What are the requirements for owning a team?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ted Hoffman

The other Rick Zombo
Dec 15, 2002
28,859
8,113
Aside from "you have to have enough money to buy the team" and such? I ask this because with the sale of the Blues, fans in St. Louis want to know if the whole "Green Bay Packers" style ownership group model would be allowed in the NHL if someone was a 30% owner of the team and the other 70% was owned by the fans. Anyone?
 

Snap Wilson

Registered User
Sep 14, 2003
5,838
0
Irish Blues said:
Aside from "you have to have enough money to buy the team" and such? I ask this because with the sale of the Blues, fans in St. Louis want to know if the whole "Green Bay Packers" style ownership group model would be allowed in the NHL if someone was a 30% owner of the team and the other 70% was owned by the fans. Anyone?

Doubtful. Public ownership = open books. It's not written down anywhere, but the NHL wouldn't be too receptive to that.
 

Captain Ron

Registered User
Jun 9, 2003
17,409
0
Gardnerville, NV
Visit site
moneyp said:
Doubtful. Public ownership = open books. It's not written down anywhere, but the NHL wouldn't be too receptive to that.

Wow....I was under the impression that Salary Cap = open books. I mean since the players getting an accurate 54% share is dependent on the league accurately reporting revenues it would be hard for me to believe that the NHLPA will let anything be secret.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
Irish Blues said:
Aside from "you have to have enough money to buy the team" and such? I ask this because with the sale of the Blues, fans in St. Louis want to know if the whole "Green Bay Packers" style ownership group model would be allowed in the NHL if someone was a 30% owner of the team and the other 70% was owned by the fans. Anyone?
There are no requirements per se. You have to be approved by the BOG (2/3 majority IIRC) after passing the Commissioner's due diligence.
 

Buffaloed

webmaster
Feb 27, 2002
43,324
23,584
Niagara Falls
Irish Blues said:
Aside from "you have to have enough money to buy the team" and such? I ask this because with the sale of the Blues, fans in St. Louis want to know if the whole "Green Bay Packers" style ownership group model would be allowed in the NHL if someone was a 30% owner of the team and the other 70% was owned by the fans. Anyone?

As far as I know it's permitted. See http://law.marquette.edu/cgi-bin/site.pl?2130&pageID=206 , III. Sports Franchise Ownership, (A.) Public and (B.) Corporate ownership.
 

TehDoak

Chili that wants to be here
Sponsor
Feb 28, 2002
31,251
8,152
Will fix everything
Irish Blues said:
Aside from "you have to have enough money to buy the team" and such? I ask this because with the sale of the Blues, fans in St. Louis want to know if the whole "Green Bay Packers" style ownership group model would be allowed in the NHL if someone was a 30% owner of the team and the other 70% was owned by the fans. Anyone?

Whats the model in Edmonton? I know they are somewhat publicly owned.
 

AdmiralPred

Registered User
Jun 9, 2005
1,923
0
I don't think that the NFL, will allow another situation like the Green Bay Packers. Sure they sold stock to the public for $25 back in '60 and again 4 or 5 years ago for $200 per share. But you can sell that $25 stock for only $25 today. It was virtually only a donation for stadium improvements to keep the team in GB each time, it also ensures that the team will never move. The team has a Board of Directors who select a team president and the president behaves as the 'owner' acting in the best interests of the team hiring GMs and such.
 
Last edited:

jamiebez

Registered User
Apr 5, 2005
4,025
327
Ottawa
The Jets were community-owned in the WHA. The NHL "strongly encouraged" Shenkarow and his partners to buy the team before admitting the franchise into the NHL in 1979. So, while there's no law against it, I don't think the NHL loves the idea so much.

And I believe only a "51%" majority of owners (16 of 30) is needed to ratify non-CBA related issues.
 

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
Spongebob said:
Wow....I was under the impression that Salary Cap = open books. I mean since the players getting an accurate 54% share is dependent on the league accurately reporting revenues it would be hard for me to believe that the NHLPA will let anything be secret.

The PA has access becuase of the CBA, the public doesn't.
 

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
Spongebob said:
I understand that. But I am sure that some/all of that info will be leaked to the public.:)

Sure, some will be leaked, but it won't be anything close to what they'd have to disclose if they were public. I'm sure the PA had to sign a confidentiality agreement too.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
jamiebez said:
The Jets were community-owned in the WHA. The NHL "strongly encouraged" Shenkarow and his partners to buy the team before admitting the franchise into the NHL in 1979. So, while there's no law against it, I don't think the NHL loves the idea so much.

And I believe only a "51%" majority of owners (16 of 30) is needed to ratify non-CBA related issues.
My recollection from the last expansion dance was that expansion (or relocation) requires a 2/3 vote in favour not a simple majority.

It used to be unanimous many years back but that was changed prior to Vancouver and Buffalo being admitted when Ballard was against both teams coming in.
 

Ted Hoffman

The other Rick Zombo
Dec 15, 2002
28,859
8,113
Isn't there a 30% minimum requirement for the majority owner, or am I confusing this with some other sports league?
 

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
Wetcoaster said:
My recollection from the last expansion dance was that expansion (or relocation) requires a 2/3 vote in favour not a simple majority.

It used to be unanimous many years back but that was changed prior to Vancouver and Buffalo being admitted when Ballard was against both teams coming in.

League approval is needed for expansion and the sale of franchises, but not necessarily for relocation - just ask Al Davis. In 1982 he moved the Raiders to LA without NFL approval. The league tried (unsuccessfully) to block the move - the Raiders filed (and won) an anti-trust suit agianst the league. That opened the floodgate of NFL relocations - the Baltimore Colts to Indianapolis in '84, the St Louis Cardinals to Arizona in '88, the LA Rams to St Louis in '95, the Cleveland Browns to Baltimore in '96, the Houston Oilers to Tennessee in '97. Many of those moves (particularly the Colts and the Browns) were opposed by the league.

That is why, despite all the platitudes from Paul Tagliabue, fans of the New Orleans Saints are very nervous.

It is also uncertain if a league could block a sale of a team to new owners:

http://espn.go.com/mlb/s/2001/1205/1290707.html

In Piazza v. Major League Baseball (1993), Vince Piazza sued baseball after it blocked San Francisco Giants owner Bob Lurie from selling the team to Piazza, who planned to move it to St. Petersburg, Fla. MLB then approved a sale, for $15 million less, to Peter Magowan that kept the team in San Francisco. A federal judge ruled that baseball's restrictions on team relocation were not protected by the exemption. However, the judge then ordered a trial to further explore whether he was incorrect about the scope of baseball's exemption. On the eve of trial, Piazza reportedly received a $6 million settlement from MLB and the hearing never happened.

So it appears uncertain that the NHL, which has no anti trust exemption, could successfully block the sale (and relocation) of a franchise, if an owner was willing to fight - an NHL Al Davis anyone?
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
kdb209 said:
League approval is needed for expansion and the sale of franchises, but not necessarily for relocation - just ask Al Davis. In 1982 he moved the Raiders to LA without NFL approval. The league tried (unsuccessfully) to block the move - the Raiders filed (and won) an anti-trust suit agianst the league. That opened the floodgate of NFL relocations - the Baltimore Colts to Indianapolis in '84, the St Louis Cardinals to Arizona in '88, the LA Rams to St Louis in '95, the Cleveland Browns to Baltimore in '96, the Houston Oilers to Tennessee in '97. Many of those moves (particularly the Colts and the Browns) were opposed by the league.

That is why, despite all the platitudes from Paul Tagliabue, fans of the New Orleans Saints are very nervous.

It is also uncertain if a league could block a sale of a team to new owners:

http://espn.go.com/mlb/s/2001/1205/1290707.html



So it appears uncertain that the NHL, which has no anti trust exemption, could successfully block the sale (and relocation) of a franchise, if an owner was willing to fight - an NHL Al Davis anyone?
Most people are talking about sale/relocation to Hamilton, Winnipeg or Quebec and it is doubtful US anti-trust law would apply.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->