Relocation. Relocation. Relocation.

[maplesyrup]

MCKENZIE: 19,500 SEAT ARENA POSSIBLE FOR MARKHAM, ONT.

"...the wheels are in motion to get this arena built in Markham."

Not much to say about this other then I think it would be a perfect location, setting up a 905 vs. 416 rivalry quite nicely I think.

More: http://tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=381071

 

[Peter D.]

Would this not fall within the territorial rights of the Maple Leafs? 

I live just northeast of the area.  For some reason I can't picture this piece of land which would maintain this entire development.  What I do know though is that traffic is insane (with no real good transport system) and the infrastructure is not up-to-speed to withhold all of it. 

And I question the viability of having a 19,500 seat arena with no major sports tenant.  They'll still be competing with the ACC for events (in which they will likely lose out on a majority of them).

As great as it would be to having a second Toronto team so close to home, it seems more a pipe dream than reality.

 

[Zee]

Long way to go to get an actual team, would be cool to have an arena so close to me though (I live in Richmond Hill)

 

[groundskeeper willie]

Being in London, if there was a second team to come to southern Ontario, I would much rather see it in Markham or Vaughn than Hamilton. Far too often our area gets lumped into the Detroit zone already, if there was another team in Hamilton (or Kitchener) then we might fall right out of the Leafs coverage.

It's not like I'd be a fan of the new team anyway. Sure I would follow them out of curiousity for the first few years, but sooner or later they'll end up a rival to the Leafs similar to Ottawa or Buffalo (unless they get put in the western conference).

 

[bustaheims]

Right across Hwy 7 from "Old Unionville" seems like an odd place to put an NHL calibre arena to me.

 

[Rebel_1812]

Seems to me like the builder is playing the odds.  The coyotes, the islanders and other teams have severe financial issues that may force them to move.  The big reason Winnipeg got a team was because it had an arena waiting.  If this guy gets the arena built he would be the first place the NHL would consider.

 

[Madferret]

The perennial 'second team in the GTA' discussions have started early this year!

 

[Heroic Shrimp]

Has the time finally come for The Toronto Legacy?!?

I love that that website is still functioning.

 

[Zee]

Has the time finally come for The Toronto Legacy?!?

I love that that website is still functioning.

The Toronto Legacy has a 30,000 seat arena?  Impressive.

 

[cw]

Globe & Mail:A new NHL-ready arena in the GTA?
NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly confirmed in an e-mail to The Globe and Mail that the league has spoken with Markham officials on the subject of the new arena proposal for the community.

Daly reiterated that in no way should the proposed development be dependent on an NHL franchise eventually landing there.

?If it doesn?t make sense to build it without an NHL tenant, then they shouldn?t build it,? Daly wrote. ?And that?s what we told them.?

It's a NHL decision. The Phoenix bankruptcy court and the Canadian Competition Bureau have affirmed that. The Canadian Competition Bureau also effectively affirmed that a veto violates Canadian Competition laws.

The Leafs have some rights and whenever the time comes, and I think it will (just not as soon as some might hope), the Leafs will have to be compensated - probably big bucks if it's within their 50? mile radius.

I think the NHL wants it as an expansion franchise because all the owners will pocket big bucks. The franchise value may rival the Habs franchise value out the gate - hundreds of millions of dollars because of the size of the hockey market.

But before that happens, I think the economy has to improve and other troubled franchises like Phoenix, NY Islanders, Florida & Columbus have to get resolved.

 

[hockeyfan1]

Here is an artist's rendition of what the new arena would look like...

Image source:  THN

 

[hockeyfan1]

From: http://www.thehockeynews.com/articles/43130-Campbell-Can-the-Maple-Leafs-prevent-a-team-from-moving-to-Southern-Ontario.html

The Leafs have long been of the opinion that no team can relocate to another?s geographical territory without written consent from the team affected, effectively giving them a veto over any team moving into the 50-mile radius surrounding the Air Canada Centre.


"... both the league and the Leafs would have bulldog litigators confident of winning. But the league has privately told people for years that it feels it is on very solid ground on this one. And it was backed up by the Canadian Competition Bureau in 2008 who confirmed the NHL?s position when Jim Balsillie tried to purchase the Nashville Predators.



The league, meanwhile, contends it has the right to place an NHL franchise wherever it sees fit and if that falls into the territory of the Leafs or any other team, they?ll essentially have to suck it up and accept it.

If you look at the NHL?s own constitution, the Leafs appear to have an ironclad case. But the NHL, bolstered by the Canadian Competition Bureau that supports the league, is just as adamant it stands on solid ground.

?Yes, there are superseding league rules that apply,? NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly said in an email in response to whether or not there are by-laws that usurp the constitutional provisions that govern territorial rights.

During the bankruptcy proceedings for the Phoenix Coyotes two summers ago, a letter was produced from the Leafs to the NHL dated Nov. 29, 2006 stating it believes a unanimous vote, not simply a majority vote, would be required to move a team into their territory. Daly later responded by saying all that meant was the Leafs interpreted the constitution differently than the league did.

?Just because we don?t have a team (in Toronto) or we didn?t agree to Jim Balsillie hijacking a team in Phoenix and moving it into Hamilton, that means the Leafs have a veto? Two plus two doesn?t equal three,? Daly said later that year. But he was just getting warmed up. He went on to say, ?the whole concept that someone has a veto is just plain wrong. It?s made up. It?s a falsification of the facts.?

 

[cw]

From: http://www.thehockeynews.com/articles/43130-Campbell-Can-the-Maple-Leafs-prevent-a-team-from-moving-to-Southern-Ontario.html

The Leafs have long been of the opinion that no team can relocate to another?s geographical territory without written consent from the team affected, effectively giving them a veto over any team moving into the 50-mile radius surrounding the Air Canada Centre.


"... both the league and the Leafs would have bulldog litigators confident of winning. But the league has privately told people for years that it feels it is on very solid ground on this one. And it was backed up by the Canadian Competition Bureau in 2008 who confirmed the NHL?s position when Jim Balsillie tried to purchase the Nashville Predators.



The league, meanwhile, contends it has the right to place an NHL franchise wherever it sees fit and if that falls into the territory of the Leafs or any other team, they?ll essentially have to suck it up and accept it.

If you look at the NHL?s own constitution, the Leafs appear to have an ironclad case. But the NHL, bolstered by the Canadian Competition Bureau that supports the league, is just as adamant it stands on solid ground.

?Yes, there are superseding league rules that apply,? NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly said in an email in response to whether or not there are by-laws that usurp the constitutional provisions that govern territorial rights.

During the bankruptcy proceedings for the Phoenix Coyotes two summers ago, a letter was produced from the Leafs to the NHL dated Nov. 29, 2006 stating it believes a unanimous vote, not simply a majority vote, would be required to move a team into their territory. Daly later responded by saying all that meant was the Leafs interpreted the constitution differently than the league did.

?Just because we don?t have a team (in Toronto) or we didn?t agree to Jim Balsillie hijacking a team in Phoenix and moving it into Hamilton, that means the Leafs have a veto? Two plus two doesn?t equal three,? Daly said later that year. But he was just getting warmed up. He went on to say, ?the whole concept that someone has a veto is just plain wrong. It?s made up. It?s a falsification of the facts.?

If a clause in a contract violates the law, the clause is rendered illegal or void.

In short, the league by-laws have such a veto clause that MLSE referenced and the by-laws are a part of the ownership agreement. Many legal experts  and the Canadian Competition Bureau feel the veto clause within the by-laws violates Canadian competition laws and US antitrust laws. Since Bettman's tenure, the league provided meeting minutes to the Canadian Competition Bureau to establish the clause has not been used and that another clause already within the by-laws that contradicts the veto has been used in it's place (majority voting by the BoG which is legal according to the Cdn Competition Bureau and US Courts). MLSE could attempt to legally contest their right to a veto within the by-laws on that basis but I don't like their chances in court. The antitrust law and case law is heavily stacked up against them.

Where the legal battle would be much more likely to take place is over money: how much should MLSE be compensated for encroaching on their market should the board of governors vote to place a franchise within the radius of their market? That is a legitimate legal question and legitimate contract right allowed under antitrust and MLSE would be well within their legal rights to ask that question to a court if they do not feel the league is compensating them enough.

Ken Campbell along with the Globe & Mail has not been the strongest media in this area. Much of this was gone through in very great detail with years of background history and relevant case law in the Coyotes Bankruptcy case. Balsillie lost his argument on this handily - as close to a clear cut no contest as one could imagine.

From that, the league is in a very strong position and that's a key part of the reason why they fought Balsillie.

 

[Corn Flake]

Ken Campbell along with the Globe & Mail has not been the strongest media in this area. Much of this was gone through in very great detail with years of background history and relevant case law in the Coyotes Bankruptcy case. Balsillie lost his argument on this handily - as close to a clear cut no contest as one could imagine.

From that, the league is in a very strong position and that's a key part of the reason why they fought Balsillie.

Ken Campbell jumps in on anything anti-MLSE/Leafs that comes along. But basically all sports journalists should realize that commenting on law and business really is not their forte, and should be left to the people educated and experienced in the field. 

In other words, stop yapping like you know everything when you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[cw]

Ken Campbell along with the Globe & Mail has not been the strongest media in this area. Much of this was gone through in very great detail with years of background history and relevant case law in the Coyotes Bankruptcy case. Balsillie lost his argument on this handily - as close to a clear cut no contest as one could imagine.

From that, the league is in a very strong position and that's a key part of the reason why they fought Balsillie.

Ken Campbell jumps in on anything anti-MLSE/Leafs that comes along. But basically all sports journalists should realize that commenting on law and business really is not their forte, and should be left to the people educated and experienced in the field. 

In other words, stop yapping like you know everything when you have no idea what you are talking about.

They have a job to cover sports and sports business overlaps so I don't have a gigantic problem if they're like a fan and go to experts to try and understand the issue and relay what they've found out to the fans.

Where it breaks down is when they get a snippet of a rumour and relay it as more than that or they get aspects of it wrong. Or when they don't consult an expert to get verification.

If that Star reporter that contacted Reimer's Mom had reviewed her comments with a doctor who knew something about concussions and whiplash and balanced his report with that, I'll bet there wouldn't have been as big of an outcry. Because that doctor would have filled in the gaps on why "concussion-like symptoms" was a legitimate medical description - that some media refused to accept as if there was some conspiracy by the Leafs to misinform. It would have been a far better, balanced article - showing the side of the concerned Mom and the medical realities of uncertainty about the condition.

The article above by Campbell in this particular case wasn't so bad because he at least got Daly's side of it so that one couldn't safely conclude the issue one way or the other. He kind of presented both sides and left the quandary to the reader to some extent (though I might take issue with some particular portions of the article).

The media constantly complain about not having access to some info. The amazing thing about the Coyotes bankruptcy was the volume of information about the league that got published in a court of law. There are probably more solid, factually based documents about the history and operation of the NHL by the BoG published in that one court docket than you could find in all the publications and news articles of the past fifty years. Yet most of the media were lazy and blew off crawling through it - when most of the answers they've sought over the years are all there in plain sight.

 

[ZBBM]

The Leafs can dictate to the NHL because the Leafs in a sense are bigger than the NHL.  Not literally, of course, but in the sense that the NHL needs the Leafs to drive/generate revenue streams across Canada, its core fanbase, and from there trickling down through the rest of the league.

I predict that MLSE will continue to be successful internally lobbying other owners to prevent any new team moving into the GTA expressly against their wishes.  I also predict that when the deal is sweet enough, they will relent and allow a second team in.  But the deal will be on MLSE's terms, not Bettman's.

 

[Optimus Reimer]

The Leafs can dictate to the NHL because the Leafs in a sense are bigger than the NHL.  Not literally, of course, but in the sense that the NHL needs the Leafs to drive/generate revenue streams across Canada, its core fanbase, and from there trickling down through the rest of the league.

I predict that MLSE will continue to be successful internally lobbying other owners to prevent any new team moving into the GTA expressly against their wishes.  I also predict that when the deal is sweet enough, they will relent and allow a second team in.  But the deal will be on MLSE's terms, not Bettman's.

Although Toronto is the centre of the hockey universe, the Leafs cannot enforce laws upon a competing organization, and would have to let a second team into the market area.  Bettman will not allow any existing NHL team to dictate relocations or the additions of new franchises.  Doing that would show the 'inmates' are running the asylum.  However, the Bell/Rogers conglomerate would be entitled to huge market infringement fees from the second team, that may scare away potential buyers of that second team.

The potential owners would have to demonstrate to the NHL BoG that they have the money to support and finance a new/existing hockey team and the new arena.  They would also have to compensate Bell/Rogers and I am not sure if the potential owners have those deep pockets.

With the relocation of the Thrashers to Winnipeg, the NHL is realizing how strong the Canadian fan base is for hockey, considering almost 50% of NHL revenues come from the 7 Canadian teams.  Turning an existing US based team into a Canadian based team would just add more revenue to the NHL.  I do not believe Bettman would allow the Leafs to hinder that progress, but again, Bell/Rogers will get some major compensation.   

 

[Redleaf]

The Leafs can dictate to the NHL because the Leafs in a sense are bigger than the NHL.  Not literally, of course, but in the sense that the NHL needs the Leafs to drive/generate revenue streams across Canada, its core fanbase, and from there trickling down through the rest of the league.

I predict that MLSE will continue to be successful internally lobbying other owners to prevent any new team moving into the GTA expressly against their wishes.  I also predict that when the deal is sweet enough, they will relent and allow a second team in.  But the deal will be on MLSE's terms, not Bettman's.

Although Toronto is the centre of the hockey universe, the Leafs cannot enforce laws upon a competing organization, and would have to let a second team into the market area.  Bettman will not allow any existing NHL team to dictate relocations or the additions of new franchises.  Doing that would show the 'inmates' are running the asylum.  However, the Bell/Rogers conglomerate would be entitled to huge market infringement fees from the second team, that may scare away potential buyers of that second team.

The potential owners would have to demonstrate to the NHL BoG that they have the money to support and finance a new/existing hockey team and the new arena.  They would also have to compensate Bell/Rogers and I am not sure if the potential owners have those deep pockets.

With the relocation of the Thrashers to Winnipeg, the NHL is realizing how strong the Canadian fan base is for hockey, considering almost 50% of NHL revenues come from the 7 Canadian teams.  Turning an existing US based team into a Canadian based team would just add more revenue to the NHL.  I do not believe Bettman would allow the Leafs to hinder that progress, but again, Bell/Rogers will get some major compensation. 

Not to mention another team to showcase through their media outlets.

 

[Etiam Vultus]

Crazy idea, but I will throw it out.

Bell and Rogers will take ownership of MLSE on July 1.  It would solve the territorial rights issue if they negotiated with the NHL to buy a second franchise to the GTA.

Since one owner cannot have two franchises, Bell and Rogers then split up, each taking one hockey franchise and dividing the remaining assets as they see fit to make things equitable.

 

[Kin]

With the relocation of the Thrashers to Winnipeg, the NHL is realizing how strong the Canadian fan base is for hockey, considering almost 50% of NHL revenues come from the 7 Canadian teams.

I'm not sure where you're getting that but the last time something similar was floated(the idea that the 6 Canadian teams contributed 50% of the league's revenue) it was an unsubstantiated rumour that the NHL disputed. Obviously there's a lot of dispute surrounded Forbes' evaluations but that number doesn't jive with that either.