Calgary 2: The Houston Leverage

LadyStanley

Registered User
Sep 22, 2004
105,742
18,871
Sin City
Flames arena saga: Desperately seeking leverage by invoking...

May be behind paywall.

Ken Wilson dissects recent "threat" for team to move to Houston and what the rhetoric "really" means. Looks at the team's desire for leverage against the city. Quotes Lemieux about his trips to Kansas City, et al, as a way of getting Pittsburgh to pony up more for new arena/benefits.

IOW, King et al want sacrificial, extravagant gift on a silver platter and mayor and city council want to give small wrapped-in-brown-paper package. Calgary is a "top 10" NHL team and no one disagrees that team needs a new arena. But city does not want to pay for every little thing and then all the revenues get routed to team.


Will be an interesting argument to follow going forward.
 

Fenway

HF Bookie and Bruins Historian
Sponsor
Sep 26, 2007
68,594
98,305
Cambridge, MA
Flames arena saga: Desperately seeking leverage by invoking...

May be behind paywall.

Ken Wilson dissects recent "threat" for team to move to Houston and what the rhetoric "really" means. Looks at the team's desire for leverage against the city. Quotes Lemieux about his trips to Kansas City, et al, as a way of getting Pittsburgh to pony up more for new arena/benefits.

IOW, King et al want sacrificial, extravagant gift on a silver platter and mayor and city council want to give small wrapped-in-brown-paper package. Calgary is a "top 10" NHL team and no one disagrees that team needs a new arena. But city does not want to pay for every little thing and then all the revenues get routed to team.


Will be an interesting argument to follow going forward.

While 'The Athletic' story is behind a paywall - The Calgary Herald story that prompted it isn't

Francis: Bettman and Nenshi give Flames owners good reason to sell the team

Does anybody know if the BoG can stop a team from relocating without permission? I know the North Stars were able to move to Dallas without official approval from the BoG.

This could get real messy quickly and that is why I believe the NHL is going to make a 'final' decision on Arizona in the next few months because if the Coyotes move to Houston then Calgary's options become very limited.
 

LadyStanley

Registered User
Sep 22, 2004
105,742
18,871
Sin City
Yes, the BoG does have the power to stop a relocation. I think it's in the bylaws.

After Raiders relocation #1 to LA, most sports league's put more teeth in controlling relocation.

NHL does impose "relocation" fee for opening up "new" territory.
 

Mightygoose

Registered User
Nov 5, 2012
5,586
1,382
Ajax, ON
The Athletic article is behind a pay wall it's a rebuttal piece to the Francis article. Picking apart it practically line by line.

Interesting part of the Francis piece is he seems to refer to Calgary's potential bid for the 2026 games as a last hope for a new building. A decision to be made next year but it seems like so far they're leaning in that direction.

Agreed, whichever the league decides to move to Houston. Either Arizona or Calgary will have no realistic western options as I'm assuming Seattle will be expansion.

So this is a part 2 tread, does this mean Calgary's arena saga is now in Mega thread territory?
 

edog37

Registered User
Jan 21, 2007
6,055
1,602
Pittsburgh
Yes, the BoG does have the power to stop a relocation. I think it's in the bylaws.

After Raiders relocation #1 to LA, most sports league's put more teeth in controlling relocation.

NHL does impose "relocation" fee for opening up "new" territory.

The BoG can make whatever by laws they want, they couldn't stop an existing owner from relocating. Hasn't held up in a court of law before, doubtful it would now...
 

LadyStanley

Registered User
Sep 22, 2004
105,742
18,871
Sin City
Ah, but the BoG can eliminate games against rogue team (or schedule in old venue), and under worst case, cancel franchise.

If the team doesn't have a lease to break and good situation to go to, hard for BoG to not approve move.
 

Mightygoose

Registered User
Nov 5, 2012
5,586
1,382
Ajax, ON
Is there a realistic scenario where the Flames can move the team itself that would put the Raiders example in play? They would not be in a better place by sub-leasing a building already controlled by Frittera. Same principle would apply in Quebec.

The scenario that Francis alludes to is the Flames selling to Tillman F. In this case it would be a sale which the board will be approving as opposed to a stand alone relocation request . Wouldn't it?
 

edog37

Registered User
Jan 21, 2007
6,055
1,602
Pittsburgh
Ah, but the BoG can eliminate games against rogue team (or schedule in old venue), and under worst case, cancel franchise.

If the team doesn't have a lease to break and good situation to go to, hard for BoG to not approve move.

Who pays the players? Those contracts are guaranteed, so if you cancel the franchise (again difficult if not impossible to do), players still get paid. Otherwise, the NHLPA would raise all kinds of hell. Are the other owners willing to pick up those contracts?

Regarding lease, there are always buy outs. My point is, there are no unbreakable contracts. I'm not saying it's likely, but relocation is still within the purview of whomever owns the franchise regards of league by-laws. The league would not want to go through another Coyotes saga, though this time with an existing owner determined to move.

Plus, relocation is how teams (& by extension, the league) generates additional revenue with new facilities.
 

BattleBorn

50% to winning as many division titles as Toronto
Feb 6, 2015
12,069
6,017
Bellevue, WA
The BoG can make whatever by laws they want, they couldn't stop an existing owner from relocating. Hasn't held up in a court of law before, doubtful it would now...
Has there been a case of a league stopping a relocation in a sport with multiple professional leagues available? I know baseball's got their minor professional leagues, but they've got some special consideration when it comes to anti-trust laws. Football has gotten smacked down on relocation through the courts, but there's no other professional leagues to speak of.

Has the NBA or NHL ever had a case go in front of a court to stop a relocation whether in Canada or the US? Hockey's the one I'm most interested in (obviously) since there's an alternate league (AHL/ECHL) the league can suggest the owner to join if they want to have a pro hockey franchise in City X.
 

BKIslandersFan

F*** off
Sep 29, 2017
11,447
5,062
Brooklyn
Has there been a case of a league stopping a relocation in a sport with multiple professional leagues available? I know baseball's got their minor professional leagues, but they've got some special consideration when it comes to anti-trust laws. Football has gotten smacked down on relocation through the courts, but there's no other professional leagues to speak of.

Has the NBA or NHL ever had a case go in front of a court to stop a relocation whether in Canada or the US? Hockey's the one I'm most interested in (obviously) since there's an alternate league (AHL/ECHL) the league can suggest the owner to join if they want to have a pro hockey franchise in City X.
I don't see how NHL's relations with AHL and ECHL is any different than baseball's with AAA and AA leagues.
 

BattleBorn

50% to winning as many division titles as Toronto
Feb 6, 2015
12,069
6,017
Bellevue, WA
I don't see how NHL's relations with AHL and ECHL is any different than baseball's with AAA and AA leagues.
Baseball has been allowed to pretty much have a government supported protected monopoly on professional baseball in the US since a long long time ago. There's a lot more hurdles to prove anti-trust cases against MLB due to that, which is usually the tact taken for owners to get team portability.

The actual minor league leagues also operate under the auspices of the commissioner of MLB, so it's all MLB all the time with a few independent league exceptions.
 

Price is Wright

Registered User
Feb 5, 2010
12,494
5,571
essex
I expect if it got serious, NHL will tell them what they told the Gunds in the 90s: sell the Flames, have an expansion team.
 

KevFu

Registered User
May 22, 2009
9,007
3,239
Phoenix from Rochester via New Orleans
Has there been a case of a league stopping a relocation in a sport with multiple professional leagues available? I know baseball's got their minor professional leagues, but they've got some special consideration when it comes to anti-trust laws.

The leagues have approval on the sales of a franchise. And that's basically when they get to veto power on relocation.

The NHL can say "you can buy the Flames, but only if you sign a 'no relocation' clause."

Any potential move of a team that was thwarted by the league, against the wishes of the owner, have hinged on that sale approval:
- San Francisco Giants sold to Tampa Bay group to move. League vetoed sale of the team. (TB got expansion as the result of politicians raising hell about anti-trust exemption in Congress. Congressional subpoenas arrived, MLB launched expansion committee the next day. With a Tampa resident as a member).
- JB to Hamilton, league rejected the sale of the team via bankruptcy court.

There can be injunctions that the team must honor their lease (I think Seattle and Sacramento had that with NBA teams).


But if a lease is up, and no one is building a new building... the NHL is NOT going to let an owner move his team. They may tell him "Well, you can't go to _____ market, we want to expand there." But legally, their only recourse to stop it would to be set the relocation fee as something astronomical. But it would never get to that. The NHL would absolutely let the Flames move if their lease is up. Because it helps every single one of them get a new sweet arena deal later.
 

gstommylee

Registered User
Jan 31, 2012
14,403
2,746
But if a lease is up, and no one is building a new building... the NHL is NOT going to let an owner move his team. They may tell him "Well, you can't go to _____ market, we want to expand there." But legally, their only recourse to stop it would to be set the relocation fee as something astronomical. But it would never get to that. The NHL would absolutely let the Flames move if their lease is up. Because it helps every single one of them get a new sweet arena deal later.

The league has no authority to say no if a owner that isn't bound by any lease agreement and wants to move the team. The late Al Davis made that impossible.
 

Fenway

HF Bookie and Bruins Historian
Sponsor
Sep 26, 2007
68,594
98,305
Cambridge, MA
My gut feeling is this will be resolved in the next 12 months. Right now the Flames are worth $650 million thanks to Seattle and it is doubtful that anybody will pay that to keep the team there without an arena deal in place.


North Stars' Move To Dallas Finalized


DALLAS — The Minnesota North Stars, unable to turn a profit in eight years and facing dwindling community support, will play in Dallas beginning next season.North Stars owner Norman Green and the Dallas City Council announced the move Wednesday night, with the team to be renamed the Dallas Stars.The team has played in Minnesota since entering the NHL in 1967.
pixel.gif
pixel.gif


"I'm very, very proud to be able to present to Dallas the National Hockey League," said Green, who gave North Stars jerseys to council members and Mayor Steve Bartlett.

The relocation, the first in the NHL since the Colorado Rockies became the New Jersey Devils 11 years ago, does not have to be approved by owners.
 

edog37

Registered User
Jan 21, 2007
6,055
1,602
Pittsburgh
Has there been a case of a league stopping a relocation in a sport with multiple professional leagues available? I know baseball's got their minor professional leagues, but they've got some special consideration when it comes to anti-trust laws. Football has gotten smacked down on relocation through the courts, but there's no other professional leagues to speak of.

Has the NBA or NHL ever had a case go in front of a court to stop a relocation whether in Canada or the US? Hockey's the one I'm most interested in (obviously) since there's an alternate league (AHL/ECHL) the league can suggest the owner to join if they want to have a pro hockey franchise in City X.

There isn't a specific case, but this is why the Saskatoon group was denied a chance to buy the Blues. The league did not want to lose the St Louis market & they know had they approved the sale, that team would have moved. Leagues can't stop relocations happening. The Rams, Raiders & Chargers are the most recent case examples. The NFL didn't even try to stop it because they know they would lose in court. Same with the NHL....the league can't stop an existing owner from moving....the best they can do is disapprove a sale to a group wanting to move a team....
 
  • Like
Reactions: Melrose Munch

Jeffrey93

Registered User
Nov 7, 2007
4,335
46
Yes, the BoG does have the power to stop a relocation. I think it's in the bylaws.

After Raiders relocation #1 to LA, most sports league's put more teeth in controlling relocation.

NHL does impose "relocation" fee for opening up "new" territory.
They can't, and have never, blocked a move. It might be in the by-laws....but they won't do it, and never have done it. They know better. It would cause a massive court case that they would lose.

I don't remember all the details.....but I KNOW the NHL can't legally block a move. They can try....but as it stands they never have tried....because they have known if it went to a court battle, they would lose.
 

cbcwpg

Registered User
May 18, 2010
20,101
20,379
Between the Pipes
They can't, and have never, blocked a move. It might be in the by-laws....but they won't do it, and never have done it. They know better. It would cause a massive court case that they would lose.

I don't remember all the details.....but I KNOW the NHL can't legally block a move. They can try....but as it stands they never have tried....because they have known if it went to a court battle, they would lose.

It most definitely is in the bylaws.... it requires a majority vote by the current owners to allow a relocation. BUT, even if the NHL was scared about a pending court case, it is well withing the NHL's rights to slap a billion dollar, or whatever value they want, relocation fee on to a relocation. That is within the commissionaires right.

Now, common sense would say that if I owned a team in a market that I could prove was not financially viable and was never going to work, the NHL would be more than reasonable and let me relocate the team... as ultimately it's in the leagues best interest to let me do so.

But on the other hand , if I say owned the NY Rangers ( or any team that has a positive net revenue affect on the NHL ) and tried to move them to Kansas City... you can be sure as hell the NHL is going to do whatever they can to stop it.
 

Melrose Munch

Registered User
Mar 18, 2007
23,546
2,006
It most definitely is in the bylaws.... it requires a majority vote by the current owners to allow a relocation. BUT, even if the NHL was scared about a pending court case, it is well withing the NHL's rights to slap a billion dollar, or whatever value they want, relocation fee on to a relocation. That is within the commissionaires right.

Now, common sense would say that if I owned a team in a market that I could prove was not financially viable and was never going to work, the NHL would be more than reasonable and let me relocate the team... as ultimately it's in the leagues best interest to let me do so.

But on the other hand , if I say owned the NY Rangers ( or any team that has a positive net revenue affect on the NHL ) and tried to move them to Kansas City... you can be sure as hell the NHL is going to do whatever they can to stop it.
Yeah but this is calagary, which was almost going to move 18 years ago. The smaller Canadian markets are never going to have the same protection as the NY Rangers or Toronto because they are just not as valuable.
 

Inkling

Same Old Hockey
Nov 27, 2006
5,655
679
Ottawa
What's the status of the Flames regional TV contract? Is it coming due soon? If the Senators can get a contract worth $400 million, then whatever Calgary can get or already has, will be hard to match playing in a city where hockey is an afterthought. I don't think Vegas' contract was made public, but a lot was written about how much difficulty they had in getting interest at a reasonable price.
 

DowntownBooster

Registered User
Jun 21, 2011
3,202
2,414
Winnipeg
I can't see the Flames moving. I think it will be solved at one point.

I would agree as well. Talk of the Flames moving somewhere else is ludicrous. Sure their building is a little older and they would like a new one because Edmonton got a new arena. However, the team is still very profitable in Calgary. They would be hard pressed to find another location where they would make as much money as they do currently. Calgary is nowhere near the dire straits situation that the Jets 1.0 and Quebec were in when both those teams relocated to the U.S. The Jets and Nordiques were losing large sums of money and each of them desperately needed a new arena as they were much older buildings that could not generate the revenue required from private suites and other amenities that the newer facilities were providing. The Flames just need some patience in striking the right deal with the City of Calgary. It's a great market and it would be foolhardy for the team to think they could find greener pastures elsewhere.

:jets
 

Melrose Munch

Registered User
Mar 18, 2007
23,546
2,006
I would agree as well. Talk of the Flames moving somewhere else is ludicrous. Sure their building is a little older and they would like a new one because Edmonton got a new arena. However, the team is still very profitable in Calgary. They would be hard pressed to find another location where they would make as much money as they do currently. Calgary is nowhere near the dire straits situation that the Jets 1.0 and Quebec were in when both those teams relocated to the U.S. The Jets and Nordiques were losing large sums of money and each of them desperately needed a new arena as they were much older buildings that could not generate the revenue required from private suites and other amenities that the newer facilities were providing. The Flames just need some patience in striking the right deal with the City of Calgary. It's a great market and it would be foolhardy for the team to think they could find greener pastures elsewhere.

:jets
Why is it ludicrous? There is no new building on the horizon and the team says they are not making all that much money. They can sell to the Fertitta in Houston and walkaway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Devonator

CHRDANHUTCH

Registered User
Mar 4, 2002
35,232
4,218
Auburn, Maine
Why is it ludicrous? There is no new building on the horizon and the team says they are not making all that much money. They can sell to the Fertitta in Houston and walkaway.

except you cannot just walk away, MM, something illegal (against NHL bylaws) or the scenario in Carolina's NFL team has to occur
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->