What really happened with Balsillie and the Penguins?

Or was this all part of a longstanding ploy to gain a team exactly where he wanted one?

From his answers it looks like he was leaving himself a lot of wiggle room in terms of a new arena. His actions since then don’t do much to dispel the thought either.

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

by PPP on Sep 3, 2009 9:16 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

It is important to remember that Pittsburgh, should one of the arena plans have been approved, was 100% committed to staying in Pittsburgh when Balsille “bought” the team. Unlike his last two attempts where he has obviously just wanted to move the team, there is no way he entered into the Pittsburgh transaction with that solitary goal.

It is also worth mentioning that Lemiuex had to do the KC dance after the preferred arena deal died, something that Balsille would have found very difficult with that 7 year no relocation clause (especially since he would want to move to Hamilton and not KC).

Anyways, good work again James, this is certainly the beginning of the feud!

by Waterloo Sens Fan on Sep 3, 2009 9:25 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Unlike his last two attempts where he has obviously just wanted to move the team, there is no way he entered into the Pittsburgh transaction with that solitary goal.

Ummm why?

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

by Jibblescribbits on Sep 3, 2009 11:11 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Because the Penguins had an iron clad agreement to stay if one of the Casino/Arena projects was approved by the State (and I believe there were only 3 proposals). Unlike the other 2 where Balsille only bought the team with a guaranteed exit in place, no such exit was guaranteed to exist in Pittsburgh.

by Waterloo Sens Fan on Sep 3, 2009 11:25 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah and once an agreement was reached he backed out because he didn’t like the terms.

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

by Jibblescribbits on Sep 3, 2009 11:33 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You arn’t listening to what I am saying. Balsille backed out because of the 7 year no relo agreement with the NHL. I am talking about an agreement between the Penguins and I believe the Isle of Capri on a Casino/Arena plan that needed state approval for the Casino liscense. Had the state agreed to the Isle of Capri plan, the Penguins were stuck in Pittsburgh even without the no relo agreement.

Hence, there is a big difference as to JB’s intent with the Penguins (which he bought and would maybe move) and the next two (which he wanted to buy AND move).

by Waterloo Sens Fan on Sep 3, 2009 11:41 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I am talking about an agreement between the Penguins and I believe the Isle of Capri on a Casino/Arena plan that needed state approval for the Casino liscense. Had the state agreed to the Isle of Capri plan, the Penguins were stuck in Pittsburgh even without the no relo agreement.

I believe this is correct. I remember hearing when Lemieux and Ron Burkle were thinking about cashing out and selling (2004-2006 timeframe) that the agreement the Penguins organization made with the Isle of Capri would supercede any change in ownership and over-ride everything to keep the Penguins in Pittsburgh.

Hence, there is a big difference as to JB’s intent with the Penguins (which he bought and would maybe move) and the next two (which he wanted to buy AND move).

While this is true, if they were still researching and quoting relocation fees, it seems clear that Balsillie (who hasn’t been shy about his intention to own in a Canadian market) was probably seeking other avenues.

And, after all, the Isle of Capri did not win the license from Pennsylvania. I may be mis-remembering history, but I think the winning bid (from Don Barden) was seen as the front-runner the entire time by the powers-that-be at the state level. So even though the team would have been locked in if the IOC won, I think insiders could probably tell that it was a long-shot.

Pensburgh.com -- it's like the Max Talbot of blogs*

*not just because we only work for 12 minutes a night

by Hooks Orpik on Sep 3, 2009 12:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

nd, after all, the Isle of Capri did not win the license from Pennsylvania. I may be mis-remembering history, but I think the winning bid (from Don Barden) was seen as the front-runner the entire time by the powers-that-be at the state level

I believe you are correct. IOC was the choice of most fans/residents, as they were willing to pay for a large portion if not all of the new arena. The casino deal that did win was the a favorite of the government for whatever reason. I forget who the head of the bidding was, but it was the casino that Jerome Bettis backed

by Hansmoleman on Sep 3, 2009 5:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

And, after all, the Isle of Capri did not win the license from Pennsylvania. I may be mis-remembering history, but I think the winning bid (from Don Barden) was seen as the front-runner the entire time by the powers-that-be at the state level. So even though the team would have been locked in if the IOC won, I think insiders could probably tell that it was a long-shot.

This is actually not true. Don Barden was seen as the long shot candidate of the three proposals for the majority of the casino bidding process. His company had a history of financial problems and he was the smallest bidder going against two well established casino operators in Harrah’s and Isle of Capri. Barden’s revenue projections were much higher than the other two bidders, but even the gaming control board told Barden it would be highly unlikely for the casino to reach those projections. In fact, in order to reach those projections, the casino would have needed to be the busiest slots-only casino east of the Mississippi.

I worked in Gateway Center, an office tower in downtown Pittsburgh where the Gaming Control Board’s Pittsburgh office is located. I ran into a few of the GCB guys in the cafeteria one day and we got to talking about Barden winning the gaming license. This was right after Barden’s other gaming company had declared bankruptcy. I said something to the effect of: “yeah, I bet you guys are thrilled you gave the license to Barden.” The guys basically said that they weren’t directly involved in the actual selection, that was left up to the executive panel, but that everyone in the office was SHOCKED when the announcement came that Barden’s Majestic Star had won the license. They had evaluated his plan as the least desirable of the three and they honestly thought IOC was going to come away with the license. They said that the IOC and Harrah’s bids were very close, but that traffic concerns for the Harrah’s casino location made it unfeasible.

Barden had by far the worst bid of the three…and that was proved when he was bankrupted less than 2 years later and was forced to sell the license to another operator. The bottom line is that Barden got the license because he was African American. The gaming bill that Pennsylvania passed made specific mention that “Minority applicants must be given preference” and as it turns out, Barden was the only minority applicant in the state. So, Pittsburgh was given the shaft because of some legal affirmative action mumbo jumbo. The casino just opened up and has been a big failure up to this point. They are WAAAAAY off on the revenue projections, doing half of what they thought.

by CityofChampYinz on Sep 4, 2009 2:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I am listening to what you’re saying (or reading what you’re typing as the case may be). I’m disagreeing with you because I don’t think the facts you are presenting necessarily suggest the conclusion you are drawing.

Here’s an article I found on this. No where in the article does it say that there was an iron clad deal to keep the Pens in Pittsburgh. It might be part of the deal, but you’d think it would be mentioned, it just said Isle of Capri would pay for a new arena, in return they would be able to build a casino in Pitt.

Pittsburgh city council hadn’t approved the deal when Balsille had bought the team, meaning there was still plenty of wiggle room for negotiations to break down and Balsille to be without an arena solution in Pittsburgh, which would be awfully convenient. (As Hooks mentions Pittsburgh didn’t approve the Isle of Capri deal.. look how that worked out).

It’s awfully coincidental that Balsille backed out of the sale when the NHL was shoring up the final touches that would have kept them in Pittsburgh.

It’s not unreasonable to suspect that Balsille entered this hoping the deal would break down (as it did). If it didn’t he could back out of owning the team (like he did), and if it did breakdown he was free to move it

Also “Iron clad” agreements like this have a way of being for sale or renegotiated (like the “Iron clad” agreement between the Coyotes and Jobing.com arena.)

Unlike his last two attempts where he has obviously just wanted to move the team, there is no way he entered into the Pittsburgh transaction with that solitary goal.

I’m not saying that his goal in buying the Pens was to move them to Hamilton, I’m disagreeing with your notion that it’s clear that he wasn’t trying to. I think his intentions with the Pens were very unclear.

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

by Jibblescribbits on Sep 3, 2009 12:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

It’s awfully coincidental that Balsille backed out of the sale when the NHL was shoring up the final touches that would have kept them in Pittsburgh.

That is a big coincidence. As I said on Pensburgh, if Ballsillie hadn’t been so adamant about his intentions to move a team to Southern Ontario, I would give him the benefit of the doubt.

That benefit being: the NHL was going to lock him into staying at the Mellon Arena (if the casino revenue process didn’t work out) until 2013 or 2014. That would cost an owner a lot of money in the operation expenses year-to-year to stay in that building with a team (and market) in a very uncertain future. Definitely not a favorable position for an incoming owner.

Given that Ballsillie doesn’t deserve much leeway, I won’t go that far to defend him, but I will say the condition of staying in Pittsburgh for X many years — at that time without the promise of a new building — was a pretty harsh requirement.

Pensburgh.com -- it's like the Max Talbot of blogs*

*not just because we only work for 12 minutes a night

by Hooks Orpik on Sep 3, 2009 12:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I will say the condition of staying in Pittsburgh for X many years — at that time without the promise of a new building — was a pretty harsh requirement.

Agreed. I wasn’t defending Balsille, just trying to point out that his intentions in Pittsburgh were unclear, (and his subsequent actions make his Pittsburgh intentions justifiably questionable)

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

by Jibblescribbits on Sep 3, 2009 12:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think you’re right in that his intentions were unclear. Who’s to say he didn’t see owning the Penguins as a bridge to owning a different franchise in another location down the line? That’s what many people have since advised he do.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Sep 3, 2009 4:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

That’s what Leopold did.

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

by Jibblescribbits on Sep 3, 2009 6:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly. And that worked out perfectly for him.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Sep 3, 2009 6:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The post above your explains what I am saying. I agree that there was nothing keeping the Pens in Pittsburgh 100%, but there was like say 20% (because as Orpik points out, a different bid was the frontrunner). All I am really trying to say is that the Pittsburgh broohahah is much less clearcut than the next two attempts due to these other considerations.

I also think as Orpik points out that the 7 year no relo with no guarantees of a new arena was harsh, and would have made it more difficult to get the Arena currently being built in Pittsburgh (Lemiuex, if you remember, made a few trips to KC to give himself a hammer, something Balsille wouldn’t have had).

by Waterloo Sens Fan on Sep 3, 2009 12:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

All I am really trying to say is that the Pittsburgh broohahah is much less clearcut than the next two attempts due to these other considerations.

I think we agree then. My only point of contention was when you said Balsille’s intentions were clear.

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

by Jibblescribbits on Sep 3, 2009 12:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

My only point of contention was when you said Balsille’s intentions were clear.

Publically I think he did say the right things, it actually looked like he was “playing ball” with the league and going about getting his foot in through the front door.

Then the NHL came down with stipulations to protect the market of Pittsburgh and that’s when Balsillie began to shy away from the Penguins and look to a more transportable franchise, like a Nashville.

Pensburgh.com -- it's like the Max Talbot of blogs*

*not just because we only work for 12 minutes a night

by Hooks Orpik on Sep 3, 2009 12:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Does anyone have a book deal on all this yet?

James, if you’re the one writing it, put me down for a copy.

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 Sep 3, 2009 10:10 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs

agreed. We have a Mirtleblog, now we need a Mirtlebook!

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

by IAmJoe on Sep 3, 2009 11:48 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

He’s probably already written the bloody thing, with how many words have been spent on this thing since 2006.

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

by Doogie2K on Sep 3, 2009 1:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

His blog posts are the initial draft. Maybe the commenters will get credit in the forward. :)

"For myself I am an optimist - it does not seem to be much use being anything else." -- Winston S. Churchill

by Baroque on Sep 3, 2009 1:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hey, if a Montreal blogger can get a book deal to write about Jacques Plante, there’s no reason Mirtle can’t get a book deal to write about Balsillie and the NHL, based on the amount of work he’s done on this already (presumably mostly aside from his regular job). When the dust finally settles on this, I think it’d be great to read the whole story from the beginning, to see how it all played out.

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

by Doogie2K on Sep 3, 2009 1:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

If I'm in the book...

…I want my name changed to be Carl Turkeybaster, and if it’s possible to do so make my comments even stupider than the were when I originally posted them (if that’s possible). Also, I need to see at least one reference to Left Noob, Saskatchewan.

Otherwise, I’ll need royalties.

You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.

by zyllyx on Sep 3, 2009 1:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Actually the working title is “Whither Left Noob?”

by yrmom on Sep 3, 2009 2:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Owners are fully capable of killing a fan base in a particular city. If Balsillie had managed to show any kind of patience in Pittsburgh or Nashville, he’d already have his team in Hamilton.

Pen fans caught a break when Balsillie couldn’t agree to a long-term rescue plan in Pittsburgh. Thankfully for Pred fans, Balsillie’s greed overwhelmed his common sense and he tipped his hand far too early with the whole “Hamilton Predators” season-ticket mess.

Jim Balsillie’s worst enemy isn’t Gary Bettman. Jim Balsillie’s worst enemy is Jim Balsillie.

by BleedBlue42 on Sep 3, 2009 10:31 AM CDT reply actions 4 recs

Owners are fully capable of killing a fan base in a particular city.

Now you stop that talk, or you’ll wake Norm Green.

Lighthouse Hockey: Side effects may include Weight gain and frequent game loss.

by Dominik on Sep 3, 2009 10:47 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

From my own past, the first example that comes to mind is Bill Bidwill making it clear months in advance that he was going to move the Cardinals to Phoenix — and then using the lack of attendance in that final season as “justification” for the move.

But yeah, Green can be Exhibit B.

by BleedBlue42 on Sep 3, 2009 11:20 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Balsillie would love to pull a Bidwell… that’s the reason why he “compromised” about keeping the team here for at least half a season, so that he could prove how suck-ass this market is when the fans fail to show up in hordes to line his pockets for the eventual move to Hamilton.

You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.

by zyllyx on Sep 3, 2009 11:39 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

And if Balsillie had kept his trap shut until he had a team in his pocket, he’d have gotten away with it. The NHL would have a much harder time trying to block the relocation of an existing owner than they do at keeping a potential owner out of the club in the first place.

If Balsillie fails to acquire the Coyotes, it wouldn’t surprise me to see some other struggling owner think seriously about testing the waters in Hamilton.

by BleedBlue42 on Sep 3, 2009 12:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Now there’s an interesting angle.

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

by IAmJoe on Sep 3, 2009 1:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Evidently, since he has had the opportunity to assume that risk in each of the three transactions, JB and his advisors quite strenuously disagree with you.

by Gerald on Sep 3, 2009 4:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

JB and his advisors are 0-for-2, and things aren’t looking good in Attempt #3. When Judge Baum asked yesterday whether there was any legal precedent — anywhere, in any circumstance — where a court had forced a league to accept an owner whose candidacy had been voted down, I think the death knell for Balsillie’s bid was heard.

Perhaps JB’s advisors ought to become his former advisors.

by BleedBlue42 on Sep 3, 2009 5:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Jim Balsillie’s worst enemy is Jim Balsillie.

+1

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

by Jibblescribbits on Sep 3, 2009 11:12 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The fact that paperwork exists on the potential relocation of the Penguins makes it seem like the first few pages of the document are just evidence of Balsillie really slinging some BS. He’s a business man, above all else. I highly doubt he had any allegiance to team history or a city’s tradition. If he had plans on moving the team out because he felt it would profit more elsewhere, he would do it. His interest in money supersedes his interest in the sport, I believe.

I’m not clustering all businessmen as JB, but his attitude toward relocating a team – more accurately, that emotion required – is similar to that which is necessary when making a decision on taking someone off life support. The only difference is Balsillie wouldn’t spend any time focusing on the act itself, but the outcome of the act. And by that I mean, “How much do I get?”

Follow the Penguins on SBN @ Pensburgh.com and twitter.

by FrankD on Sep 3, 2009 11:28 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

The paperwork exists on both sides of the equation; the NHL facilitated this look at relocation fees as well. And even Lemieux did the whole Kansas City dance with this team that was necessary to help his arena negotiations along.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Sep 3, 2009 12:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The paperwork exists on both sides of the equation; the NHL facilitated this look at relocation fees as well. And even Lemieux did the whole Kansas City dance with this team that was necessary to help his arena negotiations along.

Lemieux says the KC ploy was all a rouse and you do really have to kick the PA politicians in the pants before they get moving. He dealt with them on this issue since getting it was a term in his bankruptcy agreement in 1999, I definitely don’t blame Mario for that.

I suppose the league had to look at relocation fees too. Lemieux/Burkle seemed to get pretty fair in the process with Del Biaggo AND Balsillie, and doubtlessly had conversations with other groups, so I would think the NHL would have to have relocation contigency plans at that point. Given the uncertainty at the time about whether or not a new barn would be built, I don’t think it’s that bad.

No one, Lemieux included, was going to keep the Penguins in the Mellon Arena past their lease (which I believe ended after 2007-08) without a new building actually going up.

Pensburgh.com -- it's like the Max Talbot of blogs*

*not just because we only work for 12 minutes a night

by Hooks Orpik on Sep 3, 2009 12:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Lemieux says the KC ploy was all a rouse and you do really have to kick the PA politicians in the pants before they get moving.

Which is also Balsillie’s claim about Hamilton, and why he pulled back when the League wanted to lock him into Pittsburgh until 2013. Can’t use the threat of relocation in negotiations if you’re not allowed to pack up and leave until after the Apocalypse.

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

by Doogie2K on Sep 3, 2009 1:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Except that Lemieux has credibility as a defender of the Pittsburgh market, and Balsillie had none. Balsillie’s only credibility is as an advocate for the Hamilton market.

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

by JoshCVT on Sep 4, 2009 9:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

A point which I accept and elabourate on below. =)

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

by Doogie2K on Sep 5, 2009 1:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Lemieux says the KC ploy was all a rouse and you do really have to kick the PA politicians in the pants before they get moving

Hey now, Fast Eddie Rendell earned that nickname. How do you think he got approval for a new MLS stadium so quickly? Conveniently after he said there was not enough state money to pay for a new NHL arena

by Hansmoleman on Sep 3, 2009 5:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Q. Is it, in fact, Mr. Balsillie, that you would never agree to a call because it would remove your ability to relocate the Penguins to Hamilton?

A. I think that is a very unfair question…. I think for you to suggest there was some other hidden agenda, I think is tremendously unfair. And it is not borne out in the behaviours and activities that were undertaken with the Penguins and the personal investment that I put into this deal and the personal credibility and the personal time. I don’t think that is a fair characterization at all.

…but you’ll notice he didn’t actually answer the question. Neat little sidestep.

You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.

by zyllyx on Sep 3, 2009 11:41 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Everyone thinks he’s a liar anyway. Why should that question offend him?

Follow the Penguins on SBN @ Pensburgh.com and twitter.

by FrankD on Sep 3, 2009 11:47 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

~~Everyone thinks he’s a liar anyway.~~ His stated purpose is to “Make It Seven” and play Jesus to the underserved fans in Southern Ontario. Why should that question offend him?

Fixed.

Lighthouse Hockey: Side effects may include Weight gain and frequent game loss.

by Dominik on Sep 3, 2009 3:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

He does have many, many followers in that regard.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Sep 3, 2009 4:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

no, no, are you not up on the latest story???

“I have dreamed of owning a team in many different places”.

- James Balsillie, August 26th, 2009.

by Gerald on Sep 3, 2009 5:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

he didn’t actually answer the question. Neat little sidestep

Ya mean he sounded like a lawyer? ; )

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

by Fauxrumors on Sep 3, 2009 12:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I mean he sounded like Rodier. Which Balls should probably take as an insult. :)

You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.

by zyllyx on Sep 3, 2009 1:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Balsillie backed out of the PIttsburgh deal because Bettman pulled a bait-an-switch at the last moment.

Balsillie purchased the Penguins with the understanding/condition that he could move the team if Pittsburgh didn’t build a new area. At the last minute, Bettman pulled that condition, eliminating Balsillie’s bargaining power with Pittsburgh.

by godot10 on Sep 3, 2009 2:37 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Bingo.

That’s how I interpret what happened. It’s incredibly easy (and pretty lazy) to simply ascribe the worst possible motivations to Balsillie.

In reality, when someone is looking to spend a ton of cash on a team, to have 11th hour pre-conditions tacked onto the deal is a really really shady move.

Now, is that to say that it’s impossible for Balsillie to have had the intent of moving the Pens to Hamilton? Of course not. I’m merely trying to get some of the more biased and pre-disposed people here to consider the likelihood of alternative motivations.

And besides, is it really such a terrible thing to want to take a team from a region where they don’t draw to a region where they most likely would? It’s not like Balsillie is trying to move an Original Six team or anything.

by HockeyinHD on Sep 3, 2009 3:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

And besides, is it really such a terrible thing to want to take a team from a region where they don’t draw to a region where they most likely would? It’s not like Balsillie is trying to move an Original Six team or anything.

I guess it depends on whether you live in the region or not.

Interesting, though – so you’d be AGAINST Balsillie if he was doing this against one of your preferred teams or an Original Sixer, but since it’s just PHOENIX it’s all good? I ask merely for information.

You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.

by zyllyx on Sep 3, 2009 3:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I would be less enthused with the idea of taking a successful team out of their current market than I would be with the notion of taking a struggling team out of their existing market.

That sort of stands to reason, right?

Seriously, were you lighting torches for Kroenke when he moved the Nordiques, or when the North Stars moved, or when the Jets moved, or when the Whalers moved? Probably not, right?

The only difference here is that a prospective owner is wanting to move a failing team the NHL was incongruously demanding remain where it was, as opposed to many previous examples of when they picked up stakes pretty quickly.

by HockeyinHD on Sep 3, 2009 5:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Seriously, were you lighting torches for Kroenke when he moved the Nordiques, or when the North Stars moved, or when the Jets moved, or when the Whalers moved? Probably not, right?

If I had been a hockey fan at the time, yes – particularly in the case of the Jets. But I guess I’m in the minority, right?

The only difference here is that a prospective owner is wanting to move a failing team the NHL was incongruously demanding remain where it was, as opposed to many previous examples of when they picked up stakes pretty quickly.

Wow. Oversimplify much?

You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.

by zyllyx on Sep 3, 2009 5:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

:)

I think a greater understanding of how the NHL has dealt with very similar franchise situations in the past would have stood you in good stead in this debate.

Further, I think rather than accusing me of oversimplification you may want to consider the notion that this issue has become overcomplicated.

Balsillie wants to move team. NHL does not want to move team. Everything which has happened from that point forward has been reactions to those two central truths.

In order to form an on-target assessment of the dynamics of this issue one needs to stay as close as possible to those root forces.

Why does Balsillie want to move a team? That seems fairly self-explanatory, I would think. The ‘mystery’ comes from why the NHL is so dead-set on staying in Phoenix in spite of fairly significant evidence that the NHL just isn’t going to make it out there absent the Coyotes being a team routinely in, and deeply in, the playoffs.

IMO, it’s some combination of domestic media market size and an unwillingness to admit to failure, but it’s unlikely we’ll ever get any real insight into Bettman’s decision-making process.

by HockeyinHD on Sep 3, 2009 5:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think a greater understanding of how the NHL has dealt with very similar franchise situations in the past would have stood you in good stead in this debate.

Like Ottawa, Pittsburgh and Buffalo?

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

by Jibblescribbits on Sep 3, 2009 6:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Ottawa.

or

Winnipeg, Quebec, Hartford and Minnesota.

Can you seriously say that Phoenix’s situation more closely resembles those of the first group?

Obviously, that’s impossible. Pittsburgh was a franchise that was 10-15 years away from being a Cup Champ… and even then the threat of moving the team sans the municipality buying the team a huge stadium at taxpayer expense was an implicit threat. Ottawa, as the capital of Canada, has somewhat higher profile than it otherwise might, in addition to being a relatively newly-expanded franchise.

Buffalo is the most relevant example, and even that is an area with a hockey market significantly superior to what we’re talking about in Phoenix.

by HockeyinHD on Sep 3, 2009 8:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think Ottawa has some similarities in where the building is actually. But I do agree with you on the general point.

Just because we’ve used the word “bankruptcy” in the past hardly means those situations were on par with what we’ve got going on now.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Sep 3, 2009 9:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

that’s the point. This is a completely different situation than all of those above, yet people are ~~willing~~ eager to wright it up to “bad market” and then say “The NHL didn’t try to stay in Hartford, Winnipeg and Quebec therefore the NHL hates Canada and the north”when it’s clearly more complicated and nuanced than that.

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

by Jibblescribbits on Sep 3, 2009 10:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

write*

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

by Jibblescribbits on Sep 3, 2009 10:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think those three markets were doomed for many reasons. Phoenix may be there soon, unfortunately.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Sep 3, 2009 10:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think the ‘NHL hates Canada’ thing has been a largely overblown issue and really more of a distraction cited by people wanting to deride Balsillie more than anything else.

IMO it seems moderately obvious Bettman wants the NHL in the biggest North American cities with the largest media markets possible. Since most of the biggest cities with the largest media markets in North America are in the USA, there you go.

If a Canadian city had a metro area of 4.2 mil like Phoenix does I highly, highly doubt Bettman would be as averse to having a team move there as he has been regarding existing suggestions regarding teams in Canada.

Granted, I think that strategy is an almost biblical example of putting the cart before the horse, and it’s also obviously been a patent failure, but I suspect that’s where Bettman’s head is at on this issue.

by HockeyinHD on Sep 4, 2009 6:46 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think a greater understanding of how the NHL has dealt with very similar franchise situations in the past would have stood you in good stead in this debate.

If I were interested in treating this like some college debate course, maybe you’d be right.

But see, it’s MY team that’s at the heart of this shitpile so my perspective is a bit different than yours. You’ll forgive me if I don’t treat this like a mildly amusing intellectual thought experiment.

You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.

by zyllyx on Sep 3, 2009 7:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ah. I see.

So, given that you have a particularly personal interest on this issue, what do you think should happen? What would make you happiest?

Do you think the NHL should continue to stick it out in Glendale by taking over the team in the short term, although if it took them two years during a much stronger economy to find a local buyer for the Sabres who have a much better market, the NHL may be running the team for 3+ seasons? Even if that means the league is absorbing 10, 20, 30 mil in losses every year and the on-ice product will be spit and bailing wire as a result?

And, let’s be honest, that’s probably the best possible case scenario for you, as a fan of the team. That Ice Edge bid with it’s “5 games in freaking Sasketoon” codicil just makes your club even more of a laughingstock than they already are, and it certainly implies to me that the Ice Edge group is just as likely to try and move a team as Balsillie is, just not as immediately.

by HockeyinHD on Sep 3, 2009 8:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

To be honest? I think the BEST scenario for me as a fan of this team would be for this franchise to move to Hamilton and the NHL expands with a new team here. It’s not a REALISTIC scenario (I saw you coming, guys… you know who you are :P) but let me explain why.

This franchise right now is like a cancer. There is bad blood all over the place and it started the day they picked up and moved out of Winnipeg. It’s only gotten worse with a series of truly awful owners, a rapidly declining level of quality in the on-ice play, and now with Balsillie pulling the dead horse of the “stolen franchise” out of the freezer to beat on it some more.

The NHL seems to be of the idea that they will apply some chemo to the cancer and if it doesn’t respond, they’ll kill the patient.

Balsillie and those who support him thinks the patient shouldn’t have been born in the first place.

IceEdge is theoretically interested in keeping the patient alive long-term (with Breslow involved I believe this more than I normally would) but they’re planning to attack the cancer by transplanting other organs.

So if you can cut the cancer out completely, why not do it?

The problem with that is that the NHL isn’t going to expand here if the team moves. So the next best option for me as a fan is to keep this sad, controversy-riddled, debt-laden piece of crap franchise here. Yes, the team would be more profitable in Hamilton. But if I’m being totally honest, I don’t care about Hamilton. Hell, they have so much hockey in that area that you’d think they’d overload on it – they even have their own AHL team (which is suffering from this as well, but that’s a topic for another thread). And even if they can’t GO to Leafs games, they have plenty of TV coverage of the team and the sport on virtually every TV channel. I don’t see them as “underserved” in any capacity EXCEPT being able to see an NHL game in person in Toronto. And I’m sorry, but to me that’s a pretty minor concern in comparison to other markets, where to buy hockey gear you have to order by phone or online from another state or country and to watch hockey on the tube at all you have to get Center Ice.

Of course that perspective is not objective. But unlike a lot of the rest of the people who post here, I can’t afford 100% objectivity because I’m affected too directly by this.

You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.

by zyllyx on Sep 4, 2009 11:15 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

So the next best option for me as a fan is to keep this sad, controversy-riddled, debt-laden piece of crap franchise here.

That’s a mouthful.

Still appreciate you offering your voice here. It’s certainly reasonable that Coyotes fans feel that way, and I’m sure many resent Hamilton in some way for being a part of this.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Sep 4, 2009 8:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Actually...

…I don’t really resent Hamilton, per se… and in fact I really feel badly for the Hamilton fans who have obviously been screwed over for far longer than Phoenix fans have been.

The folks I resent are Balsillie – who is hiding his avarice and entitlement behind the Canadian flag – and those who are using Hamilton as an excuse to be selfish about the game of hockey.

You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.

by zyllyx on Sep 4, 2009 9:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Rec’d for excellence.

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

by JoshCVT on Sep 4, 2009 9:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Kroenke bought the Avalanche in 2000. Ascent Entertainment Group, headed by Charlie Lyons, is the party you’re looking for.

My personal bias is heavily tilted away from relocation. With a salary cap and revenue-sharing rules in place, there should be no problem bringing the NHL to Hamilton through expansion — and bringing the league back to Winnipeg and Quebec and Hartford too.

by BleedBlue42 on Sep 3, 2009 5:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

This isn’t going to be a 34-team league. The only way all of those markets get their teams (despite the fact they likely cannot support NHL hockey) would be relocation.

The cap and revenue sharing are not stemming the losses in Phoenix and many other markets right now.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Sep 3, 2009 6:25 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

I’m well aware that my own perspective is not one shared by the NHL. Creating an artificial vacuum (more markets than teams) allows owners to hold their host cities hostage for better public funding, new stadia, special tax districts, etc. Such league-approved dickery won’t go away, because owners use it to inflate the value of their teams.

I understand it, but I don’t have to like it.

As for the cap and revenue sharing… if all 30 teams have roughly the same cost structure (player salaries, travel budgets, insurance, and so on), then the profit/loss picture for each team is based on two factors: locally-earned revenue and shared revenue. It’s my understanding that the revenue-sharing rules are not written to “share and share alike”; a team doesn’t get access to any shared money if the locally-earned revenue declines, for example. If the NHL wants to write the rules that way, that’s fine; but if the league as a whole is in the black, and individual teams are bleeding, then the only possible conclusion is that that’s the way the league wants it.

by BleedBlue42 on Sep 3, 2009 7:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

There are not more viable hockey markets than teams. It’s the other way around at the moment.

You’re also mixing up revenue sharing and shared revenues. Shared revenues come from league pooled sources like national television contracts and the like, and those are divvied up equally. Revenue sharing comes from the local profits of strong teams being given to the weak using a prearranged formula.

The reason individual teams are bleeding is that the revenue disparity in this league is enormous. The lowest earning teams make almost four times less each season than the Maple Leafs, and many make half of what strong teams like the Habs and Rangers do. For the strong franchises to cover those losses would mean huge clawbacks from successful teams, and that’s not going to happen.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Sep 3, 2009 7:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I respectfully disagree.

The reason individual teams are bleeding is because Bettman et al put together an idiotic system to tie the salary floor to the salary cap.

Since the floor and cap are a set dollar figure apart, the floor has actually risen significantly faster than the cap since the lockout.

Cap then: 39 mil. Cap now: 56.8 mil.
Floor then: 23 mil. Floor now: 40.8 mil.

The ceiling has gone up 45.6%.
The floor has gone up 77.4%.

That is what is killing these lower-end teams… having to spend 77% more in salaries than they did four years ago. If Bettman had exhibited even one-half of a clue when he crafted the CBA he would have anticipated this, especially given the percentage escalator clauses the NHLPA had on a per year basis in addition to the increasing player share at higher revenue totals.

by HockeyinHD on Sep 3, 2009 8:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You know what you’re missing? Escrow. With 18 per cent escrow factored in, teams are actually only spending to a cap of $47-million in real dollars and floor teams are only spending $33-million.

The amount of cash spent has gone up about 20 and 40 per cent in four years.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Sep 3, 2009 9:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

That teams are still bleeding red ink, even at the salary floor, and even with escrow to cover for the owners’ mistakes and with revenue sharing to siphon off profits from the more successful teams, is just sad and pathetic.

"For myself I am an optimist - it does not seem to be much use being anything else." -- Winston S. Churchill

by Baroque on Sep 3, 2009 9:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I get an Enron-ish feel about how Escrow is calculated.

I really do. I’m not remotely an Accountant, but when I see league revenues going up (or at least remaining flat), and the cap rises at pace with league revs, I suppose I don’t quite get how Escrow has become such a significant number, specifically how it has inflated so quickly from a non-factor to whatever it is currently.

Is it really as simple as the 5% escalator the NHLPA has employed each year? Is that where the 15-18% escrow number comes from, that 5% compounded three or four times?

That aside, even if escrow reduces the net increases it will impact both sides of that equation equally… so even if the end discrepancy isn’t 45.6 v. 77.4, we’re still looking at a situation where the floor has risen significantly faster than the ceiling on a percentage basis.

For instance, even at ‘just’ an escrow-adjusted 33 million, the year before the lockout 11 teams were spending less than that, and there were 6 teams at or below 30.9 million.

Now everybody has to spend that much, and concievably be on the hook for 7 mil more if the escrow numbers don’t come in high?

That’s bad juju for those teams.

by HockeyinHD on Sep 3, 2009 9:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The escrow is to compensate for the fact that the owners are lousy at math. Players are only permitted a set percentage of revenues, so if the owners sign players to contracts that add up to higher than that percentage, they say “oops!” and the players have to give money back because the owners signed them to too many dollars.

I can’t imagine any business that wouldn’t love to be able to get money back from their employees when the executives screwed up. :)

"For myself I am an optimist - it does not seem to be much use being anything else." -- Winston S. Churchill

by Baroque on Sep 3, 2009 9:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, it’s a good thing that the NHLPA has strong representation in Paul Kelly to get out of this mess.

by J. Michael Neal on Sep 4, 2009 1:23 AM CDT up reply actions 2 recs

Indeed. :(

"For myself I am an optimist - it does not seem to be much use being anything else." -- Winston S. Churchill

by Baroque on Sep 4, 2009 6:36 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Isn’t the way the cap is set a function of that, though?

It seems pretty obvious that if you want to avoid escrow, you set up a situation where if NHL’s teams on average spent to 90% of the cap, the ‘break-even’ point is hit.

Seriously, how stupid do you have to be to set up a CBA based on a split of league revenues and not set up the cap ceiling in such a way as to maintain that balance?

Ah. :)

by HockeyinHD on Sep 4, 2009 6:52 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I find it pretty interesting that some posters can talk about how “stupid” things are in the CBA despite evidencing little to no clue of how something as straightforward as escrow works (to say nothing of the other calcs referenced above), as well as little to no inclination to actually do some reading to figure it out before pronouncing something as “stupid”.

“Enronish”.

[shakes head]

by Gerald on Sep 4, 2009 5:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Baroque, you are waaaay too smart to seriously suggest that the escrow is because owners are “lousy at math” or that the owners “screw up” when they collectively go over the HRR percentage.

Come on..

by Gerald on Sep 4, 2009 5:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You’d have to think that’ll be an issue for the have-not teams at the next CBA negotiation. Instead of a hard $16M difference between cap and floor, it’ll be a percentage of HRR (say, 65% cap and 45% floor).

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

by Doogie2K on Sep 3, 2009 11:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

No. The floor may go to a relative amount compared to the cap, but the percentage of revenue is going to be fixed, or at least much tighter than that.

by J. Michael Neal on Sep 4, 2009 1:24 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

It was just a thought exercise based on approximate numbers. No need to get too excited. Let’s go with 57±8% (I was originally going to say 65 and 50, and that’s essentially what that is), or CAP and 80% of CAP. The point is, it won’t be a hard $16M number. That never made sense.

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

by Doogie2K on Sep 4, 2009 12:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The range will be 2-3 percentage points, tops. How would it possibly work, otherwise? The players wouldn’t trust the owners not to squeeze them, and the small market owners wouldn’t trust the large market owners not to sign players with abandon. Basing a league wide cap/floor on varying percentages of the league wide revenue is a non-starter. It doesn’t serve anyone’s interests.

by J. Michael Neal on Sep 4, 2009 11:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Assume $2.8B revenues. Divide by 30, get $93.3M. A 16% range (±8%) would be $14.9M — already smaller than the one that exists now. If anything, the floor teams will want a larger range. There’s no way in hell they agree to a 2-3 percent range: that means everyone basically spends to the cap, no ifs, ands or buts.

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

by Doogie2K on Sep 5, 2009 1:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ah. I thought you were meaning a league wide measure, not by each individual team.

by J. Michael Neal on Sep 6, 2009 4:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

There are not more viable hockey markets than teams. It’s the other way around at the moment.

If that’s true, then relocation shouldn’t even be a consideration. You’d want to contract the worst teams before relocating the rest. But since contraction isn’t a word on the lips of anyone in the league offices, I have to conclude that, at worst, the number of viable markets and teams are equal.

And honestly, the definition of “viable” is not set in stone. It could change in the blink of an owners’ meeting. If total league revenues exceed total league expenditures, then there is a hypothetical definition of “viable” that keeps all existing teams afloat. Yes, even in Phoenix.

The league’s thrust to relocate and expand into “major American markets” was part of a scheme whose goal was to increase the shared revenues (especially TV dollars) to a level that would enable all teams to be viable without revenue sharing. That hasn’t happened. Revenue sharing is a secondary mechanism to help weaker teams survive in the short run, until those new markets take root and shared revenues increase. I don’t think anyone wants it to become permanent; but as a stopgap measure, it obviously leaves a lot to be desired.

The rich teams are going to have to make a decision soon: do they share more revenue to prop up the league and continue the long-term plan? Or do they give up, cut a bunch of teams loose, and retreat back to being just a regional sport?

The reason individual teams are bleeding is that the revenue disparity in this league is enormous.

The salary cap (and more importantly in this case, the salary floor) are calculated as a percentage of total league revenue. If Poor Team A has increased its revenue by 20% since the lockout, but the floor has pushed its expenses up 40%, then Poor Team A is doomed without some additional revenue sharing from Rich Team B.

If the goal is leaguewide viability, then the revenue disparity among teams needs to somewhat mimic the salary cap. There needs to be a revenue floor, and most teams need to be clustered around the average.

by BleedBlue42 on Sep 3, 2009 11:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly

The NHL is expecting teams in real markets to subsidize Phoenix forever.
Simple as that.
I’m sure Z has shed many, many tears for the fans in Winnipeg.
Here’s a novel idea.
Fold the f’n team.

by Exit716 on Sep 3, 2009 11:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wow, who pissed in your Corn Flakes?

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

by Doogie2K on Sep 3, 2009 11:26 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

Actually, I HAVE “shed… tears” for Winnipeg fans, if you want to know (which, considering the tenor of your post, I really doubt). If this team had to move, Winnipeg is where it should go IMO, not Hamilton. James will and has told me that that isn’t a realistic option because Winnipeg probably can’t support an NHL franchise, but it would be justice nonetheless.

On a more personal note, “real” markets and “real” fans and their associated superiority complexes can feel free to go suck balls.

You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.

by zyllyx on Sep 4, 2009 11:24 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Bettman raised, Balsillie folded.

Did Bettman’s raise represent the better hand, or a bluff? Balsillie couldn’t stay in the pot to find out. But you can make the argument that not staying in at that point has haunted JB since; his tactics in Nashville and Phoenix have precluded any “try to make it work” directives from the league office.

Did the league, through Bettman, have the right to add that sort of eleventh-hour stipulation? It will take an actual owner suing the NHL to find out; and Balsillie is alienating exactly the people he should be winning over in order to join that club.

by BleedBlue42 on Sep 3, 2009 3:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

It will take an actual owner suing the NHL to find out; and Balsillie is alienating exactly the people he should be winning over in order to join that club.

That’s what I’m very curious about. I can see them all agreeing on not wanting Balsillie, but I’d bet they don’t all agree about entering Hamilton/S.O., and I bet they won’t all want to prop up the Coyotes for long. There is a cost-benefit question for going to battle against MLSE vs. the increased revenues that market would produce.

Lighthouse Hockey: Side effects may include Weight gain and frequent game loss.

by Dominik on Sep 3, 2009 4:04 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

Now we’re talking (in terms of drama, intrigue, etc.)… I don’t think even the most ardent supporters are wed to the idea of Balsillie owning the team. If this finally cracks the door for another franchise/owner in the area, probably all the better. The league should definitely be discussing what you’re talking about, if only to help stabilize some of the trouble markets through more revenue sharing from the area.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Sep 3, 2009 5:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The league should definitely be discussing what you’re talking about, if only to help stabilize some of the trouble markets through more revenue sharing from the area.

This raises a good point – how great would be if someone leaked the NHL’s five-year business/strategic plan? [I’ll just assume that it has one ;]

Glen Sather is a Hockey Genius.

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

by poploser on Sep 4, 2009 9:23 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Now, is that to say that it’s impossible for Balsillie to have had the intent of moving the Pens to Hamilton? Of course not. I’m merely trying to get some of the more biased and pre-disposed people here to consider the likelihood of alternative motivations.

Personally, despite my suspicions at the time [i.e. Pittsburgh], I gave Balsillie the benefit of the doubt back then. That an “11th-hour precondition” — which I find debatable — was tacked on is not unexpected, when you consider it is a league that by that point in time had resolved to stop the relocation madness. He’s joining an exclusive club, taking over a historic franchise — did he really expect the league to not want him to do everything possible to stay in Pittsburgh? Would they have inserted that condition if they didn’t fear his intentions to move?

When he balked, that’s when I trusted my suspicions. Then enter the whole Nashville snafu, which gave me the impression he did not learn a lesson from his previous experience — but rather boldly went in the opposite direction by using the logo and selling ticket packages well before he had the right.

Lighthouse Hockey: Side effects may include Weight gain and frequent game loss.

by Dominik on Sep 3, 2009 4:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

He balked to a lot of different terms that were added, not just a condition of non-relocation. It’s hard to know without seeing exactly what this “side letter” included if they were indeed deal breakers for legitimate reasons not related to a desire to move the team to Southern Ontario.

Balsillie entered the Nashville scenario from the beginning with the intention of moving the team.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Sep 3, 2009 5:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Balsillie entered the Nashville scenario from the beginning with the intention of moving the team.

He certainly wasn’t alone in that with respect to Nashville. The Predators were seen as “portable” by several parties, as I recall.

"For myself I am an optimist - it does not seem to be much use being anything else." -- Winston S. Churchill

by Baroque on Sep 3, 2009 5:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I believe the condition of non-relocation also specified that he couldn’t relocate even if the Pens didn’t get a new arena. Frankly, if the arena never got approved, the Pens would have been in the same situation as the Coyotes are right now: a money pit nobody wants to own in its current market.

Anyone with half a brain (thus excluding Jerry Moyes) would say no to a situation where they are stuck in a bad situation in perpetuity.

by Resolute on Sep 4, 2009 4:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

“when you consider it is a league that by that point in time
had resolved to stop the relocation madness”

Except that Mario was going through the motions of a possible move to KC.

by yrmom on Sep 3, 2009 7:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Indeed. That is a little point int he Penguins history that people conveniently forget.

by Resolute on Sep 3, 2009 8:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, I don’t forget that historical point at all, but you have to keep in mind the chronology of things, in terms of how many steps were taken before that. The relocation threat is sadly a part — the last resort — of the effort to keep a team where it is. (Often by bilking taxpayers, but that’s another issue…)

Mario went through the KC charade to keep the team where it already was. Would Balsillie have done the same? We don’t know. But I know who’s tied to Pittsburgh and who’s tied to Ontario.

Lighthouse Hockey: Side effects may include Weight gain and frequent game loss.

by Dominik on Sep 4, 2009 12:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

When he balked, that’s when I trusted my suspicions.

I don’t know that that’s really fair for the reasons previously discussed. Sure, he might have been hell-bent on moving the Pens to Hamilton regardless…or he could’ve been pulling the same gambit Mario et al. did. It would be perfectly reasonable for him to balk and walk away if the NHL pulled his best negotiating tactic — the same one that ultimately got the Pens their arena — out from under him.

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

by Doogie2K on Sep 3, 2009 11:30 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

Fair point (I mean yours, not mine). Maybe they really didn’t ever want him and threw that stipulation in as a backbreaker. Iif so, though, I don’t know why they approved him first … unless after approval they learned more of his intentions and consequently put that stipulation in as a test of his earnest.

I guess the heart of my suspicion is that he’s not a different kind of owner, he’s just going about it a different way. Though I may not like it, the league is necessarily a closed club with exclusive membership, one that needs control over where it operates and also needs to publicly position as ardently against relocation except for last resort. That’s a political (and B.S.) orientation, but it is what it is, what leagues subsist on. And the league may have learned from Que/Win/Min/Har that it needs to make a better effort at that.

For them to bilk taxpayers for funding; for them to soak locals for sponsorship and higher tickets to “build a winner;” for them to maintain belief that the rug won’t be yanked out from under fans (ha…ha); for agreeable politicians to help them without being thrown out of office; for all these unstated objectives they need to sustain that PR as much as possible: “We tried. We did our best to stay in that market, but we — what’s that? You have a building now? Great. We’re staying. For the fans.”

Balsillie never struck me as wanting to sing from that choir book — which is great, he can be our antitrust hero who breaks the mold and creates a new sports order where … many of us have poor or relocated teams dwarfed by three lucrative markets. But his moves from Pittsburgh to now didn’t give me the impression he was motivated to break the corrupt nature of this structure; rather just that he wanted a team, and he wanted it now. If that’s the case, in terms of weighing two evils, I’d prefer an owner who accepts that part of his start-up investment is biding his time and making all best efforts to keep a team where it is.

Lighthouse Hockey: Side effects may include Weight gain and frequent game loss.

by Dominik on Sep 4, 2009 12:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You raise a good point. With the Lighthouse situation, for instance, no one can accuse Charles Wang of trying to purchase a “portable” franchise and plunk it down wherever he likes. He’s been trying for most of this decade to get shit done, and he’s eaten tremendous losses in the meantime (partially due to the substandard managerial acumen of his staff, but that’s a separate concern). It’s only now that he’s finally starting to rattle his sabre, much as it also took several years (1999-2006?) for Mario to make the trip out to KC, whereas Balsillie was looking to pull that manoeuvre from the word go. I can see the latter being a little more suspicious, given that many other buyers who suggested alternate markets over the previous decade didn’t waste much time in making their moves once their desired arena deals fell through.

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

by Doogie2K on Sep 4, 2009 12:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, managerial/hockey acumen aside, Wang is almost a dream owner. It’s unheard of: A local, who buys the team specifically to keep it where it is, even at the cost of a decade of losses, seeking to build without taxpayer money, even if the team might still be unprofitable in the new building? Unreal.

Every time I’ve been “mad” at him I’m reminded that without him, nothing would be there to get mad about. The Isles would be gone by now. Or owned by some Boots figure.

Lighthouse Hockey: Side effects may include Weight gain and frequent game loss.

by Dominik on Sep 4, 2009 1:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, managerial/hockey acumen aside, Wang is almost a dream owner.

And aside from that whole bringing Sanjay Kumar in thing I guess…

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Sep 4, 2009 8:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Shhhh…/sweeps under rug

I had the impression they were both needed to fund the purchase at the time. I’m just relieved only one of them was … well, accusations have certainly been hurled at Wang. Let’s just say I’m glad he’s not in jail and glad he retained ownership.

Lighthouse Hockey: Side effects may include Weight gain and frequent game loss.

by Dominik on Sep 5, 2009 9:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Did the league, through Bettman, have the right to add that sort of eleventh-hour stipulation?

I don’t think it was really a last minute stipulation that Bettman sprung on Balsillie. Bettman was always an ardent public supporter of trying to keep the Penguins in Pittsburgh. Though he might not have stipulated it formally and in writing, you’d have to believe Balsillie was paying attention enough to know the Penguins were not a transportable team (until the casino funding proposals fell through anyways).

The Pittsburgh situation differed from Phoenix in that the building itself (built in 1961 as an opera house) was the major issue. They needed a new barn and a competitive CBA to be in a position to succeed, the infrastructure of hockey (with all the rinks built in the ’80s) was there. Though there were lean times, Pittsburgh is a viable and proven hockey market — as the 100+ sellouts and counting can attest to.

Pensburgh.com -- it's like the Max Talbot of blogs*

*not just because we only work for 12 minutes a night

by Hooks Orpik on Sep 3, 2009 3:52 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Haven't seen this before...

…but has it crossed anyone elses mind that maybe Balsille works in conjunction with the league in trying to generate interest in stabilizing struggling franchises? I know it sounds conspiracy-theorist like, but consider the situations. In the last 2 situations, Balsille is portrayed as spitting in the face of the NHL, with no attempts at subtly in trying to move a team. Seeing that this has yet to work out with this modus operandi, and likely would potentially cost both parties heavy legal fees with the battles should he actually be awarded a team, would an approach with more tact not make sense. Maybe I’m naive, but it seems to me that as a smart businessman, he would show more of an ability to adapt (as well as a better PR sense) if he truly wanted to buy a team and move it. As it stands now, he appears overconfident and presumptive.

by BringBackRobBrown on Sep 4, 2009 11:40 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

He is adapting… having the team in bankruptcy is a new plan of “attack” for his side here. This is the first time the court has been deciding through an auction process.

Who knows what his next strategy is?

A couple commenters have joked that, as you say, Balsillie’s purchase attempts have ultimately benefited the NHL in Pittsburgh and Nashville.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Sep 4, 2009 8:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

A question on his "irony of all ironies"...

what would have stopped Balsillie from flying his private jet from home in Waterloo to YTZ/Toronto City airport, then taking the ferry or a private boat to the Leafs game? I assume you could do that faster than the YKF-PIT & a limo to the Igloo.

by bison on Sep 4, 2009 2:47 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs