"Pittsburgh Penguins" sale/arena/slots/etc. thread

discostu

Registered User
Nov 12, 2002
22,512
2,895
Nomadville
Visit site
No one else was willing to go to $175 mil. I doubt that it would be worth much more than $175 mil. where ever you could move it, including that obvious hotbed of hockey KC. Maybe cows like hockey and will watch.

Well, we disagree there then. If the value is higher, then, we wouldn't be having this conversation, as there would be no shortage of buyers who would want to keep the team locally.
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
Well, we disagree there then. If the value is higher, then, we wouldn't be having this conversation, as there would be no shortage of buyers who would want to keep the team locally.

Maybe we are miscommunicating and misunderstanding one another. Basilli would have to prove the hypothetical that the team would be worth more than $175 mil., and significantly more to make it worth his while to sue, to win. I just do not see any markets worth that much more that do not have a hockey team in them. And that is assuming that there are no poison pill clauses in the contract such as exculpatory clauses that would get the Pens off the hook for that hypothetical difference. Just an unlikely lawsuit to be successful. Too many hurdles that defy common sense.
 

discostu

Registered User
Nov 12, 2002
22,512
2,895
Nomadville
Visit site
Maybe we are miscommunicating and misunderstanding one another. Basilli would have to prove the hypothetical that the team would be worth more than $175 mil., and significantly more to make it worth his while to sue, to win. I just do not see any markets worth that much more that do not have a hockey team in them. And that is assuming that there are no poison pill clauses in the contract such as exculpatory clauses that would get the Pens off the hook for that hypothetical difference. Just an unlikely lawsuit to be successful. Too many hurdles that defy common sense.

We disagree because, as you've stated, you think the team would not be worth more than $175M, if it was allowed to move. I think that is false, and, judging by the behaviour of the prospective owners, there appears to be more people interested in moving the team, than keeping the team where it is.

If the team ultimately sells for an amount greater than $175M, and moves, then, it doesn't need to be a hypothetical. If the team moves, and a credible business valuation is done, that shows the value of the team, in its new market, as being greater than $175, then, Balsillie can argue that valuation in front of a judge. If the team stays where it is, especially after Mario does explore the option of moving the team, then, Balsillie won't have much of a case, outside of his deposit. He could still argue that the team would have been worth more to him in that new market, but, the league/Penguins case would be strong that if there was money to be made in moving, Mario would have moved it.
 

Egil

Registered User
Mar 6, 2002
8,838
1
Visit site
I think you have to split up the potential lawsuits into 2 categories.

The first (and obvious one) is the $10 mil deposit. Their is no way in hell that Balsille is just going to walk away from his $10 mil deposit when the NHL blindsided him at the last minute, period.

The second (and less obvious one) is not getting the team. I could see Balsille suing for OWNERSHIP of the team more than lost profits and revenue, but we shall see. As Discostu said, RIM engaged in one of the most expensive and protracted patent suit in history, risking his company in the process. I do not see him fading quietly into the night, especially since their is clearly going to be a fight over the deposit.
 

syc

Registered User
Aug 25, 2003
3,062
1
Not Europe
Visit site
The first (and obvious one) is the $10 mil deposit. Their is no way in hell that Balsille is just going to walk away from his $10 mil deposit when the NHL blindsided him at the last minute, period.

He'll get most of that back I bet. Balsille's lawyers > Pen's Lawyer
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
The pens wouldn't be responsible for paying back the money. It would be the league. NHL lawyers >= Balsille's lawyers?
It would depend how a court characterized the deal.

From what has been reported (and take that for what it is worth) the NHL was involved all the way along in the deal and were privy to the conditions of sale. A court could conclude that it was reeasonable for Balsillie to conclude that the NHL would not impose conditions outside the parameters of the deal agreed to in principle with the Pens as the NHL was familiar with it. If that were the case then a court may well conclude there was no true agreement and that the deal is void or voidable and in such a case the Pens would have to return the deposit.

OTOH the court could rule against the NHL for interfering in the deal and require it to cough up the deposit plus interest.

In court one never says never.
 

skullman80

Registered User
Nov 18, 2005
4,088
2
Pittsburgh, Pa
It would depend how a court characterized the deal.

From what has been reported (and take that for what it is worth) the NHL was involved all the way along in the deal and were privy to the conditions of sale. A court could conclude that it was reeasonable for Balsillie to conclude that the NHL would not impose conditions outside the parameters of the deal agreed to in principle with the Pens as the NHL was familiar with it. If that were the case then a court may well conclude there was no true agreement and that the deal is void or voidable and in such a case the Pens would have to return the deposit.

OTOH the court could rule against the NHL for interfering in the deal and require it to cough up the deposit plus interest.

In court one never says never.

How did that whole Malkin thing work out for ya? I haven't seen ya since then. :p: :p:
 

Clarence Beeks

Registered User
May 4, 2006
7,608
0
In the Deep South
I think you have to split up the potential lawsuits into 2 categories.

The first (and obvious one) is the $10 mil deposit. Their is no way in hell that Balsille is just going to walk away from his $10 mil deposit when the NHL blindsided him at the last minute, period.

The second (and less obvious one) is not getting the team. I could see Balsille suing for OWNERSHIP of the team more than lost profits and revenue, but we shall see. As Discostu said, RIM engaged in one of the most expensive and protracted patent suit in history, risking his company in the process. I do not see him fading quietly into the night, especially since their is clearly going to be a fight over the deposit.

Man, you don't give up on that do you? Balsillie isn't going to get his deposit back, and he certainly would never be awarded ownership of the team by a court. You really have no idea how courts work in this country, do you? Even bringing in the patent suit idea shows that perfectly. You do realize that the patent suit was directly related to the existence of RIM's business, right? The distinction is obvious.
 

Egil

Registered User
Mar 6, 2002
8,838
1
Visit site
Man, you don't give up on that do you? Balsillie isn't going to get his deposit back, and he certainly would never be awarded ownership of the team by a court. You really have no idea how courts work in this country, do you? Even bringing in the patent suit idea shows that perfectly. You do realize that the patent suit was directly related to the existence of RIM's business, right? The distinction is obvious.

Awarded the right to buy the team, not awarded it for free. I don't believe I was clear on that in my post, sorry.
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
You all are forgetting that the league has said that it would step in and block a move if a fair deal were on the table for a new arena. The City of Pittsburgh basically halved the amount that they were wanting the Pens to pay, to $1.6 m. per year over 30 years. That would amortize to well under $20 million (I have not done the math but likely closer to under $15 m.) if you present day value the $48 m. total. 1) Would the league consider that a fair enough offer, assuming Pittsburgh does not sweeten the deal further, or will only a free arena make the league move in and block the move. 2) If the league would block the move, whether Basilli would have gotten a billion dollars if he could move the team to wherever is irrelevant. No lawsuit.
 

Egil

Registered User
Mar 6, 2002
8,838
1
Visit site
You all are forgetting that the league has said that it would step in and block a move if a fair deal were on the table for a new arena. The City of Pittsburgh basically halved the amount that they were wanting the Pens to pay, to $1.6 m. per year over 30 years. That would amortize to well under $20 million (I have not done the math but likely closer to under $15 m.) if you present day value the $48 m. total. 1) Would the league consider that a fair enough offer, assuming Pittsburgh does not sweeten the deal further, or will only a free arena make the league move in and block the move. 2) If the league would block the move, whether Basilli would have gotten a billion dollars if he could move the team to wherever is irrelevant. No lawsuit.

And why did that happen? Because the Pens threatened to move. And would that have happened if Balsille had signed this "no moving" agreement? Probably not. The threat of moving was such a powerful bargaining chip that I believe no sane person would agree to lose, no matter what their intentions are.
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
And why did that happen? Because the Pens threatened to move. And would that have happened if Balsille had signed this "no moving" agreement? Probably not. The threat of moving was such a powerful bargaining chip that I believe no sane person would agree to lose, no matter what their intentions are.

Any move would require the support of two-thirds of the NHL's board of governors (20 of 30 teams)

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/columns/story?columnist=burnside_scott&id=2686426

The statement above is true, whether there were new stipulations or not, whether Basilli those new stipulations or not. The trouble is that Bettman apparantly believed that Basilli intended it as more than a bargaining chip, he would have had the moving vans pulled up to the arena today. And he has a litigious enough past to not want the headaches. That is speculation, but I am guessing that was the case.
 

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
Any move would require the support of two-thirds of the NHL's board of governors (20 of 30 teams)

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/columns/story?columnist=burnside_scott&id=2686426

The statement above is true, whether there were new stipulations or not, whether Basilli those new stipulations or not. The trouble is that Bettman apparantly believed that Basilli intended it as more than a bargaining chip, he would have had the moving vans pulled up to the arena today. And he has a litigious enough past to not want the headaches. That is speculation, but I am guessing that was the case.
You might want to ask Al Davis and the NFL about that one. If the league approved the sale to Balsillie, it is very likely that they would not have been able to block a move (2/3's BOG rule or not). The NFL had a 3/4 overship vote rule and you saw where that got them - lots of legal bills and losing in US District Court, the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and the US Supreme Court.
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
You might want to ask Al Davis and the NFL about that one. If the league approved the sale to Balsillie, it is very likely that they would not have been able to block a move (2/3's BOG rule or not). The NFL had a 3/4 overship vote rule and you saw where that got them - lots of legal bills and losing in US District Court, the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and the US Supreme Court.

Apparently the loopholes that Davis dove through have been closed. His major win was even reveresed. There is no Davis-type out this time around.
 

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
Apparently the loopholes that Davis dove through have been closed. His major win was even reveresed. There is no Davis-type out this time around.
Ahh. No. I hope you aren't relying on Al Strachan for legal advice.

All of the issues addessed in LA Memorial Coliseum Commision v National Football League still hold, and there has been no significant changes to US Anti Trust law. The Raiders/NFL decision was not based on any "loophole".

And no, his "major win" was not reversed. Hell - I'll just cut and paste from the last time this piece of BS came up in these threads.

kdb209 said:
Not really. I wouldn't rely on Al Strachan for legal information. Come to think of it, I wouldn't rely on Al Strachan for any information.

The supposed "favourable verdict overturned" had absolutely nothing to do with allowing or preventing franchise movement - In November a California Appeals Court threw out a $34M judgement that Davis had won against Alameda County and the city of Oakland. Davis had claimed fraud and misrepresentation in their promises of ticket sales and guarantees of sellouts when the Raiders moved back to Oakland in 1995.

The underlying anti trust arguments involved in Los Angeles Memorial Coloseum Commission v. National Football League (The Al Davis vs the NFL case) in 1984 stil hold today.

There are a couple of differences between the NFL and the NHL though. The NFL did not have territorial exclusivity rules - the Rams could not have acted to block the Raiders move to LA, nor the 49ers their move back to Oakland. The NHL does have territorial rights, so Toronto and Buffalo can assert influence on how and where a team moves to Southern Ontario. Also there is a jurisdictional issue whether any challenges to a franchise move would be held in US or Canadian courts.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->