NHL names its relocation fee: $101-million to $195-million
Well, it turns out the league wasn't so happy with the relocation fees produced by Jim Balsillie's expert, sports economist Andrew Zimbalist. And their own experts have set the fee between eight and 17 times higher than the $11.2 to $12.9-million he came up with.
Stating that Zimbalist's methodology "does not past muster" and that "the notion that a team in Hamilton would be worth only $11.2-million to $12.9-million more than a team in Phoenix is patently absurd," the NHL produces its own two experts — Barrett Sports Group (BSG) and Sports Value Consulting (SVC) — who jack that figure way, way up.
Among the issues with Zimablist's fee?
- "Zimbalist overstates the value of the Phoenix franchise option returned to the League by overlooking the fact that relocation by the Club would substantially impair the value of that option on a going-forward basis."
- "By undervaluing the option taken in Hamilton and overvaluing the option returned in Phoenix, Prof. Zimbalist's underestimates the appropriate relocation fee owed to the League."
The NHL also argues that there should be a further indemnification fee on top of the relocation fee, again disagreeing with Zimbalist's conclusions:
Zimbalist also errs in concluding that any indemnification payment should be made out of whatever relocation fee is determined in this dispute. If the relocation fee is insufficient to offset the externalities that a Club's relocation imposes on other Member Clubs, then payment of a supplemental indemnification fee is economically appropriate and procompetitive. Failure to levy a supplemental indemnification fee would depress those Clubs' investment incentives and therefore would injure consumers.
After the jump, how the NHL's experts calculated the relocation fee and where the league pegs the value of a Hamilton franchise in relation to one in Phoenix.
Each working independently, BSG and SVC used methodologies based on the Raiders II case and "the provisions set forth in the NHL constitution and by-laws to determine an appropriate relocation fee." The analysis looked at the league's economics and current economic conditions, while also taking into consideration prior relocation payments.
Here are their conclusions:
In calculating the fair market value for a Hamilton team, they considered the size of the territory; the fan avidity of Canadian residents; the presence of competition from the Maple Leafs as well as, to a lesser degree, the Sabres (and other sports and entertainment providers); and operating and financial performance of comparable teams. This allowed the experts to estimate the likely revenues for a team in Hamilton under various assumptions. Based on those estimates and in accordance with standard valuation methods, the experts were able to extrapolate the fair market value of a team in Hamilton by applying a multiple of revenues. BSG estimated the value of a team in Hamilton as between $261.8 million and $279.8 million. SVC estimated the value of a team in Hamilton as approximately $315 million.
Aided by the actual results that the Coyotes have achieved in Glendale, the experts employed the same methodology to calculate the likely revenues for a team in Glendale and the ultimate value of a team in Glendale. BSG estimated the value of a team in Glendale as between $163.4 million and $176 million. SVC estimated the value of a team in Glendale as approximately $120 million.
To me, BSG's figures seem far more reasonable here, and they would result in a relocation fee in the $100-million range (value of Hamilton market minus value of Phoenix market). There's probably even a solid argument that the Phoenix market is worth only about the $140-million the league is bidding, which would make for a fee in the $120-million range.
On top of Balsillie's current bid, that would mean a $330-million or so purchase price, if this is indeed the road we go down. If the relocation fee is closer to the $200-million range SVC comes up with and there are additional indemnification payments due, we could be looking at $450-million plus.
The Hamilton valuations are pretty interesting. If that franchise was, indeed, worth $315-million, it would be worth more than all but the three richest teams in hockey (Leafs, Rangers, Habs). At between $261.8-million and $279.8-million, the Hamilton team would be the NHL's eighth to fifth most valuable team, among large market U.S. teams like the Flyers, Stars and Bruins and ahead of every other Canadian team aside from Toronto and Montreal.
Which, one would think, makes a pretty strong argument for having a team there.
There's a reason the NHL's put off coming up with a relocation fee for this long, as it forces them to give Balsillie a potential purchase price while also admitting the extent to which Hamilton is a valuable market. The cat's out of the bag now.
These relocation fee figures were contained in what will likely be one of the league's last filings, a thorough summation of the legal arguments against Balsillie's case and a good look at what the NHL's will put forward come the auction this week.
I'll have a look at all that likely for tomorrow.
0 recs |
73 comments
| Add comment
|
Comments
Wow.
I’m baffled that the NHL would even release a tangible number for Balsillie to work with, that’s almost like dangling the carrot.
The Home of Cellblock 303 - Section303.com
by codeyh on Sep 6, 2009 1:30 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
They had to as part of the bankruptcy process.
I don’t think the cost is going to be the major hurdle for Balsillie; if the NHL wants him to, I’d guess he’d pony up the $350-million or whatever. (He was prepared to pay, what, $225-million for the Predators?)
Some of those other arguments I talked about will be very troubling for Balsillie’s legal team, however.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on Sep 6, 2009 1:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, whenever I want to know what something costs, I get three quotes and take their average as a fair market price. We now have 3 valuation qotes for both a team in Hamilton and a team in Glendale.
Hamilton:
AZ – $174.9
BSG – $270.8
SVC – $315
AVG = $253.6
Glendale:
AZ – $162.7
BSG – $169.7
SVC – $120
AVG = $150.8
$253.6 – $150.8 = $102.8
There it is, the relocation fee is $102.8mil.
by NBOilerFan on Sep 8, 2009 11:27 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, except you have two figures provided by one side used in the equation.
All of these figures are at either extreme.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on Sep 8, 2009 11:38 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That is a good point, James.
All the better, the Judge recognizes that and thus throws out the high extreme (CSV) and the low (AZ) and uses the BSG numbers, $270.8 – 169.7 = $101.1mil.
by NBOilerFan on Sep 8, 2009 11:59 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Which means that you are relying entirely upon the numbers provided by one side.
by J. Michael Neal on Sep 8, 2009 11:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
“Zimbalist overstates the value of the Phoenix franchise option returned to the League by overlooking the fact that relocation by the Club would substantially impair the value of that option on a going-forward basis.”
In the short term, thats absolutely true. But 10-15 years from now, probably not so much. Somehow I notice that having had a franchise relocate out of Denver hasn’t kept another team from moving in and doing so pretty successfully. Of course, winning early when you arrive in a new market might help with that.
Moreover, there will be a short term intangible value in the vacation of the Phoenix market, because it will leave a large metropolitan area with an NHL ready rink without a team. That’s just another threat to go in the owner’s pockets when they’re pushing their local government to build them a new rink. Especially once KC (the only other market with an NHL-ready rink) lands a team, Phoenix is going to be the new Kansas City.
http://sacrificethebody.blogspot.com/
Sacrifice the Body - Examining the NHL through statistical analysis, reasoned thought, and blind conjecture.
by IAmJoe on Sep 6, 2009 1:34 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
The only problem is that Phoenix’s bankruptcy has been SO public. If the Coyotes move from Arizona, I think people will associate the hockey community as a failure more than any product that was EVER produced on the ice. The stigma will take decades to overcome. In that sense, KC will still be the “threat city” that NHL owners can point to when making demands in their own city….
I’m not sure the hockey community in Phoenix would ever be able to rebound from this like Denver did…
View From My Seats
Sarcasm: God's gift to smart people...
by Cheap Seats on Sep 6, 2009 1:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Possibly but a lot can change in 10-15 years and the Phoenix economy is among the worst in the country right now. Plus many would argue that if the team were actually in Phoenix, and not in Glendale, they would have a much better chance of being successful. If in 15 years a new arena was built in a better location NHL could return and be successful.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HockeyAnalysis.com - Taking a Deeper Look at the World of Hockey
by HockeyAnalysis on Sep 6, 2009 2:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
There’s not going to be another hockey arena built in the Phoenix area, IMO. The only really good prospective location has already been built over as a giant outdoor mall. And given what’s happening right now in Glendale, who the hell is going to be stupid enough to build another hockey arena anywhere in the Phoenix metro area?
It’s either the Job or nothing at this point.
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on Sep 6, 2009 3:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I would think local politicians would be pretty leery of building anything for the NHL after all this, regardless of how it shakes out.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on Sep 6, 2009 4:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
James, you’re doing great with this stuff but that’s your second post on a Sunday. How about you kick back on the patio with a frosty beverage for the rest of the day, alright? Enjoy the sunshine, play some frisbee, put your feet up.
by LarsPGH on Sep 6, 2009 1:48 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I’m working today, so that’s not going to happen. Friday-Saturday were the frosty beverage days, though.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on Sep 6, 2009 1:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think you’ve nailed the two most interesting points here.
1. The league is essentially arguing that Hamilton is a far, far better market than Phoenix, which makes their resistance to moving the Coyotes there seem completely ridiculous.
2. There has to be at least some possibility that Balsillie steps up and says “OK, sold, who do I make the cheque out to?” And then what?
Down Goes Brown - Unapologetically nostalgic for the past. Brutally realistic about the present. Grudgingly optimistic about the future.
by Down Goes Brown on Sep 6, 2009 1:49 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
That’s what I’m waiting for (your point number 2) – Balsillie to effectively tell the league “you said a Hamilton team is worth X dollars – here’s the money, now give me my team, please.”
"For myself I am an optimist - it does not seem to be much use being anything else." -- Winston S. Churchill
by Baroque on Sep 6, 2009 1:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
As I allude to above, the money’s not going to be Balsillie’s big hurdle. He could offer $900-million and still lose based on some of the legal arguments presented regarding relocation and the NHL’s ability to choose its partners.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on Sep 6, 2009 1:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
True, but I gotta think if Balsillie is willing to pony it all up, and the NHL is sitting here saying how valuable a franchise in Hamilton is, and the prospects for a future sale by the NHL next year really aren’t much different than they are now… I think it makes it considerably easier for Baum to drop the hammer on the NHL.
http://sacrificethebody.blogspot.com/
Sacrifice the Body - Examining the NHL through statistical analysis, reasoned thought, and blind conjecture.
by IAmJoe on Sep 6, 2009 2:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
One has to wonder how long Bettman can keep the other owners on board. Bettman is now asking the other owners not only to pony up $140 million to purchase the coyotes and subsidize them up to $50 million (possibly more) to keep the team operating for the 2009-10 season but now to forgo possibly up to $190 million in relocation fees. That is upwards of $380 million. Yeah, they will recoup some of that when you sell the team down the road and the rest of it in future expansion fees but there are several financially challenged teams/owners that could use the money right now. Bettman has always been good at keeping his owners all lined up in support of him but if the dollars get big enough you never know, some owner in financial distress may break from the pack.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HockeyAnalysis.com - Taking a Deeper Look at the World of Hockey
by HockeyAnalysis on Sep 6, 2009 2:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Splitting that $190-million figure, which is likely far too high, among the other 29 teams doesn’t really result in much of a windfall though. Why would the league throw out its right to block relocations or unwanted owners in exchange for $6-million apiece?
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on Sep 6, 2009 3:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
$6 million isn’t pocket change for some teams who are chronically losing money. But it goes beyond that for struggling small market teams. For those owners it is beneficial to them if teams can more easily relocate. The value of the Florida Panthers or Atlanta Thrashers or any other small market franchise is substantially higher if teams can be relatively easily relocated, not to mention how much easier they would be to sell not to mention all the NHL has done to stop Moyes, once a loyal owner, from recouping even a small amount of his investment. If I were an owner of one of these teams I sure would be evaluating what is the best for me an my investment in the team I own.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HockeyAnalysis.com - Taking a Deeper Look at the World of Hockey
by HockeyAnalysis on Sep 6, 2009 3:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t think we’re quite at that point, but I agree it’s a possibility down the line.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on Sep 6, 2009 4:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have a hard time believing that a Hamilton franchise is worth $270 million. That kind of evaluation would put it in the same vicinity as the Boston Bruins, an original six franchise with a long established fan base, and well ahead of the Vancouver Canucks which operates in a city of over 2 million people. Hamilton itself is only 500,000 people and if you include St. Catherines, Oakville, Burlington, Kitchener, Waterloo, Guelph and Niagara on the Lake you only get to about 1.4 million. For anyone who has driven from Toronto to Hamilton at rush hour will realize there there won’t be much draw from Toronto/Mississauga for games in Hamilton except maybe when the Leafs play. To argue that an unestablished Hamilton franchise is worth substantially more than an established team in Vancouver is ridiculous. Forbes values the Canucks at $236 million and the Ottawa Senators, who would have a comparable population to draw from, at 207 million. To me that would be a fair valuation.
As for Phoenix’s fair valuation. The NHL is willing to pay $140 million, the Reinsdorf group was prepared to pay up to $148 million and Ice Edge is prepared to pay around $150 million. If we take these numbers as a fair valuation we would get a franchise relocation fee of $60-90 million. To me that seems reasonable especially considering the NHL has never charged more than $80 million in expansion fees (albeit ~9 years ago).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HockeyAnalysis.com - Taking a Deeper Look at the World of Hockey
by HockeyAnalysis on Sep 6, 2009 2:33 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
For anyone who has driven from Toronto to Hamilton at rush hour will realize there there won’t be much draw from Toronto/Mississauga for games in Hamilton except maybe when the Leafs play.
Meh, hop on a train for an hour, takes you right there and back for $20, no? Plus a ton of people who live in the city are commuting west anyway and will be halfway there. They’ll also draw from London, etc.
The wrinkle in there is corporate support… if this is a team drawing from all over the place, is there a corporate base there supporting them?
In any event, if Balsillie has a hope, he’s going to have to overpay here, and I imagine he knows that.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on Sep 6, 2009 2:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
“The wrinkle in there is corporate support… if this is a team drawing from all over the place, is there a corporate base there supporting them?”
In terms of corporate support, while RIM may not enter in to this realm due to conflict of interest, Balsillie is a VERY respected business man. There are many who will buy in from all these markets that the team would draw from, due to the incredibly successful business man that owns this team!
I think corporate sponsorship is a lock!!
by lightweight on Sep 7, 2009 10:54 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t see why it’s so hard to believe when one the arguments in favor of a team in Hamilton is all the potential revenue it would apparently make. That’s what I think BSG and SVC, who worked independently, took into account in developing their market evaluations. Gross population and traffic aside, they also took into the “fan avidity” into account as well. I wouldn’t surprised if Toronto was one of those comparables considering Hamilton would have the advantage of plucking disgruntled Leafs fans to support to a different, more local team.
I love this move by the NHL because it basically tells Balsille to put up or shut up, as well as blowing a giant gaping hole in the “NHL doesn’t want a team in Hamilton” theory. Hamilton’s not impossible, just quite expensive. Buy if it does reach said extremely high revenues, then it would be worth it, no?
Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The Devils SBN Blog
by John Fischer on Sep 6, 2009 2:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I love this move by the NHL because it basically tells Balsille to put up or shut up…
I really don’t think the NHL was all that keen on naming this figure, but they were asked to by the court. I don’t think they have any interest in Balsillie putting up any amount of cash. (They’d be happy if he shuts up, obviously.)
The league would prefer the dollar figures never come into play because then it’s out of their control. One assumes the court, for example, would simply set the relocation fee between the two extremes somewhere, and at that point, doesn’t it become all the more reasonable that he pays it?
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on Sep 6, 2009 3:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t buy the disgruntled Leafs fan argument. I currently live in Ottawa and there are still thousands of Leaf fans here that have not, and would never, convert to be a Senators fan. Sure, some casual leaf fans may convert if the Hamilton team becomes a winner, but the numbers will be minimal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HockeyAnalysis.com - Taking a Deeper Look at the World of Hockey
by HockeyAnalysis on Sep 6, 2009 3:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Trust me on this...
There are more than enough people in Hamilton (and it’s environs) that are sick and tired of hearing the Leafs name. Heck, there’s a whole lot of people in Toronto that are, too.
Unless you consider the number of Senator fans “minimal”, then there will be enough support for a third team in the region. Heck, look at the number of Tiger Cat fans that turn out for games against the Argos!
Heck, any game involving the Leafs draw fans to Buffalo because they can’t even get a sniff of tickets at home (a tactic that sells trip/tickets in Phoenix for a good number of Canadian hockey fans, by the by), so you know there’s going to be more than a few sell-outs each season, no matter how badly the team does.
Where Toronto is going to lose most is ancillary cash: jerseys, flags, videos, memorabilia and other assorted tat. As for me living on the west coast, I’ll just be looking forward to seeing another team on HNIC’s early game!
by Thursday on Sep 6, 2009 10:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
As for me living on the west coast, I’ll just be looking forward to seeing another team on HNIC’s early game!
No, you won’t. You’re still getting the Leafs, sucker, and you’re gonna like it!
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there)
by Doogie2K on Sep 6, 2009 11:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dear lord I hadn’t thought of that! My interest in this franchise just increased! I dearly hope the Leafs get bumped for a few games!
by lightweight on Sep 7, 2009 10:57 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
So, you’re hoping it becomes, “Hockey Night in the Toronto Suburbs?”
by J. Michael Neal on Sep 7, 2009 8:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
They won’t be as long as they draw the highest ratings and as a result the highest ad revenues.
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
by PPP on Sep 8, 2009 2:31 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Kind of sad that the only time our “national” television network really cares about ratings is 7-10PM ET on Saturdays in the fall and winter. Though correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t the CBC expected/required to show Ottawa and Montreal nationally a little more often in it’s latest deal with the league?
by Resolute on Sep 8, 2009 11:22 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
CBC caring about ratings from 7-10 lets them develop other programming that isn’t necessarily dependent on ratings. I think it’s a pretty good system. It works for senators fans in the Ottawa region, Habs fans in the Canadiens region and Leafs fans in the Leafs’ region (ie everywhere else). The majority of fans get to see their team.
And yes, CBC has taken to showing more Habs and senators games. The Leafs are not playing on three Saturday nights I believe. The irony is that they made the decision in order to not suffer as much when the Leafs’ miss the playoffs. Of course, in year one the senators tanked and the Habs fell apart after the All-Star Break.
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
by PPP on Sep 8, 2009 12:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
as well as blowing a giant gaping hole in the "NHL doesn’t want a team in Hamilton" theory
Hardly. If anything, it shows just how valuable the Hamilton market is, which then begs the question, “why has the NHL been dodging a team in Hamilton for so long?”
http://sacrificethebody.blogspot.com/
Sacrifice the Body - Examining the NHL through statistical analysis, reasoned thought, and blind conjecture.
by IAmJoe on Sep 6, 2009 7:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
They really have been in it for the good of the game!
by yrmom on Sep 6, 2009 7:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It comes back to the NHL wanting to raise it’s status in the US. As much of a major city Hamilton is to Canadians, it just doesn’t register with Americans like Phoenix does, or Kansas City or Las Vegas would. Right or wrong, I’m sure there were people who tuned into the 2007 finals asking, “What the hell is an Ottawa?” so a team in Hamilton is really going to make people scratch their heads. It probably comes off as a sad commentary on the international ignorance of most of the American public, but it’s the reality of the situation.
I agree that Hamilton is probably going to be a bigger moneymaker (at least initially) than the Coyotes ever were, but I can also see some sense in weighing that against any damage abandoning an American market might cause to the brand in the US. The NHL apparently has it’s opinion on what they feel is best for it’s business, and they’re going to follow it.
by Arenacale on Sep 6, 2009 10:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
So
It would be in the NHL’s best interests to fold all six Canadian teams by your logic?
That’s what you’re saying isn’t it?
Good luck with your 24 team NHL.
by Exit716 on Sep 6, 2009 10:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That’s not what he’s saying at all, but of course you knew that.
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on Sep 6, 2009 11:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, to be perfectly blunt, Phoenix isn’t registering with Americans either, not even those in Phoenix.
While there is some truth to the statement, I think a lot of this opinion is stuck in the early 1990s. That plan was formed 20 years ago now, and it seems unlikely that the league is still myopically focused on that plan, even if many fans are.
by Resolute on Sep 7, 2009 10:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
How widespread do you think that damage would be? Does a fan in Boston or New York care ( sorry, Zyllyx) if the Coyotes move?
I've seen enough to know that I've seen too much.
by Smoboy41 on Sep 7, 2009 11:04 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
No offense taken.
I’m well aware of the fact that fans of US teams who aren’t at risk (at the moment, anyway) of financial troubles and who are in no danger of relocation are on Canada’s side in this debate. It’s the old, “It’s not happening (or CAN’T happen) to me, so why should I care?” thing that makes America great. :P
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on Sep 7, 2009 11:10 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I remember 1983, when Ralston Purina didn’t even try to find a buyer for the Blues; they just gave the franchise back to the league. Were it not for Harry Ornest finding a bargain of a “Flip This Team” opportunity, the team would have reopened for business in Saskatoon.
I’m an outsider with respect to Phoenix, but not with respect to being a fan of a team facing relocation. There’s no such thing as a team being “safe from relocation”, at least not in a permanent sense. There are probably a dozen or so teams (6-8 in the US) who are probably safe for the next decade or so. Everyone else should have varying degrees of worry. If the league loses control of the relocation process, the results could be devastating for some fans who think it can’t possibly happen to them.
by BleedBlue42 on Sep 7, 2009 9:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Things have changed since the ‘80s. There are no more great markets for NHL hockey (aside from near Toronto) and there are few owners dying to buy a team. I suppose if the business model changes drastically, this could change, but for now, relocations will remain difficult simply because it’s hard to find a billionaire looking for a hockey team.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on Sep 7, 2009 11:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Give me a couple billion dollars, and I’ll go for it.
by J. Michael Neal on Sep 8, 2009 11:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Too bad guys like us don’t have the coin.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on Sep 8, 2009 11:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It is important to remember Local TV rights for the Hamilton team as well. They should be able to broadcast throughout the GTA and Southern Ontario (8 mil +) and get reasonable ratings. They should certainly be able to get at least as much as Vancouver, and possibly much more. I do agree though that a valuation for this team of around Vancouver has always felt right to me.
by Waterloo Sens Fan on Sep 6, 2009 5:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think these two are overvaluing the relocation fee to the same extent that Zimablist is likely undervaluing it. It’s a lucrative market to be sure but saying that it’s hypothetical value exceeds that of all but three teams? Ridiculous.
Not that it matters. Balsillie is going to insist that the Judge set the relocation fee. If Balsillie is going to argue (and he has) that the NHL is in a conflict of interest as both bidder and gatekeeper then he’s going to claim conflict of interest in the leagues estimation of a appropriate relocation fee.
by Parallex on Sep 6, 2009 4:50 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
This just gets better and better. Great work James.
Why didn’t the NHL just try to deal earlier? Surely this gets worse for them by the day.
by RiversQ on Sep 6, 2009 4:53 PM CDT via mobile reply actions 0 recs
Because the NHL, and all other pro sports leagues, have an interest in maintaining control over who owns their teams and where. The NHL chose not to deal because Balsillie declared war. And he is still far, far from winning at this point.
by Resolute on Sep 6, 2009 5:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
But the choose such terrible owners sometimes! Is it only because these are people that they can control. Doesn’t look like it in Phoenix, or Tampa now too.
by lightweight on Sep 7, 2009 11:03 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
he is still far, far from winning at this point.
Yes, but instead of sticking to the point of “he won’t win, ever,” they put in their own offer. I think by doing this, the court has no choice but to declare one of the current bidders as winner. Unless Balsillie backs out because he can’t bring the team to Hamilton this year, I don’t see him giving up the team to Bettman.
The NHL made a mistake by losing precedent here. I can’t understand how this hasn’t turned around on Gary yet.
Jon Casey fan since '84
by stufflife on Sep 6, 2009 8:01 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I completely agree! If Gary starts to lose some of the support of his inner circle of owners (probably unlikely) he is in for a rough ride! All the owners know that many of the southern franchises are financially difficult to maintain. I think that in order to expand hockey’s base of support and popularity you have to go here, but other owners are only going to pay so much out of their own pockets to support other teams!
I think that Gary’s fortunes will be decided here in Phoenix!
by lightweight on Sep 7, 2009 11:02 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
His credit from winning the last lockout will help him a ton, especially if the NHLPA somehow manages to unifiy itself enough to present itself as a threat into the next negotiation. Ultimately, I think the NHL’s bid for the Coyotes is designed to minimize the risk to the owners, because most, if not all, losses would be recouped by a relocation sale next year if it should come to that.
by Resolute on Sep 7, 2009 10:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
How would relocation fees work if the NHL’s bid prevails and then they decide to move the team?
by pemoco on Sep 6, 2009 9:21 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
The NHL pays themselves nothing, most likely.
by Brodie on Sep 7, 2009 3:46 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is the relocation money distributed equally among the other teams, or are the teams most effected by the move (in case of Hamilton, Toronto and Buffalo) scheduled to receive greater compensation?
by pemoco on Sep 7, 2009 1:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The league would likely determine this.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on Sep 7, 2009 1:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I haven’t had the patience to read through the cpnsititution and by-laws, but shouldn’t the process for determining disbursement of relocation fees be spelled out somewhere? In determining the amount of the relocation fee, isn’t the NHL required to say what they are going to do with that revenue? I assume this is something that the Judge would be interested in…
by pemoco on Sep 7, 2009 2:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
In determining the amount of the relocation fee, isn’t the NHL required to say what they are going to do with that revenue?
Why does it matter?
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on Sep 7, 2009 4:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
In any case, doesn’t there need to be accountability for where this money goes? Or is that no concern for the court?
Also, hypothetically, say the NHL bid prevails. If they move the team then a relocation fee has to be paid. The other 29 teams are all going to chip in equally to a fund that is going to pay out more to some teams than others? Or does a NHL-owned team not have to pay to relocate?
by pemoco on Sep 7, 2009 4:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The relocation fee is the league’s compensation for a market that is worth more than the one it’s leaving. The NHL and its board of governors would likely discuss what course of action to take with the money.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on Sep 7, 2009 4:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The NHL has never once charged a relocation fee, so I doubt they’ve anticipated that in the constitution or by-laws. This is a new scenario for the league.
by Resolute on Sep 7, 2009 10:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
There have been a few small relocation fees according to Bettman’s declaration.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on Sep 7, 2009 11:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why is Gary Bettman doing the Ric Flair walk?
You can just hear the “Wooooo!”
Can it before I drive this truculence through your faceulence and put you in an ambulance.
by Brunswick Bruiser on Sep 7, 2009 10:13 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Link to complete filing?
James, is there a link to the complete reports relied upon by the NHL available? Apologies if I missed it above…
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 7, 2009 11:41 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Bummer. Is there a link to redacted versions available?
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 8, 2009 1:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe this is slightly off-topic but as this is my favorite blog for following the drama that is the Phoenix Coyotes Bankruptcy I thought I mention that according to the Vancouver Sun Balsillie is upping his bid – http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Balsillie+Coyotes/1970037/story.html
by Parallex on Sep 7, 2009 11:16 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I’ll have something extensive posted on this in the morning.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on Sep 8, 2009 2:10 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is starting to remind me about the old joke about the guy that asks a stunner if she’d sleep with him for $1M. She replies yes. He then asks if she’d sleep with him for $1. She responds with indignation “What do you take me for? A hooker?”
And Balsillie replies, “We’ve already established that. Right now we’re just haggling over the price.”
I think things are getting closer to that point.
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
by PPP on Sep 8, 2009 2:33 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I don’t see what Red Wings fans have to do with this at all.
The 2009-10 Colorado Avalanche: Aiming for the Charity Point
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Sep 8, 2009 8:49 AM CDT up reply actions 4 recs
For Starters...
…They’d start at $7.4 million for the first two nights, dropping to $3.6 million for each of the next three, then $1/night for the four after that or until Balsillie decides to retire.
by Thursday on Sep 8, 2009 2:51 PM CDT up reply actions 4 recs

by 


















