How Close Were The Habs To Relocating Before Gillette bought them in 2001?

Hasbro

Family Friend
Sponsor
Apr 1, 2004
52,414
16,381
South Rectangle
At a ginormous stretch Eminent Domain maybe.... it would be a complete abuse of the law, and probably still not even legal under that, but that's the closest I thing I could think of as to why the government would have any say, and then comes the question of would the league allow it... and it would be fought through the courts.
This came up in the NFL when the Colts moved out of Baltimore to avoid that happening.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hangman005

powerstuck

Nordiques Hopes Lies
Jan 13, 2012
7,595
1,543
Town NHL hates !
How would the governments have had any say?

Only way I see it is that Habs are the Province of Québec's team.

Only the city of Québec cared about Nordiques. Government refused to get involved to save the Nordiques.

When Gillett put the Habs on sale, the government was ready to help finance up to $500M to assure the team remains in controling hands of a Quebecer.
 

Spirit of 67

Registered User
Nov 25, 2016
7,061
4,938
Aurora, On.
Only way I see it is that Habs are the Province of Québec's team.

Only the city of Québec cared about Nordiques. Government refused to get involved to save the Nordiques.

When Gillett put the Habs on sale, the government was ready to help finance up to $500M to assure the team remains in controling hands of a Quebecer.
Link?
 

BKIslandersFan

F*** off
Sep 29, 2017
11,443
5,058
Brooklyn
Only way I see it is that Habs are the Province of Québec's team.

Only the city of Québec cared about Nordiques. Government refused to get involved to save the Nordiques.

When Gillett put the Habs on sale, the government was ready to help finance up to $500M to assure the team remains in controling hands of a Quebecer.
And rightfully so. Government has more important things to do than save a hockey team.
 

powerstuck

Nordiques Hopes Lies
Jan 13, 2012
7,595
1,543
Town NHL hates !

Geoff Molson refused to confirm that the transaction would amount to US $ 575 million, as it is said, or to disclose the participation of each of the partners.
The Quebec government has confirmed a maximum loan of $ 75 million for the purchase of shares in the Gillett family and Molson Coors in the Canadian Hockey Club, the Bell Center and the Gillett Entertainment Group. The loan will be granted by Investissement Québec.
Clément Gignac, Minister of Economic Development, Innovation and Export Trade, said in a statement that the government's support will enable shareholders to obtain the financial capacity required to complete the transaction.

Note that this a Google translation from a French article : La vente du Canadien aux Molson est complétée


There is also a bit more detail from a Radio-Canada article that states that loan was conditional that majority owners are Quebecers (they were at 66%) and was 1,25% higher than banking loan (10 years term).

That article also quotes the same minister :
"If the government intervenes in this transaction, it is to ensure that majority control of the team is held by Quebec shareholders. We are convinced that local owners will be keen to preserve the excellence of this organization, "said Minister Clément Gignac. "In exchange for this loan, the buyers agree to maintain the Canadian Hockey Club in Montreal. This is great news for hockey fans, but it's also good news for the city of Montreal. And spin-offs for Montreal are spin-offs for all of Quebec, "he says.

Now, while these articles don't talk about the maximum of $500M loan, there were some articles back then that were linked to Quebecor wanting to acquire the Habs from Gillett but being unable to do because the asking price was too expensive for them.

As for the orignal topic...I found an interesting tibbid on RDS :
The federal government has given the go-ahead for the sale of the Montreal Canadiens to American businessman George Gillett. The transaction complies with the provisions of the Investment Canada Act, it was determined. If that had not been the case, the sale of the hockey club could not have taken place. "I am delighted that Mr. Gillett has made a commitment to the Government of Canada to keep the team in Montreal for at least 10 years," Industry Minister Brian Tobin said in a statement.
 
Last edited:

Spirit of 67

Registered User
Nov 25, 2016
7,061
4,938
Aurora, On.



Note that this a Google translation from a French article : La vente du Canadien aux Molson est complétée


There is also a bit more detail from a Radio-Canada article that states that loan was conditional that majority owners are Quebecers (they were at 66%) and was 1,25% higher than banking loan (10 years term).

That article also quotes the same minister :


Now, while these articles don't talk about the maximum of $500M loan, there were some articles back then that were linked to Quebecor wanting to acquire the Habs from Gillett but being unable to do because the asking price was too expensive for them.

As for the orignal topic...I found an interesting tibbid on RDS :
Huh. Interesting.

I wonder how that would've played in Quebec. Would the tax payers have been okay with it?
 

voyageur

Hockey fanatic
Jul 10, 2011
9,467
8,157
the prospective owner would have taken the league to court & won. The league can't stop a relocation if an owner is determined to do so.

Wasn't that the reason the NHL took Gerry Moyes (Phoenix) to court and won? The NHL can stop relocation, they have done it twice. I believe Atlanta Spirit had an out clause in their lease, and could have sued the NHL, which is why Atlanta was allowed to move.

But nobody would ever relocate the Canadiens. Some things are still sacred in hockey.
 

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,211
Wasn't that the reason the NHL took Gerry Moyes (Phoenix) to court and won? The NHL can stop relocation, they have done it twice. I believe Atlanta Spirit had an out clause in their lease, and could have sued the NHL, which is why Atlanta was allowed to move.

But nobody would ever relocate the Canadiens. Some things are still sacred in hockey.

Right. Wasnt going to happen. Full stop. There was some angst about it in Montreal, amongst the Habs faithful but just... no. No chance. He had to sign the 7yr No Itch Clause for one one thing; for another, he'd also bought the arena for $100M so what was he going to do with that? At the time, no Cap, CDN$ tanking for years, Molsons mismanaging things & divesting themselves of various properties etc. The guy got a pretty sweet deal (the arena alone cost over $250M to build). But... he was a bit of a Rounder. From Colorado. Had gone bust in the early 90's himself. Claimed he was in it for the money buying a distressed asset & willing to look at anything if he could turn a profit. Intransigent. Possibly fickle. So sure, some people started freakin. But thats all it was, a tempest in a teapot. The NY Rangers, the Leafs would be more likely to move... and nearly did, trade between Pocklington & Ballard, City for City, and that too as absurd on the face of it as any Commissioner or League President permitting a Relo of the Montreal Canadiens.... Never woulda happened, never will. The only time it was close at all was in the late 1930's early 40's.... Dick Irvin Sr's arrival combined with The Rockets launch & BAM... the Forum jam packed once again, all over the front pages, clear sailing until the 90's really.
 
Last edited:

edog37

Registered User
Jan 21, 2007
6,055
1,602
Pittsburgh
Wasn't that the reason the NHL took Gerry Moyes (Phoenix) to court and won? The NHL can stop relocation, they have done it twice. I believe Atlanta Spirit had an out clause in their lease, and could have sued the NHL, which is why Atlanta was allowed to move.

But nobody would ever relocate the Canadiens. Some things are still sacred in hockey.

Nope. Moyes wanted to dump the team & declare bankruptcy. He ceded control of the team to the league which is why they took him to court. Same could be argued for Atlanta. Both did not want to own hockey teams. The point is, the NHL has no legal authority to stop a relocation by an existing owner. The best they can do is not approve a sale to a buyer willing to move the team.

With regards to the Canadiens, sure they could relocate under the right circumstances. If you doubt that, ask the fans in Cleveland, Baltimore, Seattle & Oakland about their teams leaving....
 
  • Like
Reactions: Melrose Munch

edog37

Registered User
Jan 21, 2007
6,055
1,602
Pittsburgh
I'd be surprised. Remember when you purchase a team you buy into a franchise model. In such arrangements it's common to have territorial and ownership sale restrictions. I'm sure NHL has strong contractual safeguards to maintain the right of approval in any sale/relocation. Could you imagine if a sheikh purchased and relocated a team to Dubai? Don't think other teams would be very happy.

Popularity of a team like Montreal fills extra seats across arenas. In the best interest of other owners to protect the brand. If the actual owner was in serious financial trouble and had to go belly-up, league would simply purchase the team.

They can disapprove the sale, not a relocation. There are too many precedents which have shown sports leagues have little to no say on franchise relocations. I'm not saying Montreal was bound to move, but rather, they could have under the right circumstances.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Melrose Munch

Fenway

HF Bookie and Bruins Historian
Sponsor
Sep 26, 2007
68,589
98,268
Cambridge, MA
The Cleveland Browns left and they had just as much history. So did the Washington Senators.

The Celtics almost left for Long Island and Los Angeles @Fenway

The Celtics looked hard at the new arena in Uniondale when it was being built as the owners (Ballantine Beer) were from New York and they were fed up with the way the Bruins treated them. Celtics collapsed in 1970 when Russell retired and the Bruins with Orr were the #1 team in town, even ahead of the Red Sox.

Then in 1978, Irv Levin who owned the Celtics then was fed up with the Bruins decided he was going to move to San Diego. The NBA then brokered a compromise where Levin traded the Celtics to John Y Brown who owned Buffalo and the Braves moved to Boston.

Freaky Friday, N.B.A. Style: When the Clippers Were the Celtics

We’re talking legalese and very fine print here, and the story goes all the way back to 1978. That year, the owner of the Celtics was a Hollywood guy by the name of Irv Levin. He wanted to move the team to southern California, but he knew the N.B.A. would never allow that to happen.

So Levin did the next best thing. He convinced the owner of the Buffalo Braves, the Kentucky Fried Chicken magnate John Y. Brown, to swap franchises.

“My understanding, as best as I can remember, is that the current Celtics team is a successor to the Buffalo Braves,’’ Russ Granik, former deputy commissioner of the N.B.A., said in a telephone conversation on Tuesday. He was the N.B.A.’s assistant general counsel in 1978.

And that would mean that the current Clippers team is the successor to the Boston Celtics?

“Yes,’’ Granik said. “In a strictly legal sense.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: Melrose Munch

LeHab

Registered User
Aug 31, 2005
15,956
6,259
They can disapprove the sale, not a relocation. There are too many precedents which have shown sports leagues have little to no say on franchise relocations. I'm not saying Montreal was bound to move, but rather, they could have under the right circumstances.

Do you have examples? Under NHL bylaws majority of BoG is required to approve a reloc. In addition reloc fees could be imposed like we have seen with Atlanta -> Winnipeg move:

Look at Exhibit D of the following document for NHL rules governing relocs->

http://c-7npsfqifvt34x24w2x2euifhmp...ux2fqegx2fDpzpuftEbmz.qeg_$/$/$/$/$?i10c.ua=1

NFL has a similar clause:

upload_2018-2-23_18-8-22.png


http://www.nfl.com/static/content/public/static/html/careers/pdf/co_.pdf

I'd be surprised if other franchise based leagues did not had similar clauses.
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-2-23_17-56-57.png
    upload_2018-2-23_17-56-57.png
    104.1 KB · Views: 5
Last edited:

JMROWE

Registered User
Apr 2, 2010
1,372
52
Hamilton Ontario
The Montreal Canadians where never going to relocate before Gillette stepped in because the Habs are the leagues model franchise moving them would be like trying to move the NY. Yankees out of New York .

The only way the Montreal Canadians relocate is if Quebec gains independence then & only then you can talk relocation because the NHL. would want nothing to do with an independent Quebec .
 

edog37

Registered User
Jan 21, 2007
6,055
1,602
Pittsburgh
Do you have examples? Under NHL bylaws majority of BoG is required to approve a reloc. In addition reloc fees could be imposed like we have seen with Atlanta -> Winnipeg move:

Look at Exhibit D of the following document for NHL rules governing relocs->

http://c-7npsfqifvt34x24w2x2euifhmp...ux2fqegx2fDpzpuftEbmz.qeg_$/$/$/$/$?i10c.ua=1

NFL has a similar clause:

View attachment 100069

http://www.nfl.com/static/content/public/static/html/careers/pdf/co_.pdf

I'd be surprised if other franchise based leagues did not had similar clauses.

Sure, Cleveland Browns, Oakland/LA/Oakland/LV Raiders, San Diego Chargers, Hartford Whalers, Quebec Nordiques, Winnipeg Jets, Baltimore Colts, Seattle SuperSonics
 

willy702

Registered User
Jul 3, 2016
3,751
2,088
All the speculation about would it get approved or not is going the wrong direction. Fact is how could the Canadiens not work in Montreal? Or better, how could they work better in say Hamilton, Quebec City or Winnipeg (pre-Jets return)? They couldn't, you'd be a fool to buy this team and relocate them to those places. You could bluster about moving, threaten to do it, go have photo ops with the mayor in another city and everything else you think gets you leverage, but still it makes no sense. This team makes FAR more money for the owner in Montreal than anywhere else. So another owner at best tries to leverage for a better lease, better tax payments, better TV deal, etc. but they aren't picking up and leaving the market.
 

LeHab

Registered User
Aug 31, 2005
15,956
6,259
Sure, Cleveland Browns, Oakland/LA/Oakland/LV Raiders, San Diego Chargers, Hartford Whalers, Quebec Nordiques, Winnipeg Jets, Baltimore Colts, Seattle SuperSonics

Please show examples where owners have gone against league vote and relocated. Closest I know is rams to Stl where owners initially voted against but later voted to relocate.

Since we are talking about Canadiens, Competition Bureau sided with NHL policies on ownership and relocation a few years ago.

Competition Bureau Concludes Examination into National Hockey League Franchise Ownership Transfer and Relocation Policies - Competition Bureau

Sports leagues have attracted competition scrutiny in a number of jurisdictions, including the United States and European Community. For example, U.S. courts have considered claims by prospective owners seeking to acquire control of a professional sports franchise and claims by teams seeking to relocate a franchiseFootnote1. These courts have upheld the right of sports leagues to determine who will be allowed to own a franchise and have also recognized that properly circumscribed restrictions on the relocation of professional sports franchises are valid.
 
Last edited:

TheMoreYouKnow

Registered User
May 3, 2007
16,384
3,410
38° N 77° W
The Canadiens are one of the few franchises in N. American sports that are 'relocation-proof'. It wouldn't happen and if by some weird combination of factors it did happen, it'd shake the very foundations of the league (which is why it wouldn't happen).
 

edog37

Registered User
Jan 21, 2007
6,055
1,602
Pittsburgh
Please show examples where owners have gone against league vote and relocated. Closest I know is rams to Stl where owners initially voted against but later voted to relocate.

Since we are talking about Canadiens, Competition Bureau sided with NHL policies on ownership and relocation a few years ago.

Competition Bureau Concludes Examination into National Hockey League Franchise Ownership Transfer and Relocation Policies - Competition Bureau

The Raiders did & won in court. The Colts moved in the middle of the night. Leagues don’t challenge this anymore because they would lose.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Llama19

LeHab

Registered User
Aug 31, 2005
15,956
6,259
The Raiders did & won in court. The Colts moved in the middle of the night. Leagues don’t challenge this anymore because they would lose.

Riders are a good find thanks. Albeit seems there remains quite a bit of controversy around the ruling and implications going forward. Seems like lessons learned to NFL owners.
 

patnyrnyg

Registered User
Sep 16, 2004
10,838
869
Would NBA consider relocating Celtics? Would MLB consider relocating Cardinals? Never happening.
Yes, and yes. If either team was losing enough money, there was little fan interest, and nobody willing to buy the team and keep them in Boston or St Louis.

I don't remember if there was ever threats or talk of them leaving. Could it have happened? Yes. This idea the league would never allow it is non-sense. Was it ever close? Doubt it. Did they need Gilette to save them? Doubt it/
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->