LastPommerFan

Yeah, I thought I knew that, I tend to drink on Lift Bridge Lane (haven't been back in a while), I was trying to imply that should this happen, you would suffer a break, and step into the abyss.

The NHL was funding the team prior to the bankruptcy. So no, it was not a consequence of the Bankruptcy. In fact, the NHL argued, ineffectively, that Moyes could not take the team into Chapter Eleven, because they were running the team. Moyes lost a bunch of money on the phoenix debacle, but he didn't lose everything. The bankruptcy filing list $108M in debts, $104M of which were to Moyes himself, so no matter how they cut the payment of creditors, he got some of his. Also, Moyes is the exception. the other 99% of sports team transactions over the last three decades have been largely profitable. Moyes maybe lost 60-70% of his investment, which, interestingly, is approximately what the S&P 500 lost in that same time period (2006-2009). Again, I'm not saying it's risk free, but these guys aren't putting their neck on the line like say, a private equity group buying a steel mill in Ohio. There are a bunch of unique-to-sports safeguards in place for big four sports owners. It's all a sliding scale of grays (and reds), I suppose, but Ted Nolan sure as hell should be kept employed, regardless of the profit motive.

I pretty much want them to take Draisaitailai (sp?) just to watch Ink explode (or vanish permanently into the sinking abyss that is the Shorts-T. Foots-Bermuda Triangle)

He actually has several choices, other than additional equity, two of which moyes took advantage of: He can loan the money to the corporation and become a creditor, rather than a share holder, or he can essentially force the league to fund the loss. Moyes, and Gretzky, indeed did choose to self fund through debt, rather than additional equity, and the Bankruptcy court ruled, against the NHL's argument, that, indeed, they were legitimate creditors and entitled to some recuperation. I'm not arguing that this endeavor has ZERO risk, I am arguing that it is significantly safer than most corporate equity investments. All of this as a result of several circumstances unique to sports. Would you claim that sports ownership is more risky that owning the Common Stock of a typical fortune 500 company? In the assumed debt example, assuming the owner funded the required capital through self issued debt, rather than equity, you do not add the operating losses covered to the initial equity. The debt remains an asset to the former owner, so the capital gain is a simple sale price - purchase price equation, and the former owner walks away with a gain and a new owner obligated to repay the operating losses over some period of time. As to you last question, no I don't expect that, which is why I expect the league to allow relocation, with a hefty relocation fee for the rest of the owners. The NFL is certainly, more than any other league, interested in maximum return for it's owners. A world where industrial leaders care more about creating jobs than profits is communism. I mean that literally. I don't want to see that. Let's put some tighter child safety locks on the corporate cupboards, but I don't want business decisions to be based on hiring and retaining the maximum number of people.

Magic Numbers: Calgary: 2 pts or 1pt +1 sabres SO Win Islanders: 4 pts Florida: 7 pts Edmonton: 9 pts (with 3 ROW) worst we can draft is 6th.

That cash equity is included in the purchase price and it becomes a capitalized asset of the corporation, and is recuperated at the capital transaction upon sale. Are you arguing that an corporation owner can involuntarily incur annual financial losses as a result of operating deficits? This is essentially why the incorporation system was set up: to protect owners from corporate liabilities. If the losses cannot be incurred involuntarily, there is no operating loss risk for the owner, only a potential capital loss. While not likely common, it's not unimaginable for a franchise to incur debts up to 50-75% of their appraised value. And the debts are almost always transferred to the new ownership during a sale. I can't find a single sports franchise in the last 30 years that depreciated from one sale to another. So if there is de jure no risk of annual losses, and de facto little risk of depreciation, there is essentially negligible financial risk in sports franchise ownership. I think the bigger risk, as you have pointed out is the frustration and delay in sale resulting from league imposed rules. I don't think most sports franchises are cash machines, but I don't think these owners are generally putting their necks on the line in ownership either. Between public financed arenas/stadiums, sweetheart lease deals, corporate liability shields, and anti-trust exemptions, they're pretty well covered from loss.

The man didn't just build the Bills, he built Football as we know it. All while making damn sure Buffalo got it's due. RIP

The Hawks/Thrashers enterprise made significant money for the owners, and the Thrashers sale was for nearly half the purchase price from TW 6 years earlier. I am reasonable certain that the Thrashers were not appraised as half the value of the initial purchase, so the asset appreciated in value. Assuming the operating debts were corporate in nature (this is a safe assumption), rather than personal loans by the owners, the capital gain on the sale is the only relevant number. Their relocation is irrelevant to the Atlanta owners, other than it's approval allowed for an increased value for the franchise. In addition, the Atlanta deal could have been more lucrative had the owners not been caught up in litigation with each other. The franchise does not exist "in a sense" it exists completely as the same appreciating asset it was before. Only the colors and currency have changed. Most of what is in this second paragraph is not accurate. Marlins Park, Target Field, The hostage situation in Pittsburgh forcing the state to forfeit potential casino revenues to keep the team, the Devils really got theirs when they were forced to agree to pay $100M of a $375M Prudential Center. While I agree that cities should stand up against this, even Glendale pays the Coyotes $15M a year to stay and allow them to move should they accrue more than $10M/yr in operating losses (It should again, here, be pointed out that operating losses result in organizational debt, not real losses for the owners, only the profits and capital gains/losses matter to the bottom line of the owner as an individual person.)

The demand so far has ALWAYS exceeded supply. Neither of those teams were abandoned assets. They both still exist and make money for their owners. I'm not washing away all risk (although in some cases that happens, like Cincinnati) I'm saying that the purchases and agreements usually have public support and risk mitigation as a pre condition. You have to recognize that sports franchise ownership is exceptionally low risk given it's potential returns and that this low risk is primarily provided through public financing of the franchises largest assets and expenses.

First, with the pro league equity requirements, the pool of potential buyers is extremely limited. Especially in 2009-2013. You're selling an asset with a cash-equity ownership requirement at a time when a huge chunk of North American equity in general had just vanished. On top of that you have a municipality that can't say with a clear voice that they will assume the real risk of the franchise. Neither of these negate the fact that in MOST situations, for the small group of people who meet the various pro league equity requirements, there is little real risk in owning a sports franchise. Which is why none of these franchises has disappeared despite the total number of pro franchises increasing by 15% in the last 20-ish years. If it was a risky asset, there would be abandoned properties, just like you see with all the other assets on the market with inherent risk.

Why did it take 4 years to sell the Coyotes? Because the people of Glendale stood up and said, "no, we will not carry the risk while you retain all the potential gain." In most pro-sport cities this doesn't happen. The city of Cincinnati took ALL the risk on the Bengals. Paul Brown et al. retained all the reward. Barring extraneous situations, the "risk" in owning a pro sports team is minimal.

And if it comes down to making the playoffs or not, the New York Rangers will be given every opportunity to draw the #1 Media Market in for the Playoffs.

you forgot to add the: #GreatestGeneration

But in reality, even in a large institutional environment, doesn't the practice of sub-net masking really reduce the need for a huge number of networks within a physical organization? In the end, IPv6 is a huge step forward over v4, but we'll be back scratching our heads and rushing to implement IPv10 within 2 decades. Our ability to plan for the future is always outpaced by our ability to create and innovate.

Kassian was also really throwing the body around. He had like 5-6 hits that period. Or 1. Yeah, proabably just 1. The same as Henrik Sedin. He's just as good as Henrik Sedin.

Then we can sign them, and still finish last place and draft McDavid.

Even if it's not directly responsible to the US Government, ICANN is still an American institution. With tens of millions of non-Americans connecting for the first time every year, it's only a matter of time before the US becomes a minority of the Web. At that point, I expect the rest of the world to push for more input on it's mechanics. Cutting ties with Washington will allow ICANN to slow that process (as indicated in the article). Two other points: ICANN also controls the IPv6 numbers, which is far more important, but there isn't really a registration system like DNS. They just divide up the numbers regional by number of users and allow regional authorities to assign the specific server-IP links. So as far as functionality, it really is global already. The W3C, who write the content standards for the web (HTML, CSS, etc.) is already a global partnership, and it functions ok (large firms with big lobby$ still have undo influence, but that's gonna happen whether it's a US Gov't body or a global NGO) so I really don't see a huge downside to any of this. But I understand the concerns from a Lawfare blog of the US relinquishing a potential regulatory "weapon". If any of the above isn't clear, I can go deeper, I typed this out in a hurry. sorry.

Florida-MSU-Arizona-Duke Sparty over the Wildcats

When "Saved by the Bell" ended?

I really think this move delays the inevitable global takeover, and will result in American management of the system longer than if Commerce had attempted to maintain control. On the otherhand, who types a web address into the browser anymore? The domain name is quickly becoming an outdated irrelevance. Everyone is connected by IP Address anyway, the text over top that link could easily be coded out of the internet with minimal impact.

Next year will be on the wrong side of 30 for this team. The Sabres are looking for players 25 and younger, to develop together.

$250M

Usually internetness doesn't bother me, but I'm grumpy this morning.

A legitimate first request would be: "Could you post the links to this information?" You're welcome.

Do you not like to communicate with respect, or just not know how to?