General Ongoing Coyotes saga thread

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Tsawwassen

No timeline for Phoenix, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/bettman-says-no-timeline-for-phoenix-solution/article2399222/

The timeline for phoenix is when glendale finally says no to signing the checks, so another 2 or 3 months

[Resolute 14]

Whatever the league says publicly, I think privately, it will have the team's plans for next year mapped out within a couple weeks. If Glendale won't fund another year of losses and there is no realistic hope of a local owner landing, the league will probably have to act to sell to a new market in time to announce right after the Stanley Cup is handed out. Neither Quebec nor Seattle is quite ready, so they will need maximum time to prepare for next season if the league has to go down that route.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by valo403

I love the way you deem it necessary to reach to such absurd levels over and over again on this topic. It's quite cute actually.

I mean are we seriously at the point where you're talking about Federal Judges making decisions based on personal interests due to the location of their court?

My point was, was that he made an unbiased decision despite possible local pressure or did you miss what I was saying again.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

My point was, was that he made an unbiased decision despite possible local pressure or did you miss what I was saying again.

And my point was, OF COURSE he made an unbiased decision, we're talking about a Federal Bankruptcy Court here in a high profile matter, not some two bit traffic court letting the local high school football quarterback off with a slap on the wrist.

[Vulcan]

=Resolute 14;3653795]Certainly: http://www.thespec.com/news/article/...ning-for-preds

Note that Delbaggio's focus was more on landing an expansion team than buying the Preds at that point, especially since Balsillie was ofering $40 million more than he was willing to go.

So Boots was selling suites instead of season tickets, not much different.

And I realize you don't see a problem with how Balsillie handled because you don't care about pissing all over the fans of the existing market. The NHL does. And the moment Balsillie pulled that stunt, the NHL turfed him. Worked out very well in the end too.

Well the fans in a Nashville weren't buying enough tickets and the financial community wasn't backing the team either, so they needed a wake up call. This was despite having a pretty competitive expansion team.

The judge wanted them to deal because he could not legally force the NHL to take him in as an owner with free portability to move the franchise. Balsillie's claim was rejected with prejudice because a deal could not be made. The judge had no legal right to do what Balsillie wanted.

You can't get away from the fact that the judge thought the best solution was for the two parties to make a deal.

You are reading into a comment what you want to read, not what was actually said. That second- or third-hand report was that if Balsillie wanted to get back into the league's good books, he had to behave. You've yet to show any evidence that he has gotten back into the good books. Moreover, the massive tumble his fortune has taken should tell you that he is no longer a viable owner. Certainly not at the cost it would take to move a team into Hamilton or build a new rink in K-W.

I'm not reading anything into it, the statement was made by more than one reporter. Whether these reporters were reading more into it is another question. Personally I take pretty well all reporters with a grain of salt but that's all we have to go with since we don't have any first hand information.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

You can't get away from the fact that the judge thought the best solution was for the two parties to make a deal.

I don't have to. But you sure are trying to move the goalposts and change your argument from "no legal impediment" to "judge asked them to negotiate". They aren't the same statements, and your original argument was flat out wrong. Again.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

So Boots was selling suites instead of season tickets, not much different.

Actually, its entirely different. Suites exist to be sold even if there is no hockey team playing out of the building. Tickets to hockey games aren't available if there is no hockey team playing in the building.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I don't have to. But you sure are trying to move the goalposts and change your argument from "no legal impediment" to "judge asked them to negotiate". They aren't the same statements, and your original argument was flat out wrong. Again.

Moving what goal posts? If you go back in this thread, my original argument (in this part of the debate) was that Bettman had a window to negotiate and was even told to negotiate by the judge. If there was a legal impediment, the judge wouldn't have told them to negotiate.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

Actually, its entirely different. Suites exist to be sold even if there is no hockey team playing out of the building. Tickets to hockey games aren't available if there is no hockey team playing in the building.

I guess you missed this.

[QUOTE]The Sprint Center in Kansas City has also been selling luxury suites on the basis of landing an NHL team.[/QUOTE]

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I guess you missed this.

Which is useless information without knowing what the whole purchase agreement said. Maybe suites were also being sold on the basis and not landing an NHL team. Maybe there was a price if the was an NHL team, and a different price if there was no NHL team.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Moving what goal posts? If you go back in this thread, my original argument (in this part of the debate) was that Bettman had a window to negotiate and was even told to negotiate by the judge. If there was a legal impediment, the judge wouldn't have told them to negotiate.

You're somehow reading the ability to negotiate as if it meant that Balsille presented terms that were even remotely palatable to the league. Balsille's entire bid was premised on his ability to move the team without paying for the right to do so, something the NHL has clearly never even considered as possible.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

Which is useless information without knowing what the whole purchase agreement said. Maybe suites were also being sold on the basis and not landing an NHL team. Maybe there was a price if the was an NHL team, and a different price if there was no NHL team.

Look I'm trying to be polite and what you are saying is flat out isn't what my quote says.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by valo403

You're somehow reading the ability to negotiate as if it meant that Balsille presented terms that were even remotely palatable to the league. I have no idea how you come to some of these conclusions.

To the unbiased judge, the terms looked palatable. To the biased Bettman, yeah they were unpalatable.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

To the unbiased judge, the terms looked palatable. To the biased Bettman, yeah they were unpalatable.

How did they look palatable? Please provide me with the offer that Balsille presented that satisfied every condition that the NHL wanted satisfied. A judge asking parties to negotiate is about the most frequent thing you will see in ANY case in front of a court, regardless of any expectation that the terms presented so far will ever be acceptable.

You seriously just take one sentence, fail to understand it, and then draw conclusions from it don't you?

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by valo403

How did they look palatable? Please provide me with the offer that Balsille presented that satisfied every condition that the NHL wanted satisfied. A judge asking parties to negotiate is about the most frequent thing you will see in ANY case in front of a court, regardless of any expectation that the terms presented so far will ever be acceptable.

You seriously just take one sentence, fail to understand it, and then draw conclusions from it don't you?

Look it up yourself and than critique it if you want. It's about time you offered an argument with some facts.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Look it up yourself and than critique it if you want. It's about time you offered an argument with some facts.

How do I look up something that doesn't exist? Perhaps I should talk to the guys at google about whipping up search engine that mines peoples fantasy worlds.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by valo403

How do I look up something that doesn't exist? Perhaps I should talk to the guys at google about whipping up search engine that mines peoples fantasy worlds.

So Balsillie's offer doesn't exist on google?

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by troutman

Two officials with knowledge of the arduous sales efforts say a purchase prices could be brought down to the $140 million to $150 million range.

Per Renaud Lavoie RDS just a few minutes ago:Jamison's offer is as low as 100M$.

Quebecor is rumored to be willing to pay $230 Million (including relocation fee).

So... I'm not an accountant, but I know enough to know that $230m > $100m or $150m.


Just move the damn team already. This farce has gone on long enough.

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Look it up yourself and than critique it if you want. It's about time you offered an argument with some facts.

Your claim, you produce the evidence. It's not up to Valo403 to go dig up your supporting documentation.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

So Balsillie's offer doesn't exist on google?

One that satisfied the interests of the NHL? Of course not. It. Does. Not. Exist.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

So... I'm not an accountant, but I know enough to know that $230m > $100m or $150m.

That analysis doesn't include any fees that the NHL thinks it could get out of the Quebec market for an expansion team. I'm not sure that expansion is really realistic at this point, but I would expect the league would much prefer to take $100mil now and keep a market open that will still be willing to pay either a relocation or expansion fee down the road.