DR HOLLIDAY Posted September 12, 2009 Report Posted September 12, 2009 Are they? Sure, becuase they are in big markets and make money they are good for the league, but ask any fan outside of Washington and Dallas, or a small marekt owner if they like the 2 of them and how they drive up the cost to do buisness in the league because of their free spending Ummm, salary cap...........You don't think the money they spent on new stadiums is good for the league?
DR HOLLIDAY Posted September 12, 2009 Report Posted September 12, 2009 I agree with all this, although I guess I think it goes without saying that the judge has to uphold the law while he protects the creditors' interests. I would just add that the suggestion that the judge might rule a certain way because one side or the other might tie up the case in appeals if they don't win is nonsense. While this is true, it's really neither here nor there -- just because they've let bad guys in before doesn't mean they should continue to do so. Jimmy Balls hasn't proven to be either of those, so he deserves a shot.
nfreeman Posted September 12, 2009 Report Posted September 12, 2009 Jimmy Balls hasn't proven to be either of those, so he deserves a shot. Well, the other owners unanimously rejected him, so he clearly ticked all of them off with his behavior. They felt he was dishonest and aggressive with them. He obviously isn't willing to play by the rules -- and if that's true at this point (ie when he's trying to get in the door), it would probably be true on a day-to-day basis as well. Seems to me they are entitled to reject him -- and if I were in their shoes I'd feel the same way.
shrader Posted September 12, 2009 Report Posted September 12, 2009 Is Wayne Gretzky now the first ever coach to hold out? :D I never thought I'd see the day that a coach no shows the start of training camp.
DR HOLLIDAY Posted September 13, 2009 Report Posted September 13, 2009 Well, the other owners unanimously rejected him, so he clearly ticked all of them off with his behavior. They felt he was dishonest and aggressive with them. He obviously isn't willing to play by the rules -- and if that's true at this point (ie when he's trying to get in the door), it would probably be true on a day-to-day basis as well. Seems to me they are entitled to reject him -- and if I were in their shoes I'd feel the same way. Being rejected by crooks and clowns, not exactly the worst thing.
nfreeman Posted September 13, 2009 Report Posted September 13, 2009 Being rejected by crooks and clowns, not exactly the worst thing. I have a feeling I know where you stand on the question of whether the team should be moving to Hamilton. Anyway, as you know, the vast majority of them are neither crook nor clown.
nfreeman Posted September 13, 2009 Report Posted September 13, 2009 Well, after reading a bit more about yesterday's developments (a couple of good summaries are here and here), I think it's looking pretty good for the NHL to prevail. The largest creditor (a private equity fund that is a secured creditor), the unsecured creditors' committee, and the city all are backing the NHL. Moyes is the only one backing Balsillie's bid. In addition, the judge probably does not want to be in the position of upsetting the pro sports applecart by forcing the NHL to allow the team to move. Anything can happen in bankruptcy, but at the same time, there doesn't seem to be any reason for him to award the franchise to Balsillie. Bettman, strangely enough, does not appear intimidated by the possibility of being criminally indicted -- probably because that possibility doesn't exist here on the planet Earth.
DR HOLLIDAY Posted September 13, 2009 Report Posted September 13, 2009 I have a feeling I know where you stand on the question of whether the team should be moving to Hamilton. Anyway, as you know, the vast majority of them are neither crook nor clown. 30% of them.
Two or less Posted September 13, 2009 Report Posted September 13, 2009 Those guys are annoying owners granted, but they are pretty solid for their leagues. Synder is great for the league.... http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=tsn-redskinssuingfanswho&prov=tsn&type=lgns Seriously, who does that?
wjag Posted September 13, 2009 Report Posted September 13, 2009 Synder is great for the league.... http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=tsn-redskinssuingfanswho&prov=tsn&type=lgns Seriously, who does that? Never heard of that before. Seems like a lot of expense to recover what should be easy to resell.. When Baltimore started this with the permanent seat license (PSL), I dubbed it the personal sucker license. Friends of mine who purchased the PSLs have seen their value steadily increase. The caveat though is you must maintain the license. They do have the option to sell it. If I was on the brink and owned a seat contract, it would be one of the first things to go.
end the curse Posted September 13, 2009 Report Posted September 13, 2009 Worst hit for the league's effort: Bettman being forced under oath to admit that should the league flip the team after being awarded the ownership they would give absolutely nothing of the relocation money to the creditors. This may have been the most damaging portion of the trial for the league's hopes. Still, since all the creditors favoring the NHL bid have said that the reason they back Bettman's lower offer is they fear the appellate court hold-ups in recovering their money if Balsillie wins, I still contend that the league has the edge even though their case as a whole is otherwise very weak and a pretty open-shut matter in favor of Balsillie.
shrader Posted September 13, 2009 Report Posted September 13, 2009 Worst hit for the league's effort: Bettman being forced under oath to admit that should the league flip the team after being awarded the ownership they would give absolutely nothing of the relocation money to the creditors. This may have been the most damaging portion of the trial for the league's hopes. They don't get any of the relocation money if Balsillie is successful either, do they?
end the curse Posted September 13, 2009 Report Posted September 13, 2009 They don't get any of the relocation money if Balsillie is successful either, do they? I believe the answer is yes, because it would be distributed as part of the bankruptcy settlement.
deluca67 Posted September 13, 2009 Report Posted September 13, 2009 I believe the answer is yes, because it would be distributed as part of the bankruptcy settlement. Why would any of the relocation fee go to the creditors? That would be NHL revenue not Phoenix Coyote revenue, is it not?
Eleven Posted September 13, 2009 Report Posted September 13, 2009 I believe the answer is yes, because it would be distributed as part of the bankruptcy settlement. No, the relocation fee would be paid to the league. http://www.nationalpost.com/sports/story.html?id=1968562
end the curse Posted September 13, 2009 Report Posted September 13, 2009 Are you guys 100% certain? I was under the impression it was factored into the purchase price and distributed accordingly.
Eleven Posted September 13, 2009 Report Posted September 13, 2009 Are you guys 100% certain? I was under the impression it was factored into the purchase price and distributed accordingly. Pretty certain. I haven't seen anything to the contrary.
DR HOLLIDAY Posted September 14, 2009 Report Posted September 14, 2009 Kansas City Yeah they were a big hit the first time....... :rolleyes:
Guru Posted September 14, 2009 Report Posted September 14, 2009 Freeman, I know you aren't a fan of the move to Hamilton, but why can't you at least concede the point about Phoenix being untenable? The fact of the matter is Reinsdorf's bid required a $200 million bailout from tax payers over a 5 year period to cover losses, plus an escape clause allowing him to relocate. The NHL in its bid has an escape clause to relocate the team after ONE year. The 3rd bid requires the lease to be completely reworked AND 6 home games per year moved to Saskatoon. These are the type of deals the league tries to manipulate out of cities. Look at what they hijacked out of the taxpayers in Pittsburgh with the threat of moving to Kansas City, only to admit after the fact that Kansas City was just used as a lever.
nfreeman Posted September 14, 2009 Report Posted September 14, 2009 These are the type of deals the league tries to manipulate out of cities. Look at what they hijacked out of the taxpayers in Pittsburgh with the threat of moving to Kansas City, only to admit after the fact that Kansas City was just used as a lever. Correct. I'd guess leases where the economics flow heavily to the team to the detriment of the city (and often to the point of being egregious) are in place for at least 80% of the NHL teams. I don't think this is a particularly good use of public money, but that's a discussion for another day.
Guru Posted September 14, 2009 Report Posted September 14, 2009 Correct. I'd guess leases where the economics flow heavily to the team to the detriment of the city (and often to the point of being egregious) are in place for at least 80% of the NHL teams. I don't think this is a particularly good use of public money, but that's a discussion for another day. To me it's criminal. Tax dollars should never be used this way, but the door has been open for decades to allow it, and far worse.
apuszczalowski Posted September 15, 2009 Report Posted September 15, 2009 Jimmy Balls hasn't proven to be either of those, so he deserves a shot. Well, actually, he has shown signs, him and his company RIM just had to pay a huge fine here in Canada about a year ago for some shady dealing. Add to that the fact that he plays by his own rules, whoch he has shown each time he has tried to buy a franchise, and he is showing he is not a guy that can be trusted. He hasn't done anything criminal yet, but he hasn't shown he is an upstanding trustworthy citizen
DR HOLLIDAY Posted September 15, 2009 Report Posted September 15, 2009 Well, actually, he has shown signs, him and his company RIM just had to pay a huge fine here in Canada about a year ago for some shady dealing. Add to that the fact that he plays by his own rules, whoch he has shown each time he has tried to buy a franchise, and he is showing he is not a guy that can be trusted. He hasn't done anything criminal yet, but he hasn't shown he is an upstanding trustworthy citizen You just summed up about 75% of all business men and about 100% of all lawyers....... :beer:
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.