BCHabnut Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 The economics must be considered as well. The owner is broke. If I lent him money, I would want the guy who offered more money to get the team. Simple as that. After a major crash, you would think that the judge would be concerned about that part of it. 240 million to the creditors is more than 150 million. That's it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobRock Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=290588 If both bids are rejected, then who owns the team? Didn't the previous owner declared bankruptcy? The judge could name a trustee in bankruptcy to operate the club until a final decision can be reached. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobRock Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 The economics must be considered as well. The owner is broke. If I lent him money, I would want the guy who offered more money to get the team. Simple as that. After a major crash, you would think that the judge would be concerned about that part of it. 240 million to the creditors is more than 150 million. That's it. But $100+ million is guaranteed to Moyes, who is both owner and creditor (according to Moyes). Suddenly, that $240M becomes $140M if your last name isn't Moyes, and $140M is less than $150M Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCHabnut Posted September 13, 2009 Share Posted September 13, 2009 ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Puck Posted September 13, 2009 Share Posted September 13, 2009 (edited) The economics must be considered as well. The owner is broke. If I lent him money, I would want the guy who offered more money to get the team. Simple as that. After a major crash, you would think that the judge would be concerned about that part of it. 240 million to the creditors is more than 150 million. That's it. That's not quite it. If Balsillie takes the team to Hamilton he adds another creditor, the City of Glendale which owns the arena. They are claiming they will be owed $550 million if Balsillie moves the team. That extra $550 million sure makes the extra $90 million you mention look pretty small. Since you seem to think that the creditors' opinions are what matters most, you may be interested to know that all the creditors, with the single exception of Moyes, stated in court Friday that they want the judge to rule against Balsillie and in favour of the NHL. Edited September 13, 2009 by Peter Puck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Puck Posted September 13, 2009 Share Posted September 13, 2009 The Coyotes are not for sale, wtf, hows that an option stupid judge, he cant rule that if the owner wants to sell it, then its for sale ffs. Who does the judge think he is to say the owner cant sell it. If an owner wants to sell his franchise, he needs to find a buyer that is acceptable to the NHL. The NHL board of governors needs to approve all new owners. This was mentioned many times in connection with the Habs sale. Of course Bettman said many times that the BOG has no problem with the Molson brothers as new owners. With the Coyotes, the judge may well (I think probably will) rule that Balsillie's bid is not valid since he has been rejected as an owner by the NHL. If he decides that the NHL bid is also invalid (for example due to a conflict of interest) then there are no valid bids and so he will rule there is no sale. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir_Boagalott Posted September 13, 2009 Share Posted September 13, 2009 That's not quite it. If Balsillie takes the team to Hamilton he adds another creditor, the City of Glendale which owns the arena. They are claiming they will be owed $550 million if Balsillie moves the team. That extra $550 million sure makes the extra $90 million you mention look pretty small. Since you seem to think that the creditors' opinions are what matters most, you may be interested to know that all the creditors, with the single exception of Moyes, stated in court Friday that they want the judge to rule against Balsillie and in favour of the NHL. No offense to you personally because I know you are just repeating their wild claims but thats a bunk argument. Sure theres an arena in Glendale that cost quite a bit of money, but guess what, if Balsillie moves the team there will still be the same expensive arena there. Why should Balsillie have to pay for the entire arena in Glendale when the team wasn't working out there. Maybe the city of Glendale should have thought about that before the team had to declare bancruptcy and made more of n effort to help the team so it could be viable there. hahaha, after a quick search I found this: The Facility Opened 2003 Ownership (Management) City of Glendale (City of Glendale) Cost of Construction $180 million Arena Financing The city of Glendale funded $180 million for the construction of the multi-purpose arena. The $180 million consisted of $30 million in general obligation bond funding, and $150 million in excise tax funding, which will be repaid through revenue generated directly from the project. From: http://hockey.ballparks.com/NHL/PhoenixCoyotes/newindex.htm I'm no accountant but even I'm certain that 180 doesnt equal 550. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir_Boagalott Posted September 13, 2009 Share Posted September 13, 2009 If an owner wants to sell his franchise, he needs to find a buyer that is acceptable to the NHL. The NHL board of governors needs to approve all new owners. This was mentioned many times in connection with the Habs sale. Of course Bettman said many times that the BOG has no problem with the Molson brothers as new owners. With the Coyotes, the judge may well (I think probably will) rule that Balsillie's bid is not valid since he has been rejected as an owner by the NHL. If he decides that the NHL bid is also invalid (for example due to a conflict of interest) then there are no valid bids and so he will rule there is no sale. I understand what you are saying, but thats the NHL rules and federal laws trump that big time. The NHL only thinks they can control who owns NHL teams. Its not exactly legal to do that because its discrimination. Its not exactly a legal policy that they have in place and would be subject to an anti trust case that I'm positive the NHL could never win. What do you think would happen in Elton John wanted to buy the Coyotes? The NHL could vote 30-0, but do you really beleive they could legally prevent him from being an owner because he's a homosexual? Thats not exactly within their discretion, although the NHL can make wild claims that it is. Balsillie is being denied because he's openly a Canadian and has publicly stated several times he wants there to be another Canadian team. Has the NHL or any other pro league here not let the highest bidder buy a team before? Also how many legit buyers have been rejected before? I'm willing to bet 0. iirc the last owner the NHL approved to buy a team Boots had only made $600K in the last 9 months leading up to him buying the team. :puke: Right now Balsillies lawyers should be saying 2 words as a precedence: Al Davis. Davis cost the NFL 60 mil trying to prevent him from moving the Raiders from Oakland to L.A., almost 30 years ago. Bettman is a mongoloid if he thinks the NHL will win an anti trust case because its already happened to other leagues and they lost so what chance does the NHL have? The same laws apply to everybody and every league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Puck Posted September 13, 2009 Share Posted September 13, 2009 No offense to you personally because I know you are just repeating their wild claims but thats a bunk argument. Sure theres an arena in Glendale that cost quite a bit of money, but guess what, if Balsillie moves the team there will still be the same expensive arena there. Why should Balsillie have to pay for the entire arena in Glendale when the team wasn't working out there. Maybe the city of Glendale should have thought about that before the team had to declare bancruptcy and made more of n effort to help the team so it could be viable there. hahaha, after a quick search I found this: From: http://hockey.ballparks.com/NHL/PhoenixCoyotes/newindex.htm I'm no accountant but even I'm certain that 180 doesnt equal 550. No, I am not "repeating their wild claim". I have read a lot of the legal documents. Their claim is not wild. The City of Glendale has a contract with the Coyotes. This contract was designed to make it very expensive for the Coyotes to leave. The Coyotes (actually two companies associated with the Coyotes) signed this contract and it includes their agreement to pay a large amount of money (as much as $550 million) if they want to break the lease and leave early. The fact that the arena cost $180 million is not really all that relevant to the claim that they are owed $550 million. I doubt that the judge will agree that they are owed that much but he might. Personally I think he will settle on a number more like $200 million. This still is much larger than the $90 million difference in the two bids. It certainly makes it clear that saying $240 million is bigger than $150 million is "it". I understand what you are saying, but thats the NHL rules and federal laws trump that big time. No it is not just an "NHL rule". It is part of the contract that the current owner Moyes signed when he bought the team. Thus it is part of contract law and so not "trumped" by federal law. The NHL only thinks they can control who owns NHL teams. Its not exactly legal to do that because its discrimination. It is only illegal if they reject Balsillie for discmininatory reasons. They have clearly stated their reasons for rejecting him. In fact they can reject him for any reason that is not discriminatory, they don't need a good reason. They have stated they didn't like the way he behaved when he tried to buy the Predators. They also don't like the way he is behaving in the current drama. Both of these reasons are legitimate legal reasons for them to reject him. Its not exactly a legal policy that they have in place and would be subject to an anti trust case that I'm positive the NHL could never win. As I said above it is legal. The NHL is being very careful to avoid any behavior that would lead to an anti-trust case. In my opinion they have been successful and are unlikely to lose an anti-trust case based upon what has happened so far. What do you think would happen in Elton John wanted to buy the Coyotes? The NHL could vote 30-0, but do you really beleive they could legally prevent him from being an owner because he's a homosexual? Thats not exactly within their discretion, although the NHL can make wild claims that it is. You are 100% correct here. However, as I said above the NHL is not rejecting Balsillie for discriminatory reasons. Balsillie is being denied because he's openly a Canadian and has publicly stated several times he wants there to be another Canadian team. Not even Balsillie's legal team has advanced the theory that he is being rejected for his nationality. Do you have any evidence (valid in court) for this claim? Has the NHL or any other pro league here not let the highest bidder buy a team before? Also how many legit buyers have been rejected before? I'm willing to bet 0. iirc the last owner the NHL approved to buy a team Boots had only made $600K in the last 9 months leading up to him buying the team. :puke: Yes this has happened before. But is is irrelevant. The judge will decide who has the best valid bid. Right now Balsillies lawyers should be saying 2 words as a precedence: Al Davis. Davis cost the NFL 60 mil trying to prevent him from moving the Raiders from Oakland to L.A., almost 30 years ago. Bettman is a mongoloid if he thinks the NHL will win an anti trust case because its already happened to other leagues and they lost so what chance does the NHL have? The same laws apply to everybody and every league. The NHL has had 27 years to adapt to the Raiders case. They have adjusted to the law as it was stated in that case. The NFL, NBA, and MLB are all in court supporting the NHL's position. Also a very important fact here is that Davis moved a team he already owned. Balsillie's position is different in that he is not yet an approved owner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCHabnut Posted September 14, 2009 Share Posted September 14, 2009 As far as I'm concerned, the money to the bankers and contract holders is the number one thing. If more creditors will get their money by the team staying in Glendale, then that's the way it should go, but from what I can see, the team will not succeed in Phoenix. So 3 or 4 more years of losing serious money...total bankruptcy to the next owner, and no money to the guys who built the arena, and half the money to the origional creditors. I don't believe a hockey team can survive in Phoenix. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Puck Posted September 14, 2009 Share Posted September 14, 2009 As far as I'm concerned, the money to the bankers and contract holders is the number one thing. If more creditors will get their money by the team staying in Glendale, then that's the way it should go, but from what I can see, the team will not succeed in Phoenix. So 3 or 4 more years of losing serious money...total bankruptcy to the next owner, and no money to the guys who built the arena, and half the money to the origional creditors. I don't believe a hockey team can survive in Phoenix. I am not yet convinced that hockey cannot survive in Phoenix but you may be right and the team will move in a year or two. In spite of this possibility, the league has convinced the current creditors (except Moyes) that they are better off with the NHL prevailing instead of Balsillie. This just shows me how the NHL (and Bettman) have completely out played Balsillie and his legal team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir_Boagalott Posted September 14, 2009 Share Posted September 14, 2009 The fact that the arena cost $180 million is not really all that relevant to the claim that they are owed $550 million. I doubt that the judge will agree that they are owed that much but he might. Personally I think he will settle on a number more like $200 million. This still is much larger than the $90 million difference in the two bids. Not sure why you dont think 550 mil isnt a wild claim. Consider this: you rent a 200K house for $1000/mth. If you were to break your lease theres no bloody way you would owe the property owner north of 600K to do so. Thats insane. No it is not just an "NHL rule". It is part of the contract that the current owner Moyes signed when he bought the team. Thus it is part of contract law and so not "trumped" by federal law. No, actually it is. I'm fairly positive that if I had the financial resources I could take every ISP and cell phone provider in Canada to court and win. Every contract they have that I have seen all have a clause saying basically this: we reserve the right to give you no rights. Its not within their or any other corporations etc right to circumvent your rights that are granted to you under federal or provincial/state laws. They will of course make claims otherwise, but that doesnt mean that its true. It is only illegal if they reject Balsillie for discmininatory reasons. They have clearly stated their reasons for rejecting him. In fact they can reject him for any reason that is not discriminatory, they don't need a good reason. They have stated they didn't like the way he behaved when he tried to buy the Predators. They also don't like the way he is behaving in the current drama. Both of these reasons are legitimate legal reasons for them to reject him. Actually they do need a valid reason, and I dont think the one you give would cut it. I highly doubt personal reasons would qualify as a legitimate reason to not accept his highest bid by such a large margin. Seriously they might as well be rejecting him because the 29 other owners prefer chocolate and Balsillie likes vanilla. As I said above it is legal. The NHL is being very careful to avoid any behavior that would lead to an anti-trust case. In my opinion they have been successful and are unlikely to lose an anti-trust case based upon what has happened so far. Thats funny. The NHL put in their own bid, which is the lowest bid. If the highest bid doesnt win and the NHL's does its a complete conflict in interest = lost anti trust case. The fact that the NHL even entered a bid could be seen as anti trust especially when its by far the lowest bid entered to date. Whats the point? It definitely doesnt suggest fair play when they are under bidding everybody, whats the reasoning behind that? The NHL placing a bid goes to show that there is something fishy going on with the entire process. The NHL's "constitution" is definitely trumped by the USA's no matter what Bettman spouts out. The NHL has had 27 years to adapt to the Raiders case. They have adjusted to the law as it was stated in that case. The NFL, NBA, and MLB are all in court supporting the NHL's position. Also a very important fact here is that Davis moved a team he already owned. Balsillie's position is different in that he is not yet an approved owner. True, but even still I dont think Bettman is thinking straight. My point aboot Davis was more regarding Bettmans 200 mil relocation fee, which would be illegal. afaik no other NHL owner has had to pay a relocation fee so why should he have to just because they dont like the way he's buying the team? Hows that not blatant discrimination? Whats Bettmans next anti trust activity if Balsillie wins the court case and pays the 240 mil and the 200 mil relocation fee? Will there be a 200 mil puck chilling fee? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Puck Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 Not sure why you dont think 550 mil isnt a wild claim. Consider this: you rent a 200K house for $1000/mth. If you were to break your lease theres no bloody way you would owe the property owner north of 600K to do so. Thats insane. The Coyotes signed an agreement with the arena owners (the City of Glendale) agreeing to pay what amounts to $550 million if they leave before the current season starts. This is a legal contract. Why do you think the Coyotes can just walk away from their commitment? You seem to think that since it only cost the city $180 million to build (a few years ago) they can never expect to get more than this in return. No, actually it is. I'm fairly positive that if I had the financial resources I could take every ISP and cell phone provider in Canada to court and win. Every contract they have that I have seen all have a clause saying basically this: we reserve the right to give you no rights. Its not within their or any other corporations etc right to circumvent your rights that are granted to you under federal or provincial/state laws. They will of course make claims otherwise, but that doesnt mean that its true. Okay so you feel that every contract ever signed is unenforceable. I don't agree with this position. Actually they do need a valid reason, and I dont think the one you give would cut it. I highly doubt personal reasons would qualify as a legitimate reason to not accept his highest bid by such a large margin. Seriously they might as well be rejecting him because the 29 other owners prefer chocolate and Balsillie likes vanilla. Can you give some evidence to support your claim that they need to justify their decision? Three or four US court cases have established that professional sports leagues have a right to choose their partners (owners) and they have a very wide latitude in making their choices. The decisions in these cases state that the only legally unacceptable reason would be a reason based upon a discriminatory basis. In summary, the law established by those cases says that unless Balsiilie can show he is being illegally discriminated against, the league may disqualify him. Thats funny. The NHL put in their own bid, which is the lowest bid. If the highest bid doesnt win and the NHL's does its a complete conflict in interest = lost anti trust case. The fact that the NHL even entered a bid could be seen as anti trust especially when its by far the lowest bid entered to date. Whats the point? It definitely doesnt suggest fair play when they are under bidding everybody, whats the reasoning behind that? The NHL placing a bid goes to show that there is something fishy going on with the entire process. The NHL's "constitution" is definitely trumped by the USA's no matter what Bettman spouts out. There are two bids: the NHL's and Balsillie's. The league has stated that they only bid because they don't feel having only 1 bid from Balsillie would allow them to protect their interest. They have indicated that if they win they will immediately seek to resell the team (probably to Reinsdorf who withdrew his bid from the formal auction). The judge has indicated that he accepts this reason and does not feel that it is an anti-trust violation. How is it unfair for the league to offer a bid? Its an auction; anyone can bid. How can another bid harm anyone? If the NHL's bid truely is worse than the other bid (and both bids are valid) the judge can choose Balsillie's bid. Furthermore, if the NHL's bid is worse why is it that the creditors (the people who will receive the money from the winning bid) have all, except Moyes, stated that the NHL bid is better? You insist on calling the NHL's bid "smaller". In fact it is up to the judge to decide which bid is better (provided both bids are ruled valid). In fact, as the creditors have seen, the NHL's bid is superior to Balsillie's. Again, rather then being anti-trust, this is just the NHL offering a better alternative to the creditors than Balsillie is. True, but even still I dont think Bettman is thinking straight. My point aboot Davis was more regarding Bettmans 200 mil relocation fee, which would be illegal. afaik no other NHL owner has had to pay a relocation fee so why should he have to just because they dont like the way he's buying the team? Hows that not blatant discrimination? Whats Bettmans next anti trust activity if Balsillie wins the court case and pays the 240 mil and the 200 mil relocation fee? Will there be a 200 mil puck chilling fee? The judge has ruled that the relocation fee should be the difference in value between the current Coyotes team in Hamilton and expansion franchise in Phoenix: relocation fee = (value of Coyotes in Hamilton) - (cost of an expansion franchise in Phoenix). This is because the NHL will be left with the right to sell an expansion franchise in Phoenix if the Coyotes move. I expect that you would agree that the prospect of selling someone an expansion franchise for Phoenix is unlikely to garner very much money. I would guess, less than $30 million, probably a lot less. On the other hand, especially given the sale of the Habs for $633 million, I think we can agree that the value of an established team in Hamilton could easily be $250 - $300 million. The NHL is asking for $279 million. This is probably more than they can get but $200 million doesn't seem to be outlandish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir_Boagalott Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 The Coyotes signed an agreement with the arena owners (the City of Glendale) agreeing to pay what amounts to $550 million if they leave before the current season starts. This is a legal contract. Why do you think the Coyotes can just walk away from their commitment? You seem to think that since it only cost the city $180 million to build (a few years ago) they can never expect to get more than this in return. I'm not suggesting the Coyotes can just walk away from a contract. I'm suggesting that if I owed you $1 million and I declared bankruptcy you'd be out $1 million. Similarily if I had a contract with you to rent a place off you for 1 mil for 100 years and I declared bankrupcy, you would have to find a new tenant. How can they force a new owner to keep an existing agreement which helped bankrupt the team in the 1st place? Okay so you feel that every contract ever signed is unenforceable. I don't agree with this position. No, dont be daft. What you fail to comprehend is that not every contract is legal same with signed documents. ex if you sign a confession statement because the police have had you in custody for 7 days and havent fed you anything and you "confess" wouldnt stand up in court even though you signed it. . Anybody with an ISP and or cell phone should read the fine print. I guarantee it says something like its within our discretion to change the agreement at anytime. So technically your 2 cents/min contract can be changed by them at anytime to $1000/second and they can legally send you a bill for $250K at the end of the month? Obviously that isnt legal, but the way its written they could try to do that because apparently according to them thats within their discretion. Can you give some evidence to support your claim that they need to justify their decision? Three or four US court cases have established that professional sports leagues have a right to choose their partners (owners) and they have a very wide latitude in making their choices. The decisions in these cases state that the only legally unacceptable reason would be a reason based upon a discriminatory basis. In summary, the law established by those cases says that unless Balsiilie can show he is being illegally discriminated against, the league may disqualify him. Personally I dont think I should have to. Its pretty obvious considering this is the 3rd team he has tried to buy and openly move to Hamilton. There are two bids: the NHL's and Balsillie's. The league has stated that they only bid because they don't feel having only 1 bid from Balsillie would allow them to protect their interest. They have indicated that if they win they will immediately seek to resell the team (probably to Reinsdorf who withdrew his bid from the formal auction). The judge has indicated that he accepts this reason and does not feel that it is an anti-trust violation. afaik there were several bids at the time the NHL placed the lowest bid yet. How is it unfair for the league to offer a bid? Its an auction; anyone can bid. How can another bid harm anyone? If the NHL's bid truely is worse than the other bid (and both bids are valid) the judge can choose Balsillie's bid. Its unfair, and stupid because the way they are doing it is illegal. ex if MinuteMaid was loosing money and Coke wanted to auction it off they couldnt place a lowball bid and refuse the only other bid from Pepsi because they dont want to sell it to Pepsi. Thats the very definition of anti trust. Furthermore, if the NHL's bid is worse why is it that the creditors (the people who will receive the money from the winning bid) have all, except Moyes, stated that the NHL bid is better? You insist on calling the NHL's bid "smaller". In fact it is up to the judge to decide which bid is better (provided both bids are ruled valid). In fact, as the creditors have seen, the NHL's bid is superior to Balsillie's. Again, rather then being anti-trust, this is just the NHL offering a better alternative to the creditors than Balsillie is. Simple, its because they are all conveniently lying their asses off and construing the facts to protect their own interests. How do you not comprehend that the arena owners (the City of Glendale) would make more money if the team stays put? It may be the best thing for the City of Glendale but all the other creditors get screwed, including the new Coyotes owner and all the NHL clubs that make a profit so they can keep subsidizing the City of Glendale. Give me a break. Bankruptcy is whats best for all the creditors and not just the most outlandish of them all. Personally I dont think the City of Glendale would even qualify to be considered a "creditor". Financial Dictionary- Creditor: A person (or institution) who extends credit by giving permission [b]to borrow money[/b] if he or she promises to pay it back at a later date. Creditors can be classified into either personal or real. Those who have lent money to friends or family are personal creditors. Real creditors (i.e. a bank or finance company) have legal contracts with the borrower granting the lender the right to claim any of the debtor's real assets (e.g. real estate or car) if he or she fails to pay back the loan. See, the City of Glendale didnt loan Moyes $550 mil so afaik technically they arent even officially creditors. The judge has ruled that the relocation fee should be the difference in value between the current Coyotes team in Hamilton and expansion franchise in Phoenix: relocation fee = (value of Coyotes in Hamilton) - (cost of an expansion franchise in Phoenix). Thats bunk, if no other owner has ever paid a relocation fee than neither should Balsillie. Its discrimination unless you can tell me what the relocation fees were for: Carolina, Dallas, Avs, NJ, Flames, etc. The only legal relocation fee should be whatever extra costs that are incurred by the other teams for the Coyotes being moved to Hamilton in their 1st year because of scheduling conflicts, travel expenses, etc. I expect that you would agree that the prospect of selling someone an expansion franchise for Phoenix is unlikely to garner very much money. I would guess, less than $30 million, probably a lot less. On the other hand, especially given the sale of the Habs for $633 million, I think we can agree that the value of an established team in Hamilton could easily be $250 - $300 million. The NHL is asking for $279 million. This is probably more than they can get but $200 million doesn't seem to be outlandish. A team in Hamilton could actually be worth north of 500 mil if the NHLs own predictions are true that it would be 5th in income. Baslisllies bid is 240+200 relocation fee though so its way more than the $279 you mention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Puck Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 I'm not suggesting the Coyotes can just walk away from a contract. I'm suggesting that if I owed you $1 million and I declared bankruptcy you'd be out $1 million. Okay suppose I loaned you $1 million dollars and I took your hockey team as collateral for the loan. You declare bankruptcy and so your assets (the team) are sold. Then I am a creditor and am entitled to a share of the selling price (up untilo I get my $1 million back). If the buyer only gives you say $350 thousand dollars then I get to share that $350 thousand dollars with your other creditors. I don't get all my money back, but I also am not out my entire $1 million. Similarily if I had a contract with you to rent a place off you for 1 mil for 100 years and I declared bankrupcy, you would have to find a new tenant. How can they force a new owner to keep an existing agreement which helped bankrupt the team in the 1st place? No one is being forced to do anything. Balsillie's bid indicates that he will not honour the lease agreement. The NHL's bid indicates that they will. Beacuse of this difference Balsillie is planning to stiff an extra creditor. Since this creditor is owed the most money, this makes Balsillie's bid much worse than the NHL's. This is one of the 2 or 3 main obstacles to Balsillie winning. No, dont be daft. What you fail to comprehend is that not every contract is legal same with signed documents. ex if you sign a confession statement because the police have had you in custody for 7 days and havent fed you anything and you "confess" wouldnt stand up in court even though you signed it. . Anybody with an ISP and or cell phone should read the fine print. I guarantee it says something like its within our discretion to change the agreement at anytime. So technically your 2 cents/min contract can be changed by them at anytime to $1000/second and they can legally send you a bill for $250K at the end of the month? Obviously that isnt legal, but the way its written they could try to do that because apparently according to them thats within their discretion. I am quite aware that not every contract is the same. It may be that your cell phone and/or ISP contract are not valid. This has no bearing on whether the Coyotes lease agreement is valid. The judge has indicated that he will honour the lease agreement but probably not to the full $550 million. I suspect he will award the City of Glendale around $200 million. In fact, since they built the arena for $180 million a few years ago and since if the Coyotes leave it will be a pretty useless building, this amount seems very fair. Personally I dont think I should have to. Its pretty obvious considering this is the 3rd team he has tried to buy and openly move to Hamilton. You are of course entitled to your opinion. Since Balsillie's team has not claimed he is being discriminated against and since the NHL has in fact justified their position I don't think anyone in court believes he has been singled out for being Canadian. After all an American owner (Gillette) just sold an NHL team to a group of Canadians. afaik there were several bids at the time the NHL placed the lowest bid yet. No, although two other groups indicated they planned to bid, they both dropped out before making a formal bid. Again you call the NHL's bid the lowest. Again, I'll point out that the creditors have all except Moyes decided it is the better of the two bids. Its unfair, and stupid because the way they are doing it is illegal. ex if MinuteMaid was loosing money and Coke wanted to auction it off they couldnt place a lowball bid and refuse the only other bid from Pepsi because they dont want to sell it to Pepsi. Thats the very definition of anti trust. This is (very roughly) the argument Balsillie has been making. The judge didn't seem to give it much credence. He indicated that he accepts the NHL's claim that they are refusing Balsillie's bid because they don't think he will make a good business partner and that they only made their own bid to protect their own interests. In fact, if Coke decided to sell MinuteMaid they could sell it to whomever they want. There would be no legal obligation to sell it to the highest bidder. They own it, they can sell it as they see fit. If you decide to sell your home, there is no law requiring you to sell it to whomever offers the most money. You can sell it to your mother for less if you want to. Simple, its because they are all conveniently lying their asses off and construing the facts to protect their own interests. How do you not comprehend that the arena owners (the City of Glendale) would make more money if the team stays put? It may be the best thing for the City of Glendale but all the other creditors get screwed, including the new Coyotes owner and all the NHL clubs that make a profit so they can keep subsidizing the City of Glendale. Give me a break. Bankruptcy is whats best for all the creditors and not just the most outlandish of them all. Personally I dont think the City of Glendale would even qualify to be considered a "creditor". I do understand that keeping the team in Glendale is best for the City of Glendale. As for the other creditors getting screwed please answer the following question. Why if they are getting screwed under the NHL's bid, have they all, except Moyes, stated they prefer the NHL's bid to Balsillie's bid. Financial Dictionary- Creditor: A person (or institution) who extends credit by giving permission to borrow money if he or she promises to pay it back at a later date. Creditors can be classified into either personal or real. Those who have lent money to friends or family are personal creditors. Real creditors (i.e. a bank or finance company) have legal contracts with the borrower granting the lender the right to claim any of the debtor's real assets (e.g. real estate or car) if he or she fails to pay back the loan. See, the City of Glendale didnt loan Moyes $550 mil so afaik technically they arent even officially creditors. Here's another definition: Wikipedia English - The Free Encyclopedia Creditor party (e.g. person, organization, company, or government) that has a claim to the services of a second party. The first party, in general, has provided some property or service to the second party under the assumption (usually enforced by a contract) that the second party will return an equivalent property or service. The second party is frequently called a debtor. Thats bunk, if no other owner has ever paid a relocation fee than neither should Balsillie. Its discrimination unless you can tell me what the relocation fees were for: Carolina, Dallas, Avs, NJ, Flames, etc. The only legal relocation fee should be whatever extra costs that are incurred by the other teams for the Coyotes being moved to Hamilton in their 1st year because of scheduling conflicts, travel expenses, etc. So you think it is bunk. That's fine, but the judge has stated that is how he will compute the relocation fee. The two sides are only really arguing about what the values of a team in Hamilton is worth. A team in Hamilton could actually be worth north of 500 mil if the NHLs own predictions are true that it would be 5th in income. Baslisllies bid is 240+200 relocation fee though so its way more than the $279 you mention. Balsillie's legal team has claimed that a team in Hamilton is only worth $7 million and therefore his relocation fee should only be $7 million. You think a team in Hamilton is worth more than $500 million!! Did you forget the leafs are still in Toronto? Also Balsillie's bid is not $240 million + $200 million. I don't know where you got this number. The bid says that the relocation fee will come out of the $240 million that he is bidding. The creditors get to split up the money that is left after he pays the relocation fee. He is offering $50 million to Glendale for the lease, (a strange offer if they are not even creditors) and the other creditors get to split the remaining ($190 million - relocation fee). Balsillie's expert witness (Zimbalist) has produced a report saying that a team in Hamilton is worth $7 million more than a team in Phoenix. [This is another one of the major obstacles facing Balsillie. I think this report is bunk.] If a team in Hamilton were worth more than $500 million as you claim, the relocation fee would exceed $470 million. If Balsillie were to offer to pay that relocation fee on top of purchasing the team, I am sure that the NHL would accept. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33 Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 Peter Puck FTW! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 This is (very roughly) the argument Balsillie has been making. The judge didn't seem to give it much credence. He indicated that he accepts the NHL's claim that they are refusing Balsillie's bid because they don't think he will make a good business partner and that they only made their own bid to protect their own interests. The judge didn't think Balsillie would be a good business partner? Is this judge (and the NHL) worried that Balsillie will make them all look ... silly ... with his obviously superior business practices? I mean, isn't Balsillie obscenely rich and the leader of one of the most important companies around? Seems to me his business model is infinitely superior to that of the NHL or Phoenix. Not that I'm arguing with the rest of your argument, I'm just reading it all and absorbing it, but this one point sticks out to me. I mean, really? Bad business partner? "Out, out, OUT! You make TOO much money, dammit! You're making the league look even better in Canada, and we just can't have that!!! Damn you brilliant businessman, damn you! <shaking of fist>" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Puck Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 (edited) The judge didn't think Balsillie would be a good business partner? Is this judge (and the NHL) worried that Balsillie will make them all look ... silly ... with his obviously superior business practices? I mean, isn't Balsillie obscenely rich and the leader of one of the most important companies around? Seems to me his business model is infinitely superior to that of the NHL or Phoenix. Not that I'm arguing with the rest of your argument, I'm just reading it all and absorbing it, but this one point sticks out to me. I mean, really? Bad business partner? "Out, out, OUT! You make TOO much money, dammit! You're making the league look even better in Canada, and we just can't have that!!! Damn you brilliant businessman, damn you! <shaking of fist>" No I guess I wasn't clear on this point. The judge has not expressed any opinion on whether Balsillie would make a good partner. (Although some of his remarks suggest that he thinks Balsillie would be a fine owner). The league has said that they don't want him as a partner by means of a the 26-0 vote of the Board of Governors against Balsillie. (The Leafs and Sabres abstained, the Coyotes don't get a vote and I forgot which other team abstained). Legally the NHL is not required to justify why they don't want someone as a business partner. But, the league has volunteered their reason: they don't like the way he has disregarded the NHL's constitution in his 3 attempts to acquire a team. Also he has pissed off a few owners royally. Gillette used to be on his side but was one of the most active anti-Balsillie forces by the time of the vote. It is believed this is because Balsillie or one of his advisors leaked the fact that the Habs were for sale. Gillette wanted to keep that secret and had to come forward and deny it but we know how this turned out. Edit: I checked and it was the Penguins who also abstained. Edited September 15, 2009 by Peter Puck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 The league has said that they don't want him as a partner by means of a the 26-0 vote of the Board of Governors against Balsillie. (The Leafs and Sabres abstained, the Coyotes don't get a vote and I forgot which other team abstained). I wonder how many were bullied? And the Leafs abstained because they were the ones rocking the boat, I assume? Legally the NHL is not required to justify why they don't want someone as a business partner. But, the league has volunteered their reason: they don't like the way he has disregarded the NHL's constitution in his 3 attempts to acquire a team. Yeah, I don't get this. From what I understand, he tried the legit way a few times but the NHL in all its "wisdom" (and boy do I use THAT term liberally) didn't want him to have one because he wanted to move whichever team he got to Canada - a no-no in Bettman's experiment...er... league. Can anyone blame Balsillie for ignoring the "constitution" after that? Here's a guy with money and the willingness to absorb potential losses while icing a successful franchise (can someone explain that one to Gary?) and the NHL says no. BRILLIANCE! We have so many teams losing money and we're asking, nay BEGGING the Canadian teams (in particular Montreal and Toronto) to subsidise our experiments, but we're unwilling to take another Canadian team which will help finance our experiments and lessen the fleecing we do to the Canadian teams (in particular Montreal and Toronto). Did I mention the Montreal and Toronto thing? Go to Forbes and look them up. They prop the league up. Without Montreal and Toronto, there would be about ten teams less. Maybe more. Maybe Balsillie would could better spend his time overthrowing Bettman. Seems to me his business models could give those of Gary a little lesson or a million. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33 Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/news;_ylt=AmW8...p&type=lgns The judge officially rejected both bids, but will award the team to the NHL if they amend their offer to include more money paid to Moyes and Gretzky. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Puck Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 The NHL has just announced a lawsuit against Moyes (former owner of the Phoenix Coyotes). They are seeking $61 million including $20 million to cover losses of running the team this year and $8 million to pay Gretzky what he his still owed on his coaching contract. Moyes announced he will counter-sue. I've been waiting for this. I think the NHL will prevail. Bettman and the NHL lawyers seem to know what they are doing in court anyway. I find it interesting that the league has run the team for a year (after losing most season ticket holders during the summer) and yet has only lost $20 million. Moyes claimed that he was losing $60 million a year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.