Phoenix Bankruptcy Part XX: There Will Be Baum

[Jaym3000]

As they are required to.

Investigating doesn't equal finding. Balsillie sent the CCB after the league before. The league was cleared.



More support for those of us who have been saying this isn't about a comparison between the markets, but rather the methodology used.

Balsillie's problem is he tied his goat to Rodier. Rodier is the real rot in the process, and like moldy cheese he should be cut out and thrown in the garbage.

They are not required to investigate unless there is a need to. The investigation could lead to a finding - in the absence of the investigation, there could be no finding. They have said that they will investigate if JB loses.

As for Rodier - you are probably right. That is why he is doing his Dick Cheney impersonation. Daly sounds like he is conceding that they may have to let JB in at some point.

 

[Crazy_Ike]

They are not required to investigate unless there is a need to.

This is simply splitting hairs. There is a "need to" if someone complains.

As for Rodier - you are probably right. That is why he is doing his Dick Cheney impersonation. Daly sounds like he is conceding that they may have to let JB in at some point.

Daly is conceding no such thing, and only a severely partisan reading of his words could possibly think that he did.

 

[bbud]

This is simply splitting hairs. There is a "need to" if someone complains.



Daly is conceding no such thing, and only a severely partisan reading of his words could possibly think that he did.

The CCB has allready stated they want to re-examine the situation amid the Pho issue this does not mean anything will change but says they have some questions regarding NHL practises and probably have been awaiting reasons to go back to the issue.

Daly did openly say JB could well be approved in his next venture i do think the NHL understands the economics of the day and knows billionaires who will buy and support a team are rare maybe worth having around.

 

[RR]

The Bureau may have concerns under the Act if a single team were entitled to exercise a veto to prevent a franchise from entering into its local region within Canada, but such concerns would have to be evaluated having regard to the facts and law applicable at the time such an event occurred.

For fear of not meeting your approval of intelligence, let me explain delicately: The first part of the sentence says that they may have concerns IF a single team were ENTITLED to exercise a veto to prevent a franchise from entering into its local region within Canada.... SO, the concern comes from the ENTITLEMENT and not the EXERCISING of the veto. Ok, second part of the sentence - which explains the evaluation of such concerns (from the ENTITLEMENT and NOT the EXERCISING) would have to be evaluated having regard to the facts and the law applicable at the time SUCH EVENT OCCURED. The reference to "such" an event indicates it was raised earlier in the sentence - the ENTITLEMENT to exercise was raiseds earlier in the sentence and NOT the EXERCISING of the veto.

Don't know what else to tell you except that if your interpretation is correct then the CCB needs better counsel to draft its opinions.

You're claiming the "entitlement" to a veto existed when the CCB looked at this. And it rejected that assertion, so it seems clear to me you need evidence of a veto being exercised before the CCB believes it can act.

 

[Crazy_Ike]

You're claiming the "entitlement" to a veto existed when the CCB looked at this. And it rejected that assertion, so it seems clear to me you need evidence of a veto being exercised before the CCB believes it can act.

Exactly what the CCB itself (Taylor) said. It really doesn't get any clearer than his own words. Act, not potential for act.

Baum said it too, way back in the early summer.

It shouldn't even be an issue now.

 

[HamiltonFan]

How's this for a wild theory:

Baum didn't grant Moyes his recent request for arbitration because he plans on giving him what he wants anyway by ruling for JB. If Baum had planned on ruling in favor of the NHL, he probably would have granted Moyes the arbitration hearing.

 

[kdb209]

How's this for a wild theory:

Baum didn't grant Moyes his recent request for arbitration because he plans on giving him what he wants anyway by ruling for JB. If Baum had planned on ruling in favor of the NHL, he probably would have granted Moyes the arbitration hearing.

How's this for a less wild theory - Judge Baum realized that mediation (not arbitration) was a pointless and unnecessary delay.

NHL openly stated that it would not compromise on any of it's core issues - and would appeal any adverse ruling as far as the SCOTUS.

Mediation was opposed by all parties except JB/Moyes (NHL, SOF, Unsecured Creditors Committee, CoG) because it would delay any resolution and further damage creditors.

 

[LadyStanley]

Who's unhappy besides MLSE?

For this season......

All the teams of the Western Conference who have to change their schedules (especially all the California based teams who have to change their back-to-back games as KC is probably more 2.5 hours of flying time).

Phoenix had 12 back-to-backs. Sharks have all three road games against Phoenix as the second of back-to-back games.

And their TV partners who have to change schedules to accommodate different schedules.

Fans who have their work/life schedules set up to accommodate the original schedule. Families who have to deal with the change in a schedule, perhaps missing events. (Baby sitters pissed they miss out on income because of changed schedules...)

Etc.

It's easy to come up with a list.

 

[Fourier]

How's this for a wild theory:

Baum didn't grant Moyes his recent request for arbitration because he plans on giving him what he wants anyway by ruling for JB. If Baum had planned on ruling in favor of the NHL, he probably would have granted Moyes the arbitration hearing.

There is also a difference betwen mediation and arbitration. In mediation you have someone who tries to convince the two sides to have some sort of kumbaya moment. Where as in binding arbitration the arbitrator can impose a final decsion on both parties. In this case, we were talking mediation I believe (?). With how this debacle has gone so far the chances of a positive resolution were miniscule at the very best.

 

[KevFu]

For this season......

All the teams of the Western Conference who have to change their schedules (especially all the California based teams who have to change their back-to-back games as KC is probably more 2.5 hours of flying time).

Phoenix had 12 back-to-backs. Sharks have all three road games against Phoenix as the second of back-to-back games.

And their TV partners who have to change schedules to accommodate different schedules.

Fans who have their work/life schedules set up to accommodate the original schedule. Families who have to deal with the change in a schedule, perhaps missing events. (Baby sitters pissed they miss out on income because of changed schedules...)

Etc.

It's easy to come up with a list.

I was assuming a summer of 2010 move.

 

[Jaym3000]

Don't know what else to tell you except that if your interpretation is correct then the CCB needs better counsel to draft its opinions.

You're claiming the "entitlement" to a veto existed when the CCB looked at this. And it rejected that assertion, so it seems clear to me you need evidence of a veto being exercised before the CCB believes it can act.

Ok so what could have transpired at that investigation ? So Mr Bettman, does any team have the ability to veto another team entering its territory? No it is based on a majority vote. And Mr Bettman are all the teams in agreement of this interpretation? Yes they are. What about this 4.3? Well that means a majority vote and I have the final interpretaion so what I says goes. Alright, sounds good to me. Lets get lunch.

So now they have the MLSE letter and MElnyk saying they have veto rights. Leopold too. Not to mention the NHL saying that Hamilton would immediately be the 5th most valuable franchise while fighting to keep the least valuable franchise alive and losing 5M per month.

The NHL denied the ENTITLEMENT in the first hearing.

 

[CGG]

Just because the CCB didn't find anything that smelled funny in the Pittsburgh and Nashville deals doesn't mean they would come to the same result if and when they look at Phoenix.

Pittsburgh - he said / she said over when the terms of the agreement were changed, JB backed out.

Nashville - invented furor over "season ticket sales" and Leipold wouldn't take the risk for relocation on his side, so JB backed out.

Phoenix - NHL goes to extreme measures to put in a bid for a team that no one will keep in Phoenix. No other local bidders. NHL eliminates only competition by using sketchy vague language about character and integrity while pushing their own offer for $102 million less despite admitting Hamilton is a far-and-away better market for a team. Hard to justify why keeping a dead team in Phoenix instead of Hamilton represents sound business judgment or something that's in the best interests of the league. Team destined for KC with lucrative relocation fees going to league owners. At least two owners now on record stating they are entitled to a veto. League inexplicably won't alter constitution to eliminate veto language. League on record saying Leafs can veto Hamilton expansion. NHL trying to argue a bankrupt owner is not able to declare bankruptcy and must do what they say.

Anyone else see a different set of circumstances this time around?

 

[Pinkfloyd]

The language is plain on its face as noted in the court documents that I linked.

And the language you show does not have any sort of veto involved for relocation.

 

[LadyStanley]

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/...09/28/a-plan-to-save-the-phoenix-coyotes.aspx

National Post suggests that hockey can work if Phoenix "moves across the street" to the Cardinals' arena and be the gracious hosts for a Winter "break" outdoor game.

 

[Crazy_Ike]

Phoenix - NHL goes to extreme measures to put in a bid for a team that no one will keep in Phoenix.

Incorrect. Other local bidders have indicated the bankruptcy process is in the way.

No other local bidders.

Incorrect. Two other local bidders.

NHL eliminates only competition by using sketchy vague language about character and integrity

Incorrect. The NHL's basis for its rejection isn't "sketchy" or "vague", it's quite explicit and easy to follow.

while pushing their own offer for $102 million less

Incorrect. The league's offer satisfies all legitimate creditors, Balsillie's offer does not.

despite admitting Hamilton is a far-and-away better market for a team.

A comparison of the markets is not the issue.

Hard to justify why keeping a dead team in Phoenix instead of Hamilton represents sound business judgment or something that's in the best interests of the league.

Not only is the justification very strong, it has the support of all the other major leagues (on the record, in court), and the support of all of its own owners.

Team destined for KC with lucrative relocation fees going to league owners.

Speculation not fact.

At least two owners now on record stating they are entitled to a veto.

Deceptive. Act of veto required, not opinions on hypotheticals.

League inexplicably won't alter constitution to eliminate veto language.

Altering the constitution invites a potential fight that doesn't seem to be necessary. They may be waiting for the outcome of American Needle.

League on record saying Leafs can veto Hamilton expansion.

Yes. But there hasn't been any attempt to expand.

NHL trying to argue a bankrupt owner is not able to declare bankruptcy and must do what they say.

Flat out incorrect. NHL has said no such thing. They have said Moyes wasn't in a position to declare the Coyotes bankrupt, however.

Anyone else see a different set of circumstances this time around?

Not from a set of incorrect assertions, no.

 

[Crazy_Ike]

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/...09/28/a-plan-to-save-the-phoenix-coyotes.aspx

National Post suggests that hockey can work if Phoenix "moves across the street" to the Cardinals' arena and be the gracious hosts for a Winter "break" outdoor game.

This is the kind of sarcastic, bitter, "you don't deserve hockey" article that has tainted the Canadian sports media in this affair from the start.

They should be embarrassed for printing this.

 

[New User Name]

This is the kind of sarcastic, bitter, "you don't deserve hockey" article that has tainted the Canadian sports media in this affair from the start.

They should be embarrased for printing this.

I agree with you on that. By the way it's embarrassed.

Title for next thread Baum drops the Bomb.

 

[Crazy_Ike]

I agree with you on that. By the way it's embarrassed.

Youre wright. I doe pried myselve on spleling butt the ockasionel typoo wille, off corse, slipp throogh.

 

[Jaym3000]

This is the kind of sarcastic, bitter, "you don't deserve hockey" article that has tainted the Canadian sports media in this affair from the start.

They should be embarrassed for printing this.

I happened to think the article was quite funny - perhaps it hit you a little too close to home seeing as it pokes fun at hockey in the desert and goes against the NHL's braintrust. That being said, the one comment to the article was even funnier:

Apart from all the other reasons this won't work is the fact that the ice can't be created unless the outside temperature is below the mid 50s.

This is either a joke column or you envision them skating with roller blades with a roller puck or on plastic ice. Not options that would showcase talented players & could expose them to an undue risk of injury.

This sounds like something Gary might like to try next.

 

[Jaym3000]

Youre wright. I doe pried myselve on spleling butt the ockasionel typoo wille, off corse, slipp throogh.

Wow either you are drunk or you need to use the spell check feature.

 

[Macke*]

Any new news on a decision?

 

[VOB]

Crazy_Ike.....are you really of the belief that there are local bidders out there that think they could make a go of it without new massive breaks from the C.O.G.???




Oh I get it now....you are CRAZY ike.

 

[BAdvocate]

Any new news on a decision?

Are you kidding? Has Baum made any decisions at all this whole summer?

JACKIE: Do you know what a baum is? Have you ever seen a baum? Didn't you read the instructions?

KRAMER: Well I ...

JACKIE: (interrupts) No one can tell what a baum's gonna do. They're unpredictable.

Suggested Title....Oh oh oh, so a Maestro tells you to put a baum on and you do it?

 

[Crazy_Ike]

Crazy_Ike.....are you really of the belief that there are local bidders out there that think they could make a go of it without new massive breaks from the C.O.G.???

What I believe doesn't matter. The truth is there is two bids out there who pulled out because of the restrictive nature of the bankruptcy proceedings coupled with an antagonistic seller attempting to destroy all bids but one (Moyes has filed an objection to every bid and bidder that has done anything in court not named Balsillie).

Both have indicated they will wait until after bankruptcy and negotiate directly with the league and the city without the disruptive interference of Moyes and Balsillie. They are not gone.

In fact, the evidence, while circumstantial, is actually fairly good that COG has already reached a deal with either or both.

 

[LadyStanley]

Time for the next thread: http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=685990


Carry on.