Evaluating Balsillie's application
by James Mirtle on Jul 17, 2009 10:38 AM CDT
46 comments
One of the key filings in the Coyotes bankruptcy trial yesterday concerned what the NHL calls the "Application for Transfer of the Franchise Location of the Phoenix Coyotes," a document that contains two letters addressing a list of information requests from the league. (I've posted the letters here.)
Among the 23 requests made by NHL executive vice president and general counsel David Zimmerman is for something called "The Americans for Prosperity Survey (and data) cited in the Application." It's also one of the few items listed that's available online, over at the AFP Arizona Blog, and the portion concerning the Coyotes reads as so:
In Glendale, 72 percent of respondents preferred to allow the Phoenix Coyotes to move out of state, rather than have the City of Glendale give the team $3 to $15 million annually in local taxpayer subsidies. 24 percent preferred to use subsidies to keep the Coyotes in Glendale. 76 percent of respondents said the prestige of having a pro hockey team in Arizona was not worth the subsidies.
AFP is, according to Wikipedia, a political advocacy group which describes itself on its website as "an organization of grassroots leaders who engage citizens in the name of limited government and free markets on the local, state and federal levels."
And based on the results of their poll, you can see why the data was included in the Balsillie camp's application.
The 22 other items requested by the NHL give you an idea of what's in that application, from historical Coyotes financial statements to ticket data, marketing reports, renovation plans and financial reports for Copps Coliseum (in Hamilton), details on public funding for said renovations, "detailed financial projections and analyses for the operation of an NHL Club in Hamilton," strategic plans, demographic data for Hamilton and area, broadcasting information for that area, "data and other information concerning the value of an NHL franchise in Hamilton," and finally:
23. All data, information and/or sources used in calculating the estimated value of an NHL expansion fee (at $225-265 million) that was provided in the Coyotes Confidential Information Memorandum.
Given the last round of expansion saw fees pegged at about $80-million, that seems a tad high. Perhaps that's the estimate for a Southern Ontario team?
Zimmerman concludes his letter by saying, "Please provide the above-reference information and materials to me as soon as possible so the League may continue its investigation of the Application."
There are also other "new" numbers sprinkled in the documents, with one relating to the City of Glendale's "debt obligations" with regards to the arena, a figure pegged at $157.7-million (88 per cent of the total cost). Another figure states that "total city revenue is expected to decline nearly 12.5% from 2008 to 2010," a reference to hard times experienced by the area during the current recession.
This is all really the first we've heard of any progress being made on Balsillie's relocation application, which was first submitted June 1 during the playoffs. It'll be pretty interesting to see more of the data involved to come out in the open, if it does, as right now the majority of it is under seal and hasn't been reported.
After years of avoiding the subject at all costs, the NHL may at some point have to debate the merits of a franchise in Hamilton out in the open, something that could make for great theatre (in these parts anyway). I'm sure both sides will have pretty convincing arguments for and against such a move.
0 recs |
46 comments
| Add comment
|
Email
Print
Comments
After years of avoiding the subject at all costs, the NHL may at some point have to debate the merits of a franchise in Hamilton out in the open, something that could make for great theatre (in these parts anyway). I’m sure both sides will have pretty convincing arguments for and against such a move.
I’m with you on that. I know Basillie may come out of this with nothing except a lot of legal fees and some burnt bridges, but I think this process has been a win anyway. We’ve got so much information about the League that it would never want the public to see. We’ve got it having to publicly debate the merits of a struggling market, a debate that may well continue with other markets in the future (Tampa?). We’re getting to see information about how the League office interacts with the team management. We’re getting the NHL being forced to process an application for a new market in the (relative) open. This is great stuff.
Glen Sather is a Hockey Genius.
http://glensathersucks.com/
http://twitter.com/ThGeneralissimo
by poploser on Jul 17, 2009 11:25 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Just a couple of things….
1. A survey conducted by a “grassroots” political group will not hold much water if it was not conducted by an accredited research company. There’s going to be an obvious question of bias and skewing of the results, and any decent lawyer will discredit such a survey in a court of law in about 10 minutes. My first questions upon hearing “percentages” is “what is the sample size” and “what demographics did the survey reach”? The fact the press release about the survey doesn’t mention that is the first red flag.
2. The last round of expansion was back in the late 1990s, a decade ago. The teams that paid that $80 million back then paid $30 million more than the round of expansion teams only 5 years before—nearly double. Given that the NHL historically has had the lowest expansion fees of the professional leagues, the rate of the last fee increase in the span of time, and that expanding beyond 30 teams doesn’t appear to be in the league’s current plans—yeah, I wouldn’t be too surprised if that were the legit fee price for anyone wishing to add an expansion team today.
by Forsch31 on Jul 17, 2009 12:07 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Maybe it’s just me, but I would hope that the Balsillie camp – had it done due diligence about a team in Hamilton – would have most of this data on hand and ready for the league to inspect. Something tells me they haven’t – the fact that they claim that operating the Coyotes in Hamilton in ‘09-10 is at all feasible if they won a September auction speaks pretty definitively about how realistic their thinking isn’t.
As for the AFP survey, I’m one of the ones who voted against the City of Glendale subsidizing the team with taxpayer money. I think there has to be a way to restructure the existing lease agreement to increase the team’s revenues without outright subsidies from the city – and I’m hoping that’s what Reinsdorf and the city are doing and not trying to find loopholes that will end up sinking this thing into litigation with groups like Goldwater.
Beyond the Coyotes’ specific situation, I think it’s a good thing that the league’s process for expansion/relocation is coming out in the open. The more standardized and public the process becomes, the less chance that embarrassing situations like the Coyotes’ mess will occur to other franchises.
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on Jul 17, 2009 12:11 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I think there has to be a way to restructure the existing lease agreement to increase the team’s revenues without outright subsidies from the city – and I’m hoping that’s what Reinsdorf and the city are doing and not trying to find loopholes that will end up sinking this thing into litigation with groups like Goldwater.
You can keep dreaming, but that’s all it is. Any additional dollar that the Coyotes receive on the lease is a dollar foregone by the city. There is no way to restructure the lease to give the team more money that isn’t a subsidy. That doesn’t depend upon the specifics involved; it’s the basic definition. Any money involved can only be claimed by one of the two parties. If that party is the team, then it isn’t the city.
zyllyx, there is no way around the fact that you are asking for a bigger subsidy for the team. For god’s sake, have the intellectual honesty to admit it.
by J. Michael Neal on Jul 17, 2009 12:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, Michael, any definition of “subsidy” with which I am familiar entails the direct delivery of money from one party to another.
I think it is more than a little debatable as to whether one entity saying to another party “Yes, you are required to pay me a portion of YOUR money, but i am hereby foregoing it. You keep your own money” qualifies as a asubsidy.
by Gerald on Jul 17, 2009 12:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
My company gave me lunch subsidy
and I only got a discount at the cafeteria. Can I sue them for misleading me?
by SJKel on Jul 17, 2009 1:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s only debatable if you insist on being an idiot. Any situation in which the city gets a dollar less, and the team gets a dollar more, is a subsidy. Money is fungible.
In this particular case, the city gave the team a bunch of money, by saying that they would build an arena. In exchange, the team agreed to make payments to the city. Any reduction in those payments is an increase in the value of what the city gave the team. That’s a subsidy.
Given that I’m pretty sure that you aren’t a moron, I find this line of argument to be extremely disingenuous.
by J. Michael Neal on Jul 17, 2009 2:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Since the basic gist of your position through the various discussions with other posters below is that anyone who does not adhere to your position is either an idiot or a moron, I am not sure what point there is in debating this with you.
I would merely observe that, given that you have been bested in discussion after discussion by a series of different “idiots” and “morons” on this Board, including this “idiot” on multiple occasions, one would think that would reflect poorly on your own intellect.
I would further add that it is an offense to any thinking reader that someone would purposely the word “subsidy” in a clear attempt to skew the discussion by use of such a loaded term AND THEN accuse OTHERS of being disingenuous. You are a laugh a minute.
by Gerald on Jul 17, 2009 9:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Anyone who claims to think that being given the right to charge for the use of land that one doesn’t own, without offering any consideration in return, is not a subsidy is either an idiot or a liar. Anyone who thinks that lowering the rent payments in a contract that was intended to repay money given to an organization, without offering any consideration in return, is not a subsidy is either an idiot or a liar.
It is not the case that I think that anyone who disagrees with me is either an idiot or a moron. In this case, there are two very specific posters here that are making arguments so out of touch with reality that I am stating that they are dishonest or clueless. That would be you and zyllyx.
In this particular instance, the city of Glendale signed an agreement that they would build Jobing.com arena. In exchange, the Phoenix Coyotes were required to play their games at the arena, subject to various requirements about paying rent. Who would collect the different revenue streams was spelled out in the contract. The aim of the city was to reduce the extent to which they simply gave money to the team; I phrase it that way, because this is a case where, if you discount the revenue streams at any sort of realistic rate, the city would never recover the present value of its investment even under the original deal. There was always an element of subsidy here.
Any change that reduces the revenue that accrues to the city is an additional subsidy to the team. You have gone out of your way to try to obfuscate this through stupid semantic arguments. Frankly, I don’t care what the dictionary definition of “subsidy” is in this context. I don’t care just how the various transactions are structured in order to produce the specific writing of checks from one person to another. The effect of all of this is that money has been transferred from the city of Glendale to the Phoenix Coyotes, and all of the proposals for keeping the team there involve increasing the amount of that transfer. It may go through intermediaries in order to keep the city from ever putting “Pay to the Order of Phoenix Coyotes” on a piece of paper, but that absolutely is the consequence.
That’s a subsidy. Whether or not it is a loaded term is not my problem. If you don’t want it used, then you shouldn’t end up as the recipient of someone’s largesse in the conduct of your business.
If you don’t want someone calling you a dishonest hack, then don’t make stupid semantic arguments trying to pass off the net transfer of Glendale’s wealth to a private enterprise as anything other than a subsidy. In this particular thread, you have played to the worst stereotypes of a lawyer. You don’t seem to have any interest in the truth, which is that the city is giving away money that belongs to it. Instead, you want to play with words in order to make it look like the side you favor in this debate is on the side of the angels.
As for bested, you still haven’t provided any of the evidence that I asked for weeks ago. Maybe you would demolish my arguments if you took the time to do so, but how the discussion transpires in your own head doesn’t really have much of an impact on the rest of us.
by J. Michael Neal on Jul 18, 2009 8:15 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Talk about what is going on in someone’s head vs. reality!
You might want to read MY posts in this thread. READ them. You seem to think that it is ME who is making some sort of impassioned argument in favour of one POV over another. If you were a little interested in anything other than calling people names (not a persuasive tactic, IMO), you would realize that you are arguing with the wrong guy.
Yep, quite the piece of work that you are. You are really bringing a lot ot the table here.
by Gerald on Jul 18, 2009 9:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
This “direct delivery of money” definition exists only in your dictionary. Most dictionaries available to the public only defines as a form of financial aid or assistance. I think it’s fair to say a lower price does qualify as a form of assistance. For example, it’s fair to say that university education in Canada for Canadian residents is subsidized, despite the fact that students not only receive no “direct delivery of money” but have to pay tuition, which is significantly lower than tuition for foreign students.
by SJKel on Jul 18, 2009 3:46 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Really, the dictionary definition is irrelevant, anyway. The larger point is that opponents of any more help to the Coyotes, in any form (and there seem to be a lot of them in Phoenix) will use the word “subsidy” at every opportunity, so those in favor of keeping the Coyotes in Phoenix will have to be prepared to counter that – and with something other than a precise definition and an explanation that whatever money the team gets isn’t really a subsidy.
They are going to have to argue that the Coyotes are worth the money, no matter where is comes from, and make an argument that will be successful with people who don’t follow hockey, don’t want the Coyotes getting any more money in tight economic times, and would be quite happy if the team did move to Hamilton or folded or was swallowed by a giant anaconda, as long as they don’t have to spend any more of their tax dollars on a venture they see as nothing more than a giant money suck.
"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle." -- Philo of Alexandria
by Baroque on Jul 18, 2009 6:36 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is the basic definition of a subsidy:
1. a direct pecuniary aid furnished by a government to a private industrial undertaking, a charity organization, or the like.
The AFP survey dealt with a “bailout” by the city of Glendale of a sum between $3 million and $15 million per year – i.e. EXISTING monies coming out of the Glendale coffers to fund the team via direct payments, likely raised by a “hockey tax” or a cut in the city budget from another program to divert money to a professional sports team. Of course the taxpayers would not be in favor of that kind of direct financing of the city to the team.
I don’t believe that that’s what the lease restructuring would do. Any lease restructuring would address the percentages of income from the arena and who gets to keep what percentage, how much the team might charge as a surcharge for parking on top of what the city collects, and so forth. I don’t think anything beyond that would be legal – it would certainly be a matter for the courts and entities like Goldwater would certainly prosecute that.
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on Jul 17, 2009 1:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
…and yet again we ask, Whats the difference between a concession and a subsidy? ; )
I find sometimes it's easy to be myself
sometimes I find it's better to be somebody else
by Fauxrumors on Jul 17, 2009 1:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe it’s just semantics at this point, but what’s the difference between money given out directly, and money forfeited that should have been received?
I’m gonna use purely hypothetical numbers here, I don’t have the real ones. Let’s assume the City was supposed to receive 50M from the Coyotes as rent (and any other perks in the lease, like parking and concession stands, etc) for 1 season. If the lease is restructured in such a fashion as to now collect only 30M from the Coyotes, by allowing them to keep the parking fees, and lowering the rent, or whatever.
That’s still 20M less in the City’s coffers. Maybe it doesn’t qualify as being a subsidy by the letter of the law, but it’s still 20M that will have to come from somewhere else, because the City budget needs it. Hence it becomes tax payer’s money anyway.
In the end maybe the only difference is a PR one, and by restructuring the lease the City may be able to avoid the whole ‘subsidy’ political fiasco with its voters, but other than that I don’t see the difference.
by Habs on Jul 17, 2009 1:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
In the end maybe the only difference is a PR one, and by restructuring the lease the City may be able to avoid the whole ‘subsidy’ political fiasco with its voters, but other than that I don’t see the difference.
That’s a critical difference, especially when applied to the AFP survey – because the AFP survey cast any city aid as “subsidy,” which resonates to voters on the level of direct payout. I am 100% positive that if a survey were to be conducted with regards to “concessions” (i.e. “Do you agree with a proposal by the City of Glendale to allow the Phoenix Coyotes a percentage of city-collected parking and concessions revenue at Jobing.com Arena?”), the results would be significantly different from the results of the AFP survey.
Moreover, some of the lease renegotiation might be, for instance, in lieu of conceding a percentage of city-collected parking fees the team can charge an ADDITIONAL parking surcharge on every ticket. God knows we have plenty of wiggle room in our ticket pricing that we can afford to do it and still keep things comparatively cheap with regards to the rest of the league.
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on Jul 17, 2009 2:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wonder how much the attendance (and thus team revenue) would drop, though. Even though a ticket is one of the cheapest int he league, if someone looks at the ticket price and then at all the fees and surcharges being tacked on, at what point do they feel they are being nickle-and-dimed to death and decide that the accumulation of petty annoyances isn’t worth it any more? Clearly this won’t affect the fans who are actually interested in the hockey, and likely won’t have as much of an effect on the fans who show up to see their team play when they are visiting (as they don’t get very many tickets during the course of the season), but it might affect the people who see going to a Coyotes game as a good value even though they aren’t very dedicated hockey fans because it is something to do and it’s incredibly cheap. If it isn’t as cheap anymore, how many people will find something else to do when they are bored.
"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle." -- Philo of Alexandria
by Baroque on Jul 17, 2009 4:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why doesn’t the team just forego this and increase the prices? If the market will bear it, why would they be undercharging by any amount?
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on Jul 18, 2009 11:36 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If homo economicus really existed, you’d be correct. In theory, it shouldn’t make any difference to someone how much they are charged for parking and tickets, so long as the total is the same. In practice, human beings don’t operate that way. Raising ticket prices will lower attendance more than leaving ticket prices where they are and charging for parking.
One reason for this is that they pay for parking at the time that they arrive at the arena, well after they make the decision to go to the game, whereas most of them buy tickets well in advance, and looking at the price is integral to the decision whether or not to go. There is a psychological discounting involved that is well in excess of any time value of money factor.
The other part is that most people don’t really think through the implications of this sort of action. One large payment just feels greater than two smaller ones. This is why you see mail order merchants charge for an item, and then tack on an additional fee for shipping and handling. To homo economicus, there is no point in this. They ought to just have a single list price, and then ship it to you as a part of the purchase. In practice, though, they’d sell fewer items doing that. Hence the use of S&H charges as profit generators.
by J. Michael Neal on Jul 19, 2009 6:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess the argument is that $30M might be $20M less than originally expected but it’s also $30M more than they’ll get if the team moves.
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
by PPP on Jul 17, 2009 3:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agree 100% that this is the logical course of thought. That might not be how the citizens of Glendale see it though – it’s really a question of perception by the taxpayers.
In the end, it doesn’t change much insofar as it’s only survey data being used by the Balsillie camp to further indicate that the Coyotes don’t belong in Phoenix.
The City is certainly aware that if the team moves, they lose 100% of the revenue generated as opposed to keeping a certain portion of that income by offering concessions.
by Habs on Jul 17, 2009 5:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess the argument is that $30M might be $20M less than originally expected but it’s also $30M more than they’ll get if the team moves.
Sure. That’s a perfectly reasonable argument. At this point, giving an additional subsidy to the Coyotes might be in Glendale’s best interest. But let’s not pretend that it isn’t a subsidy.
by J. Michael Neal on Jul 17, 2009 5:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is the city of Glendale relying on a particular amount of money coming in from the arena, though? If they have already accounted for X amount of dollars each year from the Phoenix Coyotes and the arena and complex, and now have to accept some number <X each year, it has the same function as taking money from the city because it was income they were counting on that will no longer be there. If they have financial committments that assume the money will be there and a lease restructuring eliminates it, they they will have to cut programs or increase taxes as surely as if they kept the lease agreement as is, but just tossed some additional money the team’s way each year to keep them afloat.
"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle." -- Philo of Alexandria
by Baroque on Jul 17, 2009 1:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dead on
Baroque and Habs are dead on! The tax payers won’t take kindly to that scenario. Especially under the current economic landscape. It’ll be a tough/impossible sell for the local politicians to make to their constituents. That’s why we believe a move is inevitable. To Bettman the only issue probably is ‘as long as its not to Hamilton and definitely not to Balsille’!
I find sometimes it's easy to be myself
sometimes I find it's better to be somebody else
by Fauxrumors on Jul 17, 2009 2:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
So the only taxpayers who are willing to pay to get/keep an NHL franchise are the hardy souls in Hamilton who apparently have already agreed on multi-million-dollar renovations to Copps through their government proxies?
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on Jul 17, 2009 2:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, the taxpayers of Hamilton are giving a subsidy to Ballsillie. I think that they’re being stupid, but it is definitely a subsidy.
by J. Michael Neal on Jul 17, 2009 2:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
1. a direct pecuniary aid furnished by a government to a private industrial undertaking, a charity organization, or the like.
You mean like agreeing to pay to build an arena for the team?
Quit being an idiot.
by J. Michael Neal on Jul 17, 2009 2:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The arena subsidy was a separate situation and was approved by taxpayer vote.
No such subsidy is being considered for a lease restructuring and no referendum for a public vote for such a subsidy has been tabled. There have been rumors of “discounts” and “concessions” but, as the negotiations between Reinsdorf and the City of Glendale are still private, they are all hearsay and speculation.
But I guess you’d have to be an idiot not to acknowledge that. Right?
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on Jul 17, 2009 3:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is stupid. You are trying to pretend that the lease is a completely separate issue from the city’s decision to build the arena in the first place. This is absolutely not true. They came as a package. If you restructure the lease, you are changing the terms under which the city gave the money in the first place.
Or, let’s take a look at the parking that you seem to think is owed to the Coyotes. Who owns the arena and the land? That would be the city of Glendale. Yet, your argument is that an entity that does not own the land should be given the right to rent it to people to park their cars on. The team doesn’t own that right. In your plan, the sitting would be GIVING it to them. That’s a subsidy.
Yes, you would have to be an idiot not to acknowledge that. Or a liar. I’m starting to change my view on which you are.
by J. Michael Neal on Jul 17, 2009 6:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you take a look at the letter in response to the NHL, the Balsillie cap provides the majority of the information requested. A couple items are still in the works.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on Jul 18, 2009 10:48 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The poll is a push poll. In short, it has no validity.
Having read the application, i must confess that I am somewhat shocked. The JB application actually quotes Wikipedia as a source. As well, it cites countless media articles as sources of empirical data. I would have thought that, for a document involving the investment of $200 million, it would merit something more than a second-year-university-project level of effort.
by Gerald on Jul 17, 2009 12:54 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
If I remember correctly, the application actually quotes material from a New York Rangers blog about the location of Jobing.com Arena.
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on Jul 17, 2009 1:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That’s actually awesome on multiple levels.
The 2009-10 Colorado Avalanche: Aiming for the Charity Point
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Jul 17, 2009 2:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Has the application itself been made public? I had thought it was being kept under wraps.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on Jul 18, 2009 11:39 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Certain confidential parts (JB’s tax returns, etc.) were left private. THe application is in the filings.
by Gerald on Jul 18, 2009 11:59 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Can someone help?
I haven’t followed this thoroughly, but I am confused why they’re talking about an expansion fee when Balsillie wants to relocate the team to Hamilton.
Or is this just a way for Bettman and Co. to gouge Balsillie for even more cash if he wants a team in Hamilton?
I agree with poploser, too. Juicy, juicy details that sports leagues never want to let see the light of day. I hope this three-way orgy of antagonism and one-upsmanship continues so we can see more and more of this data.
by Liut! on Jul 17, 2009 5:51 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I haven’t followed this thoroughly, but I am confused why they’re talking about an expansion fee when Balsillie wants to relocate the team to Hamilton.
My take is that the expansion fee is an issue because there is a difference in the money that Balsillie would pay to the league if he applied for an expansion team and located it in Hamilton, and if he paid for a stuggling team already in existence and then just moved it, the rest of the owners wouldn’t get their bonus money from their cut of an expansion fee. It seems to the league as though Balsillie is attempting to circumvent the expansion procedure, so there is a need to determine the difference so a fair relocation fee can be assessed. That is one of the things I take out of the discussion.
I’m sure others will be happy to chime in with their takes, too.
"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle." -- Philo of Alexandria
by Baroque on Jul 17, 2009 7:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
In the context in which it is discussed (the Offering Memorandum from when Moyes was trying to sell the team or a piece thereof), it has nothing to do with JB per se.
My guess is that it was discussed in one of two possible scenarios as an incentive for prospective purchasers to make an offer to Moyes:
A. “IF you want to become an NHL owner, you will otherwise have to wait for expansion, where a franchise with crummy retread players will run you $220-265 million, instead of the Coyotes with their barrel of prospects.”
B. “If you become an owner, one of the ancillary benefits will be that you will get a piece of the expansion revenues from the coming expansion, which is expected to net the NHL $220-265 million for each of two expansion franchises (and you, Mr. prospective purchaser, will get 1/30 of that, thus earning you back ~$17 million of your capital in one fell swoop).”
by Gerald on Jul 17, 2009 9:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ahhhhhhhhh, now I see.
Greed. It’s everywhere.
by Liut! on Jul 18, 2009 11:51 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry to break it to you. I do hope your system isn’t too shocked by this revelation. :-)
"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle." -- Philo of Alexandria
by Baroque on Jul 18, 2009 11:56 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
What’s up with that chick’s hair in the picture? It looks like she’s hiding a second head.
The West Coast is the Best Coast.
by RudyKelly on Jul 18, 2009 3:43 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
“It’s a tumah.” (in the voice of Arnold the Governor)
"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle." -- Philo of Alexandria
by Baroque on Jul 18, 2009 6:32 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Join the community and dive in!
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on From The Rink
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
