Fan Unions

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Murray Edwards lends money. He doesn't borrow it.

And you realize that borrowing money doesn't make you richer, right? You think Musk is richer now than when he borrowed money to buy Twitter for $44B (and it's now worth something like $18B).

Firstly, Murray’s corps. borrow money all the time.

And borrowing makes people richer all the time, as long as they lever it correctly. Just make more than the interest rate increases your rate of return on your actual invested money immensely.

[Finger Cookin]

I don't foresee any kind of scenario where fan organization or unionization would affect any kind of meaningful change in any North American pro sports franchise on day-to-day operations, front office decisions, team management, personnel decisions, or even a mission statement. I've been wrong lots in my life, I could be way out to lunch on this.

Good luck to anyone attempting this kind of organization.

[Radio]

Hahaha what's this thread even about anymore...

If I join the Fan Union Calgary chapter will I get a kickass pension and benefits package and 6 weeks vacation and banked time? If I behave badly will the union make sure I don't get kicked out but instead get promoted (better seats)? How much are union dues? Will I get 10% off my beer and nacho combo but pay a $100 per game in dues?

I am just ****ing with the OP, I have no idea what's going on in here or what I am talking about...so I feel right at home in here.

[GullFoss]

What a dumb thread.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Firstly, Murray’s corps. borrow money all the time.

And borrowing makes people richer all the time, as long as they lever it correctly. Just make more than the interest rate increases your rate of return on your actual invested money immensely.

Which ones? Not Edco. Or CNRL. Murray is an investment banker. He doesn’t borrow money. He lends money, or invests via convertible debentures. He advances DIP loans to distressed corps on occasion.

I’m well aware that you can make money if you earn enough to make your interest payments. But I’m an insolvency lawyer. I see the flip side. Borrowing money made Musk poorer. It made Trump poorer.

But anyway, we are talking about team owners. The Flames owners can’t borrow against their ownership of the team for a number of reasons. Not the least of which is no lender would take that collateral.

[White Out 403]

Boy, this thread is a dumpster fire. I feel like I should be sin binned.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by Radio

Hahaha what's this thread even about anymore...

If I join the Fan Union Calgary chapter will I get a kickass pension and benefits package and 6 weeks vacation and banked time? If I behave badly will the union make sure I don't get kicked out but instead get promoted (better seats)? How much are union dues? Will I get 10% off my beer and nacho combo but pay a $100 per game in dues?

I am just ****ing with the OP, I have no idea what's going on in here or what I am talking about...so I feel right at home in here.

All valid questions though. You’re just saying out loud what everyone’s thinking.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

Boy, this thread is a dumpster fire. I feel like I should be sin binned.

Every thread can’t be a masterpiece

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

I don't view these teams as property of the owners. The owners are simply stewards of the teams and that the team rightfully belongs to the community. The fans and the players on the ice make the NHL what it is, not rich #######s like Katz. Although I guess if you frame it in that way and it's just another business like a Shopper's Drug mart, then why have loyalty to anyone particular store or team.


The Flames have just bilked the city out of hundreds of millions of dollars for a new arena, it's this kind of mindset that allows fans to pay through the nose so already fabulously wealthy people can be even a little bit more fabulously wealthy.

I disagree, the owners have paid the money, made the investment, pay the payroll. That's not a community team. The Owner owns the team. Its basically pretty much his or her or their right to do with it and run it how they please.


The fans don't own any party of that, they can have opinions on it, they can choose not to support it, or put money into it. But even then they money that fans spend on the team is in no way an investment.


You can have community owned teams, the Eskimos have that, but even there, the fans really don't have a voice into how the team is run.



I can't imagine a greater nightmare then fans having a say in how a team is run.

[DiracSpike]

Time to seize the means of hockey production comrades! I’ve always thought that as a casual fan that watches games on tv for free, and comments on forums for free, that I was somehow entitled to ownership and making decisions about the future of the flames.

As much guff as Kevin Lowe got about the whole Tier 1 fans thing...he was 100% correct. Season ticket holder, people who pay tens of thousands of dollars for the product, matter a lot more than people who watch the games on tv and maybe go to the occasional game. They just do. You just don’t want to say it overtly and risk alienating people because you want to try and cultivate fans into future season ticket holders. it doesn’t mean that it’s not correct to value them more though. If season ticket holders start to revolt or not renew then that will get the owners attention but a union of fans is laughable.

[chedder]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

Time to seize the means of hockey production comrades! I’ve always thought that as a casual fan that watches games on tv for free, and comments on forums for free, that I was somehow entitled to ownership and making decisions about the future of the flames.

As much guff as Kevin Lowe got about the whole Tier 1 fans thing...he was 100% correct. Season ticket holder, people who pay tens of thousands of dollars for the product, matter a lot more than people who watch the games on tv and maybe go to the occasional game. They just do. You just don’t want to say it overtly and risk alienating people because you want to try and cultivate fans into future season ticket holders. it doesn’t mean that it’s not correct to value them more though. If season ticket holders start to revolt or not renew then that will get the owners attention but a union of fans is laughable.

The counter to this is if nobody watched on tv then there'd be no money coming in from that end and the league would inevitably fail. There are a lot more tv viewers than season ticket holders.

Totally agree that the fan union is a joke.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

Time to seize the means of hockey production comrades! I’ve always thought that as a casual fan that watches games on tv for free, and comments on forums for free, that I was somehow entitled to ownership and making decisions about the future of the flames.

As much guff as Kevin Lowe got about the whole Tier 1 fans thing...he was 100% correct. Season ticket holder, people who pay tens of thousands of dollars for the product, matter a lot more than people who watch the games on tv and maybe go to the occasional game. They just do. You just don’t want to say it overtly and risk alienating people because you want to try and cultivate fans into future season ticket holders. it doesn’t mean that it’s not correct to value them more though. If season ticket holders start to revolt or not renew then that will get the owners attention but a union of fans is laughable.

What tier are you if you only share seasons tickets?

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Which ones? Not Edco. Or CNRL. Murray is an investment banker. He doesn’t borrow money. He lends money, or invests via convertible debentures. He advances DIP loans to distressed corps on occasion.

I’m well aware that you can make money if you earn enough to make your interest payments. But I’m an insolvency lawyer. I see the flip side. Borrowing money made Musk poorer. It made Trump poorer.

But anyway, we are talking about team owners. The Flames owners can’t borrow against their ownership of the team for a number of reasons. Not the least of which is no lender would take that collateral.

CNRL had, as of their most recent financial statements filed with the regulators dated September 30th, over eleven billion in debt. $11,644,000,000

That's a totally reasonable amount for the size of their business, but he definitely uses debt. CNRL buying assets with debt financing is a big part of why he's a billionaire.

https://www.investorx.ca/Doc/37M12Z4...report-english

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

CNRL had, as of their most recent financial statements filed with the regulators dated September 30th, over eleven billion in debt. $11,644,000,000

That's a totally reasonable amount for the size of their business, but he definitely uses debt. CNRL buying assets with debt financing is a big part of why he's a billionaire.

https://www.investorx.ca/Doc/37M12Z4...report-english

I suspect that’s unsecured bond debt. It’s not borrowing against assets like you are imagining.

Anyway, there’s no way Murray Edwards has pledged shares in CSEC (or any other companies) as collateral.

EDIT: Just looked at the notes. It’s all long term unsecured debt, meaning no assets were leveraged. (Note 8)

[Strange Brew]

Against my better judgment, I do want to add something to the discussion. Sports franchises often carry debt. You don’t buy a $1 billion asset with your own money, even billionaires need liquidity. And no, borrowing the money doesn’t make you poorer, it’s a simple concept of leverage. It introduces risk and improves the potential reward.

The NFL’s rule around how much debt owners can carry are the only ones I’ve seen discussed much in the public domain.

https://theathletic.com/1299155/2019...nchises/?amp=1

Brings up an interesting question of when an owner uses his interest in a club to borrow money to fund an outside venture. An aggressive labor union would view that as sport related money to which the players should be entitled. Not how I would see it.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Against my better judgment, I do want to add something to the discussion. Sports franchises often carry debt. You don’t buy a $1 billion asset with your own money, even billionaires need liquidity. And no, borrowing the money doesn’t make you poorer, it’s a simple concept of leverage. It introduces risk and improves the potential reward.

The NFL’s rule around how much debt owners can carry are the only ones I’ve seen discussed much in the public domain.

https://theathletic.com/1299155/2019...nchises/?amp=1

Brings up an interesting question of when an owner uses his interest in a club to borrow money to fund an outside venture. An aggressive labor union would view that as sport related money to which the players should be entitled. Not how I would see it.

You might not buy a team with your own money. But what you can’t do is pledge your shares in the company that owns the team as collateral for a loan. If Edwards borrowed to buy his CSEC shares, any collateral would have been other assets - or maybe just an unsecured guarantee by Edco. I’m very confident about that, especially vis-a-vis the Flames, for a number of reasons:

A. The NHL tightly controls who can own a team. We all know this out of the Coyotes bankruptcy and Balsillie’s failed bid. Teams can only be sold with league permission.

B. Because of this a lender who took security against those shares would be foolish because those shares are worthless unless they can be solid for money. They can only be sold for money if the buyer is assured of having an ownership stake in an NHL franchise. Because of A, they can’t.

C. With respect to the Flames, I’m sure that CSEC has a Shareholders Agreement which tightly controls their internal ownership group. I’m betting those shares can’t be sold without group permission and that there may be rights to buy them among the group, at set discounted prices.

No one said borrowing made you poorer, although by definition, you now owe more money than you did the day before. What it doesn’t do is make you richer just because you borrow money. Presumably new assets acquired with the debt offset the increase debt but that just means your balance sheet is theoretically unchanged. You’ve just taken on risk, that’s all.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I suspect that’s unsecured bond debt. It’s not borrowing against assets like you are imagining.

Anyway, there’s no way Murray Edwards has pledged shares in CSEC (or any other companies) as collateral.

EDIT: Just looked at the notes. It’s all long term unsecured debt, meaning no assets were leveraged. (Note 8)

Borrowing is borrowing. If it doesn’t get paid back the assets will eventually get seized. Make no mistake the company is levered.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Which ones? Not Edco. Or CNRL. Murray is an investment banker. He doesn’t borrow money. He lends money, or invests via convertible debentures. He advances DIP loans to distressed corps on occasion.

I’m well aware that you can make money if you earn enough to make your interest payments. But I’m an insolvency lawyer. I see the flip side. Borrowing money made Musk poorer. It made Trump poorer.

But anyway, we are talking about team owners. The Flames owners can’t borrow against their ownership of the team for a number of reasons. Not the least of which is no lender would take that collateral.

Actually, you said earlier that borrowing does not make you richer.

I can only assume that the companies that go into insolvency are just a fraction of the loans.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Actually, you said earlier that borrowing does not make you richer.

I can only assume that the companies that go into insolvency are just a fraction of the loans.

If I said that I was being a smart ass and referring to that moment in time. It was stated as some sort of a maxim that owners could lever their ownership stake because “that’s how the rich get richer”. And then for some reason Musk’s Twitter acquisition was used as the example.

Yes, you can eventually get more wealthy if you borrow and your investment using borrowed money pays off. It happens some of the time. But the moment you borrow you aren’t richer. You’ve taken on debt. Hopefully you’ve acquired assets equal to that debt using the money. But it happens a lot less than people think, even for “the rich”. And the richest people, like Edwards, generally don’t take on secured debt - they issue unsecured notes etc. that’s what CNRL does.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Borrowing is borrowing. If it doesn’t get paid back the assets will eventually get seized. Make no mistake the company is levered.

That’s not what “leveraging assets” means at all. The discussion was “collateral”. Unsecured debt is debt with no collateral. It means the note holder is equal to the coffee supplier as far as repayment. Does CNRL have leveraged assets because has an account with Staples for paper and printer ink?

In fact, depending on the notes, those bond holders may rank below even normal creditors by virtue of equitable subordination or the provisions of the BIA and CCAA dealing with debt to shareholders.