Thrashers Bombshell: Owners have wanted to sell since 2005

[karnige]

all i can say is losing that much money is pathetic as an organization. great work bettman

 

[RAgIn]

Why do you think that the NHL is so desperate for the Coyotes' sale to Hulsizer to go through?

Please reference my previous statements regarding the TNSE's bid to buy and NHL franchise: "the Coyotes if necessary, but not necessarily the Coyotes".

Isn't that conscription?

 

[LadyStanley]

So what does the NHL do if it has 2 teams ( just saying worst case ) it has to move and only 1 potential buyer?

Then the league would be forced to buy the franchise or contract.

However, there are at least two ownership groups, including relocations to Winnipeg and Quebec, so I don't think there's an issue.

Now, if you mean LOCAL ownership (Atlanta), that's something else. I don't recall any groups/individuals/companies indicating (recent) interest in an Atlanta NHL franchise.

(But then, the NHL -- Bettman, Daly, etc. -- claim they meet with perhaps a dozen groups every year interested in owning a franchise. So who knows what has been said in times past.)

That is just a rumor, the details of that non-relocation agreement have never been released to the public.

Now granted it is a rumor that has been repeated by some folks so often that it is accepted as fact by some.

No, the league stated in testimony in the bankruptcy case that "all" sales include a seven year non-movement clause.

In addition, the NHL bylaws and constitution were released as documents in the bankruptcy case that clearly outline that the league and (current) owner must exhaust all avenues of finding a new local ownership, as well as meet a few other conditions, BEFORE the league/BOG will consider relocation.

HOWEVER, it was also noted that sometimes the league does not follow their own rules.

(I believe the bylaws and constitution are linked in the stickied "business information and data sources" thread.)

 

[Killion]

I don't know what you think the "old days" were like.

I dont think they were like anything anyone born after about 1965 could possibly understand because they werent around to experience it. I was. I embraced the first, second, third & fourth rounds of expansion, and have fond memories of the Omni in Atlanta & the Flames, respectable & entertaining teams from 72-80, and I wasnt very happy when they left for Calgary.....Fast forward to 97; Ted Turner, a class act, the return of the NHL to Georgia. Loads of potential & promise. New building. A beach head in the south. Unfortunately, the class turned to trash when Turner picked up stakes, the good people of Atlanta left with a disparate group of rounders in the boardroom & The Very Un-talented Mr. Donald Waddell in a seemingly tenured position as GM to insure a decade of failure on the ice. ......My NHL includes Atlanta, along with Nashville, Carolina & (sorry Panthers fans) the Bolts. It also includes Phoenix, Dallas & hopefully Houston. Of the lot, if I had to cut them all loose but one, Id retain Atlanta. How & why its come to this state is sickeningly documented in the AJ on the front end of this thread, and until the principal parties in Atlanta are either in some way eliminated through a buyout or have epiphanys', order wont be restored, leaving the league with no option, and like Hood be forced to retreat from Atlanta. What a lowdowndirtyrottenshame of a thing to have to contemplate, yet alone wake up to.

 

[Dado]

I'm with you Killion - if teams need to be sacrificed there are a half-dozen that I'd prefer giving The Long Goodbye to before Atlanta. IMO - and I know I'm in the minority on this - Atlanta's version of "The South" is very well suited to good-time hockey.

But where are they going to find good management? The cap has made management competency very very important, but that is FAR more rare than owners willing to blow wads in chasing success. There are only a handful of really good groups running things out there, and why would they leave a prestigious O-6 or Canadian market for one servicing the great unwashed?

This is another reason that IMO the cap should be accompanied by contraction - even more important than concentrating player talent, it concentrates managerial talent, which is even shorter supply.

 

[Magnus Fulgur]

Okay, now that I've cooled down...

Okay, now that I've cooled down...

...remember that AJC business writer Kristi E. Swartz is the same person who ambushed Levenson and accused him of being "Whammer" on the AJC site:

http://www.birdwatchersanonymous.com/2009/5/19/880125/ajc-accuses-bruce-levenson-of

Reading the article again, other than the spelling of Winnepeg (sic) and the missed quotation marks two paragraphs down, I appreciate what went into the piece. Also, Thrashers' beat writer Chris Vivlamore contributed to it.

I can understand if the basketball boys in Atlanta Spirit that own The Thrashers figured in 2005 "Okay with the new NHL CBA, we can sell this hockey team to a local person, it's cool..." and then WHAM! Steve Belkin throws a hissy fit and withdraws his 30% investment.

Bottom line is, the NHL should never have let these guys have a franchise, and the other person who should have owned them (David McDavid) was only looking to flip the NHL franchise as well.

If it wasn't for the bad contractual agreements and Steve Belkin, The Thrashers would have been sold in 2005 to a real hockey ownership and kept the team there.
Now the Hossa and Kovalchuk debacles make sense.

 

[edog37]

Maybe someone can fill me in...

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.

How are Atlanta fans supposed to be feel about this? Mind you if the Yotes situation is any example-they don't matter, "It's just business"-sad but true.

If Balsilie were involved, the league would move mountains...

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

Okay, now that I've cooled down...

Okay, now that I've cooled down...

...remember that AJC business writer Kristi E. Swartz is the same person who ambushed Levenson and accused him of being "Whammer" on the AJC site:

http://www.birdwatchersanonymous.com/2009/5/19/880125/ajc-accuses-bruce-levenson-of

Reading the article again, other than the spelling of Winnepeg (sic) and the missed quotation marks two paragraphs down, I appreciate what went into the piece. Also, Thrashers' beat writer Chris Vivlamore contributed to it.

I can understand if the basketball boys in Atlanta Spirit that own The Thrashers figured in 2005 "Okay with the new NHL CBA, we can sell this hockey team to a local person, it's cool..." and then WHAM! Steve Belkin throws a hissy fit and withdraws his 30% investment.

Bottom line is, the NHL should never have let these guys have a franchise, and the other person who should have owned them (David McDavid) was only looking to flip the NHL franchise as well.

If it wasn't for the bad contractual agreements and Steve Belkin, The Thrashers would have been sold in 2005 to a real hockey ownership and kept the team there.
Now the Hossa and Kovalchuk debacles make sense.

What do you mean by this?

Just curious, as the Thrashers are my B team this year when the 'Canes second half run falls short.

P.S. To the person who asked, my Avatar is Schwartzwald, a villain/anti hero from the anime The Big O who is obsessed with the truth.

P.S.S- Lady Stanley, I will answer your post in the morning so I can do it justice.

 

[DeathToAllButMetal]

Just wanted to post that part of the article since a lot of folks apparently only read the headline.

I'm not surprised AT ALL that they have wanted out of their investment since 2005. They've acted like it, and have been frequently accused of acting like it on this board.

The big question is simply, who will the buyer be when the conflict is finally resolved? Given the no-move agreement, it'll have to be either a local or an outside group interested in Atlanta.

Call me crazy, but this actually seems like a good opportunity for someone in Atlanta who wants to own a franchise. The value is already depressed as much as it could possibly be, and the ownership group is highly motivated to sell immediately. That's a buyer's market if there ever was one.

Uh, considered at all that this is why it makes sense for the NHL to buy the team directly and then flip it on to Quebec/Winnipeg? That agreement will be torn up in moments by the league if the situation is this dire in Atlanta. The BoG won't risk another slo-mo disaster like Phoenix here. The BoG also can't sit around and let the value of an NHL franchise erode. Again.

 

[DeathToAllButMetal]

If the NHL didn't accommodate for Balsillie, why in the world would they accommodate for Thompson??

Because he is rich?

Because Thomson is one of the richest men on the planet, would instantly be the richest owner in the NHL, and also would provide the NHL with amazing media ties. It would be a HUGE coup for the league to get a guy like this into the owners' club. Also, Thomson wants to put a team in Winnipeg, not the GTA. So no turf war with Toronto.

 

[Whileee]

Uh, considered at all that this is why it makes sense for the NHL to buy the team directly and then flip it on to Quebec/Winnipeg? That agreement will be torn up in moments by the league if the situation is this dire in Atlanta. The BoG won't risk another slo-mo disaster like Phoenix here. The BoG also can't sit around and let the value of an NHL franchise erode. Again.

Right, and no small municipality over a barrel to bully around. Imagine the look on the face of the Atlanta mayor if Bettman walked in and said "give us $25 million to cover the operating losses of the Thrashers next year or they're relocating." How long before the Atlanta mayor says "Bye Bye"?

 

[DeathToAllButMetal]

what is there to explain? that is there claimed number, which is 100% going to be inflated as much as possible for the purpose of trying to win the lawsuit.

obviously they have lost money, but that number has to be taken with a grain of salt considering the source. they own the arena too, the team "pays" the arena rent and whatnot, it all goes to the same people.

Same deal with the bit about being able to sell the team easily back in 2005, you know. That's likely BS to help justify the lawsuit, and the claim against the law firm for screwing them up.

 

[edog37]

There has not? How do we know? The team has been in court for 6 years. So that is not true at all. You can't sell a business when you are fighting with an owner.

LOL. Phoenix AND Atlanta moving? Not a chance. PHX will stay as will ATL. New court case = cannot sell.

The franchise is utterly worthless in Atlanta. Franchise valuation is one of Bettman's primary responsibilities. In short, this report merely confirms what is true, the well is poisoned in places like Atlanta & Phoenix.

 

[AllByDesign]

Wowo... I came a little late to the party today. I had contemplated multi-quoting through 7 pages of posts and thought better of it. I'd end up with a novel and likely not making any sense.

TL - I don't look forward to any more record setting threads on the twisting and turning of another NHL franchise.

In fact, this thread has ballooned out of little substance. The owners of Atlanta Spirit are suing someone and entering litigation again... big surprise. It's almost a hobby for them at this point. Ohhh they have been looking to sell the team for the last 5 years... shucks couldn't tell... even less of a surprise.

KevFu - thanks for the big mug of reality. It was needed. I share the same opinions almost all the way through your last post. (Exception being the preference to have teams in Winnipeg and Quebec.)

Most everyone has agreed that this ownership group has not been good for the franchise. They wanted the big kid (The Hawks) and were forced to bring along the big kids little brother that picks his nose. I don't know what it will take to bring in decent owners. Hopefully the two brother might be able to be in a situation in which they can be seperated.

 

[edog37]

If the NHL didn't accommodate for Balsillie, why in the world would they accommodate for Thompson??

Because he is rich?

Because he plays by the rules. If JB played by the rules instead of trying to barge in, he would have a team already...

 

[AllByDesign]

Originally Posted by Anton 2nd Pick
If the NHL didn't accommodate for Balsillie, why in the world would they accommodate for Thompson??

Because he is rich?

Because he plays by the rules. If JB played by the rules instead of trying to barge in, he would have a team already...

Maybe because his wealth is in the same ballpark of half of the league combined... or was that 2/3rds... now I'm going to have to read again...

 

[Jeffrey93]

Just saw this thread. HILARIOUS!!!

Whatever an NHL franchise goes for....it is too much. Since a group that has been trying to sell theirs for 5 years are still holding the keys.

Ya gotta figure the Phoenix debacle (and others) played a part in this.

It's also funny that the NHL has just recently been saying stuff about the team being for sale. Before that everything was "fine".

Too funny. (Sorry Thrasher fans...I'm laughing at the circumstances given the current climate....not your misfortune)

Edit: Just reading the article...."otherwise dispose of the Atlanta Thrashers".....my stomach hurts!

 

[LadyStanley]

Uh, considered at all that this is why it makes sense for the NHL to buy the team directly and then flip it on to Quebec/Winnipeg?

AIUI...

1) Exhaust all options of local ownership.

2) Find non-local owner, clear any lease/contractual restrictions, negotiate sale. Submit request (from current owners) for relocation, along with proposed (new) ownership. This means that all the Bylaw i's need to be dotted and t's crossed. And then comes the negotiation of the relocation fee (on top of the sale price).

 

[Killion]

I'm with you Killion - if teams need to be sacrificed there are a half-dozen that I'd prefer giving The Long Goodbye to before Atlanta. IMO - and I know I'm in the minority on this - Atlanta's version of "The South" is very well suited to good-time hockey.....This is another reason that IMO the cap should be accompanied by contraction - even more important than concentrating player talent, it concentrates managerial talent, which is even shorter supply.

Bingo!. The old axiom of "surround yourself with people who are smarter than you" falls on deaf ears when a lot of money & even bigger ego's are on the line, particularilly in the world of sports & entertainment. Know all about it. Unfortunately for the fans, the NHL cant be objectively selective in who its franchise owners wind up being. Lousy ownership in most cases equals lousy management. Though its opening up some, the "old boy network" of coaches & GM's, hired to be fired to resurface elsewhere is a cycle that needs to be broken. Atlanta & Waddell absolutely epitomize the very worst of this tenet thats as old as the league itself. This attitude extends into the boardroom, where another heirarchy exists, a select few telling Bettman what to do, how & when, and to whom. ....Candidly, and after several scotches, when Bill Norris Sr. was asked why the league hired Clarence Campbell as President, his response was "where the Hell else are we going to find a decorated war hero lawyer who will do exactly what he's told?". Little has changed since that utterance of over 55yrs ago. A top down philosophy; filtering through the BOG's to team management & personnel despite their public remonstrations to the opposite in having "complete autonomy from ownership to run things as I see fit". New blood, 21st century thinking, shrinking the league by 4 teams makes perfect sense.

Losing Atlanta does not.

 

[Jeffrey93]

Lady Stanley....you don't think after 5 or 6 years they have exhausted the local ownership possibilities?

And as far as the by-laws go.....the NHL will enforce whatever rules that benefit the NHL...if they don't benefit the NHL...they will be ignored. It's common practice.

 

[captainpaxil]

honestly i think its a branding issue. can anyone tell me what southern style hockey is? how about desert hockey? how do these teams identities differ from generic expansion franchise located in x place? now think of the devils, flyers, ducks, or minnesota what comes to mind? the kings acquired gretzky because he was the biggest star in the league and la identifies itself as the place where stars live contrast that with pittsburgh which has always been "marios team" a successful franchise fits into the milieu of the city. both how the city perceives itself and how outsiders perceive that places identity.

 

[Jeffrey93]

honestly i think its a branding issue. can anyone tell me what southern style hockey is? how about desert hockey? how do these teams identities differ from generic expansion franchise located in x place? now think of the devils, flyers, ducks, or minnesota what comes to mind? the kings acquired gretzky because he was the biggest star in the league and la identifies itself as the place where stars live contrast that with pittsburgh which has always been "marios team" a successful franchise fits into the milieu of the city. both how the city perceives itself and how outsiders perceive that places identity.

First....anyone else having problems with the 'quote' button?

Onto my reply...what exactly is the "milieu" of Glendale, Arizona or Sunrise, Florida or .....wherever there seem to be problems in the NHL.

Do these cities really have identities that the teams could reflect their branding towards?

Honestly....can we list some teams and their "branding" that is reflective of their communities? I can think of a few....but most...I dunno. Maybe I just need to think harder. I'd love to hear how more than 8 teams in the league are "branded" based on their community.

 

[Jeffrey93]

Oh.....I also HAVE to add....it is nice to see what possible locale the AJC mentioned first..... Just sayin'....maybe they were alphabetical?

 

[LadyStanley]

Lady Stanley....you don't think after 5 or 6 years they have exhausted the local ownership possibilities?

How could they when they were unable to even think about selling to even start a "search" or seriously accept offers due to the ownership contract fiasco?

Now, perhaps there were folks five years ago who might have nibbled, but have allocated their resources so that they cannot now. (Not to mention a change of amount of disposable income available due to the economy.)

But then again, a few folks may have gotten to a financial situation that makes sports ownership more possible than five years ago.

 

[Jeffrey93]

How could they when they were unable to even think about selling to even start a "search" or seriously accept offers due to the ownership contract fiasco?

Now, perhaps there were folks five years ago who might have nibbled, but have allocated their resources so that they cannot now. (Not to mention a change of amount of disposable income available due to the economy.)

But then again, a few folks may have gotten to a financial situation that makes sports ownership more possible than five years ago.

Umm...yup, ok. If anyone was THAT interested....these little legal "oopsies" would have been fixed 4 years ago.

You know....the ol' "I'd LOVE to buy your NHL franchise....BUT...." then the "but" gets fixed.

I dunno...maybe you are right. I just figure that regardless of how this legal firm handled it if somebody REALLY wanted to buy this team locally in the last 5 years.....they would have made it happen by now.