Group offered $500 million for Hawks/Philips Arena/Thrashers on May 20

orangethrasher

Blue in ex-Blueland
Jan 12, 2006
773
0
I am in the group that says this will have absolutely no effect on the current sale and the team will be playing in the 'Peg in the fall.

So is pretty much everybody else here, including all the Thrashers fans. Why do we have to have it posted 100 times in the same thread? That's not what this is about.

Meanwhile, the Keep The Thrashers Facebook page posts:

We heard back from a reliable source at 2:10 p.m. that the USA Today story is "not true".

For what it's worth.
 

tbcwpg

Moderator
Jan 25, 2011
15,976
18,434
Again - legal action by who??? and on what grounds???

Not a lawyer so I have no idea. I'm not even sure that they CAN face legal action. I'm relying on some info from those who know more than I, but they can also be wrong.
 

tarheelhockey

Offside Review Specialist
Feb 12, 2010
84,982
137,355
Bojangles Parking Lot
Found this on the Thrashers board. It's just a comment on a newspaper blog, and never generated any attention at the time. Take it for what it's worth.

But note the date, the info on Woodside, and the words "all cash".

Renee

May 18th, 2011
8:01 am

I hear that former LSU basketball player Bernard Woodside leads a group that has an all cash offer on the table for 500M for the hawks and thrashers. They have committed to keeping them in Atlanta as Woodside has family and business ties to Atlanta area. Woodside heads a hedge fund and swiss asset management firm.
 

Kitsune

Registered User
Feb 20, 2003
742
3
Toronto ON CA
www.glidingeagle.com
ASG likely had there hands tied. If Brunt was right about an agreement in place, that means there was a poison pill involved that would of resulted in large amount (10's of millions) of money going to TNSE if ASG backed out. So the 500m would of been less this poison pill, and then you factor in the Thrashers sell price.
 

Mwd711

Registered User
Jan 20, 2006
624
0
I can't believe there are six pages devoted to this "offer". Just for some final thoughts on this, I did find a few articles that do feature Bernard Woodside.

The first one http://www.sptimes.com/2005/07/22/Northoftampa/Separation_of_church.shtml
That article is when Woodside was buying a church in Tampa. It mentions that he was charged with grand theft for not paying a car repair bill and that he's faced several lawsuits for outstanding debts. Church members question whether he is legit in the article and in the end, the church wasn't sold to Woodside or his associates. It closed last year.

The second one http://www.sptimes.com/2006/04/15/Sports/Bay_area_could_again_.shtml
This article states Woodside as part of a group interested in bringing an ABA basketball team to Tampa. Yes, that's ABA, not NBA. A team did end up in Tampa but it was Japanese owned.

For all I know, Woodside may have ties to big money, but I don't see it and I don't think ASG or the NHL needs to address every person that has announced they want to bid on a team as credible or non-viable. I think the facts speak for themselves. The NHL and ASG have already stated that there were no viable offers and that's enough for me in this case.

If I announced that I was making an offer to buy MLSE, would anyone expect the NHL and MLSE to call me non-credible? Why should they as it would be pretty obvious and I think that's the case here. I could claim to be a successful businessman but without any background or credentials to prove it, nobody would believe it, and people would move on. I think this is the same here. I don't doubt that this group may have big dreams and aspirations, but it doesn't mean they can pull it off or that fans and the media should take them seriously.
 
Last edited:

Lux Aurumque*

Guest
Why are people still talking about this? This garbage has already been debunked as exactly what it is: BS.
 

Lux Aurumque*

Guest
Why are people still talking about this? This garbage has already been debunked as exactly what it is: BS.
 

chipper

Thrashers forever
Feb 4, 2010
804
0
Short of someone suing ASG to stop the sale of the hockey team, the vote will pass, and the asset will be sold.


Hmmmmmmmm.....

Hey guys, anyone know any good lawyers? :D :D :D :D


(Would be most epic win ever- a group of posters on a hockey board suing an ownership group to keep a team in the city.)
 

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,211
and their legal argument is? Oh, ASG didn't sell to the guy we want......

They breached NHL By-Law 36.4 DoubleH. Every single clause, of which there are many. ASG agreed to operate under the NHL Charter, Constitution & By-Laws when they purchased the franchise. Breach, bad faith, see ya in court.

They have no right to purchase a team that the owner chooses to sell to someone else - especially since TNSE/ASG signed the purchase agreement before this group even submitted their offer.....If anything, TNSE/ASG could have a case for tortuous interference against them.

On what grounds??? I'd love to see them try to argue something before ASG gets a summary judgment dismissal - in the very unlikely event they would ever get a lawyer to take the case..

When exactly did TNSE & ASG sign their agreement?. Tuesday, May 31st. When did ASG purportedly receive this $500M offer?. Informally May 18th, formally May 20th. 11 days before ASG unloaded the team on Winnipeg. Is By-Law 36.4 not worth the paper its written on?. Are we to take Gary Bettman & Bill Daly at face value & believe they'll stand up for the Constitution & By-Laws & have the fans backs in "every single market"?. And you think no Lawyer would touch this?. Completely disagree. More evidence below. This is gonna start stinkin real bad kdb, but meanwhile,

"Molly, get me Gennaro Bizzarro".
... :laugh:

Found this on the Thrashers board. It's just a comment on a newspaper blog, and never generated any attention at the time. Take it for what it's worth. But note the date, the info on Woodside, and the words "all cash".

Hmmmmmmmm.....
Hey guys, anyone know any good lawyers? :D :D :D :D
(Would be most epic win ever- a group of posters on a hockey board suing an ownership group to keep a team in the city.)

See above. Gennaro Bizzarro. :naughty:
 

Tinalera

Registered User
Feb 3, 2007
6,522
50
The Known Universe
I don't like timing of this information, it comes out just before the BoG would be set to approve the ownership

Killion-I have to respectfully disagree-again, the TIMING of this "information", 500 million for both teams AND the arena? As I pointed out (and others similar), that's 150 for each team 200 for the arena-150 million for the Thrashers, again this is UNDERVALUING (IMO) the Atlanta franchise, and the NHL would have said "nogo" anyway-everyone is hooked up on this date of when it was offered, but isn't it just possible (again my opinion) that even if there WAS a deal in place (precluding of course all proofs that they could have managed to finance) the NHL BoG probably wouldn't have liked the undervaluing of the franchise, and would have said "no go" anyway.

This to me is just another rubbing in the face, intentionally or otherwise, of the Thrasher fans-as few fans have said, they've gone with their lives, they've accepted this, this to me is (again) a PR move to say "look what *I* would have done with the Thrashers-aren't I important?!"

Sorry for my strong language, but to me the timing of it all is grandstanding BS.
 

southpaw24

Registered User
Dec 3, 2005
3,795
0
Owen Sound, ON
My question is if these guys had put in an offer and never heard anything back and then started hearing that ASG was in talks with TNSE, why didnt they make a stink about not getting looked at?

Seems like if you wanted to buy something and the seller and a potential buyer are talking you would definitely want others to know you were interested before another deal went through
 

1 Timer

Registered User
Aug 23, 2009
1,320
173
Howell, NJ
Hmmmmmmmm.....

Hey guys, anyone know any good lawyers? :D :D :D :D


(Would be most epic win ever- a group of posters on a hockey board suing an ownership group to keep a team in the city.)

Only thing a class action would do is at best grant a stay but you would have to prove irreparable harm. Say a season ticket holders group presented that false claims were made by ownership during the process. You would have to first prove that there was a competent offer to keep the team there in ALT. If so you could in all seriousness block a move to Winnipeg. Unless you have people with a lot of rubber on their soles of their shoes (Wealthy) fat chance. I for one would start right away time is a ticking and if you love your team I would be on the phone with the DA Monday morning.
 

Dado

Guest
Personally I don't think this is even worth discussing until "put forth a bid" is confirmed by releasing copies of the actual, written offer and confirmation they handed over a good faith deposit.

Otherwise, it's all just more he said she said strum und dung.
 

Blasto

Registered User
Dec 1, 2009
158
31
Atlanta, GA
... As I pointed out (and others similar), that's 150 for each team 200 for the arena-150 million for the Thrashers, again this is UNDERVALUING (IMO) the Atlanta franchise, and the NHL would have said "nogo" anyway-everyone is hooked up on this date of when it was offered, but isn't it just possible (again my opinion) that even if there WAS a deal in place (precluding of course all proofs that they could have managed to finance) the NHL BoG probably wouldn't have liked the undervaluing of the franchise, and would have said "no go" anyway.

Bear with me here as it's been a long week at the office. I'm just trying to understand where you're going with this as it may give some insight into the NHL's mindset (if there is one).

I've heard that something's value is only what the seller is willing to accept as payment for whatever it is they are selling. There are other factors (intangibles!) that could be seen as worthwhile (while not actual cash) if the seller sees value in who they're selling the item to, or perhaps when the sale would complete. The poison pill aspect may begin to factor heavily here if there was one introduced by TNSE (would love to know more about the TNSE negotiations).

If you think something is worth value X but no-one will give you value X, then either you take offer Y or keep the item & continue shopping it around, right? If you do accept offer Y, then you have in fact set the value for that transaction. If the new owner is able to get a higher value in another transaction for that item, then the item has increased in value over the prior transaction.

I agree with what you are saying, but why is the NHL ok with selling the team for 110M plus a 60M reloc fee if they're so concerned with possible undervaluation?

Is there a local market valuation & a relocated market valuation? Or is there a baseline asset valuation + whatever fee to relocate the franchise into a different market?
What does the NHL see as the value now for the soon to be moved Thrashers? 110M or 170M?

Maybe I'm simply just not understanding you, sorry. Again it's been a long week. :help:

No offense or anything either, just wanting to get more of the truth.
 

1 Timer

Registered User
Aug 23, 2009
1,320
173
Howell, NJ
Personally I don't think this is even worth discussing until "put forth a bid" is confirmed by releasing copies of the actual, written offer and confirmation they handed over a good faith deposit.

Otherwise, it's all just more he said she said strum und dung.

Not is the US. I can sue anyone for anything.... Our legal system is a joke sometimes.
 

tarheelhockey

Offside Review Specialist
Feb 12, 2010
84,982
137,355
Bojangles Parking Lot
My question is if these guys had put in an offer and never heard anything back and then started hearing that ASG was in talks with TNSE, why didnt they make a stink about not getting looked at?

Seems like if you wanted to buy something and the seller and a potential buyer are talking you would definitely want others to know you were interested before another deal went through

Perhaps ASG gave them an icy "no" and they let it be.

The real key here is whether the offer was legit enough to require a "good faith" response and negotiations.
 

Tinalera

Registered User
Feb 3, 2007
6,522
50
The Known Universe
Bear with me here as it's been a long week at the office. I'm just trying to understand where you're going with this as it may give some insight into the NHL's mindset (if there is one).

I've heard that something's value is only what the seller is willing to accept as payment for whatever it is they are selling. There are other factors (intangibles!) that could be seen as worthwhile (while not actual cash) if the seller sees value in who they're selling the item to, or perhaps when the sale would complete. The poison pill aspect may begin to factor heavily here if there was one introduced by TNSE (would love to know more about the TNSE negotiations).

If you think something is worth value X but no-one will give you value X, then either you take offer Y or keep the item & continue shopping it around, right? If you do accept offer Y, then you have in fact set the value for that transaction. If the new owner is able to get a higher value in another transaction for that item, then the item has increased in value over the prior transaction.

I agree with what you are saying, but why is the NHL ok with selling the team for 110M plus a 60M reloc fee if they're so concerned with possible undervaluation?

Is there a local market valuation & a relocated market valuation? Or is there a baseline asset valuation + whatever fee to relocate the franchise into a different market?
What does the NHL see as the value now for the soon to be moved Thrashers? 110M or 170M?

Maybe I'm simply just not understanding you, sorry. Again it's been a long week. :help:

You're understanding me, and I see your points and they are good ones :)

I guess (from an admitted layperson), I've always understood that the BoG wants to keep franchise levels consistent.

NOW-I do see your point in that, and that admittedly is the Sticky wicket, 110 plus 60 mil, but I'm thinking that, possibly in some weird way the number STILL comes to 170 Million in the BoG's eyes, they can say "TNSE paid 170 million for the franchise", and I think that 60 million is the difference maker-they don't get that 60 million otherwise.

Is it shady, yes I do admit that-but I also, as I've said have problems with the timing of this.

In a weird way, NHL can say 170 was paid for the franchise-and kept, in their minds, values in line

Youll find I'm always open to discussion, takes a lot to offend me. ;) This is actually a pretty strong piece for me to speak, normally I sit on the fence alot trying to learn, I just get angry, from a personal standpoint, with this being the 2nd or 3rd group to come out saying "we had a deal all lined up, but the evil ASG/NHL screwed us"-it's all PR, as others have said, where were they a month ago?

It's a kick in the face to Thrasher fans, who are just trying to move on. They do want the answers I know, but this sensationalist way IMO is just someone using their own ends for PR :)


EDIT: ALso don't get me wrong, ASG DID do wrong by the fans as to how they managed the franchise, no question there at all. I just think that this "500 million deal"numbers wise and timing wise smells sour :)
 
Last edited:

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
They breached NHL By-Law 36.4 DoubleH. Every single clause, of which there are many. ASG agreed to operate under the NHL Charter, Constitution & By-Laws when they purchased the franchise. Breach, bad faith, see ya in court.



When exactly did TNSE & ASG sign their agreement?. Tuesday, May 31st. When did ASG purportedly receive this $500M offer?. Informally May 18th, formally May 20th. 11 days before ASG unloaded the team on Winnipeg. Is By-Law 36.4 not worth the paper its written on?. Are we to take Gary Bettman & Bill Daly at face value & believe they'll stand up for the Constitution & By-Laws & have the fans backs in "every single market"?. And you think no Lawyer would touch this?. Completely disagree. More evidence below. This is gonna start stinkin real bad kdb, but meanwhile,

"Molly, get me Gennaro Bizzarro".
... :laugh:





See above. Gennaro Bizzarro. :naughty:

There are no grounds for any legal action that I can see.

By-Law 36.4 merely deals with what considerations other members of the league should use when they vote to approve a relocation - and it gives no requirements on how to weight those considerations.

If the BoG chooses to ignore/devalue some of those considerations or make them secondary to others when approving a relocation - that is perfectly legal. The reason they are there is that it gives the BoG a legal basis for rejecting a relocation if they choose.

It has no effect on what ASG may or may not do w.r.t. who they decide to sell to - only on how the BoG may vote to approve any sale/relocation that ASG has negotiated.

There is no legal requirement that ASG must sell to a local group, nor a requirement that the NHL block a sale if there are legitimate local offers - let alone block a pending sale for a last minute offer which may or may not ever be consummated.

A prospective owner has no right to own a team - nor a right to force a team/league to sell to them or to damages if they decline.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->