Balsillie tried to buy Sabres

[MacK_Attack 108]

Canadian billionaire Jim Balsillie made overtures to buy the Buffalo Sabres earlier this season, a Toronto paper reported Tuesday.

According to the Toronto Star, Balsillie contacted Sabres owner Tom Golisano around Christmas. Golisano reportedly indicated he would be willing to discuss a sale, but not if Balsillie planned to move the club.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/2008/05/06/balsillie_sabres/

[NeverForgetMac25 483]

You gotta love the guys tenacity. Hell-bound Hamilton or else!

[Wings_Fan_In_Exile 3]

It will never happnen, but I hope he buys the Ducks!

[T-Ruff 47]

It appears Balsillie may get his team only thru expansion of the league; anyone else want more teams? I know I don't.

I'd support expansion in the near future, and Balsillie would definitely be at the front of that line! He would make a great owner......

Edited May 6, 2008 by T-Ruff

[RedFX 48]

Bettman would never in a million years give this guy a franchise.

[eva unit zero 271]

Balsillie will get his team one of two ways.

He will either eventually give in and follow the BoG's rules and bylaws, and make a good faith attempt in the existing market before eventually attempting to move if allowed...

Or...

He will get in on the next wave of expansion. I know BRTD will agree with me on this, but 32 teams is where the NHL should be, and probably is, looking to for a long-term stable number of teams. The question in this situation is a different one; the NHL's priority if teams are added is likely to add two 'Western' teams and move either Detroit or Columbus to the Eastern conference.

Ideal solution?

Two teams from the Southeastern division; we'll say Florida and Atlanta; are sold or the existing ownership decides to move them to more hockey-friendly markets. In addition to this, the NHL adds two more teams. Balsillie would get his team in Hamilton, and the other three would possibly be Houston, Portland, and perhaps Las Vegas. Detroit and Columbus join Hamilton as new cities in the East, while the West is bumped up to a matching 16 teams. Divisions perhaps could be:

WESTERN CONFERENCE

-Anaheim, Los Angeles, San Jose, Las Vegas

-Calgary, Edmonton, Portland, Vancouver

-Chicago, Minnesota, Nashville, St. Louis

-Colorado, Dallas, Houston, Phoenix

EASTERN CONFERENCE

-Boston, Detroit, Montreal, Toronto

-Buffalo, Columbus, Hamilton, Ottawa

-Carolina, Pittsburgh, Tampa Bay, Washington

-New Jersey, NY Islanders, NY Rangers, Philadelphia

[Kp-Wings 3]

Let him buy the Ducks. You'll see how quickly their "fan support" will fall off after they suck again.

[Chaldean 0]

-Boston, Detroit, Montreal, Toronto

Are you kidding me?!?! lol that will never ever happen.

Can somebody please tell me why the Nashville deal never went through?

[Cern 0]

I'd say that Winnipeg would make for a better location that Hamilton. Hamilton has both Toronto and Buffalo (hell, even Detroit) within close proximity. Winnipeg is more remote which bodes well for placing teams into untapped markets. I think I posted this in another thread but as a counter to eva unit zero, me and a few guys came up with the setup of cutting the league down to 24 - remove Nashville Columbus Phoenix and Anaheim in the West, Florida Atlanta Tampa and NYI in the East, with one team from each conference relocating instead of disappating. This would leave a potential lineup of

PACIFIC

Vancouver Calgary Edmonton SJ LA Colorado

CENTRAL

Detroit STL Chicago Dallas Minnesota (Winnipeg?/Wisconsin?)

NORTHEAST

Toronto Montreal Ottawa Buffalo Boston (Hartford?/Quebec?/Hamilton?)

ATLANTIC

NYR NJ Carolina Washington Pittsburgh Philly

[Cern 0]

Are you kidding me?!?! lol that will never ever happen.

Can somebody please tell me why the Nashville deal never went through?

Baslille's stunt in Hamilton made Nashville's original over shy away from the deal; he wanted the Preds to stay in Nashville

[T-Ruff 47]

No way should they ever consider removing teams.... the talent pool is increasing..... 32 teams in the near future would be healthy IMO

Edited May 7, 2008 by T-Ruff

[Cern 0]

No way should they ever consider removing teams.... the talent pool is increasing..... 32 teams in the near future would be healthy IMO

Talent dosen't put butts into chairs, as most sunshine teams are proving. The NHL is ultimately a buisness, and chronic half-empty attendance dosen't do that buisness any good.

[RedFX 48]

I'd say that Winnipeg would make for a better location that Hamilton. Hamilton has both Toronto and Buffalo (hell, even Detroit) within close proximity. Winnipeg is more remote which bodes well for placing teams into untapped markets. I think I posted this in another thread but as a counter to eva unit zero, me and a few guys came up with the setup of cutting the league down to 24 - remove Nashville Columbus Phoenix and Anaheim in the West, Florida Atlanta Tampa and NYI in the East, with one team from each conference relocating instead of disappating. This would leave a potential lineup of

PACIFIC

Vancouver Calgary Edmonton SJ LA Colorado

CENTRAL

Detroit STL Chicago Dallas Minnesota (Winnipeg?/Wisconsin?)

NORTHEAST

Toronto Montreal Ottawa Buffalo Boston (Hartford?/Quebec?/Hamilton?)

ATLANTIC

NYR NJ Carolina Washington Pittsburgh Philly

1. I've said it before and I'll say it again, Canada cannot support another NHL team. Take that to the bank.

2. The point is to try to expand the game to new horizons. Taking teams out of the southern markets would hurt the sport way more than help it. Yeah it might get rid of empty arenas. But you will lose any chance of expanding the game if you do that.

3. Why would you dissolve the New York Islanders of all teams? Four time Stanley Cup winner: one of the greatest dynasties in all of sports: in THE largest market.

[vangvace 12]

3. Why would you dissolve the New York Islanders of all teams? Four time Stanley Cup winner: one of the greatest dynasties in all of sports: in THE largest market.

If I had to guess, I would say because of attendance issues. NYI and NJD are both red headed stepchildren in the New York market with ranger fans giving bumps in attendance to both.

[Hank 0]

1. I've said it before and I'll say it again, Canada cannot support another NHL team. Take that to the bank.

It depends on where you put the team. Winnipeg could support another hockey team but their new arena only has 40 luxery boxes. In today's market you need at least 100 so they'd have to renovate the rink.

Also, you could put a team in Hamilton, Kitchener-Waterloo and a 2nd team in Toronto and all 4 teams in the area would sell out every single game. I'd guarentee it.

And I have proof to back it up as 15,000 seasons tickets were sold for Hamilton in less than 24 hours. How can anyone interpert that as poor support.

The US dollar is horrible right now and I don't see it ever getting back to where it was before. Canadian teams will be fine for decades because of it.

I don't think anyone who hasn't lived in the GTA or around it really fathoms how much southern Ontario loves NHL hockey. It's far greater than Texas' love for football. Seriously.

2. The point is to try to expand the game to new horizons. Taking teams out of the southern markets would hurt the sport way more than help it. Yeah it might get rid of empty arenas. But you will lose any chance of expanding the game if you do that.

The NHL needs to give up on expanding the interest of the sport. It's already been proven that it hasn't helped. Our TV deal has gotten worse since expansion and Cup winning teams in Tampa Bay and Anaheim have resulted in a whopping 35,000 fan turnout for their parade/celebrations - COMBINED.

Or how about Phoenix and Nashville. Both have had considerable problems filling their rinks and despite being told, flat-out, that you'll lose your team if you don't get x amount of fans in the building, Pred Nation couldn't come close to making that number.

You can put an NHL team in every single city in the US and it's not going to matter. Just like you could put a MLB or MLS team in every city in Canada and it wouldn't matter.

3. Why would you dissolve the New York Islanders of all teams? Four time Stanley Cup winner: one of the greatest dynasties in all of sports: in THE largest market.

The Islanders had a good thing going for maybe 10 years out of 40. They built a dynasty, the Oilers trashed it and it's never been the same.

Also, California has more people in it than Canada combined and yet look at the ratings for a Ducks game compared to an Oiler game. The population difference is staggering and yet the Oilers will pull in 10x more viewers.

It doesn't matter about the TV market. Look at LA? THEY are the largest TV market and yet they don't have an NFL TEAM. Why? Because people from LA, aside from the Dodgers and Lakers, don't care about sports.

China has 1B people. Should we put an NHL team there? No. Why? Because they don't like hockey.

Put teams where people want them. THAT's how you grow a sport. Green Bay has a poplution of 90,000 and I don't think anyone in sports will tell you they're bad for the NFL - the biggest league in North American and one of the biggest in the world.

EDIT: Sorry for the long post, but I had one more point.

Ratings across North America (Canada and the US cominbed) have shown that HNIC brings in better ratings than the NBA does on it's big night. Why does anyone think that expanding more teams to a country that wholeheartedly supports it is a bad thing? Or can't handle it.

Putting a team in Albequrque, that plays in front of a nightly crowd of 8,000 would make the league look far worse than putting a team in Saskatoon to sold out crowds.

Edited May 7, 2008 by Hank

[RedFX 48]

It depends on where you put the team. Winnipeg could support another hockey team but their new arena only has 40 luxery boxes. In today's market you need at least 100 so they'd have to renovate the rink.

Also, you could put a team in Hamilton, Kitchener-Waterloo and a 2nd team in Toronto and all 4 teams in the area would sell out every single game. I'd guarentee it.

And I have proof to back it up as 15,000 seasons tickets were sold for Hamilton in less than 24 hours. How can anyone interpert that as poor support.

The US dollar is horrible right now and I don't see it ever getting back to where it was before. Canadian teams will be fine for decades because of it.

No one was doubting the fan support. I'm talking about financial support. Winnipeg and Quebec moved because they lacked alot of corporate support. Both Ottawa and Edmonton had financial troubles in recent years (Ottawa's owners actually declared bankruptcy). You look at some of the other pro sports leagues. The Vancouver Grizzlies moved out, the Montreal Expos moved out, the Toronto Raptors were on the verge of moving out. The fact of the matter is America has better corporate support than Canada. THAT is why Canada will not be able to support another NHL team.

[Hank 0]

Agree with ya for the most part - expansion in Europe? No thanks - logistics headache in the making IMO.

Eva Unit Zero feels the NHL should add 2 more teams; normally I'd be against this since it seems every year there's another owner/owners whom cry about their financial woes

THE only way I think expansion would work is if the BOG, & Bettman would approve of teams in cities in which the franchise would succeed in - instead what we've seen in the recent past which is if there's $$ - well there's your team

Hamilton should be 1st on the list for expansion - however I doubt MLSE (and Buffalo) would approve...Winnipeg might be a good place as well, but as you've already mentioned their new arena is on the small side (yet it does meet current NHL requirements)...Las Vegas/KC/Seattle are all not exactly great choices IMO, but these are some of the cities we hear rumored on potential expansion/re-location cities.

I agree. I don't like the idea of European teams for logistics alone but I think I could stomach a team in Stockholm over New Mexico.

I actually don't mind the idea of Las Vegas. I think it could do well there and would give the NHL much greater exposure compared to other non hockey markets.

But if there were to be expansion again, I think they're going to put a team in Kansas City and Portland. If that happens, the Wings MUST be moved to the East where they belong.

[HenryMalredo 2]

1. Contraction will never happen. Despite what some say, there is no diluted talent pool in the NHL. The talent is the best its ever been. There is no need to get rid of markets, especially since, I assume, the NHL would need to buy out the contracted teams, which would be incredibly costly.

2. Winnipeg is not going to get another NHL team. Just not enough corporate support. (I also don't understand the nostalgia for the Jets, who were a consistently mediocre team).

3. Gary Bettman is not a good commissioner, but he is also, thankfully, not a backwards reactionary. For people who hope for an NHL that accepts itself as a minor niche sport with no interest in actual progress, stop fooling yourselves, its not gonna happen. An NHL that just sticks with Canada and the Northeast US is a pipe dream.

[FunkedUp 29]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/attendance?year=2001

NHL Attendance over the years. ^

[eva unit zero 271]

Let's put a rest to some of these myths, shall we?

First myth: Winnipeg can support an NHL team.

I'll start with a list of teams.

New York Islanders

Phoenix Coyotes

Winnipeg Jets

Florida Panthers

Carolina Hurricanes

Nashville Predators

New Jersey Devils

Atlanta Thrashers

Anaheim Ducks

Los Angeles Kings

Washington Capitals

Know the significance of that list? Every team on that list is considered to be in a 'bad hockey market' that can't support a team. Except one. Why does that matter? Because the same division of teams can also be used to find the teams that in their history fall into one of two groups: Teams with a minimum of two seasons of average paid attendance greater than 14k, and teams that have never had average TOTAL attendance of greater than 14k.

Yep, you guessed it. Winnipeg is the 'one' team that doesn't match the others. What you wouldn't guess is that it is the only one that has never drawn an average of better than 14k fans per game over an entire season.

Next myth: Hamilton sold 15,000 season tickets without a team.

Jim Balsillie's publicity stunt is to blame for this myth. However, what is not mentioned is that despite the 15,000 number that is pushed about, Nashville actually drew in significantly more money in season tickets than Hamilton did during the same period. Why? Because Balsillie did not sell a single ticket. He took 15,000 DEPOSITS for season tickets. A small, totally refundable (read: zero risk) amount of money that guaranteed the person depositing the money season tickets if Hamilton were to acquire a franchise. IIRC, the deposit amount was less than $500. Consider that CHEAP season tickets for most teams start in the $2000 range. I had the opportunity to purchase Red Wings season tickets this past season; unfortunately, the finances did not allow for it. But had the question been 'place a 100% refundable deposit' I likely would have done it.

Hamilton is one of two markets in Canada I would consider even potentially capable of supporting a team that does not currently have an NHL presence. Quebec City is the other. My concern about Hamilton is the same reason I feel was primarily to blame for Quebec's loss of the Nordiques, and many of Ottawa's troubles, as well as difficulties faced by the Sabres, Islanders and Devils. The team is located in an area that has a long standing hockey culture associated with a regional rival; therefore the majority of corporate support is aimed at the 'primary' team in the area. The secondary teams can in this regard be considered 'small market' for purposes of their corporate support.

Hamilton stands a chance at avoiding this pitfall because the potential owner is, himself, a supremely successful businessman, and is particularly skilled when it comes to marketing. Combined with the saturated but disenchanted Toronto market, and Hamilton stands a decent chance of actually succeeding as a market.

But they did not sell 15,000 season tickets.

Next myth: Leipold did not sell to Balsillie because of Gary Bettman.

While it is no secret that Gary Bettman was not pleased with Jim Balsillie's antics in the Nashville debacle, the sale of the Predators being to a local group rather than Balsillie centers on one factor. Money. Balsillie wasn't willing to put down a single cent unless he had approval from the NHL BoG that he could move the team immediately. Where the problem is, of course, is that BoG bylaws state that a proposal to move a team cannot be voted on at the same time as a sale proposal, meaning the sale would first have to have been approved. But for a sale proposal to be approved, BoG bylaws require a binding agreement; in other words, a serious offer and acceptance of such. To have a binding agreement, the purchaser must put down an agreed upon amount of money. Balsillie was never willing to take this step with Leipold; therefore no vote could ever take place. Leipold did not sell to Balsillie because Balsillie wasn't willing to put his money where his mouth was. If he truly felt confident in his ability to move the Predators to Hamilton as he claims, he should have followed through and entered into a binding agreement, purchased the team, and moved them as soon as he was allowed to.

Because there was no BoG vote that ever took place on the sale (as there was never a sale agreement) Bettman had absolutely NOTHING to do with that decision.

And just for the record....Seattle, Portland, and Houston all have a long history with professional and amateur hockey. Kansas City has a natural rivalry with St. Louis that takes place in other sports, and a well-managed team could duplicate the Avs' revival of the Denver market after the Rockies failed there, with a revival of the Kansas City market.

[evilmrt 636]

Also, you could put a team in Hamilton, Kitchener-Waterloo and a 2nd team in Toronto and all 4 teams in the area would sell out every single game. I'd guarentee it.

And I have proof to back it up as 15,000 seasons tickets were sold for Hamilton in less than 24 hours. How can anyone interpert that as poor support.

The US dollar is horrible right now and I don't see it ever getting back to where it was before. Canadian teams will be fine for decades because of it.

I don't think anyone who hasn't lived in the GTA or around it really fathoms how much southern Ontario loves NHL hockey. It's far greater than Texas' love for football. Seriously.

I completely agree here. I've spent alot of time in Toronto, and I remember how frustrated people were at the prices for Leafs tickets AND how quickly they sold out. The only option left was usually buying from brokers...but most of us didn't have tons of cash to throw down like that all the time to get into the Air Canada Centre. People that haven't lived there, or spent significant amounts of time there will just not understand how it is in the GTA with hockey. They could put up another arena next-door to the ACC and it would be a success.

Someone else mentioned the failures of the Nordiques, hard times for the other canadian teams, etc. You have to remember...those were mostly due to a strong US dollar, and a weak canadian one. Now the loonie has the advantage, and will be strong for a long time.

[vangvace 12]

Then how about returning to Winnipeg then? The city has grown; fans there are very passionate about a return (cannot say there's that level of support/commitment from the community in KC, Seattle, Portland, & Houston); strong CDN $; new arena (albeit on the small side - yet it meets league requirements).

Winnipeg > KC, Seattle, Portland, & Houston IMO.

Truthfully...

Coperate support >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fan support and that will be a driving factor on new team placement

[eva unit zero 271]

Then how about returning to Winnipeg then? The city has grown; fans there are very passionate about a return (cannot say there's that level of support/commitment from the community in KC, Seattle, Portland, & Houston); strong CDN $; new arena (albeit on the small side - yet it meets league requirements).

Winnipeg > KC, Seattle, Portland, & Houston IMO.

The average attendance of the AHL's Manitoba Moose is just shy of 8000, and just over 50% of the arena's capacity. By comparison, Seattle of the WHL averages about 5000 in a 6500 seat arena, and Portland averages about 7500 in a 10,000 seat arena.

Seattle and Portland also have larger populations and better corporate environments.

In other words, the argument that Winnipeg is a 'better' market is silly.

[Hank 0]

I completely agree here. I've spent alot of time in Toronto, and I remember how frustrated people were at the prices for Leafs tickets AND how quickly they sold out. The only option left was usually buying from brokers...but most of us didn't have tons of cash to throw down like that all the time to get into the Air Canada Centre. People that haven't lived there, or spent significant amounts of time there will just not understand how it is in the GTA with hockey. They could put up another arena next-door to the ACC and it would be a success.

Someone else mentioned the failures of the Nordiques, hard times for the other canadian teams, etc. You have to remember...those were mostly due to a strong US dollar, and a weak canadian one. Now the loonie has the advantage, and will be strong for a long time.

And from what I read the Nordiques made a NET profit up until they sold the team. Their owner at the time said that he could see where the salaries were headed and knew he'd be in trouble so he wanted to sell before it got too bad.

When the US dollar was worth less than the loonie every Canadian team went out and bought as much US currency as they could. They then store that cash in a seperate account to pay the players salaries. That way, if the US $ ever rises to where it was before, they'll still be paying a ratio of 1:1 for many, many years to come. Teams are still buying up the dollar for this exact reason.

I have no reason to suspect that a team in Quebec City would be fine again. And to be honest, I'd love to see the Habs-Nordiques rivalry restored.

[drwscc 212]

Eva, facts don't matter here. We learned that when the initial Preds sale fell through.

If they proposed a team to either Las Vegas or Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, everyone would say that Moose Jaw is a better location because they love hockey. Cape Breton, Nova Scotia? 10 x better than Portland, simply because it's in Canada.

Some people will never be satisfied until all 30 teams are in Canada, and the league fades into obscurity.