Thrashers Bombshell: Owners have wanted to sell since 2005

[Pegger5]

it is very common for families to be listed together in wealth rankings.....old money is almost always considered that way....if you look at the list of richest canadians, half of them are families.

that being said, to suggest that the head of the thomson family will not be held in high regard by the BOG is not realistic.....less than 1/3 of NHL franchises are owned by billionaires and the thomson fortune is in a league of its own in this regard....it is ridiculous to dissect his percentage of the family wealth.....he is well beyond the average NHL owner no matter how you cut it....there simply is not a line-up of super wealthy people wanting into the NHL club....few NHL owners come with the pedigree and stability of thomson, which makes him more than extremely attractive to the league.

the fact that he inherited his money is not relevant.

Yep Peter, agreed. it is not relevent....
see my previous post on last page..

 

[Killion]

Isn't the Thomson family in control of CTVglobe via Woodbridge?

That would be correct. David is 53, 3rd Generation Wealth. Has a younger sister & brother. He's both camera & publicity shy, very suspicious of strangers & most businessmen for that matter. Very much a Renaissance type guy; collects artwork, Constable', Rothko etc. An eccentric & peculiar family, as are most of the super-rich, the topic of much gossip amongst the older money set. Woodbridge is run by a former partner of Torys LLP, an establishment law firm in Toronto. At one time the family owned the Hudsons Bay Co. (The Bay); a firm with deep roots in the Winnipeg area. Through CTV/globe the Thomsons at one time held 15% of MLSE, however they sold their shares to the OTPF & Tanenbaum, the latter apparently trying to put together a consortium with Rogers to buy out the Teachers Pension Fund.

 

[AtlantaWhaler]

But all indications are that AS wants to keep the Hawks. It might be a stupid plan, but they've never publicly discussed selling them. They're also largely a basketball oriented group... I can't see Gearon really being hot to sell the franchise his father basically built.

Now, they may end up getting an offer and doing just that. But it would appear to me that their preference is to just get rid of the Thrashers and use the income to fix the Hawks.

It was noted in a blog today in the AJC that whomever Kinkade is talking about (speculated by some of us to be the Dickey bros.) is negotiating the package of all three entities. Again, take it with a grain of salt as we have a ways to go, but even Bettman hinted at the Hawks losing money as well.

 

[Brodie]

I think it's for the best if they can sell it all at once, I'm just not sure if Gearon and co would be ready to let go of the Hawks. It doesn't seem like their plan

 

[peter sullivan]

I tend to agree that this notion that the BOG cannot resist the temptation of selling a franchise to TNSE because of the involvement of David Thomson is overblown. It is clearly lower on their heirarchy than keeping franchises in place.

As I have noted before... "the Coyotes if necessary, but not necessarily the Coyotes". I would also agree with the post above that, ironically, the most sure way of buying time for the Thrashers in Atlanta might be the collapse of the Coyotes sale (however unlikely), since that would take away a ready landing place should the NHL have to relocate the Coyotes.

the coyotes situation keeps being pointed to as an example of the NHL's desire to keep franchises in failing markets....i am not so sure that they are a good precedent of this....in my opinion the league had no other option but to work it out in glendale. The NHL's track record has been to solve its problems with patchwork solutions because of limited alternatives....with the thrashers there is a very good alternative.

it seems unlikely that ASG has only in the last few weeks decided that it has had enough and does not want to own the thrashers for next season....the more likely scenario is that the league has known about their intent for a long time and with only one solution at their disposal (TNSE) the NHL really had no option in phoenix but to ride it out as long as possible and make it work.

It is unreasonable to assume that the NHL is treating their failing franchises in isolation, one at a time...it is far more likely that they were aware of the thrashers all along and the one interested ownership group that was available would be used as a solution.....if their intent was to find local ownership they would have started that process long before now....

think about it logically....if ASG doesn't want to own the thrashers next season, would they really wait until february to announce it?....would they not have been working around the clock to find an owner?....they have $20m on the line...that is pretty strong impetus to be as public as possible about their intentions....they are acting much more like they have already solved their problem....even if they are intending to sell for relocation it makes no sense that they would not be doing that now....

does anyone believe that after 8 weeks ASG will simply say, oh well, no local investor could be found....anyone else?....it is difficult to believe that they have not been negotiating with all interested parties since the decision was made to sell the team before next season.

they have been clear that they will not own the team next year yet they do not appear to be in a panic to find an alternative at this late date....does that not suggest that they already have an owner but it cant be made public because their intent is to relocate?

All agreed, but this notion of selling the Thrashers by themselves is vastly overblown. The Hawks are no better off. Those assets are going to go together, most likely with the arena. Operating the Hawks by themselves would be a disaster.

in my opinion this is absolutely correct...it seems illogical that the thrashers could be amputated from the ASG body and kept in atlanta....even in a strong hockey market that model would not work.

 

[Free Edler]

in my opinion this is absolutely correct...it seems illogical that the thrashers could be amputated from the ASG body....even in a strong hockey market that model would not work.

It's unlikely that the Hawks, Thrashers and their arena would be separated in the event of a sale, but it's a situation that's not entirely without precedent. The Vancouver Grizzlies were broken off from the Orca Bay group (Canucks, Grizzlies, GM Place/Rogers Arena) to be sold to Michael Heisley, who later moved the team to Memphis. I'd be interested to see the books of Atlanta Spirit - though we never will - to see which of the two teams loses more money.

 

[GSC2k2*]

That would be correct. David is 53, 3rd Generation Wealth. Has a younger sister & brother. He's both camera & publicity shy, very suspicious of strangers & most businessmen for that matter. Very much a Renaissance type guy; collects artwork, Constable', Rothko etc. An eccentric & peculiar family, as are most of the super-rich, the topic of much gossip amongst the older money set. Woodbridge is run by a former partner of Torys LLP, an establishment law firm in Toronto. At one time the family owned the Hudsons Bay Co. (The Bay); a firm with deep roots in the Winnipeg area. Through CTV/globe the Thomsons at one time held 15% of MLSE, however they sold their shares to the OTPF & Tanenbaum, the latter apparently trying to put together a consortium with Rogers to buy out the Teachers Pension Fund.

Killion, Thomson/Woodbridge/nameless-Thomson-entity sold their interest in CTV last year or the year before.

 

[AllByDesign]

Thomson is merely the inheritor of his fortune. His most outstanding decision was clearly picking his parents (although I am sure he is a lovely guy).

Not that it matters to the topic, but lost in the tongue-in-cheek comments is the point that with David at the helm, the Thomson family fortune has had an upward trajectory. This is not always the case when children take over.... I hear Izzy Asper has nearly unburried himself with all of the flips in his grave.

 

[MAROONSRoad]

To correct on this long-standing and oft-repeated error, David Thomson is not now and never has been "the 19th Richest person in the world worth $23 billion USD".

Firstly, it is the Thomson FAMILY that has that level of wealth. David Thomson is one of three Thomson siblings who mainly share the Thomson wealth.

Secondly, last time i read, the Thomson FAMILY was 20th, with net wealth of $19B.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/10/billionaires-2010_The-Worlds-Billionaires_Rank.html

Now, you may say that having ~$6.5B is still more money than one could ever spend, on hockey or otherwise, and you would be right, but it puts him in the range of Anschutz.

I find it strange sometimes when people suggest that Thomson would be held in such awe by the Board of Governors. I think it is probably safer to assume that, in a room full of mostly billionaires who are the originators of their own fortunes, he would not be held in such awe. Thomson is merely the inheritor of his fortune. His most outstanding decision was clearly picking his parents (although I am sure he is a lovely guy).

Yawn. There have been a lot of different estimates of his and his families wealth. The fact is he and his 2 siblings are very wealthy and David runs the show.

What doesn't surprise me is that you would try to belittle the billionaire that is likely going to bring the NHL back to Winnipeg since you have claimed in the past (to me personally) that no such person exists.

GHOST

 

[Whileee]

It's unlikely that the Hawks, Thrashers and their arena would be separated in the event of a sale, but it's a situation that's not entirely without precedent. The Vancouver Grizzlies were broken off from the Orca Bay group (Canucks, Grizzlies, GM Place/Rogers Arena) to be sold to Michael Heisley, who later moved the team to Memphis. I'd be interested to see the books of Atlanta Spirit - though we never will - to see which of the two teams loses more money.

In fact, the ASG is claiming through litigation that they have been trying to sell the Thrashers for 6 years. No mention of trying to sell the Hawks at any time. If you listen to Gearon's recent interview, he seemed quite happy and intent on retaining the Hawks, which are evidently near and dear to him.

I am still trying to understand how selling the Thrashers, which are evidently losing scads of money, somehow weakens the financial prospects of the ASG and their other sports operations. A penny saved is a penny earned. A large injection of cash via a sale might do wonders for the bottom line and there are plenty of folks who do just fine with an NBA team and an arena, without the adjunct of an NHL team.

I believe that it is the NHL that should be most motivated to keep the team in Atlanta, but they have sounded like they are content to stay on the sidelines on this one. Puzzling...

 

[Killion]

Killion, Thomson/Woodbridge/nameless-Thomson-entity sold their interest in CTV last year or the year before.

If they'd spent/spend more money on Canadian production's I'd pay more attention to their activities.

I hear Izzy Asper has nearly unburried himself with all of the flips in his grave.

Make that Dizzy ABD. Doesnt Reuters' have a major office in Atlanta?.

 

[berklon]

What doesn't surprise me is that you would try to belittle the billionaire that is likely going to bring the NHL back to Winnipeg since you have claimed in the past (to me personally) that no such person exists.

Let's not forget that the Ice Edge guys were sound and professional businessmen when they were looking to buy the Coyotes. Yep, no bias here.

 

[Brodie]

David Thomson was initially too rich and powerful to ever concern him with an NHL franchise, let alone one in Winnipeg. And now he's just a run of the mill billionaire who had the audacity to inherit his fortune.

 

[GSC2k2*]

Yawn. There have been a lot of different estimates of his and his families wealth. The fact is he and his 2 siblings are very wealthy and David runs the show.

What doesn't surprise me is that you would try to belittle the billionaire that is likely going to bring the NHL back to Winnipeg since you have claimed in the past (to me personally) that no such person exists.

GHOST

As I noted in my post:

Now, you may say that having ~$6.5B is still more money than one could ever spend, on hockey or otherwise, and you would be right

You will have to refresh my memory where I indicated what you suggest above. I'm sure that will be interesting.

No one is trying to "belittle" anyone. Observing that Thomson is an inherited billionaire and not a self-made one is simply an observation of fact. This is not a battle, and I won't be drawn into one.

 

[New User Name]

Yawn. There have been a lot of different estimates of his and his families wealth. The fact is he and his 2 siblings are very wealthy and David runs the show.

What doesn't surprise me is that you would try to belittle the billionaire that is likely going to bring the NHL back to Winnipeg since you have claimed in the past (to me personally) that no such person exists.

GHOST

I have to agree with you on this Ghost.

Mod deleted

 

[GSC2k2*]

It's unlikely that the Hawks, Thrashers and their arena would be separated in the event of a sale, but it's a situation that's not entirely without precedent. The Vancouver Grizzlies were broken off from the Orca Bay group (Canucks, Grizzlies, GM Place/Rogers Arena) to be sold to Michael Heisley, who later moved the team to Memphis. I'd be interested to see the books of Atlanta Spirit - though we never will - to see which of the two teams loses more money.

It would be interesting to know as well whether the GRizzlies were sold because they were losing money or for other reasons (ie monetizing an investment to deploy assets elsewhere).

Not that it matters to the topic, but lost in the tongue-in-cheek comments is the point that with David at the helm, the Thomson family fortune has had an upward trajectory. This is not always the case when children take over.... I hear Izzy Asper has nearly unburried himself with all of the flips in his grave.

As I recall, the family's wealth has ocillated up and down since the dad's death. I thought about raising that, but in fact it would be unfair since the stock market took its well-known dive, taking the family fortune's valuation with it, and it has largely snapped back, bringing te fortune back as well. Neither really demonstrate anything other than the fact that the family still owns Thomson Reuters.

In fact, the ASG is claiming through litigation that they have been trying to sell the Thrashers for 6 years. No mention of trying to sell the Hawks at any time. If you listen to Gearon's recent interview, he seemed quite happy and intent on retaining the Hawks, which are evidently near and dear to him.

I am still trying to understand how selling the Thrashers, which are evidently losing scads of money, somehow weakens the financial prospects of the ASG and their other sports operations. A penny saved is a penny earned. A large injection of cash via a sale might do wonders for the bottom line and there are plenty of folks who do just fine with an NBA team and an arena, without the adjunct of an NHL team.
I believe that it is the NHL that should be most motivated to keep the team in Atlanta, but they have sounded like they are content to stay on the sidelines on this one. Puzzling...

On the first bolded point above, the statement of claim does not say that, although it seems to be a bit of a meme. It indicated that they tried to sell it back then, realized they could not do so with a cloud on the title, and moved on.

Regarding how many NBA teams are doing well, David Stern would beg to differ. Strongly. The league appears to have deteriorated rapidly.

Good question regarding references in the statement of claim regarding the absence of any reference to a sale of the Hawks, though. I will check my copy to confirm that, but you may very well be right on that, and that is a pertinent (although not dispositive) fact.

Let's not forget that the Ice Edge guys were sound and professional businessmen when they were looking to buy the Coyotes. Yep, no bias here.

Who says they are not sound and professional businessmen? I know the preference in some quarters is to photoshop them as clowns, but where is it demonstrated that they were not?

 

[GSC2k2*]

it is very common for families to be listed together in wealth rankings.....old money is almost always considered that way....if you look at the list of richest canadians, half of them are families.

Agreed.

that being said, to suggest that the head of the thomson family will not be held in high regard by the BOG is not realistic.....less than 1/3 of NHL franchises are owned by billionaires and the thomson fortune is in a league of its own in this regard

By my count, 23/24 out of 30 teams are owned by billionaires or giant conglomerates whose financial power exceeds that of billionaires, and a few others I don't really know where their wealth is reported (ATL, for example).

....it is ridiculous to dissect his percentage of the family wealth.....he is well beyond the average NHL owner no matter how you cut it

Beyond the average NHL owner? Sure.

....there simply is not a line-up of super wealthy people wanting into the NHL club....

I don't know about that. Those Viniks and Hulsizers and Pegulas keep popping up, it seems to me. There are a lot of anonymous billionaires in the world.

few NHL owners come with the pedigree and stability of thomson, which makes him more than extremely attractive to the league.

Thomson would be a good owner to get, for sure. No one suggested otherwise. There really is no owner, though, that the NHL would turn cartwheels over, though. I doubt the NHL gets too excited at the flash of a wallet. They WOULD like Thomson's near-obsessive quest for privacy and discretion, though.

the fact that he inherited his money is not relevant.

Agreed, as long as no one suggests that he is a dynamite businessman who would make WINN work through his sheer business acumen. THen the fact of his inheritance is relevant in my mind.

 

[blues10]

^^^^^Pegula is a very wealthy man....Hulsizer, who knows his wealth he certainly is nowhere on Forbes radar. He appears to be buying a hockey team with other peoples money (the citizens of Glendale). Vinick got a steal of a deal buy a hockey team and get a free arena or vice versa. There are thousands of wealthy individuals who may be willing to buy the Thrashers and time will tell what happens. I'm thinking with the possibility of a current offer on the table of $170 million whoever wants the thrashers will be over paying for that market. As a side bar,If Hulsizer had $$$$ he would have been sniffing around Dallas.

 

[Magnus Fulgur]

Anyhow, back to The Thrashers. Their Casino night looked like a big success and had lots of sponsorship and from accounts seemed to be more of a corporate gathering than a gathering of fans. That's a good sign. It was held at the Opera Nightclub in midtown. They've always done Casino Night well, but it looks like they stepped it up this year.

http://video.thrashers.nhl.com/videocenter/console?catid=656&id=99191

 

[Fugu]

I don't know about that. Those Viniks and Hulsizers and Pegulas keep popping up, it seems to me. There are a lot of anonymous billionaires in the world.

Only one billionaire on your list.

You're fighting an uphill battle. You may recall an NYT article I've previously linked that shows a disconcerting trend. As sports franchise values rise, the number of people willing and able to afford them drops quite precipitously. Several billionaires have been owners of NHL teams, only to exit. One could speculate that some millionaires (Vinick) were underwritten by billionaires (Davidson), who wanted out.

It's also interesting to note that a couple of NHL owners or groups (Kroenke and Checketts et al) were willing to drop their NHL involvement if it meant getting an NFL team.

I think your earlier estimate of current billionaire owners is a bit optimistic.

Thomson would be a good owner to get, for sure. No one suggested otherwise. There really is no owner, though, that the NHL would turn cartwheels over, though. I doubt the NHL gets too excited at the flash of a wallet. They WOULD like Thomson's near-obsessive quest for privacy and discretion, though.

Hmmm, I guess they prefer that municipalities offer bonds and subsidize the entire thing.

Agreed, as long as no one suggests that he is a dynamite businessman who would make WINN work through his sheer business acumen. THen the fact of his inheritance is relevant in my mind.

How do you know if he is a dynamite business man or not? At the very least, he hasn't managed to waste the family's fortune, having been entrusted with its stewardship (Chairman of the Board).

Simply saying, to borrow from Brodie, that he had the audacity to inherit all that wealth precludes him from having a sharp business acumen is..... what? One thing has little to do with the other, even if one can say that a self-made billionaire obviously has it in spades.

 

[Whileee]

On the first bolded point above, the statement of claim does not say that, although it seems to be a bit of a meme. It indicated that they tried to sell it back then, realized they could not do so with a cloud on the title, and moved on.

Regarding how many NBA teams are doing well, David Stern would beg to differ. Strongly. The league appears to have deteriorated rapidly.

Good question regarding references in the statement of claim regarding the absence of any reference to a sale of the Hawks, though. I will check my copy to confirm that, but you may very well be right on that, and that is a pertinent (although not dispositive) fact.

Well, then let me put it this way. The current owners have been trying for several years to buy out Belkin, and I think it is reasonable to infer from their statement of claim and their recent statements that they have been doing so to avoid the depreciation of their asset and the loss of more than $130 million (their claim) on the Thrashers' operation. Clearly, they are inferring in their statement of claim that they would have otherwise avoided those losses, accrued over several years, with the implication that had they been able to buy out Belkin at any time sooner they would have been free (and motivated) to sell. If they have not been looking around for potential investors or outright buyers while they worked to settle with Belkin, I would be very surprised.

The point is that adding a money-losing NHL franchise to an NBA franchise is not necessarily the ideal business model. Whatever the business case, I think that ASG does not seem averse to selling the Thrashers and going forward with just the Hawks and the arena, and they would be in the majority among NBA owners. I expect that they also have hopes that the upcoming NBA collective bargaining will result in a better business model for them and others. What they do not seem to be willing to sustain are the Thrashers' losses. Interestingly, in an interview Bettman alluded to the large burden and complications of owning and operating two franchises as one of the potential problems in Atlanta with the current ownership group.

 

[Fugu]

The point is that adding a money-losing NHL franchise to an NBA franchise is not necessarily the ideal business model. Whatever the business case, I think that ASG does not seem averse to selling the Thrashers and going forward with just the Hawks and the arena, and they would be in the majority among NBA owners. I expect that they also have hopes that the upcoming NBA collective bargaining will result in a better business model for them and others. What they do not seem to be willing to sustain are the Thrashers' losses. Interestingly, in an interview Bettman alluded to the large burden and complications of owning and operating two franchises as one of the potential problems in Atlanta with the current ownership group.

This doesn't make sense to me, unless one of the two teams (NHL or NBA) is performing so badly financially that replacing an anchor tenant with whatever shows can be conjured up would actually yield better results. If you consider the cartwheels that COG is undertaking to keep their anchor tenant, under similarly poor financial results, the popular wisdom suggests that just have a tenant is better than leaving the building empty.

Mike Ilitch was considering buying the Pistons, partly as a plan to build a new arena in Detroit where both the Wings and Pistons would play. The Blackhawks and Bulls share the United Center (arena built by the two owners who share in everything else). Staples hosts the Kings, Lakers and Clippers! Nuggets and Avalanche in Colorado. Knicks and Rangers in NYC. Bruins and Celtics? Capitals and Wizards (consider how quickly Leonsis gobbled up that team and the arena rights).

No, this is the preferred model, it would seem.

 

[Pegger5]

Agreed.



By my count, 23/24 out of 30 teams are owned by billionaires or giant conglomerates whose financial power exceeds that of billionaires, and a few others I don't really know where their wealth is reported (ATL, for example).

Beyond the average NHL owner? Sure.

Thomson would be a good owner to get, for sure. No one suggested otherwise. There really is no owner, though, that the NHL would turn cartwheels over, though. I doubt the NHL gets too excited at the flash of a wallet. They WOULD like Thomson's near-obsessive quest for privacy and discretion, though.

Agreed, as long as no one suggests that he is a dynamite businessman who would make WINN work through his sheer business acumen. THen the fact of his inheritance is relevant in my mind.

Not so average, he would be the wealthiest by far. so I will post this link again below.. Funny how you simply assume he only holds 1/3 of family wealth. As a solicitor you should know that the family member that runs and controls the whole show also is holder of majority of assets. Maybe you have not done many majority owned family transactions.

Here is a more updated stat for you about David Thomson
http://www.financialpost.com/news/ri...753/story.html

RICHEST Top 100 Canadians
http://list.canadianbusiness.com/ran...2=1&d1=a&sc1=0

 

[Killion]

It would be interesting to know as well whether the Grizzlies were sold because they were losing money or for other reasons (ie monetizing an investment to deploy assets elsewhere).

The latter.

How do you know if he is a dynamite business man or not? At the very least, he hasn't managed to waste the family's fortune, having been entrusted with its stewardship (Chairman of the Board).

I cant speak for GSC's knowledge on the subject & its somewhat OT; but no, he's not a "dynamite businessman" and yes, millions upon millions have been dropped by both he & his 2 siblings in some really, and I mean REALLY, absolutely bizarre Tobogganing Expeditions to the Himalayas' to Off-Road Endurance Races across the Gobi Desert. I would also assume that the OP would very likely be privy to some of the families meanderings through his business connections in Southern Ontario. They have World Class legal minds & fixers employed, steering the ship; Michael Clayton types kept busy 24-7, as played by George Clooney, only for real & for keeps. When they "free-lance", they tend to step in it, including but not limited to involvement in the notorious Anthony Pellicano case in LA amongst other jaunts into realms of subterfuge & paranoia..

 

[peter sullivan]

thomson could find hulsizer's personal wealth in the cracks of his living room couch.

luckily for the NHL. being a 'dynamite businessman' isnt a prerequisite for ownership...if it were they would never find buyers for what they are selling in most markets.

i got the 1/3 of the leagues owners are billionaires stat from forbes, but it really is not worth the debate...trying to diminish the attraction of TNSE as an ownership group is a pointless discussion....they are certainly on par with the top ownership groups in the league and will be welcomed with open arms in short order.

we are WAY past debating the merits of TNSE as owners....the debate is more about timing than anything.