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

[MAROONSRoad]

Were I NHL counsel, I would not be the slightest bit concerned about denying Balsillie and approving someone else with a lower offer even if those others also wanted to move the team. The NHL has no obligation to grant an NHL franchise transfer to Balsillie. They are not under contract with him, nor do they have a duty of care that might create an independent tort. They do not have to treat him fairly. They do not even have to give him a reason for denying his bid.

It's good for the NHL that you aren't NHL counsel. They may not have to treat Balsillie "fairly" whatever that means, but they can not reject him for any reason that violates the law. If Balsillie can show that the NHL rejected him for any reason that is prohibited by law or which is against public policy, he may have a cause of action against the NHL, whether the NHL thinks that is fair or not.

GHOST

 

[GSC2k2*]

I don't know why gscarpenter insists on bashing his hometown. I visit Hamilton regularly and find it has all the amenities of any other city I visit. Two restaurants downtown? That's ludicrous. Hess Village is just a few blocks from Copps and has everything from pubs and bars to fine dining, clubs and lounges. I've personally eaten at at least ten good restaurants downtown (with actual chefs). According to the city of Hamilton, there are 30,000 people working in downtown Hamilton. I'm sure some of them eat.

Hess Village alone could provide enough dining and entertainment for visitors to NHL games.

I do take - in part only - your point about Hess Village. I neglected that because no Hamiltonian would think of Hess Village as being "downtown", which stretches from Copps to perhaps John Street, between King and Main. Hess Village is really in a residential nieghbourhood. However, just so everybody knows, Hess Village is one tiny block perhaps 300 yards long where there are approximately 8 to 10 bars. It is approximately half a mile from Copps, about ten minutes walk. Every one of these 8 to 10 bars are housed in old style 2-2.5 story converted houses. They are filled on Friday and Saturday with perhaps 400 to 500 people.

Ten restaurants downtown with chefs? Please name them. I would be delighted to hear.

30,000 people working downtown? I highly doubt it. There are seven office towers downtown, one of which is a little over 20 stories and all of the rest of which are 17 stories tops. There is a mall that is half empty. There are rows of mostly empty retail stores lining King Street. There is a courthouse on Main Street and little else besides a couple of tiny strip malls.

 

[kdb209]

Note that bylaws of private organizations and agreements between private parties can be invalidated (or at least made unenforecable) by things as simple as federal rule making. In 1996, the FCC issued rules restricting the ability of local governments and private entities from enforcing restrictions of the installation of satellite dishes.

http://www.chore.us/GOV-satellite.htm

That was from a branch of the government, not a court ruling. I don't see Congress getting involved in something like this.

That was my point - these things don't just hang on constitutional issues of federal anti trust cases - things as simple as rules issued by an executive branch agency can affect agreements between private parties.

And you can get the updated (and official) dish info here:

http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html

BTW, I've fought the HOA dish fight several times.

And I do agree with your basic point of "there is no right to own a professional sports franchise".

 

[nomorekids]

It's good for the NHL that you aren't NHL counsel. They may not have to treat Balsillie "fairly" whatever that means, but they can not reject him for any reason that violates the law. If Balsillie can show that the NHL rejected him for any reason that is prohibited by law or which is against public policy, he may have a cause of action against the NHL, whether the NHL thinks that is fair or not.

GHOST

He's given them "good reason" to reject the bid, if they choose, though. He's not even pretending that he's going to act in good faith with regard to the year that he DOES have to spend in Nashville.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

It's good for the NHL that you aren't NHL counsel. They may not have to treat Balsillie "fairly" whatever that means, but they can not reject him for any reason that violates the law. If Balsillie can show that the NHL rejected him for any reason that is prohibited by law or which is against public policy, he may have a cause of action against the NHL, whether the NHL thinks that is fair or not.

Public policy won't play into it - that's what the CCB is busy trying to decide, and I'll tell you now its ruling won't have any effect on whether or not the sale is approved.

Aside from that, please suggest possible reasons that might fit this criteria as you've defined it.

 

[sluggo*]

There is no "right to own a professional sports franchise," and the government isn't about to make their interpretation of the Constitution that sweeping. Car dealerships aren't in charge of the rules of the road, so this analogy is a non sequitur. If your home is part of a homeowner's association and the HA decrees that pets aren't allowed, then yes - you can be prohibited from having a pet. [And yes ... any attempt to sue in court to have that rule invalidated would fail miserably.] Your last analogy is also a non sequitur.

When did I say he had the right to own the franchise? However he does have the right to do what he wants to do with what he owns. As for reasons that I've pointed out they most likely aren't going to deny his buying of the team, and as I've pointed out to then move it he has legal presedent, all he has to do is get out of his lease, which isn't a big issue.

And go ask he boyscouts or private schools that now take students of both sexes how well by-laws hold up.

(P.S. - note the analogy of having a home in a homeowner's association to having a team in the NHL; except that in the latter, you can't get out and thus you're bound by the set of rules imposed on all 30 teams by the governing body.)

Unless those rules violate the law, which the US legal system has determined (in the Davis case) that they do.

If a neighborhood has $150,000 houses and one of them sells for $400,000 because the guy buying the house lives next door and wants to knock it down to expand his house, then do all of the other houses instantly become $400,000 houses? Of course not - just as if one of them sells for $95,000 because the owner needs the cash to pay off bills, the other houses do not suddenly fall in value to $95,000.

Not all the other homes become 400,000 dollar homes, but they can sell them for 160,000 or 175,000. The market goes up and down depending on what the homes are selling for. Stop going to extremes to try to prove your point. You're wrong and any home owner knows it.

 

[kdb209]

The original lawsuit Davis filed included allegations that the NFL violated antitrust laws in 1994 by refusing to help the Raiders with their move to Oakland by not schedule games in Oakland. A federal court threw that part out, stating that antitrust laws hadn't been violated. The rest of the complaints were thrown out on the basis that it didn't belong in federal court ... but Davis did in fact try to play the antitrust card a 2nd time and lost on that attempt.

True - although the anti trust claims were only a small part of the original 1995 suit - and not all "antitrust cards" are the same.

The issues brought up in the 1995-2001 federal & state cases really were unrelated to the anti-trust issues ruled on in 1984 - the anti-trust claims in 1995 had absolutely nothing to do with the basis of the LA Memorial Coliseum Commission v NFL decision.

 

[GSC2k2*]

It's good for the NHL that you aren't NHL counsel. They may not have to treat Balsillie "fairly" whatever that means, but they can not reject him for any reason that violates the law. If Balsillie can show that the NHL rejected him for any reason that is prohibited by law or which is against public policy, he may have a cause of action against the NHL, whether the NHL thinks that is fair or not.

GHOST

GHOST, you really should leave discussions of the law to the lawyers. There is no suggestion that the NHL would reject Balsillie for any reason such as his religion, ethnicity or because he is bald. For that matter, it could very well be irrelevant in any event, since the Ontario Human Rights Code would not apply extraterritorially. Not being called to the bar in New York, I am unaware whether similar legislation exists in that jurisdiction which would apply to non-governmental entities. Nor is there any suggestion that the NHL would reject him in the conduct of a criminal enterprise.Accordingly, when I crafted my post I refrained form mentioning any such exceptions because it was about as relevant to the discussion as the potential impact of meteors on the transaction. See my post above for the rest of the legal story. You need a contract or a tort to have a cause of action. You cannot force someone to become your business partner. That is pretty trite law, IMO.

As far as the NHL's luck regarding my being their counsel or not, I would suggest to you that you are completely unqualified to assess my legal expertise or skills. As such, please refrain from doing so. Courtesy begets courtesy. A lack of courtesy ...
Suffice it to say that my legal expertise is employed in transactions which are far larger than any deals that the NHL does, so I don't think I would be much interested in a scaled down practice with smaller deals (despite the admitted coolness factor). I guess that I am fortunate that others hold a different view of my credentials instead of your thoroughly uninformed view (and they do hold an apparently diametrically opposed one, rest assured).

 

[MAROONSRoad]

Public policy won't play into it - that's what the CCB is busy trying to decide, and I'll tell you now its ruling won't have any effect on whether or not the sale is approved.

Aside from that, please suggest possible reasons that might fit this criteria as you've defined it.

The only 'angle' that I can think of at the moment is the anti-trust/competition one, but there could be others. The question is whether there is an arguable case to be made there. For example, from the Canadian side, are the BOG, NHL and certain franchises by rejecting Basillie's bid 'conspiring' to stifle competition in the southern Ontario market for NHL hockey. It's all just speculation as I've said. The question for me is are Basillie and his lawyers up to something other than what has been assumed on these boards so far, i.e., do they have an exit game plan other than the attendance threshold issue?

GHOST

 

[MAROONSRoad]

GHOST, you really should leave discussions of the law to the lawyers.

As far as the NHL's luck regarding my being their counsel or not, I would suggest to you that you are comepltely unqualified to assess my legal expertise or skills.

That's quite a few assumptions there, mr. gscarpenter.

GHOST

 

[GSC2k2*]

Given your self-proclaimed business acumen, Big Carp, and ignoring the speciousness of your claim, you must be well-aware that an NHL franchise in the area would act as a catalyst for development of supplementary entertainment establishments, perhaps even those of high enough brow at which a politician or lawyer might be inclined to let themselves be seen.

Very possibly. I would grant that. I myself eat only at highbrow establishments like Pizza Hut, whish is my and my kids' fave spot to eat. I am just not too sure where one would put them. In the empty half of Jackson Square (the mall attached to Copps), I suppose.

 

[GSC2k2*]

That's quite a few assumptions there, mr. gscarpenter.

GHOST

I can only go by what I read. As such, they are not assumptions; they are assessments. If you have qualifications, present them and perhaps you might be taken more seriously and increase your personal credibility on this board from its current dismal state.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

When did I say he had the right to own the franchise? However he does have the right to do what he wants to do with what he owns. As for reasons that I've pointed out they most likely aren't going to deny his buying of the team, and as I've pointed out to then move it he has legal presedent, all he has to do is get out of his lease, which isn't a big issue.

He has to (gasp!) own the team first - hence the "has no right to own a pro franchise" statement.

I'll repeat for the 176th time: the owners are not as stupid or selfish as people think. They understand the potential ramifications of letting him in and call the shots as he wants - and that's a threat to all of them. As much as getting another $5 million tacked on to their franchise values might look good in Forbes, none of them want to set up a situation that potentially allows an owner to pick up shop on a whim and go elsewhere - especially into their own territory without getting any compensation. That's a recipe for instability, and that's not a good thing for the league.

And go ask he boyscouts or private schools that now take students of both sexes how well by-laws hold up.

The Boy Scouts and those private colleges were getting federal funding - hence they had to follow federal guidelines. Show me where the NHL receives federal funding.

Better yet, explain how voting down the sale violates his civil rights under the U.S. Constitution (seeing as how he's Canadian and all). I'll be impressed if you can just explain how the NHL not approving the sale gives him actual legal grounds to sue (hypotheticals, conjectures, and personal feelings aren't acceptable).

Unless those rules violate the law, which the US legal system has determined (in the Davis case) that they do.

Go ask gscarpenter about the 2001 ruling. Better yet, go read his eloquent explanation about it.

Not all the other homes become 400,000 dollar homes, but they can sell them for 160,000 or 175,000. The market goes up and down depending on what the homes are selling for. Stop going to extremes to try to prove your point. You're wrong and any home owner knows it.

I'm going to extremes? Hardly - I'm not the one who's been pointing to the exorbitant price being offered for a franchise valued at $140 million as a huge reason the owners would approve the sale - because it instantly makes their franchises worth much more. It doesn't.

Of course, if you really think the sale of a $150,000 house for $400,000 makes every other house worth $160-175K, then it implies that you also agree that the sale of a $150,000 house for $95,000 makes every other house only worth about $130-135K. It would also imply that the value of every other NHL franchise in fact decreased when the Ducks were sold for only $75 million - and I can absolutely guarantee that didn't happen.

 

[GSC2k2*]

The Globe and Mail now reports that "[t]wo days into the campaign, the number of people putting deposits on season tickets for a potential National Hockey League team in Hamilton overtook the number of season-ticket holders of the Nashville Predators."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...5.wsptpreds15/BNStory/GlobeSportsHockey/home/

Shoalts is comparing 10,000 people who have spent a mere fraction of the cost of tickets to 9000 people who have plunked down their full price? Laughable, sorry.

 

[Walzy]

well i don't want ti interrupt your nice discussion, but i think it hasn't been posted here yet

Nashville Predators owner Craig Leipold today invoked an escape clause in his team’s lease with the city that gives him the right to terminate the agreement if the team does not average 14,000 in paid attendance per game during the 2007-08 season.

http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog.php?post_id=8048
http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070615/SPORTS02/70615086

 

[GSC2k2*]

Better yet, explain how voting down the sale violates his civil rights under the U.S. Constitution (seeing as how he's Canadian and all). I'll be impressed if you can just explain how the NHL not approving the sale gives him actual legal grounds to sue (hypotheticals, conjectures, and personal feelings aren't acceptable).

Incidentally, with respect to the question of whether Balsillie's "rights" would be violated, keep in mind that the NHL would in fact not be rejecting Jim Balsillie. They would be rejecting the corporate entity known as Golden Horseshoe Entertainment (whatever the name is). Corporate entities do not have any "civil rights" to the best of my knowledge. Nor do they have any standing under the Ontario Human Rights Code.

 

[MAROONSRoad]

I can only go by what I read. As such, they are not assumptions; they are assessments. If you have qualifications, present them and perhaps you might be taken more seriously and increase your personal credibility on this board from its current dismal state.

I'm going to try to be nice because I enjoy your posts for the most part even if I disagree with some of them, but I find it pointless for people to try to 'beef' up their arguments by suggesting they are this or that. I can see that you claim to be a lawyer and I believe you probably are. Big deal. I have a different style than you and don't feel the need to provide my resume on a message board for heaven's sake! Take that FWIW.

GHOST

 

[GSC2k2*]

Hey I'm just reporting some interesting news relevant to the story. The prices paid for the deposits range from $500-$5000. Refundable yes, but not till 2009 and no interest will be paid. I know several people who put down deposits, and each of them will buy full-priced season tickets if they ever get the chance. And I doubt that many cities outside Canada could sell this many tickets for non existent seats for a non existent team.

edit: it adds up to over $8.5 million spent on fake tickets in less than two days.

Blase, do you have a source for this? I had not heard it.

 

[GSC2k2*]

I'm going to try to be nice because I enjoy your posts for the most part even if I disagree with some of them, but I find it pointless for people to try to 'beef' up their arguments by suggesting they are this or that. I can see that you claim to be a lawyer and I believe you probably are. Big deal. I have a different style than you and don't feel the need to provide my resume on a message board for heaven's sake! Take that FWIW.

GHOST

I certainly will take it for what it's worth. Your unwillingness to take me up on that offer speaks volumes in fact. I can certainly appreciate that hiding behind an enigmatic pseudonym is much more comfortable. As to me "beefing up" my arguments, it was you who inappropriately questioned my professional abilities. I responded as I did. It is a real eye-roller for you to suggest that I was beefing up my arguments.

For that matter, however, whether you like it or not, when it comes to matters of business and even more with respect to matters of the law, opinions regarding those matters ARE made stronger by the credentials of the person providing them. Are you suggesting that an opinion regarding the law from some half-assed poster on here are of the same weight as an opinion offered by a living breathing lawyer? Of course you aren't. The same principle applies to just about everything that is discussed on this board. In discussions of TV ratings, if a psoter came on here who worked in the network or cable business, I would accord their statements of facts, and even their opinions, greater weight than mine or yours. This is as it should be.

 

[sluggo*]

He has to (gasp!) own the team first - hence the "has no right to own a pro franchise" statement.

And where I say he did? All I've said I don't think the BoG is going to turn him down. Not only does the sale benefit them, they aren't going to screw (I forget his name) the current Predators owner over.

They understand the potential ramifications of letting him in and call the shots as he wants - and that's a threat to all of them

But I thought their by-laws were total and binding.....

The Boy Scouts and those private colleges were getting federal funding - hence they had to follow federal guidelines. Show me where the NHL receives federal funding.

Not when I was in them, nor have I ever seen anything that tells me its changed.

I'll be impressed if you can just explain how the NHL not approving the sale gives him actual legal grounds to sue

I didn't, I have (or least tried too, maybe I misspoke) always said he has to get hte team first, and I don't see them saying no. I've said he has legal grounds to move the team. You seem to have moved into this "right to buy the team" thing cause it easier to argue.

I'm going to extremes? Hardly - I'm not the one who's been pointing to the exorbitant price being offered for a franchise valued at $140 million as a huge reason the owners would approve the sale - because it instantly makes their franchises worth much more. It doesn't.

Yes, it does. If a team is valued (ie - sold) for a higher price it makes the teams worth more money cause they can use that price to justify charging more. Just like a house.

Of course, if you really think the sale of a $150,000 house for $400,000 makes every other house worth $160-175K, then it implies that you also agree that the sale of a $150,000 house for $95,000 makes every other house only worth about $130-135K. It would also imply that the value of every other NHL franchise in fact decreased when the Ducks were sold for only $75 million - and I can absolutely guarantee that didn't happen.

As far as I know, no team was sold since the Ducks, so we don't know much that affected the price of the teams. However, seeing a team sold for 75 million was not good for any owner because it devalues their own investments, if a team is only worth 75 million you can't charge someone else 200 million (unless they are willing, like Balsillie).

Remember these are products on a shelf, when they are solid there is negation, like with a home. If you're trying to buy a house and the last one sold a week ago for 95,000 and they are asking for 130,000 where is your offer going to come in at? Just like if the last house sold for 400,000, are the current owners to keep their price at 130,000 or jack it up a little and point to the 400,000 as the reason? When you become a home owner, you'll understand.

 

[Stanley Foobrick]

Blase, do you have a source for this? I had not heard it.

He is WRONG, the money is refundable at any time. I already posted this link once.......http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/208285


Three sentences from the bottom, quote... Those who put down money can get their money back at any time, and all deposits will be refunded if the team isn't moved here by December 2009.

 

[GSC2k2*]

Don't apologize to me, it's not my ticket program.

I think he might be intimating that it is you who should apologize for mis-stating the ticket program in a very material way.

PS - Bluesclues, thanks. I noticed your response after reading further in the thread. I am playing catchup after being out all day.

 

[sluggo*]

Nashville Predators owner Craig Leipold today invoked an escape clause in his team’s lease with the city that gives him the right to terminate the agreement if the team does not average 14,000 in paid attendance per game during the 2007-08 season

I read this earlier and I said before, I wouldn't be surprised to see him let most (if not all) of his UFA's walk and raise ticket prices.

 

[william_adams]

Shoalts is comparing 10,000 people who have spent a mere fraction of the cost of tickets to 9000 people who have plunked down their full price? Laughable, sorry.

10 million bucks plus in ticket sales in two days is impressive no matter how you slice it. the nhl would be dumb to ignore the demand that hamilton has shown whether they allow this move or not.

 

[william_adams]

Of course, if you really think the sale of a $150,000 house for $400,000 makes every other house worth $160-175K, then it implies that you also agree that the sale of a $150,000 house for $95,000 makes every other house only worth about $130-135K. It would also imply that the value of every other NHL franchise in fact decreased when the Ducks were sold for only $75 million - and I can absolutely guarantee that didn't happen.

on this point, you're wrong and he's right. please see my above post on real options.