Bettman: ATL relo "one-off" (no more foreseen); Balsillie-approach not suggested

[taunting canadian]

property values are cratering everywhere, not just the south, and are probably better in the south as a whole than just about anywhere else in the country.

the "golf condos" advertised arent really "homes" they are more like speculative investments or luxury items, both of which get hit hard during economic downturns

make no mistake, the bad economy hurts the NHL but it does so everywhere

In addition to that, there is a time honoured tradition of attempting to dupe investors out of their cash by promising them "great bargains" for Florida real estate. I wouldn't necessarily take the "70% off" stuff at face value - it might be true, it might be technically true because the original sticker prices were exorbitantly overpriced, or it could be complete BS.

The real estate crash spawned a pile of "get rich quick" schemes in foreclosure auctions, short sales, what have you, just like the real estate boom had everybody "flipping". In both cases, there are probably some legitimate opportunities, but also a whole pile of people jumping on the bandwagon to try to convince people to give them cash. I'd be urging caution to anyone who's considering buying into these golf condos because they think they're getting a great deal, and I'd also urge caution in drawing macroeconomic conclusions based off their marketing claims.

 

[DeathToAllButMetal]

Uhm, do you know something the rest of us don't? "Terminal slide" is a bit of an overstatement, don't you think? If that was indeed true the value of Canadian hockey clubs wouldn't matter, seeing as there would be a worldwide depression. A real depression, not the recent recession that breathless newscasters tried to label a depression.

Okay, let me ask it like this -- Do you ever see the US economy rebounding to where it was in, say, the mid/late 1990s under Clinton? Do you ever see any US pro sports leagues rebounding to a point where they will return to the expansion policies of the 1990s?

I don't. I just don't see any indications that any serious turnaround is on the way. The Chinese hold over a trillion in US treasuries now, and they're indicating that they are wary about continuing to invest in what they see as a risky venture with the US right now. If the Chinese get to the point where they can't afford to hold all that US debt, or simply decide that the US is no longer too big to fail, then they just stop buying and start selling. Then we're into some very dangerous waters.

I'm not happy about this, believe me. I think this sort of shift will be apocalyptic to the Western world. But the US is in a very bad place right now. China is already exercising influence on US domestic policy because of this debt. It's a huge hammer to hold.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/06/china-usa-trade-idUSL3E7G60IW20110506

And here's an overview of the whole situation:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/18/us-usa-treasuries-china-idUSTRE70H5NX20110118

Canada is in much, much better shape than the US to weather any problems, at least. We have huge oil reserves, natural gas, water, minerals, etc., and tighter financial rules that prevent the likes of Goldman Sachs from fleecing the nation. Troubles in the US will hurt us badly, but we have the ability to survive and even thrive, given that our products and more regulated financial system provide a real edge.

So all that is a roundabout way of saying, again, that I think more NHL teams will move to Canada in the coming years. Economic pressures in the US, plus the now glaringly obvious fact that Gary was selling snake oil in the south back in the 90s, are going to force this on the league.

Anyhow, that's it for the OT comments. Sorry, mods.

 

[Kimota]

Major League Relocations in the past 40 years….

Seems the NHL has been trying to keep pace with the NBA, not only in expansion but also in relocation. So, we can understand that the NHL doesn't wish to take the lead in this category.

NHL
1. 1976: California Golden Seals moved to Cleveland
2. 1976: Kansas City Scouts moved to Denver
3. 1978: Cleveland Barons franchise was absorbed into the Minnesota North Stars.
4. 1980: Atlanta Flames moved to Calgary
5. 1982: Colorado Rockies moved to East Rutherford, New Jersey
6. 1993: Minnesota North Stars moved to Dallas
7. 1995: Quebec Nordiques moved to Denver
8. 1996: Winnipeg Jets moved to Phoenix
9. 1997: Hartford Whalers moved to North Carolina
10. 2011: Atlanta Thrashers moved to Winnipeg.

NBA
1. 1971: San Diego Rockets moved to Houston.
2. 1972: Cincinnati Royals moved to a new primary home in Kansas City.
3. 1977: New York Nets, one year after the ABA-NBA merger, become the New Jersey Nets.
4. 1978: Buffalo Braves became the San Diego Clippers.
5. 1979: New Orleans Jazz moved to Salt Lake City, becoming the Utah Jazz.
6. 1984: San Diego Clippers moved to Los Angeles.
7. 1985: Kansas City Kings moved to Sacramento.
8. 2001: Vancouver Grizzlies moved to Memphis, Tennessee.
9. 2002: Charlotte Hornets moved to New Orleans.
10. 2008: Seattle SuperSonics became the Oklahoma City Thunder.

NFL
1. 1982: Oakland Raiders moved to Los Angeles.
2. 1984: Baltimore Colts moved to Indianapolis.
3. 1988: St. Louis Cardinals moved to the Phoenix area
4. 1995: Los Angeles Raiders moved back to Oakland
5. 1995: Los Angeles Rams moved to St. Louis.
6. 1996: Cleveland Browns moved to Baltimore
7. 1997: Houston Oilers moved to Memphis

MLB
1. 1972: 2nd Washington Senators moved to Arlington, Texas
2. 2005: Montreal Expos moved to Washington, D.C.

To be fair, the NHL dossier looks worse based on a horrible wave of expansions occuring in the late 60s, early 70s because of their fear of the new Californian hockey league. They feared competition so they expanded in the west or in cities that probably shouldn't have had NHL teams. Cleveland, Kansas city, Atlanta and more than one team in California were horrible decisions.

Although it's funny how they gave up on Minnesota, Quebec and Winnipeg and it's likely sooner than later these three cities would have had a team back.

 

[MoreOrr]

To be fair, the NHL dossier looks worse based on a horrible wave of expansions occuring in the late 60s, early 70s because of their fear of the new Californian hockey league. They feared competition so they expanded in the west or in cities that probably shouldn't have had NHL teams. Cleveland, Kansas city, Atlanta and more than one team in California were horrible decisions.

Although it's funny how they gave up on Minnesota, Quebec and Winnipeg and it's likely sooner than later these three cities would have had a team back.

The NBA had a much worse 70s than did the NHL. I think that when you look at the sudden dramatic expansion of the NHL in the mid-60s and early 70s, by 12 teams between 67 and 74, it is almost amazing that only 3 got relocated/lost later in the 70s (one being the loss, the Cleveland Barons, of a previously relocated franchise).

For the NHL, it was the 90s that was more of a disaster, with 4 teams relocated. But even then, was the League 100% at fault for the creation of that group of relocations? We shouldn't forget that the NHL adopted 4 orphans from the WHA, all of which were teams then the smallest markets in the League, and they made up 3 of the relocations in the 90s. Perhaps those markets just weren't ready for the NHL to begin with. Would the NHL have Expanded to those 4 cities if the WHA teams hadn't already been established there? Who knows, but in all of those 4 cities, I seriously doubt it.
Now a follow up question could be: Would the League have grown to 30 teams by now, if it hadn't taken in those 4 WHA teams? And if it would have, then would the League have the same 30 teams it has now? Probably not an important question, but I wonder.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Interesting.

Just an observation... in those 5 relocations, the hockey team went north, the baseball and basketball teams went south.

I have no doubt that isn't purely coincidental; I would even say it's a current trend.

I'd say in the cases of Seattle->OKC and Charlotte->NO, the direction of the move really was coincidence. Nobody thinks of Louisiana as more of a basketball area than NC.

 

[Fugu]

A note on franchise values, for lack of a better place to put it:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/spor...hise-value-in-eye-of-beholder/article2044028/

The transaction to bring the Thrashers to Winnipeg is valued at $170-million, with $60-million of that a relocation fee the new owners will be paying to the league. The result is a price tag on the franchise itself of about $110-million.
“I can’t believe that the guys in Atlanta got that much for it,†one NHL insider and former league governor said.
The franchise had been for sale since 2007, but no local buyers could be found – at least at the price True North was willing to pay, which was consistent with the reported $93-million in cash paid by financier Jeff Vinik for the Tampa Bay Lightning in 2010. The Tampa price tag was about half what had it sold for previously – and that price includes 5 1/2 acres of real estate surrounding the St. Pete Times Forum.
“The reality is, the value of the franchises these days is totally a reflection of the individual team being sold, not the league as a whole,†the source said. “Sometimes, owners are valuing based on the relative cost of filling up their building for an additional 40 or 50 nights. Sometimes, it’s being valued like any other business based on cash flow. And sometimes, it’s being looked at as a vanity investment – what is a wealthy individual willing to spend to spend on a to?â€

 

[Confucius]

I disagree with the above. The value of the franchise is the value of the location you are allowed to move to. Maybe I'm wrong,...NOT!

Pretty sad way to run an organization. The league knows there are more valuable locations but present owners can't have them. Seems they'd have to jump through hoops just so the league can get the extra cash. Truly a weird setup this NHL.

 

[Steve Passless*]

We need some FACTS to combat that $93 million claim. Does anyone here have some much-needed temerity?

 

[Killion]

A note on franchise values, for lack of a better place to put it:

Thanks for posting that link. I wonder what the "48 factors that determine the value of a franchise" might be according to Associate Professor Norm (isnt this guy on SNL or MAD TV?) O'Reilly?.,,,, I also find it amusing that the author thinks David Thompson will be anykind of an active member within the BOG's. That guy is more reclusive than Greta Garbo. He doesnt "do" clubs. "I vant to be alone".

Does anyone here have some much-needed temerity?

Whatdya mean?. To suggest that TNSE GROSSLY OVERPAID ASG & THE NHL?. Ya. I do.

 

[Fugu]

Well, killion, you know there were many denials about NHL franchise values taking such a tumble.

 

[Killion]

Indeed. One would have thought that had ASG been a studious & caring owner in a market the size of Atlanta they couldve easily sold it locally provided a favorable lease was on the table for well North of what they received. Tampa went cheap, again, thanks to miscreant ownership; while Gagliardi's offer in Dallas assumes a lot of debt created by Hicks that artificially inflates the price. St.Louis & Raleigh are searching for majority/minority investors, just how much I know not; while Leipold in Minnesota could also find himself on the hunt if his partner's cash flow dries up. I would assume in the latter cases were looking at at least $100M investments, just shy of what TNSE just dropped excluding the relo fee for sole propriety. And then theres Phoenix.......

 

[Blasto]

Indeed. One would have thought that had ASG been a studious & caring owner in a market the size of Atlanta they couldve easily sold it locally provided a favorable lease was on the table for well North of what they received.

Has ANYONE yet found out what the lease terms were for the folks that were interested in buying the Thrashers to keep them in Atlanta? Was it so outrageous that, for all intents and purposes, every possible local buyer was "shown the door"?

Or is A$G basically saying that every Atlanta suitor could not show enough financial backing to be "taken seriously"?

 

[Killion]

Or is A$G basically saying that every Atlanta suitor could not show enough financial backing to be "taken seriously"?

I doubt any of the potential buyers ever came close enough to seriously discuss let alone begin to negotiate a lease with ASG. Publicly nothing was ever reported that suggested the process ever got that far that Im aware of.

 

[Grudy0]

One day someone will spill the beans regarding the sale of the Thrashers. However, just from what was done from the moment that Atlanta Spirit Group was able to buy out Steve Belkin until the announcement of the sale of the Thrashers to True North...

2010 December - ASG finally buys out Belkin's share in Atlanta Spirit Group
2011 January - Gearon of ASG mentions the need of investors or outright sale of the team
2011 April - Gearon again mentions the need of investors
2011 May - Hawks and Arena are put into an exclusive negotiating window, which only lasted for about a week, while trying to sell the Thrashers. Thrashers ownership almost never goes to Thrashers games; the entire group was at Game 7 of the second round of the NBA Hawks run. By the end of May, the hockey team was sold.

During this entire time, the Raine Group was handling the sale of the Thrashers.

Meanwhile, sometime before the lawsuit was finished, there was a restructure of the Hawks debt to the City of Atlanta for the bonds used to build Philips Arena. The restructure removed the Hawks as collateral from the bonds, and thus made it so they could finally borrow money from the NBA's credit facility (they were the only team that couldn't until the debt was restructured).

ASG also renegotiated the naming rights to Philips Arena, so that if the Thrashers were gone the naming rights would still be retained at a smaller dollar value.

It just looks like ASG wanted no part of the Thrashers, and wanted to keep their basketball team. ASG fought a five year lawsuit in order to buy out Belkin; it took five months from the time ASG bought out Belkin until the Thrashers were sold. Sure, there may have been some ongoing processes regarding a sale of the Thrashers rolled over the past couple of years. And it certainly looks like it. But if anyone would wonder why the fans voted with their wallets, one should be able to see why: ownership wasn't committed to the Thrashers at all. And many of the former Thrasher players have stated as much.

ASG simply spent the past few years asserting themselves as owners of the franchises and arena rights, just so they could dump what they no longer wanted.

 

[Fugu]

Has ANYONE yet found out what the lease terms were for the folks that were interested in buying the Thrashers to keep them in Atlanta? Was it so outrageous that, for all intents and purposes, every possible local buyer was "shown the door"?

Or is A$G basically saying that every Atlanta suitor could not show enough financial backing to be "taken seriously"?

I doubt any of the potential buyers ever came close enough to seriously discuss let alone begin to negotiate a lease with ASG. Publicly nothing was ever reported that suggested the process ever got that far.

I'm not sure we really know. One of the ASG group said they couldn't find anyone rich enough to buy all three. That left them with no other option than to parse it up. The Hawks were tied to the arena, while the Thrashers were not. Thereafter, the talk switched to no one could be found locally to do a deal. There were reports of the tires being kicked, but if you use comparables like Nashville and Phoenix, you can guess that there are few lease terms that would work for the Thrashers. Both of these seem to require assistance to be viable. As also noted elsewhere, the arena makes more money with non-hockey events (but that may assume that the team would never put out a better product).