Atlanta 3.0: Three local ownership groups emerge

[GSC2k2*]

Absolutely nothing is stopping an Owner from doing that other than his respect for other members of the NHL and his business standing in his current market.

This is as categorically false as it was the first twenty or so times you have tried to assert it. All owners are subject to the contractual terms which they have signed with the league, both in terms of the agreement with the league under which they acquire their franchise AND, more importantly, the terms of the NHL constitution, which constitute a contract between the 30 members of the league.

The NHL has never blocked a move and they likely never will...because no law supports it. The one thing that would prevent it is an arena lease that an owner might have to pay dearly for if broken.

As you were informed before, the NHL blocked the STL move decades ago. The law supports the NHL's rights.

Anyway....nothing prevents an Owner from moving whenever they please except leases.

Incorrect. And please don't quote Al Davis. This has been addressed here a million times. Sports league constitutions changed after those cases to address the factors outlined by the courts therein.

This is a poor analogy. One of the million or so differences is that, when you start doing due diligence in the data room of an NHL franchise (or any business of any size), you aren't simply looking around measuring rooms and checking out carpets and finishes. You are bringing in a team of lawyers and accountants to perform the due diligence, which takes weeks, several hundred billable hours of both legal and financial advisors, discussions with paid marketing advisors and countless hours interviewing managers and other staff.

If you are doing due diligence on an NHL team, you are already interested, by definition.

Think about it...if you were interested in buying NHL Team A....and NHL Team B (Thrashers) are up for sale.....I'd sign a NDA and check the the Thrashers out...it would good me a very solid idea of how things in this league REALLY are...before I pursue Team A any further.

So, you are going to check out the Thrashers and that will inform you on how, for example, to approach the Islanders? Sorry, but no.

Happens all the time....teams that aren't even for sale (publicly) have people checking them out from time to time. The Thrashers situation is an issue because they have been shopping the team for years and because things aren't moving quickly. Like I said...look at the Sabres deal. They're for sale? This dood is interested. This dood is buying the Sabres? This dood bought the Sabres? Done.

None of this "interested parties" and "NDA" or "kicking the tires" bull-plop. By the time you know the team is for sale a buyer is already lined up and he buys the team. That isn't the case in Atlanta....which gives very good support to think that the sale isn't going to go all nice and smooth. Not to say it won't...just that it isn't.

Jeffrey, you really should check with someone who is familiar with the process surrounding the sale and acquisition of businesses. This idea you have of how it proceeds is not really how it goes. Everything done in PHO, and everything being done in ATL, is the same as everything that was done in BUF, and it will be the same for every other team bought and sold.

 

[saskganesh]

NDA's ensure conversations and information remain private between involved parties. That's it. In business, I have signed NDA's for a variety of reasons. It's really hard to generalise beyond that.

 

[gee]

As you were informed before, the NHL blocked the STL move decades ago. The law supports the NHL's rights.

didn't they block the sale - which would have led to the relocation - not the relocation itself?

 

[kdb209]

As you were informed before, the NHL blocked the STL move decades ago. The law supports the NHL's rights.

Technically, the BoG voted down the transfer of ownership from Purina to Bill Hunter - not the relocation to Saskatoon.

This is a different legal issue - the rights of a league to choose who they allow as an owner - with different anti trust arguments and precedent (Levin v NBA, Fishman v Wirtz, et al) than whether a league can block an incumbent owner from moving.

Incorrect. And please don't quote Al Davis. This has been addressed here a million times. Sports league constitutions changed after those cases to address the factors outlined by the courts therein.

And, the advisory opinion of the CCB notwithstanding, those amended relocation restrictions have never yet been challenged in court. It is far from certain that they would be upheld as reasonable restrictions.

That is one of the motivating factors behind the NHL's 7-year no-relocation consent agreements as a condition of approving a franchise sale - it is effectively Al Davis insurance.

 

[Alan Jackson]

This team needs to stay in ATL. Sespite what many Canadians say the 8th largest TV market lost is a blow to the image.

I can't imagine half-empty buildings or shockingly low TV ratings can be that great for the League's reputation, either.

Atlanta is not the 8th largest TV market. As far as the NHL is concerned, it never will be.

 

[AtlantaWhaler]

As far as the NHL is concerned, it never will be.

Hopefully the market gets a chance to prove this wrong, as I think it would.

 

[dj4aces]

Atlanta is not the 8th largest TV market. As far as the NHL is concerned, it never will be.

As far as you are concerned, perhaps. If the NHL felt this way, the team wouldn't be here. Remember, Atlanta is an expansion team, not a relocated team. The NHL did a lot of research before plopping a team down in Atlanta.

 

[Jeffrey93]

This is as categorically false as it was the first twenty or so times you have tried to assert it. All owners are subject to the contractual terms which they have signed with the league, both in terms of the agreement with the league under which they acquire their franchise AND, more importantly, the terms of the NHL constitution, which constitute a contract between the 30 members of the league.

Show me one example of an Owner wanting to move his franchise and the league saying 'No, we won't allow it.'

As you were informed before, the NHL blocked the STL move decades ago. The law supports the NHL's rights.

They didn't block the St. Louis move. Read up on it a bit.

This is mere idle talk (I won't even call it "opinion") which is unsupported by any facts. i take it you are suggesting that leagues revenues are not really $2.9B, and that this is an elaborate hoax. This is too ridiculous to discuss.

How is it ridiculous? Tampa was sold for a bag of chips...about 10 teams are for sale in some form or another....and at least three of them are having a hard time finding a buyer at all....nevermind getting top dollar.

Please identify such a franchise, and give us the basis for your valuation. This is a number pulled by you out of thin air.

It is a number pulled out of thin air...it makes a point. Tampa sold for a ridiculously low amount and now other teams are having a hard time selling.
Do you really think the Coyotes are worth $170M? What would you suggest their true worth is?

This is a poor analogy. One of the million or so differences is that, when you start doing due diligence in the data room of an NHL franchise (or any business of any size), you aren't simply looking around measuring rooms and checking out carpets and finishes. You are bringing in a team of lawyers and accountants to perform the due diligence, which takes weeks, several hundred billable hours of both legal and financial advisors, discussions with paid marketing advisors and countless hours interviewing managers and other staff.
If you are doing due diligence on an NHL team, you are already interested, by definition.

Yup....and signing a simple non-disclosure agreement doesn't mean you are going to that extent either. If you want to do a preliminary look at a franchise...you're going to be signing a NDA. That doesn't mean you are sending over a team of lawyers and accountants to pour through every aspect of the franchise....but yer still signing an NDA and the media will call you an "interested party".
You can do a preliminary look into a franchise...be considered an "interested party" by definition....but your interest could be rather low.
I guess I should have really drawn a better picture that I was suggesting there is a difference between somebody checking out your business and somebody that is REALLY interested in buying it. Interest levels vary....

So, you are going to check out the Thrashers and that will inform you on how, for example, to approach the Islanders? Sorry, but no.

You don't believe there are people that are simply interested in owning "An NHL franchise"??? That means you might look at a few. If I'm interested in buying the Columbus Blue Jackets.....and I see the Thrashers Ownership situation....I might go check them out, right? Doesn't mean I'm overly interested...but I'll take a peak.
I don't know many people that buy ANYTHING and only look at one item. You shop. You compare. I'm not saying you go look at Atlanta for no reason....I'm saying you look at them only because you are interested in purchasing an NHL franchise, if you like what you see...maybe the specific franchise you want to purchase will change, or it won't.


The process is the same....just like a one-legged blind man running the 110m hurdles is the same "process" as Liu Xiang running those same hurdles. Process is certainly the same...run 110 metres on a track while jumping over 10 hurdles. If you think both of those people running the hurdles is "the same"...fine. I personally don't think it is the same...

 

[Jeffrey93]

didn't they block the sale - which would have led to the relocation - not the relocation itself?

Yup. GSC has a hard time wrapping his head around that. It is a HUGE difference.

 

[LadyStanley]

Mod note: keep the focus on Atlanta, please. And the ownership.

If you must mention another franchise/transaction, it better be in comparison/reference to what's happening/could happen in Atlanta.

 

[ThrasherMinion]

Hey Jeffrey93.....and anyone else coming in late to the party.

if you care to read the 83 pages that include parts of the NHL bylaws and Constitution as delivered by Uncle Daly himself....

Teams can't just "pick up and move" and many other nutty FACTS are included within....

http://v1.theglobeandmail.com/v5/content/pdf/CoyotesDaly.pdf

glad to help.

 

[Jeffrey93]

Hey Jeffrey93.....and anyone else coming in late to the party.

if you care to read the 83 pages that include parts of the NHL bylaws and Constitution as delivered by Uncle Daly himself....

Teams can't just "pick up and move" and many other nutty FACTS are included within....

http://v1.theglobeandmail.com/v5/content/pdf/CoyotesDaly.pdf

glad to help.

Yup...and according to the law I can't speed while driving to work either. But it's so crazy!! I did it...and nothing happened!

 

[headsigh]

I can't imagine half-empty buildings or shockingly low TV ratings can be that great for the League's reputation, either.

Atlanta is not the 8th largest TV market. As far as the NHL is concerned, it never will be.

It is the 8th largest TV market in the US, higher than Washington and San Jose/Anaheim (though they're often combined as a San Jose/San Fransisco/Oakland entity in rankings), and the TV ratings for Atlanta in 2009-10 were up 26.9% from the previous year. As for half-empty buildings, the team has drawn 17624 vs the bruins. This current month's attendance numbers have included draws of 16073, 16502, and 15799 with 4 home games left in the season (this is, mind you, an 11th place team that is just now recovering from an 8-loss february that currently employs rob schremp as a 2nd line center). The one playoff season the team actually did have, they were drawing higher than the Capitals, Blackhawks, and Bruins.

To not see the market's (though inconsistent) strengths and potential is pretty ignorant.

Yup...and according to the law I can't speed while driving to work either. But it's so crazy!! I did it...and nothing happened!

You're not really comparing the sale of a multi-million dollar franchise to hanging a right turn on a red light?

 

[Jeffrey93]

You're not really comparing the sale of a multi-million dollar franchise to hanging a right turn on a red light?

Sure am! Although not being able to turn right on a red is ridiculous....legal up here with very few exceptions.

Anyhoo....because some document within the NHL says you can't do something....doesn't mean you can't. Actual laws tend to be a bit more important than some rules a group of hockey team owners drafted up.

Nothing would stop Thrashers ownership from declaring tomorrow that they are moving. The NHL could vote and reject the move...and then the Thrashers could move anyway....and guess what?? They would discover the same thing I did when I sped on the way to work....

 

[headsigh]

Sure am! Although not being able to turn right on a red is ridiculous....legal up here with very few exceptions.

Anyhoo....because some document within the NHL says you can't do something....doesn't mean you can't. Actual laws tend to be a bit more important than some rules a group of hockey team owners drafted up.

Nothing would stop Thrashers ownership from declaring tomorrow that they are moving. The NHL could vote and reject the move...and then the Thrashers could move anyway....and guess what?? They would discover the same thing I did when I sped on the way to work....

Well, yes, they could, just like I could rob a bank with 29 other people watching.

It's just not that easy. Yes, there are laws that have to be obeyed, but at the same time, if ASG moves the team, they can move the team, but only if they sell it first. As you've said, you can't block a relocation (you can block the sale that causes a relocation but that's a different bag of worms)... If they block the sale and the sale goes through anyway, the red tape and lawsuits would make the Phoenix fiasco look like judge judy.

 

[kdb209]

Sure am! Although not being able to turn right on a red is ridiculous....legal up here with very few exceptions.

Anyhoo....because some document within the NHL says you can't do something....doesn't mean you can't. Actual laws tend to be a bit more important than some rules a group of hockey team owners drafted up.

Nothing would stop Thrashers ownership from declaring tomorrow that they are moving. The NHL could vote and reject the move...and then the Thrashers could move anyway....and guess what?? They would discover the same thing I did when I sped on the way to work....

Nope.

The NHL would very likely get an injunction (based on, you know, actual laws - contract law upholding signed agreements between parties is actual law) to block the move - forcing any relocation to wait until after any anti-trust suit to challenge the League's relocation restrictions.

When Al Davis tried to first move the Raiders in 1980, he was blocked by an injunction until after the District Court trial - and they could not relocate until 1982 (after a court order making the NFL's restrictions unenforceable).

And the NHL would still hold the nuclear option of revoking the Thrasher franchise.

 

[Jeffrey93]

Nope.

The NHL would very likely get an injunction (based on, you know, actual laws) to block the move - forcing any relocation to wait until after any anti-trust suit to challenge the League's relocation restrictions.

When Al Davis tried to first move the Raiders in 1980, he was blocked by an injunction until after the District Court trial - and they could not relocate until 1982 (after a court order making the NFL's restrictions unenforceable).

And the NHL would still hold the nuclear option of revoking the Thrasher franchise.

Even from what you said. Say yer moving...league says no....and you end up doing it anyway.

 

[kdb209]

Even from what you said. Say yer moving...league says no....and you end up doing it anyway.

Not without lengthy and costly litigation - or you end up owning nothing more than some hockey equipment and a fax machine after the NHL terminates the franchise under Article 3.9 of the NHL Constitution.

 

[Jeffrey93]

Not without lengthy and costly litigation - or you end up owning nothing more than some hockey equipment and a fax machine after the NHL terminates the franchise under Article 3.9 of the NHL Constitution.

Yeah....and how likely is that?

 

[LadyStanley]

It is the 8th largest TV market in the US, higher than Washington and San Jose/Anaheim (though they're often combined as a San Jose/San Fransisco/Oakland entity in rankings), and the TV ratings for Atlanta in 2009-10 were up 26.9% from the previous year.

Very confused by this.

SJ and Anaheim are about 400 miles apart. (Think the distance between Atlanta, GA and Raleigh, NC)

Anaheim is often lumped in the Los Angeles/Orange/San Bernardino/San Fernando counties metropolitan area.

Very different culture, demographics, etc.

 

[kdb209]

Yeah....and how likely is that?

Considering the lengths the NHL went through in Phoenix to uphold these rights - very likely.

 

[Jeffrey93]

Considering the lengths the NHL went through in Phoenix to uphold these rights - very likely.

Apples and oranges. The NHL didn't want a bankruptcy court allowing a sale that was conditional on a relocation they would have no say on by an Owner they would also have no say on.

I'm talking about an existing NHL owner telling the league he is moving his team.....not selling it to somebody that will move it...just moving it.

 

[peter sullivan]

if i were a fan in atlanta, my concern would be the almost impossible situation of purchasing only the hockey team and negotiating a lease with ASG, as well as the fact that extracting the hockey club from the triumvirate will make ASG the most money.

the hockey club is worth more individually (as long as relocation is permitted by the NHL) than it is as part of the ASG package.....as well, it is unlikely that ASG will get anywhere near the same price from a local buyer keeping the team in atlanta...the franchise value is far greater to a relocation interest...why would ASG accept a lower return simply to keep the team in atlanta if they were not forced to.

really, the only solution is that someone buy the whole package, which is not ASG's publicly stated priority.....even then selling the hockey team to an outside interest and then selling the arena and basketball team locally will provide the greatest return.

it all hinges on the NHL forcing ASG to find a local buyer and likely settle for less money in return....atlanta fans themselves express the selfish manner in which ASG do business....does anyone believe that they will do what is in the best interest of anyone but themselves?

since it all hinges on the NHL.......it would worry me that they have not been as vocal about finding a local solution as they have been in other places and they have not been as dismissive about relocation as they have in the past.

 

[LadyStanley]

peter - the NHL requires that all avenues of finding a local owner be pursued before relocation is even in the conversation.


Mod note - so on that reminder, let's cease and desist discussion of any relocation of the Atlanta franchise and focus on the sale to a new (local) owner.

 

[peter sullivan]

peter - the NHL requires that all avenues of finding a local owner be pursued before relocation is even in the conversation.

the owner himself began the conversation of relocation....its hardly premature speculation...

right now we know that ASG are on record saying that they do not want to own the franchise next season and they have been looking to sell for years....with only vague information about the level of interest or intent from any local buyer, the meter is still a lot closer to the owner's original threat than it is to a resolution.

my point was that it seems unlikely that local avenues will lead to a more profitable solution than relocation and since the ASG seem to care more about themselves than the franchise in atlanta, the NHL's stance on allowing relocation is the only thing keeping them there.....making the NHL's comments like this more critical:


"We're going to have to look at the long term prospects of that franchise, and if the determination is made that it can't make it there, and can't be successful there, then something will have to be done."