Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
thefiestygoat

2 Toronto Businessmen Intersted in Partially Owning the Devils?

53 posts in this topic

Bad news.

God, you are just full of your usual cheer today.

I don't know what you think is going to happen. Even if someone 'eventually' buys the team that wants to move it (for now this is clearly short-term capital and I'm sure they'll have a stipulation that allows them to buy majority control if certain conditions aren't met), the team is tied to the arena and TV contract for like 25 years.

Not to mention the NHL doesn't want a team in Toronto or Hamilton (neither do the Leafs or Sabres) - where these guys would want to move it ostensibly. Maybe Vanderbeek's going under eventually, maybe he isn't...you don't know his finances any more than we do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 of the top 6 teams in the NHL in terms of revenue are Canadian. The biggest hockey market in the world, by far, is in Toronto. NY supports 3 teams and LA supports 2.. Toronto has more then enough hockey crazed fans to support 2 teams.. I've read numerous articles with local businessmen, sports analysts and NHL representatives stating that a 2nd team in Toronto being a financial success is a no-brainer. The Leafs organization may have some objections (and they would likely be compensated in some way), but realistically they wouldn't be threatened when you consider the history and current position of the Leafs. In fact a city rivalry may actually be beneficial.

"There's massive appetite for a second team in Toronto," said Global managing partner Don Mayo. "There's about 800,000 people in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) right now that have NHL hockey as a passion that haven't been able to attend a hockey game in the past two years."

Having the NHL's largest Canadian market all to themselves has been very good for the Leafs. But would they be hurt if another team set up shop nearby? The fact is, some of the richest franchises around share markets with other teams in the same sport. The New York Yankees, New York Rangers, Los Angeles Lakers and Chicago Cubs are all prime examples - and none seem to have suffered one bit.

"I would expect that Toronto's got enough capacity for at least two teams, maybe two-and-a-half," said Harrison.

"They could put a second NHL team in, possibly even a third NHL team in with the demand in the GTA area," added Mayo.

"Sports analyst 'guarantees' 2nd NHL team in Toronto"

Two more NHL governors said the league should put a second team in Toronto, although one of them said it should be by relocating an existing franchise rather than expanding.

"I don't think it can be an expansion team," a governor said. "We can't expand because we would be the laughingstock of professional sports. "We've got too many troubled franchises. We've got to look at relocating a couple of them. These franchises were troubled long before the economic downturn and next year is going to be worse on them."

And what about Hamilton, so often mentioned as a future NHL city and nearly the home of the Nashville Predators? For one, it would hurt the Buffalo Sabres. But this argument made us laugh:

"It's a minor-league town," the governor said of Hamilton. "How could we sell a team from Hamilton? Do you think the New York Rangers want to put the Hamilton Steelers on their marquee at Madison Square Garden? Do you think anyone in Manhattan would buy tickets to see them?"

I could insert a million quotes but those sum it up more or less.

Edited by njdevsftw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God, you are just full of your usual cheer today.

I don't know what you think is going to happen. Even if someone 'eventually' buys the team that wants to move it (for now this is clearly short-term capital and I'm sure they'll have a stipulation that allows them to buy majority control if certain conditions aren't met), the team is tied to the arena and TV contract for like 25 years.

Not to mention the NHL doesn't want a team in Toronto or Hamilton (neither do the Leafs or Sabres) - where these guys would want to move it ostensibly. Maybe Vanderbeek's going under eventually, maybe he isn't...you don't know his finances any more than we do.

If you've got enough money you and you own the team, you can move. It's just a matter of whether you have enough money to buy out the lease.

And you don't need to be VBK's auditor to know the team is in serious financial condition. Again, the team is in default and no one really expects them to be able to come up with an $80 million check. That's not to mention the even bigger loan that matures in a few years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To buy the team, move it to Toronto, and break the lease and TV contract - I dunno, that would cost at least $500 million, and probably closer to $1 billion. A second team isn't coming to Toronto.

Edited by Triumph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"There's massive appetite for a second team in Toronto," said Global managing partner Don Mayo. "There's about 800,000 people in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) right now that have NHL hockey as a passion that haven't been able to attend a hockey game in the past two years."

How are they surviving up there with going 2 years without going to a game? Jesus. This is worse then I thought. :rolleyes:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To buy the team, move it to Toronto, and break the lease and TV contract - I dunno, that would cost at least $500 million, and probably closer to $1 billion. A second team isn't coming to Toronto.

this is 100% true and should end this discussion right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is 100% true and should end this discussion right now.

I think a 2nd team is coming to Toronto.. I don't think it's the Devils though. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Toronto may very well be able to support another team, but the NHL is pretty dead set against moving teams unless it absolutely has to. And that's especially true when the team has a lucrative TV deal AND is tied to a brand new arena.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Toronto can absolutely support another team, but the Leafs and the NHL will not allow another team into the Greater Toronto Area unless they pay an incredible amount of money to the Leafs (and probably the Sabres too). That's not happening.

In addition, one problem with the salary cap that needs addressing is the fact that teams would be actively against a 2nd Toronto team because of the revenue it would generate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't the guy who bought the Stars from Vancouver or something? Could just be some guys who want a piece of a team and there aren't many availalbe close to home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If (when?) they put a second team in Toronto, it will be through expansion. The league wants that payday for itself.

In general, breaking the lease/TV contract is only a matter of $. There is only one thing that could stop the team from moving if someone broke the bank and Vanderbeek agreed and that is league approval. I don't want to know if the owners would give it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone that invests in a sports franchise wants a return for their investment. Either through long term profit, resale at a profit or because it's cheaper to buy an ailing business rather than to start one from scratch. Some use sports teams to promote other brands they own.

Until it's known who the potential investors are it's going to be virtually impossible to guess at their long term motives. And from all the things Ive read about the Devils they don't sound like a business that's going to get anyone rich in a hurry.

As for another franchise in Toronto could you imagine the rivalry there? It'd be intense for sure and would not only stimulate both teams it would push up the NHLs value as a whole to the TV stations. If the NHL are after a quick buck they'll sanction the move of a financial unstable franchise there. If they want to maximise their slice of the pie they'll go the expansion route.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone in the area is such a die hard Leaf fan. I highly doubt the fans that they claim can't go to Leaf games because of the demand for tickets is going to just all of a sudden stop being a fan of the team and switch to a new team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Leafs have fought a Hamilton and/or Toronto 2 franchise tooth and nail because of their monopoly over events at the ACC. Another arena in suburban Markham (as rumored) would serve as competition. Copps Coliseum gives a little competition but its similar to TD Garden in Boston competing with the old Worcester Centrum.

Eventually the NHL will have to cave and open-up to a Toronto 2 franchise but I believe it'll be an expansion franchise. Why? All the owners get a piece of the massive expansion fee it'll command and the Leafs will get an ungodly territory fee. Hamilton is too close to Buffalo for the Sabres comfort so I believe it'll be Markham.

Seattle will end-up with the Coyotes because I believe the NHL doesn't want another cross-country relocation to Quebec City. That'll leave Quebec City and one out of Kansas City, Las Vegas, Houston, and perhaps even Phoenix II to get the other expansion team with the other getting the Islanders.

The Devils lease, television contract, and arena are what's going to keep the franchise anchored in Newark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone that invests in a sports franchise wants a return for their investment.

You clearly don't follow European sports. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone in the area is such a die hard Leaf fan. I highly doubt the fans that they claim can't go to Leaf games because of the demand for tickets is going to just all of a sudden stop being a fan of the team and switch to a new team.

Oh, the irony

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You clearly don't follow European sports. :P

Ha, I know what you mean. I live in the UK & am also a soccer fan. My soccer team was even owned by Bernie Ecclestone & Flavio Briatore of F1. Probably the only two people to make a profit out of running and selling a team! I think all sports investors go in with the intention of turning a profit but very few ever manage to achieve it.

A new franchise in Toronto would have no problem attracting die hard Maple leaf fans imo. Mainly youngters that can't get Leaf tickets that'll do it so they can stick it to their dad & brothers when their team beats the Leafs. Just plain old human nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I live in the UK & am also a soccer fan. -- I think all sports investors go in with the intention of turning a profit

Dude, seriously.. You think Abramovich bought Chelsea to make money??! ..?! How bout Sheikh Mansour in Man City?!? :D Granted these are the most grotesque examples, but you see the same thing in varying degrees in all the major soccer leagues in europe. Manchester City spent £314,900,000 (roughly $515,500,000) purchasing players the last 4 (!) years. That's roughly the same as Man United have spent over the last 25 years.. It's simply not possible to justify that kind of spending from a business perspective, even if you have an elaborate 300 year long business plan. :P

No sir. European sports, all though I guess soccer (and russian hockey) sticks out as the worst examples, is a playground for the richest men in the world. Many of these guys are clearly not looking to make money, but to have fun playing "Football Manager" with real life teams.

You do realize Samuel Eto'o makes around $29M a year playing soccer in a sh!tty ass russian club noone had even heard of two years ago? :P Yes, that's roughly the same as the combined salaries of Crosby, Malkin and Ovechkin.

Edited by njdevsftw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude, seriously.. You think Abramovich bought Chelsea to make money??! ..?! How bout Sheikh Mansour in Man City?!? :D Granted these are the most grotesque examples, but you see the same thing in varying degrees in all the major soccer leagues in europe. :P

You're right about that. It never ceases to amaze me how mega successful businessmen lose all sanity once they've bought a team in their chosen sport.

You do realize Samuel Eto'o makes around $29M a year playing soccer in a sh!tty ass russian club noone had even heard of two years ago? :P Yes, that's roughly the same as the combined salaries of Crosby, Malkin and Ovechkin.

Yes, I know. The obscene amounts of money has pretty much ruined football in the UK in my opinion (I know I'm in the minority on that one) and is a big factor in why I've all but given up being interested in it and switched to watching hockey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In addition, one problem with the salary cap that needs addressing is the fact that teams would be actively against a 2nd Toronto team because of the revenue it would generate.

I'm not sure how exactly it works in the NHL, but wouldn't revenue sharing make a revenue monster market like Toronto v2.0 a good thing for other teams?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how exactly it works in the NHL, but wouldn't revenue sharing make a revenue monster market like Toronto v2.0 a good thing for other teams?

Not if they are a cap floor team

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not if they are a cap floor team

But wouldn't the added money from revenue sharing help a cap floor team reach the cap floor?

It might be a moot point because I'm pretty ignorant to revenue sharing numbers and whether they really add up to anything substantial at all. The way the press plays it out, you'd think revenue sharing from the Yankees alone practically keep several small market MLB franchises afloat. While the NHL doesn't have anything that comes remotely close to what the Yanks pull in, I'd imagine that (if the NHL's revenue sharing setup is anything consequential at all) a second Toronto team would be financially beneficial to small market teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adding a high revenue team would increase the cap ceiling and floor more than revenue sharing would distribute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Care to expand on your really informative post?

relax dude

You don’t see the irony in talking about the difficulty for people to switch to second team in large market with an original 6 team and generations of loyalty behind it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0