Nashville sale thread--Leipold PULLS OUT of sale, Balsillie's bid OUT

[SoCalPredFan]

I will also add that, as a die hard Preds fan, I think having the clause invoked this year works out in the Nashville's favor.

There is no doubt in my mind that the fans eclipse the 14k mark this season. There is a ton of energy, fervor, and effort to make sure it happens. Better to get it out of the way this year and lock things down for another few years. The community is fired up to see it through right now.

The questions remain to me are:
1. Will the BoG approve the sale?
2. if so, will Balsillie find a way to "break" or "buyout" the lease and forego the entire attendance clause issue anyway?


-t

 

[mouser]

The Tennessean printed a similar article today with the same $27mil number

http://tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070615/SPORTS02/70615024/-1/NLETTER05

 

[Fugu]

That was a joke buddy. Guess I used the wrong smiley.


I question these numbers because a 100% refundable deposit at any time makes it easy for people to sign on. Especially in this wave of excitement around here.

A person could want to have a NHL club in Hamilton but not really be sure if he/ she wants or can afford seasons. But they are sure they want a team. That makes this really easy for them. I'll phone in my order, order two tickets, help land this club and a month from now when I'm thinking with a level head I might just ask for my money back as I realize that I can't afford the time or money for seasons.

If this money was a refundable deposit that couldn't be touched until December of 2009 (the final refund date) then people would truly be putting down a deposit and I would put a little more stock in it.

It kind of has to be 100% refundable, or what is Balsillie selling people? At the same time, you have to have room on your card and the willingness to have that charge show up. When the charge does show up, you either pay it off or carry it with interest. I'd think this should weed out most people who really aren't serious about it. It would be obvious within the first 1-2 months.... It's also great publicity for Balsillie's cause, and depending on just how much interest is generated perhaps a case that can be presented to the league. It's just part of the publicity generation and the power play Balsillie is trying to pull.

 

[SoCalPredFan]

It's also great publicity for Balsillie's cause, and depending on just how much interest is generated perhaps a case that can be presented to the league. It's just part of the publicity generation and the power play Balsillie is trying to pull.

agreed 100%

... but it is in no way something that can be "compared" to nashville or season ticket sales with any actual NHL franchise.

It's all sizzle -- and apples and oranges despite how some people on this board are trying present it.

-t

 

[kurri_17]

Yeah, but to have that competition be anywhere close to being fair...boost the deposit prices up to the actual ticket prices like we pay here in Nashville and everyone else does in the other 29 NHL markets for their season tickets and luxary boxes.

I wouldn't doubt when all is said and done that the number of deposits in Hamilton will exceed MANY NHL teams when compared to the number of season-ticket holders.

I tied up a $1000 of my money for the next two years or more. I put down a real commitment with no interest and no immediate reward.
It wasn't some "oh I can just get my money back" thing. I won't see that money or any benefit for a long time.
And the lower dollar amount on the deposits hardly makes up for the fact you are putting thousands down on something that may never happen. I would expect to see more purchases in Hamilton on 6000 dollar tickets for a real product - like Nashville enjoys now.

 

[Stanley Foobrick]

It kind of has to be 100% refundable, or what is Balsillie selling people? At the same time, you have to have room on your card and the willingness to have that charge show up. When the charge does show up, you either pay it off or carry it with interest. I'd think this should weed out most people who really aren't serious about it. It would be obvious within the first 1-2 months.... It's also great publicity for Balsillie's cause, and depending on just how much interest is generated perhaps a case that can be presented to the league. It's just part of the publicity generation and the power play Balsillie is trying to pull.

If you have a credit card with no balance you have at least 25 days before interest is charged. Or at least that how the cards I have work.
Right now is the media frenzy, I doubt very much 2 weeks from now the Hamilton Spectator is going to keep a running log of just how many deposits are being held in that trust fund.

 

[Fugu]

agreed 100%

... but it is in no way something that can be "compared" to nashville or season ticket sales with any actual NHL franchise.

It's all sizzle -- and apples and oranges despite how some people on this board are trying present it.

-t

Not sure I would go that far. If there's a huge response to any kind of promotion, marketing types will interpret that as a very high interest level in the marketplace. Certainly I would not bank on having it all turn into actual sales, but if these guys are doing their homework (and if you work for Balsillie, I bet you DO your homework....), they can make some decent projections. The corporate sales are probably more easily qualified, and perhaps the most important to gain.

 

[sluggo*]

I question these numbers because a 100% refundable deposit at any time makes it easy for people to sign on. Especially in this wave of excitement around here.

Then you also have to look at the other side and conced that there is certainly a group of people out there who would buy season tickets for the Hamilton Predators if they know for sure they were getting something for that money.

It looks like (from what hte Ontario media is saying) the Predators are as good as gone. First, the BoG is not going to deny Balsillie's offer. He is paying between 50 and 100 million dollars more for the team then they are worth, which would raise the price of all their franchise for whenever they decide to sell and raise the asking price for the 2 expansion teams. By accepting his offer they are all making money. As for putting conditions in the sale agreement, again I doubt it, since Balsillie already showed he'll walk away from that. Its also good for most of the NHL to have the Predators in Hamilton. As far as I know the Predators are one of the 10 teams that recieves money from the top 10 money making teams. By putting the Predators in Southern Ontario would go from averaging less then 14,000 per game and having zero corporate support to selling out (at least more seasons tickets) and selling at least over 50% of the luxury boxs (as Balsillie just proved to everyone). A "have not" team would become a "have" team. Instead of getting money from other the Predators would be giving money to other teams. Again thats just good for the owners.

As for the lease, I would be surprised if the tickets in Nashville don't take a very high jump in price. I would also be surprised if the Predators bring back many (if any) of their UFA's. Worse team and higher ticket prices.... not good for getting fans in the seats. And even he doesn't do that or it fails he can always (assuming the other party is ok with it) buy his way out of the lease. Considering he just dropped 50-100 million on a team that he didn't have too, I don't think he'll have a problem throwing another huge amount of money at his problem to get what he wants.

 

[TruGr1t]

Is there a buyout clause in the lease that would make the 14,000 paid ticket target irrelevant? That's what this article seems to state:

"Even if fans buy 3,000 more tickets, Balsillie still could buy his way out of the lease.

Sports authority member Steve North pointed out a buyout clause with a prorated scale that could be $27 million now. Spyridon said Balsillie certainly can write that check, leaving Nashville relying on Bettman's promises.

"I think it's a severe black eye on the NHL if we live up to our agreement and they let him break the lease," Spyridon said."

http://www.mercurynews.com/sports/ci_6151081

GHOST

Now that's interesting.

 

[MAROONSRoad]

The Tennessean printed a similar article today with the same $27mil number

http://tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070615/SPORTS02/70615024/-1/NLETTER05

From the article:

"Steve North said Friday that an owner could choose to break the lease himself, pay Metro a fee of approximately $27 million for “liquidated damages” and then move the team.

That scenario, however, is unlikely to occur, according to North.

The NHL is on record as saying it wouldn’t approve a Predators move if a lease were in place, and North said it’s his understanding that premise would also cover an owner breaking the lease himself -- as opposed to the lease breaking naturally because of average attendance below 14,000 paid fans.

“The NHL has said, as I understand it, that they will not allow the team to move so long as there’s a valid lease,’’ North said following the Sports Authority meeting on Friday. “I took from that that they would not allow the team to move if (the owner himself) breaches the lease.

“So that liquidated damage clause might not be useful if they wanted to move, because if they are required to breach the lease, as I understand it, the NHL wouldn’t approve the move.”"

Maybe this explains why Balsillie is being so aggressive? Is he asking the NHL to decide the question of relocation and whether he can break the lease and pay damages? I have my doubts about that. Just a thought.

GHOST

 

[mouser]

Maybe this explains why Balsillie is being so aggressive? Is he asking the NHL to decide the question of relocation and whether he can break the lease and pay damages? I have my doubts about that. Just a thought.

GHOST

It certainly seems like Balisillie is attempting to get the BOG to approve his purchase and pre-approved team relocation at the same time.

 

[Gnashville]

From the article:

"Steve North said Friday that an owner could choose to break the lease himself, pay Metro a fee of approximately $27 million for “liquidated damages” and then move the team.

That scenario, however, is unlikely to occur, according to North.

The NHL is on record as saying it wouldn’t approve a Predators move if a lease were in place, and North said it’s his understanding that premise would also cover an owner breaking the lease himself -- as opposed to the lease breaking naturally because of average attendance below 14,000 paid fans.

“The NHL has said, as I understand it, that they will not allow the team to move so long as there’s a valid lease,’’ North said following the Sports Authority meeting on Friday. “I took from that that they would not allow the team to move if (the owner himself) breaches the lease.

“So that liquidated damage clause might not be useful if they wanted to move, because if they are required to breach the lease, as I understand it, the NHL wouldn’t approve the move.”"

Maybe this explains why Balsillie is being so aggressive? Is he asking the NHL to decide the question of relocation and whether he can break the lease and pay damages? I have my doubts about that. Just a thought.

GHOST

Actually that's inacurrate On the radio this evening someone else who was in the meeting this morning said He can't pay the 27 million to break the lease if the cure clause has been activated (which it has) and the 27 million is the amount to pay instead of 18 million. He couldn't just pay 27 million and move he has to use the cure process 1st.

 

[kurri_17]

That was a joke buddy. Guess I used the wrong smiley.


I question these numbers because a 100% refundable deposit at any time makes it easy for people to sign on. Especially in this wave of excitement around here.

A person could want to have a NHL club in Hamilton but not really be sure if he/ she wants or can afford seasons. But they are sure they want a team. That makes this really easy for them. I'll phone in my order, order two tickets, help land this club and a month from now when I'm thinking with a level head I might just ask for my money back as I realize that I can't afford the time or money for seasons.

If this money was a refundable deposit that couldn't be touched until December of 2009 (the final refund date) then people would truly be putting down a deposit and I would put a little more stock in it.

For every one of those, there is another who won't put money down withouth knowing the final ticket cost, having a team, etc. When this broke on Wed night I found a pile if interested people right away, some of us bought, some others argued "I'd pay 4-6k for real tickets, but this is putting money into nothing, I'm not going for it"

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Will there be some upset people in Nashville? Sure but then maybe they should have worked harder to support the team. The team has been good for many years and they still don't draw.

Nashville has had an NHL team for exactly eight (8) NHL seasons. They've "been good" (read: made the playoffs) for exactly 3 of those - the last 3 seasons played. One of those 3 seasons was prior to the lockout.

So I'll ask a 2nd time: how much time is enough to give a market ample opportunity to show it can support an NHL franchise? 6 years (like Columbus), 7 years (like Atlanta), 8 years (like Nashville), 13 years (like Florida), 15 years (like Tampa and Ottawa), 16 years (like San Jose), or 20 or more years (like Winnipeg, Quebec City, and Hartford had before their teams were relocated)? Or is there some other number that's sufficient to determine when a new market will or won't support the NHL long-term? I'm still trying to figure out what the "magic number" is.

all numbers for cities except Winnipeg, Quebec City, and Hartford exclude the 2004-05 lockout season.

 

[Gnashville]

Nashville has had an NHL team for exactly eight (8) NHL seasons. They've "been good" (read: made the playoffs) for exactly 3 of those - the last 3 seasons played. One of those 3 seasons was prior to the lockout.

Also add to that we have never been out of the 1st round of the playoffs and have never won a road playoff game and have almost zero national exposure (1 game on national TV a season), and have had zero marketable star players long term.

 

[jkrdevil]

Nashville has had an NHL team for exactly eight (8) NHL seasons. They've "been good" (read: made the playoffs) for exactly 3 of those - the last 3 seasons played. One of those 3 seasons was prior to the lockout.[/size]

Not to mention one of those year they just made it in the playoffs as the right seed and they have yet to make it past the first round. Let's face it that last things is important because the playoffs are how a team is judged to be successful on the ice. Most people don't care or look at regular season success. The Predators have not gone on a playoff run that would get the businesses attention they way other non-traditional markets have. In the casual sports fan mind not getting past the first round is not successful and does not make the team one of the most successful teams the last few years.

 

[MAROONSRoad]

It certainly seems like Balisillie is attempting to get the BOG to approve his purchase and pre-approved team relocation at the same time.

This has got me thinking/speculating that Balsillie may have an aggressive legal strategy going on that may have nothing to do with the paid attendance threshold issues. This is a guy that is not shy of litigation.

- he has a sales agreement between himself and Leipold where he's over paying by possibly 100 million of what the franchise is worth in Nashville

- the NHL has to approve a) the sale and b) any relocation according to its constitiution and by-laws

- if they reject his sale, what the basis for that? can Balsillie challenge that if the basis for the rejection is his intention to relocate? what did he learn from his Penguins experience? what rights or potential legal action does Leipold have against the NHL in this matter? does the BOG really want to turn down a 238 million sale price for an NHL franchise?

- if the NHL rejects the relocation, what the basis for that? can Balsillie use anti-trust/anti-competition laws to invalidate such rejection?

- most legal disputes are not settled in courts but out of court after all the facts, issues and relevant laws have been discussed between the parties. the mere having a legal case will cause the parties to negotiate the matter. and that's not to mention that the NHL does not want the kind of media attention that comes with a public court battle.

GHOST

 

[Jonjmc]

Nashville has had an NHL team for exactly eight (8) NHL seasons. They've "been good" (read: made the playoffs) for exactly 3 of those - the last 3 seasons played. One of those 3 seasons was prior to the lockout.

So I'll ask a 2nd time: how much time is enough to give a market ample opportunity to show it can support an NHL franchise? 6 years (like Columbus), 7 years (like Atlanta), 8 years (like Nashville), 13 years (like Florida), 15 years (like Tampa and Ottawa), 16 years (like San Jose), or 20 or more years (like Winnipeg, Quebec City, and Hartford had before their teams were relocated)? Or is there some other number that's sufficient to determine when a new market will or won't support the NHL long-term? I'm still trying to figure out what the "magic number" is.

all numbers for cities except Winnipeg, Quebec City, and Hartford exclude the 2004-05 lockout season.

At least one generation. Define that as you wish, 20..25..30 years. The kids need to grow up with a home team to cheer for. They are the future season ticket holders.

 

[sluggo*]

- if they reject his sale, what the basis for that? can Balsillie challenge that if the basis for the rejection is his intention to relocate? what did he learn from his Penguins experience? what rights or potential legal action does Leipold have against the NHL in this matter? does the BOG really want to turn down a 238 million sale price for an NHL franchise?

- if the NHL rejects the relocation, what the basis for that? can Balsillie use anti-trust/anti-competition laws to invalidate such rejection?
GHOST

- Not sure, but I doubt they will reject his offer. He is overpaying so much for that team they can't turn down his sale proposal. And while some teams (leafs, Sabers) would not be happy about him being in Hamilton, it wouldbe good for the league. Also, Balsillie is not an idiot, he's made sure he has legal footing here.

- Yes he can. Al Davis did the samething in the NFL, they tried to block his movment of the Raiders to LA, he slapped them with anti-trust suit and won. That case also created a precedent, which will/could really, really help Balsillie in a court.

At least one generation. Define that as you wish, 20..25..30 years. The kids need to grow up with a home team to cheer for. They are the future season ticket holders.

Easy to say when you're not the one losing millions on the team.

 

[william_adams]

Nashville has had an NHL team for exactly eight (8) NHL seasons. They've "been good" (read: made the playoffs) for exactly 3 of those - the last 3 seasons played. One of those 3 seasons was prior to the lockout.

So I'll ask a 2nd time: how much time is enough to give a market ample opportunity to show it can support an NHL franchise? 6 years (like Columbus), 7 years (like Atlanta), 8 years (like Nashville), 13 years (like Florida), 15 years (like Tampa and Ottawa), 16 years (like San Jose), or 20 or more years (like Winnipeg, Quebec City, and Hartford had before their teams were relocated)? Or is there some other number that's sufficient to determine when a new market will or won't support the NHL long-term? I'm still trying to figure out what the "magic number" is.

all numbers for cities except Winnipeg, Quebec City, and Hartford exclude the 2004-05 lockout season.

it's a good argument for why nashvlle perhaps deserves a bit better, but the flipside to that argument is what does a non-nhl city need to do to get a team. I'm not a uge expert on Hamilton and hockey, but from read the papers over the past few days it seems that this is not the first time the citizens have spoken loudly and clearly with their wallets. Seriously, how many other places in North America could duplicate the deposit paying mania that has happen in Hamilton over the last 36 hours or so...

Whether or not he gets the Predators (and as a sentimental guy, i tend to be against franchise moves in general), i think he has proven that he has the fan base, the financial means and the absolute passion to have a team in Hamilton. Be a pity to see that somehow not happen...

 

[Ted Hoffman]

This has got me thinking/speculating that Balsillie may have an aggressive legal strategy going on that may nothing to do with the paid attendance threshold issues. This is a guy that is not shy of litigation.

Last time, it cost him an extra $562 million. If that's a sign of things to come, he may want to quit while he's ahead.

- he has a sales agreement between himself and Leipold where he's overpaying by possibly 100 million of what the franchise is worth in Nashville

- the NHL has to approve a) the sale and b) any relocation according to its constitiution and by-laws

- if they reject his sale, what the basis for that? can Balsillie challenge that if the basis for the rejection is his intention to relocate? what did he learn from his Penguins experience? what rights or potential legal action does Leipold have against the NHL in this matter? does the BOG really want to turn down a 238 million sale price for an NHL franchise?

- if the NHL rejects the relocation, what the basis for that? can Balsillie use anti-trust/anti-competition laws to invalidate such rejection?

1. The fact that he's overpaying by $100 million has no bearing on the validity of the proposal, nor does it mean that the NHL has any additional obligation to approve the move.

2. True! I think I've been saying this for weeks now.

3. Their basis can be "because we don't like you." The NHL is a private entity, they don't have to have a reason. And no ... Balsille is going to find it very difficult to sue, much less sue and win considering he has no team, and the denial of any offer by the BoG does not harm him or cause him actual damages.

Leipold, on the other hand ... could race to the U.S. District Court and have a lawsuit filed against the NHL within 10 minutes of the vote to deny the sale and allege that he's been damaged.

4. No - see #3.

- most legal disputes are not settled in courts but out of court after all the facts, issues and relevant laws have been discussed between the parties. the mere having a legal case will cause the parties to negotiate the matter.

If the NHL thinks it's in the right, they'll fight any attempted lawsuit to the bitter end. The consequences of just letting this go through because they don't want to get sued are potentially disastrous, as it sets precedent that the league can neither deny any attempted bid for cause nor can it effectively prevent any team from moving at the owner's whim.

As much as some people here think that might be good (letting owners pick up and move to XYZ city), that leads to instability within the league and its partners. "Look, another team moving - where did San Jose go? I thought there was a team in Edmonton, why did they move? Jesus, I have no idea who's where any more - screw this, I'll stick to the NFL or some other sport where teams aren't moving every year." The die-hards are always going to support hockey; it's the casual fans who need to get hooked to help the sport grow ... and if teams are going to move unfettered by the league, casual fans won't show up. They won't even bother trying.

That, ladies and gentlemen, would be a bad thing.

 

[william_adams]

This has got me thinking/speculating that Balsillie may have an aggressive legal strategy going on that may have nothing to do with the paid attendance threshold issues. This is a guy that is not shy of litigation.

- he has a sales agreement between himself and Leipold where he's over paying by possibly 100 million of what the franchise is worth in Nashville

- the NHL has to approve a) the sale and b) any relocation according to its constitiution and by-laws

- if they reject his sale, what the basis for that? can Balsillie challenge that if the basis for the rejection is his intention to relocate? what did he learn from his Penguins experience? what rights or potential legal action does Leipold have against the NHL in this matter? does the BOG really want to turn down a 238 million sale price for an NHL franchise?

- if the NHL rejects the relocation, what the basis for that? can Balsillie use anti-trust/anti-competition laws to invalidate such rejection?

- most legal disputes are not settled in courts but out of court after all the facts, issues and relevant laws have been discussed between the parties. the mere having a legal case will cause the parties to negotiate the matter. and that's not to mention that the NHL does not want the kind of media attention that comes with a public court battle.

GHOST

i think you're definitely on to something. i wonder if he's just trying to pin them down so that either they let him buy this franchise, or give him an expansion franchise...

one note tho, the not being shy of litigation doesn;t mean you always (or even often) win...

 

[nomorekids]

There was some rumblings on XM today that the Frist and Ingram families are possibly involved in the local ownership group...in which case....Balsillie could become outmonied in quick fashion, if they're willing to pay it. Look up Martha Ingram, if you're not familiar.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

- Yes he can. Al Davis did the samething in the NFL, they tried to block his movment of the Raiders to LA, he slapped them with anti-trust suit and won. That case also created a precedent, which will/could really, really help Balsillie in a court.

The NFL subsequently tightened up its by-laws regarding moving a franchise, and when Davis took the Raiders back to L.A. and tried to sue the NFL again, he lost. gscarpenter and I covered this in painstaking detail in another thread.

 

[jkrdevil]

- Not sure, but I doubt they will reject his offer. He is overpaying so much for that team they can't turn down his sale proposal. And while some teams (leafs, Sabers) would not be happy about him being in Hamilton, it wouldbe good for the league. Also, Balsillie is not an idiot, he's made sure he has legal footing here.

- Yes he can. Al Davis did the samething in the NFL, they tried to block his movement of the Raiders to LA, he slapped them with anti-trust suit and won. That case also created a precedent, which will/could really, really help Balsillie in a court.

Well I believe all the leagues tightened their movement restrictions and such after the Davis suit. I'm sure there is something in by-laws of the league about such and Ballsillie would have to agree to in order to be approved as owner.

The successfulness of any lawsuit against the NHL would probably depend on jurisdiction. If it is in Canadian courts I think he would have a good chance. Either way suing the league probably isn't the best strategy if you are a new owner. He would quickly find himself on the outs and if needed the assistance of the other teams and owners for any issue he probably wouldn't get the support.