Balsillie/Phoenix part IV
- Thread starter mouser
- Start date
- Status
Bitterman
Registered User
- Dec 12, 2007
- 438
- 0
Nice math yet fundamentally flawed.
May I ask how many tickets would be lost if Hamilton doesn't get a team and Canadians boycott Buffalo? Your assuming Canadians wouldn't blink an eye and keep coming over the border to see the team that denied them a franchise.
The reality is fans in the area will have more choice and Buffalo will still be a cheaper ticket without lowering ticket prices. Not only will you get the same or more Canadians buying tickets when Hamilton, Toronto & Montreal come to town you'll still get Canadians buying tickets depending on who the opponent is.
The reason we're now hearing Buffalo isn't greatly opposed is because they can't say "No" to a team in Hamilton without it hurting them badly and a division rivalry can only be good for business.
Egil
Registered User
#1: 0.8% of overall ticket sales is like 4% of Ontario ticket holders (using 20% overall number). Buffalo will still be closer for many current ticket holders from Ontario. I suspect (though I don't know), that the majority of Canadian Sabres ticket holders come from Fort Erie, St. Catherines and Niagra Falls. All of these locations are still closer to Buffalo than to Hamilton. So while I can see them losing the 4%, I don't think they lose over 10%.
#2: Buffalo charges vastly different prices for tickets depending on the opponent. Those games against Toronto cost over twice as much as those against Boston. So they can afford to lose more than what you calculated and still break even.
Having said all that, clearly, a team in say K/W poses MUCH less of a threat to the Sabres than Hamilton. That is another hour away, and is unlikely to affect more than 50 ticket holders. But I don't think Hamilton is a huge threat to the Sabres, but it is something that I would be concerned about if I owned the Sabres.
Northern Dancer
The future ain't what it used to be.
If you have no problem with the Government giving Balsillie a 120 million dollar subsidy to get an NHL franchise then good for you. I disagree.
As for Balsillie giving 300 million to charity, you are aware that is a tax scheme (dodge) aren't you?
TaketheCannoli
RIP
My hat is off to you sir. This is one of the few truly honest posts in all four threads on this topic. Instead of arguing that Phoenix doesn't deserve a team or that Hamilton does deserve a team, you said I WANT A TEAM!!!!
Bravo!
Egil
Registered User
You find my statements on this matter and get back to me. I forget why I brought it up, and I am not going to keep digging to satisfy your 5 word posts.
Bitterman
Registered User
- Dec 12, 2007
- 438
- 0
A Bankruptcy judge doesn't have jurisdiction. Then again, GB thought he bought control of the Yotes for 30mm so I guess it doesn't hurt to ask
Northern Dancer
The future ain't what it used to be.
A Bankruptcy judge doesn't have jurisdiction. Then again, GB thought he bought control of the Yotes for 30mm so I guess it doesn't hurt to ask
The point is he asked for it therefore indicating he has no inclination to pay Buffalo or Toronto.
TaketheCannoli
RIP
I'm just trying to understand what you're saying.I'm pretty sure you have a point. I am not trying to dog you in any way.
Is it:
Modifying the lease is not much different than moving the team?
Is it:
It's not fair to modify the lease for a new owner?
Is it something else?
Last edited by a moderator:
TaketheCannoli
RIP
A Bankruptcy judge doesn't have jurisdiction. Then again, GB thought he bought control of the Yotes for 30mm so I guess it doesn't hurt to ask
Yet it is in the offer. Without those terms, Balsillie's offer is technically void.
Bitterman
Registered User
- Dec 12, 2007
- 438
- 0
Who would willingly pay millions if they didn't have to? He can float a trial balloon just like Bettman & Daly did when they claimed they controlled the franchise for chump change. At the end of the day, Buffalo and Toronto will get taken care of... but if they get greedy and kill it Buffalo will pay a steep price.
Bitterman
Registered User
- Dec 12, 2007
- 438
- 0
Can you clarify that statement? The offer to Moyes or the argument the judge refused to address?
Egil
Registered User
From way the **** back in the previous thread, my point was how do you compare two offers, one that moved the team, and one that renegotiated the lease. The answers I got (and I was satisfied by them), was that the judge makes a subjective decision as to which offer is best for all of the creditors.
In here, I have no idea why you can't get what I am saying. It has nothing to do with fairness, just semantics. You claimed my statement that nobody wants to buy the team with the current lease was false, since renegotiating the lease is like keeping the current lease. I felt that was lawyerspeak, as you admit that yes, a renegotiated lease is required. I don't understand what is so ****ing difficult to understand about this.
Egil
Registered User
My understanding is that the Lawyers for Balsille were saying that the $212.5 amount is with these conditions, and that if the conditions are modified (like the team playing an extra year in Phoenix), that the amount of the offer will go down. Not that they are pulling the offer if they can't get x, y, z.
TaketheCannoli
RIP
The offer to Moyes and the court.
http://multimedia.thestar.com/acrobat/6e/71/a9f645864415819eb433ce5d112a.pdf
Page 23 6.2.(b).(iv)
Last edited:
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable
TaketheCannoli
RIP
I don't believe that's in the offer. He offered to keep the team in Glendale for one season providing the league covers any losses through the media.
The actual offer is only valid through June 29, 2009 and depends on immediate movement to Ontario.
Bitterman
Registered User
- Dec 12, 2007
- 438
- 0
KevFu
Registered User
Yeah, the PR effect is a massive factor. The Sabres don't want to lose those fans, period. Their response must be crafted carefully. If the Hamilton Coyotes fall through, the Sabres would be extremely wise to offer some kind of pro-Canadian fan incentives.
I would think that is presumptuous. I don't think Buffalo is saying they aren't greatly opposed, I think they're trying to figure out just how much they stand to lose and just how opposed to be. The questions they pose are probably to gauge the ramifications so they can adopt a stance.
"Absolutely not! Not for any fee!" (Hey, we don't want to anger anyone that 10-20% who WANTS a Hamilton team)
"Well, what are the terms?"
Do we have a thread on the feasibility of each location within SO? I'd be interested in hearing more on the subject of Hamilton vs Mississauga, Vaughan or Toronto from people more enlightened on the subject than I.
If you guys think the fans will be that pissed off if Buffalo publicly opposed the move to boycott the team, wouldn't it be those same fans that would choose to go to a Hamilton Coyotes game instead of a Sabres game?
Aren't they losing fans either way? If the people of Hamilton want and deserve hockey as bad as you guys say they do then they would still go to Buffalo games if this deal fails.
Art.Vandelay
@kash2112
The specific languange in the contract is:
RIM's attorney referenced this clause in the hearing and then went on to expound. That was when she talked about the TV contract and territorial rights fees.
Basically, she said if they don't get a deal as good as what the Leafs have, they want the judge to deem it unfair and intervene.
mouser
Business of Hockey
It is 6.2(b)(iv):
In court the judge asked Balsillie's lawyer exactly what this meant and the lawyer responded that it meant among other things that the team had to receive broadcasting rights in the [Ontario] region equivalent to the Maple Leafs.
edit: obviously Art's a faster typist
Northern Dancer
The future ain't what it used to be.
Why can't people see the ridiculouness of this and the entire Balsillie soap opera?
I think the Blue Jays should move to New York and get the exact same TV deal deal as the Yankees. Whoops, forgot to add the City should build them a new stadium as well!!
Jake16
Registered User
A Bankruptcy judge doesn't have jurisdiction. Then again, GB thought he bought control of the Yotes for 30mm so I guess it doesn't hurt to ask
Yes Judge Baum already said he will not issue any order that provides that the purchaser/team in Hamilton would have conditions "no less advantageous than those currently enjoyed by the Toronto Maple Leafs." That Clause, which appears on page 23 of the Asset Purchase Agreement was already turned down when JB's or Moyes's lawyer (If forget if it was Lisa Freeman or Tom Solerno) asked that it be included in the Bankrupcy auction notice. Judge said the Leafs aren't in court and he can't make them do anything. So if that's a material term of JB's offer, its already dead. Not that he can't make another revised offer doen the road.
TaketheCannoli
RIP
terms and conditions no less favorable than those currently enjoyed by the Toronto Maple Leafs. In court, PSE's attorney included TV rights in those terms. In court, Judge informied PSE/Balsillie he's doubtful court has authority to enforce the the requirement in Balsillie bid that the team have rights "no less advantageous than the Maple Leafs" after relocation.
http://www.hfboards.com/showthread.php?p=19626103#post19626103
- Status
