Why fight so hard for Phoenix, but let Atlanta move so easily?
- Thread starter ponder
- Start date
Whatever the facts and reasons are it just sucks that this entire thing comes across as all parties basically dropping this at the same time and walking away. The Thrashers never really had a chance, just a simple chance, while mountains have been moved to assure the Coyotes of a future.
Finlandia WOAT
js7.4x8fnmcf5070124
- May 23, 2010
- 24,154
- 23,753
Because the NHL has no cards to play in this situation.
Legally, they had the right to both block Balsillie from becoming an owner (due to past actions) , block the move the Hamilton (because of the purported "damage" it would do to the Leafs and Sabres respective markets) and block the 'Yotes sale in general (because it was entirely back door and outside League jurisdiction).
In Atlanta, the situation is where the owners have tried to look for local ownership for years (which is a false statement, but one that the NHL is running with), and no one wants to own only the Thrashers, especially since they are unsure whether ASG will own the arena or not.
But they can't block the move. ASG are assclowns, but they are doing nothing wrong in selling their franchise. There is no history, no real claim that the NHL can make to step up and force ASG to lose money next year.
In fact, if the NHL really wanted to save Atlanta, which is debatable, then the only thing they can do is buy time with this spat over the relocation fee for a local owner to emerge, or for the exclusive negotiating period with Moores to end so someone who wants all 3 will come up and buy it.
And that is assuming quite a bit, from an optimistic point of view.
Legally, they had the right to both block Balsillie from becoming an owner (due to past actions) , block the move the Hamilton (because of the purported "damage" it would do to the Leafs and Sabres respective markets) and block the 'Yotes sale in general (because it was entirely back door and outside League jurisdiction).
In Atlanta, the situation is where the owners have tried to look for local ownership for years (which is a false statement, but one that the NHL is running with), and no one wants to own only the Thrashers, especially since they are unsure whether ASG will own the arena or not.
But they can't block the move. ASG are assclowns, but they are doing nothing wrong in selling their franchise. There is no history, no real claim that the NHL can make to step up and force ASG to lose money next year.
In fact, if the NHL really wanted to save Atlanta, which is debatable, then the only thing they can do is buy time with this spat over the relocation fee for a local owner to emerge, or for the exclusive negotiating period with Moores to end so someone who wants all 3 will come up and buy it.
And that is assuming quite a bit, from an optimistic point of view.
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
Technically, can't the BoG block ANY relocation? The problem here is that it's not in their best interests to do so because of ASG's actions from the outset. The league was completely outmanuevered here.
Mantha Poodoo
Playoff Beard
- Jun 5, 2008
- 4,109
- 0
And the problem with this one is that:
1. Sell Hawks and arena to local owner for a pile
2. Sell Thrashers to canadians
Likely nets ASG considerably more money than:
Sell Hawks, Thrashers, and arena to local owner
And since ASG can do #1 with the NHL having absolutely no say (such is entirely out of the scope of the NHL), #2 becomes an inevitably because of 1. no arena and 2. lack of interested local buyers for just the Thrashers.
Technically, they can, yes. But even if they bought the Thrashers, what are they going to do with a team with no arena to play in... other than have them play elsewhere, which is more or less relocation? Not to mention that if ASG knew the NHL wanted to buy the Thrashers to 'save' them, then they'd put an equal or higher price tag on it than they would to sell to a Canadian owner.
The league wasn't just outmaneuvered, they were completely bent over... and if it weren't for the unfortunate situation for Thrashers fans, I'd be laughing at Bettman getting wasted at his own game. Actually, I might laugh anyhow.
The dangers of letting a group own 2 pro teams in different leagues sharing an arena (also owned by them), I guess. If they decide to sell A and B, C is ****ed and it forces the league into relocation whether it's warranted or not.
Last edited:
It is not a local owner/group in the exclusive negotiating period for Hawks/Arena. It is the former owner of the San Diego Padres.
Only hope to keep Thrashers here involves that exclusive period expiring, Thrashers not yet sold, and a local owner/group stepping forward to bid on the entire package.
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
Local owner/group doesn't mean someone from Atlanta. If TNSE wanted to keep the Thrashers there, they would be called a local owner/group.
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
Is it right or wrong that the NHL can't block the sale of the Thrashers to TNSE, but they can block TNSE from moving the team to Winnipeg if they were so inclined? That's more what I meant. The Thrashers would still play in Phillips, but in a terrible money-losing situation, because they'd be paying the owner of the arena rent to go on top of the operating losses that already exist. That's why there is no local ownership. Who would want to take on that risk?
Why
The bigger question is why people are assuming that Atlanta is being moved at the drop of a hat without already exhausting all other options. Atlanta's troubles have been under-reported in Canadian (and especially Winnipeg) media, Phoenix's have had every reporter known to man digging up every possible detail leaving the perception that the NHL is protecting the Phoenix market but not giving two shakes about Atlanta. I really don't think that's the case.
The bigger question is why people are assuming that Atlanta is being moved at the drop of a hat without already exhausting all other options. Atlanta's troubles have been under-reported in Canadian (and especially Winnipeg) media, Phoenix's have had every reporter known to man digging up every possible detail leaving the perception that the NHL is protecting the Phoenix market but not giving two shakes about Atlanta. I really don't think that's the case.
Mantha Poodoo
Playoff Beard
- Jun 5, 2008
- 4,109
- 0
Eh, well, it's not a simple issue. Technically, the league can approve/disapprove buyers in the case of relocations (the owners have to get league permission to negotiate with parties interested in relocation, but they don't have to have league permission to find/negotiate with buyers). However, that is limited realistically. In such a case where an entity (such as ASG) was losing money and the only prospective buyer wanted to relocate, the owner (ASG) would probably win a court battle eventually if the NHL refused to approve relocation (which would set a bad precedent from the NHL's perspective). So yes, it does more or less come down to the NHL more having control over whether the buyer can relocate.
And no, the Thrashers would not still play in Phillips. They don't own the arena, and the current owner of the arena is currently in the process of trying to sell the arena and the other team attached to it, and having the Thrashers attached to it even via lease could potentially make the basketball team + arena package less attractive to potential buyers. So no lease = no arena = pointless to keep them in Atlanta, unless the NHL expands into street hockey.
Because the current owners of the Thrashers and the arena they play in have maneuvered in such a way that even if the Thrashers got sold to a local group, they'd have no arena to play in. Unlike the Phoenix situation, the city does not own the arena. The NHL got ****ed.
And then what - risk the league having to buy another team out of bankruptcy?
Regardless of what papers are signed, the NHL cannot force someone to lose money if they don't want to. Without legitimate local buyers stepping up, its either relocate or contract.
And I'm sure we'll see the latter soon enough, anyway.
Dylonus
Registered User
To be honest, at least the 'Yotes have been competitive.
ATL made the playoffs what, one time? Twice?
They tried all those marketing angles this season and it meant nothing.
ATL made the playoffs what, one time? Twice?
They tried all those marketing angles this season and it meant nothing.
Killion
Registered User
- Feb 19, 2010
- 36,763
- 3,215
Correct. And they should never have sat idly bye for nearly a decade watching it unravel.
Precisely. And as pointed out by other posters, who in their right mind touches it without a guaranteed venue, without knowing what kind of a lease you can negotiate, if at all?.
headsigh
leave at once!
The NHL had more options with Phoenix considering they owned the team.
They couldn't force their hand with ASG, it comes down to the owners (or lack of them). and ASG, the ****heads that they are, wanted out. Only so much they could do at that point.
They couldn't force their hand with ASG, it comes down to the owners (or lack of them). and ASG, the ****heads that they are, wanted out. Only so much they could do at that point.
IMO the Atlanta situation is deplorable, but it seems to me the root cause is the NHL pushing a team onto an ownership group clearly not ready for it.
Dunno what the league was thinking...
Dunno what the league was thinking...
What makes you think the league pushed it onto them? These guys bought the club from the original owners.
I think Bettman's two best friends are banks and government. If he let Phoenix skip town easily, banks would be apprehensive in lending money towards NHL franchises or arenas, and governments would not be as willing to put money into arenas. Especially since the Coyotes still had a valid lease with Glendale. I think the irony here is that without Balsillie/Moyes putting the team into bankruptcy, the NHL would've been REALLY screwed because they would've been stuck with an immovable asset and would likely had to have shuttered the team without that flexibility.
It's sort of the same thing. The owners would be paying their own money to fund the Yotes this year. The relocation fee will help foot the bill, so the other owners don't have to put out their own loot. Granted, without the Phoenix situation, they'd actually be pocketing a nice chunk of change.
Right.
I don't think the team COULD buy the Thrashers. Owning two teams would have to be some kind of conflict of interest, at the very least.
It appears however, that the NHL can indeed force someone to lose money if they don't want to. Whomever buys the Coyotes has to purchase the team at face value, PLUS cover the NHL's losses for the time they owned the club. They're forcing a loss on any perspective owner before they even get the keys. LOL
I just can't wait to see what happens with the Yotes. If ATL does indeed land in Winnipeg, that eliminates a home the Yotes COULD have gone to. Short of giving the team away to someone willing to keep the team in Phoenix, or continuing to own the team themselves, any city left that's capable of taking on a team is going to have mad crazy leverage over the NHL. It's fun watching the NHL get left holding the bag.
Since nobody is buying the Coyotes, by definition the NHL doesn't have the power you ascribe to it.
cbcwpg
Registered User
They did. The NHL has said at one time TNSE made a bonified offer for the Coyotes. Thats kind of what started all the excitement in Winnipeg.
southpaw24
Registered User
I believe it was because the CoG ponied up and said they would cover losses for next season. Therefore didnt need to be sold right away and could wait to see if they can find someone that will use their OWN money to buy and keep the team there...
or at least thats what I got out of it
macavoy
Registered User
Because the NHL knew that the CoG would back the Yotes financially because they didn't want to lose their only tenant.
The NHL also likely told TNSE that ASG is trying to unload the Hawks and the Arena and that a buyer would likely not want to take on a $30m cash drain and that if the TNSE ever wanted a NHL franchise, they would sit and wait for the NHL to give them the right team. Or they could try the Ballsillie route and try to take them to court.
If you were TNSE, which route would you take? One that made friends of your 29 other business partners or one that made them your enemy?
Finlandia WOAT
js7.4x8fnmcf5070124
- May 23, 2010
- 24,154
- 23,753
The League didn't push the Thrashers into ASG.
Everything was set to sell the Thrashers to David McDavid when Ted Turner, in one of his many mood swings, decided to sell it to ASG, a group which included Ted Turner's son and son-in-law.
MccDavid actually sued Turner and won a crap load of money because the team should have been his.
http://www.ajc.com/business/content...ers_lawsuit.html?cxntlid=homepage_tab_newstab
