In an email last night, deputy NHL commissioner Bill Daly made it clear he believes Baum made the...

In an email last night, deputy NHL commissioner Bill Daly made it clear he believes Baum made the right call saying that Peddie is "not even close" to being behind Balsillie's rejection as an owner. Daly called the suggestion "a joke."

"The whole Balsillie 'campaign' is a joke," wrote Daly. "Mr. Balsillie obviously doesn't have a good sense of how NHL governors perceive him. Which is very negatively."

— Toronto Star

3 months ago James Mirtle 60 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Balsillie's no fool.

He’s well aware that the Maple Leafs aren’t behind the BoG moves. He’s just waging a PR campaign at this point to rally popular support for his next attempt to bring a team to Hamilton. He’s tried Canadian nationalism, now he’s preying on the “little brother” feelings of Canadians outside of Toronto. You have to hand it to him – he’s done a great job convincing Canada that he’s the put-upon little guy, especially considering that he’s the one trying to bring down the system.

You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.

by zyllyx on Aug 16, 2009 9:49 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

They’re not behind the BoG moves, but you’d be fooling yourself if you didn’t think the Leafs have some significant clout when it comes to league decisions. Being far and away the most profitable team and one of the 6 oldest kind of has that effect. Especially given that with a Balsillie win in any situation, the issue of infringing on the Leafs territory will immediately become the next big hurdle to a team in Hamilton. While Balsille has people speaking on the record, he might as well get the Leafs on it as well.

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

by IAmJoe on Aug 16, 2009 10:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

A Great job convincing Canada?

I’ve enjoyed your posts. But here’s some news. Canadians have never embraced Bettman and company.
By the way, if Balsillie is so evil, why does the NHL accept ads from Blackberry on it’s revenue sharing NBC broadcasts? Isn’t that hypocritical? I mean Balsillie is Satan incarnate to the welfare bums of the Board of Governors that run Bettman and the NHL, so why do they taint themselves and do something as unethical as accepting advertisements from Blackberry on Gary’s NBC informercial broadcasts?
Balsillie isn’t good enough to be an NHL owner, yet Bettman and the welfare bums will take the ad revenue from his commercials on NBC. That’s freaking hilarious and tells you how much integrity the bums on the BOG have.
None.

by Exit716 on Aug 16, 2009 10:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not only that but I’d bet my house that each and every one of them uses a BlackBerry, including every single league exec…

by Habs on Aug 16, 2009 11:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I somehow doubt the BoG approve ads for NBC broadcasts. They’re controlling, but not that controlling.

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

by Doogie2K on Aug 17, 2009 12:08 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Frankly, that is nonsense.

For starters (which is the only comment that such nonsense deserves), Balsillie and RIM? Not the same thing.

by Gerald on Aug 17, 2009 9:41 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

How dare you try to bring logic and facts to this discussion! How dare you, sir!!

2008-2009 Colorado Avalanche: Dry Humping Mediocrity

by Mike @ MHH on Aug 17, 2009 11:39 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Logic rarely applies in the world of smart phones and PDAs. Case in point, Bono is one of the largest shareholders in Palm, yet U2’s tour is sponsored by RIM.

by Resolute on Aug 17, 2009 1:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sure, but there’s a nugget of truth in there in that Bettman has never been well-regarded in Canada. Zyllyx’s point was that Balsillie has done a great job fashioning himself into the little-guy here, but the fact is that if Bill Gates decided he wanted a team in Hamilton or Winnipeg or Quebec City, and he tried to kick down the doors to the BoG to make it happen, he would be viewed/portrayed (chicken/egg) as the little guy by Canadians.

by dzuunmod on Aug 17, 2009 11:56 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks for the best laugh I've had in a long, long time!

Somehow the mental picture I have of a roomfull of spindoctors (is that still what they’re called?) working flat out to portray a man of Gates’ wealth and influence as the “little guy” just makes me laugh.

Almost as good as the one in one of the FTR threads where someone described Jim Balsilie IIRC as a guy who had acquired “some small wealth”.

by William Daniels on Aug 17, 2009 4:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Perhaps they were referring to what he had acquired in the last ten-fifteen minutes or so LOL.

by Gerald on Aug 17, 2009 10:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

As much as that?
We should ask Jibblescribbits if there’s a measure of time smaller than a nano second.
That would be it.

by William Daniels on Aug 18, 2009 4:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Femptosecond

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

by Jibblescribbits on Aug 19, 2009 10:55 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

SP

femtosecond*

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

by Jibblescribbits on Aug 19, 2009 10:56 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Scary thought is just how much he accumulates in a femtosecond.

by William Daniels on Aug 19, 2009 3:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I wonder what some hockey player salaries would look like calculated to the femtosecond of a hockey game (or even their average TOI).

by hockeycountry on Aug 19, 2009 3:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hey, this isn’t an sneaky attempt to coin a new hockey stat, is it?

Put that stuff here:

http://www.fromtherink.com/2009/8/12/986293/putting-your-faith-in-the-new-stats

(Seriously, though: nice one!)

by William Daniels on Aug 19, 2009 4:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Last Season:

(not sure his actual salary last season… I’ll assume $10M,but I could be off here. This is what I remember)

Danny Briere:

$367.12 / second on ice
36.7¢ for every 1,000th of a second on the ice
(i.e. in the time it takes to take one picture of Briere while he’s playing, he made $2.94.)
3.67 * 10^-13 $/fs (femtosecond)

Coincidentally, Patrick Kane makes 20¢ pet hit he doles out.

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

by Jibblescribbits on Aug 19, 2009 4:18 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

No wonder he’s broke.

by yrmom on Aug 19, 2009 4:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Balsillie needs help

Balsillie needs to find and hire someone to start working on a different approach. It’s clear that the NHL and supposedly the NHL governors don’t like the guys tactics.

by keithwozniak on Aug 16, 2009 10:44 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

If Balsillie had not had Pittsburgh and Nashville on his past resume, and if he had worked with Bettman instead of Moyes on this deal, we wouldn’t be talking about hockey in Phoenix (probably ever again) – we’d be talking about the prospects for Hamilton’s upcoming Cup run.

It’s not enough for some people to get their way – they have to get their way THEIR WAY.

You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.

by zyllyx on Aug 17, 2009 10:00 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

There’s also the slight detail of Hamilton expansion fees… Maybe JB would have the Coyotes by now, but not for less than $500M total price. Not sure he wants to pay that much for a team.

by Habs on Aug 17, 2009 12:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

If he could walk out the door and have an NHL team ready to compete in September with no NHL interference for that, he’d write the check today.

You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.

by zyllyx on Aug 17, 2009 12:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t know… it’s quite possible you’re right, but it’s a lot of money – more than twice what he’s offering now.

by Habs on Aug 17, 2009 1:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Do you really think the league is open to a franchise in Hamilton?

It’s only since Balsillie started openly campaigning for it that they’ve said anything other than “We’re not looking at the possibility of a team in Hamilton at this time. There’s nothing else to say about it.” Before JB, that is the only type of statement they ever made about a second team in Southern Ontario.

by dzuunmod on Aug 17, 2009 3:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Is Daly trying to come across as a complete ass? He could simply say that MLSE had nothing to do with Balsillie’s rejection. Instead, he has to add an almost Burke-like bluster to his statement.

I've seen enough to know that I've seen too much.

by Smoboy41 on Aug 17, 2009 1:13 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

The NHL must have the worst comms advisors...

…or Daly is a loose cannon who refuses to take advice. Their key comms strategy at this point, especially for him, should be to STFU! The process is nearing an end game and if I were a betting person, I would be betting on the NHL at this point. They have nothing to gain with comments like these.

His comments, especially the last one, show him to be either nervous about the outcome (and relieved that Peddie is not being deposed) or that he is really a bully in an expensive suit. No one is likely to get the impression that he is a gracious man in any manner based on these comments and others in the past.

by hockeycountry on Aug 17, 2009 5:03 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Having seen and heard him lots, I would suggest that the last thing Mr. Daly would be characterized as would be a “loose cannon”.

As for the “bully” description, that is simply a bizarre observation, given that the NHL is defending itself and its rights; the defining characteristic of bullying is asserting yourself with respect to the rights or turf of others.

If I had to guess, I would suggest that every pointed comment that Daly makes is a not-too-veiled message to JB that the NHL will not concede in the fight and that it is not amenable to any behind-the-scene approaches (which it is understood JB has tried since the Nashville debacle). I would also expect that they are trying to prod JB into some sort of verbal battle, as JB’s history (both at RIM and with the NHL) indicates that he may be vulnerable to that sort of approach. Such a verbal battle would make Baum J’s rejection of JB as a bidder even easier than it is now.

Note that the above is not necessarily an endorsement of that PR approach – merely an explanation.

by Gerald on Aug 17, 2009 9:58 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I hesitated using “bully” but had to get going so I used it anyway. My internal thesaurus was coming up with “thug” but I wasn’t ready for that one either. But in my opinion, there are better ways to be direct in your defense without sounding like a knuckle-dragger. One can be direct and articulate or direct and crass. The NHL, through Daly keeps coming across, to me anyway, as knuckle-dragging direct and crass.

If direct and crass is their communication strategy/script, I am very disappointed. I would much prefer that it was a character flaw of one individual as opposed to an approved communication strategy.

Frankly, this whole process has me reconsidering my fan support. While I love having a team to cheer for (with all its own flaws), it more and more appears to be window-dressing for a bunch of good old boys who are having a great laugh at fleecing all of us to suppport their schemes. I wish the local media had the courage to ask our own owner some direct questions on this whole issue.

by hockeycountry on Aug 17, 2009 10:34 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

hockeycountry,

I’m interested to hear your views on JB’s PR to this point. As mentioned above, he’s wrapped this whole thing up in the Canadian flag, had his followers email bomb the league office,his camp has wholeheartedly jumped on the “Bettman Hates Canada” and “It’s Our Game” bandwagons, and they’ve stated (on the record, I believe) that he considers the league and it’s operational, expansion, and relocation practices sub-standard at best. That doesn’t seem thuggish/bullying/crass/knuckle-dragging direct?

I’m not defending either of the approaches, but the NHL didn’t start this fight, but they seem pretty damn determined to end it.

2008-2009 Colorado Avalanche: Dry Humping Mediocrity

by Mike @ MHH on Aug 17, 2009 11:50 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oh, I’m no fan of JB’s either. I am one Canadian who was not caught up in all his Canadian jingoism. I fully believe he could have made much better headway if he had not been so hell-bent on having it all his way.

This may be an old-fashioned or perhaps even naive notion but I still like to think that someone, anyone, will take the higher road and conduct himself in a manner that I can respect. I actually expected the NHL to take that road. Fight the fight but not drop to the level of JB et al.

People will always disagree, to me it’s a sign of our civilization on how we handle the disagreements.

I am frequently disappointed.

sigh!

by hockeycountry on Aug 17, 2009 12:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’m with you… but let’s be frank – Balsillie turned this into a dirty fight from the moment he sweet-talked Jerry Moyes into yanking the rug out from under the league with the bankruptcy.

And actually, his reputation for playing dirty goes all the way back to the Pens deal.

If the league takes the high road in this case it’d be like a boxer getting punched repeatedly in the ’nads and calmly telling the ref, “Excuse me, sir, but my tenders are being bruised. May I have some assistance?”

You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.

by zyllyx on Aug 17, 2009 12:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree that the NHL should be vigorously defending its interests. I disagree that the NHL should be using public relations tactics that make them sound crass and mean spirited. Leave that to JB.

But perhaps the NHL communications strategy is a reflection of what they think their fans will respond to. Maybe they think we are all crass and mean spirited (and judging from what I have read in many online fora, they may be right!).

by hockeycountry on Aug 17, 2009 12:44 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

They’re appealing to “old school” hockey fans – they’re playing “thug hockey” PR and Daly is the goon… :)

You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.

by zyllyx on Aug 17, 2009 12:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t think Moyes needed a whole lot of sweet-talking. What other palatable exit strategy was there for him? He’d already sunk tens of millions into the money pit – his only option other than JB was to take a complete bath.

by dzuunmod on Aug 17, 2009 1:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Aug 17, 2009 2:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’d be interested to read your source on the sweet-talking part. I’ve never seen anything that commented in a factual way on who approached/convinced whom, but of course I haven’t seen it all by any means. Probably it’s in the court filings?

by William Daniels on Aug 17, 2009 4:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think people focus far too much on the PR driven side of things here. Balsillie’s Hamilton quest was massively popular in Canada before he ever hired a firm to promote Make It Seven, and it would have been this time around even without those gentle nudges.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Aug 17, 2009 2:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’ve never really understood the concern of fans that they like the people running, or even playing, the sports (or other entertainment options) in order to follow it. I’m not saying that I think it’s wrong, or any other value judgement. I just don’t get it.

I follow hockey because I enjoy the game on the ice. I’m willing to pay money in order to get the enjoyment. That’s not affected by a feeling that the owners are trying to take advantage of me. Hell, I expect that from people running companies trying to sell me something. The only relevant question to me is whether I get enough enjoyment (or utility) from the product to justify what I pay for it. Hockey qualifies for me, and I don’t really care how juvenile the people collecting my money are. The only time it might come into play is if I think that those people are going to use the money I’m giving them in a way that I disapprove of.

by J. Michael Neal on Aug 17, 2009 12:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think everyone just has their breaking point.

I follow hockey because I enjoy the game on the ice too, but if I felt too much (a subjective limit, that) like the owners and executives in the league were taking me for granted, or taking advantage of me somehow, I’d find hockey to watch that didn’t give me that sense. I’d watch junior hockey or something.

by dzuunmod on Aug 17, 2009 12:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The only time it might come into play is if I think that those people are going to use the money I’m giving them in a way that I disapprove of.

Bingo! My meager contributions to the NHL’s pot of gold will continue to allow the board of governors to direct the league executives to keep propping up franchises long after their financial viability best-before date has passed. And this is just what we know.

Everyone is competing for my limited discretionary dollars. I can still get my fix for the things I enjoy without feeling like I have been treated like a dupe to further enrich some old boys club who might be more interested in the real estate opportunties around the arena than the club in the arena. This may be an unfair take on the motivation of Riemsdorf but I am getting increasingly cynical.

by hockeycountry on Aug 17, 2009 12:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Childish tactics!

1) Firstly we are NOT fans of the way the NHL has handled the Coyote situation. In fact we go WAY back in our dislike of anything Mr. Bettman says/does.
2) That said, we feel Mr.Balsillie’s current tactics come off as very childish. Sure the NHL is hypocritical in rejecting him and embracing the likes of Boots Delbaggio, etc (crooks), but its their little club house and if they want to prevent him from getting in its their (inane) choice.
3) Now Balsillie is crying to mommy (the bankruptcy judge) and trying to make the folks in Hamilton/Canada cry him a river that he isn’t getting his way. Sorry Jim, you may be a business genius, but you are failing in trying to manipulate the NHL into allowing you into their exclusive little club.

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

by Fauxrumors on Aug 17, 2009 7:20 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Mr. Balsillie was a genius in making acquaintance with a actual genius by the name of Mike Lazardis while he was an executive at a minor construction company and Mr. Lazardis was a vendor to that company with an idea that perfectly captured the zeitgeist of the times..

by Gerald on Aug 17, 2009 9:45 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

What evidence is there that Balsillie is a business genius? He invested in someone else’s good idea, but he’s also managed to turn minor fines into huge ones by protesting too much, for example. (Can’t remember the specifics, but I know it was mentioned in comparison to the current battle.) He’s also in trouble for some kind of securities violation, no?

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

by Doogie2K on Aug 17, 2009 1:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

What evidence is there that Balsillie is a business genius?

His net worth?

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Aug 17, 2009 2:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

There’s a fine line between business genius and ridiculous luck. Judging someone’s skill or genius by their net worth is not a terribly good idea. That’s not to say that Ballsillie isn’t a business genius, but I’m not convinced. So far, there’s just as much evidence that he got lucky once.

by J. Michael Neal on Aug 17, 2009 3:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Getting rich once may have been lucky…staying rich – especially now – is more than luck.

by hockeycountry on Aug 17, 2009 3:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not necessarily. I’ve managed to do very well over the last couple of years, and I’m not that good. A lot of it depends upon what you do and, yes, luck. John Thain, who was head of Merrill Lynch, got a whole lot richer last year, and does anyone want to make a case that there was any sort of skill involved beyond negotiating a really good severance package?

by J. Michael Neal on Aug 17, 2009 3:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

In my experience, acquiring wealth is one thing but increasing it quite another, especially in the last decade or two.

by William Daniels on Aug 17, 2009 4:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I used to live in Scottsdale, so take it from me – there are plenty of people with enormous net worth that owe it almost entirely to backstabbing, opportunism, greed, ridiculous luck, and reaping the efforts of others.

I guess if that qualifies as business genius, then yeah, Balls is a genius.

You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.

by zyllyx on Aug 17, 2009 3:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

He’s also in trouble for some kind of securities violation, no?

Options backdating. He, and other RIMM executives, settled with the SEC for hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines, and with the Ontario Securities Commission for $68 million, as well as disgorging the options in question. This is a really, really sleazy practice. Two of the executives are barred from serving as officers of any corporation that has to file reports with the SEC for five years.

I have a long dislike of Jerry Reinsdorf, and think that he qualifies as being even sleazier, but don’t mistake that for any sort of like of Jim Ballsillie on my part.

by J. Michael Neal on Aug 17, 2009 3:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

That’s what I was thinking of. Thanks, JMN.

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

by Doogie2K on Aug 17, 2009 8:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

JMN, did you happen to read the complaint that was appended to the NHL’s ownership report filed in the court docs? It outlined evidence (as per company emails, etc.) pertaining to the precise nature of the conduct that is certainly at odds with the public spin put on it. Sleazy is putting it mildly.

You mentioned a while back that reading this stuff is a hobby of yours. That one comes highly recommended.

by Gerald on Aug 17, 2009 10:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’m not going to read the NHL’s recitation on RIMM’s option backdating when I can read the SEC, or any number of other, much better, sources on the subject. Frankly, I don’t need to read a whole lot about it, though, because I’m very familiar with options thanks to spending three years trading them for Citigroup. I already know what backdating entails.

by J. Michael Neal on Aug 17, 2009 11:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

FYI, I wasn’t referring to the NHL’s “recitation”. I was referring to the SEC complaint itself, which was handily attached to the NHL documentation.

As for the rest, suit yourself.

by Gerald on Aug 18, 2009 9:38 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

IIRC, wasn’t Balsillie’s encounter with the SEC settled out of court with no admission of guilt?

Maybe I’ve got that wrong, but if I’m right then he is not “…in trouble for some kind of securities violation…” with them, at least, is he?

by William Daniels on Aug 18, 2009 5:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, it was settled out of court. No, Balsillie didn’t admit any guilt. However, between the SEC and the OSC, he paid about $20 million in fines and gave up all of the options in question. Two of his co-conspirators are barred from being officers in any company that files with the SEC for five years. As non-admissions of guilt go, it makes him look pretty guilty.

by J. Michael Neal on Aug 18, 2009 9:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks for the confirmation.

As for looking pretty guilty, that’s got to be a lot like being sort of dead.

As for having co-conspirators, there has to be guilt established before there can be co-conspirators, doesn’t there? I could be wrong on that but I think that’s true.

by William Daniels on Aug 19, 2009 2:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Technically, yes. I’m fairly confident in using the term in conversation, though. Generally, you don’t backdate options without the assistance of some other people.

by J. Michael Neal on Aug 19, 2009 3:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs