Sportsnet: Two companies proposed to buy the NHL in yesterday's meeting

Status
Not open for further replies.

CGG

Registered User
Jan 6, 2005
4,136
55
416
The purchase would not be dependent on the NHL reaching an accord with the players, and a sale would not affect the status of the NHL Players' Association as the bargaining agent for players under U.S. and Canadian labour laws.

Link to Toronto Star

I don't know where everyone is getting the idea that the NHLPA would cease to exist or just go away if there's only one owner. Some Wal-Marts are unionized. Same with McDonalds. If the players aren't happy with the pre-set "budgets" for each team then guess what, the CBA expires and players go on strike. How there's a bunch of player haters salivating over the possibility of this deal going through is beyond me.
 

SENSible1*

Guest
Epsilon said:
You obviously have no clue as to how US antitrust law works.

Just to make things simple, a monopoly does NOT mean 100% market share.

Every major corporate merger of the past several years (AOL/TW being the most obvious example) has faced rigorous investigation by the US DoJ with regards to whether that merger would be anti-competitive, create a monopoly, and/or violate antitrust law.

Seems like your understanding is more than a little flawed.

This move would simply be redefining the existing franchise system into one with localized ownership.

They would not stop other leagues from hiring hockey players.

They would not stop other hockey leagues from forming.

They would not stop other sports from competing for the consumers dollars.

This would not constitute a monopoly.
 

Tinordi24*

Guest
cleduc said:
There is no law that says in effect that they have to remain structured as they are forever. Whether they dissolve and reform, sell and some buy back in later or get stock options as part of the deal or sign a short term CBA and move on with restructuring, it is difficult to convince me that they have absolutely no legal alternatives of the nature we are discussing. All they have to do is just be careful on how they go about any of the alternatives such that it is within the law.

Antitrust does have it's limitations. The overall significant drop in union workers in the US supports the fact that there are limits to how much the unions can cling to the laws of the land in order to continue their existence. There is a point in time where a business person has to have the right to say "Enough! There has to be a better way. The union can't dominate or ruin my business. I need a divorce from the union." We're discussing those legal options. The particular entity that they own can't divorce but the owner and their assets sure can. The MLS is a precedent of a legal employee-employer arrangement that the NHL assets could migrate to as an option. The owners have rights and freedoms to lawfully conduct business and manage their assets as they see fit to as well.

It might be fine and dandy to get all worked up over the poor, down trodden, $1.3 mil/yr philosophical organized NHLers and their quiver of legal options but the other side has rights too. These entities are not married forever. It may well be time to drive a stake through the heart of the NHLPA - in fact, it may be overdue.

:teach:

Knock em out da box! BAM! Perfect Post.

Pro NHLPA people are speechless and down for the count!

Doubt all the owners would do it RIGHT NOW..but if Bobby Boy and his toolboy Linden keep it up much longer the owners would have to take a LONG HARD LOOK!

Contraction, 20-25 mil Cap (AT MOST!), limited free agency and any other caveat the ONE OWNER would feel like imposing. Sure there would be some Forsbergs and Jagirls going to play elsewhere but for the most part this league would STILL pay more than any other league in the world for most players.

Lynch mobs would be going after McCabe, Pronger, Goodenow, Linden, and Vincent Dumbfool!!

I LOVE IT!!! :handclap:
 

davemess

Registered User
Apr 9, 2003
2,894
236
Scotland
Could this get around the whole collusion problem? The teams could get together and decide we will only pay a free agent X amount of dollars. If you are all part of one company it cant be collusion..... right?
 

JohnnyReb

Registered User
Apr 26, 2003
704
0
Visit site
So what does this do to the whole "Super League" debate. If one owner can control 30 teams, then who is to say one owner couldn't form his own, 8-10 team league, and start poaching NHL players?
 

drbill28

Registered User
Feb 25, 2003
206
0
Pomfret Center, CT
Visit site
gc2005 said:
Link to Toronto Star

I don't know where everyone is getting the idea that the NHLPA would cease to exist or just go away if there's only one owner. Some Wal-Marts are unionized. Same with McDonalds. If the players aren't happy with the pre-set "budgets" for each team then guess what, the CBA expires and players go on strike. How there's a bunch of player haters salivating over the possibility of this deal going through is beyond me.
True, and untrue. No Wal-Marts in America are unionized. Wal-Mart actively blocks them. If you read what I said earlier. I advise you do. The PA doesn't go away. But it has no leagal right to be more powerful than any regular union like the United Auto Workers. The NHL can decide to persure a CBA if they wish. All the cards go out the window when it comes to the NHLPA. They have no power to push their will in how business is conducted. They can only protect their worker's rights. The new NHL can decide they don't want to hire anyone in a union. That's up to them. Or if they decide to. Power is no more than any other. McDonalds' unions don't have CBA like the ones they conduct now. Ask McDonalds if they would accept a floor on employee salaries and see how fast they laugh.
 

Tinordi24*

Guest
davemess said:
Could this get around the whole collusion problem? The teams could get together and decide we will only pay a free agent X amount of dollars. If you are all part of one company it cant be collusion..... right?

There would be no collusion (as many other poster referred to by MLS example)!!!


I can FEEL the lifeblood of the NHLPA draining from afar.......
 

Tinordi24*

Guest
JohnnyReb said:
So what does this do to the whole "Super League" debate. If one owner can control 30 teams, then who is to say one owner couldn't form his own, 8-10 team league, and start poaching NHL players?

They can but that owner would A) have a hard time securing leases for arenas since most would be carried by new NHL, B) Wouldn't have name recognition of the Red Wings, Rangers, and Leafs, C) Would have a hard time getting past the first few years of operation
 

CGG

Registered User
Jan 6, 2005
4,136
55
416
MarkTinordi24 said:
Lynch mobs would be going after McCabe, Pronger, Goodenow, Linden, and Vincent Dumbfool!!

Remember... the part where... you said... Dumbfool? That was awesome. So funny, cuz like, it's Damphousse, that's his real name, and Dumbfool sounds like Damphousse. Woah. Awesome. Cuz, like, Damphousse must be dumb. And he's a fool. Get it? Dumbfool. Damphousse. Dumbfool. Damphousse. That's awesome.

:help:
 

Tinordi24*

Guest
gc2005 said:
Remember... the part where... you said... Dumbfool? That was awesome. So funny, cuz like, it's Damphousse, that's his real name, and Dumbfool sounds like Damphousse. Woah. Awesome. Cuz, like, Damphousse must be dumb. And he's a fool. Get it? Dumbfool. Damphousse. Dumbfool. Damphousse. That's awesome.

:help:

I'm quick like that! Sharp as a whistle and capable of powerful name mocking!
 

mudcrutch79

Registered User
Jul 5, 2003
3,903
0
The Big Smoke
www.mc79hockey.com
MarkTinordi24 said:
They can but that owner would A) have a hard time securing leases for arenas since most would be carried by new NHL, B) Wouldn't have name recognition of the Red Wings, Rangers, and Leafs, C) Would have a hard time getting past the first few years of operation

That's a big part of the answer as to what would make this league look like a monopoly as well.
 

Tinordi24*

Guest
mudcrutch79 said:
That's a big part of the answer as to what would make this league look like a monopoly as well.

Just like the MLS eh?

All the players have to do is dig deep, put the money where thier big mouths are and all fork over a few billion to buy the league themselves!

Or they can start their own league and take the losses for a few years (like many other start up companies) and then try to make it work. Who here thinks the players have the stomach for TAKING RISK???? Players dont understand the concept of RISK and would view the current situation much differently if they were in the ownership position...which they soon may have to be.
 

copperandblue

Registered User
Sep 15, 2003
10,719
0
Visit site
mudcrutch79 said:
That's a big part of the answer as to what would make this league look like a monopoly as well.

Haven't the players already proved the NHL's case for them that they are not a monopoly?

Over half of the union has found work elsewhere and many more have turned down offers.

Seems like the PA would have been better off to have all 750 players sitting on the shelf for the duration instead jumping to the NHL's competition.
 

Freezerburn

Registered User
Mar 20, 2003
7,157
16
Its things like this that move me more over to the players side.

This is not necessary.

And for all those people saying "it works in the MLS" I say "MLS what?" Outside of knowing what the league stands for I have no idea of any teams, players, nor have I ever seen a televised game. Yes, that is what the NHL wants, to be like the MLS...
 

Epsilon

#basta
Oct 26, 2002
48,464
369
South Cackalacky
One thing that I like about this offer is that maybe it will shut up all the fools that think the NHL is on the same level as MLS, the WNBA, Arena Football, and so on just because of TV numbers. Such people can now ask themselves: "would anyone offer 3.5 billion for one of those leagues?".
 

Gator Mike

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
11,407
9,618
Woburn, MA
Visit site
Freezerburn said:
And for all those people saying "it works in the MLS" I say "MLS what?" Outside of knowing what the league stands for I have no idea of any teams, players, nor have I ever seen a televised game...
I'd venture to guess the reason you know so little about MLS is because you're not a soccer fan. Oh, and because there are no teams in Canada.

Major League Soccer's business model has been relatively successful. They've kept costs in check, which has limited their losses. The league as a business is on relatively stable financial ground, despite it's modest fan base. The NHL is obviously a bigger gate attraction, but their business isn't nearly as stable as MLS is right now.

But even so, attendance and television ratings are up slightly the past few years... something I don't believe the NHL can claim.
 

btn

Gone Hollywood
Feb 27, 2002
15,685
2
ATL
Visit site
Gator Mike said:
Major League Soccer's business model has been relatively successful. They've kept costs in check, which has limited their losses. The league as a business is on relatively stable financial ground, despite it's modest fan base.

I think the main difference is that MLS is, when it comes to international talent, a 3rd or 4th rate league. Anyone who can go to Europe, will go to Europe to get paid.

I do not know how such a model would work for a league that employs the best players in the world. The NFL and MLB don't have to worry about talent going to play in other countries.
 

Freezerburn

Registered User
Mar 20, 2003
7,157
16
Gator Mike said:
I'd venture to guess the reason you know so little about MLS is because you're not a soccer fan. Oh, and because there are no teams in Canada.

Major League Soccer's business model has been relatively successful. They've kept costs in check, which has limited their losses. The league as a business is on relatively stable financial ground, despite it's modest fan base. The NHL is obviously a bigger gate attraction, but their business isn't nearly as stable as MLS is right now.

But even so, attendance and television ratings are up slightly the past few years... something I don't believe the NHL can claim.

Being a fan of the sport has little to do with its exposure. I don't consider myself a football or baseball fan either yet I can name many players and teams. Comparing the MLS to the NHL is absurd. One is a lower level sports league while the other is considered the highest level in its respective sport.
 

davemess

Registered User
Apr 9, 2003
2,894
236
Scotland
Freezerburn said:
Being a fan of the sport has little to do with its exposure. I don't consider myself a football or baseball fan either yet I can name many players and teams. Comparing the MLS to the NHL is absurd. One is a lower level sports league while the other is considered the highest level in its respective sport.

Just because the system is being run by a league that is smaller than some of the other leagues in the US doesnt mean that it isnt a good system.
 

Freezerburn

Registered User
Mar 20, 2003
7,157
16
davemess said:
Just because the system is being run by a league that is smaller than some of the other leagues in the US doesnt mean that it isnt a good system.

I am by no means saying that the system does not work or is not good, I just do not think the comparison is there.
 

davemess

Registered User
Apr 9, 2003
2,894
236
Scotland
Freezerburn said:
I am by no means saying that the system does not work or is not good, I just do not think the comparison is there.

I dont think anybody is comparing the NHL to the MLS in terms of its level with the US, its media exposure or anything like that. Just saying that the MLS ownership and financial setup might be a reasonable model to look at and see if it could be tweaked to work for Hockey.
 

QQQ

Registered User
Dec 15, 2003
48
0
Manage 22 billion plus in assets

I'm going to buy me some of that Bain Capital Partners shares. I've always wanted to be an owner and not Kunte Kinte.

Things I've read in previous acquisitions: "forward looking statements involving "- "risk or uncertainty" also "expectations, beliefs, plans, intentions or strategies regarding the future" "works with exceptional management teams in order to build long term value". Hey if this global comp with main office in Boston, and offices in New York, San Fransisco, London and Munich figures there growth potential in future value in the NHL who am I to argue?
 

nyrmessier011

Registered User
Feb 9, 2005
3,358
4
Charlotte/NYC
I think this is good and bad if it happens.

It's good because Bettman and the owners are out
Also it is good because these guys will probably contract teams
Revenue sharing would be attractive to the PA
CBA will be signed almost right away probably

Bad Because:
They basically can collude. A players contract will be what they set as market value. There's no competition to drive his contract up, it's sort of like here Crosby, your market value is 1.5M, take it or go to Europe. The league needs competition btw owners.
 

Boltsfan2029

Registered User
Jul 8, 2002
6,264
0
In deleted threads
Here's a monkeywrench no one has thrown into the picture yet. What about the buildings?

I can only speak for my own team, of course, but our deal is that the Lightning is the main tenant of the building and, as such, he who owns the Lightning owns the leasehold rights to the arena. If that's a common scenario around the league, I think:

1) The owners who are in this situation probably wouldn't want to give up their buildings if they are successful entertainment venues in their own right. In most cases I think it's a fairly common assumption that the building makes the money, not the team that's playing in it. The share of the price for our team would have to be enough to cover PS&E's original purchase price, recoup the $$ lost over the years and offset to some degree the $$ our owner would lose by giving up the building.

2) If the deal went through anyway, those fans who are rabidly chomping at the bit for contraction may get their wish -- but they may be very disappointed in which teams go. My team is a favorite target of many pro-contraction folks (hey, it's only snowed twice here in my lifetime), but it very likely would be very safe under this ownership plan, because the consortium buying the league would also then have leasehold rights to the building, which is a very successful venue. So, the teams that are most likely to go would be (a) those whose building rights don't transfer with ownership of the team; (b) those whose buildings can't bring in the $$ on their own.

I'm sure there are lots of holes in this argument, just another interesting point no one seems to have thought of yet.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->