Why fight so hard for Phoenix, but let Atlanta move so easily?

[rj]

Like Major League Baseball? Yeah. Fun stuff.

Random star on team that usually doesn't make the playoffs: "So per AllbyDesign, I'm the best player on this team, but we do not make the playoffs, I lose 60% of my salary. So my current team can pay me $10 million per year, of which I'd likely only get $4 million. Or I can go to the Red Wings, be a second-line center, I can take a 30% pay cut to $7 million per year, but would more likely still receive the full $7 million instead of the $4 million. Oh, and I'm not signing a contract unless it has a no-trade clause because I'm not getting sent to a doormat mid-year and lose out on all that money because I got sent to a team where their poor performance was not my fault for most of the season."

So you've clustered all the talent and make the doormats overpay for anyone, thereby removing even more resources from them in an effort to get competitive, and kill the trade market. If you had this system though, no chance in hell would St. Louis and Lecavalier have stuck around Tampa Bay this long considering their long dry spell before things finally clicked this year.

 

[jkrdevil]

Can the NHL contract the Thrashers and then issue a new franchise to TNSE for whatever amount they agree on? That way ASG gets nothing. They only own the right to an NHL team in Atlanta, as per the Phoenix ruling.

Not really because in order to contract a team they have to buy the team from the owner to begin with. The league can't fold a team unilaterally and not give that owner market value in return, that would end up being a huge lawsuit. And if there is one thing we know about the Atlanta ownership group, they like suing people.

Buying the Thrashers for the price the team is worth in Atlanta and then selling it for the Winnipeg market is essentially what the league is doing by taking a relocation fee.

 

[manisback121]

Can the NHL contract the Thrashers and then issue a new franchise to TNSE for whatever amount they agree on? That way ASG gets nothing. They only own the right to an NHL team in Atlanta, as per the Phoenix ruling.

That would go over well especially when ASG recovers damages after a 2 year court case, while the peg waits to find out when their team will arrive and pedigree.

 

[Magnus Fulgur]

What ticks me off about the Atlanta Spirit is that they spent at or near the cap floor for the past three seasons, and lo and behold they lost money each year. That's because the team had no freakin' depth because they were cheap. Nobody (including me) wanted to waste money on this product KNOWING that there was no urge to improve it. We all could see they only cared about The Hawks. It sucked.

If they had spent $56 million like Tampa, they wouldn't be losing 10-20m a year. They'd be making money. Gotta spend to make. You can spend 41m and LOSE 15m OR spend 56M and break even or make 5-10M. Which would you do???

That's why the league wont' save Atlanta. The market might be worth saving, but the franchise is not. These jokers screwed everyone over, the players, the fans, the city of Atlanta AND the NHL.

 

[Killion]

Can the NHL contract the Thrashers and then issue a new franchise to TNSE for whatever amount they agree on? That way ASG gets nothing. They only own the right to an NHL team in Atlanta, as per the Phoenix ruling.

That would go over well especially when ASG recovers damages after a 2 year court case, while the peg waits to find out when their team will arrive and pedigree.

Yes & no XX. There is a precedence for the suggestion & question, and something I would actually advocate in light of ASG's willful bad faith in running the franchise into the ground, an "eye for an eye" if you will, however its not practicable in this situation in as much as I think they deserve it.

Exhibit A; the St Louis Blues circa 1983. After 6yrs of ownership & avg. losses of app. $1.8M per annum, Ralson Purina put the franchise up for sale & couldnt find a local buyer. Along came a guy named "Wild" Bill Hunter from Saskatoon, who backed by a consortium made an offer for relocation. The NHL forbid it, Ralston throwing the keys on the desk & walking away voluntarily. The NHL then Contracted the franchise & within minutes turned around & created-sold an Expansion franchise for St.Louis to Harry Ornest for a song. The league had control of the arena through the team so it was feasible. The St.Louis Shuffle.

Could the same mechanism have been deployed by the NHL in Phoenix over the Moyes fiasco?. Possibly, had the NHL done so prior to Moyes taking the team into BK, and that may well have been what was in the works absent the actual Contraction part as Moyes had signed away his right of ownership in November 2008. A squeeze play with Reinsdorf picking up the pieces. . Could it be executed in Atlanta?. Yes it could, but in Atlanta you'd still be faced with a relo sale because ASG controls the arena & you'd have nowhere to play. Additionally, ASG would likely seek & receive an injunction that would stop the sale, suspending the franchise in stasis until the court case, and a very expensive one at that, is resolved.

The NHL would have to prove Bad Faith, and from what Ive read & seen, though clearly negligent & absentee' in marketing & promoting, icing competitive teams, not so sure a Judge would agree that they deserved zero consideration & payment for the asset. For the sake of expediency, the NHL has absolutely no choice but to insure ASG receive a fair & equitable price for the franchise. There is such a thing as Karma however, and Im quite certain the cabal of ASG will find a special place in Hell awaiting them for what they've done to Atlanta.

 

[Mantha Poodoo]

There is such a thing as Karma however, and Im quite certain the cabal of ASG will find a special place in Hell awaiting them for what they've done to Atlanta.

A chamber shared with Gary Bettman, perhaps?

 

[William Satterwhite]

Just curious what would constitute "on ice success" which would prove the market. Is that making the playoffs every year (most teams don't make it *every* year)? Is it icing a competitive team every year (because except for the big losing streak this year, the Thrashers certainly had that)? What is the necessary condition to be 'successful'? Not trying to be a jerk, just wanting to know what that condition is, as I've heard it a number of times from a number of Atlanta fans.

I think the fans would for the most part just be happy with a clear commitment by ownership to putting the best team possible out on the ice and fully supporting that team to the best of ownership's ability. I think if you look at a team like Nashville, there's no doubt that organization from top to bottom is committed to doing as well as they can within their means despite the fact that not a lot of actual money is being spent- it's all in how the organization is run and managed. That's what has never been the case in Atlanta, at least not in the Atlanta Spirit era. It's silly to expect the team to win and go to playoffs every year but fans should be able to expect that to be the goal every year and for the owners to act like they actually care.

 

[Killion]

A chamber shared with Gary Bettman, perhaps?

You know?, I really dont share the majorities lousy opinion of the guy.....
Of course, getting a straight answer out of the man is like trying to pull Porcupine Quills from the snout of a rabid Wolverine with a pair of needlenose pliers. Without the aid of anesthetic's................................................................................

 

[Mantha Poodoo]

You know?, I really dont share the majorities lousy opinion of the guy.....

Oh, I think the guy is a shrewd businessman and a great lawyer. He's also the king of weasels, and...

...getting a straight answer out of the man is like trying to pull Porcupine Quills from the snout of a rabid Wolverine with a pair of needlenose pliers. Without the aid of anesthetic's...

Great commissioner from the business/law aspect. Charisma of a dead possum.

 

[wjhl2009fan]

What ticks me off about the Atlanta Spirit is that they spent at or near the cap floor for the past three seasons, and lo and behold they lost money each year. That's because the team had no freakin' depth because they were cheap. Nobody (including me) wanted to waste money on this product KNOWING that there was no urge to improve it. We all could see they only cared about The Hawks. It sucked.

If they had spent $56 million like Tampa, they wouldn't be losing 10-20m a year. They'd be making money. Gotta spend to make. You can spend 41m and LOSE 15m OR spend 56M and break even or make 5-10M. Which would you do???

That's why the league wont' save Atlanta. The market might be worth saving, but the franchise is not. These jokers screwed everyone over, the players, the fans, the city of Atlanta AND the NHL.

I don't think you can say they would have broke even 100% sure if they spend $56 million sure maybe they would have but the chance is they could have lost more money.

 

[Whileee]

NHL's message...

I have been wondering about these events in Glendale and Atlanta. The inescapable financial message is that many (most?) NHL franchises simply cannot break even or prosper without very favourable lease arrangements and revenues from the arena. In Atlanta, the current owners and future owners of the Hawks and arena operations are clearly unwilling or unable to subsidize a hockey team sufficiently with ancillary revenues. In Glendale, prospective owners have made it abundantly clear that unless there are substantial subsidies provided, and highly favourable arena lease conditions they have no interest in owning the Coyotes.

The NHL must know this too.

So, by agreeing to continue to operate the Coyotes in Glendale as long as the city picks up $25 million in operating costs, while letting the Thrashers relocate, the NHL is essentially sending a strong message to all cities with franchises; if the arena does not help to defray costs of the NHL team and the owners are not able to make ends meet, we are prepared to relocate the team.

 

[wjhl2009fan]

I have been wondering about these events in Glendale and Atlanta. The inescapable financial message is that many (most?) NHL franchises simply cannot break even or prosper without very favourable lease arrangements and revenues from the arena. In Atlanta, the current owners and future owners of the Hawks and arena operations are clearly unwilling or unable to subsidize a hockey team sufficiently with ancillary revenues. In Glendale, prospective owners have made it abundantly clear that unless there are substantial subsidies provided, and highly favourable arena lease conditions they have no interest in owning the Coyotes.

The NHL must know this too.

So, by agreeing to continue to operate the Coyotes in Glendale as long as the city picks up $25 million in operating costs, while letting the Thrashers relocate, the NHL is essentially sending a strong message to all cities with franchises; if the arena does not help to defray costs of the NHL team and the owners are not able to make ends meet, we are prepared to relocate the team.

I think it would be a very slippery slope if the messege was sent if your team is in trouble the league will take control of it so i have no issues with how there gong about it.

 

[jazznik]

Just curious what would constitute "on ice success" which would prove the market. Is that making the playoffs every year (most teams don't make it *every* year)? Is it icing a competitive team every year (because except for the big losing streak this year, the Thrashers certainly had that)? What is the necessary condition to be 'successful'? Not trying to be a jerk, just wanting to know what that condition is, as I've heard it a number of times from a number of Atlanta fans.

That, i guess, is the multi-million dollar question. Winning a playoff game would be a great start.

The problem with the Thrashers is that they bombed pretty quickly after making the playoffs so they didn't really have time to build of the success. If you look at the attendence figures you can see that as the team became more competative in the mid 2000's attendence rose with it.

Unfortunately, the year after winning their division the Thrashers finished 14th in the East and ASG started skimping on running the team. (That season, after firing Hartley 6 games into the season, instead of appointing a new coach, they made Don Waddell coach, aswell as expecting him to do his GM duties - a move widely believed to be a cost cutting measure. Things got worse from then on.)

Any expansion team in a non-traditonal market is going to need a bit of help to grow the game - there just isn't that hard core support to start with. Playoffs, or just winning in general, are a great way to attract casual fans and get them hooked on the game. Casual fans are attracted to success, the idea is you give them enough if it and they start to turn from casual fan to hard-core. I'm sure everyone knows a hard-core fan who started off with little interest in the game, the more time you spend watching a team the more invested you get in it and the harder it is for you to stay away.

It's hard to say exactly how much success the Thrashers 'need' because just as big (if not bigger) a turn-off for the fans has been the ownership. Just off these boards i know a number of season ticket holders who refused to re-new after Co-owner Levenson's "deal with it" comment. A number of fans refuse (rightly or wrongly) to give any money to ASG. Just changing ownership would likely lead to a spike in attendance.

Based on past attendance it's not hard to believe that a team with commited ownership that's competative (challenging for playoffs, making playoffs every now and then) would average at least 16,000. If they had a run of bigger success then who knows?

 

[Killion]

If they had a run of bigger success then who knows?

And thats the crying shame about it; all that wasted potential in a market that's key, with the NHL at a loss to do anything about it in the short-term as clearly ASG wants the team gone. Might not wind up with Old Trafford's numbers in terms of consistent attendance, but still, respectable.

 

[KevFu]

Yes & no XX. There is a precedence for the suggestion & question, and something I would actually advocate in light of ASG's willful bad faith in running the franchise into the ground, an "eye for an eye" if you will, however its not practicable in this situation in as much as I think they deserve it.

Exhibit A; the St Louis Blues circa 1983. After 6yrs of ownership & avg. losses of app. $1.8M per annum, Ralson Purina put the franchise up for sale & couldnt find a local buyer. Along came a guy named "Wild" Bill Hunter from Saskatoon, who backed by a consortium made an offer for relocation. The NHL forbid it, Ralston throwing the keys on the desk & walking away voluntarily. The NHL then Contracted the franchise & within minutes turned around & created-sold an Expansion franchise for St.Louis to Harry Ornest for a song. The league had control of the arena through the team so it was feasible. The St.Louis Shuffle.

Could the same mechanism have been deployed by the NHL in Phoenix over the Moyes fiasco?. Possibly, had the NHL done so prior to Moyes taking the team into BK, and that may well have been what was in the works absent the actual Contraction part as Moyes had signed away his right of ownership in November 2008. A squeeze play with Reinsdorf picking up the pieces. . Could it be executed in Atlanta?. Yes it could, but in Atlanta you'd still be faced with a relo sale because ASG controls the arena & you'd have nowhere to play. Additionally, ASG would likely seek & receive an injunction that would stop the sale, suspending the franchise in stasis until the court case, and a very expensive one at that, is resolved.

The NHL would have to prove Bad Faith, and from what Ive read & seen, though clearly negligent & absentee' in marketing & promoting, icing competitive teams, not so sure a Judge would agree that they deserved zero consideration & payment for the asset. For the sake of expediency, the NHL has absolutely no choice but to insure ASG receive a fair & equitable price for the franchise. There is such a thing as Karma however, and Im quite certain the cabal of ASG will find a special place in Hell awaiting them for what they've done to Atlanta.

I would argue that this SHOULD have been done in Phoenix. Jerry Moyes began an action that was specifically mentioned in the NHL Constitution & By-Laws as forbidden. Not only was the act forbidden, but specifically cited as an event which would automatically terminate the membership in the league:

3.9 Involuntary Termination

(a) The membership of a member shall terminate automatically upon the occurrence of any of the following events:

(i) The making of an assignment for the benefit of its creditors, or the filing of a voluntary petition in bankruptcy...

Technically, the Phoenix Coyotes membership in the NHL should have been automatically terminated. The league should have been shopping an expansion team somewhere in its place this entire time.

 

[kdb209]

3.9 Involuntary Termination

(a) The membership of a member shall terminate automatically upon the occurrence of any of the following events:

(i) The making of an assignment for the benefit of its creditors, or the filing of a voluntary petition in bankruptcy...

Technically, the Phoenix Coyotes membership in the NHL should have been automatically terminated. The league should have been shopping an expansion team somewhere in its place this entire time.

AIUI - that provision of the NHL Constitution is not enforceable, as it contravenes the statutory protections under US Bankruptcy law.

 

[The CyNick]

What ticks me off about the Atlanta Spirit is that they spent at or near the cap floor for the past three seasons, and lo and behold they lost money each year. That's because the team had no freakin' depth because they were cheap. Nobody (including me) wanted to waste money on this product KNOWING that there was no urge to improve it. We all could see they only cared about The Hawks. It sucked.

If they had spent $56 million like Tampa, they wouldn't be losing 10-20m a year. They'd be making money. Gotta spend to make. You can spend 41m and LOSE 15m OR spend 56M and break even or make 5-10M. Which would you do???

That's why the league wont' save Atlanta. The market might be worth saving, but the franchise is not. These jokers screwed everyone over, the players, the fans, the city of Atlanta AND the NHL.

Didnt Atlanta win their division like 4 years ago? Its not like this team has been at the very bottom of the league for the past ten years.

I like the crystal ball you have, its very interesting. There's no guarantee spending money = success on the ice or off. By just saying we needed to spend to the cap, you're not saying anything about spending the money wisely. Many teams spend money, but dont always see results. And even if Atlanta did somehow manage to attract the top free agents (which is unlikely) theres no guarantee they will play well as a team.

Obviously if someone is faced with two options; one to lose a grip of money and one to break even, they will always choose to break even. The reality is you never get any guarantees.

Perhaps ownership felt they would be throwing more money away by spending more on payroll.

 

[Confucius]

Didnt Atlanta win their division like 4 years ago? Its not like this team has been at the very bottom of the league for the past ten years.

I like the crystal ball you have, its very interesting. There's no guarantee spending money = success on the ice or off. By just saying we needed to spend to the cap, you're not saying anything about spending the money wisely. Many teams spend money, but dont always see results. And even if Atlanta did somehow manage to attract the top free agents (which is unlikely) theres no guarantee they will play well as a team.

Obviously if someone is faced with two options; one to lose a grip of money and one to break even, they will always choose to break even. The reality is you never get any guarantees.

Perhaps ownership felt they would be throwing more money away by spending more on payroll.

They did offer Kovy over 100 million, so you can't say they weren't trying

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

They did offer Kovy over 100 million, so you can't say they weren't trying

They offered him 100 million over 12 years (or 80 million over 8 years, if I recall correctly) due to the fact that they already knew he was not going to resign.

Interestingly, reports suggest that they (the Thrashers) went after Brian Campbell, and may have offered him more then the Blackhawks, but he spurned them to take a "paycut" to play on a winner.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

Didnt Atlanta win their division like 4 years ago? Its not like this team has been at the very bottom of the league for the past ten years.

Que?

 

[jazznik]

They offered him 100 million over 12 years (or 80 million over 8 years, if I recall correctly) due to the fact that they already knew he was not going to resign.

Interestingly, reports suggest that they (the Thrashers) went after Brian Campbell, and may have offered him more then the Blackhawks, but he spurned them to take a "paycut" to play on a winner.

Yep - instead of overpaying Campbell by 3 million a year we ended up overpaying Ron Hainsey by 2 million a year.

 

[Steve Passless*]

Im quite certain the cabal of ASG will find a special place in Hell awaiting them for what they've done to Atlanta.

Yeah, some businessmen are going to go to hell when they die because they had to buy a hockey team they didn't really want to own. If doing a poor job running the Thrashers has them going to hell "for what they've done to Atlanta," I'd hate to see what happened to Sherman.

 

[Retail1LO*]

Yeah, some businessmen are going to go to hell when they die because they had to buy a hockey team they didn't really want to own. If doing a poor job running the Thrashers has them going to hell "for what they've done to Atlanta," I'd hate to see what happened to Sherman.

They sent him to Winnipeg.

 

[Killion]

I would argue that this SHOULD have been done in Phoenix. Jerry Moyes began an action that was specifically mentioned in the NHL Constitution & By-Laws as forbidden. Not only was the act forbidden, but specifically cited as an event which would automatically terminate the membership in the league: Technically, the Phoenix Coyotes membership in the NHL should have been automatically terminated. The league should have been shopping an expansion team somewhere in its place this entire time.

Not so fast there....

AIUI - that provision of the NHL Constitution is not enforceable, as it contravenes the statutory protections under US Bankruptcy law.

True kdb, however, the NHL appears to have Mr.Moyes dead to rights in the contravention of league covenants & will extract its $63M+ pound of flesh. He signed away his rights to do as you suggest & Baum never ruled on the legitimacy of the action. KevFu is advocating "sharp practice" tactics' which many here feel are appropriate under the circumstances in losing Atlanta & retrospectively in Phoenix. Moyes pre-empted the NHL/Reinsdorf squeeze play; the NHL again got caught flat footed in Atlanta and are now being shutout of the market when in fact the writing was on the wall 5-7yrs ago. He who procrastinates will have decisions made for him.

 

[knorthern knight]

Can the NHL contract the Thrashers and then issue a new franchise to TNSE for whatever amount they agree on? That way ASG gets nothing. They only own the right to an NHL team in Atlanta, as per the Phoenix ruling.

Can they? Yes. Is it a good idea? Mehhh. Remember that the NHL is dealing with a bunch of litigious idiots who've sued their own partners in a multi-year battle, and now their own lawyers. Do you really want to provoke these guys into a messy court battle? It's one think to charge a relocation fee (legal precedent from other court cases). It's totally another to prove lack of good faith. And no, years of chatter on web forums is not solid evidence.