Andrew Barroway to buy 51% of the Coyotes (Done, Pending BOG Approval)

Status
Not open for further replies.

TheLegend

Megathread Gadfly
Aug 30, 2009
36,800
28,921
Buzzing BoH
I think Shoalts was saying the final paperwork (could be bank details) haven't closed. The local Phoenix article is suggesting that Barroway has yet to be approved.


Meaning Morgan is being more accurate in respect to the data at hand.

Shoalts is presuming it's a done deal (along with a few other details). But as we here in the land of the saguaros all know, that doesn't mean anything until the league says it's so.
 

Ernie

Registered User
Aug 3, 2004
12,831
2,277
Barroway is backing up a truck full of cash and the league isn't going to take it? Yeah, I don't think so.
 

He Lied to Mario

Registered User
May 16, 2009
388
6
Part Deux

The Globe and Mail article, Arizona Coyotes owners pan for gold in river of red ink!

Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/spor...for-gold-in-river-of-red-ink/article21489565/

Ah, good old Sergeant Shoalts. I remember back in the late 80s when he said the CFL would have four teams in Canada and four teams in the US. I read part of the earlier article titled Canadian investors give up control so team can survive. In it he states the following "But it will mean Gosbee, LeBlanc and their fellow Canadians will be on the outside. Yes, they will remain as minority owners, at least for now, and LeBlanc says he is staying on as team president. But it is clear Barroway intends to take charge. He has already replaced Gosbee as chairman and governor." How can Barroway be chairman and governor for a team that he does not own! Riddle me that one Mr. Shoalts!
 

barneyg

Registered User
Apr 22, 2007
2,383
0
hmmmm...

Part Deux

The Globe and Mail article, Arizona Coyotes owners pan for gold in river of red ink!

Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/spor...for-gold-in-river-of-red-ink/article21489565/

When Gosbee and LeBlanc bought the team in 2013, a relocation fee was discussed. Bettman wanted to make it part of the sale agreement at a minimum of $60-million (what the Winnipeg Jets owners paid) but with the condition the fee would be based on the team’s new market. There was no ceiling on the fee, which meant it could run into hundreds of millions of dollars if a particularly desirable market was the target.

This never made it into the final purchase agreement, but Barroway needs to remember it will come up again.

Did current owners who relocated their team somewhere else (and kept it) ever pay a relocation fee, or would this be a first (presumably because NHL owned the team in the past)?

I hate articles with a bunch of monetary figures embedded in the text, as if readers wouldn't be better served by a simple projected P&L statement.
 

aqib

Registered User
Feb 13, 2012
5,230
1,285
hmmmm...



Did current owners who relocated their team somewhere else (and kept it) ever pay a relocation fee, or would this be a first (presumably because NHL owned the team in the past)?

I hate articles with a bunch of monetary figures embedded in the text, as if readers wouldn't be better served by a simple projected P&L statement.

Karmanos with the Whalers/Hurricanes and Green with the (North) Stars
 

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,215
Did current owners who relocated their team somewhere else (and kept it) ever pay a relocation fee, or would this be a first (presumably because NHL owned the team in the past)?

Karmanos with the Whalers/Hurricanes and Green with the (North) Stars

I dont believe Karmanos paid a Relo Fee aqib, and Norm Green initially wanted to move the North Stars to Anaheim (re~naming them the L.A. Stars) as they had a new arena on the way. However, with Bruce McNall then in charge of the Expansion & Relocation Committee and in need of $$$, Eisner at Disney actually interested in acquiring a franchise, Green was told to look elsewhere, carte blanche pretty much & no Relo Fee nor Indemnification Fee's attached to a move into Dallas. The only other significant move was the Colorado Rockies to New Jersey, the Devils having to pay Indemnification to NY & Philly, the Islanders, but to the best of my knowledge no Relocation Fee. In all 3 cases old history and pretty much irrelevant in this new millennium & even more so when considering the totality of all thats gone down with this particular franchise. Unprecedented, and whatever precedents were set previously, be it the 70's, 80's or 90's pretty much all tossed to the wind. So whether one considers Relocation or even Expansion, moving target, sliding scale. A Markham or Hamilton Relo or Expansion worth considerably more in terms of Expansion Price Tag or Relo Fee (plus indemnification) than Seattle or Portland, which in turn would be worth more than lets say Austin Texas, Hampton Virginia or Tulsa Oklahoma & so on. The other issue here is why move at all from Glendale as theres just no way their ever going to receive $15M a year in so called "arena management fee's" (or subsidies of anykind that rich) from anywhere else and without any performance clauses....
 

barneyg

Registered User
Apr 22, 2007
2,383
0
In all 3 cases old history and pretty much irrelevant in this new millennium & even more so when considering the totality of all thats gone down with this particular franchise. Unprecedented, and whatever precedents were set previously, be it the 70's, 80's or 90's pretty much all tossed to the wind. So whether one considers Relocation or even Expansion, moving target, sliding scale. A Markham or Hamilton Relo or Expansion worth considerably more in terms of Expansion Price Tag or Relo Fee (plus indemnification) than Seattle or Portland, which in turn would be worth more than lets say Austin Texas, Hampton Virginia or Tulsa Oklahoma & so on.

I guess the broader BOH question is: do NHL by-laws (and applicable laws in general) enable the league to charge a fee to a current owner who would want to move his team someplace else? As I understand it, the league could restrict a move that would directly hurt another team financially (e.g. Toronto) but I don't know if they can legally stop a current owner from moving the team to a market that is currently unserved, regardless of the league's expansion prospects.
 

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,215
I guess the broader BOH question is: do NHL by-laws (and applicable laws in general) enable the league to charge a fee to a current owner who would want to move his team someplace else? As I understand it, the league could restrict a move that would directly hurt another team financially (e.g. Toronto) but I don't know if they can legally stop a current owner from moving the team to a market that is currently unserved, regardless of the league's expansion prospects.

Interesting question, and I think it would depend on who it is, how long they've been an owner, what team/market, and how much influence they have within the corridors of power. The NHL By-Laws and its Constitution as we've seen in numerous cases are used more as a matter of convenience, "Guidelines" as opposed to being followed to the letter. If its inconvenient they'll just ignore whatever/whichever for the sake expediency or for whatever Machiavellian triangulations they've gotta create in order to achieve an objective. Bettman has consolidated power to his offices, the league run by Committee, Jacobs & Snider the two most influential & powerful members and if whatever Relocation or Expansion does in some way benefit their holdings beyond the Bruins/Flyers be it concessions or broadcast interests then whatever Constitutional issues or by-laws be damned. Pittsburgh was looking to move, checked out the Sprint in KC amongst other locales. Don't believe for a second Lemieux & Co would have been charged a dime if they'd had to have moved. If Karmanos decided to move the Canes' to Markham Id be willing to bet he wouldn't pay the same amount of indemnification that Barroway/Gosbee would be looking at if they tried to move the Coyotes into Southern Ontario. If Florida moves to lets say Seattle or Portland, because those are newer owners you'd think they'd be charged a Relo Fee however as their situation in Florida could prove untenable if Broward decides to let them go & without a home, justification right there for no Relo Fee at all. If the Coyotes were sold for the soul purpose of Relocation to PKP or maybe Levin in Seattle, then yes, Im sure PKP/Levin charged a Relo Fee. But if Viola/Cifu moved themselves to Seattle or Portland, maybe not whereas if Barroway/Gosbee did that, then they would be charged a Relo Fee. Case x case basis. Various extenuating factors.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
I guess the broader BOH question is: do NHL by-laws (and applicable laws in general) enable the league to charge a fee to a current owner who would want to move his team someplace else? As I understand it, the league could restrict a move that would directly hurt another team financially (e.g. Toronto) but I don't know if they can legally stop a current owner from moving the team to a market that is currently unserved, regardless of the league's expansion prospects.

Under the NHL constitution, all territory not granted to an existing team's Home Territory is owned by the League - and they may charge a relocation fee as a condition of a franchise relocation.

If an incumbent owner tries to go all Al Davis and move without League approval - he would have to sue and we get to finally see if By-Law 36 holds up to anti-trust scrutiny (pass the popcorn).

However there is established legal precedent (Raiders II) that the League would be entitled to a Relocation Fee - equal to the difference in franchise value of the team from the old location to the new - in that case.
 

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,215
If an incumbent owner tries to go all Al Davis and move without League approval - he would have to sue and we get to finally see if By-Law 36 holds up to anti-trust scrutiny (pass the popcorn).

Ya, and I just don't think that would ever happen. The leagues Constitution & its By-Laws, these aren't written in stone, accommodations made, merely "guidelines". Trotted out as they were in Glendale in beating back the Moyes/Balsillie attempt at a Hostile Relocation but that well outside the norm, business as usual with these guys. The creation of the By-Laws mid-90's pursuant to Territorial Rights that the NHL used to send the Canadian Competition Bureau off on a cold trail when they were well aware of the fact that MLSE believed quite the opposite. That the clause in the NHL Constitution trumped a By-Law, further, they weren't even present at the BOG's meeting when that By-Law was voted up. Didn't, don't & won't go along with it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Fugu

RIP Barb
Nov 26, 2004
36,952
220
϶(°o°)ϵ
Under the NHL constitution, all territory not granted to an existing team's Home Territory is owned by the League - and they may charge a relocation fee as a condition of a franchise relocation.

If an incumbent owner tries to go all Al Davis and move without League approval - he would have to sue and we get to finally see if By-Law 36 holds up to anti-trust scrutiny (pass the popcorn).

However there is established legal precedent (Raiders II) that the League would be entitled to a Relocation Fee - equal to the difference in franchise value of the team from the old location to the new - in that case.


I would love to see such an attempt just to finally force the courts to rule on the anti-trust issue.


With Davis, the league is entitled to a fee but it doesn't sound like they can actually stop an owner from moving without approval. They attempt to cover themselves with the personal contract with an owner and the agreements where they require a promise to not move a franchise for 7 years (or whatever number Bettman finds appropriate on any given day). Still, the league's best possible outcome it appears is a damages award, to be determined by a court, not a reversal.
 

OthmarAmmann

Omnishambles
Jul 7, 2010
2,761
0
NYC
So I haven't been too active in this thread since I've been pretty absorbed at work, but nonetheless I'm suggesting the following:

Phoenix/Barroway II: Why don't they just put a damp P&L in news articles?!?
 

GuelphStormer

Registered User
Mar 20, 2012
3,811
499
Guelph, ON
I dont believe Karmanos paid a Relo Fee aqib, and Norm Green initially wanted to move the North Stars to Anaheim (re~naming them the L.A. Stars) as they had a new arena on the way. However, with Bruce McNall then in charge of the Expansion & Relocation Committee and in need of $$$, Eisner at Disney actually interested in acquiring a franchise, Green was told to look elsewhere, carte blanche pretty much & no Relo Fee nor Indemnification Fee's attached to a move into Dallas. The only other significant move was the Colorado Rockies to New Jersey, the Devils having to pay Indemnification to NY & Philly, the Islanders, but to the best of my knowledge no Relocation Fee. In all 3 cases old history and pretty much irrelevant in this new millennium & even more so when considering the totality of all thats gone down with this particular franchise. Unprecedented, and whatever precedents were set previously, be it the 70's, 80's or 90's pretty much all tossed to the wind. So whether one considers Relocation or even Expansion, moving target, sliding scale. A Markham or Hamilton Relo or Expansion worth considerably more in terms of Expansion Price Tag or Relo Fee (plus indemnification) than Seattle or Portland, which in turn would be worth more than lets say Austin Texas, Hampton Virginia or Tulsa Oklahoma & so on. The other issue here is why move at all from Glendale as theres just no way their ever going to receive $15M a year in so called "arena management fee's" (or subsidies of anykind that rich) from anywhere else and without any performance clauses....
interesting way to cut it. presumably they would gain in another gate, but likely lose in nhl-based subsidies. so, how much of a gate gain would be required to result in a net gain by moving and losing the glendale subsidy.
 

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,215
interesting way to cut it. presumably they would gain in another gate, but likely lose in nhl-based subsidies. so, how much of a gate gain would be required to result in a net gain by moving and losing the glendale subsidy.

.... yes. and of course its entirely dependent upon whether or not the COG can afford to continue making these payments. As suggested by Shoalts (and others) they may well be quite content to see the team leave in 3.5yrs having finally come to understand that theres just no way they'll ever get back what theyve put in & continue to pay out, indeed, on the hook legally for another 10yrs after year 5 at $15M per annum. But if theres the will even then to just carry on paying it, between the $15M in public welfare and the tens of millions in RS proceeds etc from the league, they could/can survive indefinitely treading water, breaking even, in some years, small profits. They move elsewhere & retain the club, their not going to receive that kind of largesse from a municipality. Have to actually perform. Get real.
 

aqib

Registered User
Feb 13, 2012
5,230
1,285
I dont believe Karmanos paid a Relo Fee aqib, and Norm Green initially wanted to move the North Stars to Anaheim (re~naming them the L.A. Stars) as they had a new arena on the way. However, with Bruce McNall then in charge of the Expansion & Relocation Committee and in need of $$$, Eisner at Disney actually interested in acquiring a franchise, Green was told to look elsewhere, carte blanche pretty much & no Relo Fee nor Indemnification Fee's attached to a move into Dallas. The only other significant move was the Colorado Rockies to New Jersey, the Devils having to pay Indemnification to NY & Philly, the Islanders, but to the best of my knowledge no Relocation Fee. In all 3 cases old history and pretty much irrelevant in this new millennium & even more so when considering the totality of all thats gone down with this particular franchise. Unprecedented, and whatever precedents were set previously, be it the 70's, 80's or 90's pretty much all tossed to the wind. So whether one considers Relocation or even Expansion, moving target, sliding scale. A Markham or Hamilton Relo or Expansion worth considerably more in terms of Expansion Price Tag or Relo Fee (plus indemnification) than Seattle or Portland, which in turn would be worth more than lets say Austin Texas, Hampton Virginia or Tulsa Oklahoma & so on. The other issue here is why move at all from Glendale as theres just no way their ever going to receive $15M a year in so called "arena management fee's" (or subsidies of anykind that rich) from anywhere else and without any performance clauses....

So when you buy a team you are buying both a share of the of the league and a particular market. My guess is the NHL is NOW of the mindset that it basically owns the whole continent and you have to pay for that market regardless of if you have an expansion team or if you move there. So with the Thrashers in 2011, being 1/30 of the league was worth $110 million (I assign a value of $0 to the market) and Winnipeg was worth $60 million so the NHL decided that it was owed that $60 million. So if a team in QC was to be worth $400 million if a QC group bought the Panthers for $250 million, the NHL would want that $150 million difference (again I am assigning Florida a value of $0).
 

Fugu

RIP Barb
Nov 26, 2004
36,952
220
϶(°o°)ϵ
So when you buy a team you are buying both a share of the of the league and a particular market. My guess is the NHL is NOW of the mindset that it basically owns the whole continent and you have to pay for that market regardless of if you have an expansion team or if you move there. So with the Thrashers in 2011, being 1/30 of the league was worth $110 million (I assign a value of $0 to the market) and Winnipeg was worth $60 million so the NHL decided that it was owed that $60 million. So if a team in QC was to be worth $400 million if a QC group bought the Panthers for $250 million, the NHL would want that $150 million difference (again I am assigning Florida a value of $0).


Interesting, but the way the league addressed this in the BK trial was to assign a local value to the two markets and take the difference.

Winnipeg was deemed worth $170 MM, and given that the league contributed about 15% of total HRR, which of course is more on a per centage basis for smaller teams than bigger ones, your formula I'd guess is not the way they would come up with their figures.
 

MarkhamNHL

Registered User
Sep 22, 2012
658
34
Ah, good old Sergeant Shoalts. I remember back in the late 80s when he said the CFL would have four teams in Canada and four teams in the US.

was he really that far off ? doesn't anyone remember the likes of these teams ?

Baltimore Stallions
Shreveport Pirates
Sacramento Gold Miners
Memphis Mad Dogs
Las Vegas Posse
Birmingham Barracudas
 

aqib

Registered User
Feb 13, 2012
5,230
1,285
Interesting, but the way the league addressed this in the BK trial was to assign a local value to the two markets and take the difference.

Winnipeg was deemed worth $170 MM, and given that the league contributed about 15% of total HRR, which of course is more on a per centage basis for smaller teams than bigger ones, your formula I'd guess is not the way they would come up with their figures.

Right but there is more to league membership then just the distributed HRR. The league provides marketing, finance, and legal support, and it provides 29 other teams and makes them come to your city to play your team. So you derive revenues from just being in the league. So there is a value in simply being in the league. Like Gosbee said, he wasn't buying the Coyotes he was buying 1/30th of the league. So take the franchise with the lowest value and that's the value of 1/30th of the league. To figure out the value of any other market is the difference in value between that franchise and the value of 1/30th of the league.
 

cbcwpg

Registered User
May 18, 2010
20,186
20,684
Between the Pipes
So...are you saying that the NHL took the first two years and IceArizona/Barroway has the next five years with their out-clause?

Hmmm....

I don't think anyone can say what kind of agreement was really signed between the NHL and IA/Barroway, given that these things change on Bettman's whim.

The 7-year non-relocation agreement appears to be a standard agreement as listed in the NHL constitution/by-laws, which are known to be quite flexible given the situation.
 

GuelphStormer

Registered User
Mar 20, 2012
3,811
499
Guelph, ON
I don't think anyone can say what kind of agreement was really signed between the NHL and IA/Barroway, given that these things change on Bettman's whim.

The 7-year non-relocation agreement appears to be a standard agreement as listed in the NHL constitution/by-laws, which are known to be quite flexible given the situation.

do we know that anything has actually been signed?

folks here raised a few eyebrows at the shoalts tidbit that AB is already the BoG rep for the team, even though Gosbee's official website here says he is still the governor. likely just shoalts jumping the gun but really, what do we actually know for sure at this time? anything?
 

Llama19

Registered User
Jan 19, 2013
7,274
1,098
Outside GZ
do we know that anything has actually been signed?

folks here raised a few eyebrows at the shoalts tidbit that AB is already the BoG rep for the team, even though Gosbee's official website here says he is still the governor. likely just shoalts jumping the gun but really, what do we actually know for sure at this time? anything?

Hmmm...

His own Twitter account just lists 'Governor - Arizona Coyotes' but not 'Chairman' and 'Co-Owner' like it use to... ;)

Source: https://twitter.com/Goz100
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad