Forbes: Atlanta Thrashers Will Likely Be Sold For $110 Million

Status
Not open for further replies.

nhlfan79

Registered User
Feb 3, 2005
585
899
Atlanta, GA
Since $110 is pretty low, could this turn into a bidding war between Glavine's group and True North?

Glavine is willing to pay $110

True North offers more, etc., etc.

This isn't a bidding war. Again, if there is a local interest who is willing to meet ASG's asking price, that's the end of it. True North does not even enter the picture.
 

Finlandia WOAT

js7.4x8fnmcf5070124
May 23, 2010
24,135
23,681
I don't think so, since the NHL will probably be behind the scenes, insisting that ASG take Glavine's offer.

Especially since 60 million will be relocation fee's TSNE will have to offer an upwards of 100 million more than Glavine to even be in the picture. That's absurd, even by Billionaire standards.
 

Dado

Guest
This isn't a bidding war. Again, if there is a local interest who is willing to meet ASG's asking price, that's the end of it.

ASG's asking price is "as much as we can get".

Of course it's a bidding war...
 

AF1982

Jet(s) Enthusiast
Apr 3, 2009
453
0
Almanya
What's the point of switching from one group of cheap owners to another cheap owner? The $110 million figure isn't that high. Seems like same procedure as every year in the future. No playoffs and relocation rumors.
 

cbcwpg

Registered User
May 18, 2010
20,100
20,376
Between the Pipes
What's the point of switching from one group of cheap owners to another cheap owner? The $110 million figure isn't that high. Seems like same procedure as every year in the future. No playoffs and relocation rumors.

No proof that Glavine, TNSE, or that who shall remain nameless ( see ... I didn't say it MODS) , is "cheap". The NHL is a buyers market for certain teams right now, not a sellers market. It makes perfect sense for someone to buy an NHL team on the cheap. It does not mean once they have the team they will remain cheap as well.
 

Finlandia WOAT

js7.4x8fnmcf5070124
May 23, 2010
24,135
23,681
What's the point of switching from one group of cheap owners to another cheap owner? The $110 million figure isn't that high. Seems like same procedure as every year in the future. No playoffs and relocation rumors.

That price probably has more to do with the fact that ASG is desperate to sell at the moment.
 

DeathToAllButMetal

Let it all burn.
May 13, 2010
1,361
0
This isn't a bidding war. Again, if there is a local interest who is willing to meet ASG's asking price, that's the end of it. True North does not even enter the picture.

You can't know that at all. TNSE has the cash right now. There is no proof that this other group has the money, or even really has the desire to actually buy the Thrashers. Also, as Peter said, why would ASG want to sit around and wait for weeks or months on another group coming together when it can sign a sale right away with TNSE?

This is also where it can get iffy with the NHL and rights of the individual owners. The NHL can't just order owners of a team to sell at whatever price the league sees fit. Bettman sure doesn't want to have to go to court to stop a move or a sale.

And before anyone screams "Balsillie!" I'll add that this was a totally different scenario involving bankruptcy and a territory already claimed by two other NHL teams. It would be very hard to go to court and justify turning down a team's sale and move to a new city with no problems like the above. It also doesn't do much for other owners, who could all be in the same situation down the road. Why would Vinik or somebody like him okay Atlanta being forced to stay at home at all costs when he he could be in the same situation and trying to sell to outside interests for relocation in a few years?

Also, too many of these $100 million or so sales and the NHL is really setting the bar very low for franchise values overall. That's really not a good thing for individual owners or the league as a whole.
 

nhlfan79

Registered User
Feb 3, 2005
585
899
Atlanta, GA
ASG's asking price is "as much as we can get".

Of course it's a bidding war...

Among those willing to keep the team in Atlanta, yes, it's a bidding war. Relocation interests will not even be considered unless and until local interests are exhausted. If a local buyer is ready, willing, and able to purchase the team at an agreed-upon price, there's no way the NHL BoG/Bettman would authorize a move. The Atlanta market is WAY more valuable to the NHL in a big picture sense than is Winnipeg.

It's no real stretch to understand that Spirit has operating rights to an NHL franchise in Atlanta only, and can't exceed that right without league approval. So long as there is a willing buyer to continue to operate a team in Atlanta, then the NHL has no place in discussing relocation. If that wasn't the case, why isn't True North beating down the doors in Dallas and St. Louis? Those teams are no more or less portable than the Thrashers are.

I'm taking GB at his word that he is committed to all 30 current markets. Reading between the lines on his sparse comments on the Spirit group, he wants them gone yesterday. He understands that the Thrashers' struggle is primarily the result of the non-Belkin owners intentionally devaluing the franchise over the course of more than five years, just to minimize Belkin's buyout.

When the frikkin' owner of the team does not even know the captain's name, that tells you everything you need to know about their commitment to the hockey product. What dedicated Thrashers fans in Atlanta have had to endure since 2003 is unparalleled. Spirit is not merely incompetent, they're flat out antagonistic to the local fan base.
 
Last edited:

cbcwpg

Registered User
May 18, 2010
20,100
20,376
Between the Pipes
This is also where it can get iffy with the NHL and rights of the individual owners. The NHL can't just order owners of a team to sell at whatever price the league sees fit. Bettman sure doesn't want to have to go to court to stop a move or a sale.

This was talked about a long time ago with no clear answer from anyone.

According to the NHL a team owner needs to have a clear effort to sell to a local buyer first. The Thrasher owners are doing that, but what is unclear is, what IF someone comes along and offers $200M to move the team when the best offer to keep it locally is $110M?

How can the NHL justify hurting the sellers financially by "forcing" them to take the lower offer, just because its local? IMO they can't, I guess within reason, but I could see this going to court, if such a much higher offer was made.
 

Duke749

Savannah Ghost Pirates
Apr 6, 2010
47,782
22,672
Canton, Georgia
This was talked about a long time ago with no clear answer from anyone.

According to the NHL a team owner needs to have a clear effort to sell to a local buyer first. The Thrasher owners are doing that, but what is unclear is, what IF someone comes along and offers $200M to move the team when the best offer to keep it locally is $110M?

How can the NHL justify hurting the sellers financially by "forcing" them to take the lower offer, just because its local? IMO they can't, I guess within reason, but I could see this going to court, if such a much higher offer was made.

The only reason I see they would is because ASG dug their own hole and now have to live with their concequences.
 

Finlandia WOAT

js7.4x8fnmcf5070124
May 23, 2010
24,135
23,681
How can the NHL justify hurting the sellers financially by "forcing" them to take the lower offer, just because its local? IMO they can't, I guess within reason, but I could see this going to court, if such a much higher offer was made.

They can justify it by saying that the NHL, as the parent company, has the right to block any and all moves by its subsidiary that may deemed financially harmful to the parent company, or (the more likely wording) not in the parent company's long term economic interests.

This situation actually has occurred before, where the NHL denied the St. Louis Blues sale to an owner who would have moved it to Saskatoon, citing that Saskatoon was not an ideal market for the long term interests of the NHL.

I am not sure if they forced the then-current owners to sell it for significantly less (they may have even forced them to keep the Blues), but it has several parallels to the situation that you describe.
 

dj4aces

An Intricate Piece of Infinity
Dec 17, 2007
6,182
1,198
Duluth, GA
Also, too many of these $100 million or so sales and the NHL is really setting the bar very low for franchise values overall. That's really not a good thing for individual owners or the league as a whole.

Forbes values the team at $130M. The $110M price point makes sense. The Lightning sold last year for $93M.

Now, if teams like the Penguins, Maple Leafs, and Blackhawks sold in the range of $90M-$120M, then we can talk about devaluing the league.
 

Finlandia WOAT

js7.4x8fnmcf5070124
May 23, 2010
24,135
23,681
You can't know that at all. TNSE has the cash right now. There is no proof that this other group has the money, or even really has the desire to actually buy the Thrashers. Also, as Peter said, why would ASG want to sit around and wait for weeks or months on another group coming together when it can sign a sale right away with TNSE?

Why are you assuming that Glavine does not have the money/interest, and that H Who Must Not Be Named does not exist, yet assume that there is some offer from TSNE waiting in the wings with a deal?

Especially since the article that you cite "has no proof" also cites that TSNE is in fact waiting in the wings with a deal.

This is also where it can get iffy with the NHL and rights of the individual owners. The NHL can't just order owners of a team to sell at whatever price the league sees fit. Bettman sure doesn't want to have to go to court to stop a move or a sale.

Show me where it says anything that the NHL is forcing ASG to sell at a certain price.

And Bettman does not have to go to court to block a sale. The NHL has jurisdiction in deciding where and where not its franchises can play.

And before anyone screams "Balsillie!" I'll add that this was a totally different scenario involving bankruptcy and a territory already claimed by two other NHL teams. It would be very hard to go to court and justify turning down a team's sale and move to a new city with no problems like the above. It also doesn't do much for other owners, who could all be in the same situation down the road. Why would Vinik or somebody like him okay Atlanta being forced to stay at home at all costs when he he could be in the same situation and trying to sell to outside interests for relocation in a few years?

Because most owners are not under the illusion that moving to Canada will magically fix all of a franchises' problems.

Also, too many of these $100 million or so sales and the NHL is really setting the bar very low for franchise values overall. That's really not a good thing for individual owners or the league as a whole.

I agree with this part. But then, there is no evidence that the NHL is tampering with the price, unless you are going to cite the fact that they are blocking TSNE from bidding, which would raise the price of the Thrashers.

As I already said, the price is more indicative of ASG's desperation to sell than anything else.
 

SmokeyClause

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
9,999
0
Miami, FL
Visit site
Seriously, $110M seems to be a reasonable price that some local might go for. And the owners of the Thrashers have not tried to pull a Bettman price ( $110M + $130M of claimed losses) of $240M out of the air, that everyone would scoff at, or best case, a city gov't would have to help pay for.

Can you please point me in the direction of additional information on "claimed losses" and Bettman's attempt to add these to the value of the company? I'm struggling to reconcile the ability to use past losses to inflate the purchase price (aside from NOL carryforwards), but I'm admittedly intrigued by it.
 

Fugu

Guest
Can you please point me in the direction of additional information on "claimed losses" and Bettman's attempt to add these to the value of the company? I'm struggling to reconcile the ability to use past losses to inflate the purchase price (aside from NOL carryforwards), but I'm admittedly intrigued by it.


It's a reference to the price of the Phoenix Coyotes, which has gone up each year after the NHL acquired it. ($140 MM --> $170 MM --> $206 MM for Hulsizer.)
 

SmokeyClause

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
9,999
0
Miami, FL
Visit site
It's a reference to the price of the Phoenix Coyotes, which has gone up each year after the NHL acquired it. ($140 MM --> $170 MM --> $206 MM for Hulsizer.)

How do they rationalize that method with economic reality? Why would a potential buyer act as a charity to the NHL's owners?
 

Finlandia WOAT

js7.4x8fnmcf5070124
May 23, 2010
24,135
23,681
I would like to point out that in all likely hood, nothing is announced/confirmed until the NBA Hawks are knocked out of the playoffs.

Which, if they are swept by the Bulls, is not until this Sunday.

I expect at least a dozen pages of pointless speculation and conjecture until then.
 

GreenHornet

Registered User
Mar 3, 2011
567
365
Norcross, GA
I would like to point out that in all likely hood, nothing is announced/confirmed until the NBA Hawks are knocked out of the playoffs.

Which, if they are swept by the Bulls, is not until this Sunday.

I expect at least a dozen pages of pointless speculation and conjecture until then.

Yeah, I was wondering about that. But I'm assuming this would be a self-imposed info. blackout by the parties involved, and NOT something that legally prevents any news from being released, no?
 

Dado

Guest
If a local buyer is ready, willing, and able to purchase the team at an agreed-upon price...

There is no "agreed-upon price", mate, ASG is trying to get as much as it can get.

It's an open auction for both relocationists and stayputionists.
 

Dado

Guest
The only reason I see they would is because ASG dug their own hole and now have to live with their concequences.

The two-year debacle in Phoenix is a clear indication that pushing for such a resolution leads to nothing but huge lawyer bills and dissatisfaction on all sides.

The hard practical reality is that a local offer is in direct competition with a relo offer, and will have to come at least close to the relo offer to stay in the game.
 

Grudy0

Registered User
Mar 16, 2011
1,878
122
Maryland
The two-year debacle in Phoenix is a clear indication that pushing for such a resolution leads to nothing but huge lawyer bills and dissatisfaction on all sides.

The hard practical reality is that a local offer is in direct competition with a relo offer, and will have to come at least close to the relo offer to stay in the game.
Except that the courts have already decided that the NHL has the right to determine who can be owners of their franchises. I realize ASG is court-happy, as well, but it would be suicide for ASG to sue the NHL to have a team sold to a "relocationist".

And a local offer doesn't have to come close to a relo offer. See Balsille, James, and the multiple attempts to purchase a franchise.

It's like the boy that cried wolf. Atlanta is NOT in play for relocation this year. But Phoenix most definitely is.
 

Fugu

Guest
How do they rationalize that method with economic reality? Why would a potential buyer act as a charity to the NHL's owners?

Well, it's indefensible so I'd be the last person to defend it on economic/financial grounds, but it is what it is. Allegedly Bettman told the BOG they wouldn't lose any money on the deal.


There is no "agreed-upon price", mate, ASG is trying to get as much as it can get.

It's an open auction for both relocationists and stayputionists.


:thumbu:
 

Free Edler

Enjoy retirement, boys.
Feb 27, 2002
25,385
42
Surrey, BC
The two-year debacle in Phoenix is a clear indication that pushing for such a resolution leads to nothing but huge lawyer bills and dissatisfaction on all sides.
I knew GSC had a vested interest in the Phoenix case after all.
 

GSC2k2*

Guest
How do they rationalize that method with economic reality? Why would a potential buyer act as a charity to the NHL's owners?

Well, it's indefensible so I'd be the last person to defend it on economic/financial grounds, but it is what it is. Allegedly Bettman told the BOG they wouldn't lose any money on the deal.

Actually, it is not indefensible in the least, but don't let that stop you.

To smokey, effectively what they are doing is to require that the effective date of any transaction for the club be the same date as the NHL acquired it. Any losses thereafter would constitute a closing adjustment to the purchase price.

One thing Fugu does have right is that the price is the price.
 

Dado

Guest
I realize ASG is court-happy, as well, but it would be suicide for ASG to sue the NHL to have a team sold to a "relocationist".

If I offer you a deal that is guaranteed to leave you dead, there is no cost to you taking a likely-suicidal scorched earth alternative path of action. That's what happened in Phoenix - NHL tried to enforce the rights you described and bankruptcy court shoved it right up their backsides and two years on we're STILL sorting it out.

And there is STILL no local owner.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->