Bain Group

[me2]

Yeah as much as I think there can be some merrit to this it will never happen for the sole fact that all 30 teams need to agree and the Ontario Teachers will never allow that since they would stand to lose the most from a deal like this.

But they would also stand to gain the most since teams wouldn't be paid out evenly. The Leafs might get $300m-400m while low end teams get $80m-100m. If the money is good enough the Pension fund should sell.

 

[Boltsfan2029]

I would imagine that if Donald Trump were interested in owning a hockey team he would have bought one by now. The man is only interested in things that stand to make not only a profit, but a tidy one. An NHL team simply isn't going to do that.

I also don't think all smaller market teams are going to beg to be sold. We're considered small market and I seriously doubt our owner is going to be willing to sell because if he does, he loses the building. That's where the money really lies and it's an extremely successful entertainment venue. I don't see him letting it go anytime soon. Just IMO.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

I seriously doubt our owner is going to be willing to sell because if he does, he loses the building. That's where the money really lies

sigh .... how ironic..

so the owner needs the hockey team to make money from his building, yet the players have no right to be paid from proceeds the owner derives from said building ?

according to you, no hockey team = loss of arena revenue "the real money".

Thats why linkage sucks, because it wont include all sources of hockey related revenue, its too easy to hide it in the arena for example ... the owners should be allowed to pay the players from whatever source of revenue they want, hockey, arena, pizza or pocket money. the owners should be free to invest in their teams and each market is different.

round and round we go ...

 

[Boltsfan2029]

Thats why linkage sucks, because it wont include all sources of hockey related revenue, its too easy to hide it in the arena for example ...

The hockey team doesn't own the arena. I don't see how revenue derived from the upcoming Rolling Stones concert, the circus or Finding Nemo on Ice is hockey related. What exactly would the Lightning have to do with selling out a Josh Groban concert? Why should players get a cut of the revenue from Tony Hawks Boom Boom Hawk Jam (or whatever it's called)? What part of NHL hockey draws the fans to see those other events? Which parts of the revenue from those events are hockey related?

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

sigh .... how ironic..

so the owner needs the hockey team to make money from his building, yet the players have no right to be paid from proceeds the owner derives from said building ?

according to you, no hockey team = loss of arena revenue "the real money".

Thats why linkage sucks, because it wont include all sources of hockey related revenue, its too easy to hide it in the arena for example ... the owners should be allowed to pay the players from whatever source of revenue they want, hockey, arena, pizza or pocket money. the owners should be free to invest in their teams and each market is different.

round and round we go ...

Gotcha. So because you work in Bankers Hall you deserve a cut of the action from all the tenants in the building? And because CNRL is in that building, and because Edwards and Markin own the Flames, you deserve a chunk of the Saddledome revenues as well? You're right, round and round we go, because your logic is dizzying.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

The hockey team doesn't own the arena. I don't see how revenue derived from the upcoming Rolling Stones concert, the circus or Finding Nemo on Ice is hockey related. What exactly would the Lightning have to do with selling out a Josh Groban concert? Why should players get a cut of the revenue from Tony Hawks Boom Boom Hawk Jam (or whatever it's called)? What part of NHL hockey draws the fans to see those other events? Which parts of the revenue from those events are hockey related?

because, as you said, without the hockey team, he wouldnt own the arena to make money from the Rolling Stones etc ...

dr

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Gotcha. So because you work in Bankers Hall you deserve a cut of the action from all the tenants in the building? And because CNRL is in that building, and because Edwards and Markin own the Flames, you deserve a chunk of the Saddledome revenues as well? You're right, round and round we go, because your logic is dizzying.

my point is that if i am providing you a service that provides you the resources to earn money from owning Bankers Hall, you should not be prohibited from paying me for my services from those resources.

dr

 

[WC Handy*]

because, as you said, without the hockey team, he wouldnt own the arena to make money from the Rolling Stones etc ...

dr

So if the owner of the arena also built two city blocks of retail space when he built the arena, does the revenue that those stores generate count as hockey revenue too?

 

[djhn579]

So if the owner of the arena also built two city blocks of retail space when he built the arena, does the revenue that those stores generate count as hockey revenue too?

Of course!

 

[StevenintheATL]

26 Atlanta Thrashers 106

Depending on the way you look at it, when Atlanta Spirit LLC bought the Hawks, the Thrashers, and the operating rights to Philips Arena, they either:

A.) Bought the arena rights and had the two tenants thrown in.
B.) Bought the Thrashers and the arena rights and the Hawks were thrown in as a bonus.
C.) Bought the Hawks and the arena rights, and got the Thrashers thrown in as a bonus.

Myself, I go with B.

The only group that would benefit from Bain buying out the NHL would be the group behind the long running attempt to restart the WHA. If the NHL owners are bought out, they might use that money to buy franchises in the WHA, and that could give some legitimacy to the league.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

So if the owner of the arena also built two city blocks of retail space when he built the arena, does the revenue that those stores generate count as hockey revenue too?

of course not, presumably they hold their value with our without the hockey team. i was responding the posters claim that the TBY owner wouldnt sell his hockey team because he would then lose his arena, where the "real money" is.

can you not see the connection ?

dr

 

[Sammy*]

of course not, presumably they hold their value with our without the hockey team. i was responding the posters claim that the TBY owner wouldnt sell his hockey team because he would then lose his arena, where the "real money" is.

can you not see the connection ?

dr

No, you are wrong. All sorts of business in and around an arena benefit from hockey games been played at the arena, as do all sorts not around the arena. Accordingly, it increases their value.
You should maybe try talking to the owners of a sports bar here in Edmonton.

 

[Boltsfan2029]

because, as you said, without the hockey team, he wouldnt own the arena to make money from the Rolling Stones etc ...

dr

LOL!!

And without Mr. Davidson's glass business, he wouldn't have enough money to buy the hockey team to have the lease to the building, so the players should get a cut of that, too? Might as well throw in rights to revenue generated by the Pistons.

I think I'm owed a nice chunk of Coca-Cola's revenues since they profit from selling their product to the restaurant which gets my hard-earned lunch money, and without the restaurants and lots of lunch money, Coca-Cola wouldn't be able to make the money it does...

Wishful thinking, at best.

Business can't be viewed with a romantic or idealistic eye. Just doesn’t work that way.

 

[WC Handy*]

of course not, presumably they hold their value with our without the hockey team. i was responding the posters claim that the TBY owner wouldnt sell his hockey team because he would then lose his arena, where the "real money" is.

can you not see the connection ?

dr

Whether there's a connection or not, your point is not valid. Events held at the arena other than hockey are not hockey related revenue. If there is a basketball team in the building owned by the same guy then do the basketball games count as hockey related revenue? Then why do concerts and Disney on Ice count as hockey related revenue? Fact of the matter is that without the hockey team, those events are still coming to that arena.

 

[ceber]

I seriously doubt our owner is going to be willing to sell because if he does, he loses the building. That's where the money really lies

Why not just sell the team, continue to operate the building, and charge the Bain group rent?

 

[DETROIT SKABOY]

Here is the link:

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=125690&hubName=nhl


What is the dollar figure you think it would take to get the deal done......as everything has its price.......

i would say a lot more then a few billion
allthough without a cba soon they wont have teams at all

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

my point is that if i am providing you a service that provides you the resources to earn money from owning Bankers Hall, you should not be prohibited from paying me for my services from those resources.

dr

So as I said, because you provide sys admin services that keep Bankers Hall running does that entitle you to a chunk of all the revenues generated from Bankers Hall? From what you are saying you provide a service that benefits all the leasors, so you are entitled to a chunk of all revenues generated from the guy that put up the $300 million to erect the towers because you provide such an important service. You are correct that nothing prevents the owners from paying you as you describe, nothing but common sense and business acumen.

 

[Boltsfan2029]

Why not just sell the team, continue to operate the building, and charge the Bain group rent?

Because he who owns the team owns the leasehold rights as the team is the "primary tenant." Sell the team, the building goes with it. There's no way around it, that's the way the deal was written with the county (which owns the building).

 

[mackdogs*]

Ain't gonna happen... simple as that.

Manchester United fans thought the same of their team until recently...

 

[mackdogs*]

sigh .... how ironic..

so the owner needs the hockey team to make money from his building, yet the players have no right to be paid from proceeds the owner derives from said building ?

according to you, no hockey team = loss of arena revenue "the real money".

Thats why linkage sucks, because it wont include all sources of hockey related revenue, its too easy to hide it in the arena for example ... the owners should be allowed to pay the players from whatever source of revenue they want, hockey, arena, pizza or pocket money. the owners should be free to invest in their teams and each market is different.

round and round we go ...

Quick question for you here DR - should the owners get a cut of the players advertising deals? Or maybe take this into account to offset how much salary they are paid? Round and round we go? Sounds like are stuck on a one-way street. It's called give and take, not take.

 

[Boltsfan2029]

Manchester United fans thought the same of their team until recently...

I think there's a huge difference between buying up the shares of a company listed on the stock market as opposed to trying to buy out 30 businesses privately owned by individuals.

Matter of fact, I think it's night and day.

 

[djhn579]

Quick question for you here DR - should the owners get a cut of the players advertising deals? Or maybe take this into account to offset how much salary they are paid? Round and round we go? Sounds like are stuck on a one-way street. It's called give and take, not take.

One step further...

Should the owners get a share of any business set up by the players? I'm sure in many cases, they used their fame as hockey players to market their businesses. They wouldn't be able to do that without the fame that being an NHL player brought them. Why should the players be allowed to profit off the NHL (EDIT: outside of their salary)?

Round and round?

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

first off , i was travelling today and am just now able to respond .. im sure no one minds ..

anyhow ... my point really is, if Mr Davidson feels he wants to make an investment in his team by paying for marque names and by his analysis determines that while he will lose a few million on his hockey team, but his overall property will increase in value, he should NOT be prohibited from making that decision.

round and round we go ... thats what a salary cap does. if he felt by paying Jagr, HOlik and Iginla 15million a game each it would raise the value of some other property he owns, then he should be able to do jsut that. at the same time, i dont want to hear him complain about how much his hockey team loses !

the owners talk out of both sides of their mouth.

and, for the poster who asked me if the owners should get a cut of the players promotional deals, they do already. anytime a player wears their NHL jersey, the team geta a cut. further more, the teams are free to negotiate for the players marketing rights, which has happened in a few cases (bure and daigle). this means ALL promotional money the player makes goes to the team.

i will see if i can respond to the rest later, but i have work to do.

dr

 

[WC Handy*]

anyhow ... my point really is, if Mr Davidson feels he wants to make an investment in his team by paying for marque names and by his analysis determines that while he will lose a few million on his hockey team, but his overall property will increase in value, he should NOT be prohibited from making that decision.

One day you'll finally realize that every signing has an effect on the player market.

 

[Kritter471]

The contintious stuff isn't from the advertising (either way - team sponserships such as "Bud Light presents, your Atlanta Thrashers" or player sponserships "Mike Modano of the Dallas Stars enjoys Bob's Steak and Chop House, and so will you!" are already accounted for). The real crux of the revenue issues comes from things that are nominally hockey or game related.

For instance - Tom Hicks owns 30 or 40 percent of the AAC where the Stars play. Should the concessions revenue brought in during Stars games, technically a AAC money stream and not an NHL money stream, be accounted for as hockey related revenue. What about parking fees collected during NHL games? Or what about revenues for the Dr. Pepper StarCenters (a series of rinks around the Dallas area owned and operated by the Stars organization. Should revenue from those buildings be a part of hockey related revenue? The Stars players are used heavily to market the buildings, and no one around here could make the case that DFW would have gone from four to 26 local sheets of ice(about 14-16 of those StarsCenters) without the team.

Everyone wants to talk about the extremes about what hockey related revenue is. But it's the middling little things that make up the majority of this mess.