Thrashers Bombshell: Owners have wanted to sell since 2005

[King Woodballs]

Why does all of this not shock me

 

[Major4Boarding]

I am extremely out of my league when getting into the business/bureaucratic side of things...but I wonder if the NHL's passive efforts with respect to Atlanta vs. their dogged determination to keep the Coyotes in Phoenix is tied quite simply to Jim Balsillie?

Balsillie was performing the NHL equivalent of a hostile takeover bid with the Coyotes which forced the NHL to dig its heels in and do whatever was necessary to protect the franchise in the interest of their own league rules.

The Thrashers, currently, have no such "renegade" trying to purchase them and therefore the NHL is allowing the franchise to crumble to pieces with the eventual intent of selling it to an owner and moving it on their terms, per the league constitution.

Or am I just wearing a tinfoil hat?

I have always thought the very same thing. Had Balsillie and Moyes' efforts come to fruition, who is to say the same situations couldn't have unfolded with OK Hockey, ASG, etc. PHX was the front line by the League in a battle to prevent the first domino from falling, IMO. Such a nasty precedent it would have become.

If you want to share your "tinfoil hat", I can't help but think now that GB's "30 Healthy Franchises" statement is starting to be shredded apart, that this deal going on in Glendale with Hulsizer is a League smokescreen. By that I mean, going thru all the motions to end up being nothing more than a We tried every possible avenue and end up selling to Thompson and TNSE.

I say that as, from a value standpoint, you'd think the Coyotes going back to Winnipeg as the original Jets franchise (coming back home) would have more "value" than the Thrashers being relo'd to Winnipeg. Or does it matter, as long as 'Peggers have a franchise? I ask that sincerely.

Leaving the door for previously "vetted" groups like MH or IEH to purchase and keep the Thrashers in ATL. Or another potential owner. The rumor of the Thrashers to Winnipeg stemming from low-key whispers that ASG has being trying to sell all this time and a conclusion drawn.

Just a thought.

 

[CC Chiefs*]

Geez, this is total deja vu to the phoenix situation, circa 18 months ago.

"What is there to explain", indeed.

Next thing we'll be hearing is: "there's no problem in Atlanta, but we want to give them RS money early to help pay the bills".

 

[headsigh]

So explain why a new owner would want to get involved in this mess?

dunno, who in their right mind would buy the coyotes?

 

[KevFu]

The title of this thread is wrong. It should be "Wanting" to sell, not "trying" to sell. This story is just "we wanted to, but couldn't"

anyways...all the excuses in the world dont change the fact that the owners want out and nobody else wants in....its a business, not a charity....

No buyers locally for 5+ years is pretty damning

Both wrong. The Thrashers have routinely said "the team is not for sale." And now we find out they had some talks, but nothing serious due to the Belkin courtroom tie-up. It's not damning, it's moot at best.

It also makes sense that they had a buyer lined up to unload the team, and the contract and fight with Belkin impeded that, and the buyer backed off.

See? We've got no clue how many potential buyers were out there. You guys both read the same article and can't agree.

This is all just more proof - as if we needed it - that this "stability" the NHL loves to brag about was attained in the same way as the league achieved parity. It's completely and utterly manufactured. Change the rules until everyone wins. That's why I laughed when Gary Bettman chastised Dean Lombardi for calling the league's integrity into question - because the league has no integrity, and hasn't since the moment that bald-headed moron took over.

I don't see what's unstable about the league. You've got 3-4 teams that have issues with the holy trinity of franchise health (ownership, arena and lease). Those being PHX (ownership/lease), ATL, DAL (ownership) and NYI (arena/lease). Which is basically normal for all sports. MLB this year had the Cubs (ownership change), Dodgers and Rangers (messy ownership), with ownership issues, Oakland, Florida and Tampa with stadium issues, etc, etc.

Not ENTIRELY OT-funny how the NBA is talking about contraction right now.

And then there's that. See? The NHL's stability is actually probably THE BEST among the four major sports. The NBA wishes it had the NHL's CBA. The NFL is profitable as hell but has a CBA to figure out (plus Jacksonville, San Diego, Minnesota and Buffalo with stadium/revenue issues that make the relocation to LA talk more vocal every day.

 

[bacon25]

How much will the city pay me to buy the Atlanta Thrashers arena parking rights? I would love to buy this team.

Seriously I like the Atlanta Thrashers, I think the Coyotes and Panthers are the ones that should be moved.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

The fact that Atlanta Spirit suing the lawyers hired to draft up "terms of sale" over failure to sell the team implies that they had a sale ready to go (or at least very high interest), as they certainly must have a case (including records of a sale pending).


Of course, knowing this ownership disaster, they very well may be trying to get a quick buck to cover their loses, but the fact remains that they do have some sort of case.

Time will tell if this is indeed true (and if that potential ownership is still interested).

 

[Dado]

...as they certainly must have a case...

I don't see what's "certainly" about it. People take low-odds flyers with the courts every day. Until someone steps forward and says "yeah, I was trying to buy the team", it's just speculation, like everything else here.

But it's crazy just how similar the postings here are to the early days of the Phoenix debacle...

the fact remains that they do have some sort of case.

That's just more speculation. Or more precisely - the same speculation, reworded.

 

[headsigh]

That has come close several time in the past.

But that would mean there are buyers interested in picking up the mess in Glendale, right?

Financially, ASG's in much better straits than Phoenix was- this same ownership group handed a hefty 100mil contract to one of their basketball players and slung a similar offer to Kovalchuk.

Missing 130 is a big hurt, but the team is by no means bankrupt.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

So explain why a new owner would want to get involved in this mess?

Because their worth is at an all time low, and it looks like Atlanta Spirit is desperate to sell.

Because then you can build up the worth and then flip it for a profit, especially considering that the worth is at an all time low in the first place.

Saw, for example, the Thrashers are worth 50 million $$ (source; my ass, this is a rudimentary example). An owner can purchase them, then wait while the investment appreciates in value.

Lets say the franchise is fairly successful, and gets up to a point where it is worth 150 million. The owner can then flip the franchise for a 100 million profit, plus/minus any operating losses he may have encumbered.

 

[Killion]

I don't see what's unstable about the league.

Yepp. And thats the beauty of it all eh KevFu?. . Barely controlled Mayhem on & off the ice. Like PBR changing the rules from 8 second to 8 minute rides on an enraged Brahma. Momma Mia....

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

I don't see what's "certainly" about it. People take low-odds flyers with the courts every day. Until someone steps forward and says "yeah, I was trying to buy the team", it's just speculation, like everything else here.

But it's crazy just how similar the postings here are to the early days of the Phoenix debacle...

Right, it is all speculation at this point.

But the chance that they have a case is greater than the chance they don't have a case.

Plus, they actually list several points of their case in the article, which is why I assumed they had a case in the first place.

 

[CC Chiefs*]

Because their worth is at an all time low, and it looks like Atlanta Spirit is desperate to sell.

Because then you can build up the worth and then flip it for a profit, especially considering that the worth is at an all time low in the first place.

Saw, for example, the Thrashers are worth 50 million $$ (source; my ass, this is a rudimentary example). An owner can purchase them, then wait while the investment appreciates in value.

Lets say the franchise is fairly successful, and gets up to a point where it is worth 150 million. The owner can then flip the franchise for a 100 million profit, plus/minus any operating losses he may have encumbered.

The problem is the team is losing big money currently. A new owner being told he can't do he may want with his newly acquired assets doesn't attract too many buyers.

 

[Dado]

for example, the Thrashers are worth 50 million $$ (source; my ass, this is a rudimentary example). An owner can purchase them, then wait while the investment appreciates in value.

Even with that lowball price, after 3 seasons, the sale price would have to be $110M just to break even on the operating losses.

How is the team going to double in value in 3 years? Especially as they will be tenants in someone else's building?

 

[Dado]

But the chance that they have a case is greater than the chance they don't have a case.

That's just more speculation.

We don't know "the chance" one way or the other.

 

[JWells16]

Ya know, as a fan of a team who was almost moved, I really feel for the Thrasher fans. Hopefully this all works out for the best.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

Even with that lowball price, after 3 seasons, the sale price would have to be $110M just to break even on the operating losses.

How is the team going to double in value in 3 years? Especially as they will be tenants in someone else's building?

Most hockey teams are a long term investment.

Plus, right now the Atlanta Thrashers ticket base has been culled due to frustrations with ownership. Right now, they only have around 6000 STH (correct me if I am wrong) instead of the 10000 that the majority of franchises have. And they had such a base before Atlanta Spirit and friends pissed them off.

It stands reason that with new ownership, most of these people will come back.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

That's just more speculation.

We don't know "the chance" one way or the other.

I posted why I think that. They list several points of their case in the article.

Again, why would they sue if they didn't have a case?? That's just loose more money and gain more bad publicity. (EDIT: Poor grammar)

 

[headsigh]

The problem is the team is losing big money currently. A new owner being told he can't do he may want with his newly acquired assets doesn't attract too many buyers.

Well, the team value is at 135m, and draws in a revenue of 71, which puts them 8m behind the St. Louis Blues and 10m behind Buffalo as of forbes' 2010 listing.

 

[Dado]

Most hockey teams are a long term investment.

Ok, make it 5 years, a sale at $150M would be needed just to break even.

It stands reason that with new ownership, most of these people will come back.

Apart from the fact that 4k season ticket holders wouldn't make a dent in to their operational losses, no, it doesn't "stand to reason" at all. If you have a coherent argument as to why that is likely to happen, feel free to present it.

 

[Dado]

But why do you care?

Can't answer for him.

Me, I want a 24 team league, because I want a better quality of hockey, and a better-supported live hockey experience.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

Can't answer for him.

Me, I want a 24 team league, because I want a better quality of hockey, and a better-supported live hockey experience.

Fair enough.


It is certainly true that the quality of hockey would increase if there were 24 teams.

 

[Killion]

Those 10-15 franchises you mentioned still make more than enough profit. They still (for the most part) ice competitive teams.

Sure. Take exhibit's A&B here....

 

[Oblivion]

I would say well.

This is flawed logic, the point of expansion should be to increase revenues by increasing the amount of people exposed to the game. The success is therefore going to be measured by the revenue increase and not the actual growth in interest.

If their increased interest in the sport but aren't making more money then that is still a failure. Increased revenues was the actual goal.

 

[KevFu]

This is why the NHL is a joke. They make comments about the Atlanta market yet the thrashers have had less on-ice success but about the same attendance as the yotes. As pointed out, they also get the revenues form the entire arena and the company owns both the NBA and NHL teams so how much was directly attributable to NHL losses, not NBA losses? Where are they putting all the revenue from the various arena events?

Why does it matter what losses are the NHL's, NBA's and Arena's? As a company, it makes tax-sense for Spirit to show two of their three business as a loss and one as profitable. Even if all three made money, you'd WANT to cook the books by making the Thrashers and Hawks pay the Arena a massive rent. Then you're paying taxes on one holding instead of three by putting money from one pocket into the other.

You know, that explains quite a few of the NHL's otherwise-incomprehensible actions. The ludicrosity they've engaged in in Phoenix makes more sense if they knew they had an "immediate" relocation situation in Atlanta that could go off at any moment.

Well, this is just crazy. The NHL actions have been very comprehensible; and Atlanta was going no where....

The apparently "lack" of care about the Atlanta franchise by the NHL, but absolute obsession with keeping the Yotes in Phoenix.

Why the disparity? If the NHL wants to keep the Yotes in PHX, shouldn't they want just as badly to keep the team in Atlanta(and Daly's comments seem to go against that idea)? Unfortunately, once again, its bureaucracy/paperwork that's at issue with an NHL franchise. In this case, with claims of wanting to sell the franchise for 5 plus years.

I'd disagree with that. The NHL is fighting for the Yotes in Phoenix for two reasons: #1 - To establish that franchises cannot be pirated out of bankruptcy so they may continue to govern the league as they see fit. #2 - The NHL fights for all teams to remain in their locations.

You might perceive a "lack of fight" but (a) the NHL put the seven-year no-relocate clause into the sale back in 2004-05; and (b) the whole story is that Atlanta could NOT sell when they wanted to. In other words, there was no reason for the NHL to say anything other than "Atlanta's not going anywhere. Next?" Atlanta themselves were saying that in the papers.

First of all, I am not sure why you think NHL would not give Atlanta permission to leave if this owner is telling the truth about this agreement with NHL. I bet it just means they have to have NHL's okay of what City and owner it gets moved to. This would be to avoid a crazy owner like what happened in Baltimore.. They can't prevent Spirit Group from selling to outside interests since they control the management lease of Phillips arena. There is no where to go for a new local owner to move to.. No new owner would pay a massive lease to Spirit Group. They also would not get to share in "other" revenues that Phillips arena produces.

You nailed it.

Hey I feel for the Atlanta fans as well, but try being told on Jan 19, 1996 that your team has been sold to Phoenix, but guess what, they have to play one more season before they can be moved. Have that happen then tell me how you feel. If the team is going to be moved or just has general bad news, I would want to be told ASAP, so I can stop spending money on them if I so choose.

What happened in Winnipeg, Quebec, Hartford and Minnesota were bad things that shouldn't happen to anyone's teams. Which is why Bettman and Co. try to avoid it from happening again. It's also why the four new franchises under Bettman were placed in MIN (lost the Stars), ATL (lost the Flames), CBJ (teased with the Whale) and Nashville (teased with the Devils). Bettman's also on record as being pro-WIN and pro-QUE for the league over "new" markets like Hamilton, KC, Vegas, etc.

For those of us who think the southern expansion has been a really negative direction for the NHL, it's nice to see it beginning to collapse. It's kind of a validation for those of us who have criticized the experiment since day one, in the face of being told how wrong we are by Americans for years. Obviously this whole thing is far from over, but the boat is taking on water, and while Bettman is frantically trying to patch up one hole (Phoenix), another one just burst open.

Really? I think that's just sour grapes on the part of the Anti-South contingent. The Southern Expansion wasn't the problem. The sudden expansion was A problem. The whole idea that "southern expansion" itself was bad is absurd. The 21-team NHL had teams in cities where 24% of the population of USA/Canada resided. Now it's at 37%. And the TV contract in the US went from $15 million to $75 million, with a five-year stretch at $120 million.

Anaheim, San Jose, Colorado, and Carolina are doing just fine and stable. Dallas is for sale, but a non-issue. Tampa is stable now. Florida looks stable now. Nashville and Columbus have made lease progress in the last year. Aside from nostalgia, the only REAL negative was the loss of certain awesome markets. Would 95% of the people really care about the franchises in ATL, PHX, FLA, NAS, CBJ, etc. if Quebec, Winnipeg and Hartford still had teams? It's not like any one here gives a damned about the Islanders issues. People want to see the Southern markets fail out of spite. But aside from issues that would have arisen if ANY markets received teams going to 30 (divisions, alignments, loss of rivalries/marquee games, schedule, travel, bad uniforms, revenue sharing), there's absolutely zero things wrong with having southern teams in the league.

Teams like Phoenix and Atlanta are in serious trouble in their current locations.

Exactly why? Teams have years/periods where they lose money all the time. If you're not in TOR, MON, NYR, you're in that boat. Even DET, BOS, CHI, NY, PHI weren't immune. This is the normal business cycle of sports leagues. Teams are bought/sold, lose money/gain money, prosper/flounder. It takes one smart front office hire to change direction. Detroit sucked out loud and played in a ghost town in the years prior to the Yzerman draft. Now they're Hockeytown, USA. It's the nature of the beast.

I am extremely out of my league when getting into the business/bureaucratic side of things...but I wonder if the NHL's passive efforts with respect to Atlanta vs. their dogged determination to keep the Coyotes in Phoenix is tied quite simply to Jim Balsillie?

Balsillie was performing the NHL equivalent of a hostile takeover bid with the Coyotes which forced the NHL to dig its heels in and do whatever was necessary to protect the franchise in the interest of their own league rules.

The Thrashers, currently, have no such "renegade" trying to purchase them and therefore the NHL is allowing the franchise to crumble to pieces with the eventual intent of selling it to an owner and moving it on their terms, per the league constitution.

Or am I just wearing a tinfoil hat?

I don't think you're in a tinfoil hat. But I also don't think you're interpreting things correctly.

The NHL fought a hostile takeover, yes.
The NHL intervened with PHX because an owner wanted out and was going to bankrupt them, yes.
The NHL isn't intervening in ATL, correct.

But the NHL isn't allowing the ATL "franchise to crumbe to pieces." And they aren't standing idly by just because JB isn't involved. The NHL is not intervening in ATL because there's not a damned thing anyone can do. The owners can't sell due to court tie ups. ASG owns the team. That can't change until the buyout of their partner is complete. That's it. It's that simple. There's no NHL intervention that can alter that.