Balsillie: 'There is no front door'

by James Mirtle on May 15, 2009 3:45 PM CDT Comment 72 comments

I tell you, I am a resourceful guy. I’m a thoughtful guy. Yes, I’m smart on these things. I figure out these situations very quickly. It’s a strength of mine, and I’m telling you, this situation I have looked at back, forward, every which way, every engagement. There is no front door here. There is no front door, and so, we had to go to a side door. I could think of no other way to get this on the agenda. There was no other team coming to Canada. There was no team coming to Southern Ontario. No chance. No chance. And certainly not Hamilton, guaranteed.

— Jim Balsillie to the Toronto Star

Jim Balsillie's a very smart man. He's a Harvard grad and one of the wealthiest and most successful businessmen in this country.

All that said, whether you're on his "side" or not in this fight for the Coyotes likely comes down to who you believe. Is his statement that there is, in fact, no league-approved way to get a team into Southern Ontario legitimate? And, if so, does that make his current actions understandable?

Here's what I think, as someone who lives in downtown Toronto and covers the game for a living: The NHL had no intention of ever considering another team here, or in this general area, and this was one of the few ways to help put it on the agenda in a very real way.

That's not to say it'll work.

I don't know him other than what we've seen in the media, but I do believe Balsillie when he says there was "absolutely, categorically, zero interest to even discuss the topic" when he originally brought it up after he had joined "the club." (A bit of history: He was originally approved as an owner in Pittsburgh and was on his way to being so approved in Nashville before the situation turned ugly as the discussion turned to Hamilton. At that time, relocation was very much a topic of discussion during the Predators sale, so much so that Balsillie said there were clearly plans in place for a move to Kansas City if the team failed. He indicated that, at that time, he raised the possibility of another Southern Ontario team.)

Balsillie's actions aren't fair for fans in Phoenix, and I can see why Coyotes backers — and those in Nashville who have gone through this before — have painted him as the bad guy. In some ways he is. But just as Bettman says that the current court battle has nothing to do with fans in Ontario, Balsillie's end goal here isn't aimed at any other fan base in these struggling markets. If there's a legitimate owner there willing to cover the Coyotes' losses, by all means, hand them the keys and end all this funny business.

Bettman makes a fair point when he says "ripping a franchise out of one city in violation of league rules and procedures to put it somewhere else isn't the way we do business," and it's really no surprise the NHL is going to fight this until the end. Everyone expects that — especially Balsillie.

The real matter of dispute here is who you believe — and given the league's track record, I'll bet on Balsillie.

Best of luck with the side door.

0 recs | Comment 72 comments | Add comment | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

That’s it in your second-last paragraph there, James. Why should we believe anything the league says at this point, when they have lied so consistently in the past?

by dzuunmod on May 15, 2009 3:59 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Also interesting is the claim that he never had any intention of really moving the Penguins — he just wanted to use it as leverage to get a new arena, just as Mario later did by touring the KC arena complex — but that the League ruined it by making him pinky-swear that he wouldn’t.

SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there)

by Doogie2K on May 15, 2009 5:02 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Where did he say that, Doogie? I have long theorized that very thing.

Interesting that he should say that.

It speaks volumes about his supposed unwavering determination that it is all about Canada getting another team. Which is it, then? A team for Canada or “I would have been okay to stay in PITT”? This guy has credibility? The same guy who waxes smarmily about “economic justice” but who admitted to backdating options and paid an enormous fine? i know it doesn’t really fit the story that the national media is trying desperately to tell, but jeeez …

by Gerald on May 15, 2009 5:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

It was in another Star article James linked in his Twitter feed. Let me find it.

Here we are. The money quote:

He said when he wanted to buy the Penguins a few years ago, he would have left the team in Pittsburgh, but wanted leverage to threaten the city that he would leave – the same leverage Mario Lemieux used – in order to get a new arena. The league wouldn’t give it to him, so he left.

When he tried to buy the Nashville Predators, he was prepared to leave the team there with the proviso that if the team failed, that Hamilton be considered along with American cities like Kansas City as a potential new home.

It could be a self-serving version of events — my memory’s hazy at this point — but it adds a bit of a wrinkle to the image of Truth, Justice, and the Canadian Game, no? Is he lying about his original intent for PIT/NSH, or is he just fed up with a perceived anti-Canadian bias from Napoleon and his faction of the BoG and trying to make a point which he might not have felt compelled to otherwise?

SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there)

by Doogie2K on May 15, 2009 7:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, this bit is exactly what I was referencing, too. As I said, it’s about who you believe because who knows for sure?

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on May 15, 2009 8:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wouldn’t surprise me one bit that both sides are made of serial liars.

by SJKel on May 16, 2009 1:38 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

yes, but at least Balsillie is trying to get more transparency here on the NHL’s own lies. It’s self-serving, sure, but I also believe that transparency amongst organizations and leadership is always a good thing.

Check out my hockey blog!
http://sacrificethebody.blogspot.com/
Catch the Wings/Ducks coverage over at CycleLikeSedins!
http://wingsvducks.blogspot.com/

by IAmJoe on May 16, 2009 1:58 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Balsillie’s end goal here isn’t aimed at any other fan base in these struggling markets

James, if you don’t think that destabilizing the Coyotes’ fan base (as mediocre/poor as you or others may consider it to be) is not part of JB’s game plan, well I am nearly speechless. It is transparently obvious, even putting aside the fact that he did so with the Nashville transaction (but even more bluntly). I absolutely, unequivocally guarantee you that this smart man has “scenarioized” that aspect in full.

As well, can we possibly discontinue this rubbish of the NHL being a “club”? I understand that need of some to characterize this as some sort of exclusionary thing among rich folks, but what it IS, is a business comprised of thirty partners who have come together to form a business. If you and three of your friends put together a busines plan to run a hockey website, have you formed a “club”? The NHL is no different than any other private business with a number of shareholders/partners. If you and twenty or so guys have formed a business partnership to run this website, you are not a “club”. You are a business partnership.

by Gerald on May 15, 2009 5:03 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Frankly, I don’t think Balsillie cares about the Phoenix fanbase enough to bother with destabilizing it. He doesn’t need to destabilize that fanbase to claim that the Coyotes are not viable in Phoenix. The losses the team is suffering argues that nicely. The fact that the team was looking for more investors for god knows how long without a sniff – at least not until the apparent Reinsdorf “offer” conveniently materialized out of thin air after the bankruptcy claim occurred – argues that nicely. The atrocious lease and terrible location within the Phoenix metro argues that nicely – though it is a shame that a victorious claim by Balsillie would leave the city of Glendale absolutely screwed, given that lease was their attempt at protecting their investment. The fact that the league had to step in to pay the bills argues that nicely. Especially when there was already fan talk about how the LEAGUE could get around the lease (i.e.: revoke the franchise) before Balsillie even stepped back into the limelight.

The fact that, before the season even ended, there were questions from within Phoenix’ season ticket fanbase about the team’s future, and whether it was worthwhile to invest in a team that might not exist at the start of the 2009-10 season argues it nicely.

by Resolute on May 15, 2009 5:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Res, with all due respect i can only conclude that you were not paying attention to the fact that there were NUMEROUS credible reports of multiple offers from people who were in the know around the league. Reinsdorf’s interest had been documented well before JB’s shenaniganisms (my JB Memorial Unintelligible Word of the Post).

As well, i would be interested in your support of your view of the lease as “atrocious”. Exactly what about it is atrocious? What commercial term of the lease are you referring to?

BTW, a big chunk of the losses are due not as a result of the revenues, but rather because Moyes was somehow running the team is about 20% more in expenses than the Nashville Predators, to name one example. Betcha didn’t know that. I can only assume that he is running an operation that is either ridiculously profligate or he is running his trucking company or jetlease company expenses through it.

by Gerald on May 15, 2009 5:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Another giant financial burden...

The Glendale lease also includes terms that require the Coyotes to pay for the financing of the Westgate complex, which Jerry Moyes was involved with along with Steve Ellman before their partnership split. According to Moyes, those terms account for a very significant portion of the Coyotes’ losses over the past six years. For what it’s worth…

You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.

by zyllyx on May 15, 2009 6:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Interesting. I will have to look through the filed real estate documents to see if that can be confirmed. That would certainly explain why PHO’s costs are so completely out of whack.

by Gerald on May 15, 2009 6:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’m curious what these “credible” reports of multiple offers were, since I can’t seem to find them in a quick google news search. Could you enlighten me, Gerald? I do note that a similar Google News search doesnt turn up anything for “Phoenix Coyotes +Reinsdorf” until May 6, 2009. Odd coincidence that date.

by Resolute on May 15, 2009 6:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

"Multiple offers..."

The only people who discussed “multiple offers” for the Coyotes were the NHL/Bettman and Wayne Gretzky, who probably heard it from Bettman.

The Reinsdorf deal and another deal involving Jerry Bruckheimer had been rumored for months but never progressed beyond that.

Reinsdorf’s deal that would have countered Balsillie’s was, in my view, simply a “white knight” deal – not a long-term ownership situation.

You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.

by zyllyx on May 15, 2009 6:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You might want to try James’ own paper, Res, including Shoalts himself (hint: Feb 5, Feb 18). Or TSN. Or the Phoenix newspapers. Or any number of places where the story got picked up.

by Gerald on May 15, 2009 6:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

How are they credible if the offers cannot be confirmed? All we have is the NHL stating there are several offers, but I’d be shocked if that’s the case and the buyer hasn’t been leaked to the press. Especially considering all of the other pertinent details have.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on May 15, 2009 7:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

We could look at February stories, or those published more recently.

by Robert Cleave on May 15, 2009 7:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hey, REs said there were no stories, I showed him toward them. Subsequent stories don’t change the fact that he was 100% wrong to say offers had never been discussed before the bankruptcy.

by Gerald on May 16, 2009 9:55 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I said I can’t find them.

And I see you are too lazy to back up your own claims.

by Resolute on May 16, 2009 11:53 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I found them. I told you what media sources to look in to find them, and the dates. How hard is it for you? Do you prefer to make unsubstantiated claims? That doesn’t sound like you, Res. Have you been possessed by “The Passion”?

by Gerald on May 16, 2009 1:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

If that’s the standard, James, how credible is ANYTHING you guys write based on unnamed sources? Everything Shoalts wrote this morning is unconfirmed.

Interesting that Shoalts doesn’t have the stones to do anything other with Daly’s response other than selecting random words.

by Gerald on May 16, 2009 9:57 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

How credible is it when it the bulk of it comes true a few months later?

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on May 16, 2009 12:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You’re asking Gerald for citations? Good luck.

by J. Michael Neal on May 15, 2009 9:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Again, READ the caselaw yourself, Michael. IF you cannot understand what cases stand for, no one can really help you. You want to learn how? Go to law school, instead of pretending online.

by Gerald on May 16, 2009 9:53 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ah, yes. If I read the case law, make direct citations to it, quote it, and you disagree, just shout that you’re a lawyer. Because the common perception of lawyers is that they are so trustworthy that just claiming to be one convinces everyone that you are right.

Put up, or shut up, Gerald.

by J. Michael Neal on May 16, 2009 1:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

“Shut up”?

Out of respect for James, I am not going to reply to that in as feisty as way as it is warranted, Michael. Suffice it to say that in general one should probably restrain from telling someone to “shut up” when they can enforce that demand. In layman’s terms, save it for someone who gives a crap what you say.

See, it’s like this, Michael. Everyone likes to think that they can figure out legal decisions. Heck, it’s just words, right? Except …

I can only imagine you talking about medical matters with your doctor. “Hey, i know this is your diagnosis, but I just read this stuff on the internet and it says something different”.

You’re a pip.

by Gerald on May 16, 2009 5:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

no Gerald, not everyone likes to think that they can figure out legal decisions. What they’d like to do on a hockey-related blog is discuss hockey and the issues surrounding it. And since not everyone’s a lawyer there are going to be a lot of mistakes/misreadings/bonehead opinions, whatever one might call them.

And while it’s nice that you have a lot of expertise to share with them you seem less interested in informing people than in slapping them down(esp. when you disagree with them).
That’s your thing.Cool. But please don’t bring “respect for James” into it and don’t act surprised when people get snippy with you.

by yrmom on May 16, 2009 6:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Fair point, yrmom, although in my own defense I am more that way to Michael, and he is trying to bait me (“You’re asking Gerald for citations? Good luck.”). Given that, I would suggest that Michael does not need anyone to come to his aid.

As for “slapping people down”, I admittedly have little tolerance for unearned certitude. When people feel so certain (even though they have not earned it by doing the work to think something through), and someone else comes in to disabuse them, it is sometimes going to sound harsh. i have even less tolerance for “conventional wisdom” that is accepted as a substitute for actually thinking about things. When one questions conventional wisdom, especially where people are “passionate”, it can feel even worse. With all due respect, I don’t think you have a handle on what “my thing” is.

by Gerald on May 16, 2009 11:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Generally, when I ask my doctor to explain something to me, he attempts to do so. I wouldn’t trust advice from a doctor who limits his comments to, “I’m a doctor, so just believe what I tell you without trying to help you understand.” You, on the other hand, seem to think that explaining why you think something is beneath you.

No one should ever trust someone who refuses explanations. I don’t care what the subject is. As a general rule, my assumption is that someone who refuses to do so is lying.

by J. Michael Neal on May 16, 2009 8:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

With that assumption, you must be living in a pretty harsh world that you have created for yourself.

I didn’t refuse to give you an explanation. I gave you an explanation of what the first Raiders case said. You didn’t accept it. I told you that you don’t understand how to read a case. You didn’t like that, either. I am not going to get into a contest of “I cite a sentence” and “you cite a sentence”. That will not convince you, IMO. The case is frankly not that difficult to understand. The problem that most non-lawyers have is that they don’t understand how to distinguish the basis upon which a case is decided from the factors that do not drive the findings – in other words, which sentences are the ones that define the actual findings and establish the law (to the extent that such law can apply beyond the facts of that case).

I am sorry if that explanation is not sufficiently articulate. I don’t teach the law for a living. After you do anything for a long enough time, whether law, medicine, athletic endeavours, or sportswriting, it becomes increasingly difficult for many practitioners to distill into words how to do what they do. They just do it, almost instintively if you will.

By the way, you seem to have forgotten that a slew of law profs subsequently were quoted as agreeing with my take on the Raiders case and disagreed with yours, but again that was not enough because the articles did not provide a full enough scholarly analysis. Do you think that maybe, just maybe you are not important enough to write a scholarly article that will still undoubtedly not suffice for you at this point, since you were SOOOOOOO sure that you knew what you were talking about and clearly some of your self-esteem is at stake?

by Gerald on May 16, 2009 11:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

No, I haven’t forgotten that. However, none of those profs cited anything, and there were other law profs who stated the exact opposite. That’s the problem of the appeal to authority: the authorities are rarely in unanimous agreement.

As for it being a hard life, I find that I can get along pretty well without relying upon anyone who just won’t explain why they think something. There are times when they can only explain so far before I lose the technical ability to follow, but that’s not the same thing. If someone won’t lay out their reasoning when you ask, don’t trust them.

As for your explanation of the Raiders case, it consisted of saying that the case was decided on the technical aspects of Rule 4.3. That’s it. You haven’t said anything about what aspects that was. You haven’t said anything about which part of the decision it was. When I quoted parts of the decision that indicate otherwise, well beyond the finding that the NFL is not a single entity*, you simply didn’t respond.

That’s not an explanation, Gerald. That’s a bare assertion. It amounts to nothing more than, “I’m a lawyer, and I can’t be bothered to make an argument. I have said it, and you’re an idiot if you don’t take my word for it.” Sorry. As I said elsewhere, when someone won’t provide more than that, I tend to suspect that they are being economical with the truth.

*Another thing I find interesting is that, despite this finding in court, you make a bunch of arguments that depend upon the assumption that a sports league is a single entity. Every time you claim that the NHL is a business with a bunch of partners, that’s your implicit position.

by J. Michael Neal on May 17, 2009 2:40 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

James didn’t say that destabilizing the fan base in Phoenix isn’t part of his game plan, he said it’s not his end goal. There’s a difference. His goal is to move a team to Southern Ontario, and if it involves poisoning another market, that’s just too bad, is I think how he sees things.

by dzuunmod on May 16, 2009 3:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

That I would completely agree with, if that is what James meant..

by Gerald on May 16, 2009 5:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t think the Phoenix fan base factors into anything involved with Balsillie’s goals at all. His only comment there is that hockey’s not working in Glendale, why not move them to Southern Ontario?

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on May 17, 2009 12:32 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

That was my take also – wrecking the fan base in Phoenix is just collateral damage, nothing more.

"A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature replaces it with." -- Tennessee Williams

by Baroque on May 17, 2009 7:48 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Frankly, this whole situation has just about turned me off to hockey.

I should be sitting back with my season ticket holder receipt, looking forward to the draft and our two first-rounders (if Calgary is smart, they’d give us 2009 instead of 2010), and enjoying the hell out of playoff hockey like last night’s tilt between the Bruins and ’Canes.

I’m not, however, enjoying myself. My team is going to leave – whether it leaves now because of Balsillie or in a year or two when Bettman and Daly, happy that they have stymied Balls, quietly move the franchise to KC or Vegas.

Everyone with a brain knows there needs to be more NHL presence in Canada. Kansas City is a total non-starter – at least Phoenix has the status of a top-10 metropolitan market going for it. Vegas is a market with too much transient population to support really ANY major-league sport, in my opinion. No, any new franchise should be established in Canada because, honestly, that’s where the teams will make money and thrive.

But that belief is not enough for me to appreciate Jim Balsillie. Why? Aside from the obvious – that he is blowing sunshine up Canada’s butt while taking a massive dump all over Phoenix’s fans – he’s spinning this into some sort of patriotic BS that eager Canadians are lapping up like sugar water. The bottom line is that Balls is trying to get a franchise for a fraction of the cost of an expansion deal and he’s using Canadians’ love for the game as his crowbar to do it. Canada seems to think this guy is their savior and are putting him on a pedestal that he doesn’t deserve. I don’t buy his “Poor me and my lack of a front door into the sport” bit for a minute. I don’t buy his superhero-caped “uber-passionate hockey fan and men’s league player” man-of-the-people act either. He’s in this to make a boatload of dough off of Canadian hockey fans and if the courts side with him he’s going to get his wish. Canada will get themselves a seventh team that’s just as impossible to buy tickets for as the Leafs, a higher cap floor which will put more small-market teams in jeopardy, and a league in even more disarray than it is now.

Having said all that, having Gary Bettman in my corner is like having the wolf guarding the henhouse. He doesn’t care any more about Coyotes fans than he cares about Hamilton fans. He’s in this to save face and beat Balsillie. If another US market was open for hockey the Coyotes would have checked out in the middle of the night.

Maybe this illustrates a bit to those of you reading this why the worst job in sports right now has to be that of a Phoenix Coyotes fan (or, even worse, a season-ticket-holder like myself). Balsillie considers us necessary casualties and acceptable losses… Bettman is using us as cannon fodder in his power struggle… Canadian fans want to paint us as a passion-free, endangered species addled by the sun… our own local media, so wrapped up in ASU sports, the NBA, and NFL, are only too happy to do Balsillie’s PR work here for him.

There are days when I wish I’d never heard of hockey.

You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.

by zyllyx on May 15, 2009 6:05 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

zyllyx, no one is painting Pheonix hockey fans as sun-addled and passion free: I’m pretty sure that most Canadians admire your passion for hockey. It takes real dedication to be passionate about a sport that you’ve never played and that gets little media attention. It’s easy for a Canadian to be a hockey fan, but it takes admirable effort for you to do so, and congratulations for that: there’s nothing like the zeal of the convert.

The problem isn’t the passion of Phoenix fans: it’s the number of them, and the likelihood that there will be significantly more in the foreseeable future.

by wmd78 on May 15, 2009 7:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The biggest problem is that this team has been managed into the ground, has performed poorly on the ice and is losing buckets of money. I’m not even sure if the fans are to blame because, at this point, who knows? They’ve been given almost nothing to cheer for.

I do disagree that Balsillie’s in this for the money, however. He’d find far easier ways to make a buck than trying to wrench an NHL team away through the courts. He’s doing this as a vendetta against Bettman.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on May 15, 2009 7:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's absolutely right

The reason that there are so few fans has to be largely explained by the horrible ownership and related horrible on ice product, and not just because it’s hot outside. As you point out, it’s hot in Dallas and San Jose too.

Though it should be said that teams in non-hot markets can suck pretty bad and still draw fans.

by wmd78 on May 15, 2009 7:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ah, but teams in cold markets can also suck pretty bad and draw flies. That happy Cinderella story in Chicago was one of the NHL’s biggest jokes two or three years ago.

SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there)

by Doogie2K on May 15, 2009 8:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

No one is painting Phoenix hockey fans as such?

Utterly false. Read the hockey boards, or the Globe article comments.

The problem with us Canadian hockey fans is not you, but you are being willfully blind if you suggest that there are not droves of yahoos out there who feel differently.

by Gerald on May 16, 2009 9:59 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Canada will get themselves a seventh team that’s just as impossible to buy tickets for as the Leafs, a higher cap floor which will put more small-market teams in jeopardy, and a league in even more disarray than it is now.

Ah. I see your cunning plan. It’s to make sure that the NHL doesn’t increase its revenues, so teams don’t have to pay the players more. What the hell kind of business strategy is that?

As for the seventh team being as hard to get tickets for as the Leafs, if that is true, then it would be true whether it’s Ballsillie moving the Coyotes there or someone else bringing an expansion franchise there. If, as you say, Canada deserves a seventh team, then it’s because they are willing to pay a lot for tickets. If you want to bring that down, then be prepared to move teams to Toronto until the market clearing price for tickets is lower.

You’ve been contradicting yourself a lot in these threads, and this is another example.

by J. Michael Neal on May 15, 2009 9:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The bottom line is that Balls is trying to get a franchise for a fraction of the cost of an expansion deal and he’s using Canadians’ love for the game as his crowbar to do it.

What is people’s major obsession with “OMG HES TRYING TO DO IT CHEAPER THAN HE COULD IF HE BOUGHT AN EXPANSION FRANCHISE”?

First of all, yeah, this is cheaper. As a businessman and prospective owner, it would be stupid of him to spend more than he needs to spend in order to get what he wants. Someone ought to yell at your grandmother for clipping coupons.

Secondly, an expansion franchise is a pointless thing to talk about anyways. There will be no expansion in the near future because of the market. That’s if Southern Ontario would even be considered for such an expansion, with the NHL wanting teams in Las Vegas and Kansas City. It’s not like Southern Ontario just became able to support two teams. They could’ve given them an expansion team when they were going crazy in the 90’s. They repeatedly have chosen not to award an expansion franchise there, and the league has expressed no interest in dipping into the Southern Ontario well again.

Third, even if an expansion franchise were a possibility, it would be a retarded decision. What is the point of setting up expansion franchises, while you have other markets that cannot maintain their franchises, and are having to shuffle them between questionable markets, or terminate the franchises entirely? The league would be better served as a whole to establish 30 stable franchises, than to try to make 30+ franchises, with a handful of them consistently moving between questionable markets or going out of business entirely.

This entire business of how Balsillie should just get an expansion franchise is completely ignoring the economic realities of the situation here.

Check out my hockey blog!
http://sacrificethebody.blogspot.com/
Catch the Wings/Ducks coverage over at CycleLikeSedins!
http://wingsvducks.blogspot.com/

by IAmJoe on May 16, 2009 2:08 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

“All that said, whether you’re on his “side” or not in this fight for the Coyotes likely comes down to who you believe. Is his statement that there is, in fact, no league-approved way to get a team into Southern Ontario legitimate?"

How does it come down to that? I firmly agree there is no league-approved way to move a team to Southern Ontario at this time. I’m sure there’s no league-approved way to move a team to Des Moisnes, Iowa or Bismark, South Dakota, either or Beijing, China. This doesn’t make what he’s doing right.

George W. Bush was also an Ivy League grad and was also “successful,” after a matter of fact (and at the very least more successful than Ballsillie in owning a sports franchise). This doesn’t make him a smart man or mean that he’s always did the right thing.

I don’t think Ballsillie has been smart about this at all, to be honest. He could have bought the Predators, feigned at making a go of it for a few years, pleaded with the owners that the current situation wasn’t working and asked for the right to relocate the team. Or he could have built a state of the art NHL rink in Southern Ontario, lined up the commitments for the allegedly massive corporate support said team, selling out all the corporate boxes and luxury suites and made it as attractive a package as possible. That probably wouldn’t have worked, but it had a better shot than looking like an egomaniac with no regard for rules of the league that you’re trying to get into.

I think whether or not you are on Ballsillie’s side comes down to the belief that Southern Ontario has some sort of divine right to an NHL team no matter what underhanded B.S. it takes to get one there. If you do believe in Hamilton’s divine right, you’ll clearly justify anything it takes to get it there.

by Snap Wilson on May 15, 2009 6:41 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

couldn’t we also characterize those on the other side of the issue as having a belief in Phoenix having a divine right to a franchise no matter how successful it is? Just askin’.

by yrmom on May 15, 2009 7:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Is there a new version of Godwin’s law covering G.W. Bush comparisons?

by wmd78 on May 15, 2009 7:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

yes.

by yrmom on May 15, 2009 10:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wait

Wait so the only two who are part of Godwin’s law are Bush and Hitler… did you just Godwin Law’d Godwin’s Law… My head hurts

The 2008-2009 Colorado Avalanche: Slumpbusters

by Jibblescribbits on May 19, 2009 12:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

He could have bought the Predators, feigned at making a go of it for a few years, pleaded with the owners that the current situation wasn’t working and asked for the right to relocate the team.

So your beef is that he didn’t dupe all of the fans in Nashville for years, lie to them when his real intentions were to lift the team out as soon as possible? And that he didn’t attempt to do this after the NHL told him they had no interest in moving that team to Ontario?

Seriously?

Honestly, if you don’t believe the GTA couldn’t support a second NHL team to this extent, we don’t have much to argue over and will have to agree to disagree. The only thing keeping this area from being properly served is the NHL’s unwillingness to talk about another franchise in its best market.

This divine right nonsense really adds very little to the conversation. There’s obviously a demand from the fans for a team, so why not have one? Doesn’t that make sound business sense?

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on May 15, 2009 7:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Or he could have built a state of the art NHL rink in Southern Ontario, lined up the commitments for the allegedly massive corporate support said team, selling out all the corporate boxes and luxury suites and made it as attractive a package as possible. That probably wouldn’t have worked, but it had a better shot than looking like an egomaniac with no regard for rules of the league that you’re trying to get into.

Yeah. What he should do is invest hundreds of millions of dollars on spec, with the hope of being able to get a team at some point in the future. How did that work out for the city of Tampa, with the Sundome sitting empty for almost two decades before getting the Devil Rays? How’s that working out for AEG in Kansas City right now?

That’s a stupid way to try to get a team.

by J. Michael Neal on May 15, 2009 9:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Or he could have built a state of the art NHL rink in Southern Ontario, lined up the commitments for the allegedly massive corporate support said team, selling out all the corporate boxes and luxury suites and made it as attractive a package as possible. That probably wouldn’t have worked, but it had a better shot than looking like an egomaniac with no regard for rules of the league that you’re trying to get into.

Huh? He sold season tickets to the Hamilton team before even buying them, presumably to prove exactly how financially viable it was, and got slapped for arrogance and whatnot. How is this different?

SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there)

by Doogie2K on May 16, 2009 1:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

That really puzzled me at the time – how else was he supposed to demonstrate interest in a team than basically asking, “hypothetically, if there was a hockey team here, would you buy tickets?” and have people race to put down their real money in case it happened. It seemed the most efficient way of gauging interest, asking people to open their wallets and put their money where their mouths were.

"A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature replaces it with." -- Tennessee Williams

by Baroque on May 17, 2009 7:52 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

“Bettman makes a fair point when he says ‘ripping a franchise out of one city in violation of league rules and procedures to put it somewhere else isn’t the way we do business’.”

I think that’s letting Bettman off way too lightly. He’s ready, willing and able to rip “a franchise out of one city” when it suits his agenda (and that of his “club.”)

But when the franchise is pointed north, he goes all “NHL Constitution.”

I haven’t read the bankruptcy documents, and I’ve never done a billion-dollar deal, but I don’t need a Harvard Law Degree to know that Jim Balsillie’s actions have about as much to do with the crappy attendance in Nashville and Phoenix as they do with declining life expectancy in the Tiny Republic of Tongo.

Phoenix is not a hockey market. The city has had a team named the “Roadrunners” fold in just about every professional hockey league in North American history. Nor is Nashville a hockey market. Ditto Atlanta (twice proven), Tampa or wherever in Florida the Panthers play.

The Midget wanted a continental footprint so that he could convince a U.S. network to carry shinny. Didn’t work out and never will. Take a page out of the CFL playbook and put put an end to Manifest Destiny.

by garth the hoser on May 15, 2009 7:27 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Oh good god.

You want to bring the roadrunners into this? They were moved into every financially insovlent LEAGUE ever created. And then the newest iteration was used simply to fill unused arena time and was never marketed outside of telling a few people the team was playing. No ads no nothing.

Please stop saying Phoenix isn’t a hockey market. Every time someone says that we Phoenix fans point to Dallas to which the normal replay is “Yeah but they support hockey” Well so do we. We have all the youth hockey that comes with an NHL team we actually have High school hockey which 10 years ago there were no schools that had a team there are now close to 40. May not be every school, but it’s an expensive sport to play.

Support Your Local Coyotes Blog! -
Five For Howling

by Travis Hair on May 16, 2009 9:15 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

He’s right on that point. There are Arizona natives in the AHL right now, and the WHL looks at the league when it goes hunting for Americans. It’s like Texas in that way – slowly growing its minor hockey system.

Unfortunately that doesn’t change the situation the Coyotes are in now.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on May 16, 2009 12:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly. Just like California is now putting a bunch of players into junior hockey now, AZ has that potential as well. Would ASU have a hockey team http://www.sundevilhockey.com/ if the Coyotes weren’t around?
Hey, and maybe this guy http://www.sundevilhockey.com/ will be the first of many AZ products to make it. Give it time, take the long view.

by LarsPGH on May 16, 2009 1:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

No, and it wasn’t supposed to. Just illustrating that hockey is growing in the Valley. We’re not adverse to the game or the league we just have godawful management.

Support Your Local Coyotes Blog! -
Five For Howling

by Travis Hair on May 16, 2009 3:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Shoot, messed up the link.
http://coyotes.nhl.com/team/app?page=PlayerDetail&playerId=8471637&service=page

by LarsPGH on May 16, 2009 5:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I am a resourceful guy. I’m a thoughtful guy. Yes, I’m smart on these things. I figure out these situations very quickly

I’m sorry but if you are at all familiar with the RIMM/NTP patent suit and its history, you have to laugh at these words. It was RIMM’s arrogance, stubborness, bad lawyering, foolish public relations stunts(they announced a settlement that hadn’t been agreed to which infuriated the judge) that turned that case from a minimal 33 million dollar award to the final settlement which had RIMM paying 612 million dollars to NTP. I don’t know how much of that was Balsille’s doing (a lot I think) but his sense of the righteousness of his case (which this situation echoes) almost destroyed his company.

by Big Picture Guy on May 15, 2009 9:25 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

But in the end, what hand held does every business executive have these days? A Blackberry. No matter how JB went about it, whether or not you or I agree with his ways of doing things, it’s hard to say he’s not right. The results are there.

by Habs on May 15, 2009 11:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Here’s a good (lengthy) read on the patent suit. In some ways, it’s a story about patent law more than anything and Balsillie’s a much more central figure.

That shouldn’t have become a personal crusade either, but I’m not sure you can pin it all on Balsillie being reckless. Or apply it to this situation and say it indicates he’s in the wrong.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on May 16, 2009 12:59 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Balsillie’s a much more central figure.

I think you meant to say “much less” and its true that some have said Lazaridis was mostly responsible. But your own newspaper made Balsillie the central figure and the one whose decisions to fight the case ended up costing RIMM so much:

He waged a six-year battle with tiny NTP Inc., a Virginia company that accused RIM of violating its technology patents. When NTP won a $23-million court ruling, Mr. Balsillie dug in, disputing the verdict all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.By the time the dust had settled last year, RIM agreed to pay a staggering $612.5-million to settle the long-running dispute, prompting some to question Mr. Balsillie’s notoriously competitive streak.“We thought we had an agreement for $450-million and then he started horsing around and we ended up at $612.5-million,” said James Wallace, a Washington lawyer who represented NTP

Whatever the truth, Balsillie was responsible for waging a public relations campaign that in this case backfired and it was he who stepped forward at the end and said “I took one for the team.”

Public relations ploys, arrogance, ego, stubbornness, misjudging the court process, insisting on the “principle” of the case-I think all of these have parallels in the Phoenix situation. My comment was basically directed towards Balsillie patting himself on the back and saying “I figure these things out quickly” when in the NTP case he did the opposite. I didn’t say he was “in the wrong”-I happen to think S. Ontario should have a team-just that his past history shows that his tactics have been self defeating in the past.

by Big Picture Guy on May 16, 2009 7:01 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I guess it depends on what you think the endgame is here. I really don’t think this process is going to be successful, and I’d be surprised if that’s the case with the Balsillie side. This looks like some expensive bit of fun for him.

Ultimately, what he could accomplish is getting someone else a team in Hamilton/Toronto.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on May 16, 2009 1:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

And potentially he could also be the end of Bettman, which I’m sure JB would like as a consolation prize.

by Habs on May 16, 2009 3:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

And ousting Bettman might help open the doors to Balsillie again in the future, even if he loses this round.

As it is now, he can’t really win. But maybe if he shakes things up a bit, suddenly, a path opens to him. Shake a tree, maybe nothing happens. Maybe an apple falls out. Its worth a try.

Check out my hockey blog!
http://sacrificethebody.blogspot.com/
Catch the Wings/Ducks coverage over at CycleLikeSedins!
http://wingsvducks.blogspot.com/

by IAmJoe on May 16, 2009 4:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

While Bettman might be the devil incarnate for many fans...

…he gets his marching orders from the owners. If the owners wanted a different result, they would be directing the little man accordingly. They may be letting him twist a while before pulling the plug on him or they just may be happy for him to take the heat for them.

by hockeycountry on May 16, 2009 5:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

But when the owners begin to realize that Bettman might not be always be acting in their best interests, things might turn rapidly. How truthful is Gary with the Board? How open is he with them, in terms of his plans?
Balsillie’s antics are making public a lot of things I’m sure Gary would prefer remain hidden. That could eventually force the owners to rethink their (so far) unwavering support for Bettman.

by Habs on May 16, 2009 10:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I hear this argument all the time, but Balsillie does have a lot of power. Many owners are disconnected from their teams to a certain extent and rely on his guidance, so he is making some key decisions here (or recommending what calls others should make).

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on May 17, 2009 12:41 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You mean Bettman, right? They don’t call Balsillie up for advice, do they?

by LarsPGH on May 17, 2009 2:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Heh, right.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on May 18, 2009 7:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hmmm....owners disconnected from one of their most (I would guess) significant investments.

I’ll bite. Maybe that’s the problem with teams that are struggling. Or maybe the owners need the losses. I would think that this latest brouhaha may have roused them out of their stupor long enough to ask what the hell is going on, where is this league going, how it was determined and the plan to get it there. Maybe the first bit of transparency needs to be between Bettman and the owners.

by hockeycountry on May 18, 2009 9:03 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I wonder how many owners actually are solidly behind Bettman and fully aware of what he is doing, how many go along out of habit or indifference, and how many disagree with him but haven’t made their view known either privately or at all.

Considering how hard it is to get four people to agree on toppings to get on a pizza, I’m sure that there is a lot of disagreement among the owners regarding the best course for the league. People are like that.

"A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature replaces it with." -- Tennessee Williams

by Baroque on May 17, 2009 7:46 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs