Firm offers 3.5 billion for NHL

[Guest Smell the ratings!!!]

TORONTO -- An investment firm and a sports advisory company reportedly made a joint proposal to buy all 30 NHL teams for as much as $3.5 billion.

 

Bain Capital Partners LLC and Game Plan International, both based in Boston, made the offer in a 30-minute presentation to NHL owners on Tuesday in New York, sources told the Toronto Star. The companies were invited to make their pitch by NHL commissioner Gary Bettman.

 

Bain managing partner Steven Pagliuca, co-owner of the NBA's Boston Celtics, and Game Plan, which recently acted as an adviser on the sale of the Ottawa Senators, are betting that many NHL owners would welcome the chance to get out of the hockey business.

 

The NHL, which because of its ongoing player lockout recently became the first major North American pro sports league to cancel an entire season, has said its teams have lost a collective $500 million over the past two seasons.

 

It's unclear if team owners, especially those in large markets such as Toronto, Boston and New York, would accept the offer. Maple Leafs officials declined comment, as did a Game Plan spokesman.

 

NHL executive vice president Bill Daly was cautious in describing the level of interest the proposal received from the governors.

 

"I'm not going to characterize it," Daly told the Globe and Mail. "I would imagine different clubs had different feelings. The board listened to a presentation and that's about it."

 

Daly said the league was compelled to listen based on the significance of the offer.

 

"When someone's offering over $3 billion, we felt we had an obligation to the board to have them, at least, hear it from the proposed purchaser," Daly added.

 

The purchase would not be dependent on the NHL reaching agreement with the players on a collective bargaining deal, and a sale would not affect the status of the NHL Players' Association as the bargaining agent for players under U.S. and Canadian labor laws.

 

According to Bain and Game Plan, the sale would bolster the league's revenue because all of the teams would work together to generate more local television, sponsorship and revenue instead of competing against one another. The consortium told the NHL owners it had arranged for a large Canadian-based financier to join its efforts.

[starvenger 0]

And this would make a difference how?

[Guest Smell the ratings!!!]

well I guess they want to drive out all the shitty owners. As a Chicagoan, I cannot object.

[nl5xsk1 0]

And this would make a difference how?

They could fire Gary fucking Bettman. That's a huge improvement on the league immediately.

[Guest Vitamin X]

And this would make a difference how?

According to Bain and Game Plan, the sale would bolster the league's revenue because all of the teams would work together to generate more local television, sponsorship and revenue instead of competing against one another. The consortium told the NHL owners it had arranged for a large Canadian-based financier to join its efforts.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Best use of the quote tags in a while.

[starvenger 0]

Funny, V-X.

 

My point (and naturally I managed to obscure it by making a snarky ambiguous comment. I really need to stop that) was that you have just one owner for all the teams, and maybe it means more revenue, and that's great from the owners standpoint, but I don't think that's going to make the players go "Oh well, I guess we should just sign a CBA and get back to playing hockey".

[Lightning Flik 0]

I bet all the small market teams would've said yes. Hell, I know our consortium of owners here in Edmonton would've jumped onto the deal, because its probably one of the few ways to keep the team in Edmonton.

 

And I like this firms train of thought. Seems like they actually *gasp* like hockey and wish to save it.

Edited March 3, 2005 by Lightning Flik

[iggymcfly 0]

This would scare the fuck out of the players' association, because if the owners weren't competing with each other, it wouldn't even matter if there was a salary cap or not. The players would be in essence, negotiating directly with the league for their value as entertainment draws.

 

If they didn't like the offer they got, their only real choice would be to go back to Europe or not play hockey..

[therealworldschampion 0]

Maybe this would mean that Bob Clarke would FINALLY get fired...

[Guest Lawlerm]

...but I don't think that's going to make the players go "Oh well, I guess we should just sign a CBA and get back to playing hockey".

The offers got nothing to do with getting the players to sign the CBA. Its about 2 companies who see an opportunity to buy 30 teams, whose value not so long ago was a combined $5bn, for only $3bn.

 

Good business.

[CanadianChris 0]

Maybe this would mean that Bob Clarke would FINALLY get fired...

Oh, don't tease me.

[Lightning Flik 0]

Maybe this would mean that Bob Clarke would FINALLY get fired...

Oh, don't tease me.

Watch as Bobby Clarke is fired, only to be re-hired as the new Commish.

[nl5xsk1 0]

Funny, V-X.

 

My point (and naturally I managed to obscure it by making a snarky ambiguous comment. I really need to stop that) was that you have just one owner for all the teams, and maybe it means more revenue, and that's great from the owners standpoint, but I don't think that's going to make the players go "Oh well, I guess we should just sign a CBA and get back to playing hockey".

If the "owners" were making more money, they'd likely be willing to pay the players more as well. It's only because the owners are now losing their blouse (obligatory Slapshot reference) that they're unwilling to pay players many millions.

[therealworldschampion 0]

Watch as Bobby Clarke is fired, only to be re-hired as the new Commish.

 

I could see the new rules with him as commish:

 

1. All players must be at least 6"3, 230 lbs.

 

2. Russians not allowed in league

 

3. Eric Lindros kicked out of NHL

 

4. #88 not allowed to be worn by any team

[starvenger 0]

...but I don't think that's going to make the players go "Oh well, I guess we should just sign a CBA and get back to playing hockey".

The offers got nothing to do with getting the players to sign the CBA. Its about 2 companies who see an opportunity to buy 30 teams, whose value not so long ago was a combined $5bn, for only $3bn.

 

Good business.

The purchase proposal isn't about the CBA, and of course doesn't need NHLPA approval to be accepted, but the situation with the players would remain the same - they're still locked out. They'd still have to create some sort of CBA to have the players come back.

 

I bet all the small market teams would've said yes. Hell, I know our consortium of owners here in Edmonton would've jumped onto the deal, because its probably one of the few ways to keep the team in Edmonton.

I'm sure Todd McFarlane wouldn't mind having some extra cash around to help pay Tony Twist in that BS decision...

 

If the "owners" were making more money, they'd likely be willing to pay the players more as well. It's only because the owners are now losing their blouse (obligatory Slapshot reference) that they're unwilling to pay players many millions.

That would be a great happy ending. However, I only think that they'll increase revenue with the whole consolidation thing. Turning a profit? We'd have to see if that's even possible with some of the teams in the NHL.

 

I dunno, maybe I'm still bitter about the whole "no hockey" thing.

[Guest OldSkoolNWA]

Didn't work when one company owned the CHL, and it won't work if one company owns the NHL.

 

I can think of a very big reason that I don't want to see it happen...let's say they keep all the teams where they are....now let's say Atlanta is playing bad, no one is coming to the games, and the team is actually costing the ownership money...what would be the simple solution ???? Simply move some great players to Atlanta to draw fans and make more money. The company that owned the CHL did almost the same thing a couple years ago - here in D/FW the WPHL decided to add a team in Fort Worth, well to compete for the Ft Worth fans, CHL ownership decided to stockpile their Ft Worth franchise (The Fire) with the leagues best players. It worked, the Ft Worth Fire won that years championship, and then all the great players were signed to play for the Fort Worth Brahmas of the WPHL.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Didn't work when one company owned the CHL, and it won't work if one company owns the NHL.

 

I can think of a very big reason that I don't want to see it happen...let's say they keep all the teams where they are....now let's say Atlanta is playing bad, no one is coming to the games, and the team is actually costing the ownership money...what would be the simple solution ???? Simply move some great players to Atlanta to draw fans and make more money. The company that owned the CHL did almost the same thing a couple years ago - here in D/FW the WPHL decided to add a team in Fort Worth, well to compete for the Ft Worth fans, CHL ownership decided to stockpile their Ft Worth franchise (The Fire) with the leagues best players. It worked, the Ft Worth Fire won that years championship, and then all the great players were signed to play for the Fort Worth Brahmas of the WPHL.

That's a good point. Syndicate ownership has never benefited sports, and it nearly killed baseball in the 1890s. It'd be nice to see a change in ownership, but this has obvious drawbacks.

[Steve J. Rogers 0]

First of all. I want to see what happens when Charles Dolan is asked to sell the Rangers, ditto with the Flyers, Red Wings, Maple Leafs, ect

 

Second, that means you are buying all of the teams for what, 100 mil each? Give me a break. Again teams like the Red Wings are worth much more. Plus do you REALLY think the owners of the Rangers are going to give up the Rangers, part of the whole Madison Square Garden conglomeriate? (with the Knicks, the building itself (which means they could very well kick the new owners out the the Garden) and the network along with other enities)

 

 

Third, okay, so that means there really isn't much integrity because since one person owns all the teams, that means the cities he thinks will do well, will do well no matter what, and the rest of the league will be in the crapper

 

This is essentially a complete publicity stunt, I am SHOCKED that they even rated getting a meeting with the NHL

 

Steve

[Chuck Woolery 0]

My first thought was that having one owner could so easily turn into the WWE on ice.

 

My second thought was that, sadly, that would draw better than hockey.

[MARTYEWR 0]

Didn't work when one company owned the CHL, and it won't work if one company owns the NHL.

 

I can think of a very big reason that I don't want to see it happen...let's say they keep all the teams where they are....now let's say Atlanta is playing bad, no one is coming to the games, and the team is actually costing the ownership money...what would be the simple solution ???? Simply move some great players to Atlanta to draw fans and make more money. The company that owned the CHL did almost the same thing a couple years ago - here in D/FW the WPHL decided to add a team in Fort Worth, well to compete for the Ft Worth fans, CHL ownership decided to stockpile their Ft Worth franchise (The Fire) with the leagues best players. It worked, the Ft Worth Fire won that years championship, and then all the great players were signed to play for the Fort Worth Brahmas of the WPHL.

That's a good point. Syndicate ownership has never benefited sports, and it nearly killed baseball in the 1890s. It'd be nice to see a change in ownership, but this has obvious drawbacks.

I'm actually more worried about the Canadian teams if this purchase happens rather than under the current system.

 

In fact, Al, the first thing I thought of when I heard this news is when baseball took over the Expos. Gee, that worked out well for that franchise, huh?

[The Czech Republic 0]

In fact, Al, the first thing I thought of when I heard this news is when baseball took over the Expos. Gee, that worked out well for that franchise, huh?

It wasn't supposed to work! They wanted the team to fail in Montreal so they could move it to Washington from day one! I guess by that logic, it worked perfectly!

[Red Baron 0]

It would be like in Slapshot 2.

 

Circus on ice.

[MARTYEWR 0]

In fact, Al, the first thing I thought of when I heard this news is when baseball took over the Expos. Gee, that worked out well for that franchise, huh?

It wasn't supposed to work! They wanted the team to fail in Montreal so they could move it to Washington from day one! I guess by that logic, it worked perfectly!

True, but that's the point I was getting at. If you have a single entity controlling 30 teams, it's very possible some teams will be shown more favouritism over others.

[CanadianChris 0]

In fact, Al, the first thing I thought of when I heard this news is when baseball took over the Expos. Gee, that worked out well for that franchise, huh?

It wasn't supposed to work! They wanted the team to fail in Montreal so they could move it to Washington from day one! I guess by that logic, it worked perfectly!

True, but that's the point I was getting at. If you have a single entity controlling 30 teams, it's very possible some teams will be shown more favouritism over others.

That was a completely different scenario. One entity owning all the teams would be different that the other 29 teams owning the 30th.

 

Doesn't make it any better of an idea, though.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Good thing Bettman didn't sabotage the Sens and Sabres when they were collectively owned for a while in 2003.

[2GOLD 0]

As much as I hate to say it, someone needs to throw dirt on the NHL cause the league is dead. Too many idiots running the ship for it to come out of this alive.

 

Need to move most of the teams back to Canada and just hit the reset button. Lots of these places don't need hockey. I mean, hockey in Arizona? Football and Baseball barely make money in Arizona so how the hell was hockey supposed to do it?

[CanadianChris 0]

Good thing Bettman didn't sabotage the Sens and Sabres when they were collectively owned for a while in 2003.

Neither team was owned by the league at any point.

[nl5xsk1 0]

As much as I hate to say it, someone needs to throw dirt on the NHL cause the league is dead. Too many idiots running the ship for it to come out of this alive.

 

Need to move most of the teams back to Canada and just hit the reset button. Lots of these places don't need hockey. I mean, hockey in Arizona? Football and Baseball barely make money in Arizona so how the hell was hockey supposed to do it?

If they were to hit the reset button, I'd be a proponent of making it a 16 team league, eight in Canada and eight here in the US. There'd be a Canadian conferece and an American conference, which would guarantee that there'd be one team from each country in each and every Cup final.

 

Canadian teams: Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa, Vancouver, Edmonton, & Calgary are a given; maybe add Quebec City and Winnipeg back, giving it 4 Eastern and 4 Western teams.

 

US teams: Boston, NYR, Philly, Detroit, Chicago and St Louis would be definites (due to their history), maybe add Colorado (good fan support) and Minnesota (as the Stars, though, and due to their states love of the sport). Again, 4 Eastern teams - Boston, NY, Philly, & Detroit) and 4 Western.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

I think Hamilton could easily support a team too.