arguing why MLSE might accept a second team there as well ..........

see pages 18-19 (which re-iterates many of the points' I've made earlier):



re: "or even seek to own the second franchise, although that is
not currently permitted in the NHL."

Bell's minority ownership of the Habs and their recent approval of getting co-majority share of the Leafs by the NHL is acknowledgment that the league does allow ownership into multiple franchises although, I would doubt they would allow majority ownership in two franchises.

It seems to be arguing that these cities can't actually support another NHL team outright, and they would need to enter into a complicated partnership that isn't allowed by the NHL to make it work. Doesn't seem like a strong argument.

[VCR]

Since the NHL is a private organization, there is probably no way to figure out the exact rules on this, but there is no way in hell that when the NHL decides they want to broadcast one more of a certain team's games nationally, that team loses money, and visa versa.

If the teams get the full amount from regional broadcasts and 1/30th of the money from national broadcasts, then obviously a regional broadcast is very valuable and the team would not give that up without compensation. Any variation in the number of regional vs national broadcasts would just be a switch from games they were compensated for to games that they can now make money off of regionally(if in fact the system is that simple). The compensation for those additional national games would have to be at least what they would make from a regional broadcast, so they would likely be worse off if they lost those national games.

I don't think it works that way. As I've heard it and read, the way I've presented it is what it is. If you can provide *proof* from a legit source that suggests otherwise, I welcome you to do so.


There is a difference between not trading with another team by choice and having an actual rule that certain teams can't trade with each other. It is simply a needless complication. There are more than enough people willing to own a franchise in Toronto, so there is no need to get into a convoluted situation like this.

The point being is to give MLSE an incentive to allow the second team to use the ACC. Although NHL bylaws maybe not prohibit another team to enter the marketplace, the last time I checked there is only ONE, NHL calibre arena in the GTA. If you're going to move them i.e. PHX to the GTA by next year, having a place to play is pretty big barrier if MLSE won't allow them to use their building, right?



Pumping more content into the same market doesn't increase your footprint.

Yeah, it gives you more access to the consumer dollar that want to spend on NHL hockey but can't due to lack of availibility. By increasing the product you have for sale from 45 NHL games to 90 games at a minimum.

[VCR]

It seems to be arguing that these cities can't actually support another NHL team outright, and they would need to enter into a complicated partnership that isn't allowed by the NHL to make it work. Doesn't seem like a strong argument.

The report was made in 2011, we know that in 2012 that the NHL does allow for ownership in 2 franchises i.e. Bell's ownership stakes in Habs and Leafs. Rules can always be amended to suit the situation. See how some Leafs 'regional' games are broadcasted nationally. It also argues that the second team could form some of partnership with MLSE and use their building as both could benefit (instead of building their own so they won't compete each other for the limited concert and other events market.)

[BornRuff]

I don't think it works that way. As I've heard it and read it previously, the way I've presented it is what it is. If you can provide *proof* from a legit source that suggests otherwise, I welcome you to do so.

You have not provided proof of your assertion that teams actually lose money if the league wants to show more of their games.

By all accounts your general idea of how broadcast revenues are split is accurate, but you are taking it to an extremely illogical extreme. Obviously it is not so simple, and there would be some way to deal with differing numbers of nationally televised games.

Think about it. Hockey teams are owned by business people. Business people don't just give up rights to something worth millions of dollars for free.


The point being is to give MLSE an incentive to allow the second team to use the ACC. Although NHL bylaws maybe not prohibit another team to enter the marketplace, the last time I checked there is only ONE, NHL calibre arena in the GTA. If you're going to move them i.e. PHX to the GTA by next year, having a place to play is pretty big barrier if MLSE won't allow them to use their building, right?

This logic all falls apart when you realize that the league has no interest in moving Phoenix to Toronto by next season, or ever at this point.

The closest they might get in the foreseeable future is Hamilton. Copps is more than big enough to house an NHL team for a few years while a permanent home is set up.


Yeah, it gives you more access to the consumer dollar that want to spend on NHL hockey but can't due to lack of availibility. By increasing the product you have for sale from 45 NHL games to 90 games at a minimum.

We were talking specifically about media. This media market is already saturated with hockey. Few new fans will be created. Most will just be people who used to be fans of other teams.

[BornRuff]

The report was made in 2011, we know that in 2012 that the NHL does allow for ownership in 2 franchises i.e. Bell's ownership stakes in Habs and Leafs. Rules can always be amended to suit the situation. See how some Leafs 'regional' games are broadcasted nationally. It also argues that the second team could form some of partnership with MLSE and use their building as both could benefit (instead of building their own so they won't compete each other for the limited concert and other events market.)

The rules have not changed one bit since 2011 in this regard. Any company that owns more than 30% of an NHL franchise cannot be involved in another NHL franchise.

Bell owns 18% of the Canadiens and 28% of the Leafs. Their pension fund owns another chunk of the Leafs as well in order to comply with the rules.

MLSE could only purchase a stake in the other team if they sold off 70+ percent of the Leafs.

[VCR]

You have not provided proof of your assertion that teams actually lose money if the league wants to show more of their games.

What proof have you shown that it works the way you theorize it to be? That's right, none. National contracts are negotiated on the premise that they show more desirable teams (in terms of interest and viewership) in big markets than those on smaller markets.


By all accounts your general idea of how broadcast revenues are split is accurate, but you are taking it to an extremely illogical extreme. Obviously it is not so simple, and there would be some way to deal with differing numbers of nationally televised games.

Think about it. Hockey teams are owned by business people. Business people don't just give up rights to something worth millions of dollars for free.

dude the the leafs give up the most money in terms of revenue sharing. they aren't doing it for free, they are doing it because they are a franchise of the NHL which allows them the opportunity to make money by being a part of it.


This logic all falls apart when you realize that the league has no interest in moving Phoenix to Toronto by next season, or ever at this point.

What special insight do you know the league isn't getting fed up with owning a money losing team. The 29 other teams are subsidizing the loses? AFAIK, the deal between the local gov't and the potential new owners hasn't been consummated.


The closest they might get in the foreseeable future is Hamilton. Copps is more than big enough to house an NHL team for a few years while a permanent home is set up.

If the Leafs know that the NHL plans to re-locate the franchise to the GTA, it would be in their best interest to work with them and have them play in the ACC rather than have their competitor construct a nearby arena that would compete against them in the 20K venue for concerts and conventions.



We were talking specifically about media. This media market is already saturated with hockey. Few new fans will be created. Most will just be people who used to be fans of other teams.

It's not just about creating few new fans, it's about creating more opportunities to watch hockey games. At most since the previous lockout, the Leafs have given their fans the privilege of watching only 45 games locally (pre-season and regular season) because they have been the ONLY team since the previous lockout not to make the Playoffs.

Another team in the GTA gives them an opportunity to watch a minimum of 45 games and more if they make it to the Playoffs. Plus the away games, where they would be more inclined to watch given the association the new team will have with the local market.

[VCR]

The rules have not changed one bit since 2011 in this regard. Any company that owns more than 30% of an NHL franchise cannot be involved in another NHL franchise.

Bell owns 18% of the Canadiens and 28% of the Leafs. Their pension fund owns another chunk of the Leafs as well in order to comply with the rules.

MLSE could only purchase a stake in the other team if they sold off 70+ percent of the Leafs.

Rules can always be changed to fit the best interest of the NHL and its member clubs.

[BornRuff]

What proof have you shown that it works the way you theorize it to be? That's right, none. National contracts are negotiated on the premise that they show more desirable teams (in terms of interest and viewership) in big markets than those on smaller markets.



dude the the leafs give up the most money in terms of revenue sharing. they aren't doing it for free, they are doing it because they are a franchise of the NHL which allows them the opportunity to make money by being a part of it.

A lack of concrete information doesn't somehow automatically mean you are right. They are a private organization so none of these specifics are necessarily public information. In these situations though, you need to apply some basic logic.

Revenue sharing is a well known thing, and nowhere in anything I have read about revenue sharing have they mentioned any teams having to give up broadcasting rights.

Have you considered how much the value of their regional broadcast rights would be diminished by having to now share this region with another NHL team? Clearly there would be a ton of overlap in the games.


What special insight do you know the league isn't getting fed up with owning a money losing team. The 29 other teams are subsidizing the loses? AFAIK, the deal between the local gov't and the potential new owners hasn't been consummated.

Glendale is actually funding their losses, though the team is equally eligible to participate in revenue sharing as are the other 14 lowest earning teams. From all accounts, the amount that the top 10 teams pay into revenue sharing is based on their own performance, not the needs of the poorer teams.


If the Leafs know that the NHL plans to re-locate the franchise to the GTA, it would be in their best interest to work with them and have them play in the ACC rather than have their competitor construct a nearby arena that would compete against them in the 20K venue for concerts and conventions.


It's not just about creating few new fans, it's about creating more opportunities to watch hockey games. At most since the previous lockout, the Leafs have given their fans the privilege of watching only 45 games locally (pre-season and regular season) because they have been the ONLY team since the previous lockout not to make the Playoffs.

Another team in the GTA gives them an opportunity to watch a minimum of 45 games and likely more if they make it to the Playoffs. Plus the away games, where they would be more inclined to watch given the association the new team will have with the local market.

You can only watch one game at a time. On Saturday night, if people choose to watch the new team instead of the Leafs, it is just a switch, not a new viewer. Existing fans already have 3-4 games per week to watch. Are people really going to start watching 6-8 games per week? Are the people who are that die hard not already watching lots of hockey anyways? There is little growth for hockey in the media market in Toronto.

In terms of having the new team in the ACC vs Hamilton, they might be more inclined to keep the team further away. Then they would still be the only team truly in the Toronto market, which is a pretty valuable position. Companies would much rather buy a corporate box when it is a few blocks from the financial district instead of an hour down the highway. Notice that you are not even arguing that they would want this to happen, just that if it were forced on them, this might be how they would make the best of it.

[BornRuff]

Rules can always be changed to fit the best interest of the NHL and its member clubs.

I don't really think the rest of the NHL owners care that much about helping MLSE make even more money. There is no evidence that the league has any interest in changing this rule.

[VCR]

I don't really think the rest of the NHL owners care that much about helping MLSE make even more money. There is no evidence that the league has any interest in changing this rule.

They do care that they are absorbing the losses in the PHX franchise as they collectively own it right now.

[BornRuff]

They do care that they are absorbing the losses in the PHX franchise as they collectively own it right now.

Glendale covers the losses, not the league.

They have so many other options other than putting another team in Toronto anyways, so this line of logic is dumb.

[VCR]

Glendale covers the losses, not the league.

Okay, if what you is saying is true and not speculation:

1) Provide evidence (link to a source and relevant quote) from a credible source where Glendale had covered the losses, not the league.
2) More importantly, provide evidence (link to a source and relevant quote) that they are willing to do this in the future.



They have so many other options other than putting another team in Toronto anyways, so this line of logic is dumb.

So, what are the "so many other options" that are better in your opinion?

[BornRuff]

Okay, if what you is saying is true and not speculation:

1) Provide evidence (link to a source and relevant quote) from a credible source where Glendale had covered the losses, not the league.
2) Provide evidence (link to a source and relevant quote) that they are willing to do this in the future.

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2012/10/08/nhl-glendale-looking-to-kick-coyotes.html

Glendale has been paying the NHL 25 million bucks a year to prevent them from moving the team. They have continued to extend the deal, pending the finalization of a sale of the team.



So, what are the "so many other options" that are better in your opinion?

Take your pick of any of the names of cities that have lobbied for a team in recent years.

Hamilton
Quebec City
Just about every GTA city(Markham has been especially active on this)
Saskatoon
Seattle
Kansas City
Las Vegas

That quote doesn't include me saying the word "better". Better is a matter of opinion on a lot of different factors that are at play here. These are options that they have before they would need to consider going down this road that you are suggesting.

From the perspective of other owners though, I doubt any of them have any interest in seeing the richest franchise in the league start to annex other franchises. They don't want one ownership group to gain disproportionate power.

[VCR]

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2012/10/08/nhl-glendale-looking-to-kick-coyotes.html

Glendale has been paying the NHL 25 million bucks a year to prevent them from moving the team. They have continued to extend the deal, pending the finalization of a sale of the team.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/globe-on-hockey/why-nhl-teams-cry-poor-despite-the-leagues-record-growth/article4429817/

I assume the 25M is counted in their revenue. According to the cited G&M article, they estimated that they generated 70M in revenue in 10/11 but they (the PHX team) but still lost around 15.5M, the most of any NHL team. Who covers that?

BTW, they also received the most ........... 18M in revenue sharing from the league to get to the 70M figure. Look at the two graphs.


Take your pick of any of the names of cities that have lobbied for a team in recent years.

Hamilton
Quebec City
Just about every GTA city(Markham has been especially active on this)
Saskatoon
Seattle
Kansas City
Las Vegas

That quote doesn't include me saying the word "better". Better is a matter of opinion on a lot of different factors that are at play here. These are options that they have before they would need to consider going down this road that you are suggesting.

From the perspective of other owners though, I doubt any of them have any interest in seeing the richest franchise in the league start to annex other franchises. They don't want one ownership group to gain disproportionate power.

None of the options are better for the NHL in terms of maximizing their return both short and long term.

[BornRuff]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/globe-on-hockey/why-nhl-teams-cry-poor-despite-the-leagues-record-growth/article4429817/

I assume the 25M is counted in their revenue. According to the cited G&M article, they estimated that they generated 70M in revenue in 10/11 but they (the PHX team) but still lost around 15.5M, the most of any NHL team. Who covers that?

BTW, they also received the most ........... 18M in revenue sharing from the league to get to the 70M figure. Look at the two graphs.

Why do you just assume whatever makes your points sound better when the answers are readily available? They say that the numbers are based on the estimates provided by Frobes, and Forbes explicitly states that it does not include the 25 million dollar subsidy in their calculations.

http://www.forbes.com/teams/phoenix-coyotes/


None of the options are better for the NHL in terms of maximizing their return both short and long term.

Again, that is not a simple statement to make. It is the difference between trying to expand their footprint and media presence vs just trying to squeeze more revenue out of an already successful market. A successful team in a new market would be the best possible outcome for the league.

You are kind of missing the original point though, which is about if MLSE would want more competition in Toronto. Talking about the merits of another team in Toronto in general is not all that interesting since it is all fairly well understood.

[VCR]

Why do you just assume whatever makes your points sound better when the answers are readily available? They say that the numbers are based on the estimates provided by Frobes, and Forbes explicitly states that it does not include the 25 million dollar subsidy in their calculations.

http://www.forbes.com/teams/phoenix-coyotes/

Yeah, my bad for not checking the forbes site before making the flippant comment.

But even after receiving 18M in revenue sharing, they still had a -15.5M loss in the G&M estimates for 10/11. The 25M gov't subsidy was given to "operate the facility." But in effect it could be used to cover the losses incurred by the team.

Therefore, even with a 25M gov't subsidy, PHX weren't a profitable team.

If they stay in PHX, they will still be subsidized by not only the local gov't for "managing the arena" but will almost certainly be subsidized by the NHL i.e. "the have" teams that pay into revenue sharing.

Their new deal, should it be agreed to "operate the facility" will be reduced to about 15M per season on average. That would be 10M less than what they were getting previously. How does the math work where they would be operating in the black where they won't be the biggest benefactor of revenue sharing from the league?

It's hard to argue that they are an asset to the league given the lack of interest in hockey in that market. Lowest attendance figures among the 30 teams.
Look at the numbers they generate for local TV broadcasts were 12K in 09/10. Toronto was @ 655K in 09/10. A second Toronto team would generate at least half of the Leafs in terms of viewership imo and that's being conservative.


Again, that is not a simple statement to make. It is the difference between trying to expand their footprint and media presence vs just trying to squeeze more revenue out of an already successful market. A successful team in a new market would be the best possible outcome for the league.

You are kind of missing the original point though, which is about if MLSE would want more competition in Toronto. Talking about the merits of another team in Toronto in general is not all that interesting since it is all fairly well understood.

MLSE wouldn't want more competition unless they could see the benefits of having a second team there. By having them take an ownership stake and having that second team sign a long-term lease with the ACC would alleviate those concerns, imo that a second team would decrease the "value" of the Leafs as they will gain it from having interests in the second team.

[BornRuff]

Yeah, my bad for not checking the forbes site before making the flippant comment.

But even receiving 18M in revenue sharing, they still had a -15.5M loss in the G&M estimates for 10/11. The 25M gov't subsidy was given to "operate the facility." But in effect it could be used to cover the losses incurred by the team.

Therefore, even with a 25M gov't subsidy, the PHX Coyotoes weren't a profitable team.

If they stay in PHX, they will still be subsidized by not only the local gov't for "managing the arena" but will almost certainly be subsidized by the rest of the league i.e. the have teams that pay into revenue sharing.

Their new deal, should it be agreed to "operate the facility" will be reduced to about 15M per season on average. That would be 10M less than what they were getting previously. How does the math work where they would be operating in the black where they won't be the biggest benefactor of revenue sharing from the league?

It's hard to argue that they are an asset to the league given the lack of interest in hockey in that market. Lowest attendance figures among the 30 teams.
Look at the numbers they generate for local TV broadcasts were 12K in 09/10. Toronto was @ 655K in 09/10. A second Toronto team would generate at least half of the Leafs in terms of viewership imo and that's being conservative.

The revenues are not static. The NHL has simply been a care taker. Any new owner will surely seek to chart a path to being more profitable. Jamison wouldn't be interested in buying the team if he didn't think he could make money.

Phoenix serves a role in their overall plan to spread their media footprint in the US. If you look at the teams that get national coverage on NBC, it is not Canadian teams. Growing their US media presence is a huge goal for them, since there is the potential to make huge amounts of money.

A new team in Toronto would have little effect on the number of people who actually watch hockey in Toronto or Canada, and likely little effect on the number of games people watch. The market is already saturated with hockey.


MLSE wouldn't want more competition unless they could see the benefits of having a second team there. By having them take an ownership stake and having that second team sign a long-term lease with the ACC would alleviate those concerns, imo that a second team would decrease the "value" of the Leafs as they will gain it from having interests in the second team.

It is getting sad that you keep pushing this painfully flawed line of thinking. If the only way that MLSE would welcome "competition" is if they actually owned the other team, it is not competition in the first place. If your idea only makes sense if they break the most simple rules of team ownership, then we have to accept that in this reality, it doesn't make sense.

[VCR]

Your assertion is that they are somehow made worse off by having this many games broadcast nationally, and will be better off if they end up with fewer games nationally broadcast, but that simply isn't the case.


Games involving them that are regional, they keep all the broadcasting fees, national broadcasts (i.e. CBC HNIC, TSN, NBC ecetera), the broadcasting rights fee is shared equally among the 30 teams.

Do you disagree with that?


I think you would be pretty foolish to assume that the special deal to broadcast more of Toronto's games nationally doesn't include the Leafs being compensated at least as much as they would have earned if it were a strictly regional broadcast.


The 10 games or so League games that are broadcasted on TSN "nationally" but are considered "regional" they would would get the entire amount. Remember, they apparently needed special permission to broadcast the regional games on a national basis and it was only for a select amount of their regional games. RSN and Leafs TV games are not broadcasted nationally and the only way for an out of market consumer to see them would be via the Centre Ice Package.

All games classified as "national" the broadcast fee is considered league revenue and divided equally among the 30 member franchises.


Since the NHL is a private organization, there is probably no way to figure out the exact rules on this, but there is no way in hell that when the NHL decides they want to broadcast one more of a certain team's games nationally, that team loses money, and visa versa.

If the teams get the full amount from regional broadcasts and 1/30th of the money from national broadcasts, then obviously a regional broadcast is very valuable and the team would not give that up without compensation. Any variation in the number of regional vs national broadcasts would just be a switch from games they were compensated for to games that they can now make money off of regionally(if in fact the system is that simple). The compensation for those additional national games would have to be at least what they would make from a regional broadcast, so they would likely be worse off if they lost those national games.



I don't think it works that way. As I've heard it and read, the way I've presented it is what it is. If you can provide *proof* from a legit source that suggests otherwise, I welcome you to do so.


You have not provided proof of your assertion that teams actually lose money if the league wants to show more of their games.

By all accounts your general idea of how broadcast revenues are split is accurate, but you are taking it to an extremely illogical extreme. Obviously it is not so simple, and there would be some way to deal with differing numbers of nationally televised games.

Think about it. Hockey teams are owned by business people. Business people don't just give up rights to something worth millions of dollars for free.



What proof have you shown that it works the way you theorize it to be? That's right, none. National contracts are negotiated on the premise that they show more desirable teams (in terms of interest and viewership) in big markets than those on smaller markets.

dude the the leafs give up the most money in terms of revenue sharing. they aren't doing it for free, they are doing it because they are a franchise of the NHL which allows them the opportunity to make money by being a part of it.


A lack of concrete information doesn't somehow automatically mean you are right. They are a private organization so none of these specifics are necessarily public information. In these situations though, you need to apply some basic logic.

Actually, I think I am right.

re: http://www.mowatcentre.ca/pdfs/mowatResearch/31.pdf

Read the following on page 6. It uses the CBC National Rights for broadcast, as an example and explain how the revenue from the 'national games' is divided equally among the 30 teams. The date their paper was published, in April 2011, before the Thrashers were moved to Winnipeg and before the US national deal extension with NBC. There is NO mention of "compensation" that you've suggested for having games classed as "national" games. In fact, I've heard and read upon this subject a number of times over the years and I've never seen that suggested until you brought it up in this thread.

It essentially re-iterates what I've been writing in this thread.


For example, the CBC is paying approximately $100 million a
year for the broadcast rights to Hockey Night in Canada. Because
these are so-called national broadcast rights, the monies
involved belong to the league, not the six Canadian franchises,
and the league redistributes them to all NHL teams. As a result,
out of the $100 million a year paid by the taxpayer-owned CBC
for hockey rights, only $20 million is allocated to Canadian
teams—the other $80 million is sent to the US. The same treatment
applies to the estimated $40 million a year paid by TSN
for its national TV rights, as well as the portion of the RDS
rights fee that is treated as a national broadcast. In contrast, US
national TV revenues from Versus and NBC are believed to be
less than US$100 million a year.7
(All subsequent figures in $US unless
otherwise indicated). Given
the size of the US market and the
number of US teams, that is tiny.
The bottom line is that two-thirds
of the NHL’s national TV revenues
are earned in Canada, and
then redistributed across all of
the NHL’s—primarily American—
franchises.8
And the actual distribution of
Canadian TV money to American
teams, once the effects of leaguewide
revenue sharing are taken
into consideration, is even
more unfavourable to Canadian
teams.9 NHL revenue sharing
assistance to poorer NHL teams,
all currently American, is partly
funded by national TV revenues.
It is estimated that at least $40
million a year is paid into the pool
by Canadian teams. The exact
composition and division of the
revenue sharing pool is complex
and secretive, but we know that
the pool is partly drawn from
television revenues. In other
words, American teams are
entitled to at least 80 per cent of
the national broadcast fees paid
by CBC, TSN and RDS. But after
revenue share is paid out to poor
US teams, the actual percentage
of Canadian national TV revenue
going to American teams is
higher—perhaps as high as 90 per
cent.

[BornRuff]

Actually, I think I am right.

re: http://www.mowatcentre.ca/pdfs/mowatResearch/31.pdf

Read the following on page 6. It uses the CBC National Rights for broadcast, as an example and explain how the revenue from the 'national games' is divided equally among the 30 teams. The date their paper was published, in April 2011, before the Thrashers were moved to Winnipeg and before the US national deal extension with NBC. There is NO mention of "compensation" that you've suggested for having games classed as "national" games. In fact, I've heard and read upon this subject a number of times over the years and I've never seen that suggested until you brought it up in this thread.

It essentially re-iterates what I've been writing in this thread.

Please actually try to understand what we are talking about. It was your own point after all. This has no mention of how they deal with differing numbers of nationally broadcast games at all and it never says anything about it being better to have fewer games broadcast nationally.

All you have provided here is the same broad strokes idea of how things work that we have already talked about. The guys who wrote this article have no insider knowledge of how these things exactly work, which is why they didn't actually address what we are talking about here.

[VCR]

Please actually try to understand what we are talking about. It was your own point after all. This has no mention of how they deal with differing numbers of nationally broadcast games at all and it never says anything about it being better to have fewer games broadcast nationally.

All you have provided here is the same broad strokes idea of how things work that we have already talked about. The guys who wrote this article have no insider knowledge of how these things exactly work, which is why they didn't actually address what we are talking about here.

I would suggest the same to you.

It seems to me that you've conjured up a bizarre idea that the teams involved in games that are classified as 'National' and broadcasted in that regard are given extra compensation for being a participant in those games. You have provided no evidence to that effect which is consistent with your previous assumption errors when it comes to NHL broadcasting rights when you assumed that "Almost all of the Leaf's games are broadcast nationally..." when in fact, it's been shown a large number of their games, broadcasted on RSN and Leafs TV and a portion of TSN games are not and are regional only broadcasts where out of market fans would need to purchase the Centre Ice Package to view them.

[VCR]

From the perspective of other owners though, I doubt any of them have any interest in seeing the richest franchise in the league start to annex other franchises. They don't want one ownership group to gain disproportionate power.

Given the way the NHL currently operates, a small minority of the ownership group already has disproportionate power. The suggestions I've made is that MLSE would be given a minority stake in a second franchise not have controlling interest in two Toronto franchises, that would give them further incentive to allow a second team to use their building ... and again that suggestion was made if the PHX deal fell through (as of time of this posting it hasn't been ratified), and they needed to move the franchise to the best available location by next season.

[VCR]

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2012/10/08/nhl-glendale-looking-to-kick-coyotes.html

Glendale has been paying the NHL 25 million bucks a year to prevent them from moving the team. They have continued to extend the deal, pending the finalization of a sale of the team.





Yeah, my bad for not checking the forbes site before making the flippant comment.

But even after receiving 18M in revenue sharing, they still had a -15.5M loss in the G&M estimates for 10/11. The 25M gov't subsidy was given to "operate the facility." But in effect it could be used to cover the losses incurred by the team.

Therefore, even with a 25M gov't subsidy, PHX weren't a profitable team.

If they stay in PHX, they will still be subsidized by not only the local gov't for "managing the arena" but will almost certainly be subsidized by the NHL i.e. "the have" teams that pay into revenue sharing.

Their new deal, should it be agreed to "operate the facility" will be reduced to about 15M per season on average. That would be 10M less than what they were getting previously. How does the math work where they would be operating in the black where they won't be the biggest benefactor of revenue sharing from the league?


The revenues are not static. The NHL has simply been a care taker. Any new owner will surely seek to chart a path to being more profitable. Jamison wouldn't be interested in buying the team if he didn't think he could make money.


I don't think the PHX franchise has been profitable. That's why they rely significantly on revenue sharing from the NHL and local gov't subsidies to keep afloat. Okay, they will see a reduction from their Gov't subsidy reduced about 10M on average if their new deal with the local gov't is completed. It seems to me that their business is not self-sustaining and in the future will require a greater amount from revenue sharing (i.e. taking money from profitable NHL clubs) in the new CBA to make up from the 10M on avg. reduction of their gov't subsidy, especially if we see the cap floor going higher and thus their expenses go higher, unless of course they can generate increased revenue on their own which would include but not limited to ..... actually convince people to make their way to the arena attend their games and actually fill the empty seats with real people and not in a Clint Eastwood type of way.

[VCR]

We were talking specifically about media. This media market is already saturated with hockey. Few new fans will be created. Most will just be people who used to be fans of other teams.


A new team in Toronto would have little effect on the number of people who actually watch hockey in Toronto or Canada, and likely little effect on the number of games people watch. The market is already saturated with hockey.



There will be more media coverage of hockey with two teams. Another team means new regional broadcast radio and television deals. The newspapers will have to hire another reporter(s) to cover the other TO team.

Look at how successful the EPL is having having multiple teams in one city. One quarter of their league i.e. 5 teams are based in London. In Manchester, they have 2 teams. In Liverpool, they have 2. Part of the reason why it's so popular is the fact that they are based in the same city. They call them 'derbies.' A second team in TOR, would create an instant rivalry that would exceed any current rivalry sooner rather than later. Having teams within the same regional area/city creates rivalries and interest in the sport. That's why the MLB now has inter-league play. They realized that fans love to see games between teams where they are most exposed to coverage of said teams. i.e. The subway series with the Mets/Yankees etc..

People will watch more hockey with a second team in the Toronto area, especially those who live there.

[BornRuff]

There will be more media coverage of hockey with two teams. Another team means new regional broadcast radio and television deals. The newspapers will have to hire another reporter(s) to cover the other TO team.

Look at how successful the EPL is having having multiple teams in one city. One quarter of their league i.e. 5 teams are based in London. In Manchester, they have 2 teams. In Liverpool, they have 2. Part of the reason why it's so popular is the fact that they are based in the same city. They call them 'derbies.' A second team in TOR, would create an instant rivalry that would exceed any current rivalry sooner rather than later. Having teams within the same regional area/city creates rivalries and interest in the sport. That's why the MLB now has inter-league play. They realized that fans love to see games between teams where they are most exposed to coverage of said teams. i.e. The subway series with the Mets/Yankees etc..

People will watch more hockey with a second team in the Toronto area, especially those who live there.

The EPL is a very different business. England itself is only about the size of Southern Ontario to begin with.

The rest of this has already been addressed.

[BornRuff]

I don't think the PHX franchise has been profitable. That's why they rely significantly on revenue sharing from the NHL and local gov't subsidies to keep afloat. Okay, they will see a reduction from their Gov't subsidy reduced about 10M on average if their new deal with the local gov't is completed. It seems to me that their business is not self-sustaining and in the future will require a greater amount from revenue sharing (i.e. taking money from profitable NHL clubs) in the new CBA to make up from the 10M on avg. reduction of their gov't subsidy, especially if we see the cap floor going higher and thus their expenses go higher, unless of course they can generate increased revenue on their own which would include but not limited to ..... actually convince people to make their way to the arena attend their games and actually fill the empty seats with real people and not in a Clint Eastwood type of way.

Lol, what tipped you off to that? A good rule of thumb is that when companies go bankrupt, it is usually a sign they are not profitable.

That being said, Jamison wouldn't be interested in buying the team if he didn't think he could make money.

[BornRuff]

I would suggest the same to you.

It seems to me that you've conjured up a bizarre idea that the teams involved in games that are classified as 'National' and broadcasted in that regard are given extra compensation for being a participant in those games. You have provided no evidence to that effect which is consistent with your previous assumption errors when it comes to NHL broadcasting rights when you assumed that "Almost all of the Leaf's games are broadcast nationally..." when in fact, it's been shown a large number of their games, broadcasted on RSN and Leafs TV and a portion of TSN games are not and are regional only broadcasts where out of market fans would need to purchase the Centre Ice Package to view them.

Your assertion was that a team would make more money by having fewer nationally televised games. You have not provided any evidence of this. Just repeating the same general info that doesn't address this specific point doesn't get us anywhere.

[BornRuff]

Given the way the NHL currently operates, a small minority of the ownership group already has disproportionate power. The suggestions I've made is that MLSE would be given a minority stake in a second franchise not have controlling interest in two Toronto franchises, that would give them further incentive to allow a second team to use their building ... and again that suggestion was made if the PHX deal fell through (as of time of this posting it hasn't been ratified), and they needed to move the franchise to the best available location by next season.

I have already provided a list of cities that would be happen to welcome an NHL team.

Your suggestion goes against the rules of the NHL and their stated business plan. It is not worth discussing anymore.

[VCR]

Lol, what tipped you off to that? A good rule of thumb is that when companies go bankrupt, it is usually a sign they are not profitable.

dude, it was in reply to your previous comment:


The revenues are not static. The NHL has simply been a care taker. Any new owner will surely seek to chart a path to being more profitable. Jamison wouldn't be interested in buying the team if he didn't think he could make money.


:facepalm:

[VCR]

Your assertion was that a team would make more money by having fewer nationally televised games. You have not provided any evidence of this. Just repeating the same general info that doesn't address this specific point doesn't get us anywhere.

Yes I have. Try to read the context in which the mowat centre report was writing in the way national rights revenues are re-distributed among the member clubs.

I truly believe you just have a problem with accepting the fact that your cockamamie reasoning to suggest otherwise is wrong and is based on the same kind of myopic mentality when you went goofy and waxingly poetic on the infallibility of PED testing in pro cycling to your own peril.

[VCR]

I have already provided a list of cities that would be happen to welcome an NHL team.

The question was not about a list of cities that would "welcome" an NHL team but to identify the market that would likely yield the best results in terms of being a profitable business and in the best interest of the NHL if a team was relocated e.g. PHX. A second team in Toronto would be the first choice followed by locating a team in one of its suburb.



Your suggestion goes against the rules of the NHL and their stated business plan. It is not worth discussing anymore.

As we have seen with the CBA negotiations, the owners would change their "rules" to what suits them in the present and in the future if they feel it would benefit them. Business plans are not static. lol.

[BornRuff]

Yes I have. Try to read the context in which the mowat centre report was writing in the way national rights revenues are re-distributed among the member clubs.

I truly believe you just have a problem with accepting the fact that your cockamamie reasoning to suggest otherwise is wrong and is based on the same kind of myopic mentality when you went goofy and waxingly poetic on the infallibility of PED testing in pro cycling to your own peril.

The authors at the Mowat Center did not provide any of the type of specific info that you would need to prove the point you are trying to make. They have some general info on how the pie is divided up, but what you are looking for is nitty gritty details on how exactly the pie is made in the first place.

We need info on how the NHL allocates games for regional broadcast, and what happens when teams that get more or less national coverage.

[BornRuff]

The question was not about a list of cities that would "welcome" an NHL team but to identify the market that would likely yield the best results in terms of being a profitable business and in the best interest of the NHL if a team was relocated e.g. PHX. A second team in Toronto would be the first choice followed by locating a team in one of its suburb.




As we have seen with the CBA negotiations, the owners would change their "rules" to what suits them in the present and in the future if they feel it would benefit them. Business plans are not static. lol.

The NHL has never indicated that that is their order by any means.

KC and Seattle both have Arenas that Phoenix could move into. Business plans can change, but there is no indication that the league wants to change in that direction. Provide even the slightest big of proof that they are interested in doing this, and then we can continue this.

[VCR]

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/10/25/beezer-its-a-rinky-dink-game

By Steve Buffery ,Toronto Sun

First posted: Thursday, October 25, 2012 06:41 PM EDT | Updated: Friday, October 26, 2012 03:45 PM EDT



IT'D BE AN ACT OF A DESPERATE LEAGUE

As for Toronto getting another NHL team: This is like a watching an organ grinder with a drunken monkey. Painful.

Yes, I believe the GTA could support another franchise. But moving teams to markets with existing franchises, to me, smacks of desperation.

A second team in Toronto would make the NHL look bush league.

Uh, No, Mr. Buffery. Moving a team to the GTA and in the Toronto would be a show of intelligence by the NHL if its goal is to actually improve its business.

Does the NFL or EPL (the world's two most popular and successful sports leagues) "look bush" by having multiple teams in their key core markets?

[VCR]

A blogger on hockey buzz comments on the PHX situation:

http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Richard-Cloutier/NHL-Lockout-Could-Kill-Coyotes-Franchise/131/47230


Over the last number of years, the Coyotes have been losing money somewhere in the $40mil - $50mil per season range. The City of Glendale and the NHL itself have stepped in to save the team numerous times from financial disaster. Both sides have been working to keep the team in Phoenix, and part of what's required for that to happen is a viable CBA between the NHL and the NHLPA.

Without an NHL season comes more financial hardship for the Coyotes, but the news gets worse. An upcoming election in Glendale could determine the fate of the city's support for the club. Aside from some candidates supporting the team more than others, there is an initiative on the ballot that would defeat a sales tax increase that would see funds channeled to maintain the team. Election day is November 6, and word is, current members of city council are already working to clawback elements of the deal they made with potential arena manager Greg Jamison to save the Coyotes.

With no immediate new home for the Coyotes available , defeat of the sales tax increase could be a death nail to the franchise. We're not talking relocation here. We're talking the end. Contraction. A 29 team NHL.

I don't see contraction occurring as the end game for the PHX franchise if a worse case scenario presents itself. I think they'd try to move it to the GTA and specifically try to move them to Toronto and play in the ACC before they entertain those thoughts.

[VCR]

Given the way the NHL currently operates, a small minority of the ownership group[s] already has disproportionate power.

re: http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/opinion/2012/10/30-thoughts-lockouts-chock-full-of-familiar-refrains.html

According to Freidman:


The commish has three groups of owners: the ones who want to play; the ones in the middle, including Tampa and Nashville, who want a better collective bargaining agreement but recognize not playing is worse; and the hardliners. It would be a mistake to underestimate the last group. There are several who would rather cancel the season than accept a bad deal because they are hemorrhaging money and need immediate satisfaction.

While the players believe Boston Bruins owner Jeremy Jacobs is calling the shots, an educated guess at the final group includes but may not be limited to Anaheim, Columbus, Florida, the Islanders, Phoenix, St. Louis, Washington and Dallas -- enough to block any agreement from getting done (It's tough to lock it down because owners are forbidden to discuss this stuff. Attempts to talk to a couple were politely shot down).

This group is the biggest challenge for both the commissioner and the players.

But one year ago, Berger reported that the NBA's "Hard-Line Nine" -- Atlanta, Charlotte, Indiana, Memphis, Milwaukee, Minnesota, Philadelphia, Portland and Washington -- wanted much tougher concessions than Stern proposed. Three weeks later, there was a new CBA. If you believe this entire play is scripted, and some people really do, here's hoping no one changes the ending.

I guess Bettman represents PHX as they are currently collectively owned by the league pending the approval of sale to Jamison et al..

[VCR]

"Why NHL Will Not Re-Locate to Toronto"

By HOWARD BERGER

http://www.bergerbytes.ca/2012/10/why-nhl-will-not-re-locate-to-toronto/


TORONTO (Oct. 26) – Do not expect the Phoenix Coyotes, New Jersey Devils, Florida Panthers, or any club bleeding red ink in the National Hockey League to re-locate here in the Greater Toronto Area. It has nothing to do with the NHL preserving the Maple Leafs’ territorial charter, which the league constitution defines as such: Each member club shall have exclusive territorial rights in the city in which it is located and within 50 miles of that city’s corporate limits. This exemption would technically preclude the NHL from establishing a team in the city of Markham, which is proposing to build a $325-million sports and entertainment complex that includes a 20,000-seat arena. Markham is located 18.7 miles northeast of the Air Canada Centre in downtown Toronto. The desire to prevent an existing club from moving to the GTA is rooted in economics. “There will be a second team in the Toronto area – it’s just a matter of time,” a veteran league source told me. “The money and hockey interest in that region cannot be ignored. But, the NHL will preserve the market for expansion. It could charge $300 million for a new team, which is light-years ahead of a transfer fee (True North Sports and Entertainment paid the NHL $60 million last year for re-location of the Atlanta Thrashers to Winnipeg). Expansion to the Toronto area would provide each of the existing clubs $10 million. That’s why the NHL will not re-locate to Markham.” A $300 million expansion fee would dwarf the $80 million paid by Columbus and Minnesota in the most-recent expansion – for the 2000-01 season. Why, you may ask, would the Leafs not move heaven and earth to prevent another club from breaching their territory? Two-fold and simple: a) an expansion team would have to indemnify Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment. The last NHL indemnification was in 1993, when the Anaheim Ducks forked over $25 million to the Los Angeles Kings. And, b) the Leafs new ownership conglomerate – a 50/50 venture between rivals Bell Media and Rogers Communications – would presumably welcome the added “content” from another Toronto team. It would profoundly enhance television, radio and digital platforms for each company, off-setting market saturation. As my source pointed out, it’s a matter of “when” not “if”…

I would have to disagree with Mr. Berger when it comes to the PHX as it currently stands. Because right now the NHL (i.e. the remaining 29 franchise owners) owns the club.

IF the deal between the NHL and the Jamison Group falls apart due to issues with the local gov't, they will be looking to re-locate the team, asap. Toronto, specifically the ACC would provide the most effective place to put the team.

Mr. Berger argues the small "relocation" fee given in past transactions. That's a moot point in PHX's case. Why? If PHX is re-located while owned by the NHL, all the money from the sale is essentially re-distributed between the remaining 29 owners. It may be small, but that's still a better 1/29 sharing ratio for the current owners versus 1/30 sharing in an expansion scenarios in the future.

As per the $300M expansion fee that a Toronto area team could command, while I would argue that the NHL could sell a re-located club in the GTA (specifically Toronto, play in the ACC) for over $330M and probably more ... upwards to 400M given that it's a playoffs contending team already with competent staff and you don't have build things up from the ground up.

Tell me I'm wrong.

[dankup]

^So then why are they signing the papers for the new sports arena in Markham if the NHL has the 50 mile diameter limit?

[BornRuff]

"Why NHL Will Not Re-Locate to Toronto"

By HOWARD BERGER

http://www.bergerbytes.ca/2012/10/why-nhl-will-not-re-locate-to-toronto/



I would have to disagree with Mr. Berger when it comes to the PHX as it currently stands. Because right now the NHL (i.e. the remaining 29 franchise owners) owns the club.

IF the deal between the NHL and the Jamison Group falls apart due to issues with the local gov't, they will be looking to re-locate the team, asap. Toronto, specifically the ACC would provide the most effective place to put the team.

Mr. Berger argues the small "relocation" fee given in past transactions. That's a moot point in PHX's case. Why? If PHX is re-located while owned by the NHL, all the money from the sale is essentially re-distributed between the remaining 29 owners. It may be small, but that's still a better 1/29 sharing ratio for the current owners versus 1/30 sharing in an expansion scenarios in the future.

As per the $300M expansion fee that a Toronto area team could command, while I would argue that the NHL could sell a re-located club in the GTA (specifically Toronto, play in the ACC) for over $330M and probably more ... upwards to 400M given that it's a playoffs contending team already with competent staff and you don't have build things up from the ground up.

Tell me I'm wrong.

The quote itself already explained why you are wrong.

If we are generous, the relocation fee might be 100 million. 100 million divided by 29 is not more than 300 million divided by 30. And this is 300 million on top of whatever they are eventually able to sell Phoenix for any possibly a relocation fee from them too. The money from the sale of the team itself is kind of moot since the league will mostly just be recouping its costs of buying the team in the first place and fighting all of these battles.

Toronto is a cash cow for the league. They will not hastily move a team there. When another team does arrive, it will be done carefully and deliberately.

[VCR]

The quote itself already explained why you are wrong.

If we are generous, the relocation fee might be 100 million. 100 million divided by 29 is not more than 300 million divided by 30. And this is 300 million on top of whatever they are eventually able to sell Phoenix for any possibly a relocation fee from them too. The money from the sale of the team itself is kind of moot since the league will mostly just be recouping its costs of buying the team in the first place and fighting all of these battles.

Toronto is a cash cow for the league. They will not hastily move a team there. When another team does arrive, it will be done carefully and deliberately.

The NHL already has 140M invested in the PHX club when they bought it. They own the team.

The sale to Jamison was for 170M. If the PHX deal falls apart, the NHL moves i.e. re-locates the team to the ACC in Toronto. Keeping it in PHX without local gov't support is a non-starter. Then they sell it for 330M or more and split it among the 29 member teams. That's more money back than expansion fee cited as previously explained.

[BornRuff]

The NHL already has 140M invested in the PHX club when they bought it. They own the team.

The sale to Jamison was for 170M. If the PHX deal falls apart, the NHL moves i.e. re-locates the team to the ACC in Toronto. Keeping it in PHX without local gov't support is a non-starter. Then they sell it for 330M or more and split it among the 29 member teams. That's more money back than expansion fee cited as previously explained.

lol, try that math again.

[VCR]

lol, try that math again.

lol ... I didn't explain that I was connecting the two articles as both were on my mind and that's why things are a bit convoluted. Which explained in a worst case scenerio, if the league may actually consider "folding" the team i.e. contracting if things go awry in the PHX deal. I actually don't see that happening. But if "contracting" was actually on the table, that would make the 140M "loss" until you make that money back by adding another franchise back to make it 30 teams.

If you contract PHX and add Toronto as an expansion team @ 300M to maintain a 30 team league, you're up only 160M because of the scenerio I painted above.

IMO, if they determined PHX was completely a lost cause, they would JUST re-locate it to the best market available i.e. Toronto pending co-operation from MLSE. And they can literally name their price. The 330M+ number was about the bare minimum that would compensate the difference of contracting a team and (causing all the potential issues the blogger describes when a team is dissolved) and expanding to Toronto afterwards. They could and would likely get more via a re-located team to TOR.

Perhaps Tanenbaum, for example might want to sell his share of the Maple Leafs and other assets of MLSE, but keep his share of the building and use those funds to finance the purchase as he would be a sole owner of a second team in TOR that plays in the ACC and be the ultimate decision maker for the franchise.

[BornRuff]

lol ... I didn't explain that I was connecting the two articles. Which explained in a worst case scenerio, if the league may actually consider "folding" the team i.e. contracting if things go awry in the PHX deal. I actually don't see that happening. But if "contracting" was actually on the table, that would make the 140M "loss" until you make that money back by adding another franchise back to make it 30 teams.

If you contract PHX and add Toronto as an expansion team @ 300M to maintain a 30 team league, you're up only 160M because of the scenerio I painted above.

IMO, if they determined PHX was completely a lost cause, they would JUST re-locate it to the best market available i.e. Toronto pending co-operation from MLSE. And they can literally name their price. The 330M+ number was the bare minimum that would compensate the difference of contracting a team and (causing all the potential issues the blogger describes when a team is dissolved) and expanding to Toronto afterwards. They could and would likely get more via a re-located team to TOR.

Perhaps Tanenbaum, for example would want to sell his share of the Maple Leafs and other assets of MLSE, but keep his share of the building and use those funds to finance the purchase as he would be a sole owner of a second team in TOR that plays in the ACC and be the ultimate decision maker for the franchise.

This line of thinking seems to be proven incorrect by the many many times teams have been deemed unable to survive in their current city, but moved to place other than Toronto. Why didn't Atlanta move to Toronto?

Toronto is too valuable to be used as a crash landing site. When another teams is introduced to Toronto, it will not be rushed in any way.

[VCR]

This line of thinking seems to be proven incorrect by the many many times teams have been deemed unable to survive in their current city, but moved to place other than Toronto. Why didn't Atlanta move to Toronto?

Re-location and expansion was done previously to expand their presence in the US Market. It isn't surprising that many of those teams are the ones that are struggling. Atlanta wasn't owned by the NHL and the 29 other member teams like the situation they have with PHX. If the deal with the Jamison group goes through, all this discussion is moot but I don't see things improving much with their ability to generate their own revenue and not getting subsidized via revenue sharing by the other teams should they stay there.


Toronto is too valuable to be used as a crash landing site. When another teams is introduced to Toronto, it will not be rushed in any way.

The NHL has owned the PHX team for several years, you would have to imagine they would have planned several exit strategies after failing numerous times to find an ownership group willing and able to take the team off their hands.

[VCR]

^So then why are they signing the papers for the new sports arena in Markham if the NHL has the 50 mile diameter limit?

The "restriction" can be lifted. The team entering the marketplace pays an Indemnity fee.

[VCR]

re: http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/opinion/2012/10/30-thoughts-lockouts-chock-full-of-familiar-refrains.html

According to Freidman:


The commish has three groups of owners: the ones who want to play; the ones in the middle, including Tampa and Nashville, who want a better collective bargaining agreement but recognize not playing is worse; and the hardliners. It would be a mistake to underestimate the last group. There are several who would rather cancel the season than accept a bad deal because they are hemorrhaging money and need immediate satisfaction.

While the players believe Boston Bruins owner Jeremy Jacobs is calling the shots, an educated guess at the final group includes but may not be limited to Anaheim, Columbus, Florida, the Islanders, Phoenix, St. Louis, Washington and Dallas -- enough to block any agreement from getting done (It's tough to lock it down because owners are forbidden to discuss this stuff. Attempts to talk to a couple were politely shot down).

Note the teams that were expansion teams or re-located under the Bettman era (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Bettman#Expansion_and_relocation) that are alleged to be the "hard liners" from keeping a compromise deal to take place:

Anaheim, Columbus, Florida, Phoenix, and Dallas

[BornRuff]

Re-location and expansion was done previously to expand their presence in the US Market. It isn't surprising that many of those teams are the ones that are struggling. Atlanta wasn't owned by the NHL and the 29 other member teams like the situation they have with PHX. If the deal with the Jamison group goes through, all this discussion is moot but I don't see things improving much with their ability to generate their own revenue and not getting subsidized via revenue sharing by the other teams should they stay there.



The NHL has owned the PHX team for several years, you would have to imagine they would have planned several exit strategies after failing numerous times to find an ownership group willing and able to take the team off their hands.

How does the ownership of the team really change where it would be most logical to move a struggling team? If Toronto was at the top of the list of places to move a team, the Thrashers would be in Toronto right now.

The NHL would certainly have exit strategies, but there is nothing to suggest that one of them is the plan you have been suggesting. I think you need to apply Occam's razor here. They can easily sell the team if they just allow it to be moved to somewhere like Seattle, KC, or Quebec City. That requires way fewer leaps of faith than assuming that the NHL would also want to rush a new team into Toronto, would want to fundamentally change ownership rules, and that an agreement could be worked out to have them play in the ACC and share the same broadcast region in a timely fashion. You should stick to the answers that don't require so many assumptions to work.

[VCR]

How does the ownership of the team really change where it would be most logical to move a struggling team? If Toronto was at the top of the list of places to move a team, the Thrashers would be in Toronto right now.

Because it's the problem of the 29 other owners who own the team right now in PHX. In ATL, it was the problem of just one group of owners mainly who were absorbing the losses.



The NHL would certainly have exit strategies, but there is nothing to suggest that one of them is the plan you have been suggesting. I think you need to apply Occam's razor here. They can easily sell the team if they just allow it to be moved to somewhere like Seattle, KC, or Quebec City. That requires way fewer leaps of faith than assuming that the NHL would also want to rush a new team into Toronto, would want to fundamentally change ownership rules, and that an agreement could be worked out to have them play in the ACC and share the same broadcast region in a timely fashion. You should stick to the answers that don't require so many assumptions to work.

Another team in Toronto offers their best opportunity to have a successful franchise. As for ownership issues, they don't necessarily need MLSE to own a part of it. They can have Tanenbaum for example, be the sole owner of the new team and have him sell his Leafs interest. Or have a new group of owners buy the franchise. MLSE would benefit from having another high quality long term sports property, the broadcasting owners i.e. Bell/Rogers benefit from getting access to more content.

KC isn't a proven hockey market, likewise Seattle isn't but should do okay when they get their new building. Quebec is a hockey market, but its so much smaller market than GTA and there's a reason why they left in the first place.

Neither Seattle or Quebec have NHL calibre rinks, and until they actually have them built, they would be a liability to the league. Toronto has an NHL calibre rink and the population and interest to support them and is the most "ready" place to re-locate a team, pending co-operation from MLSE.

[BornRuff]

Because it's the problem of the 29 other owners who own the team right now in PHX. In ATL, it was the problem of just one group of owners mainly who were absorbing the losses.

It doesn't matter if the league owns the team or not. The league wants to maximize revenues.



Another team in Toronto offers their best opportunity to have a successful franchise. As for ownership issues, they don't necessarily need MLSE to own a part of it. They can have Tanenbaum for example, be the sole owner of the new team and have him sell his Leafs interest. Or have a new group of owners buy the franchise. MLSE would benefit from having another high quality long term sports property, the broadcasting owners i.e. Bell/Rogers benefit from getting access to more content.

KC isn't a proven hockey market, likewise Seattle isn't but should do okay when they get their new building. Quebec is a hockey market, but its so much smaller market than GTA and there's a reason why they left in the first place.

Neither Seattle or Quebec have NHL calibre rinks, and until they actually have them built, they would be a liability to the league. Toronto has an NHL calibre rink and the population and interest to support them and is the most "ready" place to re-locate a team, pending co-operation from MLSE.

Both Seattle and QC have rinks that can handle over 15k, and QC will have a brand spanking new arena very soon.

Why would Tanenbaum want to buy a new team when he declined to purchase the Leafs outright?

[jadefrog]

How does the ownership of the team really change where it would be most logical to move a struggling team? If Toronto was at the top of the list of places to move a team, the Thrashers would be in Toronto right now.

Not really. Where a team relocates is more or less at the whimsy of the person who owns the team, as long as the Board of Governors approves it.

[BornRuff]

Not really. Where a team relocates is more or less at the whimsy of the person who owns the team, as long as the Board of Governors approves it.

Approval by the Board of Governors is the key part to that. We saw how many times Balsillie attempted to move different teams and was constantly shut down.

[VCR]

It doesn't matter if the league owns the team or not. The league wants to maximize revenues.

Yeah it does, because they the (29 member teams) are owning a current liability in PHX, not just one group of owners, so there is incentive to put it in the best market and maximize their return.



Both Seattle and QC have rinks that can handle over 15k, and QC will have a brand spanking new arena very soon.

Until the NEW rinks are actually built and you're playing in them and you can generate revenue from them, you're not really improving the situation by relocating a team in a decrepit building. That would be like another Nassau Coliseum situation where you'd be losing money until you're able to move. Toronto, imo, is the ONLY NHL market that could sustain another NHL team in its market and be profitable for both. I know it won't well work in the Vancouver area given its current population. It would take at least several decades if not more before you can even think of it capable of supporting a second team.



Why would Tanenbaum want to buy a new team when he declined to purchase the Leafs outright?

I don't know about the specific details, do you? I believe the OTPP was selling their entire MLSE empire ownership as a package. Did he [Tanenbaum] have enough capital to purchase it? It took a partnership of Bell/Rogers to come up with the 1.3B.

[BornRuff]

Yeah it does, because they the (29 member teams) are owning a current liability in PHX, not just one group of owners, so there is incentive to put it in the best market and maximize their return.

The team in Phoenix is an asset. They might be able to sell it in Phoenix, but if not, they can sell it in any number of other cities. The difference between the price they would get selling it in QC, KC, or Seattle vs selling it in Toronto wouldn't add up to all that much per owner. If they believe in Bettman's plan, they would not see this as worthwhile at all.

When has a professional sports league ever decided to start get into the team flipping business? When a team is in trouble, it is a liability for the entire league no matter who owns it, since we know what happens when a team goes bankrupt.


Until the NEW rinks are actually built and you're playing in them and you can generate revenue from them, you're not really improving the situation by relocating a team in a decrepit building. That would be like another Nassau Coliseum situation where you'd be losing money until you're able to move. Toronto, imo, is the ONLY NHL market that could currently sustain two NHL teams and be profitable. I know it won't well work in the Vancouver area given its current population. It would take at least several decades if not more before you can even think of it capable of supporting a second team.

You really think that a team in QC would lose money playing in Colisée Pepsi for a few seasons?

Who says they have to move a team into a city with another team?


I don't know about the specific details, do you? I believe the OTPP was selling their entire MLSE empire ownership as a package. Did he [Tanenbaum] have enough capital to purchase it? It took a partnership of Bell/Rogers to come up with the 1.3B.

Tenenbaum had the right to first refusal on any deal. It likely would not have been that difficult to find investors who would want to buy into Tanenbaum's company as part of a bid to gain a majority or 100% stake in the company.

[jadefrog]

Approval by the Board of Governors is the key part to that. We saw how many times Balsillie attempted to move different teams and was constantly shut down.

He was shut down because he wasn't playing by the NHL's rules. Not because he chose Hamilton as a destination.

[BornRuff]

He was shut down because he wasn't playing by the NHL's rules. Not because he chose Hamilton as a destination.

The main rule he was breaking was that he wasn't allowed to move a team to Hamilton.

The NHL, and any professional sports league, is very careful and deliberate about where they want their franchises to operate.

[jadefrog]

The main rule he was breaking was that he wasn't allowed to move a team to Hamilton.

The NHL, and any professional sports league, is very careful and deliberate about where they want their franchises to operate.

Whether he would have been allowed to move a team to Hamilton would have been stipulated in the purchase contract, which was never drawn up, and would have been at the behest of the group selling the team, and subsequently subject to BoG approval.

The BoG would not have approved Balsillie as an owner in any case. He was far too cocky. They straight up didn't like him.

Great foresight, though. His net worth is too low after RIM's stock crash to be able to operate an NHL franchise.

[BornRuff]

Whether he would have been allowed to move a team to Hamilton would have been stipulated in the purchase contract, which was never drawn up, and would have been at the behest of the group selling the team, and subsequently subject to BoG approval.

The BoG would not have approved Balsillie as an owner in any case. He was far too cocky. They straight up didn't like him.

Great foresight, though. His net worth is too low after RIM's stock crash to be able to operate an NHL franchise.

A group selling a team has no ability to say if the team can move or not. That is up to the NHL. They can ask the new owner if they are planning to move the team and possibly refuse to sell it to anyone who is saying they will pack up the team, but if an ownership group sells a team, whatever they tell the new owners about if they can or can't move is pretty meaningless.

Balsillie certainly didn't do himself any favors by being cocky, but the ultimate stumbling block in every case was his insistence on moving the team. He withdrew his bid for the Penguins when the NHL told him he had to keep the team there, he wouldn't sign a firm offer for Nashville, seemingly until he was given the green light to move to Hamilton, and then with Phoenix he spelled it out in the offer that he made. Lots of rich people are cocky, they can handle that on its own. It was his proclivity for bad faith negotiations with team owners, all connected to his dream of moving a team to Hamilton, that really caused his failure. When it came around to his bid for Phoenix, it didn't help that the two ownership groups that he had *****ed around with still had seats on the BoG.

[jadefrog]

A group selling a team has no ability to say if the team can move or not.

This is completely untrue, and was a major sticking point in the Balsillie deal. He would have been approved as an owner if he signed a purchase contract with a clause indicating that he would not relocate the franchise. He refused, and held out for removal of the clause, which he never got. You can look this up.


Balsillie certainly didn't do himself any favors by being cocky, but the ultimate stumbling block in every case was his insistence on moving the team. He withdrew his bid for the Penguins when the NHL told him he had to keep the team there, he wouldn't sign a firm offer for Nashville, seemingly until he was given the green light to move to Hamilton, and then with Phoenix he spelled it out in the offer that he made. Lots of rich people are cocky, they can handle that on its own. It was his proclivity for bad faith negotiations with team owners, all connected to his dream of moving a team to Hamilton, that really caused his failure. When it came around to his bid for Phoenix, it didn't help that the two ownership groups that he had *****ed around with still had seats on the BoG.

I don't disagree with any of that.

The point is, and we're a ways away from it now, the BoG doesn't choose relocation based on whether it's the best possible market for generating revenue. The owner of the franchise picks the relocation spot, and the BoG simply approves or doesn't.

[BornRuff]

This is completely untrue, and was a major sticking point in the Balsillie deal. He would have been approved as an owner if he signed a purchase contract with a clause indicating that he would not relocate the franchise. He refused, and held out for removal of the clause, which he never got. You can look this up.

Which deal are you talking about?

Like I said though, owners can chose to refuse to sell to someone for almost any reason. An owner telling a buyer that they are allowed to move a team is pretty meaningless though, since they don't have that power.


I don't disagree with any of that.

The point is, and we're a ways away from it now, the BoG doesn't choose relocation based on whether it's the best possible market for generating revenue. The owner of the franchise picks the relocation spot, and the BoG simply approves or doesn't.

The NHL is a lot more involved in these deals than that. Theoretically I guess an owner could just pick a place they want to move a team to a take it to the BoG, but in practice, successful deals are worked out with the NHL well before any BoG vote. There are a lot of people who want to own NHL teams in a lot of different places. The NHL knows who these people are and knows where they want teams to be, and they help make sure that these deals happen. Owners or potential owners are free to make suggestions, but the NHL holds the keys.

[jadefrog]

Which deal are you talking about?

Balsillie's attempt to purchase the Coyotes.


The NHL is a lot more involved in these deals than that. Theoretically I guess an owner could just pick a place they want to move a team to a take it to the BoG, but in practice, successful deals are worked out with the NHL well before any BoG vote. There are a lot of people who want to own NHL teams in a lot of different places. The NHL knows who these people are and knows where they want teams to be, and they help make sure that these deals happen. Owners or potential owners are free to make suggestions, but the NHL holds the keys.

The NHL does have the right to collectively veto any expansion or relocation, but they won't shut down one such item simply because there may be a more profitable venture somewhere else.

[BornRuff]

Balsillie's attempt to purchase the Coyotes.



The NHL does have the right to collectively veto any expansion or relocation, but they won't shut down one such item simply because there may be a more profitable venture somewhere else.

That is exactly why they would veto something.

[jadefrog]

That is exactly why they would veto something.

They have never done that.

The only time we might see a veto in upcoming expansion or relocation is if there comes a second team opportunity in Greater Toronto, in which case the Maple Leafs would either attempt a veto or demand an exorbitant sum of cash for infringing on their territory.

[VCR]

The team in Phoenix is an asset. They might be able to sell it in Phoenix, but if not, they can sell it in any number of other cities. The difference between the price they would get selling it in QC, KC, or Seattle vs selling it in Toronto wouldn't add up to all that much per owner. If they believe in Bettman's plan, they would not see this as worthwhile at all.

The team in Phx is generating losses for the 29 member teams directly if they don't get the subsidy from local gov't. Even with the subsidy, which will be reduced significantly if a new long-term agreement is consummated they would likely still be a burden on the teams that pay into revenue sharing.

Remember the scenario I pointed out was that IF the PHX deal falls apart and local gov't walks away from providing any subsidy what should the NHL do? Continue to operate the PHX franchise there at a loss of 35M+ loss per season before revenue sharing, fold the team (contract) or re-locate it?

In other words, The NHL has the choice of closing down the franchise or running it for another season in PHX at big loss. Moving it to a QC, or Seattle without an NHL ready building means that the franchise will lose money (maybe less) at another location until at least they get their new building completed. KC is another market that has an NHL ready arena but isn't proven like Toronto.

Furthermore, it would be goofy that you'd now place TWO franchises in Missouri ........ the same number of franchises that is currently in Ontario, the BIGGEST hockey market in the world. Especially when St. Louis according to CBC's Friedman as one of the struggling franchises that are part of the "hardliners" alleged to be keeping a compromise deal to be made with the NHLPA.



You really think that a team in QC would lose money playing in Colisée Pepsi for a few seasons?

The cost to renovate it for a few years to make it somewhat acceptable for a couple of years, and the lack of luxury boxes and other amenities and interest that a modern arena offers ........ I doubt it would be profitable until they move into a modern arena. Better to maximize the expansion fee once they actually build a new building with no anchor tenant and then you can squeeze them for the most, particularly if you plan to expand by two teams it makes since to have more than two markets interested to compete against each other for the rights.


Who says they have to move a team into a city with another team?

I say it's just logic and research that suggests or determines that the best available market to re-locate a franchise would be in the GTA. Toronto, the best choice as stated in the Mowat Centre report. They have numbers to back it up. Why don't you provide a set of numbers that suggest otherwise?



Tenenbaum had the right to first refusal on any deal. It likely would not have been that difficult to find investors who would want to buy into Tanenbaum's company as part of a bid to gain a majority or 100% stake in the company.

The question should be whether Tenenbaum had/has enough wealth to be a majority owner of MLSE. Like I said to buy controlling interest in the leafs, you had to buy into the rest of MLSE.

[BornRuff]

They have never done that.

The only time we might see a veto in upcoming expansion or relocation is if there comes a second team opportunity in Greater Toronto, in which case the Maple Leafs would either attempt a veto or demand an exorbitant sum of cash for infringing on their territory.

When you said "collective veto" I assumed you meant the BoG voting against it.

The BoG does and will vote against anything that they don't think is in the best interests of the league. They voted against Balsille's deals numerous times because they didn't want him moving those teams to southern ontario. What you might be getting confused by is the fact that all of this stuff is generally worked out well before any BoG vote. The BoG vote ends up being almost a formality once NHL executives have worked out the deal and are reccomending it to the BoG. If anyone tries to go rogue though, they shut that down immediately.

The NHL's expansion and team relocation is very much actively managed.

[BornRuff]

The team in Phx is generating losses for the 29 member teams directly if they don't get the subsidy from local gov't. Even with the subsidy, which will be reduced significantly if a new long-term agreement is consummated they would likely still be a burden on the teams that pay into revenue sharing.

Remember the scenario I pointed out was that IF the PHX deal falls apart and local gov't walks away from providing any subsidy what should the NHL do? Continue to operate the PHX franchise there at a loss of 35M+ loss per season before revenue sharing, fold the team (contract) or re-locate it?

In other words, The NHL has the choice of closing down the franchise or running it for another season in PHX at big loss. Moving it to a QC, or Seattle without an NHL ready building means that the franchise will lose money (maybe less) at another location until at least they get their new building completed. KC is another market that has an NHL ready arena but isn't proven like Toronto.

Furthermore, it would be goofy that you'd now place TWO franchises in Missouri ........ the same number of franchises that is currently in Ontario, the BIGGEST hockey market in the world. Especially when St. Louis according to CBC's Friedman as one of the struggling franchises that are part of the "hardliners" alleged to be keeping a compromise deal to be made with the NHLPA.

The cost to renovate it for a few years to make it somewhat acceptable for a couple of years, and the lack of luxury boxes and other amenities and interest that a modern arena offers ........ I doubt it would be profitable until they move into a modern arena. Better to maximize the expansion fee once they actually build a new building with no anchor tenant and then you can squeeze them for the most, particularly if you plan to expand by two teams it makes since to have more than two markets interested to compete against each other for the rights.


The team is still an asset that the NHL owns. It is certainly a troubled asset in its current form, but it is still worth well over 100 million dollars, much more if they allow it to be moved.

Playing in the Colisee Pepsi for two years would not be a stumbling block at all. You can certainly make more money with a bigger arena with more private boxes, but they will easily be selling out all 15k+ seats and the available boxes every night. They already have money set aside for improvements if they do land a team before 2015, so renovations are not really an issue.

State lines are not all that salient of an issue.


I say it's just logic and research that suggests or determines that the best available market to re-locate a franchise would be in the GTA. Toronto, the best choice as stated in the Mowat Centre report. They have numbers to back it up. Why don't you provide a set of numbers that suggest otherwise?

I'm pretty sure it actually said that it was the Canadian city most likely able to support two teams, which is a far cry from stating that it is the best market to locate a new NHL team period. It also said Toronto probably could not support two arenas, so it is a bit of a tepid endorsement.

Nobody has ever argued that another team in Toronto would have trouble making money. We are getting so far off course from the actual point here, which is your assertion that MLSE would welcome another team in Toronto and that Toronto is top of the list for where the NHL wants to move a team. All objective observations point to both of those statements being incorrect.



The question should be whether Tenenbaum had/has enough wealth to be a majority owner of MLSE. Like I said to buy controlling interest in the leafs, you had to buy into the rest of MLSE.

You are not comprehending what I said. He had the right of first refusal in terms of purchasing MLSE. Regardless of if he has all the money himself, he could have found people willing to finance or invest in a bid to take a controlling interest in MLSE through his company Kilmer sports. Few individuals own major sports franchises outright. Most of the time the "owner" is the face of a group of investors that have financed the purchase. Even if you have the money, it is often not a good idea to put so much of your own money into one thing. The opportunity for him to have a larger interest in MLSE was there, but he is apparently quite happy with his minority share.

[jadefrog]

The BoG does and will vote against anything that they don't think is in the best interests of the league. They voted against Balsille's deals numerous times because they didn't want him moving those teams to southern ontario.

No. They voted against Balsillie's deals because they didn't like Balsillie. He ran around screaming about relocation before he even had the team. That's incredibly disrespectful and he earned the contempt of the owners.


What you might be getting confused by is the fact that all of this stuff is generally worked out well before any BoG vote.

Not confused - been following this for nearly a decade.


The BoG vote ends up being almost a formality once NHL executives have worked out the deal and are reccomending it to the BoG. If anyone tries to go rogue though, they shut that down immediately.

This sounds made-up.


The NHL's expansion and team relocation is very much actively managed.

To the extent that those with power wish to exert their power when it concerns them, yes. Where were they when Columbus and Nashville got franchises? Where were they when Phoenix relocated their arena to Glendale?

[VCR]

The team is still an asset that the NHL owns. It is certainly a troubled asset in its current form, but it is still worth well over 100 million dollars, much more if they allow it to be moved.

It an asset that loses a ton of money in its current location. That is a fact.


Playing in the Colisee Pepsi for two years would not be a stumbling block at all. You can certainly make more money with a bigger arena with more private boxes, but they will easily be selling out all 15k+ seats and the available boxes every night. They already have money set aside for improvements if they do land a team before 2015, so renovations are not really an issue.

It's still not a better location than Toronto. Far from it.


State lines are not all that salient of an issue.

Market size and interest is. Two NHL franchises in Missouri when you only have two in Ontario? Does that make sense?


I'm pretty sure it actually said that it was the Canadian city most likely able to support two teams, which is a far cry from stating that it is the best market to locate a new NHL team period. It also said Toronto probably could not support two arenas, so it is a bit of a tepid endorsement.

It clearly stated that Toronto or its suburb is the best of all the Canadian options. However, none of its suburbs currently have an NHL calibre arena. That's why Toronto is the best place to place a new or re-located team since it is the only area of the GTA that currently has an NHL calibre arena that you could drop a team and have them play there without much of a delay.

In page 1 in its summary, they wrote:


• The best location for a new team is Ontario’s Greater Golden Horseshoe, a
market of 9 million people that can support 3 NHL teams.
• The best location within the Horseshoe is the Greater Toronto Area, which
can support a second NHL team.

Page 19:


All of these reasons suggest that, despite the presence of the Leafs, Toronto or its suburbs would be the single best location for a new NHL franchise.

Page 20-21: Gives rates the GTA market A to A+

As for supporting two arenas, you don't need to if you place the team in Toronto and have them play at the ACC.


Nobody has ever argued that another team in Toronto would have trouble making money. We are getting so far off course from the actual point here, which is your assertion that MLSE would welcome another team in Toronto and that Toronto is top of the list for where the NHL wants to move a team. All objective observations point to both of those statements being incorrect.

Where are the "objective observations" you write of? What have you stated that "objectively" suggest that MLSE the way its presently constituted wouldn't "welcome" another team, and why wouldn't the NHL want Toronto market to be at the top of the list to place a team there whether it be for re-location of PHX or expansion if the PHX deal with local gov't doesn't go through?




You are not comprehending what I said. He had the right of first refusal in terms of purchasing MLSE. Regardless of if he has all the money himself, he could have found people willing to finance or invest in a bid to take a controlling interest in MLSE through his company Kilmer sports. Few individuals own major sports franchises outright. Most of the time the "owner" is the face of a group of investors that have financed the purchase. Even if you have the money, it is often not a good idea to put so much of your own money into one thing. The opportunity for him to have a larger interest in MLSE was there, but he is apparently quite happy with his minority share.

dude, you are not comprehending what I wrote. The only way Tenenbaum could gain controlling interest in the Leafs was to tie up his capital or form further partnerships to gain controlling interest in not only the Leafs but a similar amount to the rest of MLSE assets which are not as desirable as the Leafs. He couldn't just pick and choose which part he wanted.

Having control of the Leafs and the arena are the two key assets that would be most desirable, imo.

That's the difference between having him tieing up over 500M (estimate on MLSE's overall valuation of 2.25B in 2011) which he has only about a 25% interest in Leafs ownership and 25% ownership in the rest of the properties that make up MLSE that he may be indifferent to, and instead using that 400M-500M or more for in a second NHL Toronto team where he has full 100% ownership of a team and probably a stake in the ACC should a second team move there.

[BornRuff]

No. They voted against Balsillie's deals because they didn't like Balsillie. He ran around screaming about relocation before he even had the team. That's incredibly disrespectful and he earned the contempt of the owners.

Did you not just recently argue that they were willing to allow Balsillie to purchase Phoenix if he agreed not to move the team? Does that not kind of prove that they were still willing to let him own a team even in spite of all the previous accusations of him negotiating in bad faith and being a ***** . The sticking point always came down to his insistence on moving the team.

Personality is one thing, but it is not enough to kill a 9 figure deal on its own.


Not confused - been following this for nearly a decade.



This sounds made-up.



To the extent that those with power wish to exert their power when it concerns them, yes. Where were they when Columbus and Nashville got franchises? Where were they when Phoenix relocated their arena to Glendale?

You really think that it is made up that the NHL is heavily involved in decisions about moving franchises or expansion? They are a multi-billion dollar professional sports organization that is fighting hard to compete with the larger NA leagues. Clearly location of their franchises is a very important issue to them.

What do you mean by "where were they"? The league was obviously involved in all of those decisions. Of the available options, these are the ones that they determined were the best.

If you have been following the business side of hockey, you would realize that teams didn't just organically move into the sun belt. That was part of a deliberate business plan to expand the game in NA. When Atlanta was moved to Winnipeg, it wasn't like True North was the only group that would have been interested in buying a team if they could move it. The NHL knows who those people are and where they want to move a team, and they make the deal that they want happen. The BoG didn't actually vote on it until June 21st, but way back in the previous November Bill Daly was already talking about Winnipeg as a likely area for the Thrashers to end up and Bettman was praising the way True North handled previous bids. Bettman announced the sale in May. They moved the Moose out of the MTS center and sold seasons tickets all well before the BoG actually voted on it.

Nobody has a realistic chance of buying or moving a franchise unless they are essentially anointed by the league. Once that has happened, BoG approval is mostly a formality. If you try to go any other way, you end up like Balsillie.

[BornRuff]

It an asset that loses a ton of money in its current location. That is a fact.



It's still not a better location than Toronto. Far from it.



Market size and interest is. Two NHL franchises in Missouri when you only have two in Ontario? Does that make sense?

Who has ever argued that the Coyotes don't lose money.

We have already beaten the pros and cons of having another team in Toronto to death. It is all on the table.

When you put it that way, it does sound funny to have two franchises in Missouri, but if the numbers look good enough for the NHL, they may go for it. As we have already talked about, the NHL does have a natural proclivity towards having as many teams in US markets as possible.


It clearly stated that Toronto or its suburb is the best of all the Canadian options. However, none of its suburbs currently have an NHL calibre arena. That's why Toronto is the best place to place a new or re-located team since it is the only area of the GTA that currently has an NHL calibre arena that you could drop a team and have them play there without much of a delay.

In page 1 in its summary, they wrote:



Page 19:



Page 20-21: Gives rates the GTA market A to A+

As for supporting two arenas, you don't need to if you place the team in Toronto and have them play at the ACC.



Where are the "objective observations" you write of? What have you stated that "objectively" suggest that MLSE the way its presently constituted wouldn't "welcome" another team, and why wouldn't the NHL want Toronto market to be at the top of the list to place a team there whether it be for re-location of PHX or expansion if the PHX deal with local gov't doesn't go through?

That was exactly my point. Their scope was only Canada, and there is a big US market outside of that. Anyways, again, I am not here to argue that another team in Toronto wouldn't be successful, we all know that.

The objective observations include listening to the response from people within MLSE, like Burke, any time another franchise in Toronto is brought up. They certainly are not laying out a welcome mat. It is clear that the NHL doesn't have Toronto high on their list of places to move a team because they have had ample opportunity to move another team here and have not done so. You don't even here any noise about it being a possibility in the near future. Whenever a move or expansion is even remotely possible, it gets a lot of attention. Everyone knows about these things way in advance.

I am sure it will happen some day, but it wont be a crash landing site, and MLSE wont be happy about it.


dude, you are not comprehending what I wrote. The only way Tenenbaum could gain controlling interest in the Leafs was to tie up his capital or form further partnerships to gain controlling interest in not only the Leafs but a similar amount to the rest of MLSE assets which are not as desirable as the Leafs. He couldn't just pick and choose which part he wanted.

Having control of the Leafs and the arena are the two key assets that would be most desirable, imo.

That's the difference between having him tieing up over 500M (estimate on MLSE's overall valuation of 2.25B in 2011) which he has only about a 25% interest in Leafs ownership and 25% ownership in the rest of the properties that make up MLSE that he may be indifferent to, and instead using that 400M-500M or more for in a second NHL Toronto team where he has full 100% ownership of a team and probably a stake in the ACC should a second team move there.

I am well aware of what MLSE is and have always been talking in terms of buying MLSE. He basically had the ability to create any ownership group that he wanted. He could have mobilized capital to buy at very least a controlling interest if he really desired to do so. He has done very well in his current situation, and it does not seem like he desires much more control.

[jadefrog]

Did you not just recently argue that they were willing to allow Balsillie to purchase Phoenix if he agreed not to move the team? Does that not kind of prove that they were still willing to let him own a team

The Board of Governors had approximately zero input into the sale contract of the Phoenix Coyotes. They would have had the ability to approve or reject it, but other NHL owners are not present when sale contracts for other teams are being drawn up.


Personality is one thing, but it is not enough to kill a 9 figure deal on its own.

If the BoG doesn't think someone will be a good fit for their hockey investment club, yeah it is.



You really think that it is made up that the NHL is heavily involved in decisions about moving franchises or expansion? They are a multi-billion dollar professional sports organization that is fighting hard to compete with the larger NA leagues. Clearly location of their franchises is a very important issue to them.

Obviously they're heavily involved. But they won't veto something simply because a better option is available.

It takes a lot of things to fall in line for a situation to be favorable regarding relocation. You need:

1) A hockey-ready arena with available scheduling for an 82 game season
2) An interested investor or group with a net worth of at least several hundred million dollars, usually in the billions
3) A city in which hockey could viably work

They're not going to reject a pretty good combination of those simply because they think that IN ANOTHER UNIVERSE, it could be possible that the stars align EVEN BETTER.


What do you mean by "where were they"? The league was obviously involved in all of those decisions. Of the available options, these are the ones that they determined were the best.

I'd like to meet the people in charge of the decision that thought hockey in Nashville and Columbus would drive more revenue than Winnipeg, Quebec City, Toronto, Seattle, Portland, Kansas City, etc.


Nobody has a realistic chance of buying or moving a franchise unless they are essentially anointed by the league. Once that has happened, BoG approval is mostly a formality. If you try to go any other way, you end up like Balsillie.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm saying that they wouldn't nix the 3rd or 4th best available option simply because there are 2 or 3 possible other better options that might conceivably happen at some point in the future. This is very obvious and I think it's a matter of pride that you won't concede it.

[VCR]

That was exactly my point. Their scope was only Canada, and there is a big US market outside of that. Anyways, again, I am not here to argue that another team in Toronto wouldn't be successful, we all know that.

Uh, their point was that re-locating teams in Canada where demand for hockey is highest would be the best strategy for the NHL to undertake in contrast to their "Southern Strategy":


For four decades, the NHL has pursued a Southern Strategy, increasing
the number of teams in the United States, particularly in the fastgrowing
Sun Belt, in an effort to grow interest in hockey in the US.
These efforts have been largely unsuccessful, with many of these
franchises suffering from low fan interest and low revenues. As a result, there is
increased pressure to relocate some of these teams to Canada where demand for
hockey is stronger. In this Mowat Commentary, we estimate how much stronger
this demand is, and identify which Canadian cities would be the best locations
for new NHL teams.

What under served "big market" in the US is there demand for NHL compared to the demand for it in Canada? They already locked into a long-term National Broadcast Deal in the USA with NBC for the next 9 years ..... in Canada the National Rights ARE up for renewal in just over 2 years ... in 2015. Having an additional team(s) in Canada will only increase its value.

As it states:


Teams in any of the above locations would likely generate higher gate revenues
than the average US team. If owners and entrepreneurs were free to either move
existing teams or create new teams, our findings suggest that Canada would
have 12 NHL franchises.
Why has the league not moved more of the supply of hockey to where the
demand is? Why has the NHL not allowed investors to establish new teams in
those six underserviced Canadian markets?
The answer has to do with the monopoly structure of the league. Professional
hockey in North America is not a free market. NHL owners are not competitors
but instead collaborators in a cartel. The NHL, just like the MLB, NFL and NBA,
artificially restricts the supply of top-tier professional sport for the benefit of its
members, by limiting the number of franchises and controlling where they play.
This artificial scarcity in turn causes cities to compete for the right to host
a big league pro team, with most American state and local governments
using taxpayer funds to lure or keep a franchise. Those taxpayer subsidies—
omnipresent in the US, uncommon in Canada—significantly distort the market.
Absent those subsidies, which are often large enough to offset a lack of ticket
sales and local fan interest, teams would move to where the demand is. The
Phoenix Coyotes are a long-standing case in point.
Several Canadian markets are large enough hockey markets to support a new
NHL team. The demand is there. They do not have a team because of the
structure of the NHL, which undermines the free market to the detriment
of Canadian hockey fans. The barrier to more NHL teams in Canada is not
economic. The problem is political and legal, as are the solutions.


The objective observations include listening to the response from people within MLSE, like Burke, any time another franchise in Toronto is brought up. They certainly are not laying out a welcome mat.

If that is the case, please provide an actual sources or links to a direct quote or commentary that addresses this issue in light of the new ownership changes from either Burke or someone else that represents MLSE.


I am well aware of what MLSE is and have always been talking in terms of buying MLSE. He basically had the ability to create any ownership group that he wanted. He could have mobilized capital to buy at very least a controlling interest if he really desired to do so. He has done very well in his current situation, and it does not seem like he desires much more control.

To gain more control, his stake in MLSE would have to go up, even if he was part of an ownership group to gain majority control, it would tie up more of his available resources than what it currently is.

[BornRuff]

The Board of Governors had approximately zero input into the sale contract of the Phoenix Coyotes. They would have had the ability to approve or reject it, but other NHL owners are not present when sale contracts for other teams are being drawn up.

Bettman and the other NHL execs are the representative of the owners. They wont do anything that they don't expect will be approved by the BoG.


If the BoG doesn't think someone will be a good fit for their hockey investment club, yeah it is.

Yet Balsillie was repeatedly allowed the opportunity to purchase an NHL franchise.


Obviously they're heavily involved. But they won't veto something simply because a better option is available.

It takes a lot of things to fall in line for a situation to be favorable regarding relocation. You need:

1) A hockey-ready arena with available scheduling for an 82 game season
2) An interested investor or group with a net worth of at least several hundred million dollars, usually in the billions
3) A city in which hockey could viably work

They're not going to reject a pretty good combination of those simply because they think that IN ANOTHER UNIVERSE, it could be possible that the stars align EVEN BETTER.

Who said anything about "in another universe"? Obviously they have to work within the options that are available to them. The thing is, these things exist in many different places and the league doesn't just sit back and wait for these people to come forward. They have options and they choose what is best for them, though this happens long before they ever bring it to a BoG vote.


I'd like to meet the people in charge of the decision that thought hockey in Nashville and Columbus would drive more revenue than Winnipeg, Quebec City, Toronto, Seattle, Portland, Kansas City, etc.

I guess when you said you were following this stuff for the last decade, it really was a hard limit. Those teams were added only a few years after they had moved teams out of Winnipeg and QC. It was a different landscape at that point.


I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm saying that they wouldn't nix the 3rd or 4th best available option simply because there are 2 or 3 possible other better options that might conceivably happen at some point in the future. This is very obvious and I think it's a matter of pride that you won't concede it.

That was simply never what I was talking about in the first place.

[BornRuff]

Uh, their point was that re-locating teams in Canada where demand for hockey is highest would be the best strategy for the NHL to undertake in contrast to their "Southern Strategy":



What under served "big market" in the US is there demand for NHL compared to the demand for it in Canada? They already locked into a long-term National Broadcast Deal in the USA with NBC for the next 9 years ..... in Canada the National Rights ARE up for renewal in just over 2 years ... in 2015. Having an additional team(s) in Canada will only increase its value.

As it states:

All you have to do is look at the money that the NHL brings in via broadcast deals vs the NBA or NFL and you will see why they are chasing more US interest. The current deal they got in the US is a big jump over previous contracts, and they obviously want to keep improving that. Retreating to Canada and accepting a life as a gate driven league would be to give up and accept life as a mickey mouse league compared to real top level professional sports organizations.

This part that you quoted really shows how out of touch their analysis is. How can you call a company a "cartel" for being selective on where they place their own franchises? It is like saying that Tim Hortons is a cartel that restricts access to Tim Hortons because they wont let anyone set up a Tim Hortons franchise wherever they want. Every business has the right to choose where they set up shop.


If that is the case, please provide an actual sources or links to a direct quote or commentary that addresses this issue in light of the new ownership changes from either Burke or someone else that represents MLSE.



To gain more control, his stake in MLSE would have to go up, even if he was part of an ownership group to gain majority control, it would tie up more of his available resources than what it currently is.

Lol, yes, gaining control of MLSE would require his company to obtain a larger stake, and yes, that would cost more money. Is that seriously something you think needed to be said?

[VCR]

BTW, when are you going to provide an actual sources or links to a direct quote or commentary that addresses their public stance on a second team in Toronto in light of the new ownership changes from either Burke or someone else that represents MLSE? Or did you just have another one of those made up "passed thousands of tests" moments when you made those comments?

[BornRuff]

BTW, when are you going to provide an actual sources or links to a direct quote or commentary that addresses their public stance on a second team in Toronto in light of the new ownership changes from either Burke or someone else that represents MLSE? Or did you just have another one of those made up "passed thousands of tests" moments when you made those comments?

If you are so sure it has changed, why can't you provide any of these things you have requested to back up your side?

The last time I can remember Burke talking about it was in response to the Mowat Center report.

http://video.mapleleafs.nhl.com/videocenter/console?id=108074

If you don't want to watch the video, he essentially says that it is horse ***** .

The MLSE sale was only finalized in June, and with the lockout, Burke has not had many media availibilities since then. Even so, the fact that questions about a second team in the GTA have not been brought up to Burke recently pretty much proves how far off a second team is. If there was any movement at all towards a new team in the GTA, there would be noise about it and people would be hounding Burke about it 24/7. Toronto has pretty much the highest concentration of hockey journalists anywhere and I can't remember the last time that the league announced anything that wasn't broken by the media first.

[VCR]

If you are so sure it has changed, why can't you provide any of these things you have requested to back up your side?

The last time I can remember Burke talking about it was in response to the Mowat Center report.

http://video.mapleleafs.nhl.com/videocenter/console?id=108074

If you don't want to watch the video, he essentially says that it is horse ***** .

The MLSE sale was only finalized in June, and with the lockout, Burke has not had many media availibilities since then. Even so, the fact that questions about a second team in the GTA have not been brought up to Burke recently pretty much proves how far off a second team is. If there was any movement at all towards a new team in the GTA, there would be noise about it and people would be hounding Burke about it 24/7. Toronto has pretty much the highest concentration of hockey journalists anywhere and I can't remember the last time that the league announced anything that wasn't broken by the media first.

The one thing about Burke was that he wasn't hired by the new co-majority owners and those comments were before the sale of MLSE to them. He also is known for being over the top and bombastic:


"To move this team [Canucks] takes one phone call. Twenty-five cents and a pay phone to move this team. This is high stakes poker folks and it's about the future of this city and this province." - Brian Burke on Ottawa's backing out of a deal to help Canadian teams.

That was when pay phone was ubiquitous and there was a low Canadian dollar relative to the US dollar. BTW, did Burke explain how the New York Jets "hurt" the New York Giants or how the five London teams in the EPL "hurt" each other or how the most valuable sports team in the world, Manchester United is "hurt" by the presence of Manchester City?

[BornRuff]

The one thing about Burke was that he wasn't hired by the new co-majority owners and those comments were before the sale of MLSE to them. He also is known for being over the top and bombastic:



That was when pay phone was ubiquitous and there was a low Canadian dollar relative to the US dollar. BTW, did Burke explain how the New York Jets "hurt" the New York Giants or how the five London teams in the EPL "hurt" each other or how the most valuable sports team in the world, Manchester United is "hurt" by the presence of Manchester City?

Did anyone ask him about that? Let me know when you have a serious response.

Clearly the response was negative, and clearly, if they have not even been asking about these things recently, that does not bode well for your assertion that Toronto is at the top of the list for relocating a franchise. Honestly, when two GMs chat about trading some old goat, somehow every journalist in hockey seems to know word for word what they said. Every announcement, from the length of a suspension to who will be in the winter classic, is always leaked by the press. There is no way that they could be having talks about moving a team to Toronto without something coming up in the media.

[VCR]

Did anyone ask him about that? Let me know when you have a serious response.

The point was if his response actually represented current MLSE ownership viewpoints in light of what has occurred since that report or was the off the cuff usual sound bites he like to provides for shock value?

[BornRuff]

The point was if his response actually represented current MLSE ownership viewpoints in light of what has occurred since that report or was the off the cuff usual sound bites he like to provides for shock value?

Are you really trying to rest your case on demanding that I prove your unsubstantiated claims wrong?

As far as I know, this is the most recent time he has even been asked about it. If you have any evidence that their attitude has changed since then, be my guest. Do you even have any sources from within the hockey world mentioning having two teams playing in the ACC with MLSE having ownership in both is a remote possibility?

[jadefrog]

That was simply never what I was talking about in the first place.

Well then I don't know what we're arguing about.

[1226]

Well then I don't know what we're arguing about.

I think pretty much everyone who reads this thread feels the same way about the last several pages. ;)

[BornRuff]

Well then I don't know what we're arguing about.

How the NHL choose places to move or expand.

[VCR]

Are you really trying to rest your case on demanding that I prove your unsubstantiated claims wrong?

What "unsubstantiated claims" have I made here? Re-quote the specifics.


As far as I know, this is the most recent time he has even been asked about it. If you have any evidence that their attitude has changed since then, be my guest. Do you even have any sources from within the hockey world mentioning having two teams playing in the ACC with MLSE having ownership in both is a remote possibility?

Whatever is said publicly could be seen as posturing anyway, since they will be looking to maximize on the indemnification fee if/when another team moves into their territory.

[VCR]

The objective observations include listening to the response from people within MLSE, like Burke, any time another franchise in Toronto is brought up. They certainly are not laying out a welcome mat. It is clear that the NHL doesn't have Toronto high on their list of places to move a team because they have had ample opportunity to move another team here and have not done so. You don't even here any noise about it being a possibility in the near future. Whenever a move or expansion is even remotely possible, it gets a lot of attention. Everyone knows about these things way in advance.


From the previous quoted Berger article:


“There will be a second team in the Toronto area – it’s just a matter of time,” a veteran league source told me. “The money and hockey interest in that region cannot be ignored. But, the NHL will preserve the market for expansion. It could charge $300 million for a new team, which is light-years ahead of a transfer fee (True North Sports and Entertainment paid the NHL $60 million last year for re-location of the Atlanta Thrashers to Winnipeg). Expansion to the Toronto area would provide each of the existing clubs $10 million. That’s why the NHL will not re-locate to Markham.” A $300 million expansion fee would dwarf the $80 million paid by Columbus and Minnesota in the most-recent expansion – for the 2000-01 season.

My point was that they could re-locate PHX to Toronto (pending a collapse of a future deal with local gov't subsidy and no future long term agreement in place) and in effect get a "re-location" fee that is equivalent to an "expansion" fee once you factor in the cost of the 29 teams holding on to a money losing franchise in that current location contrary to the point made in that Berger article.

It's pretty clear that there is interest in putting another team in the GTA with the purposed new arena in Markham for example.

[VCR]

As it relates to PHX re-locating to GTA, it looks like this discussion may be moot .....

https://twitter.com/rocandmanuch/status/265599369900851200


Per #Glendale City Council Member Joyce Clark Greg Jamison coming into town Wed Nov. 7th to wrap up details #Coyotes

3:39 PM - 5 Nov 12

[BornRuff]

From the previous quoted Berger article:



My point was that they could re-locate PHX to Toronto (pending a collapse of a future deal with local gov't subsidy and no future long term agreement in place) and in effect get a "re-location" fee that is equivalent to an "expansion" fee once you factor in the cost of the 29 teams holding on to a money losing franchise in that current location contrary to the point made in that Berger article.

It's pretty clear that there is interest in putting another team in the GTA with the purposed new arena in Markham for example.

That quote explicitly contradicts you point.

[BornRuff]

What "unsubstantiated claims" have I made here? Re-quote the specifics.



Whatever is said publicly could be seen as posturing anyway, since they will be looking to maximize on the indemnification fee if/when another team moves into their territory.

That MLSE would welcome an extra team in Toronto.

[VCR]

That quote explicitly contradicts you point.

Dude, I wrote the following:


My point was that they could re-locate PHX to Toronto (pending a collapse of a future deal with local gov't subsidy and no future long term agreement in place) and in effect get a "re-location" fee that is equivalent to an "expansion" fee once you factor in the cost of the 29 teams holding on to a money losing franchise in that current location contrary to the point made in that Berger article.

It's pretty clear that there is interest in putting another team in the GTA with the purposed new arena in Markham for example.

The point of quoting that specific part was that according to a "league source" there is interest in putting a second team in GTA. Now that "league source" tries to argue to maximize their return, they would do it via expansion. But my argument is that a sale of PHX franchise and re-location fee to an interested owner could yield the similar amount of what they would have or could get via an expansion fee rather than just keeping the team in PHX (pending the unlikely failure in the long-term subsidy by local gov't).

[VCR]

That MLSE would welcome an extra team in Toronto.

What was the specific quote where I made such a claim?

[BornRuff]

This is getting too dumb even for me. Next topic.

[VCR]

What "unsubstantiated claims" have I made here? Re-quote the specifics.



That MLSE would welcome an extra team in Toronto.



What was the specific quote where I made such a claim?


This is getting too dumb even for me. Next topic.

No. What is dumb is for you to over-simplify my position. Periously, I listed a number of criteria of why MLSE could benefit:


There is also an untapped fanbase in the Toronto area that are hockey fans and are NOT Leafs fans that a new team will be able to tap into. i.e. The "anything but the Leafs" fans in Ontario.

And what proof do you have that they would lose value and income on their 1.3B investment, when we know:

1) They will get a 1/29 cut of the re-location or expansion fee;
2) They will get a lucrative, negotiated settlement from having another team being within their marketplace i.e. territorial rights fee, along with Buffalo;
3) They i.e. Bell/Rogers will likely or rather obviously get the rights to lucrative regional broadcasting deal;
4) They could likely be a premium tenant in the ACC at a minimum of a couple of years (if the Markham Arena is actually build) or be a permanent tenant there (i.e. Clippers and Lakers share the same arena) -- the latter of course would be what the Leafs would prefer and that would probably play a part in how much territorial rights fee is paid

I see more upside than any potential downsides with this arrangement both for the Leafs and the NHL as a whole. The second team in TOR, imo, would easily be a TOP 10 -15 team in revenue in its first year of existence. (That is probably an under-estimation) and profitable.

The practical thing to do, imo, would be to have the liability that is the PHX franchise re-locate there in the next season and that would be of benefit to the league as a whole -- including the Leafs.

As was pointed out in the Berger article:

http://www.bergerbytes.ca/2012/10/why-nhl-will-not-re-locate-to-toronto/


Why, you may ask, would the Leafs not move heaven and earth to prevent another club from breaching their territory? Two-fold and simple: a) an expansion team would have to indemnify Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment. The last NHL indemnification was in 1993, when the Anaheim Ducks forked over $25 million to the Los Angeles Kings. And, b) the Leafs new ownership conglomerate – a 50/50 venture between rivals Bell Media and Rogers Communications – would presumably welcome the added “content” from another Toronto team. It would profoundly enhance television, radio and digital platforms for each company, off-setting market saturation. As my source pointed out, it’s a matter of “when” not “if”…

If it's "inevitable" that it's in the NHL best interest to have a team placed there either through re-location/expansion, it's in MLSE best interest to co-operate and benefit even further by allowing the team to use the ACC as a permium tenant rather than allow another NHL quality building be built in the GTA which would directly compete with the ACC for events. What good would it do for MLSE to go bitching about the "inevitable" when a more rational approach would be to co-operate and gain as much as they can with the changing landscape?

postscript: re: my points: I'm not sure if Buffalo would qualify for indemification payment. Someone confirm or deny this.

[BornRuff]

No. What is dumb is for you to over-simplify my position. Periously, I listed a number of criteria of why MLSE could benefit:



As was pointed out in the Berger article:

http://www.bergerbytes.ca/2012/10/why-nhl-will-not-re-locate-to-toronto/



If it's "inevitable" that it's in the NHL best interest to have a team placed there either through re-location/expansion, it's in MLSE best interest to co-operate and benefit even further by allowing the team to use the ACC as a permium tenant rather than allow another NHL quality building be built in the GTA which would directly compete with the ACC for events. What good would it do for MLSE to go bitching about the "inevitable" when a more rational approach would be to co-operate and gain as much as they can with the changing landscape?

postscript: re: my points: I'm not sure if Buffalo would qualify for indemification payment. Someone confirm or deny this.

Does realizing how many pages you had to go back to find that quote, or the fact that the discussion has not progressed at all since then not bother you?

[jadefrog]

How the NHL choose places to move or expand.

Ah, yeah. They wait for an interested investment group in a viable city with a hockey ready arena to pop up. Then they approve or disapprove of him, based on his application. Seems straightforward.

Obviously it is known to these extremely successful businesspeople which bids are likely to be accepted by the BoG, so you don't see a lot of failed bids, so it looks like they're premeditated.

[jadefrog]

Does realizing how many pages you had to go back to find that quote, or the fact that the discussion has not progressed at all since then not bother you?

Not to interrupt, but what does that have to do with anything?

[VCR]

Does realizing how many pages you had to go back to find that quote, or the fact that the discussion has not progressed at all since then not bother you?

No.

[VCR]

Not to interrupt, but what does that have to do with anything?

Par for the course for the poster when he makes claims and then complains about it when I address it.

[BornRuff]

Ah, yeah. They wait for an interested investment group in a viable city with a hockey ready arena to pop up. Then they approve or disapprove of him, based on his application. Seems straightforward.

Obviously it is known to these extremely successful businesspeople which bids are likely to be accepted by the BoG, so you don't see a lot of failed bids, so it looks like they're premeditated.

The potential owners are the ones that have to do the waiting. True North, the guys who bought Atlanta, also tried to buy Phoenix but were turned down.

Lots of people want to be NHL owners, and the league officials go find them when they are needed.

[VCR]

If it's "inevitable" that it's in the NHL best interest to have a team placed there either through re-location/expansion, it's in MLSE best interest to co-operate and benefit even further by allowing the team to use the ACC as a permium tenant rather than allow another NHL quality building be built in the GTA which would directly compete with the ACC for events. What good would it do for MLSE to go bitching about the "inevitable" when a more rational approach would be to co-operate and gain as much as they can with the changing landscape?

postscript: re: my points: I'm not sure if Buffalo would qualify for indemification payment. Someone confirm or deny this.


op/ed by Ken Campbell of THN dated, 2011-12-12:

http://www.thehockeynews.com/articles/43507-Leafs-sale-means-Toronto-one-step-closer-to-second-NHL-team.html


There’s a good chance a Toronto franchise would have received approval from the NHL’s board of governors, anyway, but there was always the sticking point concerning the Maple Leafs and their belief they held a veto over any other team entering their territory, a belief supported by the league’s own constitution. But the NHL was just as adamant that no such veto ever existed and they were confident they were on solid legal ground to place a second team in Toronto despite the objections of arguably its most powerful franchise.

Well, all those matters are gone now. The fact is, both Rogers and BCE will welcome another NHL team into the Toronto market, so much so that it wouldn’t be a surprise to see another Bell Centre or Rogers Arena in the NHL once the new Markham arena is completed. Because as we already mentioned, content is king for these two companies and anything that can supply them with more of that will be eagerly accepted.

You can imagine NHL commissioner Gary Bettman would have wanted to have a unanimous vote on this one, and now he’ll get it. That was never going to come as long as the teachers’ pension plan owned the Leafs, because preserving their monopoly was what provided the best return on the investment for their members.

But with Rogers and BCE, having another outlet to display content will more than make up for the losses they’ll incur by losing their monopoly over the NHL in the biggest, most underserviced hockey market in the world. A new competing building will likely scoop a couple of concert dates from them and their merchandising sales might take a slight hit, but those losses will pale in comparison to the money they could potentially make by carrying an additional Canadian NHL team in the new four-screen universe.

Mr. Campbell thinks the new ownership would "welcome" a second franchise. As I suggested earlier, locking the potential second team up to a reasonable long-term lease @ the ACC would be a smart and pro-active move to discourage a second NHL calibre arena from being built to take away from "concert dates" or "conventions."

[VCR]

As it relates to PHX re-locating to GTA, it looks like this discussion may be moot .....

https://twitter.com/rocandmanuch/status/265599369900851200

It could largely depend on what happens to Proposition 457, which is voted upon today.

[VCR]

https://twitter.com/LAKings/status/265877889055076352

http://i49.tinypic.com/2mrctcg.jpg

[1226]

http://i49.tinypic.com/2mrctcg.jpg

Always funny.

[VCR]

Always funny.


More importantly, I think this question needs to be asked:

Why doesn't THE Presidents' Trophy Champions get the opportunity to do a meet & greet photo op? :mad:

[BornRuff]

Par for the course for the poster when he makes claims and then complains about it when I address it.

I would love if we could stay on topic, but 10 pages of evidence shows that is easier said than done, so lets move on.

[BornRuff]

Always funny.

I'd like to find out who runs their social media. They clearly win in that department.

Also the best at press conferences.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jltdKXzGSu8

[VCR]

It could largely depend on what happens to Proposition 457, which is voted upon today.

http://media2.abc15.com/NWT/electionresults/race457.htm


Official:

http://recorder.maricopa.gov/electionresults/screen5Static.aspx

I haven't vetted this info myself but according to a members of hfboards, the key races are:

CRUZ, MANUEL ''MANNY'' vs. WEIERS, JERRY (for Mayor)
CHAVIRA, SAM vs. CLARK, JOYCE (for Council Member)

Apparently if the vote ends up "YES" to Prop 457, and Cruz and Chavira wins, then the Glendale city deal with the Coyotes will be in trouble.

[VCR]

http://media2.abc15.com/NWT/electionresults/race457.htm


Official:

http://recorder.maricopa.gov/electionresults/screen5Static.aspx

I haven't vetted this info myself but according to a members of hfboards, the key races are:

CRUZ, MANUEL ''MANNY'' vs. WEIERS, JERRY (for Mayor)
CHAVIRA, SAM vs. CLARK, JOYCE (for Council Member)

Apparently if the vote ends up "YES" to Prop 457, and Cruz and Chavira wins, then the Glendale city deal with the Coyotes will be in trouble.

http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1280017&page=9

Just skimming the posts in the thread of the people following the PHX situation @ hfboards, it looks like a deal is far from a certainty and the feeling there is that the deal will fall apart. They speculate that the team might be sold and re-located.

[VCR]

http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2012/11/07/glendale-is-not-your-cash-register-new-mayor-tells-coyotes/

“Glendale is not your cash register,” new mayor tells Coyotes




Jason Brough

Nov 7, 2012, 12:33 PM EST
1 Comment
Jobing.com Arena

First the good news for Phoenix Coyotes fans:

Yesterday, a solid majority of Glendale residents voted to reject a ballot measure that would undo a city sales-tax hike.

The result was significant for the struggling NHL franchise as the proceeds from the tax hike were intended to fund part of the proposed arena management deal with prospective Coyotes owner Greg Jamison. If the tax hike had been voted down, it might’ve killed the purchase.

So that was the good news. Here’s the bad:

Another roadblock to keeping the Coyotes in Glendale may have emerged with the election of new mayor Jerry Weiers.

Weiers is a Republican that stood against both the lease agreement and tax hike.

Yesterday, he sent a strong message to the Coyotes: “Glendale is not your cash register.”

In July, Weiers wrote a letter to Jamison requesting the former Sharks executive prove he has the resources to buy the team.

“The time for guessing is over,” wrote Weiers. “The time for truth is now. With respect Mr. Jamison, you either have the means and the resources to live up to your promises or you don’t. While I disagree with the lease agreement and the tax hikes, I think those who voted for those controversial measures deserve some straight answers. More importantly, I think the residents of Glendale deserve some straight answers. The sales tax hike is days away from going into effect to bankroll the lease agreement. You have an obligation to let the taxpayers know if you are able to live up to your end of the bargain and keep the Coyotes in our city. If not, you should step out of the way and allow our city to begin a search for an alternative.”

According to Five For Howling, Jamison will travel to Glendale this week in an attempt to finalize the lease agreement.

Contrary to my previous post, it seems that the election of Mayor Weiers is not exactly what the doctored ordered for Mr. Jamison.

[1226]

http://media2.abc15.com/NWT/electionresults/race457.htm


Official:

http://recorder.maricopa.gov/electionresults/screen5Static.aspx

I haven't vetted this info myself but according to a members of hfboards, the key races are:

CRUZ, MANUEL ''MANNY'' vs. WEIERS, JERRY (for Mayor)
CHAVIRA, SAM vs. CLARK, JOYCE (for Council Member)

Apparently if the vote ends up "YES" to Prop 457, and Cruz and Chavira wins, then the Glendale city deal with the Coyotes will be in trouble.

Chavira won, Cruz lost, resounding NO on Prop 457. Good for the Coyotes staying put then?

[1226]

http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2012/11/07/glendale-is-not-your-cash-register-new-mayor-tells-coyotes/

“Glendale is not your cash register,” new mayor tells Coyotes



Contrary to my previous post, it seems that the election of Mayor Weiers is not exactly what the doctored ordered for Mr. Jamison.

Yeah I was just going to say.


His message on Tuesday night to the Coyotes and the baseball teams at the city’s spring-training ballpark: “Glendale is not your cash register.”


“We all love the Coyotes and Cactus League but we cannot sacrifice our way of life so they can maintain theirs,” Weiers said.

http://www.azcentral.com/community/glendale/free/20121105glendale-voters-decide-new-direction-city-mayor-online-prog.html

[VCR]

Chavira won, Cruz lost, resounding NO on Prop 457. Good for the Coyotes staying put then?

Actually, not as simple as saying "good" .... the poster that made the observation was from this thread:

http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showpost.php?p=55584365&postcount=68

Basically it was the "best case" scenario for the team to re-locate elsewhere. But as you've seen even the alternative choice for Mayor, as I cited above isn't exactly a Coyotes "to stay" at any cost booster. There seems to still be a lot of obstacles in place before a deal could be ratified. It's not a slam dunk and there is a lot of pessimism by the posters there on them staying put.

[1226]

Actually, not as simple as saying "good" .... the poster that made the observation was from this thread:

http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showpost.php?p=55584365&postcount=68

Basically it was the "best case" scenario for the team to re-locate elsewhere. But as you've seen even the alternative choice for Mayor, as I cited above isn't exactly a Coyotes "to stay" at any cost booster. There seems to still be a lot of obstacles in place before a deal could be ratified. It's not a slam dunk and there is a lot of pessimism by the posters there on them staying put.

I wonder why they didn't simply have a proposition for the continued subsidization of the Coyotes?

[BornRuff]

I wonder why they didn't simply have a proposition for the continued subsidization of the Coyotes?

Reading this article it seems like the vote on the tax increase was focused more on the city's overall financial situation.

http://www.azcentral.com/community/glendale/free/20121105glendale-voters-proposition-457.html

They are pretty much saying that if they didn't vote for the tax hike, they would have to decimate city services.

The funny thing is that they expect the tax to generate about 25 million dollars per year, or exactly what they have been spending to keep the coyotes in town.

[VCR]

I wonder why they didn't simply have a proposition for the continued subsidization of the Coyotes?

It's pretty obvious it would fail if it was an individual prop. The prop to repeal the tax increase had its critics because "public safety" and other civic services like public libraries would have been affected so you had the Coyotes issue mixed with Police and Firemen, educators etc.. against the prop.

Technical, the subsidy is branded as an "Arena Management Fee" (AMF). But the current proposal avg about 15M for twenty years. That number is being criticized for not being market value for providing that kind of service (AMF). I think the way things are working out, in the end, the city will not offer anything close to that and could probably walk away from that offer whether it be voluntarily or forced through a referendum.

http://www.azcentral.com/community/glendale/articles/20121105glendale-discovers-improper-fund-transfers-audit.html?nclick_check=1

As the link above shows, there's a lot of problems they are dealing with:


Skeete had no good answer.

He said the general fund’s balance is in the negative when considering other obligations that must be repaid.

These obligations include borrowing from utility funds to pay the National Hockey League $50million to manage the city’s arena.

That was for 25M the previous two years.

[BornRuff]

It's pretty obvious it would fail if it was an individual prop. The prop to repeal the tax increase had its critics because "public safety" and other civic services like public libraries would have been affected so you had the Coyotes issue mixed with Police and Firemen, educators etc.. against the prop.

Technical, the subsidy is branded as an "Arena Management Fee" (AMF). But the current proposal avg about 15M for twenty years. That number is being criticized for not being market value for providing that kind of service (AMF). I think the way things are working out, in the end, the city will not offer anything close to that and could probably walk away from that offer whether it be voluntarily or forced through a referendum.

http://www.azcentral.com/community/glendale/articles/20121105glendale-discovers-improper-fund-transfers-audit.html?nclick_check=1

As the link above shows, there's a lot of problems they are dealing with:



That was for 25M the previous two years.

Propositions are initiated by citizens, so in theory they could have put a proposition on the ballot to prevent it.

[1226]

It's pretty obvious it would fail if it was an individual prop. The prop to repeal the tax increase had its critics because "public safety" and other civic services like public libraries would have been affected so you had the Coyotes issue mixed with Police and Firemen, educators etc.. against the prop.

Technical, the subsidy is branded as an "Arena Management Fee" (AMF). But the current proposal avg about 15M for twenty years. That number is being criticized for not being market value for providing that kind of service (AMF). I think the way things are working out, in the end, the city will not offer anything close to that and could probably walk away from that offer whether it be voluntarily or forced through a referendum.

http://www.azcentral.com/community/glendale/articles/20121105glendale-discovers-improper-fund-transfers-audit.html?nclick_check=1

As the link above shows, there's a lot of problems they are dealing with:

Then man I hope they can better show that the city is in the black on this venture. Otherwise I feel sorry for the Glendale taxpayers.

Also, it sure seems unfair that only one small part of the Phoenix metro area (226K out of 4M+) pays such a disproportionate amount to keep the Coyotes in place. People who live outside Glendale (e.g. Peoria) may only be minutes away from the arena, but pay virtually nothing towards keeping the team there (to the best of my knowledge anyway).

[1226]

Propositions are initiated by citizens, so in theory they could have put a proposition on the ballot to prevent it.

Start getting the signatures...

[VCR]

Propositions are initiated by citizens, so in theory they could have put a proposition on the ballot to prevent it.

They couldn't have in this election as the deal between the local gov't and the Jamison group hasn't been signed and agreed upon and passed by council. But if somehow the local gov't passes the deal that had been discussed (15M avg./20 years) with the Jamison group or some amended version of it, then it could come up as a prop in the future.

[BornRuff]

They couldn't have in this election as the deal between the local gov't and the Jamison group hasn't been signed and agreed upon and passed by council. But if somehow the local gov't passes the deal that had been discussed (15M avg./20 years) with the Jamison group or some amended version of it, then it could come up as a prop in the future.

I don't know if they can necessarily have a ballot measure on a specific deal that the government makes, but they could likely propose a ballot measure that would make a deal such as this one illegal. They wouldn't have to wait until after the deal was signed to do that. If they try to back out after the deal is signed, they will probably need to pay damages to Jamison.

Edit: Apparently they already did try to force a referendum on this, but failed to gather the required number of signatures.

http://www.azcentral.com/community/glendale/articles/2012/07/16/20120716glendale-rejects-petitions-referendum-phoenix-coyotes-deal-brk.html?source=nletter-News&nclick_check=1

[VCR]

Edit: Apparently they already did try to force a referendum on this, but failed to gather the required number of signatures.

http://www.azcentral.com/community/glendale/articles/2012/07/16/20120716glendale-rejects-petitions-referendum-phoenix-coyotes-deal-brk.html?source=nletter-News&nclick_check=1

I had issues with the link you posted, I assume it's similar to info provided here:

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=638057

AP
Monday, 07.16.2012 / 5:21 PM / News


GLENDALE, Ariz. (AP) - The Glendale City Clerk's Office has rejected petitions that sought to put a referendum on the November ballot about the Phoenix Coyotes' pending arena management deal.

City officials said Monday that the petitions missed the July 9 deadline by three days and lacked the required 1,862 signatures.

The two Glendale residents who spearheaded the referendum turned in 1,568 signatures last Thursday.

Ken Jones and Joe Cobb said they wanted to give voters a chance to decide whether to overturn Glendale's 20-year, $324 million lease agreement with potential Coyotes buyer Greg Jamison. The City Council approved the deal last month.

The NHL has yet to finalize the sale to Jamison, a former San Jose Sharks chief executive. But league officials say the deal still is being worked on.

Now the next step is to confirm if the new local gov't votes for it and the deal is signed and sealed does the residents have recourse to force a referendum on it?

[BornRuff]

I had issues with the link you posted, I assume it's similar to info provided here:

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=638057

AP
Monday, 07.16.2012 / 5:21 PM / News



Now the next step is to confirm if the new local gov't votes for it and the deal is signed and sealed does the residents have recourse to force a referendum on it?

I think they approved the lease months ago. There are always ways to get out of any deal, the question is how much will it cost them.

[VCR]

I think they approved the lease months ago. There are always ways to get out of any deal, the question is how much will it cost them.

I don't this is the case. Apparently it hasn't gone to a city council vote and details of the arrangement are still being negotiated. Apparently the vote might come on Nov. 27/2012, which would mean some of the council members who were for the deal but were voted out for next term (i.e. Clark) would be in a position to vote for it. There's some talk that the outgoing mayor might find a way to delay the vote long enough (I assume to allow the new council to be responsible for the decision) but that was speculation.

Pending the details of the final negotiated AMF, you might also see Goldwater back in the picture threatening legal challenges if they feel the deal breaks Arizona Law.

[matdwyer]

I wish they'd just go to Quebec city already.

Phx is no better of a market then atlanta. Quebec city will embrace the team like winnipeg has (and the coyotes are better then the jets anyway)

I already have flights booked to PHX for march so it would be nice to see a game (hah!) there before they leave, but the NHL really needs to get better at pruning the dead and dying branches.

PHX should be gone, Dallas, Columbus, Florida and Jersey should all be on notice.

Get a 2nd team in Toronto, One in Quebec City, Try one in Kansas City and one in Seattle.

That being said, my bet is they'll be expansion teams, going up to 32 teams.

[BornRuff]

I wish they'd just go to Quebec city already.

Phx is no better of a market then atlanta. Quebec city will embrace the team like winnipeg has (and the coyotes are better then the jets anyway)

I already have flights booked to PHX for march so it would be nice to see a game (hah!) there before they leave, but the NHL really needs to get better at pruning the dead and dying branches.

PHX should be gone, Dallas, Columbus, Florida and Jersey should all be on notice.

Get a 2nd team in Toronto, One in Quebec City, Try one in Kansas City and one in Seattle.

That being said, my bet is they'll be expansion teams, going up to 32 teams.

Glendale has invested so much in the team that they kind of have to give them a chance to figure this out.

[VCR]

Coyotes' future in Phoenix in doubt
Updated: November 27, 2012, 2:19 PM ET

http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/8683098/glendale-city-council-expected-vote-phoenix-coyotes-lease-agreement-city


Tuesday night looms large for the Phoenix Coyotes, given the long and rutted road they have traveled in search of an owner.

The Glendale City Council is expected to vote Tuesday on a reconfigured lease agreement between potential owner Greg Jamison and the municipality.

The deal would pay Jamison $320 million during the life of the 20-year deal and would, in theory, secure the Coyotes' future in Glendale. If the new lease agreement is accepted, Jamison and his partners will attempt to complete the purchase of the team from the NHL, likely by the end of the calendar year.

It's expected that Jamison and business partner Anthony LeBlanc, formerly of the Ice Edge group of businessmen that had been in the running to buy the Coyotes several years ago, will be in attendance at the meeting in Glendale.

Sources told ESPN.com the financing for the $170 million deal is in place and that approval of the lease agreement and subsequent approval by the NHL's board of governors would be the final hurdles in completing the long-awaited deal.

The passing of the new agreement is not a slam dunk, given the financial crisis facing Glendale and the opposition to the deal by current Mayor Elaine Scruggs, a former supporter of the team's relationship with the city.

If the council does not approve the lease agreement, it's expected that would end Jamison's bid to buy the Coyotes and throw the team's future in Arizona back into doubt. Mayor-elect Jerry Weiers and a new set of council members will take office in January, and they have indicated they will not support the re-worked lease agreement.

The widely held expectation is that Jamison's group of investors represents the last chance to keep the team in Arizona and that if Jamison's bid dies, the NHL will have little choice but to begin the process of finding a new home for the beleaguered franchise.

[VCR]

Live updates on the COG council meeting ............

http://www.azcentral.com/live/?event=glendale-vote-coyotes-deal

[VCR]

Live updates on the COG council meeting ............

http://www.azcentral.com/live/?event=glendale-vote-coyotes-deal

At the time of this post, biggest news is that Jamison still refuses to name his group of investors .........

[1226]

Apparently Phoenix still has a team.


The city council of Glendale, Arizona has approved a reconfigured 20-year, $320 million lease package that could allow former San Jose Sharks executive Greg Jamison to buy the Phoenix Coyotes.

The deal passed by a vote of 4-2 and is conditional on the purchase of the Coyotes being completed by January 31, 2013.

The package will reportedly pay Jamison approximately $15 million annually to help run the Jobing.com Arena in Glendale.

The vote late on Tuesday night came after a lengthy debate among council members, followed by several passionate public comments both for and against the lease deal.

Jamison was among the speakers who presented his case before Glendale mayor Elaine Scruggs and a six-member council. One council seat is vacant, meaning the vote was among five members and the mayor.

"I believe this deal we have with Mr. Jamison is the best one we'll get," said council member Yvonne Knaack, who voted in favour of the deal. "I don't think he would invest his time and money if he didn't think he would succeed."

Mayor Scruggs, who had once supported the team in Phoenix, has been vocal against a deal in recent months and voted against the deal on Tuesday.

Sources told ESPN.com earlier on Tuesday that the financing for a $170 million purchase of the team is in place. The National Hockey League has owned the franchise since former owner Jerry Moyes took the team into bankruptcy in 2009.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=410428

Man what a hose job for the taxpayers of Glendale.

[VCR]

http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2012/11/28/maple-leafs-worth-1-billion-says-forbes/




Maple Leafs worth $1 billion, says Forbes

Jason Brough

Nov 28, 2012, 1:01 PM EST
18 Comments
Phil Kessel and Dion Phaneuf Getty Images

They haven’t made the playoffs since before the last lockout, but the Toronto Maple Leafs are still worth a cool $1 billion, according to the newest Forbes valuations.

The Leafs’ valuation is by far the highest of all 30 NHL franchises, and it dwarfs the dollar figure assigned to the least valuable clubs.

http://www.forbes.com/nhl-valuations/list/

The original six take up the top six positions, with the Canucks being ranked seventh on their list.




http://www.forbes.com/nhl-valuations/list/

[dankup]

What's this whole decertification talk?