Three outcomes remain for Coyotes sale
Considering the effect of the conclusions set forth above, the court does not think that the unresolved issues can be resolved, assuming that they can be favorably resolved by the Debtors and [Balsillie], prior to the June 29th deadline. Simply put, the court does not think there is sufficient time (14 days) for all of these issues to be fairly presented to the court given that deadline. In making that statement, the court recognizes the diligent efforts and hard work by all parties and their attorneys, including all attorneys' professionalism under trying circumstances, in presenting their respective positions to the court regarding the Motion. Thus the Motion is denied, without prejudice.
There'll be a lot of ink spilt the next few days mulling over this particular ruling, but I'm not sure that it radically alters anything when it comes to this team's fate. No one realistically expected a shotgun relocation proceeding to go through, nor should they have thought Jim Balsillie would walk away had his (unreasonable) timetable been cast aside.
Really, we're looking at three possible outcomes, the same ones we started with:
- Jim Balsillie somehow wins the right in court to own the team and relocate the franchise, likely for the 2010-11 season. There are many, many hurdles involved in this scenario, but it remains in play given we've yet to have other bids tabled.
- The NHL finds an owner or owners who want to operate the franchise in Phoenix for the long term. The only way this can happen is if the City of Glendale makes that option more appealing by heavily subsidizing the team beyond what it does already (something that may not prove possible for a council already cash strapped and in an area where the majority of residents do not support the team). Without a guarantee that this team will lose less money than it has to this point, the Coyotes have zero chance of finding a local owner at any price.
- The NHL finds an owner or owners who will own the team in Phoenix for the short term with the potential of relocating the franchise should it continue to struggle. The interesting bit about this scenario, however, is that it, too, is going to require some subsidies from the city to make it more palatable for a buyer even for a brief period. If the team's financial performance improves as a result, I wonder just what sort of legal fuss Glendale would kick up if the league attempts to then relocate the team even as its fiscal health appears on the mend.
One lawyer who reads this site regularly said that the "without prejudice" bit at the end of Baum's decision is an important piece of the puzzle, one that "generally means the original filer can, in certain conditions, 'cure' the problem filing and refile." He speculates that Jerry Moyes may "refile with an amended purchase agreement that does not have such an accelerated time frame," and if so, we're essentially looking at the same issues as previously but without the possibility of the team playing anywhere but Phoenix this fall.
I've talked about this previously, but based on conversations I've had with several hockey fans in Phoenix, it's clear that this entire ordeal has damaged the team's already dire situation considerably. One Coyotes fan I've known for a few years said he's essentially lost hope that the team can be profitable and healthy in the future and that mismanagement has doomed the club to relocation at some point.
There are many fans keeping the faith, but others simply aren't, and the massive $40-million losses of this past season — when the team was competitive and the attendance as yet unaffected by this news — could easily be surpassed if ticket sales continue to be as bad as they are on pace to be.
The NHL may have won this brief skirmish with Balsillie, but the real fight is to make this franchise profitable and worth owning — for anyone — and there's an incredibly long way to go on that front. I frankly don't have a clue how they'll do it.
For three more great takes on this, check out Dirk Hoag, Tyler Dellow and Greg Wyshynski.
0 recs |
34 comments
| Add comment
|
Comments
another possibility
There is a 4th option. The NHL could dissolve the franchise, by moving this to a chapter 7 bankruptcy where the business would be wound up.
TSM
by torontosportsmedia.com on Jun 16, 2009 9:33 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
But that outcome is far from realistic and would make a bad situation even worse, especially in the PR battle. That’s probably why James didn’t include it.
"Hey! Farmboy! Maybe you can't count, but there are four of us and one of you."
"So get some more guys and then it'll be an even fight."
by Afino on Jun 16, 2009 9:37 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
is Colorado up yet in the SBN Mock Phoenix Dispersal Draft?
Hyphens cause writers more trouble than any other form of punctuation, except perhaps commas.
by David Driscoll-Carignan on Jun 16, 2009 10:05 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Who pays the creditors in this situation? It just doesn’t seem a realistic option.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on Jun 16, 2009 11:52 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s not, James. Your instinct is correct.
by Gerald on Jun 16, 2009 4:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Gerald,
Could you see the NHL putting up a bid for the Coyotes?
If the NHL just buys the franchise back, they won’t have to risk of Balsillie pushing his way in, or a judge scrutinizing their bylaws .
I just can’t see anyone wanting to buy the franchise if they have to keep the Coyotes in Phoenix. Congratulations, you’ve bought the right to bleed $10-30M in cash each year with little chance of ever getting into the black. The But if Bettman sells the franchise to a friendly party with an agreement that he can move the franchise in the near future, wouldn’t the judge insist that the same offer be provided to Balsillie, or put up for auction, to ensure the value of the franchise is maximized for the creditors?
by mclea on Jun 16, 2009 4:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t, McLea. It would not be necessary. The only reason for them assuming the lease (which they would be doing by purchasing the team) is to assign it to someone else, and they might as well do that directly by having their approved purchaser buy directly.
But then I don;t think it is feasible anyway because, unlike you, I see significant value in the franchise.
The judge could not, by hs own reading of the law, insist that JB be provided with the same offer. Per Baum J., the NHL has the right to approve or reject proposed owners, provided their discretion is exercised reasonably. This would presumably extend to selecting from among multiple potential owners as well. The NHL also (per Baum J.) has the right to reject relocation requests. All of this necessarily must mean that not all owners will get the same outcome of approval/rejection.
by Gerald on Jun 16, 2009 6:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Baum also said that, after a rejection of a relocation request, he would take up the issue of whether enforcing such a refusal would be a violation of anti-trust law.
by J. Michael Neal on Jun 16, 2009 11:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dead Team Walking!
Phoenix Coyotes in 2009-2010: Dead Team Walking!
I find sometimes it's easy to be myself
sometimes I find it's better to be somebody else
by Fauxrumors on Jun 16, 2009 9:34 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Balsillie should stay away from this mess and leave the Coyotes die in the desert. This situation is a real joke anyway. Too bad for the 17.5 fans who really support their team.
by Fred Poulin on Jun 16, 2009 9:50 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I wanted to See Doan play for three teams ( different cities) without ever being traded or signed as a free agent. In other words not be a transaction.
Leafs selling hope to the hopeless since 1967
by Toe Blake Hockey on Jun 16, 2009 10:09 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
The Coyotes now have officially more players than fans!
by Fred Poulin on Jun 16, 2009 10:23 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
That proposed Coyotes ownership bid by the Argos owners sounds right up the NHL’s alley, though. Reminds me of Tampa Bay’s current group borrowing from the guy they were buying from, or Del Baggio borrowing from pretty much everyone in the NHL:
http://www.tsn.ca/cfl/story/?id=281989
Sounds perfect for NHL ownership!
Hockey blogging can't get any flatter.
by saskhab on Jun 16, 2009 10:27 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah.
’Bout what I expected out of people today…
Support Your Local Coyotes Blog! -
Five For Howling
by OdinMercer on Jun 16, 2009 11:07 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Let them kvetch.
I just found out I will have an entire season of NHL hockey that I can watch in person (along with three others thanks to my four lower-bowl season tix). No amount of snark or outrage or insult from the peanut gallery is going to ruin that. Let them stew and predict doom and whatever else all they want. As for you and me, we still have a team even if it’s only for one more year!
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on Jun 16, 2009 11:45 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I remember interviewing for a job in Tucson, and one of the HR people had a pair of season tickets to the Coyotes. I forget how much she said she paid, but it was a wildly low number for someone used to Canadian prices. I can understand why Arizona hockey fans want to keep their team so badly.
by Its Cold In Here on Jun 16, 2009 1:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, that whole liking hockey thing doesn’t factor into it at all… :P
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on Jun 16, 2009 3:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
A realistic appraisal of what comes next?
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on Jun 16, 2009 11:56 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think he’s talking about some of the cheap shots thrown around in this thread, not your initial post.
by Forsch31 on Jun 16, 2009 12:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes. Exactly. Sorry if I implied your article was the problem James. I’ll be more clear in the future :)
Support Your Local Coyotes Blog! -
Five For Howling
by OdinMercer on Jun 16, 2009 12:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Heh, ah, even I ignore those.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on Jun 16, 2009 12:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why do I have the sneaking suspicion that Bettman is actively pursuing option 3 much like what happened in Nashville (especially with those Boots relocation clauses)? No matter how much I want the team to stay, I think what’s clear over the last few weeks is that with the release of the actual financial paperwork, the Yotes do not have long term viability as currently constructed.
The population of Pominville keeps rising!
by Blackcapricorn on Jun 16, 2009 11:22 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Disagree
I actually think the long-term viability for Phoenix is there. It’s the short term viability that really threatens the franchise. There is potential to turn the franchises fate around, but it’s going to require up-front monetary losses, patience, and a gigantic investment, not only in terms of $’s but in terms of community investment.
by Jibblescribbits on Jun 16, 2009 1:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, what have they been doing there in the Desert all those years up to this point? Sure there has to be hockey fan infrastructure built up which has been happening with the youth programs and the Dogs are spending to have one of the highest promotional budgets in the NHL but that team was a playoff team for the first several years it was there but the fan support hasn’t come around like Dallas. I suppose there can be a chance for long term success but if they are barely sniffing it now (whether due to mismanagement, bad draft picks, whatever) then I doubt someone will want to invest the short term cash and take big losses over the next few years for something that projects so poorly.
The population of Pominville keeps rising!
by Blackcapricorn on Jun 16, 2009 2:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think any new team in the NHL that faced the kind of management problems the Coyotes have since they moved here would be in the same boat (excepting maybe Toronto and a couple other teams at the top of the revenue stream).
I don’t think the Coyotes can survive for very long if they do not make major changes in their corporate structure and if something isn’t done to make the lease agreement with Glendale more equitable. A new owner that has even an inkling of business sense could do wonders to turn things around – it’s pretty clear by now that the franchise’s losses were made up of equal parts the lease, Gretzky’s contract (which equates to nearly a third of the total annual losses, IIRC), and Moyes’ cooking the books to subsidize his other businesses.
I do think that a new owner is going to have to expect some big initial outlay – starting with buying out Gretzky or at the very least renegotiating his contract radically – but I don’t think it’s impossible at all for this team to turn themselves around in Phoenix if they have the right guy pulling the strings.
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on Jun 16, 2009 3:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
What about a Green Bay model?
If you could find 11,000 potential season ticket holders willing to put up $15,000 apiece to become shareholders in a Coyotes Hockey LLC type corporation, then a $165M offer to keep the team in Phoenix could be tabled.
I have no idea how viable this could be, but if Green Bay can find 112,000 investors for 8 home dates per year, surely a city the size of Phoenix can find one-tenth the investors at a mere 15 grand.
I obviously have no background in finance, but common sense tells me that a city that spent as much on real estate as Phoenix did could manage to find 11,000 people with enough cash to invest in a vehicle that depreciates at a slower rate than their $30,000 cars.
by TD O'Dell on Jun 16, 2009 5:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
the lease should be more equitable in what sense?
by yrmom on Jun 16, 2009 10:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Something is seriously messed up if the more people show up to a hockey game, the bigger the financial losses are for the team. I may be a layman but I would hope a good lease agreement would allow the team to keep some of the revenue and profit. Start by charging parking surcharges on tickets – I don’t know of anyone who would mind a few bucks of parking surcharge going to the team.
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on Jun 17, 2009 2:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Coyotes signed this lease as a part of receiving a gift of $180 million from Glendale. The only way that the lease could really be inequitable is if they give back that money, with interest. Given who paid for the rink, someone other than the team getting value from extra customers is perfectly fair.
by J. Michael Neal on Jun 17, 2009 5:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
They had pretty decent fan support the first few years in Phoenix (and good crowds). Their management pretty much squelched the good will they received the first few years, and they have been so poorly mismanaged in multiple areas that it’s no wonder the fan base kind of rotted.
The coyotes market a lot (and they do it well) but in a place where Ice only comes in a margarita glass they needed to invest some major money into youth hockey and the hockey experience. They also needed to build support on the ground like Dallas did.
Instead they reached financially on a new arena, put it too far outside the city, and continue to pay their awful coach way too much to underachieve.
But I agree, it’s going to be very tough to find someone willing to put i the financial, and time, commitment needed to make this franchise successful.
by Jibblescribbits on Jun 17, 2009 10:51 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
My $.02 (Canadian) on the topic: doesn’t the ruling make it clear that the league (and the Leafs) can’t protect (i.e. exclude others from) the southern Ontario market indefinitely? It seems to me that one of the most important conclusions to be drawn from this ruling is that – whether through expansion or a relocated franchise – that market is going to get tapped sooner or later.
jrwendelman
The Artist Formerly Known as "Junior", who blogs at heroesinrehab.ca/blog
"But if someone so eager to engage into fist talk, we can always meet after season end in Minsk." (Mikhail Grabovski and a well-meaning but not particularly skillful translator)
by jrwendelman on Jun 16, 2009 7:49 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
How so? The judge relies heavily on the reasoning in the Raiders case , which makes it clear that there have to be procedures for relocation requests and “durational limits” on the protection of league expansion opportunities. What am I missing?
jrwendelman
The Artist Formerly Known as "Junior", who blogs at heroesinrehab.ca/blog
"But if someone so eager to engage into fist talk, we can always meet after season end in Minsk." (Mikhail Grabovski and a well-meaning but not particularly skillful translator)
by jrwendelman on Jun 17, 2009 5:26 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think James' original take is fairly accurate
Baum declined to rule on the substance of the matter, and simply found he didn’t have adequate time to rule on the matter given Balsille’s rather brief desired timelines. He made his ruling without prejudice to the substance of the matter, hence Basille is free to take another kick at the can provided he’s willing to let the process play out and eat huge losses in Phoenix until the end of next season presuming he should win.
Irregardless of the loss, one thing remains pointing rather strongly in his favour – he’s the only guy actively trying to buy the team. If Balsille remains the only fellow with deep pockets in the game whose seriously pursuing the team the NHL is going to have problems at the end of the day justifying why he can’t have the team. Balsille if nothing else has timing on his side, as the state of the economy has reduced the number of people able/willing to invest money in a team.
by ChrisBat on Jun 17, 2009 12:30 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

by 


















