League reacts to Boots bungling
In response to a series of unknown financial arrangements between former Nashville Predators owner William “Boots” Del Biaggio and two other NHL owners, the league’s board of governors adopted a new policy that requires owners to disclose any and all business and financial relationships between one another.
In addition to requiring clubs to disclose business relationships, the NHL also has begun requiring owners to notify the league when they begin a sales procedure. The league has often found out about potential team sales through the press, but in the future, owners will be expected to alert the league as they begin to put together a sales pitch — even if that pitch is just for a percentage stake in a team.
Sounds like some darn fine policies to me. Although I'm not quite sure what the penalty would be for future funny business like what happened with Mr. Boots in Nashville.
We learn from SBJ reporter Tripp Mickle that these new policies were supposed to remain under a code of silence — mainly because their very existence just rehighlights the embarrassment of the whole Del Biaggio fiasco — but obviously there was a leak from on high.
The "sales pitch" business is also an attempt to thwart future Bootses, if there is such a thing, as you better believe the due diligence that wasn't done there when he was just a minority owner with the Sharks will now be applied even to the minor minority owners.
Tom Benjamin had the best recap of the situation this summer:
Boots doesn’t have any money. He never had any money. If the NHL had bothered to check him out, they would have learned this. A Google search turned up so little information on Boots I was suspicious of him in January 2007. My due diligence using Google was more thorough than the NHL due diligence?
There are only two options here:
1) Bettman is a chump who foolishly accepted the notion that Del Biaggio had tens of millions of dollars even though there is nothing in his background to suggest he has earned any money at all.
2) The league didn’t bother to check Boots out because Anschutz was his sponsor, because having Boots around as an owner in waiting helped Mario jerk an arena out of the people in Pittsburgh and because Boots helped Leipold sell his stake in Nashville.
I’m betting on on number two, but either way, Bettman booted it and the league richly deserves the Del Biaggio embarassment.
Agreed.
It's absolutely incredible that it took this nonsense, with a good chunk of a failing franchise tied up in bankruptcy court, to bring about what should have been absolutely standard league policies.
Then again, was it not already the case that NHL owners had to disclose business relationships amongst one another? And the penalty paid by Anschutz and Leipold for their indiscretions was what exactly?
Don't hold your breath waiting for the leak on that one.
0 recs |
7 comments
| Add comment
|
Comments
One criticism that I had of Tom’s piece then, which I think still applies, is that the criticism of Bettman and the league regarding Del Biaggio’s finances is wide of the mark. It wasn’t a case of a guy without money not being asked any questions and being handed an ownership stake. It was a case of white-collar crime, and also involved an employee of the brokerage firm which provided falsified financial statements. In other words, verification was sought for the loans Del Biaggio took out to purchase his share of the Preds, but the documents provided were bogus.
Paul Kelly even said in an interview that with his background in white-collar criminal prosecution, it’s incredibly hard to detect that kind of activity ahead of time. At some point, all business transactions involve a level of trust, and that’s what Del Biaggio and his accomplice abused here.
As regards this new NHL policy, I agree, it sounds like something that should have been in place long ago, but I doubt that Bettman (or any future commissioner, for that matter) will have the heft to enforce it over some of the heavyweights like Anschutz.
by Dirk Hoag on Nov 18, 2008 8:41 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Good points Dirk. I guess the thing is that there should have been some due diligence done either way, even if that wouldn’t have ultimately found anything. If you do the investigation and Del Biaggio still comes out with the share of the team, it’s much harder to blame the league.
by James Mirtle on Nov 18, 2008 2:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The due dligence WAS done, James. You are wrong to say that there was not. It has been clarified many many times (most recently by Bill Daly on PTS) that it was done. The litigation indicates that Boots had an accountant certifying as to his net worth and he provided bank statements to the banks to get his loans. The logical inference is that the league got that same information. You have not a scintilla of evidence to the contrary, but it’s a more exciting blog entry to say otherwise, i suppose.
The procedures will not prevent a Del Biaggio from fooling people. If you have trusted professionals certifying your net worth as he did, you will still get by, unless you want to make the rule that you cannot invest unless you are able to invite the NHL brass to your house and show them bags with $$$ signs on them.
by Gerald on Nov 20, 2008 4:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
1) The obvious question is:’ Why did it take so long to make these common sense rules?? With the plethora of ownership shenanigans over the years the NHL should know enough to keep things closely monitored by now?
by Fauxrumors on Nov 18, 2008 8:50 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
That’s an obvious question, and one that could easily have been asked over 60 years ago and adressed over 60 years ago. However, the NHL was run by a few guys in the Old Boys club then, continued to be during Campbell and Ziegler’s tenure, and in some ways still is under Bettman. Leipold and Anschutz are part of Bettman’s inner circle, and were sponsoring Bootsy. So, they continue to go behind Bettman’s back, or he knew and didn’t care.
There’s also the possibility that the financial review might not have been as thorough as it should have been to try and keep out Ballsillie(again, old boys network). The counterpoint to this theory, is that the NHL has always had a terrible record in choosing owners anyways so this is just par for the course.
by Bosc Ulrich on Nov 18, 2008 1:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
AEG
I’d still like to know the extent of AEG’s involvement with Bettman and Boots. It sounds fishy.
The West Coast is the Best Coast.
by RudyKelly on Nov 18, 2008 7:00 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I’m fairly certain that Jim Balsillie’s money is real
by Ebscer on Nov 18, 2008 9:22 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

by 


















