NHL Claims vs. ex-Coyotes owner tossed [by Bankruptcy Court, J Baum)

[MaskedSonja]

Also from Shoalts:

I think many of us assumed the NHL planned to recoup that money with a relocation sale, or at least why they wouldn't sell the team for anything below $170MM initially, always trying to stick it to COG otherwise.

A window into what's in the Consent Agreement-- the promise to keep paying the tab indefinitely, even if bankruptcy is involved? (Noting that the actual law would override the contractual requirements of such.)

Going with the idea about "not losing money", I would have to think that the owners have to be more than a little miffed with Bettman right now, considering how much money this is going to cost them should an NHL suit against Moyes personally fail.

I wonder, what effect does this have the next time a distressed franchise situation comes up that involves the NHL owners to pay the bills-do the owners next time take a "oh no, we're not going through this again" stand to avoid a prolonged saga?

 

[GuelphStormer]

Going with the idea about "not losing money", I would have to think that the owners have to be more than a little miffed with Bettman right now, considering how much money this is going to cost them should an NHL suit against Moyes personally fail.

I wonder, what effect does this have the next time a distressed franchise situation comes up that involves the NHL owners to pay the bills-do the owners next time take a "oh no, we're not going through this again" stand to avoid a prolonged saga?

us bead-selling hippies call that karmic balance.

additionally amusing is the timing of the decision ... two months after the team was sold at a bargain basement price with free financing and no assurances whatsoever that another BK wont happen again in a few years. oops.

might make these folks take a very hard look at expansion/relo into less-than-guaranteed markets from now on. oh, to be a fly on the wall of the next BoG meeting. does this spell the replacement of the commish before more phoenix **** hits the fan in a couple years?

 

[MaskedSonja]

us bead-selling hippies call that karmic balance.

additionally amusing is the timing of the decision ... two months after the team was sold at a bargain basement price with free financing and no assurances whatsoever that another BK wont happen again in a few years. oops.

might make these folks take a very hard look at expansion/relo into less-than-guaranteed markets from now on. oh, to be a fly on the wall of the next BoG meeting. does this spell the replacement of the commish before more phoenix **** hits the fan in a couple years?

"So, Gary about that "we won't lose money on this....." assurance you made awhile back, some of the boys and I have been talking......"


Well there is still the probable suit against Moyes, they may still get their money back in that regard. But yea, if Moyes walks away without having to pay a penny, things might get interesting among "the boys".

I would be interested to know by the end of it all approx how much this will have cost in legal fees and losses for the NHL-it can't be a small number.

 

[TheLegend]

"So, Gary about that "we won't lose money on this....." assurance you made awhile back, some of the boys and I have been talking......"


Well there is still the probable suit against Moyes, they may still get their money back in that regard. But yea, if Moyes walks away without having to pay a penny, things might get interesting among "the boys".

I would be interested to know by the end of it all approx how much this will have cost in legal fees and losses for the NHL-it can't be a small number.

I've never subscribed to the notion that the league "would not lose money" on flipping the Yotes.. I think that was always a figurative statement more than a literal one.

 

[htpwn]

A window into what's in the Consent Agreement-- the promise to keep paying the tab indefinitely, even if bankruptcy is involved? (Noting that the actual law would override the contractual requirements of such.)

Would this include the vaunted 7-year non-relocation agreement or just the commitment to continue funding the franchise indefinitely?

How do you figure Beasley in regards to the hockey team??? Despite what we know now about the early retirement ponzi scheme he and his staff created.

Beasley offered to help Moyes with the infamous CFD, if Moyes could show he needed it and Moyes walked away. This was before anyone discovered that Moyes had already leveraged the franchise to an $80 million dollar loan to prop up other enterprises.

I would agree that the NHL made a huge mistake allowing a developer (with no intention to own the team long term) buy the franchise in the first place.

BTW... don't think for a moment that Jerry Moyes wasn't being an opportunist himself. There's hardly been a year gone by the past 20 here where he hasn't been sued over some sort of financial dealing.

Whether it was due to Moyes' unwillingness to open his books, or a personal grudge (probably a little of both), Beasley not only actively worked with the NHL to push Moyes out as owner (and leave him with little to nothing, causing him to turn to Balsillie), but by many accounts, offered far more concessions to Reinsdorf than he ever did to Moyes.

 

[MaskedSonja]

I've never subscribed to the notion that the league "would not lose money" on flipping the Yotes.. I think that was always a figurative statement more than a literal one.

I was a being a touch flip on the comment admittedly

I agree it probably wasn't that literal in that sense. I do also however side with the idea that, while not "promised" or anything, that the NHL would indeed recover some of the money through the aforementioned case, at the least getting Moyes to hold some responsibility. I am not sure if the NHL was expecting Baum to throw this out like he did. Now they are going to go the recourse of probably going after Moyes in a civil suit.

I do still feel that if a Moyes civil suit fails, at the very least there are going to be some upset owners who feel that a heck of a lot of money has been lost/spent and Moyes, to their feeling, getting off free while they pay the bills.

Just my own speculation.

 

[TheLegend]

Whether it was due to Moyes' unwillingness to open his books, or a personal grudge (probably a little of both), Beasley not only actively worked with the NHL to push Moyes out as owner (and leave him with little to nothing, causing him to turn to Balsillie), but by many accounts, offered far more concessions to Reinsdorf than he ever did to Moyes.

But if Beasley was so adamant about kicking Moyes out, then why bother to offer assistance to begin with? IIRC... Moyes went to the city for help before any discussions in the background with Reinsdorf took place.

Beasley's concern was not who owned the team. Beasley's concern was keeping a tenant in the arena.

 

[TheLegend]

I was a being a touch flip on the comment admittedly

I agree it probably wasn't that literal in that sense. I do also however side with the idea that, while not "promised" or anything, that the NHL would indeed recover some of the money through the aforementioned case, at the least getting Moyes to hold some responsibility. I am not sure if the NHL was expecting Baum to throw this out like he did. Now they are going to go the recourse of probably going after Moyes in a civil suit.

I do still feel that if a Moyes civil suit fails, at the very least there are going to be some upset owners who feel that a heck of a lot of money has been lost/spent and Moyes, to their feeling, getting off free while they pay the bills.

Just my own speculation.

They may be uspet over losing money, but the original goal was to keep control over where they allow franchises to play. IMO.... going after Moyes is just another exercise in maintaining that control.

 

[MarkhamNHL]

They may be uspet over losing money, but the original goal was to keep control over where they allow franchises to play. IMO.... going after Moyes is just another exercise in maintaining that control.

hmmm pretty expensive effort... the NHL was stupid enough to think that after going thru BK, Moyes would be on the hook for their determination to keep the team in Phoenix (even after the BK hearing where Moyes personally stated Phoenix cannot support the team).



[mod]

 

[RandR]

There is another news article from David Shoalts at Globe & Mail on on this today:

Losing its claim on most of the multi-million dollar damages against Moyes was a serious blow for the NHL, which is hinting it will appeal the decision by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court. Bettman has always told the other 29 NHL owners they will never have to write a cheque to cover the huge losses the league took on the Coyotes fiasco over the last four years, but he was counting on a court win over Moyes to cover a good chunk of the bill.

Shoalts: NHL owners might still have to open wallets to cover Coyotes

On a side note, I can't resist mentioning the following again (quoted from the above article), because so many people rejected the importance of television in the Coyotes mega-threads the last couple of years:

If you’re wondering why Bettman was so stubborn about staying in the Phoenix area, those in the know say it was because of television. When the Atlanta Thrashers became the Winnipeg Jets in 2011, the NHL lost the eighth-largest TV market in the United States. With Phoenix ranked No. 12, Bettman did not want to lose another big market.

 

[Fugu]

I've never subscribed to the notion that the league "would not lose money" on flipping the Yotes.. I think that was always a figurative statement more than a literal one.

Why? Let's assume that the team in fact was relocated to a spot of the NHL's choosing, then they wouldn't have lost any money. Or if one of those CFD-backed deals had gone through, which was about 2 yrs into the process, they would have recouped all their money.

As it stands, they spent more and more on finding/vetting owners, working with COG, and also pursuing Moyes in and outside the bankruptcy court.

I do believe it was a literal statement.

Would this include the vaunted 7-year non-relocation agreement or just the commitment to continue funding the franchise indefinitely?
...
Whether it was due to Moyes' unwillingness to open his books, or a personal grudge (probably a little of both), Beasley not only actively worked with the NHL to push Moyes out as owner (and leave him with little to nothing, causing him to turn to Balsillie), but by many accounts, offered far more concessions to Reinsdorf than he ever did to Moyes.

The 7-yr portion only refers to ownership commitment to keep a team in its current market. That means existing owners agree not to move the team without the NHL's consent. This may be the best they can do to get around anti-trust law and Al Davis type of situations.

Iirc, Moyes wanted about $14 MM in assistance. That sure was better than the $25 MM per annum the NHL was getting. None of the subsequent offers were seeking less money per year. Reinsdorf had dealings with COG with the White Sox training camp base there, and there was the son's involvement with the consulting group that performed some of the analyses for COG.

But if Beasley was so adamant about kicking Moyes out, then why bother to offer assistance to begin with? IIRC... Moyes went to the city for help before any discussions in the background with Reinsdorf took place.

Beasley's concern was not who owned the team. Beasley's concern was keeping a tenant in the arena.

You sure about that, TL? I think Moyes decided to go the bankruptcy route after he learned Reinsdorf had been in discussion with the NHL and COG earlier in the year. He of course had indicated to Bettman that unless he got help, he was throwing away the keys.

 

[Fugu]

There is another news article from David Shoalts at Globe & Mail on on this today:



Shoalts: NHL owners might still have to open wallets to cover Coyotes

On a side note, I can't resist mentioning the following again (quoted from the above article), because so many people rejected the importance of television in the Coyotes mega-threads the last couple of years:

$28.1 MM per year in losses per court documents. The question then is... does that include the $25 MM per annum from COG?

 

[Mungman]

But if Beasley was so adamant about kicking Moyes out, then why bother to offer assistance to begin with? IIRC... Moyes went to the city for help before any discussions in the background with Reinsdorf took place.

Beasley's concern was not who owned the team. Beasley's concern was keeping a tenant in the arena.

I think Beasley's concern began and ended with what was best for Beasley. Pure speculation on my part, but I almost wonder if he had a parchute deal with Reinsdorf the way he was head cheerleader for him.

 

[superdeluxe]

I'm trying to figure out if these news about the NHL losing the case is good or bad for Seattle and our hopes in the future. I think its good.

 

[wildthing202]

There is another news article from David Shoalts at Globe & Mail on on this today:



Shoalts: NHL owners might still have to open wallets to cover Coyotes

On a side note, I can't resist mentioning the following again (quoted from the above article), because so many people rejected the importance of television in the Coyotes mega-threads the last couple of years:

People rejected it because their TV ratings were and most likely still crap. They had an average of 6,000 at one point if I'm not mistaken. It looks ridiculous to defend when they could easily get 55-60,000 more people watching by moving them into a better hockey market. I guess TV execs like to pay more for potential rather than reality.

 

[Killion]

$28.1 MM per year in losses per court documents. The question then is... does that include the $25 MM per annum from COG?

Yes thats really not made clear in Shoalts' report, and again, much of what he's presenting is speculation presented as fact.

 

[TheLegend]

hmmm pretty expensive effort... the NHL was stupid enough to think that after going thru BK, Moyes would be on the hook for their determination to keep the team in Phoenix (even after the BK hearing where Moyes personally stated Phoenix cannot support the team).

All Moyes proved in his tenure was he couldn't support a team.

Yes... it ended up being expensive. But weigh that against Balsillie winning and being able to move the franchise where he wanted to? Compared to that they got the better of two evils.

Bear in mind three other professional sports leagues were also dreading that potential result.

 

[LadyStanley]

Yes thats really not made clear in Shoalts' report, and again, much of what he's presenting is speculation presented as fact.

10/9 story.

Here's the 10/10 story: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/spor...id=rss1&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Hinting that NHL will appeal Baum's bankruptcy court decision.

Only a few people know the exact amount the NHL has poured down the sinkhole in the desert after it bought the Coyotes in October of 2009, when Moyes failed to persuade bankruptcy judge Redfield T. Baum (who ruled in his favour last week) to let him sell the team to Jim Balsillie of BlackBerry fame so it could be moved to Hamilton. The court documents in the Moyes lawsuit show it is at least $104-million.
If you’re wondering why Bettman was so stubborn about staying in the Phoenix area, those in the know say it was because of television. When the Atlanta Thrashers became the Winnipeg Jets in 2011, the NHL lost the eighth-largest TV market in the United States. With Phoenix ranked No. 12, Bettman did not want to lose another big market.
...
In any event, the league is claiming a total haircut of $145.9-million. Since the NHL paid $128-million to buy the Coyotes and sold them to Gosbee and company this summer for an alleged $170-million, it can claim a gain of $42-million on the deal. That leaves the league out-of-pocket for $103.9-million.

Gosbee et al have no principal payments due for five years.

 

[TheLegend]

I think Beasley's concern began and ended with what was best for Beasley. Pure speculation on my part, but I almost wonder if he had a parchute deal with Reinsdorf the way he was head cheerleader for him.

No disagreement about Beasley there. It's never been a real secret that Reinsdorf had a pseudo inside connection with Beasley through John Kaites.

But just how much Reinsdorf was actually interested in owning the Coyotes (outside maybe giving it to his son Michael) remains speculative. Kaites seemed to be more interested in it and had Reinsdorf as the major investor behind him. Somewhat similar to Anthony LeBlanc bringing George Gosbee on board.

 

[TheLegend]

I'm trying to figure out if these news about the NHL losing the case is good or bad for Seattle and our hopes in the future. I think its good.

I wouldn't worry about it.... if the past four years have taught us anything. Just not worth the anxieties.

If and/or when the NHL decides they want a franchise in Seattle, they'll put one there.

 

[TheLegend]

Yes thats really not made clear in Shoalts' report, and again, much of what he's presenting is speculation presented as fact.

Ab-so-lutely!!!

 

[Killion]

Ab-so-lutely!!!

Dy-No-Mite!!!... which is essentially what Shoaltsies' tossing around here.... entire premise is flawed. His theories full of more holes than a block of Swiss. "People in the know" telling Dave there that Gary wanted to preserve Phoenix because he'd just lost Atlanta, the 11th largest US TV Market, Phoenix 12th so no matter what, not moving the team.... nonsense. Ratings are abysmal. Lost leader for NBC as was Atlanta, as is Florida & a few other locales. Then theres his numbers, the math. Did the team lose $100M+ over the 4.5yrs the NHL owned it because if so, then the sale price would have been $230M+ not the reported $170M UNLESS we then deduct the COG's $50M HOWEVER, the NHL returned $20M to Glendale as part of the sale agreement so therefore the team should have sold for app $200M. We know Fortress & the NHL are financing the sale, IceAz with app $40-50M invested. Was Bettman betting that J.Baum would buy the leagues argument & award him $100M+ thereby providing the NHL with double coverage in the sale with IceAz? I dont think so. He had to have known his case was tenuous at best, a long shot, bordering on a Nuisance Suit. Far more going on, that went on than whoever Shoaltses' "people in the know" are letting on.

 

[TheLegend]

Dy-No-Mite!!!... which is essentially what Shoaltsies' tossing around here.... entire premise is flawed. His theories full of more holes than a block of Swiss. "People in the know" telling Dave there that Gary wanted to preserve Phoenix because he'd just lost Atlanta, the 11th largest US TV Market, Phoenix 12th so no matter what, not moving the team.... nonsense. Ratings are abysmal. Lost leader for NBC as was Atlanta, as is Florida & a few other locales. Then theres his numbers, the math. Did the team lose $100M+ over the 4.5yrs the NHL owned it because if so, then the sale price would have been $230M+ not the reported $170M UNLESS we then deduct the COG's $50M HOWEVER, the NHL returned $20M to Glendale as part of the sale agreement so therefore the team should have sold for app $200M. We know Fortress & the NHL are financing the sale, IceAz with app $40-50M invested. Was Bettman betting that J.Baum would buy the leagues argument & award him $100M+ thereby providing the NHL with double coverage in the sale with IceAz? I dont think so. He had to have known his case was tenuous at best, a long shot, bordering on a Nuisance Suit. Far more going on, that went on than whoever Shoaltses' "people in the know" are letting on.

Unfortunately for Shoalts.... his last person who was "in the know" was Uncle Phil Lieberman.

One correction above.... Glendale did get the $20M released back to them, but that was to let them pay it off in installments over the next five years.

 

[Fugu]

Unfortunately for Shoalts.... his last person who was "in the know" was Uncle Phil Lieberman.

One correction above.... Glendale did get the $20M released back to them, but that was to let them pay it off in installments over the next five years.

Refresh my memory. Did the NHL receive two full $25 MM payments, and then has the third installment of $20 MM to be paid out over the next five years?

 

[Killion]

Refresh my memory. Did the NHL receive two full $25 MM payments, and then has the third installment of $20 MM to be paid out over the next five years?

They received $25M for the 2010/11 season & $25M for the 2011/12 season however Glendale was short on the 11/12 seasons payment by I believe $7M, depositing $18M into escrow in July 2011. The NHL however never withdrew that money (the city added $2M and were looking to receive terms on the balance from the league) when they could have done so legally in June/July of 2012. Just let it sit in escrow for a year. Mightve had something to do with the NHLPA's contention they were entitled to 57% of it as HRR's. Maybe they planned to use it to help Jamison in acquiring the team. No idea really.... bottom line, they returned the $20M to Glendale when the sale closed however that money has to be paid to the league within 5yrs.... thus far the NHL has received $45M from Glendale, returned $20M, so essentially $25M deposited, cashed.