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

[MAROONSRoad]

The NHL wants a team in Atlanta.

They don't want ASG as owners.

TSNE only fits one of these qualifications. So unless there are no local options (which is not the case), then TSNE and the ASG should not be seriously talking.

And besides, why would TSNE talk to the NHL? The NHL does not own the Thrashers. ASG does. If TSNE wants the Thrashers, they talk to ASG, not the NHL.

Couldn't disagree more with bolded part. TNSE is more likely to talk to the NHL which in turn talks to ASG about its options than the other way around imo.

GHOST

 

[DungeonK]

The Thrashers lost $8M this year, not $30M.

AKA the new TV revenue number. So even if the Thrashers have another terribly mismanaged season they might break even

 

[CGG]

AKA the new TV revenue number. So even if the Thrashers have another terribly mismanaged season they might break even

The TV number is actually $6.67 million per team. And that's total, not incremental. So the extra revenue from the new deal is about $4 million a year, not $8 million.

 

[Jonas1235]

If a team in a market can lose 8 million in a season with having 13,000 attendance and much lower than that on most nights with an average ticket price. Then this market can succeed in the future. Just need more fan support, which comes with better play on the ice. There's definately fans to support the team, they've never really been given a reason to.

 

[knorthern knight]

The TV number is actually $6.67 million per team. And that's total, not incremental. So the extra revenue from the new deal is about $4 million a year, not $8 million.

And a bit over half of that amount results in a rise in the salary floor+ceiling. Depending on team spending, that may have an immediate effect next season.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

i wouldnt be surprised if chipman has never even met anyone from ASG....but i would also bet that discussions about a potential purchase are much more than preliminary....didnt we just see an article yesterday saying that they would make an offer as soon as phoenix settles?.....since that is likely to happen in the next week or so, are you saying that they will make this offer without performing any due dilligence on the franchise?

or are you saying that you dont believe the article...because you seem to buy into the rest of what was claimed.

i dont think anyone can use difinitive language regarding the NHL's opinion on the matter.

No, I am saying that if any due diligence is performed, it will be performed with the entity that is selling the Thrashers.

Which is ASG.

And we can concretely say that the NHL, in its current form, is against relocation in all its forms. That much is evident.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

TNSEhas no business talking with ASG because ASG has no authority to move the franchise from Atlanta. Negotiating with ASG is only valid if you are purchasing the team to remain in their market, with their leases, contracts, sponsors, etc. There is no due diligence required by TNSE on the thrashers or coyotes because their only intention is to uproot and move to Winnipeg. Their due diligence is with the NHL and the Winnipeg market, sponsors, etc which, by all accounts, they have been doing.

TNSE is working with the NHL to arrange for a soft place for a troubled franchise to land if a local solution can't be found. No more, no less.

Correct.

However, ASG has the right to sell the Thrashers. If TSNE wishes to buy the Thrashers, then they must talk with ASG, and not the NHL.

I was under the impression (brought by many here) that TSNE was already in the NHL's good graces to the point that they had first dibs on a franchise without a local owner. Is this impression mistaken?

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

Couldn't disagree more with bolded part. TNSE is more likely to talk to the NHL which in turn talks to ASG about its options than the other way around imo.

GHOST

Why not just eliminate the middle man?

Especially since the middle man most likely has no interest in listening to TSNE at this point in time.

 

[Buck Aki Berg]

I was under the impression (brought by many here) that TSNE was already in the NHL's good graces to the point that they had first dibs on a franchise without a local owner. Is this impression mistaken?

You're skipping a few steps, but I don't think it's too far from the truth. TNSE's professionalism throughout this scenario, combined with the fact that they've done their homework and know the numbers work in their market, and the fact that they've been slowly getting ready to welcome a team over the last few years (to the point that once they get the green-light, they could move a team to Winnipeg with the flick of a switch) makes them the frontrunner. But don't confuse that with 'having first dibs because they played nice' (of course that helps! )

 

[peter sullivan]

anton...i dont think you can speak for the NHL...you do not know what anyone 'must' do...you kont know what they have 'no interest' in.

nobody here can use difinitive language claiming that they know what the NHL, ASG or TNSE believe, want or have been doing.

it is quite clear that you have little understanding of how involved the NHL is in the sale of its franchises.

 

[TaketheCannoli]

Pay 110 so that you can lose 30 more every year?

Ah, you too were listening to Hockeycentral at Noon.

Don't take much Doug MacLean says as gospel. I suspect he mainly pulls his numbers out of thin air.

MacLean also claimed Tampa will lose $30 million this year if they make it to the Stanley Cup Finals and only an idiot would buy a team like that. Doug must be an idiot, because as you may remember, he put together a group to buy Tampa, they announced a deal, but in the end they couldn't come up with the funds, so the team was sold to Koules/Barrie. Think about that, MacLean's group was so woeful that he lost out to Koules/Barrie!

http://lightning.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=484121

TAMPA BAY – Absolute Hockey Enterprises has executed a purchase and sale agreement with Palace Sports & Entertainment (PS&E) for the sale of the Tampa Bay Lightning of the National Hockey League, co-chairmen Doug MacLean and Jeff Sherrin announced today. The sale includes the Lightning hockey team, the franchise’s lease agreement with Hillsborough County, owners of the St. Pete Times Forum, and two pieces of adjacent land, equal to approximately 5.5 acres.

From James Mirtle:

http://mirtle.blogspot.com/2007/11/lightning-sale-going-sour.html

Things have been awfully quiet when it comes to the sale of the Lightning to Doug MacLean and friends, and the group apparently recently missed a deadline to have the sale approved by the board of governors....

PALACE SPORTS & ENTERTAINMENT STATEMENT
REGARDING PENDING SALE OF THE TAMPA BAY LIGHTNING

TAMPA BAY - In August, Palace Sports & Entertainment (PS&E) entered into an agreement to sell the Tampa Bay Lightning, the leasehold rights to the St. Pete Times Forum and approximately 5.5 acres of land to Absolute Hockey Enterprises. Since that date, PS&E has worked diligently with Absolute to move the process forward and was confident in its direction...

On November 14, 2007, the Lightning entities terminated the agreement because of the failure of Absolute to comply with the terms of the purchase.

 

[Gump Hasek]

Ah, you too were listening to Hockeycentral at Noon.

Don't take much Doug MacLean says as gospel. I suspect he mainly pulls his numbers out of thin air.

So, we shouldn't listen to Doug MacLean because the financing of a deal in which he was once involved happened to fall through, which, according to you, deems as suspect everything he now says? Interesting line of logic. Former NHL GM Doug MacLean I'm quite sure has a firmer grasp on the cost of running an NHL franchise than does an anonymous and clearly disgruntled fan of the franchise MacLean used to manage.

 

[TaketheCannoli]

So, we shouldn't listen to Doug MacLean because the financing of a deal in which he was once involved happened to fall through, which, according to you, deems as suspect everything he now says? Interesting line of logic. Former NHL GM Doug MacLean I'm quite sure has a firmer grasp on the cost of running an NHL franchise than does an anonymous and clearly disgruntled fan of the franchise MacLean used to manage.

No you shouldn't listen to him because he said only an idiot would want to buy a team in Tampa, because they are losing $30 million per year IF the make the Cup finals and there is no way to turn it around.

I guess that means he believes he is an idiot.

I could add that I actually know him from when he lived here and he regularly just makes things up and calls them facts.

 

[Gump Hasek]

No you shouldn't listen to him because he said only an idiot would want to buy a team in Tampa, because they are losing $30 million per year IF the make the Cup finals and there is no way to turn it around.

I guess that means he believes he is an idiot.

I could add that I actually know him from when he lived here and he regularly just makes things up and calls them facts.

You seem to be confusing being paid to act as a front-man for a potential ownership group with actual interest in ownership itself. MacLean also played that role for Balsillie for a few months. He was simply acting as a hired consultant in both cases.

You also state that he makes things up and claims them as facts; perhaps they are facts but don't fit in with your own narrative so you dispute their veracity? Again, I'm much more inclined to take the word of a former NHL GM than would I the words of a clearly disgruntled and anonymous fan of the franchise that GM used to manage.

This is way off topic though, as such is also my last post on the matter. If you wish to further attempt to straw man Doug MacLean for some bizarre reason, carry on.

 

[tarheelhockey]

When did he say that about Tampa?

 

[Dado]

The argument cuts both ways - if only the NHL decides who gets to buy a team, where, and for how much, then the "middleman" is ASG and it is the NHL who must do the selling, and the NHL that prospective buyers must deal with.

 

[King_Stannis]

If a team in a market can lose 8 million in a season with having 13,000 attendance and much lower than that on most nights with an average ticket price. Then this market can succeed in the future. Just need more fan support, which comes with better play on the ice. There's definately fans to support the team, they've never really been given a reason to.

Theoretically, yes. But Atlanta, even by many residents' opinions, is a terrible sports city. Well, maybe not terrible, but certainly "not good". The fans are apathetic. It's not a cliche', either. Ask the Braves if having a perpetual contender guarantees fan support.

There was an article on the TV ratings in Atlanta when the Thrashers made the playoffs a few years back, I believe against the Rangers. It was a real eyeopener. As in, less than 10,000* households watching your hometown team in an extremely rare playoff year, eyeopener.

* I'm going on memory, but I think it was actually close to 8,000 if I recall.

 

[GSC2k2*]

So....

If I understand this correctly...the NHL determines franchise values. Not Forbes. Not the potential owners. The NHL basically says, if you want to sell, you have to sell to who we want you to sell to, and for whatever they're offering. Your only other alternative is to choke to death on your losses.

Am I pretty close?

I want to make sure that I clearly understand that the price of owning a team in the NHL is giving up the right (actually, never possessing the right) to see your team to the highest bidder.

No.

You're not "pretty close". You're not close at all.

That is assuming, of course, that your question is not a time-wasting attempt at sarcasm.

 

[ThrasherMinion]

http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/morning_call/2011/05/report-nhls-lightning-to-lose-30m.html

Tampa is set to lose $30 million. I've read it in other places, Forbes too.

But, also saw Yahoo Sports where Bettman called the talk of Atlanta relocation made up stuff.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/news?slug=nc-if_nashville_can_make_nhl_work_why_cant_phoenix_050411

“I’m not sure why these stories are starting, but I’m not going to weigh in on something that is purely speculative and made up,” Bettman said."

 

[tarheelhockey]

http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/morning_call/2011/05/report-nhls-lightning-to-lose-30m.html

Tampa is set to lose $30 million. I've read it in other places, Forbes too.

I don't understand how they could possibly lose that much money after being in the negative-2 million range recently. The article gives some insight as to why the playoff dates don't really help but does nothing to explain this massive, unprecedented stream of red ink.

Does anyone have some context for this number?

 

[ThrasherMinion]

Ask any SEC/ACC school! Buying championships can be expensive!

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

I don't understand how they could possibly lose that much money after being in the negative-2 million range recently. The article gives some insight as to why the playoff dates don't really help but does nothing to explain this massive, unprecedented stream of red ink.

Does anyone have some context for this number?

I think it is the same context as the Cup winning Blackhawks losing money last year, where they lost money because of the massive facilities overhaul that Wirtz the Younger enacted.

IIRC, there was an article earlier in the year where Vinik was going to do the same to St. Pete Times Forum, including putting in brand new glass, among other (money intensive) repairs.

Or maybe Vinik is writing off the debt he had to repay this year as losses.

 

[King Woodballs]

I think it is the same context as the Cup winning Blackhawks losing money last year, where they lost money because of the massive facilities overhaul that Wirtz the Younger enacted.

IIRC, there was an article earlier in the year where Vinik was going to do the same to St. Pete Times Forum, including putting in brand new glass, among other (money intensive) repairs.

Or maybe Vinik is writing off the debt he had to repay this year as losses.

god bless creative and colorful accounting!

 

[Dado]

I was personally wondering as I typed the quoted how in the hell Vinik could get away with only paying 93 million.

It was a bit more than that - around $130M as there was a bit of assumed debt as well - but still cheap by any measure in recent memory.

Vinik seems to be doing a good job - that Yzerman chose to go there is quite the compliment to ownership.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

anton...i dont think you can speak for the NHL...you do not know what anyone 'must' do...you kont know what they have 'no interest' in.

nobody here can use difinitive language claiming that they know what the NHL, ASG or TNSE believe, want or have been doing.

it is quite clear that you have little understanding of how involved the NHL is in the sale of its franchises.

Based on the recent history of fighting tooth and nail against relocation if it could be avoided, then I don't think it is much of a stretch to say the current NHL order is against relocation.

And this stretches far back from the current debacle in Phoenix.

And I probably have little sense in how the NHL is involved in the business of its franchises. I learn new insights everyday.

But I have enough sense to know who TSNE needs to talk to if they wish to purchase the Thrashers, and that is who owns them. Which is not the NHL.


For added fun:

Bettman also declined to address whether the Atlanta Thrashers would quickly become candidates to move to Winnipeg if the league can keep the Coyotes in Glendale.
“I’m not sure why these stories are starting, but I’m not going to weigh in on something that is purely speculative and made up,” Bettman said. “The fact of the matter is, we’re focused on making Phoenix work, and that’s where we’re directing our attention right now.”

http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/news?slug=nc-if_nashville_can_make_nhl_work_why_cant_phoenix_050411