balls-silly

[CallMeJerry]

I think while Ballsillie really wants to win this battle, he knows it's very unlikely. But he's enjoying poking a stick at Doughboy Bettman.

[PrairieDog]

I think while Ballsillie really wants to win this battle, he knows it's very unlikely. But he's enjoying poking a stick at Doughboy Bettman.

At least we get to see the Count squirm

140 million...ha-ha-ha-ha
242 million...wha-wha-wha...wtf

[waddy1788]

Even if Balsillie doesn't win....by bidding $100 M over what the league is offering, therefore driving up the price for whoever actually wins the bid, helping Moyes and/or other creditors recoup more money and making it harder for the bidder to obtain....even if Big Jim loses, in a certain devilish way, he wins!!!

[Scribe]

I disagree... in many circles... trust is more important than money. All of these owners are millionaires or billionaires... making several thousand dollars more a year most likely means less to them than having a guy they deem to be an douche in their clubhouse.

NHL owners calling Balsillie a douche is Exhibit A in the case of the State vs. The Pot Who Called the Kettle Black.

Also, I think money is more important to them than trust. So, even if they stick by Bettman in this squabble, a lot of them will be gritting their teeth even though their public face will be saying something different.

I mean if you read the NHL by-laws... the stuff that balsillie is doing is stuff that any current owner would be removed for.

I have no problem believing the vote of 0-27-2 against balsillie. The guy is breaking the rules before he even owns a team!! what's he gonna do after he gets one? Suddenly stop? Play by the rules? No. Doubtful. why would he?

Bettman has broken or bent the rules too, or interpreted them so as to not to appear in violation. That's the benefit of being on the side that makes the bylaws and enforces them (just like the old corrupt lawmen of the South.)

[lanky522]

Lanky, I enjoy reading your opinion but this last one is not really realistic.

A couple of points.
The NHL appears to be in a conflict of interest with a bid of its own in on the Coyotes. For them to reject his bid & their bid the next best (The other bid from Ice Edge is not realistic) reeks of duplicity. The NHL has previously approved Baisille as an owner. They must demonstrate what has changed for him now to be unacceptable. That is a tough sell with the cast of rogues as NHL owners including most recently Minny's & Nashville's. Even Melnyk complained. Baisille never mentioned him. It was in the court documents regarding the ownership of other NHL franchises. Baisille never said he was spotless just look at the other owners as well. That got Melnyk's goat.

Think of the team as an asset. A bankruptcy judge actually CAN decide who gets to own an asset (The team). That is his job - to maximize the return of creditors who have interests in the asset. He doesn't care where the asset goes. He is there to look after the interests of the creditors not the affiliated international corporation (NHL).

Here's the thing. If the bankruptcy judge were looking at this case as a clear cut case of assets and money, a decision would have been handed down months ago. Every day that passes, takes this case further and further away from just being about x's and o's and every day that passes makes Balsillie's chances of winning it outright that much worse.

If it was just about the money, Balsillie would have his team by now... the fact that he doesn't leads me to believe that it's not all about the money. It leads me to believe that Balsillie throwing more money at the issue won't necessarily do any good... and watching this stuff throughout the last couple of months leads me to believe that the judge is being really liberal with his interpretation regarding the extent of his powers.

Because really... strictly speaking... if this were a bankruptcy case, it would have been over long ago. The fact that it's still going on should tell you that it's not as simple as you indicate above.

For the NHL to do what you suggest puts them on real thin ice. With the antitrust laws in the US you may find all of your international corporation's (NHL) USA assets (say maybe 24 NHL teams) tied up in a whopper of a lawsuit. Check out the Oakland Raiders lawsuit). This is why all the other sports have an interest in this decision. It is about the leagues' power over the individual teams.

I think that this is one of the reasons for the outrageous relocation fee. Drive the costs up for Baisille so the purchase becomes too expensive. My only argument against this is that an expansion team will probably cost a couple of hundred million. With an expansion team you have to build from scratch. How much is a team that appears to be on the verge of good things worth - alot more than an expansion team.

Anti-trust laws are on the books to prevent monopolies. The NHL is no where close to being considered a monopoly. How many hockey leagues compete with them? KHL, AHL, all the European leagues, the Junior leagues if you want to count them... there are probably more hockey leagues in the world than all of the other major sports in the U.S. combined (baseball, football, basketball).

When is the last time anyone successfully pulled off an anti-trust lawsuit anyways? Microsoft is probably the biggest monopoly in the world. Every computer (before apples really picked up momentum with the i-pods, etc) operated with microsoft windows. If computer manufacturers didn't put windows software on their computers, they had a DRASTIC disadvantage. This is as close to a monopoly as you will see in this day and age... yet when microsoft was sued under anti-trust laws... they beat it.

Anyone that even attempts to sue the NHL under anti-trust laws is an idiot... because there's really no ground to stand on. The by-laws are set up in a way that makes the NHL pretty much immune to this, because it's constitution is that of an organization with rules regarding conduct of members of the organization. If you don't want to follow the rules, they can kick you out as a member... and you can find another organization to join if you want.

If i'm a member of a yacht club and i break a rule and they kick me out, do you think i can sue them for violation of anti-trust laws? No lol. I'd get laughed out of my lawyer's office.

=============

Also consider that Anti-Trust laws are United States based. They apply to United States businesses. I think you'll find it extremely difficult for a Canadian citizen to sue and win in United States court... especially if the team that he's suing about has been moved to Hamilton, Ontario.

The U.S. courts would likely throw it out, because he's canadian... and the team he's suing about is canadian. They'll likely say that it's something he should take up with the canadian government if he has a problem.

I don't know that canada really has anti-trust laws... so he might be left up the creek without a paddle there...

=============

You have to understand... this situation is a cancer... no judge wants to touch this shit. Not with a ten foot pole. If there's a legal loophole for them to throw the case out rather than making a precedent setting decision, they will.

What happened when the supreme court heard cases claiming that Barak Obama was not a u.s. citizen and not eligible to be president? They threw them out saying that the plaintiffs had no standing. Rather than make a judgment which one way or another could have been explosive, they just sidestepped it. This happens A LOT.

If Balsillie were to bring up an anti-trust lawsuit, it would again not be in his favor... and it would cost the NHL money... and piss owners off more than they already are. This is the last thing balsillie should be considering.

[wwkwan3]

Everyone one knows that Balsillie bid is and will be the highest offer hands down. The reason why Bettman is working so hard to prevent another southern Ontario team is basically 3 reasons:

#1. Ontario Fans will have to suck it up, and pay for over priced LEAFS tickets (Which is sold out every game anyways) to maintain the profiting franchise (even if they don’t perform on the ice “, missing playoffs 3 years in a role�)

#2 Protect Buffalo Sabre’s from going bankrupt like the city of Buffalo…�Kids fight for $0.13cent change…�Cough Kane Cough� . Also, hoping the Hockey fans continue to purchase the Sabre’s tickets. ( Since a lot of them buy Sabre season tickets because it’s like half the price of Leafs season tickets)

#3 Bettmen is trying really hard, to make Hockey an American game for more TV $. The only way to do so is to keep the teams in the states at ALL COSTS. STUPID?!?! Yes… but that’s what he’s doing so far. They rather them have a crappy team in the states, then a profiting team in Canada.

We'll see what happens. One things for sure... sucks to be a rookie in PHX. haha

[lanky522]

Everyone one knows that Balsillie bid is and will be the highest offer hands down. The reason why Bettman is working so hard to prevent another southern Ontario team is basically 3 reasons:

#1. Ontario Fans will have to suck it up, and pay for over priced LEAFS tickets (Which is sold out every game anyways) to maintain the profiting franchise (even if they don’t perform on the ice “, missing playoffs 3 years in a role�)

#2 Protect Buffalo Sabre’s from going bankrupt like the city of Buffalo…�Kids fight for $0.13cent change…�Cough Kane Cough� . Also, hoping the Hockey fans continue to purchase the Sabre’s tickets. ( Since a lot of them buy Sabre season tickets because it’s like half the price of Leafs season tickets)

#3 Bettmen is trying really hard, to make Hockey an American game for more TV $. The only way to do so is to keep the teams in the states at ALL COSTS. STUPID?!?! Yes… but that’s what he’s doing so far. They rather them have a crappy team in the states, then a profiting team in Canada.

We'll see what happens. One things for sure... sucks to be a rookie in PHX. haha

The other point that you miss here is that the way for the NHL to grow their profitability is not by pandering and catering to existing fans. What does the NHL gain by putting another team in southern ontario? Those people are already fans... putting another team there, won't bring people to the sport.

Having a team in phoenix... or other non-traditional markets does bear that possibility though. If you can take a franchise to a market with 5-10% hockey fan following, and increase that to even 50-60% (in U.S. cities this would be hundreds of thousands of people), you've done a huge thing for the sport.

Does anyone really think that hundreds of thousands of people will become hockey fans (that aren't already) with the move of another team to southern ontario?

Sure the league would be more profitable in the short term, but it would be far less profitable than it could be in the long term... because youre missing out on recruiting new fans... and the fans in ontario that got a new team, would've spent money on the NHL anyways...

So aside from a few bucks from profit sharing... the NHL really doesn't make that much money here... The only one that really makes money in this situation is Balsillie.

[Scribe]

The other point that you miss here is that the way for the NHL to grow their profitability is not by pandering and catering to existing fans. What does the NHL gain by putting another team in southern ontario? Those people are already fans... putting another team there, won't bring people to the sport.

Well, I would not advocate pandering, but certainly catering to existing fans is good business practice.

To answer your question: More butts in the seats of an NHL arena, more sales of NHL licensed products, greater funds in the revenue sharing pool (instead of a draw therefrom) and the removal of a sinkhole and a black eye.

Having a team in phoenix... or other non-traditional markets does bear that possibility though. If you can take a franchise to a market with 5-10% hockey fan following, and increase that to even 50-60% (in U.S. cities this would be hundreds of thousands of people), you've done a huge thing for the sport.

And there's a possibility that Brad Pitt will leave Angelina Jolie for Jennifer Aston. Look, the team's been there for 12 seasons and it's time to move on. It's not working out. I know they've missed the playoffs for six straight years, but they made the playoffs the first four seasons and that didn't help them take hold.

Does anyone really think that hundreds of thousands of people will become hockey fans (that aren't already) with the move of another team to southern ontario?

No, but that's not the point of moving the team to Ontario. It will provide another team to untapped market of existing hockey fans. You won't need to market the game, just put it there and they'll go. Yeah, strange concept, I know.

Sure the league would be more profitable in the short term, but it would be far less profitable than it could be in the long term... because youre missing out on recruiting new fans...

Recruiting new fans is an admirable goal, but like I said before, there comes a time to cut your losses. Besides, you should do that from a strong basis of viable teams. Moving a team from Phoenix to Ontario would give you one less lame duck franchise and one more strong franchise.

So aside from a few bucks from profit sharing... the NHL really doesn't make that much money here... The only one that really makes money in this situation is Balsillie.

As I wrote earlier, there is more than just revenue sharing to consider here.

There is also the prestige issue. Any league should want to have profitable franchises rather than money losers.

Even if the league says "OK, let's bite the bullet and put a league in the desert as a way to recruit new fans." At what point do you pull the plug. How much failure are you willing to endure?

Having a hockey franchise in the desert has not helped the NHL get a good TV contract or win over new fans. If, after 12 seasons of this, there is proof to the contrary, please show it to me.

[WhatThePuck?]

Lanky some good points but some errors in your argument as well.

Here's the thing. If the bankruptcy judge were looking at this case as a clear cut case of assets and money, a decision would have been handed down months ago. Every day that passes, takes this case further and further away from just being about x's and o's and every day that passes makes Balsillie's chances of winning it outright that much worse.

If it was just about the money, Balsillie would have his team by now... the fact that he doesn't leads me to believe that it's not all about the money. It leads me to believe that Balsillie throwing more money at the issue won't necessarily do any good... and watching this stuff throughout the last couple of months leads me to believe that the judge is being really liberal with his interpretation regarding the extent of his powers.

Because really... strictly speaking... if this were a bankruptcy case, it would have been over long ago. The fact that it's still going on should tell you that it's not as simple as you indicate above. .

Actually, part of the problem is determining who the creditors are. The NHL is contending that Moyes is not a creditor that his losses are equity losses not loans to the business. Another issue is what each creditor is owed depending on the final result of who the creditors are. The city of Glendale is contending that if the Coyotoes break their lease (move) they are entitled to $500 million. Each bid for the team has different issues & different views. It is not a simple all bids are the same otherwise it would go to Baisille. The judge needs to identify the creditors, determine how much is owed to each & which bid best fits the needs of the creditors. He doesn't give a rat's ass about the NHL needs as a league. That is for the league & Baisille to sort out as the judge has already tried to faciliate.

Anti-trust laws are on the books to prevent monopolies. The NHL is no where close to being considered a monopoly. How many hockey leagues compete with them? KHL, AHL, all the European leagues, the Junior leagues if you want to count them... there are probably more hockey leagues in the world than all of the other major sports in the U.S. combined (baseball, football, basketball).

When is the last time anyone successfully pulled off an anti-trust lawsuit anyways? Microsoft is probably the biggest monopoly in the world. Every computer (before apples really picked up momentum with the i-pods, etc) operated with microsoft windows. If computer manufacturers didn't put windows software on their computers, they had a DRASTIC disadvantage. This is as close to a monopoly as you will see in this day and age... yet when microsoft was sued under anti-trust laws... they beat it.

Anyone that even attempts to sue the NHL under anti-trust laws is an idiot... because there's really no ground to stand on. The by-laws are set up in a way that makes the NHL pretty much immune to this, because it's constitution is that of an organization with rules regarding conduct of members of the organization. If you don't want to follow the rules, they can kick you out as a member... and you can find another organization to join if you want.

If i'm a member of a yacht club and i break a rule and they kick me out, do you think i can sue them for violation of anti-trust laws? No lol. I'd get laughed out of my lawyer's office.

As for the Microsoft monopoly I don't think that reaching a settlement is beating it. Agreeing to a settlement is more of a case of "I'm wrong you are right but is it worth your while to sue me & have my lawyers drag this out". A settlement is seen as a "I'm wrong & will pay the fine as long as I don't have to admit I was wrong". Read the judgment carefully. Microsoft didn't beat the rap. Why do you think they have a Microsoft Corporation Antitrust Compliance Committee.

An organizations constitution isn't worth the paper it is written on compared to the LAWS of the country it is located in. If a constitution says I have to beat my wife I still think the cops are going to be knocking on my door dispite the constitution of the wifebeaters association I wave under their noses


=============

Also consider that Anti-Trust laws are United States based. They apply to United States businesses. I think you'll find it extremely difficult for a Canadian citizen to sue and win in United States court... especially if the team that he's suing about has been moved to Hamilton, Ontario.

The U.S. courts would likely throw it out, because he's canadian... and the team he's suing about is canadian. They'll likely say that it's something he should take up with the canadian government if he has a problem.

I don't know that canada really has anti-trust laws... so he might be left up the creek without a paddle there...

It doesn't matter where the complaint is from. The court is not going to throw out a case because the complaint is canadian. That is goofy. Show me the law that says only an American citizen can sue someone in the US. Doens't matter as Baisille would be suing a US business in the US as the NHL is now based in New York I believe. If you start talking international then we start getting into NAFTA & the WTO which I'm betting would end up with the same result.


=============

You have to understand... this situation is a cancer... no judge wants to touch this shit. Not with a ten foot pole. If there's a legal loophole for them to throw the case out rather than making a precedent setting decision, they will.

What happened when the supreme court heard cases claiming that Barak Obama was not a u.s. citizen and not eligible to be president? They threw them out saying that the plaintiffs had no standing. Rather than make a judgment which one way or another could have been explosive, they just sidestepped it. This happens A LOT.

If Balsillie were to bring up an anti-trust lawsuit, it would again not be in his favor... and it would cost the NHL money... and piss owners off more than they already are. This is the last thing balsillie should be considering.

The Obama situation is not a legitimate argument. Basille as a plaintiff has a legitimate standing. As for other situation just look at the class action suits against pharmacetical companies, tobacco companies etc were the law cam down hard on them.

If the NHL has a legitimate reason let them bring it forward. To say Baisille is unacceptable as an owner with the group they have is week. To say that the Coyotes are a viable option in Phoenix & then put a moving clause in their bid is weak. To stop the movement of another NHL club into Canada is bad optics for the NHL. The appearance of back room deals in the last couple of ownership changes in the NHL has not improved their image.

Baisille is no angel but the NHL....

[lanky522]

Well, I would not advocate pandering, but certainly catering to existing fans is good business practice.

To answer your question: More butts in the seats of an NHL arena, more sales of NHL licensed products, greater funds in the revenue sharing pool (instead of a draw therefrom) and the removal of a sinkhole and a black eye.

why do you think there'd be more sales of licensed products? Are you honestly trying to tell me that people in Hamilton don't spend money on NHL licensed products right now?

Because the only way you make more money on licensed products (as you state above) is for more people to buy. Well you won't have people in phoenix buying anymore... and i doubt that enough new people in hamilton will buy to generate any sort of profit in that regard.

And there's a possibility that Brad Pitt will leave Angelina Jolie for Jennifer Aston. Look, the team's been there for 12 seasons and it's time to move on. It's not working out. I know they've missed the playoffs for six straight years, but they made the playoffs the first four seasons and that didn't help them take hold.

And teams like Edmonton, Ottawa, Buffalo, Pittsburgh haven't had economic troubles in the past either... all of them should have been abandoned and moved as well right?

All i really need to do is quote a passage from wikipedia to rebut this portion of your argument. It's regarding the Washington Capitals:

The Capitals' inaugural season was dreadful, even by expansion standards. They finished 8–67–5, far and away the worst record in the league. Their 21 points were half that of their expansion brethren, the Scouts. The eight wins are the fewest for an NHL team playing at least 70 games, and the .131 winning percentage is still the worst in NHL history. They also set records for most road losses (39 out of 40), most consecutive road losses (37) (both still NHL records) and most consecutive losses (17).

In 1975–76, Washington went 25 straight games without a win and allowed 394 goals en route to another horrendous record: 11–59–10 (32 points). During the middle of the season, Max McNab was hired as GM, and Tom McVie was hired as head coach to replace Schmidt. For the rest of the 1970s and early 1980s, the Capitals alternated between dreadful seasons and finishing only a few points out of the playoffs. In 1980 and 1981, for instance, they were in playoff contention until the last day of the season. By the summer of 1982, there was serious talk of the team moving out of the U.S. capital, and a "Save the Caps" campaign was underway. Then two significant events took place to solve the problem.

First, the team hired David Poile as General Manager. Second, as his first move, Poile pulled off one of the biggest trades in franchise history on September 9, 1982, when he dealt longtime regulars Ryan Walter and Rick Green to the Montreal Canadiens for Rod Langway, Brian Engblom, Doug Jarvis, and Craig Laughlin. This move turned the franchise around, as Langway's solid defense helped the team to dramatically reduce its goals-against, and the explosive goal-scoring of Dennis Maruk, Mike Gartner, and Bobby Carpenter fueled the offensive attack. Another significant move was the drafting of defenseman Scott Stevens during the 1982 NHL Entry Draft (the pick was made by interim-GM Roger Crozier, prior to Poile's hiring). The result was a 29-point jump, a third-place finish in the powerful Patrick Division, and the team's first playoff appearance in 1983. Although they were eliminated by the three-time-defending (and eventual) Stanley Cup Champion New York Islanders (three games to one), the Caps' dramatic turnaround ended any talk of the club leaving Washington.

And i imagine that if you look through the history of numerous other expansion teams in the NHL that are now viable and successful, you'll find similar tales.

Yes Phoenix is not in a good situation now... but they also haven't been managed or run well either. As with the example with the Capitals above. Often all it takes is a change of ownership, or a change of general manager to bring a team back from the ashes... Just look what happened in Pittsburgh only a few years ago.

No, but that's not the point of moving the team to Ontario. It will provide another team to untapped market of existing hockey fans. You won't need to market the game, just put it there and they'll go. Yeah, strange concept, I know.

Sure... southern ontario could probably support 5 teams. Why not just move 5 teams there and make a southern ontario division... that'd be the best thing for the NHL right? of course. That would definitely increase their profitability every season far into the future... and it would definitely make the sport more popular to the millions of Americans who don't currently follow the sport right?

There's over 33 million people in Canada and there's over 307 million people in the United States... Expanding more into Canada is definitely the way to make money in the long term.

Recruiting new fans is an admirable goal, but like I said before, there comes a time to cut your losses. Besides, you should do that from a strong basis of viable teams. Moving a team from Phoenix to Ontario would give you one less lame duck franchise and one more strong franchise.

See above. Washington, Pittsburgh, etc. Most all expansion teams take a number of years to get situated and become successful. Sometimes a matter of decades.

As I wrote earlier, there is more than just revenue sharing to consider here.

There is also the prestige issue. Any league should want to have profitable franchises rather than money losers.

Even if the league says "OK, let's bite the bullet and put a league in the desert as a way to recruit new fans." At what point do you pull the plug. How much failure are you willing to endure?

Having a hockey franchise in the desert has not helped the NHL get a good TV contract or win over new fans. If, after 12 seasons of this, there is proof to the contrary, please show it to me.

Prestige issue? Really? You're arguing that it's a good thing for a business to act like a high school student? Wanting to be cool? Part of the popular crowd? That's how business decisions should be made? Please.

And yes... having a hockey franchise in phoenix has won over new fans, if not... please tell me, what are all those living species sitting in seats, or buying jerseys, or getting concessions? Before the coyotes came to town... those people didn't go to hockey games... likely didn't buy jerseys... and probably didn't even follow the sport. Now they do. Hockey wouldn't have lasted 1 year in phoenix if they didn't "win over new fans." What a silly thing to say.

[lanky522]

yeesh... getting tagteamed by long posts... i gotta head out soon... but i'll try to touch on a couple of things here.

Lanky some good points but some errors in your argumentas well.

An organizations constitution isn't worth the paper it is written on compared to the LAWS of the country it is located in. If a constitution says I have to beat my wife I still think the cops are going to be knocking on my door dispite the constitution of the wifebeaters association I wave under their noses

If your wife signs a document saying that you can beat her... and it's witnessed an notarized... then yes, she may have trouble pressing charges on you for domestic abuse. The police, and district attorney cannot prosecute you for a crime like this if she does not press charges... it's difficult for her to win her case if she's legitimately signed a document allowing such practices.

EVERY owner that's a member of the NHL has to sign the by-laws (including Balsillie if he gets a team). It's a legal document that they sign and by doing so, they accept the terms of the agreement. If they don't want to sign, they won't be part of the NHL, if they do sign... it's gonna be awfully hard to come back and say that they think it's a monopoly and "not fair."

It doesn't matter where the complaint is from. The court is not going to throw out a case becasue the complaint is canadian. That is goofy. Show me the law that says only an Amercian citizen can sue someone in the US. Doens't matter as Baisille would be suing a US business in the US as the NHL is now based in New York I believe. If you start talking international then we start getting into NAFTA & the WTO which I'm betting would end up with the same result.

But that's the key thing here... do NAFTA and the WTO have anti-trust laws like the U.S.? Or is it a whole different bag? I imagine that it's just as difficult (if not even more so) to win your case this way.

The Obama situation is not a legitimate argument. Basille as a plaintiff has a legitimate standing. As for other situation just look at the class action suits against pharmacetical companies, tobacco companies etc were the law cam down hard on them.

The obama example was brought up to indicate that judges will avoid hearing and deciding on controversial cases when at all possible. As others have mentioned... an anti-trust versus the NHL has ramifications on the MLB, MLS, NBA, NFL, and probably even the NCAA. It could turn into an absolute shit storm if the status quo is messed with because of a decision coming down against the NHL.

I wasn't suggesting that the judge would use the same excuse as the obama cases (lack of standing) as much as i was suggesting that it would have a large enough impact that it's worth finding some loophole to avoid hearing the case.

At the end of the day... no one's rights are being violated except for a canadian citizen's. If it's between standing up for him, and avoiding inundating the courts with anti-trust lawsuits from all professional sports teams every year... the judges are going to watch their own asses... not the canadian millionaires ass.

If the NHL has a legitimate reason let them bring it forward. To say Baisille is unacceptable as an owner with the group they have is week. To say that the Coyotes are a viable option in Phoenix & then put a moving clause in their bid is weak. To stop the movement of another NHL club into Canada is bad optics for the NHL. The appearance of back room deals in the last couple of ownership changes in the NHL has not improved their image.

Baisille is no angel but the NHL....

The only thing that determines whether or not Balsillie is an acceptable owner is whether or not the majority of NHL owners vote him as such. Read the By-laws. If they don't vote you in, regardless of how much you love puppies, walk old ladies across the street, solve world hunger, stop the polar ice caps from melting, and destroy terrorism, you aren't an acceptable owner.

Plain and simple. Very easy.

And yes... the appearance of back room deals, etc... is making the NHL look bad... but if not for Balsillie, such appearances would not be public. I can't possibly imagine why the NHL dislikes this guy.

[Zorro]

I hate to just jump in like this but I have to agree with Lanky here. The Phoenix Coyotes are definately down and out right now, but this has happened to many other NHL franchises, and look at how most of them fought back and have made their product into a successful one.

The whole reason for the half empty rink every night is the fact that they moved a new arena on the other side of town. It needs some time to grow there. People aren't going to travel all the way across town to see a young rookie team who can't even win half their games. They want to see a winner, and I believe that as time goes on the Coyotes will build their team around young studs like Turris, Mueller, and Boedker and the fans will gravitate towards them.

Also: I don't think the city of Phoenix has much of a transit system. I think if all the sports teams were to get together and with the city of Phoenix they could construct a monorail system which would then be a huge plus to all their SPORTS franchises.

I think the Coyotes just need some time, this whole thing has blown way out of proportion. Ballsille struck out with Pittsburgh, struck out with Nashville, he is on a mission to prove the NHL execs and Bettman wrong. If he would have just purchased a team, proved it was in the worng hockey market, then maybe he would have already had a team in Southern Ontario.

Give Phoenix some time, geezus. Just because it seems to sexy to get another team close to Toronto or in Canada doesn't mean we have the right to strip another city's team from them. Ballsille needs to back off a bit and not try and show anybody up for awhile. I think he just wants to prove to everyone that he can crack the NHL and win against all odds..

Just my opinion guys. I don't need people cut and pasting my response here, its just how I feel. Like I said before I agree with Lanky.

[lanky522]

I hate to just jump in like this but I have to agree with Lanky here. The Phoenix Coyotes are definately down and out right now, but this has happened to many other NHL franchises, and look at how most of them fought back and have made their product into a successful one.

The whole reason for the half empty rink every night is the fact that they moved a new arena on the other side of town. It needs some time to grow there. People aren't going to travel all the way across town to see a young rookie team who can't even win half their games. They want to see a winner, and I believe that as time goes on the Coyotes will build their team around young studs like Turris, Mueller, and Boedker and the fans will gravitate towards them.

Also: I don't think the city of Phoenix has much of a transit system. I think if all the sports teams were to get together and with the city of Phoenix they could construct a monorail system which would then be a huge plus to all their SPORTS franchises.

I think the Coyotes just need some time, this whole thing has blown way out of proportion. Ballsille struck out with Pittsburgh, struck out with Nashville, he is on a mission to prove the NHL execs and Bettman wrong. If he would have just purchased a team, proved it was in the worng hockey market, then maybe he would have already had a team in Southern Ontario.

Give Phoenix some time, geezus. Just because it seems to sexy to get another team close to Toronto or in Canada doesn't mean we have the right to strip another city's team from them. Ballsille needs to back off a bit and not try and show anybody up for awhile. I think he just wants to prove to everyone that he can crack the NHL and win against all odds..

Just my opinion guys. I don't need people cut and pasting my response here, its just how I feel. Like I said before I agree with Lanky.

Thanks Z.

And you do make a number of good points... to add to this line of thought though... you also have to consider that phoenix (like much of california) has been hit like a nuclear bomb by the real estate and economic crisis... much more than many many other u.s. cities have... The town of Glendale put a lot of money into not only the coyotes, but also commercial, residential, and retail expansion in the last 10 years.

Just look back at 2006. As recent as 3 years ago, Phoenix was the 22nd most profitable team in the league. The only thing that's really happened since then is their local economy tanking.

Is that a reason to move a team? Should we move NHL teams every time the cyclical economy dips and turns? Glendale has spent a lot of time and effort improving the local infrastructure... i really do believe that when the economy picks up... and the coyotes ice a decent team, you'll see a following similar to what you saw in columbus the second half of this past season.

But i guess that's because i'm from the D.C. area, and i know what it's like to have a team go from being unpopular and abandoned to not being able to afford tickets within just 5 years.

[Rusty Pickles]

I would pay ten bucks to kick ball-silly in the nuts.....

Firstly, I would be very shocked if the judge sides with Mr. I'mtryingtoforcemywayintotheleagueandcircumventthe entireprocessofowninganhlfranchise.
Moyes is not, in fact, bankrupt. This whole maneuver is simply a scam because they knew this is their only chance of getting it done as the Nhl doesn't want him (ball-silly) at all. The judge siding with them would be an unprecedented move, and if you know US law and courts, most judges don't like jumping out on a limb and doing something that has never been done before in all of history.

The reason the NHL's offer is 100 million lower is they are contending that the money put in by Moyes was in fact equity, and not a loan, and therefore he has no right to be compensated.

While I do not disagree that Ontario would be able to turn a profit sooner than in Phoenix, the reason the NHL is so set in stone on keeping the team in Phoenix is the 6 million people that live in the area. It is one of the fastest growing cities/regions in the US. Hamilton, conversely, has a population of under one million people. When it comes to TV exposure, selling your game and product to 6 million people does more for them long term than the 700,000 people in Hamilton. No offense to the people of Hamilton, but your emotions have been played with.

Chances the Coyotes leave Phoenix....0%

Take it to the bank......

Long live Churros and hockey!

[Scribe]

Hey Lanky, don't get the idea I'm picking on you or ganging up on you. I just love a good debate. Don't take it personally, OK?

why do you think there'd be more sales of licensed products? Are you honestly trying to tell me that people in Hamilton don't spend money on NHL licensed products right now?

Because the only way you make more money on licensed products (as you state above) is for more people to buy. Well you won't have people in phoenix buying anymore... and i doubt that enough new people in hamilton will buy to generate any sort of profit in that regard.

Like moths to the light. Fans will eat that stuff up so fast it will make your head spin. If you put an NHL franchise in an under-served Canadian market, you will increase your sales. They will buy more than the good folks of Phoenix did. Take that to the bank, my friend.

And teams like Edmonton, Ottawa, Buffalo, Pittsburgh haven't had economic troubles in the past either... all of them should have been abandoned and moved as well right?

Economic troubles in these cities were short-term and in the cases of Edmonton, Ottawa (and you forgot to mention Calgary) exacerbated by currency exchange woes. I would not argue for moving teams out of Buffalo or Pittsburgh, either, because I think those are viable hockey markets. I can't say the same for Phoenix, but if they want to prove me and others wrong, I'd say it's about time to start doing it.

All i really need to do is quote a passage from wikipedia to rebut this portion of your argument. It's regarding the Washington Capitals:

The Capitals' inaugural season was dreadful, even by expansion standards. They finished 8�67�5, far and away the worst record in the league. Their 21 points were half that of their expansion brethren, the Scouts. The eight wins are the fewest for an NHL team playing at least 70 games, and the .131 winning percentage is still the worst in NHL history. They also set records for most road losses (39 out of 40), most consecutive road losses (37) (both still NHL records) and most consecutive losses (17).

In 1975�76, Washington went 25 straight games without a win and allowed 394 goals en route to another horrendous record: 11�59�10 (32 points). During the middle of the season, Max McNab was hired as GM, and Tom McVie was hired as head coach to replace Schmidt. For the rest of the 1970s and early 1980s, the Capitals alternated between dreadful seasons and finishing only a few points out of the playoffs. In 1980 and 1981, for instance, they were in playoff contention until the last day of the season. By the summer of 1982, there was serious talk of the team moving out of the U.S. capital, and a "Save the Caps" campaign was underway. Then two significant events took place to solve the problem.

First, the team hired David Poile as General Manager. Second, as his first move, Poile pulled off one of the biggest trades in franchise history on September 9, 1982, when he dealt longtime regulars Ryan Walter and Rick Green to the Montreal Canadiens for Rod Langway, Brian Engblom, Doug Jarvis, and Craig Laughlin. This move turned the franchise around, as Langway's solid defense helped the team to dramatically reduce its goals-against, and the explosive goal-scoring of Dennis Maruk, Mike Gartner, and Bobby Carpenter fueled the offensive attack. Another significant move was the drafting of defenseman Scott Stevens during the 1982 NHL Entry Draft (the pick was made by interim-GM Roger Crozier, prior to Poile's hiring). The result was a 29-point jump, a third-place finish in the powerful Patrick Division, and the team's first playoff appearance in 1983. Although they were eliminated by the three-time-defending (and eventual) Stanley Cup Champion New York Islanders (three games to one), the Caps' dramatic turnaround ended any talk of the club leaving Washington.

And i imagine that if you look through the history of numerous other expansion teams in the NHL that are now viable and successful, you'll find similar tales.

Yes Phoenix is not in a good situation now... but they also haven't been managed or run well either. As with the example with the Capitals above. Often all it takes is a change of ownership, or a change of general manager to bring a team back from the ashes... Just look what happened in Pittsburgh only a few years ago.

Sorry, I don't feel refuted. The Save the Caps campaign came eight years after the team joined the NHL. Yes it worked out well for them, but the Coyotes are well past that stage.

The Coyotes have been in the desert for 12 seasons (13 years if you count the lockout year) and they still don't have their sh*t together. Bettman still hasn't parlayed their presence in the desert into a decent national (U.S.) TV contract.

They are bleeding money and this experiment in the desert is not working, but Bettman is too stubborn to admit he was wrong (or is it that he's too stupid to actually make it work?) NHL owners are supporting him because he's done some other things that have boosted their profitability. You cannot argue, though, that moving the Jets to Phoenix was one of those things.

And yes... having a hockey franchise in phoenix has won over new fans, if not... please tell me, what are all those living species sitting in seats, or buying jerseys, or getting concessions? Before the coyotes came to town... those people didn't go to hockey games... likely didn't buy jerseys... and probably didn't even follow the sport. Now they do. Hockey wouldn't have lasted 1 year in phoenix if they didn't "win over new fans." What a silly thing to say.

You're right. They've won over so many new fans, it's only a matter of time before all those new hockey fans start buying tickets to the games and the team starts making money. Maybe next year -- keep that dream alive.

Look, think of the NHL as McDonald's and the Coyotes as a McHappy Meal franchise. McDonald's puts the franchise in the desert because it thinks that will raise it's profile nationally and that it can win over all the burrito and taco eaters in the southwest.

After 12 or 13 years, the franchise is losing money because not enough people are eating the burgers. You've won over some of those taco and burrito eaters, but not enough people are buying the burgers to make the franchise profitable. To make matters worse, this franchise in the desert has not helped raise your profile nationally and has turned into a legal quagmire that is giving the company a black eye.

Why?

Because someone wants to buy that franchise in the desert and move it somewhere where people love burgers. Heck, they'll eat burgers for breakfast, lunch and supper. It's a shame that you won't be converting any taco or burrito eaters into burger eaters, but by golly, you'll be making a lot of burger eaters happy and they'll be buying a lot more of those burgers than the people in the desert were. Bonus, instead of losing money by propping up a franchise in a pit of quicksand, you'll be earning a cut of the take from a profitable franchise.

But some buffoon at head office is too stubborn to admit that the desert experiment is not working and holds out hope that his idea will work out. That's the only hope, since they can't change the menu at McHappy Meal.

At some point though, it becomes bad for business to insist on this and there's only so much money that a business can lose. It's not my money they're losing, so they can keep on doing it for all I care, but the longer they wait, the dumber they look.

A wise business realizes its mistakes (even if it had the most admirable goal at the start) and seizes opportunities to make money when they arise.