Balsillie's failed bid for the Coyotes: A beginning or the end?

by James Mirtle on Oct 7, 2009 7:15 AM CDT Comment 75 comments

A written declaration ﬁled last month by the league is even more blunt: "There is something sad about Mr. Balsillie’s inability to grasp the plain fact that it is his conduct, insensitivity, perceived lack of trustworthiness and unwillingness to accept responsibility for his own actions over several years that has caused the NHL Board of Governors to wish to not be associated with him in the business of professional hockey."

Such harsh words likely won’t be enough to scare away Jim Balsillie. He is committed to his dream, and consumed by the desire to best the NHL once and for all. So consumed, in fact, that he’s blinded to a paradox the rest of the world can see: the greater the lengths he goes to reach his prize, the further away it gets.

— Charlie Gillis and Michael Friscolanti, Macleans

It's funny, but in the end, after reading hundreds and hundreds of court documents and articles on the Coyotes saga, the words that I keep coming back to, again and again, came from none other than Senators owner Eugene Melnyk — a bit player in the drama who offered only a few fleeting thoughts on the whole fiasco.

Because unless Jim Balsillie's true intentions were to, as Tom Benjamin says, poke "Bettman in the eye with a sharp stick," the whole affair is probably nothing more than the result of some "bad, bad advice."

How else can we explain a strategy — a long held one, I might add — that relied so heavily on a bankruptcy judge setting an incredibly unlikely precedent, one that relied in part on antitrust law and that would certainly be appealed for years? Was this all just one lawyer's failed grand plan, sold to Balsillie six years (or more) ago, and followed recklessly until this end with no goal beyond the ultimately predictable decision made last week?

Perhaps. Although it certainly seems like there's more to come.

Consider these questions, for starters:

Is the goal of another NHL team in Southern Ontario closer to being realized?
Is Balsillie closer now to owning a franchise than he was six months ago?
Is his campaign for a seventh Canadian team well and truly dead, or merely on hold until the next troubled ownership group comes his way?
And, more pointedly, is this simply the first big battle in a war of attrition where we'll see which side is willing to out spend the other?

Balsillie has shown in the past a willingness to lose untold millions for stubborn (and some would say foolish) reasons in the business world, and he's certainly taken a hit with all of the proceedings related to his many failed bids for a franchise. But what he poured down the drain in the Coyotes case will ultimately be chicken feed compared to what the league is about to lose propping up Phoenix, and you have to wonder if the other 29 owners will have the stomach for another similar payout in a year or two.

In as much as there were winners in the bankruptcy court the past five months, Balsillie "won" in several key ways. The Coyotes have gone from distressed and a very difficult sell to severely distressed and on the verge of relocation. The league has, publicly, endorsed Southern Ontario (and Hamilton specifically) as a market ripe for another NHL team, even going so far as to have its potential worth evaluated. And while there were hits in the PR department for both sides, Gary Bettman and Co. certainly have more egg on their face after the Coyotes' embarrassing finances hit the headlines.

Negotiating a new lease agreement with Glendale now that such a bright light has been shone on those proceedings is also going to be anything but a cakewalk.

In other words, while Balsillie's bids for the Penguins and Predators constituted significant annoyances for the league, his play for the Coyotes has cost the NHL in some very real ways. If this bankruptcy ploy was the final manoeuvre, then sure, it was all bad, bad advice, Melnyk was right, Richard Rodier should get the heave ho and Balsillie can come to Bettman on bended knee.

But if this isn't the end, just another step along the way, then wasn't all this a rather effective way of illustrating just how destructive a path the Canadian billionaire is willing to pursue here? Of the very real damage that can be done? (Balsillie spoke at length about his search for a side door, but in the interim, he's settled for bashing some holes in the wall. That he can't yet crawl through them doesn't in itself suggest he's done.)

Only time will tell for sure, but it's hard not to look back and, in that, see the road ahead.

0 recs | Comment 75 comments | Add comment | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

1) Agree that it will be interesting to see how things play out in the other ‘troubled markets’ such as Florida. Will Jim try to snake his way in once again?
2) At some point it may be of benefit to both sides to sit down away from the media spot light and discuss their issues because Balsillie needs the NHL if he wants to own a team, and in the very near future the NHL may need Balsillie and his billions because there seem to be fewer and fewer folks willing to pony up cash for these losing propositions

I find sometimes it's easy to be myself
sometimes I find it's better to be somebody else

by Fauxrumors on Oct 7, 2009 7:26 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs

How about this: Balsilie can start up a team in southern Ontario if he also sets one up in Kansas City in the Western conference to balance it out? 32 team league.

Everyone gets what they want and more hockey support in the midwest will help the Coyotes survive.

by ThrashersRecaps on Oct 7, 2009 7:57 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

1) Yes.
2) Of course not. If anything, he’s further away, like what was said in the quote in your opener.
3) Absolutely not dead.
4) Yes

I think this whole ordeal proved to the NHL brass that the NHL needs and eventually will have a 7th Canadian team somewhere in Southern Ontario. Whether that means a second Toronto team or a Hamilton franchise, I still believe it will happen.

Will Balsillie be knocking on the door of the next troubled ownership group as soon as news leaks out about it? Absolutely. Because that’s his style, and even though he has failed once, it is not going to stop him from doing it again, however little his chances are.

HOWEVER, I also believe that Balsillie will own a team someday despite all of this. As pointed out in 4), he certainly has the cash to drag this out to try and get his way. Personally, I think that Bob Daly’s infamous “front door” that Balsillie needs to go through is expansion. I don’t think that will happen overnight either, but I would give it another five years until it does.

by Afino on Oct 7, 2009 8:14 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I agree with your points except for JB waiting 5 years for expansion. No way he waits this long. I really think the next stop for him is Atlanta or depending on what is going through Wang’s mind at the moment, maybe the Islanders.

The population of Pominville keeps rising!

by Blackcapricorn on Oct 7, 2009 8:31 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

What in your (or anyone else’s) mind would create a different result? That is what JBwould be asking his counsel. How will things turn out differently than they did with PHO?

by Gerald on Oct 7, 2009 12:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’m not sure the NHL can afford to continue to have the same result happen again and again.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Oct 7, 2009 12:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think if JB actually puts a bid in on the Thrash or a similar team, I really believe the NHL will take a hard look at its Board of Gov’s before denying the application for a fourth JB bid, no matter how much they hate him. If he comes back after this Phoenix defeat, the owners might just agree to stop throwing money at the problem to defeat him. JB has the resources for prolonged fights. After the NHL spends a bunch managing the Dogs this year, I doubt the BoG wants to pony up even more money to keep him out. Its a war of attrition and I think JB is winning.

The population of Pominville keeps rising!

by Blackcapricorn on Oct 7, 2009 12:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

And why would the NHL “take a hard look” at anything of the kind? They spent millions defending their position, were thoroughly successful in doing so, and THEN they would look to capitulate?

i thik you need to understand that there are many owners in the NHL who could have JB for lunch financially speaking – a few of them several times over, in fact. The NHL is not some bunch of destitute group of broke owners scraping money together.

In a battle of resources, JB is seriously outgunned. It is not even close. Where would you get the notion otherwise?

by Gerald on Oct 7, 2009 3:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Given the finances of several owners, I bet JB actually DOES have the resources to match up with the NHL. Besides the Leaves, who is making money in this league right now? (I realize teams are turning profits but not many and not by much) He has the will and the desire, I wonder how much of those things the BoG actually has?

The population of Pominville keeps rising!

by Blackcapricorn on Oct 7, 2009 3:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Will and desire: Please see In Re Phoenix Coyotes.

Lots of teams are making money right now. Are you kidding me?

JB does not even have the resources to match up with numerous NHL owners on an INDIVIDUAL basis, including MLSE, the Molsons, Craig Leipold, Stan Kroenke, Phil Anschutz, the Wirtzes, James Dolan, Ron Burkle, Daryl Katz, and Henry Samueli who would outstrip JB. That is to say nothing of the comparable guys, like Jacobs, some of the Calgary guys, Karmanos, Wang, Ilitch, Melnyk and Golisano.

by Gerald on Oct 7, 2009 4:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

He doesn’t need comparable resources to the richest owners to sniff around another team, Gerald. He just needs one of those owners to decide they’ve lost enough. Just because you may or may not care whether a team in Tampa or Atlanta or Phoenix or Florida loses money until hell freezes over doesn’t mean the guys writing the cheques share that same blase attitude toward losing money on an indefinite basis. I don’t see him getting a team, but “lots of teams making money right now” ≠ all of them, and like with Moyes, it only takes one for the game to be on again. He’ll be back, for better or worse.

Matchsticks and Gasoline

by Robert Cleave on Oct 7, 2009 4:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think you missed the context of the discussion, Robert. THe question of resources was not in respect of whether another owner might want to sell. It was raised in the question of whether the NHL owners would have the resources to want to fight JB.

In that context, there are individuals with several times the amount of resources that little old JB has (and his resources are tied up in large part in the stock price of RIM, and that is not expected to change to a material degree – although he is now divesting some of his stock). Phil Anschutz by himself has more than JB’s LIQUID assets between the cushions of his fine corinthian leather couch.

As for the other part of it – whether another owner in ATL, TB or FLA will sell to him, i would reply that it will be nearly impossible for any of them to litigate successfully with the NHL, given that they (like every other NHL owner in place) have already voted on the record that JB was not an acceptable partner.

That is, of course, assuming that any of those teams actually lose money, much less consider themselves to be losing it on an “indefinite basis”.

JB has no entry point at this juncture. Of course, only time will tell.

by Gerald on Oct 7, 2009 6:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

given that they (like every other NHL owner in place) have already voted on the record that JB was not an acceptable partner.

The owner in question might not litigate anything at all. The owners voted in favour of him in the Pittsburgh situation, Gerald, and had no difficulty in reversing field when it suited them. You appear to place much more confidence in the ephemeral than I might, but that’s certainly your prerogative.

As for the context, respectfully, Gerald, I missed nothing of the sort. The league may fight now, and maybe forever. That doesn’t mean he won’t try to weaken that resolve by attempting to buy one weak team after another, and there are enough sketchy markets that he may have targets for some time to come. If able, you’re certainly welcome to point me to a time in the 30 team era of the league that didn’t have an ownership group looking to bolt, because I’m not aware of such a period. More to the point, this appears to be his life’s work at this juncture, and I’m mindful enough of history that I don’t simply discount a zealot because of what I may think of him. Will the owners direct Gary Bettman or his successor fight him for another 15-20 years, with no lapse in resolve? Just because many of them could by him for lunch doesn’t mean that they will use those resources without reservation. If initially superior resources were the be-all and end-all of any matter, well, I can think of some recent human history that would be a hell of a lot different.

Matchsticks and Gasoline

by Robert Cleave on Oct 7, 2009 6:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The owner in question might not litigate anything at all. The owners voted in favour of him in the Pittsburgh situation, Gerald, and had no difficulty in reversing field when it suited them.

Litigation is essential, Robert. It defies business sense to spend millions to litigate something, win conclusively and then decline to take advantage of the precedent that you have successfully set. As for reversing field when it suited them, that is a categorically incorrect description of what happened both when they tentatively approved JB and when they rejected him for business reasons the second go-round.

As for the context, respectfully, Gerald, I missed nothing of the sort.

Either you missed the point (which was as i outlined in the post above) or you are electing to raise a different point.

More to the point, this appears to be his life’s work at this juncture, and I’m mindful enough of history that I don’t simply discount a zealot because of what I may think of him.

I certainly agree that zealots are not to be underestimated, and i agree that there will always be underperforming teams. That being said, one curious phenomenon that i have witnessed is the number of people who assert that they have a real good bead on what JB’s views are.

My suspicion is that there is an awful lot of projection going on in the general Canadian hockey public. I would simply point to what this “zealot” did – he was defeated and backed away forthwith without a moment’s hesitation. Funny that a zealot would do that. Many Canadians feel strongly about the place of Canada in the NHL and demonize the NHL leadership. They see JB come along with a patriotic campaign and suddenly they feel like they know “Jim”. i say to that, “Dream on”. Any campaign that cynical is bereft of honest communication. JB lets people see not just what he wants them to see, but rather what THEY want to see. Crafty if one were running for office; inconsequential if one is trying to acquire a partnership interest. But i digress. My main point was: don’t be so sure about whether JB is a zealot whose “life’s work” is getting an NHL team.

Just because many of them could by him for lunch doesn’t mean that they will use those resources without reservation. If initially superior resources were the be-all and end-all of any matter, well, I can think of some recent human history that would be a hell of a lot different.

Well met. That being said, when a battle has been fought and a victor has been conclusively identified, there are fewer and fewer resources expended in fighting THE EXACT SAME FIGHT. The victor already knows what to do. The vanquished might be able to develop new strategies, but that is not available when the vanquished has (as is the case here) already fired every weapon that they had at their disposal.

by Gerald on Oct 8, 2009 6:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

New League

Balsillie has drummed up an awful lot of support for another Canadian franchise. I expect he will try again, and then when he fails, turn his back on the NHL, and start his own league in Canada only for a fraction of the cost!

by lightweight on Oct 7, 2009 8:16 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Not in this economy!

I find sometimes it's easy to be myself
sometimes I find it's better to be somebody else

by Fauxrumors on Oct 7, 2009 8:41 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Obviously I’m not talking next month Faux, but down the line, he may seriously consider it. He has spent so many millions on this dream already, he could start a small league of his own for not much more.

Ontario is dying, I mean, dying for another team. I mean who wants to cheer for the Leafs.
10 million people living within a couple hours of Toronto would easily make a new team go. Obviously, his NHL dream is getting more and more difficult. He may need to look elsewhere.

It would certainly be difficult, right in the NHL’s backyard, but I can’t see where else you would go.

by lightweight on Oct 7, 2009 12:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Good luck trying to start another league in Canada. Aside from Southern Ontario, where else in Canada can a professional hockey team survive? Let’s not mistake fan support for financial clout.

Supporter of the Sergei Berezin "Give and Go" - You give me puck, then you go to hell

by bkblades on Oct 7, 2009 6:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’m putting on my Evil Genius cap for a minute. I know the idea that Balsillie should start his own league has been bandied about only in passing, but I would have to think that if he really wanted to play a serious game of chicken with the NHL, that’s the path he would start heading down. It would seem like a whiny, take-my-ball-and-go-home manoeuvre, to be sure, but it would also be a win-win situation: Balsillie either gets a team in the NHL because he has sufficiently threatened them with the long term harm a rival league would do to the sport, or he gets a team in the new league on his terms and damages the NHL for his revenge.

I don’t expect this to happen at all, but I also wouldn’t put it past him…

by Arenacale on Oct 7, 2009 8:51 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

That’s patently absurd on it’s premise. No way does one billionaire have enough clout or $$ to start a league that would in any way pose a threat to the NHL. With this economy, he’d be hard pressed to sell a new brand of hockey to other investors and expect anybody to jump on board. Hell, even with a decent economy, he wouldn’t be able to make it happen to the extent to harm the brand that is the NHL. It’s a pipe dream. Who the hell would play for that league over the NHL? The KHL has more inroads with talent than any league Balsillie can whip up and they don’t exactly have droves of players choosing them over the NHL.

He can start his own league for sure, but it’d be tiny, wouldn’t have any talent, and would be something the NHL owners would joke about while counting the money they’ll get when the do expand to Hamilton.

2009-2010 Colorado Avalanche: Nothing Inspirational Comes to Mind

by Mike @ MHH on Oct 7, 2009 9:07 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

If the NHL is smart (And that's questionable)

They will relocate their next franchise to So. Ontario. This trial has made it clear they are going to have to move one there at some point, whether they really want to or not (and they probably should, but that’s beside the point). If they really want to shut the door on Balsille and remove that nuisance from their lives, then that’s the really the only way to do it.

They would need to discretely find an owner, but it would solve a lot of problems for the league. It would probably stem the tide of “Winnipeg deserves a team” talk, and at the very least Balsille would either have to come to terms with trying to own a team outside of So. Ontario or drop it altogether. It would also be another money-making franchise, and probably shore up owner support, since I’m sure they aren’t all thrilled with the Coyotes fiasco.

The 2009-10 Colorado Avalanche: Aiming for the Charity Point
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time

by Jibblescribbits on Oct 7, 2009 9:12 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs

WE have little doubt Jibble that the NHL will do exactly what you say here. It makes sense on so many levels that even the brainiacs at the NHL must see the wisdom of it.

I find sometimes it's easy to be myself
sometimes I find it's better to be somebody else

by Fauxrumors on Oct 7, 2009 9:58 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

WE have little doubt Jibble that the NHL will do exactly what you say here. It makes sense on so many levels…

You seem to be contradicting yourself here.

The 2009-10 Colorado Avalanche: Aiming for the Charity Point
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time

by Jibblescribbits on Oct 7, 2009 11:20 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Southern Ontario

I think the league absolutely HAS to put another NHL franchise in Southern Ontario, Balsillie or no Balsillie. It makes too much sense not to.

I’m not sure it’s going to be in Hamilton. I’ve heard whispers that Kitchener-Waterloo is being looked at seriously; obviously, the lack of an arena is an issue, though. But K-W would most likely be more amenable to Buffalo and, critically, MLSE than Hamilton.

Bettman could score an unbelievable PR coup if he would announce a two-team Canadian expansion, and then if a team like Phoenix does end up failing completely the league could simply contract/dispersal draft it afterwards. Sure, it’s a more arcane process than simple relocation but it would be better for the league’s image, IMO.

You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.

by zyllyx on Oct 7, 2009 10:24 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Bettman could score an unbelievable PR coup if he would announce a two-team Canadian expansion

Where would the other one go? (don’t say Winnipeg or Quebec City, neither has corporate support or the population to support a team)

The 2009-10 Colorado Avalanche: Aiming for the Charity Point
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time

by Jibblescribbits on Oct 7, 2009 11:22 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

And since I've had this argument before

That population doesn’t matter because Winnipeg and Quebec city have hockey in their veins, Between 1989 (best data i could find) and 1995-96 (when the Jets left Winnipeg) Quebec came close to 100% attendance only once, and the Jets were never close, in arenas that would be the smallest in the league today.

Winnipeg’s best attendance season was 13,550 fans per game (’92-93) which is 87% capacity

The Nordiques got very close one year (‘89-90) and they were at 99.7%, but most years they were hovering around 14,500 fans. That’s still 96% attendance, so it’s pretty good, so maybe Quebec is more viable, but there’s still serious questions there. They would need to add 3k seats to the arena and probably build a new one. Plus the population and attendance history seems to indicate, to me, that 15k fans is about the limit of what it can support, and I’m not sure the corporate support is there.

The 2009-10 Colorado Avalanche: Aiming for the Charity Point
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time

by Jibblescribbits on Oct 7, 2009 11:35 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hey, aren't there more people there now?

Just saying. Sure, it’s nice to look at demographic data that’s over 15 years old and all when assessing the strength of a market, but I just don’t think it’s all that accurate an approach.

In 1991 QC had a bit less than 650k people. In 2006 they had over 715k people. Even if their population has remained completely flat since then, and that is highly unlikely, you have to index up those old attendance estimates by a solid 10% just to normalize with the increased population.

So, that 14,500 a night number you were poo-pooing suddenly becomes 15,950. At least.

Considering 15,950 would put a team right around 23nrd in league attendance, and that’s almost certainly the long-term floor, and that’s almost certainly well beneath what a team would draw there for at least it’s first two or three seasons… it’s pretty hard to make a substantive case that QC is anything but a superior hockey market to most of the alternatives out there, including around 8 of the current ones.

by HockeyinHD on Oct 7, 2009 1:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think you misread what I wrote about Quebec. I said 15k is about their limit, and maybe that’s now 16k for an average with population increase. That means their average attendance would be in the bottom 1/3 of the league every year, with very little room for significant long-term improvement. Which means I think their attendance would be among the lowest, with little room for improvement.

Your comparison is faulty. Colorado had less than 15,900 last season, but that was by far their worst season attendance wise (and I might add they charge ridiculously high ticket prices as well to get that number.) Columbus is in the same boat, their average is better than Quebec’s (adjusted average). Their average yearly attendance is well above 16k. If you want to compare you should use Quebec’s worst attendance (or better yet average all attendances, which I don’t have time for) and adjust by 1.1.

that’s almost certainly the long-term floor, and that’s almost certainly well beneath what a team would draw there for at least it’s first two or three seasons…

I don’t understand why that’s the long term floor. Based previous data I would say it’s neither the floor nor ceiling, but based on other demographics (population, corporate support) the ceiling isn’t all that high and the floor could be a long ways down.

How many fortune 500 companies are located in Quebec City? When QC had a team Luxury Box revenue and the such weren’t nearly as important to a franchise as they are now, and QC would almost certainly struggle to sell those.

So, on average, the QC market would have bottom 1/3 attendance, and some of the worst corporate support in the NHL, with little room for growth. Why

The 2009-10 Colorado Avalanche: Aiming for the Charity Point
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time

by Jibblescribbits on Oct 7, 2009 2:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Speaking of faulty...

First, Colorado’s attendance went in the tank because they stunk. Quebec stunk for most of the last 8 years they were in Quebec (missed the playoff 6 times and had seasons of 12, 16 and 20 wins) and they still drew fairly well given their population.

Second, a part of the reason Columbus draws ‘well’ because they have below league average ticket prices… and it’s not like they were drawing all that well anyway. 15,500 isn’t spectacular by any means, it’s well within the range of what a team in QC could expect to draw, and the major reason it was that high is that the Blue Jackets finally got good. Their attendance numbers were in a free fall the past three seasons prior, dropping around 2500 seats a night in just a few years. Quebec in their last year when the team was on the way out had ticket prices as close to the league average as the Blue Jackets do now, and they were closer to the league average than Dallas, Phoenix, Atlanta, Buffalo, Carolina, Colorado, St. Louis, San Jose, Anaheim, Tampa, and Washington were in 2008-9.

Third, the idea of an dearth of corporate support being a negative factor regarding an NHL teams financial picture in QC is a little bit of a red herring, especially in the markets you’re talking about. Why? Because those corporate ad dollars have about 800 different ways they can go in major markets. Sure, there is a larger pie there ‘available’ for an NHL team to take advantage of, but the reality is that NFL, NBA, MLB, Nascar, ~~insert name of other pro or major college sport here~~ all get big chunks of that pie, too.

Seriously, if you’re a guy who makes the decision where the corporate ad buy goes, and you are in a major US media market, in what universe are you going to spend that money on an NHL team before you spend it on one of the other pro sports? The team from the league that doesn’t have a national TV contract on a channel people watch, so essentially next to no national visibility, and in all liklihood is blacked out at home games more than a third of the time?

While a team in QC isn’t going to have access to the major spenders, they will be the first destination for anyone there who does spend money. I don’t think the difference between big slice of small pie and small slice of big pie is as large as you make it sound.

by HockeyinHD on Oct 7, 2009 6:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yet, when said pie is already big to begin with, even if the “lowly” NHL only gets a fraction of the corporate dollars, it’s still quite a large sum compared to a city like Quebec City where there are no shortage of books and articles about the number of corporate offices and companies that left the city decades ago.

Supporter of the Sergei Berezin "Give and Go" - You give me puck, then you go to hell

by bkblades on Oct 7, 2009 6:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hello, profit-sharing...

…which would almost instantly make up any difference in those two pies.

by HockeyinHD on Oct 8, 2009 7:10 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

So

You’re argument is that Quebec is only a viable market if other teams give it money?

The 2009-10 Colorado Avalanche: Aiming for the Charity Point
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time

by Jibblescribbits on Oct 8, 2009 8:49 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Probably… although they’d certainly have plenty of company there.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Oct 8, 2009 9:23 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah

But I think the the point of expanding southwards was that those markets had the potential to be strong markets. Phoenix has the potential to be a strong market at some point, as due Tampa, Florida, Nashville etc. due to the money in the area and the population. It just takes competent ownership and patience (something that has been elusive)

I don’t think that potential exists in Quebec.

The 2009-10 Colorado Avalanche: Aiming for the Charity Point
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time

by Jibblescribbits on Oct 8, 2009 9:57 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

But I think it would only be fair to give the fans the chance to cheer for a winning team, run by competent ownership group. Only then will we know if the market can succeed.

by yrmom on Oct 8, 2009 5:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

To a point. The difference between Quebec and Phoenix is that enthusiasm for the Nordiques wasn’t really part of the problem. In Phoenix that’s a major part of the problem.

i.e a winning team will bring more fans and revenue to the gate in Phoenix. I’m not sure that’s where the problem would be in Quebec.

The 2009-10 Colorado Avalanche: Aiming for the Charity Point
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time

by Jibblescribbits on Oct 8, 2009 5:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Way to take a comment and warp it.

No, I’m saying that QC is a superior market to a solid half dozen current ones (at least), as well as the two or three top locations for US expansion (Las Vegas,, KC and Seattle).

Jibble, the basic realitiy here, as much as you apparently want to use 15 year old information to distort them aside, is that an NHL team in QC can succeed. Not thrive, we’re not talking about another Toronto here… but we’re not talking about another Phoenix, Atlanta, Tampa, Nashville or Columbus either.

by HockeyinHD on Oct 8, 2009 11:24 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Are you even reading what I’m writing? I said attendance, while it would be in the bottom 1/3rd for a Quebec franchise, even adjusted for the 10% population gain, is probably not Quebec’s biggest problem. The biggest problem would be corporate support and ticket price.

You have yet to do anything reasonable to dispel that argument, other than attributing arguments to me that I’m not making.

The 2009-10 Colorado Avalanche: Aiming for the Charity Point
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time

by Jibblescribbits on Oct 8, 2009 12:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Are you not reading what you're writing?

And I’ve already pointed out that corporate support is a likely red herring, especially with the emergence of revenue-sharing, and that your ticket-price concerns are just simply flawed.

Quebec was charging 30 cents a ticket less than the New York Rangers in the Nords last season, and they were charging more a game than Montreal, Winnipeg, Edmonton and Calgary.

15 years later their ticket prices back then are only 5-8 bucks a night off what Dallas, Carolina, Buffalo, Phoenix, and St. Louis were charging just last year.

You haven’t expressed a single factual argument that isn’t terribly flawed, outdated, or just wrong-headed.

by HockeyinHD on Oct 8, 2009 3:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Except

Jimminey Christmas. I adjusted my argument, per your (accurate) suggestion that there was a 10% increase in population. That makes the data fine the way it is. What has happened in 15 years that would affect it all that much?

Just because you call something a red Herring, doesn’t make it true. Here’s the fact: Smaller market teams, even in hockey-mad places, still struggle to find corporate support, especially in comparison to bigger market teams that have more advertising competition. That’s not a red herring, that’s legitimate. Just because you don’t like the argument doesn’t invalidate it. This isn’t politics. You haven’t made anything more than a hypothesis to why it’s wrong, and everything I’ve seen counters your hypothesis.

The 2009-10 Colorado Avalanche: Aiming for the Charity Point
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time

by Jibblescribbits on Oct 8, 2009 4:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

But

“Smaller market teams, even in hockey-mad places, still struggle to find corporate support, especially in comparison to bigger market teams that have more advertising competition.”

And you are, of course, using a “study” of US teams when you make that statement, yes?

The US hockey market is not the same as the Canadian hockey market. NHL teams are much more successful up there per capita than they are down here. Just because Calgary can so strongly support a team with a metro area around 1 million does not mean a US city like Indianapolis (with an equivalent metro pop) would be as prime a destination, right?

Your argument is completely specious, Jib. You claim that an lack of corporate sponsorship makes a team in QC problematic… well, what is the magical cutoff point, because it certainly appears that a team in Edmonton or Calgary or Ottawa can be varying degrees of successful from mostly to spectacularly with limited metro pops, and one would assume similarly limited corporate opportunities.

Every single Canadian franchise is spending 53.4 million or more on estimated payroll this year, Jib. Toronto and Montreal could go much higher, absent a cap… and if you removed the salary floor tomorrow you would see at least 7 US-based NHL teams drive their salary costs down well below 40 mil. In a heartbeat.

There’s no reason to suspect a city the size of QC couldn’t support an NHL franchise at least as well as a large number of current NHL teams

by HockeyinHD on Oct 8, 2009 4:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I was thinking of Edmonton,Buffalo and Ottawa (and before they moved Quebec and Winnipeg, even though corporate support and advertising is a lot different now than then).

Your argument is completely specious, Jib. You claim that an lack of corporate sponsorship makes a team in QC problematic… well, what is the magical cutoff point, because it certainly appears that a team in Edmonton or Calgary or Ottawa can be varying degrees of successful from mostly to spectacularly with limited metro pops, and one would assume similarly limited corporate opportunities.

Edmonton, Calgary and Ottawa all have at least 25% more population than Quebec. If you dropped 25% of the corporate support for those teams, they would struggle to replace it. That’s a significant dropoff.

Edmonton, Calgary, and Ottawa all have viable, but limited corporate partners that have local offices. (Calgary and Edmonton also have rich energy companies in the area due to the rich natural resources in Alberta Oil, something Quebec lacks). What does Quebec City have?

The 2009-10 Colorado Avalanche: Aiming for the Charity Point
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time

by Jibblescribbits on Oct 8, 2009 4:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

And Edmonton and Ottawa both struggled a lot in the recent past (mainly because of their size). Granted the Canadian dollar was very weak, and that was a big part of that, but a larger base will help overcome that.

The 2009-10 Colorado Avalanche: Aiming for the Charity Point
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time

by Jibblescribbits on Oct 8, 2009 4:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think Quebec City and Winnipeg could “support” NHL teams in the manner some of the league’s weakest markets do now, but that’s not a huge strike in their favour. They both lack adequate arenas and ownership groups, and, in my opinion, a large enough population base to be really successful.

I’d be very surprised if the league ever went back to either city.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Oct 8, 2009 4:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Indeed, James. In a rosy scenario, those cities support a team for the first few years, with the support of robust full-share revenue sharing.

Then what?

That is to say nothing of the fanciful notion that it is “hockey fans” who buy the premium tickets in an arena.

by Gerald on Oct 8, 2009 6:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Quebec was charging 30 cents a ticket less than the New York Rangers in the Nords last season, and they were charging more a game than Montreal, Winnipeg, Edmonton and Calgary.

Where in heaven are you deriving these so-called numbers regarding Nordique ticket prices, colorado prices and the like?

by Gerald on Oct 8, 2009 5:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You’re still missing most of the point. I didn’t argue against Quebec’s attendance all that vehemently, but to counter your point, what did Quebec charge for tickets when they were drawing well compared to the rest of the league? You talk about Colorado’s attendance falling off because they suck, but they still charge some of the most expensive ticket prices in the league. Quebec doesn’t have the population, or wealth, to get away with that.

Seriously, if you’re a guy who makes the decision where the corporate ad buy goes, and you are in a major US media market, in what universe are you going to spend that money on an NHL team before you spend it on one of the other pro sports?

That’s nice, but there is absolutely no evidence to support this hypothesis. The reality is that even in crazy-mad hockey markets with small populations they struggle to find enough corporate support.

The 2009-10 Colorado Avalanche: Aiming for the Charity Point
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time

by Jibblescribbits on Oct 8, 2009 8:49 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Further to that, jibble, there is evidence that, even in markets where this nebulous concept of “hockey interest” that supposedly drives corporate sponsorships, TV, etc. is low by the inflated standards of Canadian market zealots, yet SOMEHOW those teams still find plenty of money form corporate partners, companies buying suites and the $200 premium tickets, and TV partners looking for sports programming.

The usual response to this is “well, that just doesn’t make sense”. The real reply to THAT is “perhaps neither of us understand the world of sponsorships, corporate ticket buying and television and the decision-making process involved?”

by Gerald on Oct 8, 2009 10:01 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Demonstrating that you don't exactly have a grasp of the current realities...

“You talk about Colorado’s attendance falling off because they suck, but they still charge some of the most expensive ticket prices in the league.”

Last year, Colorado’s average ticket price was $40.62, good for 24th in the NHL. The league average was $51.41. In fact, Colorado’s ticket price hasn’t been above league average since 2000-2001.

“That’s nice, but there is absolutely no evidence to support this hypothesis.”

Hi, I’d like to introduce you to the Phoenix Coyotes. How has their corporate support been?

by HockeyinHD on Oct 8, 2009 11:29 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Last year, Colorado’s average ticket price was $40.62, good for 24th in the NHL. The league average was $51.41. In fact, Colorado’s ticket price hasn’t been above league average since 2000-2001.

This is because not 1 single club level seat or lower deck seat is used in the calculating of that average. Essentially that is an average of only upper deck seats (and it’s not the same from franchise to franchise.) Using the fan cost index for ticket prices is a joke.

Fan cost index is quite possibly the worst tool of all-time. It’s a joke that should never ever be reported.

Here’s the Avs ticket office. Please try and explain how that average is in the $40 range.

"That’s nice, but there is absolutely no evidence to support this hypothesis."

Hi, I’d like to introduce you to the Phoenix Coyotes. How has their corporate support been?

Is corporate support their biggest problem? I don’t think that’s the case. But even if it was, I’ll concede that a franchise in Quebec would do better than losing $30M+ a year. I don’t think that makes it a viable market.

The 2009-10 Colorado Avalanche: Aiming for the Charity Point
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time

by Jibblescribbits on Oct 8, 2009 12:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’m shocked that you’re throwing out data in favor of your own unsubstantiated opinion, Jib. What a stunning development. :)

“Is corporate support their biggest problem?”

Does it have to be? Jib, I’m merely pointing out that having access to a larger economy doesn’t mean anything if that larger economy couldn’t care less about the product and doesn’t spend any of it’s ad buy there.

Again, if you were an ad exec of a large corp with statewide interests in Phoenix (or Atlanta, or Dallas, or…) and had a million bucks to burn you would be lying if you said you’d spend it on the Coyotes over the Cardinals, the Suns, the Diamondbacks, PGA events, the college teams, etc.

As I said, I think a team in QC would be a much better economic player than probably 6+ current teams in the NHL, and all of the current relocation destinations in the US being tossed around.

I mean, good grief Jib, teams like Vancouver, Ottawa and Edmonton are incredibly successful hockey markets with metro populations vastly inferior to many of their US counterparts. I continue to be stunned there are actually people out there like you who pretend that relative population density is even remotely relevant, much less a primary negative regarding the possible financial health of an NHL club in Canada.

Atlanta alone has a metro population larger than Calgary, Vancouver, Edmonton and Ottawa’s COMBINED… and you’re actually going to sit there and try and say population between the two counties is a relevant comparator?

by HockeyinHD on Oct 8, 2009 4:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

No

First off “Colorado has some of the most expensive ticket prices in the league” isn’t unsubstantiated opinion, it’s a fact (despite what the woefully inadequate FCI says)

That’s not what I’m saying. There are 3 factors that make a successful market, or provide barriers (IMO) It’s a combination of the three:

- Size of the market
- Enthusiasm of the market
- Corporate Support in the market.

I think one can overcome a deficiency in the other, even though they are all kind of tied together as well. I think Quebec has tremendous enthusiasm, but I think their deficiencies in size and corporate are too much to overcome.

Edmonton is deficient in Size and corporate, but I think the enthusiasm is great enough, and the size isn’t detrimental enough, to keep Edmonton from being successful. That said, it’s never going to be top-10 in terms of revenue, but it’s sustainable.

Atlanta, on the other hand, is extremely extremely weak in enthusiasm, but has enough size and Corporate support to sustain it short term.

This thing about enthusiasm in a market is that it’s the easiest one to change. I think, short term Quebec is probably a better market than a number of markets out there. But the problem is it has no where to grow. The corporate support and size aren’t going to grow substantially and enthusiasm is pretty much maxed out. That would make Quebec a bottom 10 team, in terms of market, with no hope of getting better.

Many of the teams that are weaker current markets than Quebec, have a ton of room to grow, and just need some competent ownership to come in and tend to the garden.

I continue to be stunned there are actually people out there like you who pretend that relative population density is even remotely relevant, much less a primary negative regarding the possible financial health of an NHL club in Canada.

How in the world is it not relevant? Population size affects everything. It affects how much advertisers are willing to pay to advertise with the club, it affects the demand, and therefore price, of a ticket. It is a symptom of the amount of corporate support in the area. And it affects how many fans will come out and watch. It’s certainly not the only factor but to make the argument that it’s irrelevant is absurd.

I’ve never ever argued that population is the only variable, but it’s one. And a decently important one at that.

The 2009-10 Colorado Avalanche: Aiming for the Charity Point
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time

by Jibblescribbits on Oct 8, 2009 4:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Again, if you were an ad exec of a large corp with statewide interests in Phoenix (or Atlanta, or Dallas, or…) and had a million bucks to burn you would be lying if you said you’d spend it on the Coyotes over the Cardinals, the Suns, the Diamondbacks, PGA events, the college teams, etc.

It depends. If the Coyotes were a Stanley Cup contender, you’d better believe that million bucks would go to the hockey team in favor of the current D’Backs – which finished with over 90 losses this season – and the Phoenix Suns, whose chances of even making the playoffs this season are very dismal.

Phoenix is a performance-based market (which has been pointed out so many times it should simply be accepted as the gospel truth that it is). Advertisers go with the hot team unless those advertisers have been partners with a team for years (like Oggi’s Pizza has been with the Coyotes).

It has nothing to do with the truthiness that resides in the gut of fans like you and me, HiHD, and everything to do with which team has the most buzz and, therefore, the most eyeballs.

You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.

by zyllyx on Oct 8, 2009 5:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's something you'd have to ask Canadians.

The obvious candidates to the fans are Winnipeg and Quebec City – since both cities lost NHL franchises to relocation. Saskatoon would probably be another fan candidate, and I’ve even seen Halifax brought up (albeit not in serious conversation).

I’ve just spent five months being told that Canada could support four or five more NHL teams, so that’s why I brought it up. If you want to know WHERE, you’d probably have to ask them, not me… :P

You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.

by zyllyx on Oct 7, 2009 12:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah

Southern Ontario is obvious, and that’s the only one. Montreal might be able to support a second franchise, but I doubt it (only because the Canadians are too entrenched. A second Montreal franchise would be less popular than the Clippers in LA). Otherwise… nope. Winnipeg, Saskatoon, and Quebec City all need to grow substantially, both in community and business, to support a team.

The 2009-10 Colorado Avalanche: Aiming for the Charity Point
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time

by Jibblescribbits on Oct 7, 2009 12:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Here’s a wacky idea (and I agree with the original points by Zyllyx too):

What if you put both teams in Southern Ontario? One in K-W, one in Toronto?

Is it even possible to oversaturate that market?

by Afino on Oct 7, 2009 1:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’m no geographic expert on S. Ontario, but how would any team closer than K-W not infringe – legally or otherwise – on MLSE’s turf and just cause a huge spate of lawsuits?

We already know that MLSE is opposed to Hamilton – putting another team in Toronto is probably a total non-starter.

Beyond that, though, I think the rest of Canada would probably revolt if they saw that Southern Ontario were getting all of the riches of expansion, no matter how many teams the GTA could support in theory. Saskatoon and Winnipeg might be too small in corporate money terms but the demand there is likely no lower than it is in Toronto, wouldn’t you say?

You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.

by zyllyx on Oct 7, 2009 1:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well yeah, that’s why I added the qualifier that it was a wacky idea ;)

but the demand there is likely no lower than it is in Toronto, wouldn’t you say?

I don’t disagree with that. But in the end, it’s whether the corporate money is there to support the team, and we can reasonably assume through market studies and common sense that nearly any place outside of Southern Ontario will not have enough corporate dollars to succeed.

I have a friend in Saskatoon. I asked him if he would have gone to any of the games had a potential new ownership group put several Coyotes games up there. His answer? That he wouldn’t, because he would be priced out of it pretty quickly. He gave me the same answer when I asked him if the NHL had a permanent team in Saskatoon.

The fanbases are there, but the ticket prices they would need to charge to actually support the team sans major corporate support (that isn’t there), would make the rest of Canada no better than KC or Portland or Seattle or Vegas.

by Afino on Oct 7, 2009 2:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The fanbases are there, but the ticket prices they would need to charge to actually support the team sans major corporate support (that isn’t there), would make the rest of Canada no better than KC or Portland or Seattle or Vegas.

…in other words, perfect targets for NHL expansion/relocation. Have faith, Saskatchewanians! :)

You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.

by zyllyx on Oct 7, 2009 3:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Now that might be a possibility.

The 2009-10 Colorado Avalanche: Aiming for the Charity Point
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time

by Jibblescribbits on Oct 7, 2009 2:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

With respect to the bad, bad advice, it is indeed the case that there are some counsel who hit upon a novel legal idea and might push their clients to give it a go if for no other reason than they want to see if they are right in respect of their novel idea. Certainly the vast majority of lawyers will not do that, and those who do are in the final analysis sad excuses for lawyers*, but it is indeed the case that there are some out there. Sad, but true. Ever since I started reading about and listening to Rodier, I have had the sense that this is what he was doing.

[* – note that when I say “sad excuses for lawyers”, i do not mean that they are dumb or technically incompetent; in fact, some who do this are quite technically brilliant in their area, and want to pursue their novel idea because they are enthralled with it as an intellectual construct (although, again, I would not characterize Rodier as “brilliant” by any means).]

Myself, I don’t see where JB goes from here. He was rejected. His arguments were roundly rejected. It has been deonstrated quite definitively to him that the strategy does not work legally on a very fundamental basis (to say nothing of the fact that practically it does not work).

As for the closeness of a SO franchise, an answer in the affirmative must assume that the NHL would never expand to SO. I have been and remain unconvinced that the NHL does not have the idea of a SO team in its back pocket. The obstacles that were there (first and foremost, another NHL arena in TO and the sharing of a TV market) are still there.

As for the war of attrition, if JB thinks he could outlast the NHL before this matter, I am not sure how he would think that the NHL’s resolve would be weak. They shelled him, and they spent huge money to do so. What do people need for evidence of the NHL’s resolve?

by Gerald on Oct 7, 2009 12:10 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

How many more Phoenixes can the NHL afford? That’s really what I’m asking here. If Balsillie’s goal is just to repeat this scenario over and over, isn’t that ultimately going to be an untenable situation for the league?

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Oct 7, 2009 12:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

That necessarily assumes that JB would find a willing dance partner in another NHL owner who would himself be willing to waste his own time and money.

by Gerald on Oct 7, 2009 12:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

It’s certainly been happening with some regularity so far.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Oct 7, 2009 12:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Really? I count one time that JB has tried to acquire a team against the NHL’s wishes.

by Gerald on Oct 7, 2009 3:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Who would have thought he’d find a dance partner after what Leipold went through? The fact is there are plenty of guys who are desperate to take Balsillie’s money.

It just might take some time.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Oct 7, 2009 3:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed. Not every NHL owner is as naive, desperate, and easily swayed as Moyes is.

You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.

by zyllyx on Oct 7, 2009 12:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Circumstances do make strange bedfellows. Having said that I doubt that the NHL will let things get this far with any franchise in the near future. Perhaps they’ll fax a photo of Balsillie and Rodier to every team suggesting they avoid entering into business agreements with them.

by yrmom on Oct 7, 2009 1:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

No less untenable a situation than having more teams losing 30 mil+ a year.

That’s the central problem, really. Absent Balsillie, what actually changes about the Phoenix situation? Maybe the league is able to sneak Reinsdorf’s absurd offer in to keep a team there at the taxpayers expense, but how many times can the NHL just give away NHL franchises before the overall value of NHL franchises in the vast majority of other markets start to erode… and isn’t that the big money pile the current owners are counting on?

Seriously, if I’m an outside buyer looking to get into the NHL there’s no way I offer ‘market’ value for one of the healthy franchises… not when I can just wait around a year or two and pick up Atlanta, Tampa, Dallas, Nashville, Florida, or whoever else at the next League Garage Sale.

by HockeyinHD on Oct 7, 2009 1:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

How, pray tell, do you put a second team in southern Ontario without forcing the league’s hand? There are so many forces against it, and not just within the league. How would CBC handle a second Toronto team? The Leafs are their cash cow. How could the Leafs possibly charge over $400 for a pre-season ticket with a second Toronto team?

Did you see the Hotstove this week? It makes me sick to hear some jackass like Mike Milbury paint Balsillie as the villain without nary a mention of the needs of Southern Ontario hockey fans. Find me another NHL owner who has done more for his local community than Balsillie has for Kitchener-Waterloo.

To only goal is to put a second team in Southern Ontario. If that happens, Balsillie wins regardless of who actually owns the team; if it doesn’t, a whole bunch of us continue to lose, and as a hockey fan I’m really sick of being on the losing end of this.

by FourFeetOfCurl on Oct 7, 2009 1:48 PM CDT reply actions 2 recs

Did anyone consider my idea of having Balsilie start up 2 teams, one in southern Ontario and one in the American midwest somewhere? He has the money to do it and I’m sure he’d be willing to in order to just get a team into Canada.

by ThrashersRecaps on Oct 8, 2009 9:01 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I don’t think he’d be willing to do that at all. He has no interest in running a team in America unless maybe it’s an Original Six team or a team in a market like Minnesota or New York.

In fact, his disdain for hockey anywhere else besides Canada and the northern US was made pretty clear in the Coyotes court proceedings. He wants to be seen as the champion of the “underserved,” a term which he applies nearly exclusively to Canadians.

Now, ask him to run a team in Hamilton and one in Winnipeg, and maybe he’d consider it.

You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.

by zyllyx on Oct 8, 2009 3:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Can someone even own more then one team? By the rules I mean, it would seem really odd.

Regardless, I could eventually see Balsillie getting in. At some point they’re gonna throw up their hands and figure that it’s better to have him on the inside where he’s not gonna try kicking down doors (in the process damaging the house). But he’s not going to get to relocate a franchise.

Hell, I wouldn’t be too surprised if he has a backroom deal for a future expansion franchise right now (In the “Ok Jim, play nice and don’t engage in any shannanigans for two years and we’ll be expanding to Vegas/KC and So. Ontario, do that and pay X and you can have first crack at the So. Ont. franchise” vein). I’m sure they wouldn’t be overjoyed at the prospect but it beats endless confrontation where your financial records are being constantly exposed via court order.

by Parallex on Oct 8, 2009 5:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs