Burlington Group Approached NHL for possible 2nd GTA/S.O. Franchise

[mouser]

They didn't fight the move. They fought the sale.

The league has no control over relocation, they do have control over ownership. They fought that they had a right to determine who gets to, and who doesn't get to, own an NHL team. They previously approved Balsillie as an Owner....which is what made it an interesting case.

Leagues do have control over relocation. They just have more control over ownership. So it makes perfect sense to focus on ownership first and relocation second.

And in case you’re wondering, yes the NHL fought the move as well. You’ve obviously invested lots of time into this, I don’t understand why you continue to get facts wrong.

 

[TheLegend]

They didn't fight the move. They fought the sale.

The league has no control over relocation, they do have control over ownership. They fought that they had a right to determine who gets to, and who doesn't get to, own an NHL team. They previously approved Balsillie as an Owner....which is what made it an interesting case.

More revisionist manure, Jeff.

They previously approved Balsillie as an owner of the Penguins because of his BS promises to keep the franchise in Pittsburgh. Then when it came time for him to sign the document to keep them there for the next 7 years he walked crying foul, when he already knew about the document to begin with.

No Jeffrey.... what the interesting part of the case was Balsillie using the bankruptcy courts to circumvent league protocols and forcing his way into a franchise ownership. That was the Pandora's Box that the NHL (nor MLB, NFL, NBA) did not want. And the presiding judge did not want to set the precedent for it.

In hindsight....I think the NHL would have been better served to have Balsillie remove his bid to purchase the Coyotes out of Bankruptcy and in exchange either be given an expansion franchise or simply sold the Coyotes to relocate under all conditions that were offered in the bankruptcy, but at the league's discretion.

That would include the $50M to Glendale.

Would've been the most cost-effective and beneficial for the league. Retain control, solve a problem and make more money.

As I indicated above.... he had that chance with Pittsburgh. And how did it work out??

 

[Grudy0]

Leagues do have control over relocation. They just have more control over ownership. So it makes perfect sense to focus on ownership first and relocation second.

And in case you’re wondering, yes the NHL fought the move as well. You’ve obviously invested lots of time into this, I don’t understand why you continue to get facts wrong.

More revisionist manure, Jeff.

They previously approved Balsillie as an owner of the Penguins because of his BS promises to keep the franchise in Pittsburgh. Then when it came time for him to sign the document to keep them there for the next 7 years he walked crying foul, when he already knew about the document to begin with.

No Jeffrey.... what the interesting part of the case was Balsillie using the bankruptcy courts to circumvent league protocols and forcing his way into a franchise ownership. That was the Pandora's Box that the NHL (nor MLB, NFL, NBA) did not want. And the presiding judge did not want to set the precedent for it.

You are all missing the point:

Balisillie put an offer in on the Coyotes, contingent that Balsillie would not be bound by League by-laws.

The League's contention was that the League must approve an owner and follow League by-laws once approved - and that Balsillie was persona non grata as a franchise owner.

The discussion on relocation was simply a side show. The relocation discussion had to take place because the bankruptcy court must address Balsillie's bid. However, Balsillie's bid was denied because he wasn't approved by the League.

 

[mouser]

You are all missing the point:

Balisillie put an offer in on the Coyotes, contingent that Balsillie would not be bound by League by-laws.

The League's contention was that the League must approve an owner and follow League by-laws once approved - and that Balsillie was persona non grata as a franchise owner.

The discussion on relocation was simply a side show. The relocation discussion had to take place because the bankruptcy court must address Balsillie's bid. However, Balsillie's bid was denied because he wasn't approved by the League.

I disagree the relocation discussion was a sideshow. One of the important legal elements that was contested is whether the league holds rights to unfilled markets and is entitled to collect relocation fees based on market values. The relocation issue was a lesser topic then the ownership issue, but was still legally important not only to the NHL, but to all the major sports leagues. Ultimately Baum did decide that the league is entitled to relocation fees. Whether the league can deny a relocation was unsettled.

fwiw, I read most of the legal filing in the case, and spent many hours in judge Baum's courtroom watching the lawyers argue.

 

[Grudy0]

I disagree the relocation discussion was a sideshow. One of the important legal elements that was contested is whether the league holds rights to unfilled markets and is entitled to collect relocation fees based on market values. The relocation issue was a lesser topic then the ownership issue, but was still legally important not only to the NHL, but to all the major sports leagues. Ultimately Baum did decide that the league is entitled to relocation fees. Whether the league can deny a relocation was unsettled.

fwiw, I read most of the legal filing in the case, and spent many hours in judge Baum's courtroom watching the lawyers argue.

Now you're getting to my point. Just because there is a point of contention in legal briefs and hearings doesn't mean that some of the discussion isn't directly related to the case.

According to Raiders II, a league does hold "rights to unfilled markets and is entitled to collect relocation fees based on market values." Some of those rights are spelled out in the by-laws. However, Balsillie's bid was predicated on ignoring those rules - his original bid was $212.5 million as long as he didn't have to follow rules. Any judge in the land has to allow for arguments as to why a substantial bid should be ignored. The argument about ignoring the by-laws was so weak that Judge Baum told the NHL to suggest proposing the relocation fee, in direct opposition to Balsillie's "offer with no rules". When the judgment was issued Balsillie was blocked from purchasing the Coyotes, solely because the NHL didn't approve Balsillie as an owner.

I did go looking for Judge Baum's decision that blocked the Coyotes sale to Balsillie, but I couldn't find it.

 

[Mightygoose]

Article is a day old but does mention Paleta's ambitions.

Opinion | Paletta sets sights on NHL team for Aldershot

Piece of land mention is by Aldershot Station which is kind of the edge of the urban part of Burlington. Though right by Highway 403 and of course the GO Station which VIA services too.

Interesting but nothing seemingly imminent.

 

[Bjorn Le]

Article is a day old but does mention Paleta's ambitions.

Opinion | Paletta sets sights on NHL team for Aldershot

Piece of land mention is by Aldershot Station which is kind of the edge of the urban part of Burlington. Though right by Highway 403 and of course the GO Station which VIA services too.

Interesting but nothing seemingly imminent.

Still don't see how he could afford it. He's nowhere to be seen on Canada's richest lists, so his net worth won't even match the expansion/relocation fee, let alone have enough liquid assets to pay it. At least Balsillie had the cash at the time to do a deal. This seems like a bit of nonsense, where Paletta will leverage investors to pay the league, and try to get the various municipal governments to pay for the arena/development project, all the while Paletta assumes a Melnyk-like situation where he doesn't really belong money wise in the NHL owners club but has got there by extreme means. Don't see it happening for that reason, the league should and will avoid owners who aren't wealthy enough.

 

[Jeffrey93]

More revisionist manure, Jeff.

They previously approved Balsillie as an owner of the Penguins because of his BS promises to keep the franchise in Pittsburgh. Then when it came time for him to sign the document to keep them there for the next 7 years he walked crying foul, when he already knew about the document to begin with.

The approval of an Owner, in theory, has nothing to do with his intentions to move the franchise. You accept the Owner or you don't. The Pens were in an arena dispute with the City, County & State.....it was going to a vote. You're buying the team prior to that......you going to commit to staying there for 7 years....when the electorate can put you into an already outdated arena....for 7 more years....they KNOW you can't leave.....your threats of going to Hamilton or elsewhere would be moot. Think of how many teams have used the threat of relocation to get an arena built.......now think if none of those teams could have done that. They had no leverage.....how would that work out for the NHL?

No Jeffrey.... what the interesting part of the case was Balsillie using the bankruptcy courts to circumvent league protocols and forcing his way into a franchise ownership. That was the Pandora's Box that the NHL (nor MLB, NFL, NBA) did not want. And the presiding judge did not want to set the precedent for it.

No....as he was already approved as an owner. What he was trying to circumvent was the leagues monopolistic control over markets. And the league will do everything to keep that, even when they shouldn't.
He had teams......he wasn't forcing his way into ownership. He was forcing his way into being allowed to buy a team without conditions that aren't put on other owners. That didn't work....so he tried to buy a team out of bankruptcy.....and a member of the NHL was on board with it.

As I indicated above.... he had that chance with Pittsburgh. And how did it work out??

Pittsburgh had no rink.....it was going to a vote over a casino....there was no idea if there would be any money for a new arena or not. NO SANE PERSON would buy that team and commit to 7 years no matter what. The franchise was currently in a major state vote regarding money for a new arena or another proposal or a weak option C. That franchise might have been stuck with zero public dollars for a new arena for the next 20 years.

Nobody would agree to stay for 7 years. The people the existing owners were negotiating with for a new arena would know this new owner couldn't move for 7 years, that completely ruins negotiations. No point in even trying.

 

[TheLegend]

The approval of an Owner, in theory, has nothing to do with his intentions to move the franchise. You accept the Owner or you don't. The Pens were in an arena dispute with the City, County & State.....it was going to a vote. You're buying the team prior to that......you going to commit to staying there for 7 years....when the electorate can put you into an already outdated arena....for 7 more years....they KNOW you can't leave.....your threats of going to Hamilton or elsewhere would be moot. Think of how many teams have used the threat of relocation to get an arena built.......now think if none of those teams could have done that. They had no leverage.....how would that work out for the NHL?


No....as he was already approved as an owner. What he was trying to circumvent was the leagues monopolistic control over markets. And the league will do everything to keep that, even when they shouldn't.
He had teams......he wasn't forcing his way into ownership. He was forcing his way into being allowed to buy a team without conditions that aren't put on other owners. That didn't work....so he tried to buy a team out of bankruptcy.....and a member of the NHL was on board with it.




Pittsburgh had no rink.....it was going to a vote over a casino....there was no idea if there would be any money for a new arena or not. NO SANE PERSON would buy that team and commit to 7 years no matter what. The franchise was currently in a major state vote regarding money for a new arena or another proposal or a weak option C. That franchise might have been stuck with zero public dollars for a new arena for the next 20 years.

Nobody would agree to stay for 7 years. The people the existing owners were negotiating with for a new arena would know this new owner couldn't move for 7 years, that completely ruins negotiations. No point in even trying.

That’s all good Jeffrey. You can have your version of things. Most everyone else will stick with what really went down.

 

[Jeffrey93]

That’s all good Jeffrey. You can have your version of things. Most everyone else will stick with what really went down.

I've read the entire court transcripts.....I'm quite aware of what went down.

But, just like a jury does.....people tend to find ways to believe what they believed initially.

What is the point of this reply anyway? You're pretty much saying "I disagree, as others do, so that is my proof that you are wrong."

Tell me where I'm wrong......

 

[Bookie21]

I've read the entire court transcripts.....I'm quite aware of what went down.

But, just like a jury does.....people tend to find ways to believe what they believed initially.

What is the point of this reply anyway? You're pretty much saying "I disagree, as others do, so that is my proof that you are wrong."

Tell me where I'm wrong......

The point is nobody likes Balsille and nobody wants him to be an owner. The BOG has pretty much stated this. His time has come and gone, burnt his bridges...get it thru your skull

 

[TheLegend]

I've read the entire court transcripts.....I'm quite aware of what went down.

But, just like a jury does.....people tend to find ways to believe what they believed initially.

What is the point of this reply anyway? You're pretty much saying "I disagree, as others do, so that is my proof that you are wrong."

Tell me where I'm wrong......

For starters....... A jury.... (and I've been on a few).... is supposed to weigh all evidence without any prejudice and come to the most logical conclusion. It's not cherry pick a few bits and pieces that fit a pre-determined position and ignore everything else.

Everything has already been discussed in ad-nauseum for over 160 different threads, and you've visited them enough times over the last nine years to know better. You aren't going to change it. Balsillie didn't play by the league's rules.... didn't want to play by the leagues' rules..... not once.... not twice..... but THREE TIMES. The league certainly isn't the most honorable bunch in itself, but that's how it works.