Lightning fiasco finally blows up

by James Mirtle on Jun 23, 2009 7:52 AM CDT Comment 73 comments

Presser062308_medium

But, today, the fissure seems wide. The talk is that Koules wants to keep Lawton as GM, wants to trade Lecavalier to get out from under his $85 million contract and wants to pare the payroll to the low $40 million range. Barrie is not as solidly behind Lawton, wants to build around Lecavalier and is in favor of signing some free agents to get the payroll closer to $50 million.
The point is these differences must be resolved immediately. The draft is days away, and Lecavalier's no-trade clause kicks in on July 1. It is no exaggeration to say the fate of this franchise, for years to come, could very well be decided in the next 10 days.

And so it is time for Bettman to fix this. To lay down the law before this franchise is broken beyond repair.

– John Romano, St. Petersburg Times

It's been absolutely devastating what's happened to this franchise in just one year. And I fear it may already be "broken beyond repair."

I'm not sure why exactly I felt so repulsed by the OK Hockey crew from the get go, but right at the very, very beginning, you could sense this morphing from "oh, isn't this fun?" to the destruction of everything that had been built in what could easily become another of the league's fragile markets. It was with the fans in mind that I got a bit testy with Wyshynski 12 months ago debating this mess (although, what else is new with that scenario) and now we should all be feeling their pain a little bit.

Back in 2006 and '07, Forbes pegged this team as one of the top revenue-generating teams in the NHL, high enough up the food chain that they may have even paid into revenue sharing at some point. Now, they're one of the bigger drainers on that system, having sold approximately 3,000 fewer tickets per game this year compared to last.

Yes, the Lightning had won the Stanley Cup in 2004 and that fueled their success, but even with the lockout, the franchise was one of the true success stories of the sunbelt, next to only the Stars in Texas as a sign that "untraditional" markets could not only remain viable, but flourish.

Now?

Now the team's ridiculous owners are headed to the principal's office to sort out their differences, and the outcome of that business will determine the Lightning's course in the near term. But you have to worry about the franchise's financial health given we've heard so much about how underfunded it is even with both Koules and Barrie at the helm, and on the ice, there's little reason for optimism depending on how free agency goes.

Regardless of Bettman's decision, this very well could be the next NHL franchise put into bankruptcy – and not in the distant future – and it could also very well be the fourth target for Jim Balsillie's crack legal team.

It's been a textbook example of how not to run a sports franchise, and there aren't a lot of positives for the few, proud remaining fans. It could get uglier before it gets better, and we've already seen a heavy dose of ugly in Tampa Bay.

0 recs | Comment 73 comments | Add comment | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Success or failure starts from the top!

1) Clear case where its not the location/fan base that’s potentially ruining the franchise, but mismanagement by ownership. This seems to be a common cause for problems with various teams. Success or failure starts from the top!
2) Bettman needs to nip this in the bud if thats even possible?

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

by Fauxrumors on Jun 23, 2009 8:28 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Success or failure starts from the top! … Bettman needs to nip this in the bud if thats even possible?

Bettman IS the top. How many disastrous ownership groups have to come crashing down before Bettman himself is judged a failure? (By the people that matter, that is; my opinion clearly doesn’t carry much weight!)

http:www.oildroppings.blogspot.com

by Bruce McCurdy on Jun 23, 2009 10:45 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The people that matter are the owners themselves. Thats who Bettman ultimately has to answer to.

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

by Fauxrumors on Jun 23, 2009 11:08 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’m not sure why exactly I felt so repulsed by the OK Hockey crew from the get go

Trust me, you weren’t the only one…

by Bosc Ulrich on Jun 23, 2009 8:39 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I guess you don’t need to see the elephants to know the circus is in town.

What exactly can/should Bettman do here ? Unfortunately mismanagement isn’t really against any of the league’s bylaws or constitution.

by mc keeper on Jun 23, 2009 8:45 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Unfortunately mismanagement isn’t really against any of the league’s bylaws or constitution.

See exhibit A: Mike Milbury circa 1995-2006

by Bosc Ulrich on Jun 23, 2009 8:49 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

It might have been that Barrie struck me as a guy whose get-rich-quick scheme actually worked, and now he thinks he’s bullet-proof instead of just lucky. That was the attitude these guys brought to ownership – both you and Wyshynski saw it in last year’s debate – and you were right. Running an NHL team is difficult.

They hadn’t worked out the important step:
1. Think outside the box
2. ? (derived from outside-the-box thinking)
3. Stanley Cup!

I've been looking at the sky

by Back In Black on Jun 23, 2009 9:40 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Speaking of Balsillie and crack, how long do you think it will take for the “knowledgeable” hockey people north of the border to declare TB a failed southern franchise that only exists on Bettman’s whims, with no fans support because the NASCAR yokels don’t understand hockey? 2 minutes? 3?

2008-2009 Colorado Avalanche: Dry Humping Mediocrity

by Mike @ MHH on Jun 23, 2009 9:01 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

3 minutes is pretty generous.

Some guy in The Star declared TB a target for contraction last week!

Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.

by PPP on Jun 23, 2009 10:59 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

And we trust that Bettman knows whats best for this franchise why?

Glen Sather is a Hockey Genius.

http://glensathersucks.com/
http://twitter.com/ThGeneralissimo

by poploser on Jun 23, 2009 9:02 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Balsillie

Wouldn’t surprise me at all. Especially because Balsillie actually looks somewhat reasonable compared to the Lightning’s current ownership. What an awful job of running a franchise. Bolts fans have to hope they won’t do something stupid with the number 2 overall pick because I think people would be lying if they said they didn’t think there was a slim chance that the team could mess it up.

by Illegal Curve on Jun 23, 2009 9:14 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

News like this drives me nuts. I mean, how many crappy owners can this league take on? I think the fans are there in TB to make it work long term but if this continues, chalk another team up in Balsillie’s sights.

I really am a proponent of Balsillie getting a franchise in S.Ont. but what does it say about the league that there are so many franchises that could be targeted by him? The last few months with the Yotes situation and the historical cases in Buffalo and elsewhere make me think the NHL really has to revamp its procedure for approving new owners rather than relying on the good ol boy network if the league wants to survive at its current number of teams.

The population of Pominville keeps rising!

by Blackcapricorn on Jun 23, 2009 9:15 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Regardless of Bettman’s decision, this very well could be the next NHL franchise put into bankruptcy – and not in the distant future – and it could also very well be the fourth target for Jim Balsillie’s crackhead legal team.

Fixed that for you.

More fun than a stick to the face!
On the Forecheck is SB Nation's blog covering the Nashville Predators.

by Dirk Hoag on Jun 23, 2009 9:20 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

nicely done, OTF.

by HartnellsMop on Jun 23, 2009 11:45 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Any way you slice it, the results are going to be ugly.

Cassie
"And will that be cash, hip check, or Raw Charge today?"

by Cassie McClellan on Jun 23, 2009 9:41 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Wow, an ownership group that had to borrow money from the previous team’s owner in order to finance the purchase, then went nutty with spending within a month of being approved as owners, is in financial trouble? This is the most shocking news story of the year.

Hockey blogging can't get any flatter.

by saskhab on Jun 23, 2009 9:50 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

It's unprecedented in the history of the National Hockey League

if you only count the last 12 months.

I've been looking at the sky

by Back In Black on Jun 23, 2009 10:02 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Indeed

As Back in Black wrote:

They hadn’t worked out the important step:
1. Think outside the box
2. ? (derived from outside-the-box thinking)
3. Stanley Cup!

My take last year in the M v. W debate was that I wanted to wait and see, because I really had high hopes for Koules as an NHL owner. That was before the contracts and the 10,000 defensemen and the alienation of the fan base and the rest of the nonsense. So clearly, whatever approach they thought would work instead damaged the brand in a ridiculously awful way.

So James was on point about Clown 1 and Clown 2; it’ll be interesting to see how much of this was Koules’s fault.

by Wyshynski on Jun 23, 2009 10:27 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I think the thing is that, while it seems interesting to have young, energetic guys in ownership, it’s really not necessary. People go to games to see the team win, more than anything, and see the personalities of the players who make that happen.

Everyone in hockey’s been pining for a Mark Cuban type to spice things up, but I’m not sure the fans give a fadoo who’s in that spot. Almost all of the best owners in the league are dull and well out of the limelight.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Jun 23, 2009 11:45 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

It’s a “be careful what you wish for” sort of scenario. Active ownership, I mean. It looks great on paper, but the reality is far different. And not always very nice, either.

Cassie
"And will that be cash, hip check, or Raw Charge today?"

by Cassie McClellan on Jun 23, 2009 12:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

When Doug MacLean’s group was in the news as a potential buyer, I worried about how much of an active participation he would want to have in running the team. I can’t imagine things would even be nearly as bad as they are with OK…

by Bosc Ulrich on Jun 23, 2009 12:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

They say goalies aren’t smart, but Karri Ramo looks like the smartest one of all.

by cubanpuckstopper on Jun 23, 2009 10:39 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs

I wish I could gloat at the irony...

…but I can’t. Maybe the people in Canada who spend 10 hours a day haunting makeitseven.ca can exult over the potential failure of a Southern franchise, but for me this is a travesty.

The Lightning SHOULD be a textbook success story and the shining example of a non-traditional market bringing new eyes and exposure to ice hockey. But all it took was a Beavis and Butthead approach to ownership to make them a contraction/relocation target. A case study in non-traditional market success turns into an absolute goat rodeo.

It took the Balsillie hijack attempt to understand just how awful Jerry Moyes has been for my Coyotes, but I think compared to these Tampa guys Moyes is Warren Buffett. I feel awful for the Tampa fans to have to sit through this very public and catastrophic meltdown – worse that if they DO become a target for relocation, they may be in even worse shape because of the fact that the Florida Panthers share their market and consequently could make the Lightning look superfluous to the hawkish pundits.

For those of you who are fans of “stronger” franchises, I hope you’re saying to yourselves right now, “There but for the grace of God go we…”

You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.

by zyllyx on Jun 23, 2009 11:29 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

This affects ALL NHL hockey fans

All NHL hockey fans should be concerned with what is happening in the league. The Balsillie/Phoenix affair turned a bright light on how the league is run and now this situation (and those to come I am sure) will continue to erode confidence in the good old boys who are allegedly taking care of things. I am beginning to think that I should direct my hard earned entertainment dollars elsewhere. I work too hard to give money to these clowns who are essentially wasting it.

by hockeycountry on Jun 23, 2009 11:50 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I feel awful for the Tampa fans to have to sit through this very public and catastrophic meltdown – worse that if they DO become a target for relocation, they may be in even worse shape because of the fact that the Florida Panthers share their market and consequently could make the Lightning look superfluous to the hawkish pundits.

I wouldn’t say that they share markets. They’re 300 miles apart and both have metro populations of over 4 million.

But otherwise, yeah, this is a huge disaster for the league. The slide started with the lockout because they were coming off of a Stanley Cup win but couldn’t carry over that success into a new season, then had a bunch of cap casualties(along with some bad contracts)…and now this ownership group is just flushing the rest down the drain.

by Bosc Ulrich on Jun 23, 2009 12:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sorry, forgot to include “and fans” at the end of “huge disaster for the league”.

by Bosc Ulrich on Jun 23, 2009 12:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Market & The Management

Thanks for pointing out that Tampa/St. Pete is no where near Miami/Ft. Lauderdale and what happens in one market has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

For years, Tampa had the worst time getting fans and sponsors on board but turned it around only to see it flushed down the toilet. This is inexcusable. My son is a Lightning fan, has a Vinny jersey and autographed picture and is disgusted by what he’s see’s because it’s hopeless on the ice with the team. To trade Vinny now might be the best way to re-stock the cupboad but I wouldn’t trust the clowns running them to get the deal right.

While you can’t judge ownership strategy beforehand, this does shine light again on the atrocious job that league leadership (Bettman, Daly, anyone else?) does at vetting the finances of would be owners. To allow the current owners to come in and borrow money from the previous owners should have been a major red flag and yet it’s allowed to happen. This is one of two issues that is killing this franchise (the other being the fanstasy hockey management style of the owners).

There needs to be a lot of changes, but not just in Tampa.

by oilerdago on Jun 23, 2009 1:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I wouldn’t say that they share markets. They’re 300 miles apart and both have metro populations of over 4 million.

You know that, I know that, and so does anyone with a map… but remember, the hawks I’m talking about think that the Coyotes’ arena is two hours away from Phoenix when I can make it from my house (10 miles further from Phoenix than the arena) to Sky Harbor Airport in heavy traffic in less than an hour.

There’s this subset of very aggressive people monitoring any franchises south of the Ohio River and looking for any cracks in the dam – and for them, the fact that 300 miles separate the Panthers and the Lightning is as meaningless as having a Hamilton franchise 50 miles from Buffalo if it bolsters their own case.

You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.

by zyllyx on Jun 23, 2009 2:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Espo commented on the Florida market division a couple of days ago on XM.

He tends to run hot and cold on business stuff, so take it for what it’s worth, but he stated that 20 years ago when his ownership group investigated Tampa as an expansion location, the highest hockey interest in Florida was 2 hours south in the Fort Myers TV market, and the initial television numbers backed that up. When the state was divided and the Fort Myers market was allocated to the Panthers, that hurt the Bolts’ overall ratings more than any other TV market that was taken away from them.

That 17-year-old Hokie sitting in the rafters in Greensboro didn't see any of this coming.

by JoshCVT on Jun 23, 2009 2:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I feel awful for the Tampa fans to have to sit through this very public and catastrophic meltdown – worse that if they DO become a target for relocation, they may be in even worse shape because of the fact that the Florida Panthers share their market and consequently could make the Lightning look superfluous to the hawkish pundits.

Sorry if I misunderstood. Your statement really makes it look that you’re stating that they share the market and as a result, the hawkish pundits will jump on it, not that the pundits will simply lump those markets together for their own purposes.

by Bosc Ulrich on Jun 23, 2009 2:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's what we get for having no "Edit" button on these comments.

I see what you mean… definitely didn’t mean to give the impression that Tampa and Miami/Ft. Lauderdale shared a market. They share a STATE (which is what I meant to type… I’ve just been typing the word “market” so often these days) – sometimes there are folks up in the New England area that forget that some US states take up as much square mileage as four or five NE states put together.

You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.

by zyllyx on Jun 23, 2009 2:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Perhaps we can wait for the articles first?

Are you sure you’re not projecting here? I"ve yet to see anyone claim that Tampa and Florida share a market(save for yourself).

by yrmom on Jun 23, 2009 3:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

See my errata above.

And either you’re not looking hard enough or you’re not looking in the right places, because there are plenty of comments I’ve seen about the state of Florida having TWO hockey teams when the GTA only has one.

You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.

by zyllyx on Jun 23, 2009 4:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

he hawks I’m talking about think that the Coyotes’ arena is two hours away from Phoenix when I can make it from my house (10 miles further from Phoenix than the arena) to Sky Harbor Airport in heavy traffic in less than an hour.

So… to be clear, you’re saying that the Glendale location of jobing.com is not a valid excuse for Phoenix fans when they talk about low attendance at Coyotes games? Do I have that right?

by dzuunmod on Jun 24, 2009 10:56 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

In my opinion, if it’s an excuse it’s a lousy one from lazy people.

But beyond that, Flagstaff is two hours from Phoenix, not Glendale. Someday someone ought to pull up a map and measure the distances.

You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.

by zyllyx on Jun 24, 2009 1:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I dunno, I guess I think if you’re going to try and turn people on to something (which is necessary in Phoenix; most of the population doesn’t have hockey in its DNA), you ought to make it as easy as possible for them to get turned on. Part of the problem with the Expos in Montreal (not the whole problem, but part) is that the stadium was out in the east end, in a dead zone. There was no life to the neighbourhood on gamedays, and Montreal is an event-driven city. Having a downtown stadium, among the bars and festivals and natural foot traffic, would have helped immensely. And that’s a place where baseball wasn’t in the DNA.

Phoenix is probably different in a lot of ways – I wouldn’t know from experience – but I have to think that an arena in the city (in the public’s consciousness, and also serving as a billboard to remind people: we play hockey here!) would help somewhat.

by dzuunmod on Jun 24, 2009 2:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

This is getting increasingly off-topic (sorry James) but for Phoenix it’s not “location, location, location” so much as it is “prestige, prestige, prestige.” Phoenix residents will gratefully make the trek downtown to see the Suns or Diamondbacks play – a commute for Scottsdale residents that is almost as far as going to Glendale and worse in heavy traffic – if the teams are good. If they’re not, they’ll usually sit at home and watch on TV (why bother spending the money if the team sucks?).

The proposed Los Arcos location was more central to the Valley back when it was proposed (since then, urban sprawl has moved the metro area’s true center farther west from downtown) but it was in a ratty part of Scottsdale that used to be occupied by a mediocre mall. It certainly wasn’t a “hotspot” in any sense of the word. Nobody would have bothered to make the trip any more than they would bother now at the current location if the team wasn’t any good.

Fact is, in Phoenix there really isn’t a true “city center” because of the sprawl. There is a loose assemblage of cities whose borders are only visible now on maps. People only complain about the remoteness of an area in proportion to the prestige of the events in that location – i.e., nobody complains about the hour-long drive in clear traffic to get from one end of the Valley to Gammage Auditorium to see Les Miserables, but they’ll complain vociferously for a 15 minute drive to see a spring training game between the Mariners and the Texas Rangers. It’s all relative.

One thing the Coyotes need to do, however, is step up marketing and events where they play – on the West Side – instead of focusing their efforts in Scottsdale. The draft viewing party on Friday, for instance, ought to be held in the Arrowhead area where there are plenty of wealthy and enthusiastic hockey fans instead of in Scottsdale where it will actually take place. The team only holds a handful of practices at the Arrowhead Coyotes Ice Den rink which is only a few miles north of Jobing.com Arena – the bulk of their practices are held in a Scottsdale rink. Glendale is a city of 200,000 people – it makes no sense to play in the middle of a city and spend most of your ad dollars focusing on wooing people from another city altogether.

You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.

by zyllyx on Jun 24, 2009 3:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

“crack legal team”.

Am I correctly sensing the slightest bit of sarcasm, James.

For those who think that JB might try this set of shenigans again, anything is possible, but that assumes that the league would allow a troubled owner as much rope as they allowed Moyes. I feel comfortable in my suspision that no one will EVER get that level of leeway again. The NHL will exercise thier proxies imediately (which are part of the NHL’s consent agreement, by the way, and accordingly every NHL owner has those in place if they default on their agreement with the NHL). this is another thing that other NHL owners will have received courtesy of Mr. Balsillie.

Indeed, one of the messages that Bettman may be delivering is “if you two don’t get your act together before you leave this office, we are going to exercise our proxy and assume control.”

by Gerald on Jun 23, 2009 11:38 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Good points Gerald. I wonder if the league could prevent all franchises from going into bankruptcy in the future?

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Jun 23, 2009 11:47 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

why dont we just skip to the fun part where the NHL actually runs all its franchises? At what point does the league propping up its teams, and paying its bills, get into “cross-ownership”, and is that a problem under anti-trust laws?

Glen Sather is a Hockey Genius.

http://glensathersucks.com/
http://twitter.com/ThGeneralissimo

by poploser on Jun 23, 2009 12:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

At no point.

There is a major distinction between operating control (which the proxies provide) and ownership.

by Gerald on Jun 23, 2009 2:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

If I don’t have the ability to operate my team, and take the actions consistent with ownership of that team, is there ever a point when that lack of control means that the league is actually crossing the line into beneficial ownership? Does the law allow a situation where the league can operate a team on a day-to-day basis?

Glen Sather is a Hockey Genius.

http://glensathersucks.com/
http://twitter.com/ThGeneralissimo

by poploser on Jun 23, 2009 3:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

poploser, there is a straightforward answer to your question.

it would cross into beneficial ownership if and when a league started benefitting from it in the way that an owner would. Specifically, if the league started reaping operating profits from it, separate and apart from the repayment of any loans. One could also make an argument if a league starts entering into contracts in connection with the franchise in its own name. None of this is applicable to the PHO situation, but I assumed your question was more generic in nature..

by Gerald on Jun 24, 2009 4:56 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

To answer your second question, certainly the law allows for such a situation.

by Gerald on Jun 24, 2009 4:57 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Very true. It leads to a different problem, which MLB had with the Expos. Syndicate ownership (or operation) almost inevitably leads to the commonly owned team(s) being run, not for their own good, but for the good of the rest of the league. The Nationals still haven’t recovered from the period where they were league owned.

My guess is that syndicate ownership means that a team is dead in whatever market it’s currently in, because it will further discourage fans.

by J. Michael Neal on Jun 23, 2009 10:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I would assume aggressive proxy by the NHL would spell the end for Bettman. Remember, Bettman has 30 bosses, and if he/NHL starts getting really aggressive about butting in and not allowing franchises to be run by their owners, other owners can look at that and say “hey now, I don’t want Bettman taking over MY franchise as soon as I start to feel the crunch of these economic challenges or make a bad personnel move”.

Furthermore, for the NHLPA, such a thing would be a huge blow to the player’s earning abilities. If the NHL takes over a team, you know the team is going to be attempting to pay near the salary floor, and will not be an attractive destination for any sort of trades or free agents. If the NHL ends up with say, 5 teams (PHX, TB, plus a couple more) who are in dire straits, needing direct league intervention, you’re talking about a league made up of 25 competitive teams, and 5 headcases. Given that there is not infinite space on those 25 teams, some players will be forced into being on these 5 headcases, where they will be paid as little as possible to reach the salary floor, and be forced into a non-competitive environment.

Then when you consider that the owners, the bosses of the NHL administrative folk (Bettman, etc.) are going to be propping up a handful of non-comp teams with money they earned themselves in spite of a tough market for the fan’s disposable income, and they’re looking over their shoulders and hoping the NHL doesn’t decide they’re next to have proxy invoked, such an action by the NHL’s head offices could easily end up spelling the end for Bettman and Friends, and get some of these franchises moved to more stable locations or contracted. Plus, to be sure, the owners would suddenly be much more wary of that little proxy clause in their agreements with the NHL….

And thats to say nothing of the field day the press would have with such a situation. Hitting the proxy button is kind of like the nuclear option, I would think. Its the absolute last resort, and as soon as you touch it, it’s going to set off a million problems. At the end of that road lies a much different NHL than the one we’re in now.

http://sacrificethebody.blogspot.com/
Sacrifice the Body - Examining the NHL through statistical analysis, reasoned thought, and blind conjecture.

by IAmJoe on Jun 23, 2009 12:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

It is ridiculous to suggest that Bettman would ever act unilaterally. That type of conclusion is the province of those who actually believe that Gary Bettman is an absolute moron, which is a riduclous notion. I would bet dollars to doughnuts that one of the first things that Bettman and the BoG did after Moyes pulled his shenanigans was to decide upon a regimented policy for exactly what will happen if an owner defaults on his Consent Agreement. Bettman will thereupon follow that policy to the letter.

That point really addresses the majority of your points, but to address one tihng specifically:

other owners can look at that and say "hey now, I don’t want Bettman taking over MY franchise as soon as I start to feel the crunch of these economic challenges or make a bad personnel move".

Not so, in fact. The Consent Agreement proxies apply in the event that an owner commits certain acts of default under the consent Agreement. Those acts of default are fairly clearly set out, and relate primarily to situations where the owner is materially defaulting on the major terms of his Consent Agreement.

by Gerald on Jun 23, 2009 2:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

the “bettman is literally mentally handicapped” angle is one of my favourite memes among hockey fans. people who can’t grasp the difference between “their” “there” and “they’re” are absolutely sure gary bettman can’t tie his shoes.

by passive_voice on Jun 23, 2009 4:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Don’t forget to, too, and two

There's no use being pessimistic, it won't work anyway.

by Mike in MN on Jun 23, 2009 6:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, he can tie his shoes, of course, but only when he is preparing to kick a Canadian hockey fan in the tender parts (after which he will laugh an eeeeeevilll laugh and twirl his mustache, which he has grown for the express purpose of looking even more evil).

by Gerald on Jun 23, 2009 10:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

He has a moustache?

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Jun 23, 2009 10:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

A tiny little Charlie Chaplin one...

…that he’s been forced to hide ever since Hitler ruined it for everyone.

by TD O'Dell on Jun 23, 2009 10:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

you can pick you nose…you can pick your friends…

Glen Sather is a Hockey Genius.

http://glensathersucks.com/
http://twitter.com/ThGeneralissimo

by poploser on Jun 23, 2009 11:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

A pick? Noooo…It was a scratch, not a pick…awww c’mon wait…where are you going?…There was no penetration…it wasn’t a piiiick, awww

by TD O'Dell on Jun 23, 2009 11:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Admittedly a metaphorical moustache. I was going for a mental image, although O’Dell’s picture serves the purpose as well.

by Gerald on Jun 24, 2009 4:52 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Has anyone got a timeline for this?

They ship Richards, Boyle, sign Lecavalier to a contract that is ludicrous, make their goalies become marketing products (Saw masks), etc., etc., etc.

In one hand, I see what Koules is doing… why have Lecavalier signed for such a contract when he’s approaching the “over the hill” phase. And then there’s Barrie, who sees the franchise.

The question is… who’s footing the bill? Does Barrie just want to spend to the cap because it’s not his money, or does Koules just not want to lose anymore money than they’ve already lost.

Whatever the reason, or whoever’s wrong… this is nothing less than a disaster.

by wlittle on Jun 23, 2009 11:47 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I have one – or part of one – somewhere. Let me look around and see what I can find. I’ll post something that on Raw Charge either tonight or tomorrow.

Cassie
"And will that be cash, hip check, or Raw Charge today?"

by Cassie McClellan on Jun 23, 2009 12:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The timeline, that is. The person footing the bill are the fans. The point of spending money is to make a winning team to get people back to the rink. Sometimes that works, but not always.

Cassie
"And will that be cash, hip check, or Raw Charge today?"

by Cassie McClellan on Jun 23, 2009 12:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I can’t say I blame the Lightning fans for turning their back on this franchise.

Remember when Lawton was begging (to anyone who would listen) that he wanted to be an NHL GM? I swore that if my Leafs hired him, especially after the JFJ experience, I’d start looking for a MLB bandwagon to jump on.

by Jo4nny on Jun 23, 2009 12:37 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Why do they have to go to the NHL?

Am I wrong to think that the shareholders decide on the future of the club? If so, why don’t they just hold a vote among all the shareholders? Do they each own 50%?

by SJKel on Jun 23, 2009 1:13 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

How I understand it, there are nine pleople in the OK Hockey ownership group and Oren Koules is the majority stakeholder with a 40% share. He and Len Barrie were to run the team together, however. I’m not sure how much of a stake Barrie has in the team, or if there was any kind of written agreement in regards to them running things together, tho.

Cassie
"And will that be cash, hip check, or Raw Charge today?"

by Cassie McClellan on Jun 23, 2009 2:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Puck Daddy vs. Mirtle

You beat up Wyshynski pretty good on this one James!

"It's a great day for hockey" - BBJ

by jealous broadcaster on Jun 23, 2009 1:47 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

He was playing devil’s advocate there a little bit, but he’s wrong when he says I can’t dump on these guys before they do anything wrong. Predictions are all part of analysis, and I could see this coming as soon as Feaster was shunted aside.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Jun 23, 2009 5:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

By the way, Koules was officially awarded custody of the team.

Cassie
"And will that be cash, hip check, or Raw Charge today?"

by Cassie McClellan on Jun 23, 2009 2:57 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

nine people in the OK Hockey ownership group

Between that post and this one, I’m really resisting an easy Oren Koules Plus Eight joke here.

by Afino on Jun 23, 2009 3:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Too soon? :)

You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.

by zyllyx on Jun 23, 2009 4:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Whatever makes you happy. It’s all good.

Cassie
"And will that be cash, hip check, or Raw Charge today?"

by Cassie McClellan on Jun 23, 2009 6:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Give it to me straight

What kind of a “Blackhawks are good again so all is right in the world” hockey rock have I been living under to have not known about this?

by hawksfan21 on Jun 23, 2009 5:08 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I concur with James here: Getting rid of Jay Feaster was the beginning of the end for this club.

The NFL rarely offers up worthy comparisons to the NHL, but this ownership sitch in TB reminds me of the Dan Snyder debacle, which persists in its second decade in DC: over-caffeinated fanboy turns owner and deems intimate knowledge of the sport came included, like AA batteries, with the purchase price; overturns entire front office and fills with sycophants and yes-folks; proceeds to botch critical decisions, alienate a decent fanbase, and piss off the Vinnys and Martys that are the glue of the team.

[Of course, Snyder is making a hill of cash on a number of revenue fronts, so I guess that’s where the comparison ends. And I’m not bitter. Really.]

from the house that Red Jesus built

by bigonetimer on Jun 24, 2009 10:53 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs