TNSE Efforts to Acquire an NHL Team Part X: Status... Complete???

[Killion]

It should be noted, rather cynically Im' afraid. that in most cases of a sale when relo is a very real possibility, the existing ownership group will often telegraph false signals; "a local ownership group has expressed interest & its still in-flux". Platitudes. False hope.

This guy Stephen Rollins is like a "Super Fan", worked assiduously in getting a petition together pre-expansion to Atlanta etc. Clearly he doesnt have the readies to make it happen himself, and claims to be working with an Investment/Hedge Fund Firm. exploring not just the Thrashers for potential purchase but other franchises as well, which leads me to think........ nah, couldnt be. Could it?.

Over the past several months, he's apparently had conversations with Gary Bettman who told him he wanted the team to stay put; he's been shown about 5 different sets of books by ASG & cant get a handle on things (no surprise there), and even if he couild (get a handle on things) he's nowhere nearly qualified to make a determination one way or the other as to the practicability of buying the team & attempting to negotiate a lease with ASG that wouldnt pretty much guarantee a collapse. The guy is simply way in over his head though clearly has the best of intentions. His film company is a flyweight. If he had some serious credits to his name (partners included) then maybe Id take him a little more seriously. But c'mon here.

Barring a complete about face by ASG & someone parachuting in out of a clear blue sky to buy the 2 teams & take over the arena, the teams' done. Fini. Next to go will be the Hawks & the building, and good riddance to these idiots. Im just disgusted with the whole situation; NHL included.

 

[Dado]

1.) We find out that the ownership is split on whether to dump The Thrashers or sell all three.

That's a complicated way of saying they're united on dumping the Thrashers.

 

[AtlantaWhaler]

That's a complicated way of saying they're united on dumping the Thrashers.

It's also a way of saying that if they decide to sell all 3, it opens the door to more groups looking to keep the team in Atlanta.

 

[roccerfeller]

I really feel sorry for Thrashers fans, but you guys are hurting yourself if you hold onto hope that someone will step up. (edit: but you know what...I respect that a lot about you guys.)

The NHL and ASG (and even TNSE) wanted to control the message so they could set up the fall how they wanted to.

If the Thrashers somehow were bought by a local owner and stayed here, hypothetically, would Winnipeg literally implode? I kinda would be interested to see the reaction there.

Hypothetically, yes. A domino effect would ensue when the world as we know it would be brought to its knees and only the Avengers would be able to stop it. How else do you think Galactus is born? Via Winnipeg! Duh

this didnt exactly sneak up on TNSE.....they have had lots of time to prepare for an NHL franchise....they just didnt know which one they were preparing for.

they will likely make an announcement on tuesday which will mean by friday they will have enough tickets sold to guarantee sell outs for three seasons, they will have a waiting list for suites....the tv deal has already been negotiated....its likely the new home for the moose has as well....

it will be a hectic summer for sure, but they have been busy lining up the dominoes for some time....they just need to push that first one.

wherever the moose go will have a tougher time getting ready because that market will not be prepared.

agreed

This is too funny. I'm starting to keep a list on who won't be watching NHL hockey in the event TNSE cannot complete a deal. All the analyzing of what is going on behind the scenes... has anyone gave Eklund a call yet?

You'd be surprised

In the meantime I hope you enjoy the Nucks beat down the Bruins

 

[Alex The Loyal]

this didnt exactly sneak up on TNSE.....they have had lots of time to prepare for an NHL franchise....they just didnt know which one they were preparing for.

they will likely make an announcement on tuesday which will mean by friday they will have enough tickets sold to guarantee sell outs for three seasons, they will have a waiting list for suites....the tv deal has already been negotiated....its likely the new home for the moose has as well....

it will be a hectic summer for sure, but they have been busy lining up the dominoes for some time....they just need to push that first one.

wherever the moose go will have a tougher time getting ready because that market will not be prepared.

Agreed. TNSE has had what, a decade, to prepare for this? They probably have the logos, the jerseys, etc, sitting in a closet somewhere just waiting to be unveiled. It's not like as soon as True Norrth gets the team (IF it happens of course) they'll go "Woo we got 'em!....Now what?". They probably have a million plans and all they need to do is get that team. True North, and Winnipeg, is ready

 

[King Woodballs]

Agreed. TNSE has had what, a decade, to prepare for this? They probably have the logos, the jerseys, etc, sitting in a closet somewhere just waiting to be unveiled. It's not like as soon as True Norrth gets the team (IF it happens of course) they'll go "Woo we got 'em!....Now what?". They probably have a million plans and all they need to do is get that team. True North, and Winnipeg, is ready

Agreed
Most of the work has to be done
Otherwise they couldnt play in Winnipeg next season

 

[Ozzie Bear]

http://www.winnipegsun.com/2011/05/27/cops-plan-for-portage--main-mayhem

 

[Alex The Loyal]

Nothing really new in that article. Just another "We're ready to go wild if the announcement comes"

Also, I laughed at this

However, he said anyone whose drunken behaviour puts themselves or others at risk will be given a swift ride to “a place where their safety can be assured.â€

Would they really be safer, being drunk in Jail?

 

[Jesus Christ Horburn]

Alright, I admit it: I'm the mystery local buyer interested in the Thrashers.

Don't believe me? Allow me a moment to snap a picture of my shoes.

 

[Brodie]

Those are the January 1st rules, the supermajority is required for an application made for re same year after january 1. There are different majorities required, which is why the wait and pass was given in phoenix.

Notice how KDB actually cites the constitution whereas you cite nothing?

 

[southpaw24]

Nothing really new in that article. Just another "We're ready to go wild if the announcement comes"

Also, I laughed at this


Would they really be safer, being drunk in Jail?

I think you mean "when" the announcement comes

 

[kdb209]

Those are the January 1st rules, the supermajority is required for an application made for re same year after january 1. There are different majorities required, which is why the wait and pass was given in phoenix.

Do you have a link to back up those claims - preferably links to League governing documents.

There is no January 1 deadline referenced in either the NHL Constitution or By-Laws. Any deadline is just a League policy which may be changed or waived by either a majority vote of the BoG or unilaterally by Bettman, under the Commissioner's power under Article 6.3(d) ("Interpretation of League Rules") to interpret or establish policies or procedures regarding League Rules.

I can tell you that any qualified and interested owner who wants the team to stay in its current market has the right of first refusal. Even if there's an agreement in principal there is no sxclusivity before a signed contract (league rules supercede statutes). There is open season regardless of this. By the way, there is an entity organized out of vegas (according to several newsoutlets, take it as you may) that was organized for the sole purpose of purchasing atlanta.

NHL By-Law 36 - which governs the process and criteria for voting on a relocation request - gives no right of first refusal to a local offer.

There are no hard and fast rules that the NHL must apply in approving a relocation (ie no "The League MUST favor a local bid") - only a set of 24 considerations that the teams should take into account when they vote on relocation request, with no requirements on how much weight must be given to each.

Only two of those considerations concern potential local ownership - the good faith effort to find local owners and whether such a local owner exists and has the financial ability to sustain continuing losses.

36.5 In determining whether to consent to the transfer of a Member Club's franchise to a different city or borough pursuant to Section 4.2 of the NHL Constitution, each member Club shall be guided by the following considerations:

(a) Whether the Club in question is financially viable in its present location and, if not, whether there is a reasonable prospect, based on any of the considerations set forth in subsections (b) through (j) below, or for any other reason, that it could become financially viable there, either under its present ownership or under new ownership.

(b) The extent to which the fans have historically supported the Club in its present location.

(c) The extent to which the Club has historically operated profitably or at a loss in its present location.

(d) Whether the present owner of the Club has made a good faith effort to find prospective purchasers who are prepared to continue operating the Club in its present location and/or has engaged in good faith negotiations with such prospective purchasers.

(e) Whether there is any prospective purchaser of the Club and franchise who is prepared to continue operating the Club in its present location and, if so, whether any such prospecteive purchaser is willing and able, if necessary, to sustain losses during at least the initial years of its operations there.

(f) The extent to which the Club might be operated in its present location in a more prudent, efficient, and/or cost-effective manner than it has been in the past.

(g) The extent to which there is a reasonable prospect that significant additional revenues may become available to the Club within a reasonable time in its present location, either from the sale of media rights or from other sources.

(h) The extent to which local government authorities in the present location are prepared to reduce the operating costs of the Club, either by granting tax relief or otherwise.

(i) The extent to which the operating costs of the Club in its present location may be reduced through the willingness of the applicable arena authority to reduce the rent charged to the Club or otherwise to reduce the Club's costs or increase its revenues, and/or through the willingness of other suppliers to reduce their charges for goods or services provided to the Club.

(j) The adequacy of the arena in which the Club plays its home games and the willingness of the applicable arena authority to remedy any deficiencies in the arena.

(k) Whether there will be a suitable arena available in which the Club can play its home games in the proposed new location.

(l) The extent to which it appears likely, based on the population, demographics, and interest in hockey in the area of the proposed new location, or based on aany other releveant facts, that support for a franchise there will be sifficient to make the franchise financially viable in the proposed new location on a continuing basis.

(m) The extent to which the owners of the Club are willing and able, if necessary, to sustain losses during at least the initial years of its operation in the proposed new location.

(n) The extent to which consent to the proposed transfer is likely to damage the image of the League as a major sports league, be a disincentive to participation in the League, or otherwise have an adverse effect on the Leagues's ability to market and promote the League hockey in the United States and/or Canada.

(o) The extent to which the proposed transfer would adversly affect traditional rivalries that have been established between the Club in its present location and other Member Clubs.

(p) The extent to which consent to the proposed transfer would result in the absence of a League franchise in a major market.

(q) The extent to which it appears likely that, if the proposed transfer is approved, the Club would draw more or fewer fans when playing as the visiting team in the home arenas of other Member Clubs.

(r) The extent to which the proposed transfer would present particular disadvantage for the operation of the League, such as travel or scheduling difficulties or a need for divisional realignment.

(s) The extent to which the club has, directly or indirectly, received public financial support in its present lcoation by virtue of any publically financed arena, specual tax treatment, or any other form of public financial support.

(t) The extent to which the proposed transfer, if approved, would affect any contract or agreement in effect between the Club and any public or private party.

(u) The extent to which the League consent to the proposed transfer might expose the League to liability to any third pary for breach of contract, interference with contractual relations, or for any other cause.

(v) The extent to which the ownership or management of the Club has contributed to any circumstance which might otherwise demonstrate a need to transfer the Club to a new location.

(w) The extent to which the Club has engaged in good faith negotiations with representitives of the community in which it is presently located concering terms and conditions under which the Club would continue to operate in thet location.

(x) Any other considerations relevant to whether it would be in the best interest of the League to consent to the proposed transfer.​

 

[MaskedSonja]

Do you have a link to back up those claims - preferably links to League governing documents.

There is no January 1 deadline referenced in either the NHL Constitution or By-Laws. Any deadline is just a League policy which may be changed or waived by either a majority vote of the BoG or unilaterally by Bettman, under the Commissioner's power under Article 6.3(d) ("Interpretation of League Rules") to interpret or establish policies or procedures regarding League Rules.




NHL By-Law 36 - which governs the process and criteria for voting on a relocation request - gives no right of first refusal to a local offer.

There are no hard and fast rules that the NHL must apply in approving a relocation (ie no "The League MUST favor a local bid") - only a set of 24 considerations that the teams should take into account when they vote on relocation request, with no requirements on how much weight must be given to each.

Only two of those considerations concern potential local ownership - the good faith effort to find local owners and whether such a local owner exists and has the financial ability to sustain continuing losses.

And just to clarify, kdb, as per what GSC said, these rules are ALL of public record? There are no "hidden" records that only the NHL and it's inner sanctum of lawyers has access to-of the "they aren't for public consumption" variety?

 

[kdb209]

And just to clarify, kdb, as per what GSC said, these rules are ALL of public record? There are no "hidden" records that only the NHL and it's inner sanctum of lawyers has access to-of the "they aren't for public consumption" variety?

Well - they are of public record, only because they were disclosed in filings in the Phoenix bankruptcy. Before that, only a few excerpts were publicly available through media reports.

The NHL is a private organization and is under no obligation to provide it's governing documents to the public.

However, if there were any other rules relating to the approval of sale or relocation process, I would have expected them to be referenced and included in Daly's deposition - and referenced in the CCBs advisory ruling on relocation.

 

[Lux Aurumque*]

I'm starting to really doubt that this relocation is happening, and that's just depressing. I go camping in Yellowknife for a few days and come home to no news at all, except that there is now a potential local buyer. :S

 

[crazed323]

Why are some so paranoid? I don't get it for the life of me I cannot understand it.

 

[Fugu]

Do you have a link to back up those claims - preferably links to League governing documents.

There is no January 1 deadline referenced in either the NHL Constitution or By-Laws. Any deadline is just a League policy which may be changed or waived by either a majority vote of the BoG or unilaterally by Bettman, under the Commissioner's power under Article 6.3(d) ("Interpretation of League Rules") to interpret or establish policies or procedures regarding League Rules.


NHL By-Law 36 - which governs the process and criteria for voting on a relocation request - gives no right of first refusal to a local offer.

There are no hard and fast rules that the NHL must apply in approving a relocation (ie no "The League MUST favor a local bid") - only a set of 24 considerations that the teams should take into account when they vote on relocation request, with no requirements on how much weight must be given to each.

Only two of those considerations concern potential local ownership - the good faith effort to find local owners and whether such a local owner exists and has the financial ability to sustain continuing losses.

kdb, have you considered that the NHL made some 'clarifications' about that clause around September 2006 [per the CCB review of the league]?

That was followed up by the letter from MLSE, in which they disagreed with the league's interpretation and wished to retain their rights?

It is possible that the documents were changed/rewritten in anticipation of challenges that might come from someone like Balsillie.

 

[Brodie]

Why are some so paranoid? I don't get it for the life of me I cannot understand it.

People are inpatient. As far as they're concerned, Brunt promised them they'd hear something over a week ago and now nothing has been said so something must have gone wrong. Never mind the constant reports from insiders saying progress is being made and a deal won't be announced until next week... it's all or nothing for some peoples

 

[crazed323]

People are inpatient. As far as they're concerned, Brunt promised them they'd hear something over a week ago and now nothing has been said so something must have gone wrong. Never mind the constant reports from insiders saying progress is being made and a deal won't be announced until next week... it's all or nothing for some peoples

It's not like it has been a couple years or anything. Less then a month and people are throwing in the towel. This has all been anti-climatic in the strictest sense. I personally think the NHL wants it that way for their own selfish reasons. This is really bringing out all the debby downers.

I was at Portage and Main that fateful night Brunt broke the news. I didn't get all crazy and participated in one go jets go chant while the dude from CBC did his piece on the situation (the chant was co-ordinated for the camera, because everytime the guy got going the crowd would stop chanting) because I like to think I'm as much skeptical as I am dreamer about the NHL coming to Winnipeg. Dregers denial and CJOB reporting TN denied the report, brought the skeptic out in me, but I had to be there. I am totally of the opinion that nothing will prohibit this move and an official announcement is imminent.

 

[RandR]

I'm starting to really doubt that this relocation is happening, and that's just depressing. I go camping in Yellowknife for a few days and come home to no news at all, except that there is now a potential local buyer. :S

I really think some people are reading far too much into some of what's being said by team officials to the local media in Atlanta. Does anyone expect that the team president wouldn't act like "it ain't over til it's over"?

So what that someone "expressed an interest" this week? The milkman could have expressed an interest.

There is nothing in that recent statement that even remotely suggests that the existing deal won't become official.

 

[kdb209]

kdb, have you considered that the NHL made some 'clarifications' about that clause around September 2006 [per the CCB review of the league]?

That was followed up by the letter from MLSE, in which they disagreed with the league's interpretation and wished to retain their rights?

It is possible that the documents were changed/rewritten in anticipation of challenges that might come from someone like Balsillie.

AIUI:

- By-Law 36 was adopted in the early 1990's (per Daly's deposition). I am unaware of any changes made before or since Daly's deposition (May 2009).

- The clarifications asked by the CCB did not result in any changes to By-Law 36. It was just a confirmation that it was the League's position that By-Law 36.4(c) took precedence over the relocation restrictions of Article 4 of the NHL constitution - that a relocation vote only required a simple majority vote and no team had a veto.

(c) A proposed transfer of location receiving the affirmative votes of a majority of the Member Clubs present and voting shall be deemed to have been consented to by the League in the event that the prohibition on transfers recited in Section 4.2 of the Constitution is determined by counsel to the League specially retained for this purpose, based on all relevant factors, to be unlawful with respect to that proposed transfer.

The CCB examined only two facets of the League's relocation restrictions (per the CCB technical backgrounder) - the 7 year no relocation consent agreements and the restriction under 36.4(c) ( a simple majority vote with no veto).

- MLSE's threats were basically that they rejected 36.4(c) and held that they still maintained all the rights under 4.2, including the right to veto. They argued that that was effectively an amendment to Article 4 of the NHL Constitution, which would require unanimous consent - and which they opposed.

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

Why are some so paranoid? I don't get it for the life of me I cannot understand it.

I kind of liken it to being a Van Halen fan. It's been so long since they've had new music, and there have been so many rumors in the interim of new albums, tours with both singers or either singer, 10 albums' worth of material, etc. Every time a rumor comes up, even if it seems completely likely to happen, Van Halen fans are so jaded/paranoid that it's basically become a "when the album is in my hands I'll believe it" crowd.

So "once the team takes to the ice" might be the Winnipeg version of that.

 

[KevFu]

I like how we're breaking down the leagues by-laws as if it means anything. The NHL will ignore their own by-laws if it suits their needs.

For example, the NHL constitution says the Phoenix Coyotes' membership in the league TERMINATED AUTOMATICALLY when Moyes put the team into bankruptcy. (Pittsburgh, too for that matter).

 

[kdb209]

I like how we're breaking down the leagues by-laws as if it means anything. The NHL will ignore their own by-laws if it suits their needs.

Hey - I was just following up on other people's hypotheticals.

And slow news days lead to pointless speculation - haven't the XXXVII Phoenix threads taught you anything.

And - this is what happens when you start using Roman Numerals.

For example, the NHL constitution says the Phoenix Coyotes' membership in the league TERMINATED AUTOMATICALLY when Moyes put the team into bankruptcy. (Pittsburgh, too for that matter).

That restriction was recognized as unenforceable since it violated the statutory protections offered under US Bankruptcy code.

 

[Blackhawkswincup]

I kind of liken it to being a Van Halen fan. It's been so long since they've had new music, and there have been so many rumors in the interim of new albums, tours with both singers or either singer, 10 albums' worth of material, etc. Every time a rumor comes up, even if it seems completely likely to happen, Van Halen fans are so jaded/paranoid that it's basically become a "when the album is in my hands I'll believe it" crowd.

So "once the team takes to the ice" might be the Winnipeg version of that.

Yeah but David Lee Roth did return to Van Halen and they went on a fairly extensive tour + there album is in final stages as confirmed by Slash recently