KoZed Posted May 3, 2009 Share Posted May 3, 2009 http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=e...le-canadien.php Gillet has taken a 200M$ mortgage on the Bell Centre... and 50M$ on the Habs themselves. It's the maximum allowed by the league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLP Posted May 4, 2009 Share Posted May 4, 2009 So now if Gillett files for bankruptcy the Habs will be auctioned similar to repossessed cars and houses? "On the block now, lot number 732-956, a professional ice hockey franchise. This is an as-is item... Do I hear an opening bid? ...?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tokyohabs Posted May 4, 2009 Share Posted May 4, 2009 An as-is item? There go your bidders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaos Posted May 4, 2009 Share Posted May 4, 2009 Maybe we can take a collection up on Habsworld and buy the Habs Anybody want to chip in? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
habs rule Posted May 4, 2009 Share Posted May 4, 2009 I BID 100.00 DO I HEAR ANY MORE? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athlétique.Canadien Posted May 4, 2009 Share Posted May 4, 2009 Argh! I was thinking about getting rid of Arnold Avatar but this news just reinforces keeping it. How can a franchise that he purchased for $180 million that is now valued at likely $450 million (with building included) require a mortgage? I detect a "robbing Peter to pay Paul" in reference to his Liverpool soccer fiasco. Maybe it's involving Nascar. Anyway you slice it I smell a rat! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fromage Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 (edited) Uhm... he needs access to liquidity. The Canadiens are an asset. The Bell Centre is an asset. These assets are not liquid, they're concrete assets. They're worth x amount of liquid cash, but they're not cash itself. Therefore, in order to access the liquid cash that the Canadiens/Bell Centre are worth, Gillett has to take out a loan that is backed by the value of the Canadiens and Bell Centre. Either this, or he sells the team and the building for cash. There is no rat. This is asset management 101. If you require liquidity, you can liquidate(sell) or take out a loan(mortgage). Assuming he doesn't default on the payments, there should be no problem. Edited May 5, 2009 by fromage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MK1 Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 Uhm... he needs access to liquidity. The Canadiens are an asset. The Bell Centre is an asset. These assets are not liquid, they're concrete assets. They're worth x amount of liquid cash, but they're not cash itself. Therefore, in order to access the liquid cash that the Canadiens/Bell Centre are worth, Gillett has to take out a loan that is backed by the value of the Canadiens and Bell Centre. Either this, or he sells the team and the building for cash. There is no rat. This is asset management 101. If you require liquidity, you can liquidate(sell) or take out a loan(mortgage). Assuming he doesn't default on the payments, there should be no problem. Except for the fact that he borrowed funds to buy the Habs and to build the Bell Centre, so he is doubling up on each side of the ledger. It would be like having a private mortgage on your home, and then remortgaging the property just because you are on title, thus creating two debts from the same asset. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexstream Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 So now if Gillett files for bankruptcy the Habs will be auctioned similar to repossessed cars and houses? "On the block now, lot number 732-956, a professional ice hockey franchise. This is an as-is item... Do I hear an opening bid? ...?" no. Molson, with its 20% would prevent that. That's my guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fromage Posted May 9, 2009 Share Posted May 9, 2009 thus creating two debts from the same asset. it's called leveraging your debt and assets. also, he didn't build the bell centre. molson did. he bought the team for $180M and now they're worth $400+M, the financing he needed to purchase the team is almost certainly paid off. 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.