Post by JETStender on Apr 28, 2009 22:53:11 GMT -5
Franchise relocation as NHL-NHLPA morality play, via the Toronto press
Posted by George James Malik April 28, 2009 02:39AM
The Toronto media's "thought balloon" articles tend to follow a pattern, and the Globe and Mail's David Shoalts's latest "Really, we swear, there's a genuine possibility that maybe, sort of, kind of, there could be, like, eventually, a second NHL team in Toronto" article follows illustrates that pattern--float the big balloon, let the firestorm brew, and float a second and/or third balloon while you've got your readers' short attention spans.
In this case, Shoalts dropped this tidbit in his story:
April 24, Globe and Mail: The two-teams-in-Toronto idea appears to have the support of NHL Players' Association executive director Paul Kelly, who issued a statement saying he believes the issue of a second franchise is worth further study. Kelly said he has met with interested "groups," but did not identify [former Maple Leaf Kevin] Maguire's party as one of them.
"Without discussing specifics, I have previously met informally with groups that have expressed an interest in putting a second team in Toronto or Southern Ontario," Kelly said. "The viability of a second team in Toronto or Southern Ontario should be explored, so, in the event that relocation needs to be considered for franchises that are struggling where they are currently located, a well-informed decision can be made."
Now you know and I know that, aside from the fact that any discussion of a potential "second team within an 80-mile radius of Toronto" plan involves testing a portion of the NHL's constitution which may be not just contradictory, but antitrust-level illegal--and, constitution aside, the NHL has absolutely no desire whatsoever to challenge the Maple Leaf monopoly, or ask the NHL's most profitable franchise to fork over a cent of its massive revenues (revenue-sharing cheque excluded) to a second team in battling for hearts and minds and Toonies in its own backyard.
After the cursory National Post denial, Sportsnet posted this tidbit...
April 23, Sportsnet: The group -- which has also discussed its proposal with Paul Kelly, the executive director of the NHL Players' Association -- presented its own market research stating that a second team located in northern Toronto would not impact the revenues of either the Toronto Maple Leafs or Buffalo Sabres.
The group is taking a long-term view, looking to add a team likely in the three-to-five year range, giving them enough time to build an arena as well as settle any territorial-rights fees for the Leafs and Sabres.
The total cost to bring a new franchise to Toronto could be upwards of $800-million.
One NHL owner told the paper that NHL commissioner Gary Bettman has been "toying with the idea" of a second franchise in Toronto but would want to open it up to all parties in order to attract the highest bidder.
Should relocation be considered, the obvious choice for a move is the Phoenix Coyotes. The NHL had to step in to help the cash-strapped franchise stay afloat for the 2008-09 season. The Coyotes had an estimated loss of US$35-million this year.
Paul Kelly, executive director of the NHL Players' Association, was receptive to the possibility.
"Without discussing specifics, I have previously met informally with groups that have expressed an interest in putting a second team in Toronto or Southern Ontario,'' Kelly said in a statement. "The viability of a second team in Toronto or Southern Ontario should be explored, so, in the event that relocation needs to be considered for franchises that are struggling where they are currently located, a well-informed decision can be made.''
The Toronto Star's Damien Cox certainly caught on, fast...
April 23, Toronto Star: The fact the NHL is at least willing to discuss the issue opens a new chapter in this story, and is likely connected to the fact that several U.S.-based franchises, notably Phoenix, are in severe financial distress. New York Islanders owner Charles Wang has said his team is losing upwards of $20 million a season and has threatened to move the team if he can't get clearance for a new arena, while the Tampa Bay Lightning are rumoured to be in the red to the tune of $25 million per season just a year after being sold to Hollywood producer Oren Koules and former NHL player Len Barrie.
Rather than folding teams, the league would prefer to re-locate them if absolutely necessary, but in these economic times cities willing and able to accommodate new teams would be hard to find.
The league is also clearly kicking the tires on Las Vegas, having agreed to hold its awards show in that city for the next three years starting this June.
All that said, a source familiar with last week's meeting played down its important, calling the meeting "extremely insignificant."
The Toronto Star's Kevin McGran did the same...
April 23, Toronto Star: Clearly, there are always any number of groups looking to capitalize on the GTA's passion for the sport and willingness of its citizens to plunk down their hard-earned dollars in pursuit of that passion. One scheme last year, for instance, proposed an $84 million NHL-themed development called "Hockeytown" that would have included a four-pad rink complex located in Vaughan, a sprawling suburb with deep hockey roots.
The NHL, meanwhile, is clearly in the business of listening these days. The worsening economic climate may soon exacerbate the already troubled condition of various NHL clubs, including Phoenix, Atlanta, Tampa Bay, Florida, Long Island and Nashville.
That's why, according to players association executive director Paul Kelly, the NHL needs to have an open mind.
"The viability of a second team in Toronto or southern Ontario should be explored so, in the event that relocation needs to be considered for franchises that are struggling where they are currently located, a well-informed decision can be made," said Kelly in a statement yesterday.
So you really can't blame Daly and other league officials from talking to people like Maguire and the money people he represents, and it certainly does no harm to the Leafs or any other NHL franchise.
Of course, if the Leafs were as wildly successful on the ice as they are off the ice, the issue would probably die. What most GTA residents would like, you see, is a championship team in the city, or at least one that wasn't the butt of jokes.
But because that isn't the case, and because people assume a second team would be a) good, b) affordable and c) a financial home run, the concept keeps popping up from time to time.
All of which is fine. But the reality probably is that the second GTA team idea is among the various NHL contingency plans stored in a dusty filing cabinet at NHL head offices should the Coyotes, Thrashers or one of the other franchises go belly up.
And that last paragraph, combined with the Maple Leafs' pre-playoff exit, explains why this is coming up--somebody's sabre-rattling, and whether it's the NHL or NHLPA, one never quite notes.
NHLPA executive director just happened to speak to the Globe and Mail's Tim Wharnsby about those "struggling sunbelt teams" (you know, the ones that both the players, via escrow, and the league, via its revenue-sharing program, are subsidizing) on Monday night...
April 28, Globe and Mail: "They have been trying to fit a square peg into a round hole for a lot of years," Healy said yesterday, in reference to the failure of the Sun Belt teams in the NHL. "They have tried everything in the world to sell the game, market the game, put fans in the seats and it doesn't work for a lot of reasons. You can go down a laundry list of why it hasn't worked -- it doesn't have the corporate backing, management has been ineffective in putting a winning team on the ice, and so on."
Healy's remarks were in concert with the view expressed by his boss, NHLPA executive director Paul Kelly, who along with NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly, assembled the Vaughn group.
"The viability of a second team in Toronto or Southern Ontario should be explored, so, in the event that relocation needs to be considered for franchises that are struggling where they are currently located, a well-informed decision can be made," Kelly said in a statement.
But NHL commissioner Gary Bettman continued in his stand that the league does not want to relocate any of its franchises and there are no immediate expansion plans.
"I didn't know who he was sitting down with," Bettman said of Daly on his weekly radio show. "I couldn't care less. He had the meeting, he reported back that there was another group interested in a team in Southern Ontario, which doesn't come as a shock or a news bulletin to me."
...
"If at some point we're in the business of relocating or expanding, we're going to open it up because the number of people and the number of places that want franchises is a fairly lengthy list," he said. "Nobody has the corner on the market."
And, as Wharnsby suggests, the fact that both the owners and the players can't do anything about the fact that, during some nasty economic times, there's a widespread belief that Bettman's shooting his constituents, employees and employers alike, in the skates:
"We can't do anything, but we do question why franchises are in certain places," Healy said. "We care because they are tied to us with the [salary-cap] system we're in and the cost certainty. Some of these franchises are like an anchor, or even the Titanic, and we're going down with them."
And here comes the clincher/closer: the Globe and Mail's Stephen Brunt's article, "New Battle Lines Are Drawn," proffering the suggestion that the NHLPA's membership--despite their status as dastardly for earning salaries disproportionate to the work they do, thus upsetting the socioeconomic balance (hey, it's Canada, home of Catholic guilt as a social conscience)--actually champions a People's Cause by looking to relocate NHL franchises in the Great (and more profitable) White North:
April 28, Globe and Mail: [N]ow that revenues -- and soon enough, the cap -- are tumbling down, the players and their union seem prepared to demand more of a say in how the NHL is operated, in an attempt at least to mitigate the damage.
Specifically, they are becoming more and more vocal in questioning the wisdom of keeping franchises in places where they aren't being supported, where tickets are given away or sell for next to nothing, while the biggest and best hockey market on the continent seems woefully underexploited.
During an interview on the Fan 590 in Toronto last week, the NHLPA's director of player affairs, Glen Healy, said what a whole lot of hockey fans have been saying for ages when it comes to teams in the U.S. Sun Belt.
"They have been trying to fit a square peg into a round hole for a lot of years," Healy reiterated yesterday. "They have tried everything in the world to sell the game, market the game, put fans in the seats and it doesn't work for a lot of reasons."
So there you have an executive of the union following up with public comments after Kelly himself met with a potential ownership group -- Healy said it represented one of at least three interested parties in Southern Ontario, including Jim Balsillie.
Bettman's right-hand man, Bill Daly, met with that group as well. But while Bettman dismissed the significance of the meeting during his weekly radio show ("I didn't know who he was sitting down with. I couldn't care less. He had the meeting, he reported back that there was another group interested in a team in Southern Ontario, which doesn't come as a shock or a news bulletin to me"), Healy did quite the opposite when talking about his boss.
"Paul Kelly went to the meeting -- he brought common sense with him to that meeting and said, hey, this might work. It might work a little better than some of these other areas that are down south and we just can't seem to fix."
At any other point in the regular or post-season, a "how it works" entry might not be appropriate, but, quite seriously, this sort of "thought balloon plus controversy equals the point they were trying to make in the first place" article exchange (with a Satellite Hotstove exchange tossed in most of the time), usually originating from Toronto, is generally how various factions with interests in the NHL (whether owners, Board of Governors members, players, NHL or PA execs, owners, etc.) proffer lineso f thought and run ideas by the general public. Almost nothing in the NHL is straightforward when it comes to talking about new ideas (or offering a different slant on the same old thing), but this circuitous route is so predictable that you can be pretty well assured (think an E4, if you will) that "thought balloon" stories almost always rabble-rouse the way for a similar line of inquiry.
Posted by George James Malik April 28, 2009 02:39AM
The Toronto media's "thought balloon" articles tend to follow a pattern, and the Globe and Mail's David Shoalts's latest "Really, we swear, there's a genuine possibility that maybe, sort of, kind of, there could be, like, eventually, a second NHL team in Toronto" article follows illustrates that pattern--float the big balloon, let the firestorm brew, and float a second and/or third balloon while you've got your readers' short attention spans.
In this case, Shoalts dropped this tidbit in his story:
April 24, Globe and Mail: The two-teams-in-Toronto idea appears to have the support of NHL Players' Association executive director Paul Kelly, who issued a statement saying he believes the issue of a second franchise is worth further study. Kelly said he has met with interested "groups," but did not identify [former Maple Leaf Kevin] Maguire's party as one of them.
"Without discussing specifics, I have previously met informally with groups that have expressed an interest in putting a second team in Toronto or Southern Ontario," Kelly said. "The viability of a second team in Toronto or Southern Ontario should be explored, so, in the event that relocation needs to be considered for franchises that are struggling where they are currently located, a well-informed decision can be made."
Now you know and I know that, aside from the fact that any discussion of a potential "second team within an 80-mile radius of Toronto" plan involves testing a portion of the NHL's constitution which may be not just contradictory, but antitrust-level illegal--and, constitution aside, the NHL has absolutely no desire whatsoever to challenge the Maple Leaf monopoly, or ask the NHL's most profitable franchise to fork over a cent of its massive revenues (revenue-sharing cheque excluded) to a second team in battling for hearts and minds and Toonies in its own backyard.
After the cursory National Post denial, Sportsnet posted this tidbit...
April 23, Sportsnet: The group -- which has also discussed its proposal with Paul Kelly, the executive director of the NHL Players' Association -- presented its own market research stating that a second team located in northern Toronto would not impact the revenues of either the Toronto Maple Leafs or Buffalo Sabres.
The group is taking a long-term view, looking to add a team likely in the three-to-five year range, giving them enough time to build an arena as well as settle any territorial-rights fees for the Leafs and Sabres.
The total cost to bring a new franchise to Toronto could be upwards of $800-million.
One NHL owner told the paper that NHL commissioner Gary Bettman has been "toying with the idea" of a second franchise in Toronto but would want to open it up to all parties in order to attract the highest bidder.
Should relocation be considered, the obvious choice for a move is the Phoenix Coyotes. The NHL had to step in to help the cash-strapped franchise stay afloat for the 2008-09 season. The Coyotes had an estimated loss of US$35-million this year.
Paul Kelly, executive director of the NHL Players' Association, was receptive to the possibility.
"Without discussing specifics, I have previously met informally with groups that have expressed an interest in putting a second team in Toronto or Southern Ontario,'' Kelly said in a statement. "The viability of a second team in Toronto or Southern Ontario should be explored, so, in the event that relocation needs to be considered for franchises that are struggling where they are currently located, a well-informed decision can be made.''
The Toronto Star's Damien Cox certainly caught on, fast...
April 23, Toronto Star: The fact the NHL is at least willing to discuss the issue opens a new chapter in this story, and is likely connected to the fact that several U.S.-based franchises, notably Phoenix, are in severe financial distress. New York Islanders owner Charles Wang has said his team is losing upwards of $20 million a season and has threatened to move the team if he can't get clearance for a new arena, while the Tampa Bay Lightning are rumoured to be in the red to the tune of $25 million per season just a year after being sold to Hollywood producer Oren Koules and former NHL player Len Barrie.
Rather than folding teams, the league would prefer to re-locate them if absolutely necessary, but in these economic times cities willing and able to accommodate new teams would be hard to find.
The league is also clearly kicking the tires on Las Vegas, having agreed to hold its awards show in that city for the next three years starting this June.
All that said, a source familiar with last week's meeting played down its important, calling the meeting "extremely insignificant."
The Toronto Star's Kevin McGran did the same...
April 23, Toronto Star: Clearly, there are always any number of groups looking to capitalize on the GTA's passion for the sport and willingness of its citizens to plunk down their hard-earned dollars in pursuit of that passion. One scheme last year, for instance, proposed an $84 million NHL-themed development called "Hockeytown" that would have included a four-pad rink complex located in Vaughan, a sprawling suburb with deep hockey roots.
The NHL, meanwhile, is clearly in the business of listening these days. The worsening economic climate may soon exacerbate the already troubled condition of various NHL clubs, including Phoenix, Atlanta, Tampa Bay, Florida, Long Island and Nashville.
That's why, according to players association executive director Paul Kelly, the NHL needs to have an open mind.
"The viability of a second team in Toronto or southern Ontario should be explored so, in the event that relocation needs to be considered for franchises that are struggling where they are currently located, a well-informed decision can be made," said Kelly in a statement yesterday.
So you really can't blame Daly and other league officials from talking to people like Maguire and the money people he represents, and it certainly does no harm to the Leafs or any other NHL franchise.
Of course, if the Leafs were as wildly successful on the ice as they are off the ice, the issue would probably die. What most GTA residents would like, you see, is a championship team in the city, or at least one that wasn't the butt of jokes.
But because that isn't the case, and because people assume a second team would be a) good, b) affordable and c) a financial home run, the concept keeps popping up from time to time.
All of which is fine. But the reality probably is that the second GTA team idea is among the various NHL contingency plans stored in a dusty filing cabinet at NHL head offices should the Coyotes, Thrashers or one of the other franchises go belly up.
And that last paragraph, combined with the Maple Leafs' pre-playoff exit, explains why this is coming up--somebody's sabre-rattling, and whether it's the NHL or NHLPA, one never quite notes.
NHLPA executive director just happened to speak to the Globe and Mail's Tim Wharnsby about those "struggling sunbelt teams" (you know, the ones that both the players, via escrow, and the league, via its revenue-sharing program, are subsidizing) on Monday night...
April 28, Globe and Mail: "They have been trying to fit a square peg into a round hole for a lot of years," Healy said yesterday, in reference to the failure of the Sun Belt teams in the NHL. "They have tried everything in the world to sell the game, market the game, put fans in the seats and it doesn't work for a lot of reasons. You can go down a laundry list of why it hasn't worked -- it doesn't have the corporate backing, management has been ineffective in putting a winning team on the ice, and so on."
Healy's remarks were in concert with the view expressed by his boss, NHLPA executive director Paul Kelly, who along with NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly, assembled the Vaughn group.
"The viability of a second team in Toronto or Southern Ontario should be explored, so, in the event that relocation needs to be considered for franchises that are struggling where they are currently located, a well-informed decision can be made," Kelly said in a statement.
But NHL commissioner Gary Bettman continued in his stand that the league does not want to relocate any of its franchises and there are no immediate expansion plans.
"I didn't know who he was sitting down with," Bettman said of Daly on his weekly radio show. "I couldn't care less. He had the meeting, he reported back that there was another group interested in a team in Southern Ontario, which doesn't come as a shock or a news bulletin to me."
...
"If at some point we're in the business of relocating or expanding, we're going to open it up because the number of people and the number of places that want franchises is a fairly lengthy list," he said. "Nobody has the corner on the market."
And, as Wharnsby suggests, the fact that both the owners and the players can't do anything about the fact that, during some nasty economic times, there's a widespread belief that Bettman's shooting his constituents, employees and employers alike, in the skates:
"We can't do anything, but we do question why franchises are in certain places," Healy said. "We care because they are tied to us with the [salary-cap] system we're in and the cost certainty. Some of these franchises are like an anchor, or even the Titanic, and we're going down with them."
And here comes the clincher/closer: the Globe and Mail's Stephen Brunt's article, "New Battle Lines Are Drawn," proffering the suggestion that the NHLPA's membership--despite their status as dastardly for earning salaries disproportionate to the work they do, thus upsetting the socioeconomic balance (hey, it's Canada, home of Catholic guilt as a social conscience)--actually champions a People's Cause by looking to relocate NHL franchises in the Great (and more profitable) White North:
April 28, Globe and Mail: [N]ow that revenues -- and soon enough, the cap -- are tumbling down, the players and their union seem prepared to demand more of a say in how the NHL is operated, in an attempt at least to mitigate the damage.
Specifically, they are becoming more and more vocal in questioning the wisdom of keeping franchises in places where they aren't being supported, where tickets are given away or sell for next to nothing, while the biggest and best hockey market on the continent seems woefully underexploited.
During an interview on the Fan 590 in Toronto last week, the NHLPA's director of player affairs, Glen Healy, said what a whole lot of hockey fans have been saying for ages when it comes to teams in the U.S. Sun Belt.
"They have been trying to fit a square peg into a round hole for a lot of years," Healy reiterated yesterday. "They have tried everything in the world to sell the game, market the game, put fans in the seats and it doesn't work for a lot of reasons."
So there you have an executive of the union following up with public comments after Kelly himself met with a potential ownership group -- Healy said it represented one of at least three interested parties in Southern Ontario, including Jim Balsillie.
Bettman's right-hand man, Bill Daly, met with that group as well. But while Bettman dismissed the significance of the meeting during his weekly radio show ("I didn't know who he was sitting down with. I couldn't care less. He had the meeting, he reported back that there was another group interested in a team in Southern Ontario, which doesn't come as a shock or a news bulletin to me"), Healy did quite the opposite when talking about his boss.
"Paul Kelly went to the meeting -- he brought common sense with him to that meeting and said, hey, this might work. It might work a little better than some of these other areas that are down south and we just can't seem to fix."
At any other point in the regular or post-season, a "how it works" entry might not be appropriate, but, quite seriously, this sort of "thought balloon plus controversy equals the point they were trying to make in the first place" article exchange (with a Satellite Hotstove exchange tossed in most of the time), usually originating from Toronto, is generally how various factions with interests in the NHL (whether owners, Board of Governors members, players, NHL or PA execs, owners, etc.) proffer lineso f thought and run ideas by the general public. Almost nothing in the NHL is straightforward when it comes to talking about new ideas (or offering a different slant on the same old thing), but this circuitous route is so predictable that you can be pretty well assured (think an E4, if you will) that "thought balloon" stories almost always rabble-rouse the way for a similar line of inquiry.