Bill Daly is Probably Wrong – Just Like Bettman Was

Jonathan Willis
May 09 2009 11:31AM

coppscoliseum

NHL Deputy Commissioner Bill Daly continued the NHL’s PR war against Jim Balsillie and Jerry Moyes on Friday, claiming that there were “at least three” serious suitors for the Phoenix Coyotes before Moyes pulled the rug out of everyone’s feet and moved the Coyotes into bankruptcy.

Here are the money quotes, courtesy of TSN:

”There have been at least three expressions of interest with serious money behind them to operate this team in Glendale. The most recent expression and the one that's farthest along would have involved all of the creditors being paid all their money back and having stable ownership and a fully funded franchise going forward."

"The only person who generates additional cash out of the Balsillie bid for relocation to Hamilton would be Jerry Moyes. None of the creditors would get any additional money from that bid."

I’ve got a few points to make about these quotes:

1) When Bill Daly says that the only person who will make any extra money out of this bid would be Jerry Moyes. I’m quite sure he’s wrong there; it won’t just be Jerry Moyes, it will be everyone with an ownership stake, including Wayne Gretzky. 2) Since Daly admits that Moyes is going to make more money out of a Balsillie bid, obviously none of the other three “expressions of interest” were willing to pony up as much money, and that’s a key consideration. 3) Why shouldn’t Moyes make some of his money back? Since investing his personal fortune in the club, he’s lost a ton of cash. Back in 2003 the number was pegged at $100 million by ESPN, and Moyes now puts the figure at “over $300 million”; whatever the actual number is, Moyes clearly isn’t making any money on this transaction. 4) It’s a lot easier for Bill Daly to talk about “expressions of interest with serious money behind them” than it is for a potential owner to put up more than $200 million dollars to buy the team. Balsillie’s put the money up, which is more than the NHL can say about any of these other bidders, who by their own admission aren’t offering as much money. 5) Those “three expressions of interest” wouldn’t be from these three people, would they? The reason I ask is because if the NHL approaches someone, they take a look at the books and say no, I don’t think it’s fair to call it an “expression of interest”.

Of course, all of those points are even assuming that we’re willing to give the NHL the benefit of the doubt and take them at their word; something which I personally see no compelling reason to do. In fact, I distrust virtually everything the NHL says on this front, based on what they’ve said in the past. Consider for example what Gary Bettman said back in February:

"There's been a tremendous amount of speculation and commentary about the state of the Coyotes. I think most of it has been terribly unfair to the Coyotes organization, to the players, and, most important, to the fans. There are some issues we're working on in terms of getting a new capital infusion for the club, which will probably take the form of some new partners for (majority investor) Jerry Moyes, or even a possible sale of the franchise. But these reports of the franchise's demise are just ridiculous."

"I think the thing people shouldn't lose sight of is that Jerry Moyes has been committed to Glendale, he's been committed to the Coyotes. We're not just talking about energy and passion, we're talking about a huge financial commitment. He's somebody who believes, as do I, that the future of the Coyotes is in Glendale."

We're working on bringing this to a conclusion by season's end. Business is being conducted as usual, and all the rumors about things that are going wrong are simply without merit.

(bolding mine)

There’s absolutely no reason to trust the NHL on this one and there are a lot of very good reasons not to.

And It’s All About Hamilton

Of course, it may not just be Balsillie who has his eyes on Hamilton. A report in the Hamilton Spectator suggests that Vancouver-based Tom Gaglardi (who has previously tried to purchase the Vancouver Canucks) is interested in purchasing the Atlanta Thrashers and moving them to Hamilton.

A quote from the article:

Gaglardi's group is Steeltown's second NHL suitor. There are now rumours of as many as five groups looking at Hamilton and Copps Coliseum for an NHL team.

It almost sounds like Balsillie’s started an avalanche here, and that may end up hurting him, because I’m fairly sure that Gary Bettman would welcome Satan (and we’re not talking Miroslav) as an investor before he would welcome Balsillie. It’s a disappointing tack for Gary Bettman to take, and it wouldn’t surprise me if it eventually ends him as NHL commissioner. After all, right now he’s fighting to keep a money-losing franchise in Phoenix by finding a new owner who will pay less money than Balsillie for the team. This directly hurts NHL owners, who a) pay financial assistance to money-losing clubs and b) almost certainly wouldn’t mind seeing franchise values inflated by bids like Balsillie’s.

74b7cedc5d8bfbe88cf071309e98d2c3
Jonathan Willis is a freelance writer. He currently works for Oilers Nation, the Edmonton Journal and Bleacher Report. He's co-written three books and worked for myriad websites, including Grantland, ESPN, The Score, and Hockey Prospectus. He was previously the founder and managing editor of Copper & Blue.
Avatar
#1 Chris
May 09 2009, 11:38AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Bettman doesn't seem to be nearly as concerned about the overall health of the league, as he is about his own position of power. In my line of work; we refer to this phenomina as "little-man-big-desk syndrom".

Avatar
#2 B-Rad
May 09 2009, 12:02PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Just does not wanna admit he's made a mistake. They really didn't caer to much about losing a Canadian team, but the sure don't want to bring them back.

Avatar
#3 Jonathan Willis
May 09 2009, 12:18PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

B-Rad wrote:

They really didn’t caer to much about losing a Canadian team, but the sure don’t want to bring them back.

I almost wonder if Bettman isn't learning from what happened to Quebec and Winnipeg, and doesn't want to repeat the experience.

Avatar
#4 Chris
May 09 2009, 12:32PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@ Jonathan Willis:

Bettman sure fought hard to get a new building in Tampa... but did nothing to help the good folks in Winnepeg. Now, several money losing years later; Does anyone really belive a Winnipeg franchise would be in as much trouble as the one in Phoenix? I know there isn't the same corporate base... but the Jets would be dominate in that albiet smaller market. Bettman put Katz through the full ringer before approving the sale of the Oilers, and now this thing with Balsillie... I think Bettman is intimidated by the next generation of strong, wealthy Canadian ownership... People credit Bettman for saving hockey in Edmonton... I wonder if that's true at all. Maybe Bettman just didn't have the right crimminal investor lined up yet stateside at the time.

Avatar
#5 GSC
May 09 2009, 12:32PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Jonathan Willis wrote:

I almost wonder if Bettman isn’t learning from what happened to Quebec and Winnipeg, and doesn’t want to repeat the experience.

What happened in Quebec City and Winnipeg were squarely arena issues. Those franchises also didn't have the financial wherewithal that Balsillie has to not only keep a team in Canada, but to have it thrive.

The NHL's Napoleon is running out of excuses. As Eric Duhatschek's brilliant article in today's Globe and Mail suggests, Bettman's belief in franchise stability is purely situational. He may be opposed to moving Phoenix right now, but he's also used the threat of relocation several times in the past in attempts to secure new arenas. Hell, he did it in Edmonton and Calgary.

Here's to hoping this Napoleon meets his fate at Waterloo, literally.

Avatar
#6 zagreb
May 09 2009, 01:20PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

``After all, right now he’s fighting to keep a money-losing franchise in Phoenix by finding a new owner who will pay less money than Balsillie for the team. This directly hurts NHL owners, who a) pay financial assistance to money-losing clubs and b) almost certainly wouldn’t mind seeing franchise values inflated by bids like Balsillie’s``

Exactly, so then what the hell is bettmans problem? Does anyone know who owns the arena in glendale? Cause is seems to me that that is who bettman is working for, not the nhl. I cant wait until Bettman gets replaced

Avatar
#7 jeanshorts
May 09 2009, 01:44PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

I also find it hilarious that the NHL keeps condemning Balsille for not adhering to the NHL's rules when it come to franchises and business, when in reality those same rules are in violation of a lot of real world laws in terms of business owning and operating. For instance the NHL has a rule that states you are not allowed to operate a franchise within 50 miles of another franchise. Would anyone ever be able to do that in the real world? "You can't open your Subway next to my Quiznos, you're in direct violation of the sandwich shop code of conduct."

Avatar
#8 cm
May 09 2009, 02:28PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@ jeanshorts:

Although I've never seen two subway stores right next to each other.

Avatar
#9 Bad Seed
May 09 2009, 02:30PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@ jeanshorts: The trouble with your theory is that Subway & Quiznos are two different entities. I'm sure there are rules in the Subway world about you opening your Subway across the street from another Subway. Capice?

Avatar
#10 Tim S
May 09 2009, 02:31PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Whatever the long term plan for Ontario is in the NHL's mind I think they need to let it be known. If the plan is to save it for a future expansion Franchise then say so, that is something I can respect. But if the plan is we really don't know then shame on them.

Phx is in trouble and at some point the NHL needs to stop wishing for this sunbelt fan base and instead focus on what they have and that is an area in Ontario that could support another team.

Avatar
#11 Cam
May 09 2009, 02:37PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

I wish they never would have moved the Winnipeg team in the first place. I miss the Jets.

Avatar
#12 TonyT
May 09 2009, 02:39PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

I fail to understand why people (especially here in Edmonton with our own period in history with instability) are so quick to rally around Balsillie and condemn Bettman. From my point of view (which I will admit may be flawed as I have no direct correlation to the league offices and therefore is open to correction) I see no reason to condemn Bettman and Daly in THIS particular instance. (1) Bettman and Daly work for the Board of Governors, therefore they represent their views and opinions. Their is a difference between a Commissioner and a President (or CEO) in that a Commissioner's job is to carry out league mandates not create them. (2) Jerry Moyes has every right to sell his share of the franchise to whomever he chooses however, the purchaser of such shares does not have the right to pick up and move the franchise without the league's approval. I've seen a few comments that the league controlling the locations of franchises is "bush league." I disagree, being able to move a franchise overnight wherever you want is "bush league". (3) The league continuing to publicly support hockey in Arizona is considered by some to be detrimental to the league's health. How is publicly supporting a franchise bad for business? It's the league's job to portray stability. How is the league supposed to promote, sell, and grow it's product when non-traditional hockey markets are constantly scrutinized and threatened with relocation? I find it very ignorant for us Canadian hockey fans to dismiss the 10,000 fans in Phoenix as a non-hockey market. I've watched the Oilers play at jobing.com arena and sure there weren't that many fans, but there were Phoenix fans there. It's disrespectful to those fans to constantly challenge their right to exist, not to mention ignorant given the history of western Canadian NHL franchises and Gery Bettman's assistance in keeping hockey here, specifically Edmonton and not moving the team to Houston. There was a time in the mid-90s when the Oilers had difficulty drawing more than 12,000 to a game, dido for the Flames pre-'04 Cup run, and you need only look at the turnover rate of ownership in Vancouver to see how profitable that franchise has been.

Don't get me wrong, do I think the Coyotes can survive in Phoenix or the Thrashers in Atlanta, I believe that remains to be seen. Since the inception of either of those franchises when have they honestly had any reason to cheer about. I think history has shown how we as Canadians (specifically Edmontonians) have responded to non-competitive hockey teams, to say that those same franchises would be succesful in Canada with identical records is pretty ignorant.

If I were responsible for franchise locations, I would first consider moving the New Jersey Devils, here is a team that is always a threat to win and still has trouble drawing fans on a consistent basis. That to me is an exhausted hockey market. And while I do believe Hamilton could support an NHL team (with arena upgrades at least), I believe the NHL would be better served strengthening the western conference geographically by moving a team to Seattle or Portland (which both have NHL ready facilities and present greater geographical adavantages).

Avatar
#13 MustardTiger4Life
May 09 2009, 02:49PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Give us our game back. Let them play and watch baseball in Arizona.

Avatar
#14 Lofty
May 09 2009, 02:54PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

The NHL office needs to cleaned out. Look at the gaffs that have come about in the last week.

1) Midget Bettman refuses to let a dead dog die in Phoenix. Moving the team would be good for just about everyone except for the mini man's ego. I love the blatent lies about the financial situation in AZ that JW pointed out.

2) The obvious goal that was called off in the Carolina game. I see the line, I see the entire puck standing on end past the line, how do you not count it?

3) Not suspending Ovechkin for a blatent knee on Pitts best D-man. Pitt should pull Brian Marchment out of retirement and let him end the guys career. I love watching him play but its just not right!

Avatar
#15 jeanshorts
May 09 2009, 02:58PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Bad Seed wrote:

@ jeanshorts: The trouble with your theory is that Subway & Quiznos are two different entities. I’m sure there are rules in the Subway world about you opening your Subway across the street from another Subway. Capice?

Well then let's take Starbucks for example. There is literally 3 Starbucks within a one block radius of each other right by my place. And about 15 blocks down from that there are two Starbucks kitty corner to each other. Does that work for you? All I'm saying is that the rules the NHL uses to enforce a lot of their business practices don't hold up in the real world, and if it was ever taken to court I'm not sure the NHL would come out on top.

Avatar
#16 Brian O'Neill
May 09 2009, 03:00PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Eight canadian teams, how nice would that be.

Avatar
#17 The Menace
May 09 2009, 03:05PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

His motives may be weiner-smart, but his actions are ball-silly.

Avatar
#18 TonyT
May 09 2009, 03:10PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Brian O'Neill wrote:

Eight canadian teams, how nice would that be.

8 Canadian teams? I only need one - the Edmonton Oilers!

Avatar
#19 kingsblade
May 09 2009, 03:34PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

jeanshorts wrote:

Bad Seed wrote: @ jeanshorts: The trouble with your theory is that Subway & Quiznos are two different entities. I’m sure there are rules in the Subway world about you opening your Subway across the street from another Subway. Capice? Well then let’s take Starbucks for example. There is literally 3 Starbucks within a one block radius of each other right by my place. And about 15 blocks down from that there are two Starbucks kitty corner to each other. Does that work for you? All I’m saying is that the rules the NHL uses to enforce a lot of their business practices don’t hold up in the real world, and if it was ever taken to court I’m not sure the NHL would come out on top.

As a pro sports league the NHL has specific exemptions from a number of laws that regulate other businesses, and specifically, they have many anti-trust exemptions. They are granted because otherwise there would be no realistic way to run a league with privately owned teams. Every pro league has similar exemptions. The league would hold up fine in court over the types of thing you have mentioned.

Your Starbucks example doesn't work either, because even with them you cannot put one up kitty corner from another without permission from head office. It would only be allowed in a location where the market could support both locations. Starbucks is one of the strongest companies in the world at market research and determining where new locations can thrive. That's the main reason why many real estate investors follow the Starbucks rule before investing. (You look for new Starbucks locations to help determine areas on the rise in terms of property value - thus piggybacking on their research)

Avatar
#20 Johnny Canuck
May 09 2009, 04:27PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

I'll throw this question out there because I really don't have an answer to it because I don't live there. Would/could the whole Southern Ontario region be able to support 4 teams; Thrashers, Leafs, Coyotes and Senators in their respective markets, Hamilton, Toronto, Kitchner/Waterloo (Take your toy to your own backyard Jimmy) and Ottawa? Is the population big enough? Ontario is as big as both Pennsylvania and New York State, i think, and there is 5 teams between the two. Just a question.

Avatar
#21 Traktor
May 09 2009, 04:43PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Great stuff.

Avatar
#22 Archaeologuy
May 09 2009, 04:50PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Bettman is a slimeball. If Balsille was willing to go to KC this deal would already have happened. The NHL is desperately holding onto this crazy idea that it needs to be in the largest US markets in order to make money. All this theory has proven is that the NHL's future will not depend on the total American audience. If the NHL REALLY doesnt want the Yotes or the Thrashers be relocated to Canada or anywhere else then the League should bite the bullet and Contract. Start the dispersal draft before July 1st and say good-bye to the failed experiment of a 30 team league.

The NHL is so watered down that we've been changing the rules continuously in order to make the game interesting again. The fabric of the game has been stretched SO far that it has torn.

So if Bettman and Daly would rather cut off their nose to spite their face maybe that's the route they should take in order to keep Balsille from moving the team.

Avatar
#23 Greg MC
May 09 2009, 05:21PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Jonathan,

I agree 100% with your assessment. The Yotes are bleeding other teams owners money, and in conjunction with the recession I believe that most of the other teams owners would jump for joy with the Basille money becuse they don't have to subsidize that team any more. It will cost Bettman his job if he holds firm to this path. Is it stubborness, or foolishness? Maybe he wants a package to leave.

Avatar
#24 OilDude
May 09 2009, 05:37PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Bettman and his lapdog Daly are 2 assholes crapping from the same orifice,they say for months that the NHL is not helping the yotes and now they say they have been running the team since november and the guy who has lost hundreds of millions of dollars has no say in the team.What a load of BULLSHIT the owners of all the other NHL teams should start to worry about these 2 assholes who are running this league into the ground and costing them money.

Avatar
#25 Travis Dakin
May 09 2009, 06:24PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@ kingsblade: @ Bad Seed:

Thanks for flaunting the mighty brain power boys. I called a couple girls and they were impressed that you knew "stuff."

It was a simple musing.... It's funny that the NHL is so adamant about playing by their rules when they don't play by the rules so tightly themselves. But feel free to debunk that opinion.

Avatar
#26 Jason Gregor
May 09 2009, 07:20PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

There are few things you are overlooking.

1) Bettman wouldn't have accepted the deal if Balsillie had said he was going to KC instead of Hamilton. When an owner buys the team, there is a clause that states if he wants to sell the team to someone to keep it in that city, he can, but having a deal that involves relocation isn't allowed.

2) Yes Bettman screwed up in letting Quebec and Winnipeg lose their teams so easily, and that is exactly why he isn't keen on letting it happen now. The fact is, you will never have all 30 teams financially stable.

It was only a few years ago that Washington was close to the same situation as Phoenix. Same with Pittsburgh and Chicago. And what happened, they got superstars and started to win and the fans came back.

Phoenix has good young talent, and if the team stays I wouldn't be shocked to see them sell out. Will it last forever? No.

Look at Colorado now that they aren't a perennial division winner. They don't sell out every game anymore. Same in Dallas.

There will always be ups and downs. Clearly Phoenix is in dire need of support, but if the NHL allows owners to sell to whoever they want, then you'll have teams moving all over the place and that is not good for the league.

It was only 15 years ago that right here in Edmonton there was 4-8000 fans a night. This is supposed to be a great hockey market, and even we didn't support the team.

How many Oiler fans said, "I won't go to another game until MacT is fired", or "If they keep losing I'm done cheering". While most of those comments were from windbags, there were some of you that stopped watching. And that leads to not going to games. The key is to not have your down years last longer than four or five.

Avatar
#27 Jason Gregor
May 09 2009, 07:23PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

AND here is another snippet...this one from Marc Edelman, a Rutgers Law School professor who has specialized in sports anti-trust cases, said it's unprecedented to have a bankruptcy court decide whether a professional sports league has violated anti-trust laws.

"There always has been a conflict of the powers of an individual team and the power of a league. To the extent a court would overrule this, it would open up the door where an owner could sell to the highest bidder irrespective of how other teams in the league feel about it."

This will be very interesting to see how it plays out.

Avatar
#28 Chris
May 09 2009, 07:52PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Jason Gregor wrote:

It was only 15 years ago that right here in Edmonton there was 4-8000 fans a night. This is supposed to be a great hockey market, and even we didn’t support the team

To celebrate the signing of Jason Arnott the Oilers had a one time promotion whereby they sold nose-bleed seats for only eight dollars. I ponied up the eight bucks and moved my butt down to the Golds... It was difficult to watch a team as flat out bad as that; but beer helped.

Avatar
#29 TonyT
May 09 2009, 11:10PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@ Jason Gregor: My sentiments exactly.

"Unfortunately after the game I was going to congratulate him, but he skated away with his head down. I'm sure we'll talk next game." - Canucks goalie Roberto Luongo about Hawks winger Dustin Byfuglien.

Talk about eating pie! Vancouver sucks, if only they had a captain recognized by the league...

Avatar
#30 SkinnyD
May 09 2009, 11:12PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Sure, Balsillie doesn't seem to play by the NHL's rules, and that may cost him from owning a franchise for a long time. But why would a businessman want to buy a business that's been failing under the current structure? He's guaranteed to succeed in Ontario - I'm betting that both Hamilton AND Kitchener/Waterloo could sell out nightly, each with their own franchises.

Balsillie's offer helps the Coyote's owner pay off his debt and creditors, and to stop losing money. It also takes the business to a place where it can succeed. Why would you want to do it any other way, when you're spending millions to do it? Throwing money at any problem rarely solves it - and I'd be hard pressed to believe that simple equation will work in Phoenix.

I understand not wanting to relocate teams, but I think Bettman's desire to grow the game in certain American centers has failed and needs to be ended. The Game is strong in Canada again - all the Canadian franchises are healthy. The NHL needs to do its footwork and get infrastructure ready in a few more places in Canada, and then grow some balls, admit they were wrong, and relocate some failing US franchises.

If you fail at something, it is unwise to try again in exactly the same way.

Avatar
#31 RossCreek
May 09 2009, 11:19PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

I like Jim Hughson. I don't hate the Canucks. I'm cheering for the Hawks. But Jim Hughson should not do Vancouver playoff games.

Avatar
#32 kingsblade
May 10 2009, 12:34AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Travis Dakin wrote:

@ kingsblade: @ Bad Seed: Thanks for flaunting the mighty brain power boys. I called a couple girls and they were impressed that you knew “stuff.” It was a simple musing…. It’s funny that the NHL is so adamant about playing by their rules when they don’t play by the rules so tightly themselves. But feel free to debunk that opinion.

Aw that's sweet. Thanks for using my reply to sooth your flagging ego by attempting to belittle it for no reason.

It isn't musing anymore when it is repeated and even argued. I simply explained why the "musings" made no sense. I'm sorry you don't "know stuff" but you don't have to be an a#$hole about it.

Your comment that they don't play by the rules was the whole point. You can't make that comment when you don't know what the rules are.

Avatar
#33 kingsblade
May 10 2009, 12:51AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Jason Gregor wrote:

AND here is another snippet…this one from Marc Edelman, a Rutgers Law School professor who has specialized in sports anti-trust cases, said it’s unprecedented to have a bankruptcy court decide whether a professional sports league has violated anti-trust laws. “There always has been a conflict of the powers of an individual team and the power of a league. To the extent a court would overrule this, it would open up the door where an owner could sell to the highest bidder irrespective of how other teams in the league feel about it.” This will be very interesting to see how it plays out.

It will definitely be interesting because it is even less clear than you made it sound.

While it is unprecedented there are some things that are predictable though. It could very much open the door that you just mentioned, but there is very little chance of allowing a condition like the one in question here. There are precedents for reading down the contract, meaning the court could conceivably change the condition of its own volition, meaning it could be changed from "move to S. Ontario" to "move to a new location." This would allow the sale and allow most parties to retain their rights. This is not terribly likely because courts don't like to do that very much when the person getting burned is a bona fide purchaser. (Balsillie)

A second crazy possibility would be to strike the condition altogether. There are precedents and the court has the power to do it, but again they would be hurting the last party the want to hurt.

This means the judge is essentially going to be deciding between the rights of the creditors and the rights of the NHL, an odd situation. The NHL really hurt themselves when they failed to find a second buyer for the team because at this point they are essentially asking the court to deny all creditors their money until the NHL decides to arrange their repayment. Certain judges may find this terribly offensive.

This got really long, but in short - I think this may just end up opening door for purchasers, but I really doubt it will open the door for forced relocation. Edelman's statement is a bit over the top because, while it is unprecedented in a bankruptcy court, there are precedents to work with to examine the options.

Avatar
#34 Travis Dakin
May 10 2009, 04:44AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

.kingsblade wrote:

Aw that’s sweet. Thanks for using my reply to sooth your flagging ego by attempting to belittle it for no reason. It isn’t musing anymore when it is repeated and even argued. I simply explained why the “musings” made no sense. I’m sorry you don’t “know stuff” but you don’t have to be an a#$hole about it.

Reason being is you're one of those people that come on here and argue with absolutely anything even if it is not something that needs to be argued. And I do know "stuff", but I don't need to have the safety net of an anonymous name and ample time to think of fancy ways to over articulate my responses before I press send or enter. Lighten up I was teasing you

Avatar
#35 Travis Dakin
May 10 2009, 04:47AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

kingsblade wrote:

Thanks for using my reply to sooth your flagging ego

The only thing I use to sooth my flagging ego is a set of abnormally small hands. I can't play a piano but EVERYTHING looks ridiculously big when I hold it. Optics is the key.

Avatar
#36 VInce
May 10 2009, 06:38AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Your third point is absolutely right. For Daly to say "The only person who generates additional cash out of the Balsillie bid for relocation to Hamilton would be Jerry Moyes." makes him look like an idiot. Why shouldn't a guy who sank millions into Bettman's "NHL in the American sunbelt" (pipe)dream not get some of his money back. In my opinion this quote does nothing to strengthen his case to any reasonable obeserver and merely demonizes someone I'm sure a lot of hockey fans feel bad for.... I mean if Phoenix and the other southern teams were sucessful and the NHL were on it's way to being a top tier league with serious TV money the topic of a 7th canadian team would be pretty far sown the list of concerns an average fan might have.

Avatar
#37 Milli
May 10 2009, 08:49AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Jason,

Avatar
#38 Milli
May 10 2009, 08:53AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Sorry, Jason, do you think that Bettman may end up in trouble as far as ownership support? It seems to me that when you have someone offering alot more than a francise is worth, Not taking it is a bad idea. But more than that, after telling these owners that they needed a salary cap, getting it, but then it went sky high, isn't there becoming alot of tension between him and the owners? I'd love to see more Canadian teams, Hockey should be played where people love the game.

Avatar
#39 Archaeologuy
May 10 2009, 09:04AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Jason Gregor wrote:

1) Bettman wouldn’t have accepted the deal if Balsillie had said he was going to KC instead of Hamilton. When an owner buys the team, there is a clause that states if he wants to sell the team to someone to keep it in that city, he can, but having a deal that involves relocation isn’t allowed.

As much as I would like to believe that Bettman is concerned with the letter of the law when it comes to Ownership, I doubt he consideres the rules little more than rough guidelines. *cough...Boots Del Biaggio...cough*

If Balsille wanted to move the team to KC then he wouldnt have to play his hand publicly. Doing these dealings in the public eye ensures the inability of the NHL to ignore his actions or to sweep everything under the rug. The league CLEARLY does not want to come back into Canada, so maybe Balsille feels like this is the only way to create a fair playing field.

Avatar
#40 kingsblade
May 10 2009, 09:28AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Travis Dakin wrote:

Reason being is you’re one of those people that come on here and argue with absolutely anything even if it is not something that needs to be argued. And I do know “stuff”, but I don’t need to have the safety net of an anonymous name and ample time to think of fancy ways to over articulate my responses before I press send or enter. Lighten up I was teasing you

The things is...I wasn't arguing. It was "mused" that the NHL might break laws by regulating team locations, and I did nothing but explain why the league does not have to answer to many anti-trust laws. That hardly qualifies as an argument.

I also like how you tell me your post was for arguing too much, insult me, and then tell me you were only teasing. That's not really how a "lighten up" speech usually works. I've been in exactly 6 arguments on this site in total, I'm pretty sure that's not a record, and I'm sorry if you don't like the way I speak. The ways my words come out is actually the opposite of your assumption, in that I write too fast and don't have time to dress my statements down for you.

Safety net? 1) It's pretty presumptuous to assume anything about how much time I have to spend on here posting, especially since I post about a quarter as often as you. 2) I hate to tell you this but "Travis Dakin" is every bit as anonymous to me as "Kingsblade" is to you, and I'm pretty sure you must feel fairly anonymous because I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be so quick to insult people you don't know to heir face and tell them to lighten up.

Avatar
#41 Chris
May 10 2009, 10:35AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@ kingsblade:

Wow. You're just making friends everywhere you go.

Avatar
#42 kingsblade
May 10 2009, 01:00PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Chris wrote:

@ kingsblade: Wow. You’re just making friends everywhere you go.

Why are you here to make friends? I'm here to read about and discuss the Oilers.

Pardon me if I find it irritating when I explain something someone clearly doesn't know and he decides that would be a good time to insult me. At least he's a decent sort who happened to irritate me yesterday. You're just irritating altogether.

Avatar
#43 MrOiler
May 10 2009, 01:23PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

I don't believe that the Winnipeg and Quebec relocations were Bettman's fault. The Canadian $ was in horrible shape and the future looked bleak. Both cities had poor buildings and there was no will by the communities to invest in one. Both buildings made Rexal place look like the Taj Mahal.

In Winnipeg, the Jets owner tried to sell the team to a local owner for over a year at a below market price. No one would step forward.

You can't pin that on the NHL.

Avatar
#44 MrOiler
May 10 2009, 01:29PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

As for Balsillie and Hamilton, if I was a current NHL team owner in Florida, Atlanta, Phoenix, the Island, or Tampa Bay, I would be screaming BLOODY murder if they let an outsider into the plumb Ontario market.

Think about it. You dump millions into a tough market and they let some jackass with a checkbook set up shop in a goldmine - circumventing all league bylaws and procedures.

Wouldn't you like to have had first rights on that given that you've already invested years and millions into the NHL?

Avatar
#45 Wanye Gretz
May 10 2009, 03:03PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@ Chris: @ kingsblade: @ Travis Dakin:

This is basically the most intensity that anything connected to the word "Oilers" has seen in weeks. Bring the heat!

Question

Did anyone else think MacTavish would have had a press conference by now? Uh what is the deal there exactly?

Avatar
#46 Archaeologuy
May 10 2009, 03:53PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Wanye Gretz wrote:

Did anyone else think MacTavish would have had a press conference by now? Uh what is the deal there exactly?

I guess he didnt want to be pelted with rotten fruits and vegetables by the rabid mob.

Avatar
#47 kingsblade
May 10 2009, 04:07PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Wanye Gretz wrote:

Did anyone else think MacTavish would have had a press conference by now? Uh what is the deal there exactly?

I wonder if he's waiting until he has a new job before addressing the public. I sure expected something by now.

Avatar
#48 TonyT
May 10 2009, 05:02PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Just watched the Reporters on tsn.ca discuss the Phoenix/Balsillie situation and one of them makes an interesting point in that if Balsillie merely tried to buy Nashville unconditionally (instead of forcing his way) and tried operating there, he probably would have been able to move that team to Hamilton right now like Karmanos did with the Hurricanes in Hartford.

Avatar
#49 RossCreek
May 10 2009, 07:13PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

The question about Southern Ontario, is whether or not the league does not want to go there, or perhaps more likely, knows that they can get 300 mil + from Balsillie (or somebody else for that matter) for an expansion franchise. The league won't get that much from other markets such as KC, Seattle, Portland, Houston, etc. But they may be able to in Canada (and maybe even Vegas).

Avatar
#50 kingsblade
May 10 2009, 07:23PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

TonyT wrote:

Just watched the Reporters on tsn.ca discuss the Phoenix/Balsillie situation and one of them makes an interesting point in that if Balsillie merely tried to buy Nashville unconditionally (instead of forcing his way) and tried operating there, he probably would have been able to move that team to Hamilton right now like Karmanos did with the Hurricanes in Hartford.

That would not have been a very smart move. He knows Bettman has a personal problem with him and would do everything in his power to stop the move. That would leave him stuck with a team losing piles of cash for which he paid over 200 million.

Comments are closed for this article.