From The Rink: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Around SBN: Can Tebow Say No To Anything?

A closer look at the NHL's bid for the Coyotes

As has been widely reported since the league's bid became public, the NHL is prepared to offer up to $140-million for what is the battered carcass of the Phoenix Coyotes. What hasn't been widely reported is just what else is in the bid, and how we arrive at that figure.

Two key things to get into here: (a) the structure of the purchase agreement as it relates to the dollar figure and (b) how the league will attempt to deal with a lease that very well may need to be broken nine months from now.

Part 1: Where the $140-million figure comes from

  • "Payment or other satisfaction of all indebtedness" to SOF Investments (largest creditor) of approximately $80-million
  • $37-million owed to the NHL itself as a secured creditor
  • "payment of cure costs relating to assumed contracts" which include the lease agreement and "Glendale contracts" but only "to the extent they become assumed contracts" (more on that in a second)
  • "payment of approximately $7.5-million in designated unsecured liabilities at closing"

Up front, in cash, the NHL will contribute only $2-million. More cash will be paid out after the 2009-10 season in mid-June that is equal to the lesser of $138-million minus the payments above ($124.5-million plus the "assumed contracts") or the total remaining unsatisfied claims (likely all of unsecured creditors) not including any payments to Jerry Moyes.

In addition to those terms, which are highly likely to reach that $140-million, the league will kick in another 20 per cent of the net profit of the sale of the team, not to exceed $20-million, as long as the franchise is sold within two years. So, for example, if the team sells for $240-million next summer to other interests, there'll be a profit of about $100-million for the league, $20-million of which goes to the remaining unsecured creditors.

There is no cash available to Moyes or to Wayne Gretzky, who the NHL will either kick out on the curb or drastically rework his contract. Whether the court determines Moyes is a creditor or not could be a big factor at the Sept. 10 auction.

Part 2: The AMULA (Amended and Restated Management, Use and Lease Agreement)

This is potentially a big hurdle for the NHL (and really any purchaser) to work around, as Glendale's lease agreement on Jobing.com Arena is designed to be a difficult one to skip out on. As deputy commissioner Bill Daly told Damien Cox yesterday, however, "The club cannot survive with the current lease."

Star-divide

We haven't yet heard a ruling on what the bankruptcy court will do with the lease, but here's how the league will deal with what it calls the AMULA:

  • Prior to closing, the NHL and Moyes will enter into a "partial lease assignment agreement" that will "terminate on the day after the last day of the 2009-10 season." Essentially, the league will pay the rent, etc., associated with that lease agreement for nine months after the purchase date
  • Moyes will "agree not to reject the AMULA prior to th elatest date on which they are required to make such determination under the bankruptcy code and to use their reasonable best efforts to obtain an order extending such date until th last day of the 2009-10 season." If Moyes rejects the lease, he will agree to ensure that doesn't take place until June, 2010
  • The NHL will do whatever it can to negotiate with the City of Glendale "an amendment to the AMULA" which will see the league assume the new agreed upon lease and "withdraw any motion to reject the AMULA"

In other words, the league has no intention of assuming this lease (for obvious reasons) and is apparently using a "transition services agreement" in order to leave it in Moyes's hands for up to nine months after closing. Prior to the termination of that TSA, the league "may elect in their sole discretion to treat any Glendale contract as an excluded contract" and "the sellers [Moyes] shall be entitled to reject such a contract."

The issue here for the judge will be that the NHL's bid could easily become a relocation one by June, 2010, depending on how negotiations go with Glendale. What the league's really after here is to buy time to find more suitors for the team and put pressure on the city to capitulate to its demands.

What the language on this lease agreement will allow is for the NHL to continue to use the notion of relocation to extract concessions, something we have seen in the past. Gary Bettman has experience in these situations and generally gets his way.

Complicating things will be Jim Balsillie's bid for the team, obviously. You better believe his side will argue the NHL's bid is essentially a relocation bid designed to cut him out of the process, and the legalities on that are well beyond my expertise.

Two weeks until the auction.

Star-divide

A couple more quick notes:

  • Included in the bid is the assumption of the suite licenses, of which there are only apparently 35 out of 99  for the coming season. Season's ticket sales likely look worse than that.
  • Yes, the Ice Edge boys remain one of the bids, but for how long remains to be seen. Their offer is contingent on negotiations with the city, and given they've been in the picture several months less than Jerry Reinsdorf and he couldn't make any progress there, it seems doubtful they'll get what they want by Sept. 10. In other words, they very well could be the next party to walk.

0 recs  |  Comment 75 comments  |  Add comment |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Gary Bettman/ Phoenix Coyotes

Gary Bettman is basically a nonsensical bully. He comes from a posh background of privelege and has little common sense. Since when do you turn down the highest bidder for a sports team. Teams move all the time and that’s not a big deal. The natural and practical evolution in a free market is for a team to prosper. If it is not prospering then there are not enough fans of the sport in that location. LET THEM MOVE ON. Gary Bettman is the George Costanza (Seinfeld) of the hockey world.

by slydog on Aug 27, 2009 8:21 AM CDT reply actions   0 recs

It’s just slightly more complicated than that.

by Resolute on Aug 27, 2009 8:33 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Are there any economics books on your shelf, not written by Adam Smith?

by Tommelot on Aug 27, 2009 8:44 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

lol

Adam Smith is irrelevant. Title 11 of the United States Code is.

by stormj on Aug 27, 2009 12:41 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

“Teams move all the time and that’s not a big deal.”
They have moved, but to suggest that suggest such moves are “costless transactions” is not very accurate.

All things Thrashers + stats: www.birdwatchersanonymous.com

by The Falconer on Aug 27, 2009 9:05 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Costless

I don’t see where he said that.

Contributor to The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.

by Derek Zona on Aug 27, 2009 10:51 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

“not a big deal”.

If he isn’t referring to moving being a costless transaction (in terms of money, product value, fan support, whatever), then I don’t know what he’s referring to.

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

by IAmJoe on Aug 27, 2009 11:41 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Thanks, Spock.

“The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few,” huh?

I’m sure it’s not a big deal until it’s YOUR team that moves. I hope to Jeebus your favorite team never goes through the kind of shitstorm mine is. Not even the most arrogant hammerhead needs to suffer like this.

You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.

by zyllyx on Aug 27, 2009 11:57 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

“From a posh background of privilege”?

I don’t think that is factually the case (not that it makes a difference, except in respect of your credibility).

by Gerald on Aug 27, 2009 12:25 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

James – is anyone [hint hint] going to do a point-by-point comparison of the three bids? Im thinking a chart with how the bids deal with the key issues (lease, relocation), and creditors.

Glen Sather is a Hockey Genius.

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

by poploser on Aug 27, 2009 8:53 AM CDT reply actions   0 recs

It’s possible. The material’s pretty dense, so this post alone took quite a while to pull together. The NHL’s bid is 146 pages, and I haven’t yet dug into the other two.

I doubt I’ll look in depth at Ice Edge’s until it’s more clear they’ll make it to the auction.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Aug 27, 2009 8:54 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

James, thanks so much for putting this together. You are certainly THE go to guy on distilling all of this stuff.

The fact that no one has even come close to JB’s bid in terms of real cash for creditors makes me more confident about how the judge is going to rule in 2 weeks. However it goes though, it is doubtless the auction solves anything with the appeals being filed shortly thereafter.

Here is a question, say JB or IE is the winner and the NHL appeals. The season is starting soon thereafter so will the court entrust the running of the franchise to the NHL anyway during the appeals process? Or will the bankruptcy trustee take it over? What do you think a post-non-winning-NHL landscape will look like?

The population of Pominville keeps rising!

by Blackcapricorn on Aug 27, 2009 9:41 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

this is why I want someone who to really compare the bids, side by side. I know thats hard with all the details and the conditions, but all you see is summary dollar figures as to the value of the bids. But who knows which is better for creditors (little c) until you get into details. For instance, isnt Balsillie’s bid based upon the assumption that the lease will be cancelled? Isn’t is based upon a substantial payment to Moyes (potentially in place of other creditors?).

Glen Sather is a Hockey Genius.

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

by poploser on Aug 27, 2009 10:56 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

The problem is that I don’t think these bids are final, as in I believe that a party can increase their bids (not sure about changing conditions), etc. So while we can maybe figure out which one is best right now, that isn’t necessarily going to stay the same at the auction. I am sure there are some lawyers figuring it out for $400+ an hour as we speak as well!

by Waterloo Sens Fan on Aug 27, 2009 11:00 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

James, thanks so much for putting this together. You are certainly THE go to guy on distilling all of this stuff.

What’s that the kids say, “quoted for truth?” Your efforts on this entire issue are very much appreciated. Is there any way we could petition your bosses for a raise or something for you? :-)

"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle." -- Philo of Alexandria
(Currently, and sadly, on a self-imposed team-specific puck sabbatical.)

by Baroque on Aug 27, 2009 11:03 AM CDT up reply actions   2 recs

its usually shortened to QFT, Baroque :P

I’m down with marching on the Globe and Mail to get Mirtle a raise though. Great stuff throughout this whole process.

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

by IAmJoe on Aug 27, 2009 11:44 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Psht. And here I thought they were just misspelling QED because they didn’t know the full phrase in Latin.

"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle." -- Philo of Alexandria
(Currently, and sadly, on a self-imposed team-specific puck sabbatical.)

by Baroque on Aug 27, 2009 12:05 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

+1!

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Aug 27, 2009 1:54 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

James, I am wondering how much flexibility the bidders have at the actual auction. For example, could Balsille modify his bid to play 1 year in Phoenix and then void the lease from his current bid of move immediately ? Could the NHL get super desperate and add taking the lease (and not leaving it with the Moyes corporation) to their bid?

It just all seems like this auction is going to be absolutely insane with tens if not hundreds of critical issues to overcome before an actual “auction” with directly comparable bids occurs.

by Waterloo Sens Fan on Aug 27, 2009 10:25 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I’m curious about the actual auction process as well. How long will each member have between bids to submit a revised submission.

I sure hope JB’s bid is allowed to stand just to see the craziness that the auction could bring.

Like you mention it’s not only the money being bid, but the other terms that goes with their bid including the lease, and how secured and unsecured creditors will be dealt with.

by Ace3605 on Aug 27, 2009 10:30 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

It’s my understanding that they’ll be able to raise and modify their bids in response to what others do, albeit under a strict timeline. I’ll try and get more information about how the auction process will work.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Aug 27, 2009 1:57 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Thanks James, I would also like to give a big thanks for your great reporting/blogging on this subject. I guess this also means that if the judge approves of the NHL’s lease maneuver (not sure that he will) that Balsille is sure to copy it at the actual auction.

by Waterloo Sens Fan on Aug 27, 2009 2:19 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I’m not 100% sure that JB will copy the NHL’s maneuver.

JB’s bid has always been VERY Moyes friendly. From my understanding, the NHL’s bid is only to assume Moyes’ arena contract for the upcoming season. If the NHL isn’t able to renegoitate better terms (for themselves or whoever the sell the team to) they would assign the arena contract back to Moyes with no team. Moyes’ Arena Corp would then beforced to declare bankrupcy as it would be cashless.

I don’t think JB would write a new term of his bid to pay Moyes a pile of cash at the beginning but then stick Moyes with the arena lease once JB moves the team (assuming he wins of course).

by Ace3605 on Aug 27, 2009 2:34 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Also, a key element of JB’s bid, and a reason it’s in bankrupcy court, is he wants the judge to break the arena lease entirely with an agreed to pentalty if necessary.

by Ace3605 on Aug 27, 2009 2:37 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

But Moyes Arena Corp would be a dead man walking company, and should be set up so that it can declare bankruptcy without Moyes paying a penny. The amount of money Moyes gets would be the same (even more since he would no longer get diluted by the cities lease claims).

by Waterloo Sens Fan on Aug 27, 2009 2:47 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

And then Glendale sues the hell out of the NHL, arguing that this maneuvre is an obvious attempt at circumventing the lease. The league’s own initial comments that the team was not bankrupt won’t help, I wouldn’t think.

The fun is just getting started.

by Resolute on Aug 27, 2009 4:03 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

What I find fascinating is that the league is willing to disregard the money due to Gretzky. Granted his contract was a bit obscene, but the guy was trying to make it work in Phoenix, and for all he has done for the league you would think they would be more considerate of the guy. I wonder how this will affect his relationship with the NHL going forward.

by lb71 on Aug 27, 2009 9:49 AM CDT reply actions   0 recs

I believe they are disregardng it because the filings have made it readily apparent that it is a personal obligation of Mr. Moyes.

by Gerald on Aug 27, 2009 12:27 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Is that the same reason that they aren’t following Balsillie’s lead and giving the owner that put the team in bankruptcy $100M?

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

by PPP on Aug 27, 2009 7:58 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I remain unclear as to how the NHL gets to leave the obligation to the city in a company from which it has stripped all the assets.

by J. Michael Neal on Aug 27, 2009 9:58 AM CDT reply actions   0 recs

Thank you. I was gonna ask you or Gerald to try to explain that. As I said on BoC last night:

I’m really curious to hear Mirtle’s take/interpretation on the details of the bid itself. From what I’m understanding (???) from the comments over there, I guess the NHL basically sublets the team through current owner Jerry Moyes’ company, and then somehow a year later, magically, the NHL can sell the team and move it, while Moyes’ company is still holding the lease, but no longer has a team to play with that lease? Thus, the NHL is able to sell the team, while somehow making Moyes’ company eat the lease penalties?

That sounds pretty ridiculous, that the league could buy basically buy the team but not the lease attached to it, and this would magically let them move the team without handling any of the lease penalties. If that were the case, why wouldn’t every other bid do the same thing? “We’ll buy the team, but we’ll pass on the lease attached to them, thanks!”

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

by IAmJoe on Aug 27, 2009 11:50 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

You have accurately summarized Jim Balsillie’s bid.

by Gerald on Aug 27, 2009 12:28 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Balsille was trying to be upfront about it though (we want the Lease killed by the Court, maybe pay some reasonable penalties for this). The NHL is trying to say they are keeping the lease without keeping the lease. It isn’t clear that Glendale is better off with the NHL bid than Balsilles, depending on how the judge rules for penalties for breaking the lease.

by Waterloo Sens Fan on Aug 27, 2009 12:39 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Exactly. My understanding was that Balsillie wasn’t taking the team and leaving the lease entirely on Moyes’ hands. He wanted the court to end the lease, let him pay a reasonable penalty, and then he takes his team to Hamilton. The NHL wants to leave the lease intact, own the team but not the associated lease, and after one year, move the team while leaving Moyes with the lease and no team to play under it. Thus, Moyes’ company goes bankrupt, has no assets of any kind, and the city gets nothing for losing the team.

Is that correct? That’s my understanding of it. If that is the case, then I did not accurately summarize JB’s bid before, and in fact there is a very huge difference between the two bids, in terms of benefit to the city. In one, the city at least gets something for losing its team, and in the other, the city pretty much gets hosed.

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

by IAmJoe on Aug 27, 2009 1:14 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Your understanding is not quite right, Joe.

The only difference between the NHL bid and the JB bid in respect of the lease is that:

- under JB’s bid, the lease is rejected immediately (which puts it in default and triggers the rights of the city in respect of default for the LD’s, rather than “reasonable damages”). JB would not pay anything; the City’s claim would be paid (pro rata) out of the proceeds of the transaction, with the rest of the other unsecured creditors.

- under the NHL’s bid (relying on the limited reading of it and James’ post), the lease would potentially get rejected in June 2010, thereby triggering the same remedies as noted above.

The Moyes company would not have no assets. It would have the remainder of the purchase price, which would not be disbursed by the court pending resolution of the matter.

None of this is to argue the merits of the bid. My point was simply that JB’s bid is taking the team and passing on the lease, same as (possibly) the NHL’s lease. As such, it is not noteworthy in its structure as you suggested.

by Gerald on Aug 27, 2009 7:02 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Ah, thank you. That helps a bit.

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

by IAmJoe on Aug 27, 2009 8:05 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Ice Edge

Why hasn’t the Ice Edge group been required to go through the acceptance process from the BOG to see if they’d be voted into the group should their bid win?

If it’s not a requirement prior to purchasing/bidding on the team, why did JB do it?

by Ace3605 on Aug 27, 2009 10:22 AM CDT reply actions   0 recs

I believe I read somewhere that they are going through the approval process but have not been approved yet.

The population of Pominville keeps rising!

by Blackcapricorn on Aug 27, 2009 10:39 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

So, say..JB’s bid is not allowed. This would leave the Ice Edge an NHL bid.

Say – Baum awards Ice Edge the winner of the auction.

Say – after the auction, the NHL reject Ice Edge as an owner because it dislike’s the number of games being played away from Phoenix (and/or maybe other reasons).

Would this then leave the NHL as the owner?

This could be weird. Too many possibilities. Sept. 2 will be an interesting day when some issues are clarified.

by Ace3605 on Aug 27, 2009 10:53 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'm guessing...

…that IceEdge is going to back away from the Saskatoon thing. They’ve already backed away from the playoff games and may limit their “home away from home” games depending on the atmosphere with the NHL.

The thing to question about IceEdge is what they’re planning to do about the City and the lease. They claim they’re renegotiating the lease BUT not asking for subsidies. How the hell is that going to work?

You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.

by zyllyx on Aug 27, 2009 12:05 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

They already have, actually. I don’t have the article handy, but I read one yesterday where they made the Saskatoon games sound more wistful than anything. The statement I am thinking of was along the lines of “We’re committed to Phoenix, though it would have been nice to reward the fans of Saskatchewan with some NHL games.”

I think they are realizing that they won’t get anywhere without a full commitment to Phoenix… even if the NHL itself isn’t necessarily committed themselves.

by Resolute on Aug 27, 2009 12:55 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Moreover, how can the Judge allow one bidder to be able to reject other bidders? That’s crazy if the Judge allows it.

by Parallex on Aug 27, 2009 12:07 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Moreover, how can the Judge allow one bidder to be able to reject other bidders? That’s crazy if the Judge allows it.

That is what the NHL is saying/trying to do with JB’s bid by their 26-0 rejection of him as an owner.

by Ace3605 on Aug 27, 2009 12:42 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I know that’s what the NHL is trying to do but now that they’ve become a bidding party I wouldn’t be surprised if the Judge decides that in the interests of conducting a fair and open auction that one bidding party cannot be allowed to have rejection power over another.

I don’t know what the legal eagles would say about that prospect, but it doesn’t pass my laymens smell test. I wonder what the odds are that this move ends up backfiring on the NHL.

by Parallex on Aug 27, 2009 3:10 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

That squishing sound is Judge Baum’s sphincter tightening as he realizes that no matter what he does he’s going to have to set a precedent that will make him infamous in sports history.

You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.

by zyllyx on Aug 27, 2009 3:50 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

They did meet with the BOG, but their bid was ruled incomplete. They will still need approval from the league, especially for games in Saskatoon.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Aug 27, 2009 2:02 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Great work James! Just move the Coyotes out of Phoenix already wherever they are the more proditable!
http://www.jaimaplace.com/en/page/new-spectator-sports-complex-quebec-city Why not in Quebec City. There is a group willing to build a new Colisee with the help of the private and the public sectors.

by Fred Poulin on Aug 27, 2009 10:25 AM CDT reply actions   0 recs

Okay

How much money will Montreal ask for then in compensation for a team moving into its territory.
The NHL isn’t going to cut into the Habs revenue by giving a team to Quebec City.

by Exit716 on Aug 27, 2009 11:03 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Quebec City isn’t Montreal’s territory at all. I don’t think the Habs got a dime when the Senators moved in down the road, Ottawa-Gatineau is definitely closer than Quebec-Levis to Montreal.

Hockey blogging can't get any flatter.

by saskhab on Aug 27, 2009 11:41 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Quebec City is about 2 hours from Montreal or 250 km. Anyway the Habs have been sold-out for the past two-seasons.

by Fred Poulin on Aug 27, 2009 2:47 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Which is it – 2 hours or 250km? I think if anything’s been established in the Coyotes’ case it’s that distance and travel time have little real-world correlation. :P

You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.

by zyllyx on Aug 27, 2009 3:51 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

How fast do people drive in Quebec, anyway? 125 kph seems a little bit quick to me. :)

"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle." -- Philo of Alexandria
(Currently, and sadly, on a self-imposed team-specific puck sabbatical.)

by Baroque on Aug 27, 2009 4:44 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Dunno about Quebec, but if you’re going that slow on Highway 2 in Alberta, you better stick to the right lane!

by Resolute on Aug 27, 2009 5:16 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

That’s still better than 63 to McMurray. If you’re not going 140 you’ll get run over by an oil worker.

by edm_euler on Aug 28, 2009 10:10 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Zyllyx: that’s the distance between MTL and QC, it’s quite jammed when you reach MTL.
Baroque: I usually drive 125 kph and I almost never get passed, people in Quebec don’t know how to drive. I’d move to Alberta just to move with the fast traffic like Resolute said!

by Fred Poulin on Aug 27, 2009 6:52 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I’d love to be able to routinely drive 77 mph on the highways. I always get stuck behind the ghost car going 45 mph in a 70 mph zone. :)

"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle." -- Philo of Alexandria
(Currently, and sadly, on a self-imposed team-specific puck sabbatical.)

by Baroque on Aug 27, 2009 7:01 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

The Leafs have been sold-out for longer than that, and that doesn’t mean they don’t oppose a team in Hamilton.

That said, I agree with you that the Habs probably wouldn’t oppose a team in la capitale nationale.

by dzuunmod on Aug 27, 2009 7:49 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

They can ask but they won’t get any. Hamilton is less than 50km away. That’s the difference.

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

by PPP on Aug 27, 2009 8:03 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I believe it’s 50 miles.

Which is why mentioning Buffalo all the time confuses me a little… it’s, what, 100 km from Hamilton?

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Aug 27, 2009 8:18 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

According to Google Maps, the drive from the ACC to Copps is 65.7kms (40.8 miles). From Copps to HSBC Arena, it’s 105.8kms (65.8 miles). Of course, those are driving directions. As the crow flies, the distances are probably a bit shorter.

by dzuunmod on Aug 27, 2009 10:17 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

It does not matter. THe terms of the NHL constitution are such that teams cannot have overlapping territories. Accordingly, they need to be 100 miles apart, not 50.

by Gerald on Aug 28, 2009 11:38 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

How does that play out in a situation like NY/NJ? Is it based on market size, population density, or something?

Glen Sather is a Hockey Genius.

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

by poploser on Aug 28, 2009 12:43 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

nevermind – the Constitution makes clear that the mileage limit can be overriden with the team’s consent.

Glen Sather is a Hockey Genius.

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

by poploser on Aug 28, 2009 12:45 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Kansas City or Bust

Wow, Kansas could have their team in as little as a year.

I think everything will work out just fine for Reinsdorf and Bettman.

by FourFeetOfCurl on Aug 27, 2009 11:11 AM CDT reply actions   0 recs

I don't.

It’s pretty obvious that Reinsdorf’s asking for way too much from Glendale and since his offer is so riddled with out-clauses and attached strings, I’m really questioning if a deal with him would get done even out of bankruptcy court.

You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.

by zyllyx on Aug 27, 2009 12:06 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Well, I agree.

Reinsdorf wanted a number of out-clauses before he could commit to buying the team. He didn’t get them in time, which forced the NHL to move in. Now the NHL is saying if Glendale doesn’t renegotiate the lease to their liking they will move the team.

I think it’s clear neither Reinsdorf not the league had much intention to keep the team in Phoenix. The NHL will use bankruptcy to break the lease, then they’ll move the team to Kansas and sell to Reinsdorf. But I don’t see how the court would view that as a better bid than Balsillie’s.

Either way, I will eat my hat if Coyotes are in Phoenix for 2010-11.

by FourFeetOfCurl on Aug 27, 2009 6:27 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think Reinsdorf would have given it an honest shot, but simply put, if this team can’t be turned around, no owner should be forced to eat such losses.

The NHL is on a shorter timetable because the group doesn’t want to be eating those losses, and because it simply cannot operate a competing team long term. If no owner can be found, then yeah, the Coyotes are gone.

by Resolute on Aug 27, 2009 6:35 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Either way, I will eat my hat if Coyotes are in Phoenix for 2010-11.

Don’t be so quick on this. Yeah, they’re probably not going to be there long-term, but MLB owned the Expos for three seasons before they finally got all their ducks in a row to actually move the team.

by dzuunmod on Aug 27, 2009 7:50 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yeah, but the NHL already has city ready for an NHL club (Kansas, and maybe even Vegas) as well as a willing owner (Reinsdorf). All that’s left is the hand waving. Once this court case is behind them it’ll be full steam ahead, I’m sure. As we saw with Quebec-Colorado, the NHL can move a team very quickly when it wants to.

by FourFeetOfCurl on Aug 27, 2009 8:38 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Ok, but it’s not like MLB was waiting on Washington for a stadium either – the Nationals played several seasons in RFK which was built several decades ago.

by dzuunmod on Aug 27, 2009 10:19 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I don't mean to be obtuse...

…but I’m having difficulty understanding part of James’ article above. Can anyone ‘splain to me? Pretend (hypothetically, of course) you’re talking to a guy whose level of financial wizardry often revolves strongly around the axis of “securing the bottle deposit return” in relation to various empty containers…


Up front, in cash, the NHL will contribute only $2-million. More cash will be paid out after the 2009-10 season in mid-June that is equal to the lesser of $138-million minus the payments above ($124.5-million plus the “assumed contracts”) or the total remaining unsatisfied claims (likely all of unsecured creditors) not including any payments to Jerry Moyes.

So basically, the NHL plops down $2M. NHL agrees to pay debts on “assumed contracts” as they come due. They then pay out what sum, to whom, and by what is that amount adjusted?

jrwendelman
The Artist Formerly Known as "Junior", who blogs at heroesinrehab.ca/blog

"But if someone so eager to engage into fist talk, we can always meet after season end in Minsk." (Mikhail Grabovski and a well-meaning but not particularly skillful translator)

by jrwendelman on Aug 27, 2009 1:10 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

They take on the $80-million debt associated with SOF and being making those payments. They wipe out the $37-million the league is owed. And there is very little remaining for unsecured creditors.

There wouldn’t be a huge payout up front. It’d be mainly financing for a year and then they’d recoup some or all of their losses in a sale.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Aug 27, 2009 2:08 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Okay, I got it now. Thanks. Sorry, the light was a little slow going on there. There’s a reason I suck at managing money.

jrwendelman
The Artist Formerly Known as "Junior", who blogs at heroesinrehab.ca/blog

"But if someone so eager to engage into fist talk, we can always meet after season end in Minsk." (Mikhail Grabovski and a well-meaning but not particularly skillful translator)

by jrwendelman on Aug 27, 2009 2:46 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

The bizzare thing to me is

given we’re not really talking sports here, we’re talking business, after this is all said and done, dontcha think that the City of Glendale will look back and wish they gave Moyes some concessions so he might have been able to make the team viable…. Talk about poor business judgement, just because someone signs a stupid deal with you and you can put the screws to them, doesn’t mean it’s smart business to do so….

by markbona-capsfan99 on Aug 28, 2009 7:07 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

I really don’t think the CoG is going to second-guess themselves on the original lease, to be honest. Moyes wasn’t going to make the team viable no matter what he did.

You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.

by zyllyx on Aug 28, 2009 7:42 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs


User Tools

Welcome to SBN's blog on all things hockey

Start posting on From The Rink »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

One_lindsay05_small
Getzlaf injured; Olympics in question?
Small
Lightning sale imminent-what about PHX?
Small
Dave Tippett for the Jack Adams award!
Small
Raffle
Small
Collective Intelligence or Popular Delusions:Visualizing NHL Trade, Award Rumors
Small
Phoenix sale?
Gary_bettman_s_nightmare_small
Developing Player Value: Defensive Value per 20 Minutes (DV/20)
One_lindsay05_small
Kings GM & Johnson at odds over University of Michigan
Img_0706_small
Penguins scouting heavily Maple Leafs’ Alexei Ponikarovsky
Img_0706_small
Georges Laraque’s demise as an NHL enforcer

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Blog extras


Bloggers-in-chief

Awkwardmarleau_small Mike Chen

Editors

Penguins_cup_08__small FrankD

Canes-country-logo_small Bob Harwood Waeghe

Cc_cory_small Cory Lavalette

Gabby_small Joe Fortunato

Moderator(s)

Calvin_small PPP

643c0d9c_small saskhab