2 Firms US3.5 Billion Bid was just a Starting Point...could go MUCH Higher.

[reckoning]

I think this deal would rein in the halls of suckiness!! I sincerely hope the owners don't go for it. I know your employee's are acting like a bunch of spoiled brats right now but eventually things will be settled and all will be good again.

NO CENTRAL OWNERSHIP!!!

Why wouldn`t the owners sell? If they`re losing SO MUCH MONEY under the CBA, then wouldn`t it make sense?

 

[WHARF1940]

This could definitely work! Imagine if every team that was sold to this conglomerate had an option to buy shares in this mega company equal to the amount that they sold their assets for? For example, on an arbitrary $5 billion deal, let's say that the value that they placed on Toronto was $500 million as opposed to $50 million for Anaheim. Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment would buy $500 million worth of shares in this NewCo (giving them approx. 10% ownership of the league as a whole). Samueli would invest $50 million (giving him approx. 1% ownership). Profits from this NewCo would be paid out in dividends to the owners based on their percentage ownership. Thus, every team would have a financial interest in seeing their overall profitability increase.

Think about it, if Wirtz is not making smart business decisions "for the good of the league", the rest of the shareholders would be on him like crazy for his sagging division. Heck, the NewCo could even outsource to regional management firms (like Orca Bay Sports & Entertainment) and pay out corporate bonuses for financial success.

And before people start saying that this would lead to an imbalance of power where today's wealthy teams would hold the majority of shares: I have two things to add. First, right now Nashville, Carolina, et al are driving the ship (and that is not working out that great). Secondly, it would be relatively easy to have different share structures (Class A vs. Class B) with different voting rights that could easily readjust the power level to equal footing if that is what is desired.

Think about it.

those are all great points, I am going to add a couple of my own.....

1. I am going to speak for myself, but I think many would agree that we follow our TEAM first, then the players, then the rest of the league. It doesn't matter who owns them, I will always follow my Islanders. If they were to buy 24 teams and rename the league, who cares? I will still follow my team. Leaving some teams out would suck for those fans, but I don't believe it would affect the new league as a whole, the local fans would still come to games in those 24 other markets. This scenario would never happen though, because they would need those big clubs to be a part of any new league.

2. I believe that the teams would make their own decision on personnel, so having some central office moving players like in MLS would not happen. They would just have to work within a budget.......(wow, what a marvelous concept...... )

 

[Hire Sather]

I dont think people realizes this if it happened, would kill the sport.

Just think about it. 1 guy owning everything. Think.

 

[ScottyBowman]

I dont think people realizes this if it happened, would kill the sport.

Just think about it. 1 guy owning everything. Think.

Exactly. The owner will win the cup every year.

 

[dakota]

Why wouldn`t the owners sell? If they`re losing SO MUCH MONEY under the CBA, then wouldn`t it make sense?

new cba= cost certainty= increased value of franchise= more money (a lot more)

 

[dakota]

I dont think people realizes this if it happened, would kill the sport.

Just think about it. 1 guy owning everything. Think.

why would the corporation who bought the league sell shares back to all 30 owners based on their previous team value... this way all 30 own all 30 teams... its different to think about but interesting... bottom line is making a profit. I think it would be like wrestling, NASCAR etc., as mentioned previously.

 

[Buffaloed]

Further more, what incentive would a small market team have to try to win? Under single ownership, they would just try to not lose money, and thus put out the cheapest team people will come and watch.

The incentive is to make money. If it's run like any kind of sensible business success is rewarded with bonuses and promotions. Do you think the only incentive for Walmart managers in small markets is not to lose money? If they don't make money for the company they're history. The same goes for the franchise itself. If they want to get promoted, they have to be better than the next guy.

I think this group needs to lay out how they would manage the league before we can form any hard and fast opinions.

 

[Jarqui]

I think this group needs to lay out how they would manage the league before we can form any hard and fast opinions.

I would agree with that.

I also don't think that this will happen due to the 30 owners all having to be onside. If someone offered them some crazy amount of money - double or triple, I'd bet a bunch would jump at it but there would probably still be a few who would not.

If I had made the pitch, it might have been "We've thrown out a number but we're prepared to move on that number. Why don't you throw a number back at us and we'll see how close we are ?" I suspect that they would not have been quite as dismissive of the concept.

I still think the whole thing was about hazing the players/NHLPA.

 

[GKJ]

Do you know Jeremy Jacobs ?
Do you have any idea how much he'd ask ?

:lol

He'd want that 3 billion for himself !

Well he is a complete and utter jackass that doesn't suprise me.

 

[Sotnos]

I still think the whole thing was about hazing the players/NHLPA.

Definitely. Especially given (as someone said somewhere in this thread) that the owners listened to a similar pitch last year but it was given no publicity. Scare tactics.

 

[Buffaloed]

Definitely. Especially given (as someone said somewhere in this thread) that the owners listened to a similar pitch last year but it was given no publicity. Scare tactics.

It's a pretty stupid scare tactic as it could come back to bite the owners in the ass if they go before the NLRB. They'll have a hard time claiming financial hardship if there's a huge offer on the table. My guess is the group making the offer was going to go public with it and gave the league the opportunity to do it first.

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

IMO the NHL could use this idea to their advantage if they decide to destroy the NHL and start over again rather than go the impasse route.

Not sure if this is legal or not, but here goes. Every team sells their team to some nameless numbered company, based on an independent valuation of each team. Therefore the Ducks would be valued at 60 mill and the Leafs at 250 and so on, with a total value of debt around 4.9 billion (per Forbes). No money exchanges hands, just the company will owe each former team owner the market value of it's team in the form of a debt instrument. The numbered company now owns the NHL and all of it's 30 teams and Bettman is named CEO and each of the current owners becomes a member of the Board of the Directors of said company. In exchange for relieving the corporation of it's debts, each former owner receives shares valued at the amount of the debt the corporation owes it. Therefore each owner will still have the same asset value as before, except in will be in the form of shares of the new corporation rather than owning a team. This will allow the new NHL (numbered corp) to set it's own operating rules and circumvent the CBA process, and the owners will still have their same asset value. Each team will be given a 42.5 million budget and each shareholder (former 30 owners) will be given managing rights to one of the district offices (former NHL franchises). Dividends will be divied out to the shareholders, based on how well their own district office performs financially based on how much revenue it can generate and how well it sticks to it's cost budget. The players (employees) would receive most of their earnings based on performance bonuses and a profit sharing arrangement.

 

[thinkwild]

Its an interesting concept. Restructure your way out of labour problems.

What if the players unions of the major sports amalgamated into one professional athletes union, and when one were locked out or on strike, they all were?

 

[Sotnos]

It's a pretty stupid scare tactic as it could come back to bite the owners in the ass if they go before the NLRB. They'll have a hard time claiming financial hardship if there's a huge offer on the table.

Why would the NLRB take this into consideration? An offer on the table isn't necessarily an indication of actual or potential future value (the NHL owners don't seem to think it is) and the NLRB can't force them to sell, so I don't see what difference it makes really. (I am probably not stating that right, been working all day, hope it makes some sense. )

My guess is the group making the offer was going to go public with it and gave the league the opportunity to do it first.

I guess so. But if the NHL owners have entertained presentations like this before and kept it behind closed doors, it seems a bit strange that this particular group would demand publicity, unless that was their only goal.

 

[Buffaloed]

I guess so. But if the NHL owners have entertained presentations like this before and kept it behind closed doors, it seems a bit strange that this particular group would demand publicity, unless that was their only goal.

It's the same group that wants to start the WHA. They haven't shown any substance so publicity is all they have. It's nothing more than a cheesy manauver to throw a monkey wrench into the NHL. There's no way it would be made public, unless the group indicated it would go to the press if the NHL didn't.

 

[Buffaloed]

IMO the NHL could use this idea to their advantage if they decide to destroy the NHL and start over again rather than go the impasse route.

Not sure if this is legal or not, but here goes. Every team sells their team to some nameless numbered company, based on an independent valuation of each team. Therefore the Ducks would be valued at 60 mill and the Leafs at 250 and so on, with a total value of debt around 4.9 billion (per Forbes). No money exchanges hands, just the company will owe each former team owner the market value of it's team in the form of a debt instrument. The numbered company now owns the NHL and all of it's 30 teams and Bettman is named CEO and each of the current owners becomes a member of the Board of the Directors of said company. In exchange for relieving the corporation of it's debts, each former owner receives shares valued at the amount of the debt the corporation owes it. Therefore each owner will still have the same asset value as before, except in will be in the form of shares of the new corporation rather than owning a team. This will allow the new NHL (numbered corp) to set it's own operating rules and circumvent the CBA process, and the owners will still have their same asset value. Each team will be given a 42.5 million budget and each shareholder (former 30 owners) will be given managing rights to one of the district offices (former NHL franchises). Dividends will be divied out to the shareholders, based on how well their own district office performs financially based on how much revenue it can generate and how well it sticks to it's cost budget. The players (employees) would receive most of their earnings based on performance bonuses and a profit sharing arrangement.

That's basically the concept I've supported all along. It doesn't take away the players ability to have a union though, but I think it would put the NHL on much more stable financial footing.

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

That's basically the concept I've supported all along. It doesn't take away the players ability to have a union though, but I think it would put the NHL on much more stable financial footing.

It wouldn't take away the player's rights to have a union, but my understanding is it would allow for the NHL to circumvent many labour laws and anti-trust laws, such as collusion. The NHL would be seen as one company in competition with the other pro sports leagues, rather than as a cartel controlling 30 different business entities in competition with one another, but acting in collusion. It might also be much easier to impose a CBA in an impasse situation and bringing in replacement players.