end the curse Posted September 24, 2009 Report Posted September 24, 2009 I don't think the internet is capable of acting as a time machine yet, hence future events can not be linked to at the current time. Sorry about that... I thought you were basing that opinion from quotes or articles you recently read that indicated Balsillie has now dropped his plans to appeal, because everything I've read so far suggests otherwise. "IMO" or "IMHO" is a good way to qualify so people will know it's not something you can link to.
shrader Posted September 24, 2009 Report Posted September 24, 2009 Today Balsillie rescinded his intentions to move the franchise to Hamilton for this coming season, offered to postpone formally aquiring the team until June to allow any other offers to keep the team in Phoenix be entertained, and then give $50 million to Glendale as a parting gift before taking the team to Hamilton for the 2010-11 campaign. It's a great offer, a smart offer, probably the offer he should have come to the table with a long time ago, and one that's designed to pave the way for the anti-trust lawsuit he'll be filing after Baum awards the Coyotes to Bettman. I think it's where he saw this going from the very start, and all of this was setting the stage for that which is to come. So put together a bid you know is going to lose, only to change it last second to save face? The entire thing as you're laying it out sounds completely dirty to me. I don't know how Baum is supposed to rule on his bid when it changes every 30 seconds.
Screamin'Weasel Posted September 24, 2009 Report Posted September 24, 2009 Today Balsillie rescinded his intentions to move the franchise to Hamilton for this coming season, offered to postpone formally aquiring the team until June to allow any other offers to keep the team in Phoenix be entertained, and then give $50 million to Glendale as a parting gift before taking the team to Hamilton for the 2010-11 campaign. It's a great offer, a smart offer, probably the offer he should have come to the table with a long time ago, and one that's designed to pave the way for the anti-trust lawsuit he'll be filing after Baum awards the Coyotes to Bettman. I think it's where he saw this going from the very start, and all of this was setting the stage for that which is to come. Link? Sorry about that... I thought you were basing that opinion from quotes or articles you recently read that indicated Bettman offered a bid and that Judge Baum has already ruled in favor of it, ignoring both the NHL's and Balsille's bids as well as ignoring a reconvining of the court to announce his decision, because everything I've read so far suggests otherwise. "IMO" or "IMHO" is a good way to qualify so people will know it's not something you can link to.
nfreeman Posted September 24, 2009 Report Posted September 24, 2009 Link? Sorry about that... I thought you were basing that opinion from quotes or articles you recently read that indicated Bettman offered a bid and that Judge Baum has already ruled in favor of it, ignoring both the NHL's and Balsille's bids as well as ignoring a reconvining of the court to announce his decision, because everything I've read so far suggests otherwise. "IMO" or "IMHO" is a good way to qualify so people will know it's not something you can link to. Give him a break. It's kinda tricky to link to "L.A. Law, season 2, episode 5." That Victor Cifuentes is so convincing!
end the curse Posted September 24, 2009 Report Posted September 24, 2009 No offense intended, and I'm not naming names because I don't want to embarrass anyone, but when I read what some of the people on this board type I just laugh my ass off at the stupidity. I sometimes think it must be a put on, that it's a joke, because how can some people really be that dense and uninformed? I guess ignorant minds think alike. Sorry, that probably came off as arrogant, but come on some of you people...I am tired of holding your hands as you babble about subjects that you have no clue about. I'm not here to teach the very basics that are common knowledge outside of the confines of this little group of dolts. Not all of you are this way, I think there are some very intelligent and thoughtful people on this board, and those who I am speaking of probably are to thick to know who they are, but...wow...it's incredible!
... Posted September 24, 2009 Report Posted September 24, 2009 Whatever happened to Balsillie wanting to locate a franchise in the Kitchener/Waterloo part of Ontario? I haven't seen anything on that lately. That area has not come up at all in the Baum court as far as I know, but I could be wrong on that.
shrader Posted September 24, 2009 Report Posted September 24, 2009 I haven't seen anything on that lately. That area has not come up at all in the Baum court as far as I know, but I could be wrong on that. They don't have an arena and since he conditioned the deal on moving immediately (not sure how he can suddenly change his offer since that deadline has passed) that area was not going to ever be mentioned by his people.
nfreeman Posted September 24, 2009 Report Posted September 24, 2009 I would imagine that if Balsillie were to pick nearly any other Canadian market, the NHL would tell the court that this latest offer is acceptable. But, as we've argued, the bug-a-boo is Balsillie wanting it to be in Hamilton. I don't think I agree with this. I think at this point the owners are dead set against Balsillie owning a team, regardless of location. I also think the owners don't want to move a US team into Canada. I think they'd rather try KC or Vegas.
... Posted September 24, 2009 Report Posted September 24, 2009 I don't think I agree with this. I think at this point the owners are dead set against Balsillie owning a team, regardless of location. I also think the owners don't want to move a US team into Canada. I think they'd rather try KC or Vegas. Obviously this is getting into wild-speculation territory, but the idea was simply to suggest a way of compromise in this case. This way, the league could still reamain in full control of the franchise (as opposed to the court controlling where the next team would wind up) and still give the creditors a decent chance of recouping their losses. I don't agree with it, but the potential is there - I imagine it would end the court proceedings rather quickly at this point. I'm not saying the NHL would go for it, either, but I am saying I bet Baum would.
nfreeman Posted September 24, 2009 Report Posted September 24, 2009 Obviously this is getting into wild-speculation territory, but the idea was simply to suggest a way of compromise in this case. This way, the league could still reamain in full control of the franchise (as opposed to the court controlling where the next team would wind up) and still give the creditors a decent chance of recouping their losses. I don't agree with it, but the potential is there - I imagine it would end the court proceedings rather quickly at this point. I'm not saying the NHL would go for it, either, but I am saying I bet Baum would. So, if Balsillie said that he'd buy the team and move them to Winnipeg, but the NHL said that also was unacceptable, you think Baum would go for that? I don't agree. Or are you saying that if the NHL and Balsillie agreed that Balsillie could buy the team and move it to Winnipeg, Baum would go for it? In that case I agree.
... Posted September 24, 2009 Report Posted September 24, 2009 Or are you saying that if the NHL and Balsillie agreed that Balsillie could buy the team and move it to Winnipeg, Baum would go for it? In that case I agree. This. For some reason I couldn't get the thought out that efficiently.
nucci Posted September 24, 2009 Report Posted September 24, 2009 CBSSports.com just announced Gretzky has stepped down as coach and executive for Coyotes. No link yet.
nfreeman Posted September 24, 2009 Report Posted September 24, 2009 This. For some reason I couldn't get the thought out that efficiently. Too much invective in this thread (not from you) and not enough logical, respectful discussion.
Mbossy Posted September 24, 2009 Report Posted September 24, 2009 Just some opinion from a few players in national post article "We have Canadian fans, obviously, who like the Buffalo Sabres, and it would be disappointing to lose some of those fans," Sabres forward Derek Roy said. "Buffalo's a small community to begin with, and losing fans from having three teams within 100 miles is maybe not a good idea." Veteran forward Adam Mair has what might be a potentially unique perspective, having been born in Hamilton and having played in Toronto before establishing himself as a regular in Buffalo. He won tickets to the 1987 Canada Cup through a newspaper contest when he was eight years old, and remembers what Hamilton can be like as a big-time hockey town. "As a Hamiltonian, I would like nothing better than to see a team there," Mair said yesterday. "Hopefully, it would be a viable situation for both Toronto and Buffalo. The answer to that question, I have no idea. But there'd be nothing better than for me to see a team in Hamilton, as long as it didn't affect Buffalo." Seems as though most would be okay with the move if it doesn't hurt Buffalo Sabres viability.
cilevel Posted September 25, 2009 Report Posted September 25, 2009 As a fellow Canadian, I could care less if Canada had more or less teams. I'm a Sabres fan and thats the only team I care about. And if you want proof of what I said, go to TSN and read the "your Call" posts under any storey refering to Balsillie/Phoenix. What makes a city a City a hockey Hot bed is they have never had a hockey team or had one and lost one? Winnepeg lost a team cause they lost some support, same with Quebec City, most Canadians will still call those Hockey hot beds that deserve teams. Would you seriously care about, or pay money to see the Coyotes team play over the last 5-10 years? Sports can work anywhere, but it all starts with having successful teams and marketing them right. Dallas is not a typical "hockey Hotbed", along with LA or Anaheim, yet they have teams and areas that support hockey because hey have teams that are successful. Even Tampa has success occaionally when they are good. I could not agree more - the team needs to win if they want a fan base. I actually support the team and have since I moved here (what can I say, I really like going to hockey games). They have all major sports teams here and the fact is, it is the fifth largest city in the US so the population is there if the team wins. They are like any other city out here, if a sports team is winning they tend to go to the games. On a side note, signing Tippet is the best news Coyotes fans have heard all year.
shrader Posted September 30, 2009 Report Posted September 30, 2009 According to TSN, both deals were rejected by Baum. Way to go Moyes. :rolleyes:
spndnchz Posted October 27, 2009 Report Posted October 27, 2009 Moyes took the offer from the NHL to buy the franchise. Attorneys said the offer is worth about $128 million. The agreement would provide the nearly $80 million that is owed SOF Investment, the largest secured creditor, and the NHL would get the $37 million it is owed for funding the team since last fall. Between $9 million and $11 million would be available to be divided between Moyes and Gretzky.
nfreeman Posted October 27, 2009 Report Posted October 27, 2009 Moyes took the offer from the NHL to buy the franchise. Attorneys said the offer is worth about $128 million. The agreement would provide the nearly $80 million that is owed SOF Investment, the largest secured creditor, and the NHL would get the $37 million it is owed for funding the team since last fall. Between $9 million and $11 million would be available to be divided between Moyes and Gretzky. ...and sanity prevails.
wonderbread Posted October 27, 2009 Report Posted October 27, 2009 Moyes took the offer from the NHL to buy the franchise. Attorneys said the offer is worth about $128 million. The agreement would provide the nearly $80 million that is owed SOF Investment, the largest secured creditor, and the NHL would get the $37 million it is owed for funding the team since last fall. Between $9 million and $11 million would be available to be divided between Moyes and Gretzky. That makes sense. Bettman basically lost Gretzky and Moyes millions by not dealing w/ Balsille. If I was Wayne i'd sue the league.
Eleven Posted October 28, 2009 Report Posted October 28, 2009 Are we absolutely certain that there are no RICO violations?
tom webster Posted October 28, 2009 Report Posted October 28, 2009 That makes sense. Bettman basically lost Gretzky and Moyes millions by not dealing w/ Balsille. If I was Wayne i'd sue the league. I think what you will find that both Moyes and Gretzky played games within accepted accounting rules and now want to go back and recreate their involvement to make it look like they were debtors and not principals. As always, you can't have it both ways.
nfreeman Posted October 28, 2009 Report Posted October 28, 2009 Are we absolutely certain that there are no RICO violations? I've finally moved on, and more immediately defeated the urge to post an "I told you so," and you want to get my blood pressure back up? That was a pretty good one though. I think what you will find that both Moyes and Gretzky played games within accepted accounting rules and now want to go back and recreate their involvement to make it look like they were debtors and not principals. As always, you can't have it both ways. Yes.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.