When the Rockies went to Jersey: How a 1982 relocation relates to the Coyotes case
by James Mirtle on Sep 10, 2009 5:04 AM CDT
122 comments
I don't know how all of them were determined, but for instance, in New Jersey's case, when the Devils relocated from Denver to New Jersey, I believe they ended up paying a relocation fee to the league which was distributed to each of the Flyers, Islanders and Rangers as a form of indemnification for their marketplaces. They paid a separate fee to the Rangers for indemnification, and they paid two other fees to the Islanders and Philadelphia. They ended up paying $19.1-million in relocation, indemnification fees in the context of a transaction where they purchased the club for $8-million.
We're getting down closer to the endgame in this bankruptcy case, with the auction proceedings to take place today and end tomorrow in Phoenix, and a lot of the many, many legal arguments that are out there still haven't really been brought to light. But one thing I've seen mentioned on both sides now is the Colorado Rockies relocation 27 years ago, and how the league dealt with that team suddenly landing in the territory of three others.
In one filing this week, Jim Balsillie's legal team asked for the NHL's expert declarations on relocation fees be excluded from consideration, the result of the league allegedly withholding key documents and information that Balsillie's expert could have used in writing his own report on the subject. From that filing's introduction:
"As it turns out... at the same time that the NHL was arguing that the information [Balsillie] sought was 'irrelevant,' the NHL had already provided it to its own experts. And that at the same time that the NHL was arguing that producing these documents would be too 'burdensome,' the documents had already been assembled and collected and were being analyzed by the NHL's experts."
In what they call "one critical example," Balsillie's team says it asked for the minutes of the 1982 meeting of the NHL board of governors that Daly references above, minutes that detailed what happened when the Devils moved into three other teams' territory. The NHL apparently refused to provide these until just recently (they've now been filed under seal), something Balsillie's camp argues is because the "1982 minutes are devastating to the NHL's positions on three of the motions that are now pending before this court."
Looking back, the Rockies were more of a gong show as the Coyotes are now, heavily in debt after a move from Kansas City in 1976 and talking of relocating again two years later. The NHL resisted allowing the team to go to New Jersey for four years, when finally John McMullen was able to gain approval to move the troubled franchise.
Given what franchises were selling for at the time — the Red Wings sold for $8-million that year — the nearly $30-million McMullen had to put up in 1982 dollars was seen as incredibly burdensome. The relocation and indemnification fees alone translate to about $45-million in today's currency, which apparently came as the result of a court ruling the Rangers had a territorial veto. (The details on this are unclear.)
So, in any event, if we do get down to the point where the judge has to determine a relocation fee, expect the Devils case to come up yet again. There are some issues there with the veto coming into play that could prove interesting as well, although the NHL's been rather adamant that its constitution no longer allows for one.
Just another side story in a case with so many. I'm sure there'll be much more to talk about later today as the judge may be finally forced into making a major ruling or two.
Here's the court schedule for today and tomorrow.
0 recs |
122 comments
| Add comment
|
Email
Print
Comments
As an aside … James, this isn’t the kind of news I was hoping to be following all summer long. But it’s there, and that’s that.
It’s been said numerous times, but there’s really no comparable digest of this sprawling story anywhere else, so thanks very much for your efforts.
by ChicoMaki on Sep 10, 2009 7:20 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
We’ll be back onto mostly hockey by October, I guarantee it.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on Sep 10, 2009 7:24 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
And we will all be thankful. At least this story kept me from overanalyzing my draft strategy for fantasy hockey.
As we’ve come to expect from you, excellent coverage, Mr. Mirtle, and thank you for keeping it up.
Occam's Razor keeps the cutting clean.
by russellguldin on Sep 10, 2009 9:01 PM CDT up reply actions 2 recs
That photo looks more like 4 guys starting a pizza joint than 4 guys starting a hockey team. And yet, as much as that logo makes me want some cheese breadsticks from Papa Gino’s, it’s totally awesome.
The relocation to NJ happened 3 years before I was born, so I know little of it. If the NHL resisted a move there for so long, what changed their minds? Were other locales considered? It seems strange today that anyone would put a 3rd team in any market, especially where now placing a 2nd team in a market is a major debate.
by Arenacale on Sep 10, 2009 8:04 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
As I recall...
The WHA had just ceased operations about three years before this, and they had tapped out a whole lot of markets, including Jersey in 1973, I believe. The NHL was still a few years away from the great push into the “non-traditional” hockey markets like Florida and Texas (that began with the ‘92 expansion) and the labor troubles didn’t really begin in earnest until the early 90’s, so I guess you could say the league was in a relative period of tranquility, and the idea of a third team in a major market made some sense.
by tbell61 on Sep 10, 2009 8:21 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually, IIRC the reason why the NHL resisted was that there wasn’t a “suitable” arena built yet in NJ for the team to play in. Once the arena was done they approved the move.
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on Sep 10, 2009 10:32 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
They were considering moving to Ottawa and playing in an upgraded Civic Center, ironically the Senators 1st arena.
'There are 3 sides to every story..Yours, Mine and the Truth'
by Love Em on Sep 10, 2009 3:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Even if the indemnification fee in the Rockies case was related to any Rangers veto existing at the time, the NHL docs these days clearly call for an “indemnification fee (or fees) to reflect the goodwill developed by a neighboring member (or members) in the new location.” Bylaws, § 36.7.
Glen Sather is a Hockey Genius.
http://glensathersucks.com/
http://twitter.com/ThGeneralissimo
by poploser on Sep 10, 2009 10:20 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
But wouldn’t the relative costs of the franchise and the relocation be the important thing in this debate? By those numbers above, the Rockies had to shell out over 5-1/2 times the cost of the franchise to move into a previously two-team market. Even if we’re only talking about moving into a 1-team market (removing Buffalo from the conversation), it doesn’t seem out of bounds for the relocation fee to be twice the cost of the actual franchise, especially considering the strength of the market we’re talking about. That makes the $400-500 million numbers thrown about have a little bit of context, IMO.
2008-2009 Colorado Avalanche: Dry Humping Mediocrity
by Mike @ MHH on Sep 10, 2009 10:21 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs
$19.1-million is five and a half times $8-million?
Franchise values have just risen astronomically in recent years. There has never been any tie between the relocation fee and the cost of a team (given the ’90s relocations all happened for low, low numbers).
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on Sep 10, 2009 10:29 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Relocation and indemnification fees are a bit different, don’t you think? It’s not like Phoneix or Colorado or Carolina or Dallas were moving to a territory with any neighbouring franchises.
Hockey blogging can't get any flatter.
by saskhab on Sep 10, 2009 10:35 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sure, but if we’re looking for a comparable, why not the Ducks, who paid $25-million to move into the L.A. market as indemnification? Not $500-million.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on Sep 10, 2009 10:37 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
How much has franchise value gone up from then (logically, territorial rights would have gone up with that fee)? And $25m is still more than what Balsillie’s lawyers were arguing. Plus, there are two parties at play here, not just one.
Hockey blogging can't get any flatter.
by saskhab on Sep 10, 2009 11:50 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, no the fee’s obviously going to be higher than what Balsillie’s expert said, but not even the NHL’s arguing something as absurd as doubling up the purchase price to pay out rights fees.
I wish there was more info on the Rockies relocation as the Balsillie camp seem to feel what happened there helps them.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on Sep 10, 2009 11:56 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
from what I remember, all the money that went to the Flyers was for TV market infringement ..the Isles received a pittance, and the Rangers got the biggest share.
'There are 3 sides to every story..Yours, Mine and the Truth'
by Love Em on Sep 10, 2009 3:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I mis-read. I was speaking to the $45 million #.
2008-2009 Colorado Avalanche: Dry Humping Mediocrity
by Mike @ MHH on Sep 10, 2009 1:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hah, turns out that moving to Hamilton wouldn’t work after all. If Doug MacLean’s involved, the franchise would be run to the ground no matter the revenues or the owner.
by Malurous on Sep 10, 2009 10:51 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Or perhaps they want to compete with the Leafs in as many ways as possible. :)
by yrmom on Sep 10, 2009 12:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, that’s not exactly a promising development.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on Sep 10, 2009 12:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Can the NHL use that in their “Balsille has poor judgement” argument?
The 2009-10 Colorado Avalanche: Aiming for the Charity Point
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Sep 10, 2009 12:12 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
It was actually “poor character.” Not sure that applies there, but you may be onto something.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on Sep 10, 2009 12:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Firstly, as Chicomaki said above, I want to echo that sentiment and give a huge thank you to James for providing such an extensive look at the many issues that surround this case, plus posting up specific documents and/or links to other great related articles (that Shoalts article, was a great one, as an example). This has certainly been my first stop for anything Coyotes related. I have always visited this site for hockey related articles, but never more so then the past few months.
Now more so on topic, does anyone know exactly how those relocation and indemnification fees for the NJ move were determined? I assume that it is the same method currently used by both the NHL and JB. No? And how do you have two sides so far apart on a relocation fee then? I have to imagine that the court would rule that the exact same process or calculation structure that determined the past relocation and indemnification fees would be used again here. Or is it simply not that easy of a structure/process?
Regardless, I don’t think it is going to matter anyhow. Because the more I read and think about it, I can’t see how Baum could end up ruling for relocation against the NHL constitution. That seems like an awfully big precedent considering it clearly states that no franchise will be granted for a home territory within another teams territory without that teams written consent which is certainly not going to happen. The fact that Bettman and Daly disagree with that being the case and that they just need to have a majority vote from the board is beside me. Unless it can be proved that such a move was done so like that in the past, I can’t see the Judge ruling in favor of allowing relocation.
What I do see happening is the judge ruling in favor of awarding the Coyotes to JB (being the highest bidder and best immediate result for the creditors) with a stipulation that he must adhere to the NHL’s constitution as far as relocation. Because I can still see the judge overruling the BoG’s vote against JB due to the fact that he was voted an acceptable owner in recent past
Which of course means that Balsillie will renege his offer and leave the NHL as the sole bidder remaining and receiving the team by default? That way he attempted to sell top the highest bidder, while also not overruling the constitution on relocation.
by NBOilerFan on Sep 10, 2009 11:16 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
“renege” is the wrong word choice here. Balsillie’s bid is conditional on being able to relocate. Just sayin’.
by yrmom on Sep 10, 2009 12:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That seems like an awfully big precedent considering it clearly states that no franchise will be granted for a home territory within another teams territory without that teams written consent which is certainly not going to happen.
Except that this is the veto the league is now saying doesn’t exist. Likely due to antitrust reasons.
You’re in the right territory here though … the judge is going to have to overrule the league’s right to choose its owners, and that may be a bit of a leap.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on Sep 10, 2009 12:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have to imagine that the court would rule that the exact same process or calculation
The move to New Jersey occurred before the resolution of the Raiders’ cases, so it would not have used the same methodology.
by J. Michael Neal on Sep 10, 2009 5:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Initially, I hated this whole thing, but I find it deeply fascinating now, and thanks to James’ following this whole (mess)thing, and actual intelligent discussion in the comments, this is like either a very interesting college course, or some of the best legal entertainment not on television. Kudos to James and everybody! BTW, real-time updates on TSN.ca.
by Rage6878 on Sep 10, 2009 11:28 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
My Twitter is filled with reporters in the court room. Check it out if you want to really follow every twist today:
http://twitter.com/JeffMarek
http://twitter.com/cbctom
http://twitter.com/reporterchris
http://twitter.com/brahmresnik
http://twitter.com/kmcgran
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on Sep 10, 2009 11:31 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Following Brahm especially. Both he and TSN’s liveblog made it sound like Baum really came down on the NHL’s bid this morning – at one point questioning the NHL’s understanding of how bankruptcy works. He also wasn’t happy that the NHL’s bid excludes Moyes. We may be nearing an answer to whether Moyes is a creditor or not.
Today’s court battle has been far more interesting than last Thursday was.
by Resolute on Sep 10, 2009 12:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
We’re getting very close to some of the interesting decisions being made, that’s for sure.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on Sep 10, 2009 12:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was just thinking that if the NHL wins with their bid as it stands, they pretty much just stole a professional team from an owner. I’m sure I’m oversimplifying, but if I’m right, Moyes doesn’t get a dime from the NHL, just removal of the creditors. Anybody feel free to chime in.
by Rage6878 on Sep 10, 2009 2:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
My read on it as well. Baum does not sound like he agrees. Though I suppose it could be argued that the benefit for Moyes is that he is no longer eating the losses.
And I am really starting to like this judge. Baum just finished arguing with the city over their impression of the damages they can expect if the lease is broken. Sounds like neither the NHL nor the City has gotten far in convincing him of the validity of their positions. I’m betting Balsillie is smiling a little inside right now – at least until his people step up to the stand and Baum torches them like he has everyone else today.
by Resolute on Sep 10, 2009 2:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If the NHL had pushed the team into bankruptcy court and submitted this bid, you might have a point. But Moyes initiated the legal proceedings, so he’s got to bear most of the responsibility here.
But here’s the thing: if Moyes actually lost $30 million out of his pocket every year, even having the team “stolen” presents him with an annual return he didn’t previously have. Obviously Moyes wanted more; but he’s tied himself to a guy who needs a groundbreaking precedent in order to win.
by BleedBlue42 on Sep 10, 2009 2:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is it really theft if, as the NHL states, they’ve been paying Moyes’ bills and effectively running the team for nearly a year? Could it not also be seen that Balsillie and Moyes are guilty of trying to steal a franchise away from the league?
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on Sep 10, 2009 2:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
So do Bettman and Rodier. There are no heroes in this case.
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on Sep 10, 2009 2:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Perhaps not, though I’m not claiming anything of the sort.
I appreciate from your posting history that you are concerned about the possibility of losing the Coyotes, whether to Balsillie or anyone else. But surely you must realize that the NHL is tying itself in myriad knots to keep the team out of Balsillie’s hands. It’s become rather pathetic how much the NHL has been lying about the circumstances involving the Coyotes since, well, before Balsillie even entered the picture.
by Robert J on Sep 10, 2009 2:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
And I’ll take your Bettman and Rodier comment as a Freudian slip!
by Robert J on Sep 10, 2009 2:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually, I meant to type Bettman, Daly, Balsillie, and Rodier… :P
Yeah, the league’s pathetic in the way it’s doing business, but if I’m measuring them up against PSE I’d still say that Balls and Rodier are the bigger douches… and not just because they’re trying to steal my team.
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on Sep 10, 2009 3:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Really?
…care to elaborate? Because it would be hard not to be biased in your position.
I don’t know much about business, but I know enough to know that its not all about gentlemen and honor.
by NBOilerFan on Sep 10, 2009 4:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because the NHL is pathetic because they are inept. Balsillie and Rodier are crooks. It’s that simple. Given equal amounts of lying, grandstanding, posturing, and colluding, Balls and A. Dick get the nod by a slight margin.
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on Sep 10, 2009 5:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t understand how they are “crooks.” It has been public knowledge for quite some time (at least through this past NHL season) that the Coyotes were hemorrhaging money and the NHL was keeping the team afloat. Moyes’ filing for bankruptcy had more to do with the NHL trying to take away the team from him than anything else. Balsillie has been looking to buy a team for what, 5-8 years? Yes, I would agree trying to buy the team through the courts isn’t peachy. However, that doesn’t make him a crook.
by birky on Sep 11, 2009 7:48 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, but
His former patent issues and the attempts to destabilize the Nashville market prior to his attempts to buy the team sure do make him a crook.
2009-2010 Colorado Avalanche: Nothing Inspirational Comes to Mind
by Mike @ MHH on Sep 11, 2009 9:06 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
No they don’t.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on Sep 11, 2009 1:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
But they do make him Captain Douchebag, which is really Zyllyx’s point.
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there)
by Doogie2K on Sep 11, 2009 3:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
We’re talking about courtrooms full of Captain Douchebags here, aren’t we?
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on Sep 11, 2009 3:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I suppose so. I guess that would make Balls or Rodier the Admiral of the Douche Fleet?
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there)
by Doogie2K on Sep 11, 2009 3:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think there might be some competition for that title.
by yrmom on Sep 11, 2009 7:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
“the NHL trying to take away the team from him”??
Moyes was desperate to unload the team and the NHL was paying his bills for him. The NHL even had a purchase offer from Reinsdorf before Moyes jumped at Balsillie’s open wallet.
Painting Moyes as a victim of franchise theft is one of the most ludicrous things I’ve read in this whole sorry mess, and that’s saying a hell of a lot.
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on Sep 11, 2009 10:44 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
First of all, I’m not painting Moyes as the victim of anything. I didn’t say the NHL was trying to steal the team. My point was that the NHL either already had (or was sure to at some future point) claim they (not Moyes) had control over the team (which they did do, correct?) So he filed for bankruptcy to protect himself. Not illegal.
by birky on Sep 11, 2009 11:04 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The NHL claimed there were lots and lots of people interested in buying a hockey franchise in Phoenix, and they’d been saying that publicly for quite some time. Moyes jumped at the cold, hard cash Balsillie was offering rather than the magic beans the NHL had been claiming were just around the corner for over a year.
If I’d been in Moyes’ shoes, listening to the lines coming out of League office for that length of time, I’d have gone for the actual money too. Tell me you wouldn’t have done the same.
by dzuunmod on Sep 12, 2009 11:44 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The NHL claimed there were lots and lots of people interested in buying a hockey franchise in Phoenix
I would be interested in knowing when they said that.
by Gerald on Sep 12, 2009 8:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right as usual! He only said the ’Yotes were “literally 20 minutes away from being fixed” [http://coyotes.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=428731]
And that the NHL, back in May, was “actively engaging with potential investors”. [http://www.thehockeynews.com/articles/24770-Bettman-Coyotes-may-get-new-owner-but-team-staying-put.html]
But you’re right – those investors were probably only interest in giving the Yotes cash, without any getting any equity interest in return. Like a gift, really!
Glen Sather is a Hockey Genius.
http://glensathersucks.com/
http://twitter.com/ThGeneralissimo
by poploser on Sep 13, 2009 6:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Do you think Gary Bettman could fix Victor Zambrano in ten minutes?
by J. Michael Neal on Sep 13, 2009 8:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
And that was Reinsdorf, and he had a deal set with the City, and none of this would have happened if Moyes had not committed the acts that he did.
Your point (particularly to the extent that it purported to responded to my post)?
by Gerald on Sep 13, 2009 10:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
that you asked when the NHL said something misleading, and I told you.
Glen Sather is a Hockey Genius.
http://glensathersucks.com/
http://twitter.com/ThGeneralissimo
by poploser on Sep 14, 2009 10:03 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, since I pointed out to you that they were no being misleading but rather were stating definitive facts, I assume that you will try again.
by Gerald on Sep 14, 2009 1:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m curious. What actual evidence do we have that Reinsdorf had a deal set with the city?
by J. Michael Neal on Sep 15, 2009 1:56 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
And another thing, many are painting Moyes and JB as the reasons for the current situation. How about we start putting some blame right back on the city of Glendale for this situation.
Its been documented that Moyes was trying to work with them and have them help him out in making it work in Phoenix. But apparently they would have none of it… and stood firm on the lease agrement . Had they been a bit more realistic, perhaps somethimg could have been worked out between them that would help solidify the long term viability of the franchaise in the
desert.
Sure there were two signatures on that lease, but it wasn’t Moyes who agree to that original deal. He got pulled in after the fact. Rgardless, it would have been better for Glendale to try to work with Moyes and find a way to make it work for both sides, instead of adding to the situation we are in and ultimately potentially losing out completely. Now they will be either lose out completely, or be forced to significantly alter the lease in order for teh NHL to find them any kind of deal to keep them in Phoenix.
by NBOilerFan on Sep 10, 2009 4:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, they ‘stole’ a team in exchange for taking on his creditors.
Moyes started this process as a way to get $100M that he likely shouldn’t be entitled to anyway.
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
by PPP on Sep 10, 2009 3:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I doubt that’s how this works out.
My understanding is that owners of pro sports teams often make loans to their franchises that aren’t considered equity. As long as he has the proper paperwork stating it was a loan to the team’s holding company, Moyes will likely be an unsecured creditor here and receive something.
It may not be much if the NHL’s proposal wins out.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on Sep 10, 2009 3:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
And it is shrinking under Balsillie’s bid. $20 million of the money he’s earmarked for Glendale basically came from the $100 million he was sending to the unsecured creditors (i.e.: Moyes).
by Resolute on Sep 10, 2009 3:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, absolutely. But Moyes will take that hit if it means Balsillie had a chance at winning.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on Sep 10, 2009 3:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
if he had this paperwork, wouldnt it have already been submitted in a court filing? Im wondering if this more of the “well we didn’t paper it, but our accountants entered it on the books as a loan” type of an argument.
Glen Sather is a Hockey Genius.
http://glensathersucks.com/
http://twitter.com/ThGeneralissimo
by poploser on Sep 10, 2009 4:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It isn’t just sports teams. Owners of all sorts of businesses make loans to their companies that aren’t equities. There are sections of both the tax code and the FASB pronouncements dealing with the liquidation of partnerships, and dealing with situations where partners have both equity and debt instruments are a significant element of them.
Further, if there is no paperwork, it isn’t necessarily the case that it should be treated as equity. It means that there’s a mess, and a judge is probably going to have to sort it out.
by J. Michael Neal on Sep 10, 2009 5:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Moyes documented it. It has been filed with the court, in excruciating detail.. Quite some time ago, in fact.
by Gerald on Sep 10, 2009 6:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
More to the point, though, it is really not that much a question of being a creditor or not. It is more a question of whether, in the circumstances, his claim should be subordinated to that of the other unsecured creditors (a procedure which is permissible for the court under the Bankruptcy Act).
by Gerald on Sep 10, 2009 6:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Granted, but we’re bogging down here because of semantics. “Stolen” doesn’t really work in this case. What I’m trying to say is that at SOME point Jerry Moyes opened his checkbook and dumped a great deal of his personal money for ownership of this franchise. I understand he started this whole mess, but how much of what he originally paid will he recoup, if any of it, or should he get anything at all for his trouble? The NHL is offering him zero dollars, and Balsillie is offering millions to any/everybody that will get him a team to flog MLSE with. (Okay, that last part was opinionated hyperbole, but you have to admit, there are OTHER viable Canadian markets he could move a team to)
by Rage6878 on Sep 10, 2009 3:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
(Okay, that last part was opinionated hyperbole, but you have to admit, there are OTHER viable Canadian markets he could move a team to)
Hell, Bettman as much as promised IN THE MEDIA that the team would be greenlit to Winnipeg when this whole thing started.
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on Sep 10, 2009 3:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
zyllyx, that is most certainly NOT the case. Bettman did no such thing.
by Gerald on Sep 10, 2009 6:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I said he “as much as promised,” meaning that he didn’t ACTUALLY promise but he certainly intimated when the name Hamilton surfaced that the team could end up in Winnipeg.
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on Sep 10, 2009 7:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It was not through the media. That is what i was referring to.
It was in private correspondence before the bankruptcy.
by Gerald on Sep 10, 2009 11:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
He said in a private email that he’d rather see the team go back to Winnipeg than Hamilton. Not the same thing.
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there)
by Doogie2K on Sep 11, 2009 3:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bettman was being clever
He was trying to diffuse the Make It Seven campaign. He wasn’t sincere about the Coyotes going backt to Winnipeg. He thought he’d pull one over on Canadians who he has nothing but contempt for.
Didn’t seem to work though.
by Exit716 on Sep 11, 2009 9:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, that is just flat out wrong. As I and Doogie noted above, it was a PRIVATE email communicated prior to the bankruptcy setting out a private discussion between Bettman and Scudder. It was publicized by the Debtor’s legal team putting it in their filing, and was not publicized by the NHL at all.
Exactly how many times does this need to be said?
by Gerald on Sep 12, 2009 12:52 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree with that. I believe So. Ontario is the only Viable Canadian market left.
The 2009-10 Colorado Avalanche: Aiming for the Charity Point
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Sep 10, 2009 5:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
So do I. Winnipeg may be able to survive with a new arena and with significant revenue sharing every year.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on Sep 10, 2009 6:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
This may be totally off the subject, but my knowledge of Canadian population centers, etc is way off, where would a team succeed in Canada besides Hamilton? Surely there are more cities than that who would love a team.
by Rage6878 on Sep 10, 2009 6:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
None that are large enough.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on Sep 10, 2009 6:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Okay then, but as an aside, I have seen an awful lot of Bettman/NHL hatred(mostly Bettman) for “actively trying to keep hockey out of Canadian markets” so I just assumed that there were lots of cities in Canada that could support NHL teams. Granted, the comments were(are) at TSN.ca and at The Hockey News website. I’m not trying to be disingenuous, but the severe amount of Bettman vitriol/Balsillie love is almost scary, so I guess I just assumed incorrectly. Seriously, browse some of the comments. Scary.
by Rage6878 on Sep 10, 2009 7:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
There are a lot of unrealistic yahoos in every country and every sport. A lot of Canadians really don’t like the fact that the league has chosen markets like Nashville and Raleigh over Winnipeg, etc., as the NHL pursues a national U.S. television contract.
Realistically, from a business standpoint, salaries have risen to the point that you absolutely need a large corporate base and an arena with luxury suites etc. to survive. Teams on the low end of the NHL’s revenue generating structure lose money every year, and I don’t know of anyone willing to own a team in small market Winnipeg and Quebec and sustain those losses.
That said, those market are probably not any worse than the lowest earning teams currently in the league. There are places the NHL is where it shouldn’t be, as there aren’t 30 markets that can support a payroll the size needed today.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on Sep 10, 2009 7:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I completely agree, but I can also see what the NHL was/is attempting to do by moving further south. (I also understood the reasoning behind the glow puck, too)I think the league has the potential to be at least as big as the NBA. That’s just my opinion, of course. I don’t have a problem with more Canadian teams at all, and I’m from North Carolina, so I know all about “unrealistic yahoos”.
by Rage6878 on Sep 10, 2009 7:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hamilton, however, is a slam dunk. It’d be one of the more profitable teams in the league if they can upgrade the rink there significantly. It’s a no-brainer to put a team there.
So I guess I’m onside with the nutbars on that one.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on Sep 10, 2009 7:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have no problem with it, either, I only have a problem with Jim Ballsillie’s methods. Every time I see photos of him with a Penguins logo on his Blackberry, my skin crawls. As I said before, just because he’s horrendously rich, he can’t do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, to whomever he wants. A man as intelligent as he is knows that there are better ways to achieve goals than crashing about like a bull in a china shop.
by Rage6878 on Sep 10, 2009 7:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Especially the way he plans to move a team now? What kind of silliness is THAT?
by Rage6878 on Sep 10, 2009 7:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not sure there’s any way to achieve the goal he’s after. Consider the history.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on Sep 10, 2009 8:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly. Theoretically speaking; if the judge does accept his bid, and he does win, what are the options for the NHL? Can they just ignore his franchise? Not put them on the schedule? This could get uglier still, I think…and I don’t think it’s helping the cause of hockey in general. I’m just saying.
by Rage6878 on Sep 10, 2009 8:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I should clarify as well, I think a second team could be viable in Montreal, possibly. (not sure if there’s enough people there who aren’t die hard Habs fans to switch over).
The 2009-10 Colorado Avalanche: Aiming for the Charity Point
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Sep 10, 2009 7:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
There hasn’t been a second team there since the late ‘30s. Maybe you could create a team marketed at the xenophobic separatist jackholes who hated Saku Koivu for not speaking French and other dumb shit like that, but I doubt it’d be sustainable, long-term. The Habs were “the French team” at one point, after all.
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there)
by Doogie2K on Sep 11, 2009 3:47 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
I think that the word “viable” needs a clear definition before any market can be judged. Is a viable market one that can still break even after multiple years of bad teams missing the playoffs? Is a viable market one that has historically shown support for a team, even though the current conditions mean that it’s taking a loss at present? Or is viability best defined by some half-mathematical, half-strategic formula that accounts for the host city’s possible future role in the growth of the league?
So long as the league as a whole is making money, they can define “viable” to mean anything they want. It might take a permanent league subsidy to re-establish a team in Winnipeg or Quebec; but if the league wanted to provide that subsidy, it could be done.
by BleedBlue42 on Sep 10, 2009 6:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think markets that aren’t considered viable now (such as, say, Atlanta) could be viable, but they are long term projects that require significant investment. The corporate base and population is there but they need to win and establish themselves (like Dallas did). If they did that then I think they could be there permanently.
I don’t think that potential exists in Winnipeg without some serious demographic shifts.
The 2009-10 Colorado Avalanche: Aiming for the Charity Point
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Sep 10, 2009 7:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t think that potential exists in Winnipeg without some serious demographic shifts.
I think the league might disagree – their relocation witness just mentioned in court that Winnipeg is on their shortlist for expansion discussions along with Seattle, Vegas and KC.
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on Sep 10, 2009 7:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t think it would work. I don’t think the corporate base is high enough.
And I don’t think the population is big enough if they suck 10 years down the line.
The 2009-10 Colorado Avalanche: Aiming for the Charity Point
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Sep 10, 2009 7:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I can’t see a team in either Vegas or KC doing any better than a Canadian team.(Again, my uninformed opinion) I would think Canadians would go see an NHL game whether their team sucked or not. I certainly would, and have. Heck I drive 5 hours one way to go to games in Raleigh. People in KC and Vegas? Not so much.
by Rage6878 on Sep 10, 2009 7:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I thought the whole point was that Canadians would go see their team even if they DID suck… and you’d think that a market that had already lost a team would be doubly intent on supporting one in the future.
I mean, come on – everyone tells me that the entire city turned out to save the team, kids broke their piggy banks, lions laid down with lambs, etc. when the Jets were in trouble… those have all been cited as reasons why Winnipeg would be preferable to Phoenix as a home for the franchise. Now you’re telling me that fans might not be willing to support an underperforming team… EVEN IN CANADA????
(sorry, my sarcasm gland is working overtime today)
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on Sep 11, 2009 10:49 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think recent times have shown that an NHL team needs 3 things to be successful:
1. A large metro area with a solid corporate base.
2. A modern facility with luxury boxes and access to mass transportation.
3. A successful product on the ice.
There are only so many “hockey hotbeds” that can do well without one of those three. Phoenix and Winnipeg can’t. Hamilton…maybe.
It would be nice to see that franchise with some financial stability for a change.
by birky on Sep 11, 2009 11:14 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is just my opinion, and it’s based on nothing more than my gut feelings, emotions, and a dangerously low level of knowledge, but personally, I’d rather see the team dissolved with a dispersal draft than to see Jim Balsillie as an owner. That’s just me. I’m not against the team moving to Canada if necessary, but I’m not FOR it until every last effort has been made to save it where it is. I would have said the exact same thing about Winnipeg before the move to Phoenix as well. Balsillie is dead set on putting a team, ANY team in Canada. He’s like a vulture circling hurting NHL franchises, looking to swoop in with his money hat. If he loves the game so much, why doesn’t he put as much effort into saving a failing franchise where it is? Personally, I think he has a woody to go toe-to-toe with MLSE. I could be wrong, but…and I never thought I would be able to say this about anybody else…I dislike him more than I dislike Gary Bettman. Ugh
by Rage6878 on Sep 11, 2009 11:27 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's not just you.
I’d rather see the team folded and the roster dispersed than see Balsillie win the team.
His deification in Canada is solely due to three things, IMO:
1) His target market just happens to be in Canada.
2) He’s going up against Gary Bettman.
3) He’s not doing this to THEIR teams.
All other context seems to be dismissable thanks to these three points.
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on Sep 11, 2009 11:47 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
whether he is loved or hated, i don’t really care. I want to see the NHL making smart business decisions, that will allow the growth of the product on the ice. If having a team that is profitable in Canada is better able to to that than having a team that is not-profitable in Phoenix, then so be it. If folding the team is the best move, then so be that. I do admit to having concerns that the current NHL leadership (and powerful owners) are getting stale, and are making too many decisions to patch holes in the short-term than focus on stability and growth in the long-term. But I’m also under know mistaken belief that Balsillie would be any “better” an owner than any current owner.
Glen Sather is a Hockey Genius.
http://glensathersucks.com/
http://twitter.com/ThGeneralissimo
by poploser on Sep 11, 2009 3:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Interesting that your two options are moving the Coyotes or folding them. I submit that a SUCCESFUL Coyotes team will grow the product – and the game – more than either of those two options. Moving the Coyotes to Hamilton does not grow the game very much – as hockey-mad as Hamilton fans obviously are, you are introducing far, far fewer to the game of hockey than you are in so-called “unsuitable” markets like Phoenix. Folding the team – well, there’s no way for that to indicate league health at all. There’s no spin that makes that action make the league look profitable OR healthy.
As far as smart business decisions go, I’ve heard so many people say that Balsillie would bring “sanity” and good business practices to the BoG. But the evidence I’ve seen from Balsillie with regards to NHL franchises is that his business smarts, whatever they may be, are rather easily overpowered by his impatience, greed, and sense of entitlement. How that makes him any better than any current owner (aside from Moyes, maybe) is beyond me.
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on Sep 11, 2009 5:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
“SUCCESSFUL.” Stupid edit window extended into the Twilight Zone.
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on Sep 11, 2009 5:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
his iImpatience, greed, and sense of entitlement.
I spell it “passion” ;)
by yrmom on Sep 11, 2009 7:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
As a Canadian..swap the name Ballsille for Bettman
I’d rather see the team folded and the roster dispersed than see Ellman win the team.
His deification in Arizona is solely due to three things, IMO:
circa 1995
1) His target market just happens to be in the US
2) He’s going up against Bob Goodenow
3) He’s not doing this to THEIR teams.
All other context seems to be dismissable thanks to these three points
'There are 3 sides to every story..Yours, Mine and the Truth'
by Love Em on Sep 11, 2009 6:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That would work IF...
…we had known the team was even coming here.
Your knowledge of the franchise’s history seems a little flawed considering that Steve Ellman wasn’t the owner of the Coyotes until just before they moved to Glendale.
I do thank you, though, for digging up the hoary old “They did it to us first, so screw you guys” sentiment. Can’t say I’d react the same way but I guess it’s different strokes for different folks.
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on Sep 11, 2009 7:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s great for them to say that, but until a potential owner steps forward and says s/he wants a team in Winnipeg, it’s absolutely meaningless. Unless the NHL wants to operate a franchise there, as well.
by dzuunmod on Sep 12, 2009 11:48 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Really, potentially viable markets get screwed all the time. Atlanta could be doomed as it’s on its second NHL franchise already and isn’t really getting a fair chance to be successful due to inept management. We’ll see if Columbus started progressing early enough – they had a really nice fanbase in the beginning but the lack of strategy they showed for years alienated some fans. Tampa was extremely successful both on and off the ice for a while but the current gong show has them in a difficult situation.
I believe these examples – as well as the successful second beginnings in Minnesota and Colorado – support what you say. Also note that the Stars really put work towards building Dallas as a hockey city at the grassroots level (youth hockey programs etc.). I doubt that all the new southern teams have made such an extensive effort.
by Malurous on Sep 10, 2009 8:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think that Dallas has set the standard as far as How To Grow Hockey Fans In Non-Traditional Markets. Of course, they and Colorado had the advantage of moving into a new territory with Cup-caliber teams; Carolina and Tampa caught that advantage several years later. Markets like Atlanta and Phoenix haven’t had the chance to get into the playoffs, much less build excitement and anticipation for a span of years.
Would Dallas have been as successful at putting down roots if their fans had had to wait eight years for their first playoff appearance, like Columbus? What would hockey look like in Denver if the Avalanche hadn’t spent so many years accumulating talent at the bottom of the league in Quebec? Fans need a reason to commit their hearts and wallets to a team; and when your team has yet to win a playoff series (Nashville, Phoenix) or even a single playoff game (Atlanta, Columbus), you’re going to be hesitant about spending your money on them.
by BleedBlue42 on Sep 10, 2009 8:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe it’s not a fair reason, but lack of on-ice success is certainly a reason teams don’t succeed. Picking an excellent management team is such an important part of establishing a new market.
I don’t think the Predators would have survived without Poile and Trotz, for instance.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on Sep 10, 2009 8:58 PM CDT up reply actions 2 recs
This
This is the biggest determinate of successful and unsuccessful franchises, way more than the fans in the market
The 2009-10 Colorado Avalanche: Aiming for the Charity Point
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Sep 10, 2009 9:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
very true
And unfortunately, this goes right back to an earlier discussion on owner dilution. If there aren’t 30 NHL-calibre owners, with the sense to actually recognize, hire, and allow to work an excellent management team, then a certain proportion of the existing markets are doomed to be lousy – and by probability, a lot of them are going to be in so-called weaker markets and perpetuate the cycle of “lousy team —> lower attendance —> lower revenue/payroll —> even lousier team.” If a market is seen as established and profitable, it is less likely to be for sale in the first place, and an ownership group or individual that is stable is likely to have made more good decisions than poor over the course of the ownership term.
As James said, there aren’t 30 billionaires dying to own a hockey team. You get a lot of interest from people who don’t have actual money so much as the trappings and appearance of wealth (which con artists have established many times is pretty easy to fake, as there are certain expectations about what a “rich person” should be like and someone who acts that way is seen as rich even if they don’t actually have the money to back up the reputation).
"For myself I am an optimist - it does not seem to be much use being anything else." -- Winston S. Churchill
by Baroque on Sep 10, 2009 10:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Owner dilution...
…happens in all leagues. Whether it’s Peter Angelos in MLB, Donald Sterling in the NBA, or Bill Bidwill in the NFL, all pro sports leagues have examples of owners who care more about Being An Owner than they do about winning.
I don’t think that the NHL’s owners are any dumber or lazier than their counterparts in other sports. But the other leagues have financial cushions that the NHL doesn’t; and that’s one of the biggest reasons why the league decided to push into the southern and western US.
But when the league decided to add teams, they didn’t change the normal definition of “success”. Obviously, only one team per season can experience the ultimate success; but 15 other teams can also brand their seasons as somewhat successful, just by making the playoffs. That leaves 14 teams to come up with unique and clever methods of turd-polishing for next year’s ad campaign.
In the 80s, 16 of 21 teams made the playoffs. There were some really lousy teams in really crappy divisions that made the playoffs; but since the only “failures” were the 5 worst teams in the league, some of those really lousy teams managed to brand their seasons as successful — which kept fan bases eager and happy during what would otherwise have been long and dismal dry spells. (I’m writing this as a Blues fan; that 25-year run of playoff appearances includes several seasons where the team lost many more games than they won, and whose only real virtue was managing to finish ahead of the Leafs or Wings that year.)
Columbus just ended an 8-year playoff drought; Florida’s dry spell is now at the same length. It would have been nearly impossible to miss the playoffs for 8 years when the league had 21 teams. Using random numbers, the odds of missing a 16/21 chance eight straight times is astronomical. (0.238 ^ 8, or .0000103 — less than one-thousandth of one percent.) The actual numbers would be different, since pro sports teams aren’t held to random chance; but it would still have taken a streak of mind-numbing stupidity to avoid backing into the playoffs at least once by accident.
What has happened since the 80s is that as the league grew, the penalties for lackadaisical or half-hearted ownership grew as well. Going back to the random-chance exercise, missing a 16/30 chance in eight consecutive tries is still very unlikely (.433 ^ 8, or .0022), but it’s roughly 220 times more likely to happen than missing a 16/21 chance 8 times. 30 years ago, an owner could trade a player just to create a story on a slow news day, and probably wouldn’t do much to hurt his team’s playoff chances. Today, half-assed moves are a quick ticket to the draft lottery and half-empty mausoleums.
As the difficulty of making the playoffs has gone up, owners have either adapted by getting smarter, or have sold off their teams and let someone else do the worrying. Owner dilution is a greater problem in today’s NHL than 25 years ago — but only because there are more owners.
The cure is either to reduce the number of owners, or to redefine “success” in a way that allows diluted ownership to attract and retain a dedicated fan base.
by BleedBlue42 on Sep 11, 2009 1:45 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The cure is either to reduce the number of owners, or to redefine "success" in a way that allows diluted ownership to attract and retain a dedicated fan base.
I really don’t see fans as being so simple-minded that they would fall for their team winning the equivalent of participant ribbons, though. Baseball has fewer teams make the playoffs than hockey, and seems to have fewer dud owners. I think here is the NHL is getting bitten by their recent expansion – as the other leagues have moved teams but haven’t added a few of them, if someone with a little bit of a fortune wanted to own a sports team as essentially a rich man’s toy and a sop to his vanity, the easiest place to get in was the NHL because the other leagues weren’t expanding and were more expensive to get into because of the established profitability of the teams. (Not to say that all NHL owners want teams as playthings, but someone like that would have an easier time to getting an entry into the NHL than other sports.)
I understand the idea of adding playoff teams as a method of grade inflation, but the season is so long as it is – adding another round of the playoffs would be another two weeks, and could the league possibly cut out about 8 games from their regular season schedule to compensate for that? The frequent back-to-backs and three-games-in-four-nights already lead to tired, crappy hockey as it is. I think making the playoffs should be hard enough that the best teams should have a better chance of getting there, and it should mean something significant instead of being a joke. Teams with losing records should not make the playoffs (or at least it should be exceptional, not a regular occurence). Maybe increase number of divisions so more teams can raise a “Division Champions” banner the next opener?
I think another option might be increasing the number of points for a win to three from two so the playoff races are exciting. If it is easier for a team to gain ground, then the fans would be less likely to count their team out at the end of the year because the math would actually be more favorable since a losing streak by the leaders and a winning streak by their own team could actually shift the standings. There won’t be the same frustration seeing the teams ahead all gain points and having a six-game winning streak not do anything in terms of getting closer to the playoffs.
Maybe also rework the playoffs back to a divisional format. During the season it’s boring to see the same teams over and over and over, but in the playoffs familiarity is more enjoyable because facing the same teams building rivalries and buzz with the fans.
But otherwise, I agree that the league needs smarter owners. Unfortunately in life “being smart” and “having lots of money” are often not connected (otherwise I suspect many of the commenters around here wouldn’t have to work the hours they do!).
"For myself I am an optimist - it does not seem to be much use being anything else." -- Winston S. Churchill
by Baroque on Sep 11, 2009 6:02 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Baseball is a different animal, with its enormous revenue disparities and lack of a salary cap. David Glass could be the smartest owner in the league, but his Royals cannot compete on an equal footing with the Red Sox and Yankees.
Back to hockey: I fully agree with realignment back to four divisions and a couple rounds of intradivisional playoffs. At that point, I don’t think that “grade inflation” would be such a big deal; the good teams are still going to come out of division play to the conference semis/finals. The mediocre teams get a chance to beat a rival and build up some of the bloodlust that’s disappeared under the current playoff format.
Expanding playoffs would almost certainly require a reduction in the length of the regular season; how much of a cut would be up to the league and PA to negotiate.
by BleedBlue42 on Sep 11, 2009 11:07 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe also rework the playoffs back to a divisional format. During the season it’s boring to see the same teams over and over and over, but in the playoffs familiarity is more enjoyable because facing the same teams building rivalries and buzz with the fans.
And it’d add some jump to those “boring” regular-season contests between the same teams. Nothing like a bit of playoff hate carried over to add a bit of life to a January game.
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there)
by Doogie2K on Sep 11, 2009 3:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Among the litany of mistakes that Bettman has made you can list the thought that making teams play each other 6 or 8 times during the regular season with almost no hope of meeting during the playoffs would create rivalries.
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
by PPP on Sep 14, 2009 9:28 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Colorado Rockies
League kept the Rockies in Denver and out of NJ because of Sonny Werblin’s plan to take MSG properties to the swamp and redevelop the Manhattan site with expanded retail/office space. Only once that plan died and the Rangers/Knicks remained in NYC did the league allow the Rockies to be stolen and replanted in the swamp. The Rockies were hardly a gong show, especially if you care to remember or study the way the Cleveland Barons were going about business at about the same time the Rox moved from KC to Denver. The Scouts/Rockies, i suspect, were parked in Denver to take advantage of the failed WHA Denver Spurs and to wait until the Werblin plan either played out or tanked. Fans in Denver never had a feeling of confidence about the team owners or the league’s comittment to Denver.
Doubters of the Denver area gave the same lame song that they are singing about Phoenix now. No interest, weak fan base, etc. Yawn. You kids keep believing that one. It was the odious stench of weak or bad ownership that kept fans away in Denver back then. On the positive side: as a high school student back then, I was able to get great seats 10 rows from the glass at good, low prices. Have the Rockies stubs to prove it.
by denverspurs on Sep 10, 2009 1:52 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
Doubters of the Denver area gave the same lame song that they are singing about Phoenix now. No interest, weak fan base, etc. Yawn. You kids keep believing that one. It was the odious stench of weak or bad ownership that kept fans away in Denver back then. On the positive side: as a high school student back then, I was able to get great seats 10 rows from the glass at good, low prices. Have the Rockies stubs to prove it.
I really don’t think that this point can be emphasized enough. One only has to look at the drastic decrease in the Diamondbacks’ fortunes of late thanks to the fans’ backlash against the post-Colangelo regime. Obviously, it’s difficult to generalize here about it but the bottom line is that fans of the D’Backs are very very skeptical of the current owners and they are showing that skepticism at the gate (the mounting losses and probable dead-last finish in the NL West don’t help either).
The Phoenix Suns are going to be facing the same problems for the foreseeable future as well thanks to the team basically blowing up one of the most exciting Suns teams the city had seen since the Barkley era. Fortunately for the Suns, they’ve been around long enough to be able to fall back on generational loyalty. The Diamondbacks only have the 2001 World Series win to buttress them, and since there is new ownership and nobody left from that ‘01 squad (not even players who were prospects back then), the D’Backs are going to go through some of the same pains as the Blackhawks did during the dark years of the past decade or two.
All of this has made Phoenix somewhat cynical in terms of team ownership. Every time we have a sniff of success it’s hard for us to believe it’s going to go anywhere because, inevitably, SOMEONE is going to screw it up. We saw that the past two seasons with the Coyotes – particularly last season, when we were 5th in the Western Conference at the All-Star Break. Our attendance was starting to go back up and the fans were really getting into it. It was looking as though we might be on the cusp of turning the corner. And then the Mutts came back from the break and basically did a repeat of the prior season’s losing streak. It was an EPIC collapse, and by the time we got Upshall, Lombardi, and Prucha getting hot after the trade deadline the damage had been done – we were in the Tavares/Hedman sweepstakes and the building was getting empty again.
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on Sep 10, 2009 2:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Another obvious NHL example is Tampa Bay. They’ve gone from second in the league in attendance a couple of years back to the league’s lowest third due to mostly the ownership circus.
I don’t follow baseball at all so I don’t know the specifics, but going by your comment there appear to be lots of parallels between the Lightning and the Diamondbacks. New ownership – check. Fans’ skepticism of said owners leading to not going to games – check. Recent championship – check. Now a horrible record – check. Quite interesting.
by Malurous on Sep 10, 2009 3:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Doubters of the Denver area gave the same lame song that they are singing about Phoenix now. No interest, weak fan base, etc. Yawn. You kids keep believing that one.
There’s a significant difference between Denver and Phoenix as markets. Other levels of hockey have already succeeded in Colorado. DU and CC were NCAA hockey powerhouses fifty years ago, and still are. (Well, CC went through a long dry spell, but they are back, as little confidence as I have in Scott Owens.) The history of the program at Northern Arizona is a little less glorious.
by J. Michael Neal on Sep 10, 2009 5:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That proposed Devils logo looks weird. It’s some sort of Uncanny Valley type of thing, where it looks almost, but not quite, “right.”
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there)
by Doogie2K on Sep 10, 2009 3:15 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Like I said, it looks like the top of a pizza box. Well, that or a logo from a video game lacking the NHL license. Either way, it’s awesome. Dated as hell, but in a “snapshot of an era” way.
by Arenacale on Sep 10, 2009 4:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Something to say? Choose one of these options to log in.
On Facebook? Use Connect to join SB Nation. Share insights with fans and friends.- » Create a new SB Nation account
- » Already registered with SB Nation? Log in!
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on From The Rink
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 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.
