Daniel Posted July 16, 2011 Share Posted July 16, 2011 We've been hearing a lot about "ownership issues" needing to be sorted out, especially before Parise is re-signed. Well, according to Debtwire (paid subscription only) the team has an $80 million loan that matures on September 1 with the team as collateral and a $107 million loan that matures in 2014 with the arena as collateral. (The team being collateral seems a little suspicious at first glance, since I imagine that any pro sports league wouldn't permit it without prior approval). Basically, the team is scrambling for investors to cover the debt. This could be big trouble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SterioDesign Posted July 16, 2011 Share Posted July 16, 2011 dont make us nervous... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrthemike Posted July 16, 2011 Share Posted July 16, 2011 Big trouble in what way? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justdo3043 Posted July 16, 2011 Share Posted July 16, 2011 Roll it over.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted July 16, 2011 Author Share Posted July 16, 2011 Big trouble in what way? You've got $80 million due in less than two months with a large part-owner who wants out and you're in need of a white knight. I call that trouble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted July 16, 2011 Share Posted July 16, 2011 The owner that wants out would still want to roll over the debt. Gillifigan wouldn't want a default either, regardless if he wants to cash out or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxpower Posted July 16, 2011 Share Posted July 16, 2011 Yep, this is a total meh. What gets lost is that Parise is getting paid one way or another and the annual value isn't going to be that much different in year 1 of a long-term deal anyway. And the "ownership issue" is just one in a long line of strawmen re: Parise. Now, if they start clearing payroll for nothing in particular (and I mean stuff people want), then you could have a case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devs4LIFE Posted July 16, 2011 Share Posted July 16, 2011 If only us fans could fill up that arena. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted July 16, 2011 Author Share Posted July 16, 2011 Yep, this is a total meh. What gets lost is that Parise is getting paid one way or another and the annual value isn't going to be that much different in year 1 of a long-term deal anyway. And the "ownership issue" is just one in a long line of strawmen re: Parise. Now, if they start clearing payroll for nothing in particular (and I mean stuff people want), then you could have a case. What payroll is there to clear? The big money guys either have no trade clauses and/or nobody wants them. The one thing though that makes me think I'm over-reacting is the Andy Greene signing. If you're really in financial trouble you don't commit $12 million for someone who isn't good. (Although even if there was no salary cap and the team was owned by Bill Gates, I'd still be pissed off about the Greene signing, but that's just me). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxpower Posted July 16, 2011 Share Posted July 16, 2011 What payroll is there to clear? The big money guys either have no trade clauses and/or nobody wants them. The one thing though that makes me think I'm over-reacting is the Andy Greene signing. If you're really in financial trouble you don't commit $12 million for someone who isn't good. (Although even if there was no salary cap and the team was owned by Bill Gates, I'd still be pissed off about the Greene signing, but that's just me). Parise, for one. He's getting no less than $5M next season. Chambers is a pump and dumper, he's not going to screw himself. The only reason he's in a rush to get out is that value has leveled off and may have reduced (it's sure as hell going to reduce when you sell a non-controlling half and your only potential buyer is your partner). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted July 16, 2011 Author Share Posted July 16, 2011 Parise, for one. He's getting no less than $5M next season. The worse it gets, the more that becomes a distinct possibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxpower Posted July 16, 2011 Share Posted July 16, 2011 The worse it gets, the more that becomes a distinct possibility. Why is that? If they were concerned about taking on any salary, they would have traded him already. By taking him to arbitration, they make it a CERTAINTY that he gets a contract. I think you're looking for monsters under the bed here. Anyways, there's far bigger concerns with this stuff nationally than there is with a hockey team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted July 16, 2011 Author Share Posted July 16, 2011 (edited) Why is that? If they were concerned about taking on any salary, they would have traded him already. By taking him to arbitration, they make it a CERTAINTY that he gets a contract. I think you're looking for monsters under the bed here. Anyways, there's far bigger concerns with this stuff nationally than there is with a hockey team. I believe the team has the right to walk away from the arbitrator's award. Or they can accept it and then trade. Edited July 16, 2011 by Daniel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Facepainter Posted July 16, 2011 Share Posted July 16, 2011 We would have seen Zubrus or Clarkson or both moved out already, if they were in serious trouble. Last year had to have been a tough year financially for the owners, but they still signed Greene and Hedberg for 4.25 mil together. I also don't think the Devils would have elected to go to team arbitration if they couldn't afford him. If they go to arbitration, it'd be like give the arbitrator a blank check to write out to Parise. The Owners would have to be stupid to continue doing what they're doing with that type of debt. Hopefully reallity is that they're not that stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Facepainter Posted July 16, 2011 Share Posted July 16, 2011 (edited) I believe the team has the right to walk away from the arbitrator's award. Or they can accept it and then trade. I thought the same too, but the team actually can't walk away from the arbitrator's award. I guess the second case is possible. Edited July 16, 2011 by The Facepainter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marv4Life Posted July 16, 2011 Share Posted July 16, 2011 If only us fans could fill up that arena. Wouldn't make a difference(see Buffalo Sabres, which don't fill it up either despite announced sellouts). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitico12 Posted July 16, 2011 Share Posted July 16, 2011 OK, but can anyone tell me how much income the Devils had last year? Of course, debt is going to be listed (as was shown by the initial post), but, there is also a revenue stream that should easily cover that debt (which doesn't include the Devils assets). Remember, sometimes the numbers, in terms of losses, are quantified through "depreciation" of assets. I work in the airline business where companies lose millions year over year, but yet operate day-to-day with no problem. Loans are often requested so that liquidity is fairly strong. Basically, instead of playing with your money, you play with the bank's money. And the game goes on... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted July 16, 2011 Author Share Posted July 16, 2011 Loans are often requested so that liquidity is fairly strong. Basically, instead of playing with your money, you play with the bank's money. And the game goes on... Sounds like our owner's former employer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dadds3424 Posted July 16, 2011 Share Posted July 16, 2011 This is one of the times i wish i had a couple hounded million lying around to buy part ownership in the Devils Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJDevs4978 Posted July 16, 2011 Share Posted July 16, 2011 I thought the same too, but the team actually can't walk away from the arbitrator's award. Not unless the player elects arbitration, I think - which wasn't the case here. And if the team was in such dire straits wouldn't Vanderbeek be trying to get out instead of attempting to buy the whole thing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZeroGravityFat Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 There are plenty of investors in the area, this is a none issue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rangers suck69 Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 (edited) This makes me very very nervous in what looks like another era of teams being relocated. Im not as nervous on the level as Phoenix, Nashville, or the Islanders, but i am nervous Edited July 17, 2011 by rangers suck69 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJDevs4978 Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 (edited) There's nothing to be nervous about until there's something to be nervous about. We've had basically the highest payroll in the league since the lockout and aren't going to be too far from the cap celing this year either until further notice Of course typical Devils being the Devils we really don't know a lot about what's going on with the ownership situation, this is one time where it'd be nice not to have a CIA approach, I'll say that. Being in the dark about what's going to happen with ownership leads to paranoid threads like this. And if they were in as bad as Daniel and others think, trading Parise in itself isn't going to help all that much. I mean what difference is $6 million going to make if it was a nuclear meltdown situation? Then you'd see what's going on with the Mets where EVERYone starts getting traded or not retained. If we don't reinvest the $18 million coming off the books this year and start dumping other guys in trade then come and tell me about how we're in the poorhouse. Edited July 17, 2011 by NJDevs4978 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devs1965 Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 Why if this the case make any off season moves, no need to pick up any one, let rookies come up and play and start dumping salary with Clarkson, Zubs, this does not make any sense, I see this as a non issue! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted July 17, 2011 Author Share Posted July 17, 2011 There's nothing to be nervous about until there's something to be nervous about. We've had basically the highest payroll in the league since the lockout and aren't going to be too far from the cap celing this year either until further notice Of course typical Devils being the Devils we really don't know a lot about what's going on with the ownership situation, this is one time where it'd be nice not to have a CIA approach, I'll say that. Being in the dark about what's going to happen with ownership leads to paranoid threads like this. And if they were in as bad as Daniel and others think, trading Parise in itself isn't going to help all that much. I mean what difference is $6 million going to make if it was a nuclear meltdown situation? Then you'd see what's going on with the Mets where EVERYone starts getting traded or not retained. If we don't reinvest the $18 million coming off the books this year and start dumping other guys in trade then come and tell me about how we're in the poorhouse. Not $6 million, more like $60 million if you're thinking the way your creditors do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.