Onddeck Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 This plays into exactly what I've been thinking is going on: Chambers was never in it for the long haul.. He invested in the Devils to help get it into Newark, because his investment group's goal is actually to improve/gentrify Newark.. Now that he got that, he and his group are looking to move to another project.. He tried to sell, but couldn't and wants his money now rather than waiting to find a buyer and having to help pay the debt while waiting.. Basically, he can go invest in Newark and make it better, while Jeff gets more control over his passion, the NJ Devils.. Win/win imo but isn't Chambers PAYING over $20 mil?? that has to be SOME debt he's trying to avoid.. and he obviously reallly wants to get rid of his shares Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin226 Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 (edited) but isn't Chambers PAYING over $20 mil?? that has to be SOME debt he's trying to avoid.. and he obviously reallly wants to get rid of his shares He's paying it against one of the loans, so he's lowering JVB's overall debt to lenders.. Also, Chamber's overall debt was around $120+ million (due in the next few years) when he had his 47% stake.. By paying $23 million now, JVB is taking the shares and relieving him of having to pay that $120+ in the future.. And obviously Jeff wouldn't be agreeing to this if he didn't think he could handle the extra debt.. Now Chambers can go invest his money elsewhere and improve Newark .. So I'm not worried Edited September 26, 2011 by Colin226 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevsMan84 Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 I am not worried at all because no matter what happens I cannot do sh!t about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion15 Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 As said in an NJ.com article, Chambers is a billionaire philanthropist, not a sports franchise owner. He only put the money up in the first place to get the arena built and revitalize Newark. He wasn't in it to run a team. Devils co-owner seeks to relinquish stake in team as part of debt refinancing strategy “(Chambers) is not really paying Jeff to get out,” the source said. “He’s paying off a note to get away and let Jeff take on the refinancing.” Chambers’ interest in the Devils, according to some in the organization, has been more about the development of Newark than profiteering. But with the team’s financial struggles and with an NBA lockout threatening the 2011-12 season and revenue from Nets games, Devils Arena Entertainment is facing the possibility of greater losses. “When Ray initially got involved, it wasn’t to run a sports franchise, it was for Newark’s continued revitalization, to get an arena built and a team there,” a source said. “Jeff was more involved in what happened on the ice. “Ray thinks it’s stabilized, so why not let the guy who knows the most about hockey move it forward?” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin226 Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 I am not worried at all because no matter what happens I cannot do sh!t about it. lol that's probably the most real comment on the whole thing that I've heard As said in an NJ.com article, Chambers is a billionaire philanthropist, not a sports franchise owner. He only put the money up in the first place to get the arena built and revitalize Newark. He wasn't in it to run a team. Devils co-owner seeks to relinquish stake in team as part of debt refinancing strategy Exactly.. His plan all along was to sell after the move to Newark.. Now he can invest elsewhere in the city and improve it, while Jeff gets more control in running the team (the reason he became an owner).. And obviously Jeff wouldn't accept this deal if he couldn't handle the increased debt he's taking on from Chambers.. This seems very win/win to me.. We get a big investor looking to put a lot of money into Newark, and we get an owner who loves the team and is taking on more shares Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 (edited) And obviously Jeff wouldn't accept this deal if he couldn't handle the increased debt he's taking on from Chambers this is not obvious. I mean, try to put these two facts together - in February or so, it was announced that Chambers wanted out. in September, he sells his portion of the team for negative money to the current holder of the other half of the team. either Vanderbeek is an incredibly shrewd businessman, waiting out Chambers until his price went way down, or he simply didn't have the money to buy the other half of the team. I don't think he has the money to pay off these debts, and I'm very skeptical that he can make it up through possible profits. Edited September 26, 2011 by Triumph Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewarkDevil5 Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 this is not obvious. I mean, try to put these two facts together - in February or so, it was announced that Chambers wanted out. in September, he sells his portion of the team for negative money to the current holder of the other half of the team. either Vanderbeek is an incredibly shrewd businessman, waiting out Chambers until his price went way down, or he simply didn't have the money to buy the other half of the team. I don't think he has the money to pay off these debts, and I'm very skeptical that he can make it up through possible profits. I'm not saying that I believe this is definitely the case, but it is actually very possible that Jeff Vanderbeek might be a very shrewd businessman. Just saying.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soulartist23 Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 I can't believe I'm seeing more negative "glass half empty"posts on this topic than positive ones.I understand being worried, but the determination to remain negative and not see anything positive out of the situation is baffling to me. Look we can't do anything about it anyway, like someone said. Can't we just enjoy the season? We have this defenseman prospect named Larsson, I hear he's awesome and almost a lock to make the team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amberite Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 either Vanderbeek is an incredibly shrewd businessman, waiting out Chambers until his price went way down, or he simply didn't have the money to buy the other half of the team. I don't think he has the money to pay off these debts, and I'm very skeptical that he can make it up through possible profits. But if he doesn't have the money to pay these debts, or if he doesn't see how the Devil's financials can pay them, why would he even accept the other 47%? We're talking about very successful businessmen here, and I just don't see any reason for Vanderbeek to accept this other 47% unless he actually wants it and knows his financial position ahead of time. Vanderbeek may be a hockey enthusiast, but he's not a billionaire with endless capital and every million means something to him. He wouldn't just take this debt if he knew it meant that he / the Devils couldn't pay it and he would eventually end up losing boatloads of money and reputation in any future default / bankruptcy / etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin226 Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 this is not obvious. I mean, try to put these two facts together - in February or so, it was announced that Chambers wanted out. in September, he sells his portion of the team for negative money to the current holder of the other half of the team. either Vanderbeek is an incredibly shrewd businessman, waiting out Chambers until his price went way down, or he simply didn't have the money to buy the other half of the team. I don't think he has the money to pay off these debts, and I'm very skeptical that he can make it up through possible profits. But Jeff didn't need to take on Chamber's debt.. He could have just let Chambers continue to find try and find a buyer (that never came).. This got Jeff a huge chunk of the team, while lowering his debt to creditors.. And Chambers basically decided to pay $23 million now in order to avoid paying $120+ million in the next few years on the debt (he would have had to pay this if he had decided to wait for a buyer that probably would have never come).. Seems like a logical choice to me on Chamber's part, and a good deal for Jeff if he can manage the debt.. Since JVB chose to accept this, I'm assuming Jeff is confident that he can manage the extra debt that he will eventually have to pay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
titans04 Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 But if he doesn't have the money to pay these debts, or if he doesn't see how the Devil's financials can pay them, why would he even accept the other 47%? We're talking about very successful businessmen here, and I just don't see any reason for Vanderbeek to accept this other 47% unless he actually wants it and knows his financial position ahead of time. Vanderbeek may be a hockey enthusiast, but he's not a billionaire with endless capital and every million means something to him. He wouldn't just take this debt if he knew it meant that he / the Devils couldn't pay it and he would eventually end up losing boatloads of money and reputation in any future default / bankruptcy / etc. it's not like that's ever happened to NHL ownners before, right? Actually agree with Triumph, the fact that Chambers plan was to sell as Colin suggests and that ended up costing him 23M just to get away from the much larger financial burden might lead some to believe he's the much smarter business man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin226 Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 But if he doesn't have the money to pay these debts, or if he doesn't see how the Devil's financials can pay them, why would he even accept the other 47%? We're talking about very successful businessmen here, and I just don't see any reason for Vanderbeek to accept this other 47% unless he actually wants it and knows his financial position ahead of time. Vanderbeek may be a hockey enthusiast, but he's not a billionaire with endless capital and every million means something to him. He wouldn't just take this debt if he knew it meant that he / the Devils couldn't pay it and he would eventually end up losing boatloads of money and reputation in any future default / bankruptcy / etc. Excellent post.. I agree 100% Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin226 Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 it's not like that's ever happened to NHL ownners before, right? Actually agree with Triumph, the fact that Chambers plan was to sell as Colin suggests and that ended up costing him 23M just to get away from the much larger financial burden might lead some to believe he's the much smarter business man. Chambers wanted to get away anyway.. He never bought this team because he cared about hockey.. It was all to move the team to Newark.. He got what he wanted and now he wants to move onto another project.. No buyer appeared, so this was his only option.. He's worth more than a billion so it wasn't a tough decision to make, and it freed him of future debt that Jeff seems to think he will be able to manage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 The Stars and Thrashers are good recent examples of ownership groups that when it came time to sell, they were ill-prepared to do so. I think maxpower's scenario is about right - Vanderbeek will try to get out in 2013. He has the whole team and it didn't cost him all that much to acquire it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin226 Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 (edited) The Stars and Thrashers are good recent examples of ownership groups that when it came time to sell, they were ill-prepared to do so. I think maxpower's scenario is about right - Vanderbeek will try to get out in 2013. He has the whole team and it didn't cost him all that much to acquire it. I mean I disagree only because I believe he truly loves owning this team, but if he does want to sell he'll have to pay off a chunk of this debt first.. Who wants to buy the Devils for $200 million and then have to pay lenders an additional $200+ million (both estimates but you get the point)... I love this team but that is wayyyy overpriced Edited September 26, 2011 by Colin226 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewarkDevil5 Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 I mean I disagree only because I believe he truly loves owning this team, but if he does want to sell he'll have to pay off a chunk of this debt first.. Who wants to buy the Devils for $200 million and then have to pay lenders an additional $200+ million (both estimates but you get the point)... I love this team but that is wayyyy overpriced No one would. The nice thing is though that whoever buys the team from Vanderbeek, by doing so will be satisfying virtually all the debt and would wind up with a pretty much brand new arena, fantastic hockey team, etc. and it would be all pretty much debt free (unless of course the new guy has to finance his purchase in which case we're back at square one). Vanderbeek would walk away the same way Chambers is now, having satisfied his debts but not gaining any money from the transaction. There is of course another possibility which is that Vanderbeek starts marketing smaller stakes of 1-10% of the team up to the point of selling 43% (leaving him still with a controlling 51% interest) to various millionaires around the state which could garner enough to make significant progress against the debt load of the team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerrydevil Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 When a business magnate pays $25 million to give up his share of the team, it's kinda tough to spin it as good news. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin226 Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 When a business magnate pays $25 million to give up his share of the team, it's kinda tough to spin it as good news. Why do I bother posting!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerrydevil Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 Why do I bother posting!! I read your posts, Colin. It's seemingly bad news that paying to rid himself of debt was the best option available to Chambers. It's an indication that the team is on shaky financial ground, and it's concerning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin226 Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 (edited) I read your posts, Colin. It's seemingly bad news that paying to rid himself of debt was the best option available to Chambers. It's an indication that the team is on shaky financial ground, and it's concerning. lol sorry I didn't mean to be rude.. I just see it in a completely different light when considering the underlying factors and intentions in this deal.. I guess we just need to sit tight and watch it unfold Edited September 26, 2011 by Colin226 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aylbert Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 I see it as a positive. Vanderbeek would not assume debt "just because". Chambers wanted to be relieved of his debt obligation. So he paid his share of the debt - equity (25mm) and walked away. I'd be far more worried if Vanderbeek didn't "buy" this from Chambers and Chambers was stuck with the Devils, etc. trying to get out with no takers, and Vandebeek unwiling to take it on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derlique Posted September 26, 2011 Author Share Posted September 26, 2011 I see it as a positive. Vanderbeek would not assume debt "just because". Chambers wanted to be relieved of his debt obligation. So he paid his share of the debt - equity (25mm) and walked away. I'd be far more worried if Vanderbeek didn't "buy" this from Chambers and Chambers was stuck with the Devils, etc. trying to get out with no takers, and Vandebeek unwiling to take it on. Well, like some people mentioned before, Vanderbeek may have wanted to buy Chambers' share so that it'd be easier and more attractive for someone to have 94% of the team, instead of 47. Nobody knows what JVB is gonna do next, but this gives him many options. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarDew Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 Does NJ still have a hockey team? Yes, so I don't care how the owners want to play chess. It is their issue. It is not changing the franchise so to me, it isn't earth shattering. When's the next televised game? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin226 Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 Does NJ still have a hockey team? Yes, so I don't care how the owners want to play chess. It is their issue. It is not changing the franchise so to me, it isn't earth shattering. When's the next televised game? Thursday @ Flyers on Versus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarDew Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 Thursday @ Flyers on Versus Thank you very much. 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.