Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: New York Giants Super Bowl XLVI Ring Unveiled

Leafs Ownership Change & Why It Makes Sense

This article is in response to another article "Why Rogers, Bell Buying MLSE is Completely Bizarre." I have a theory on how the recent sale may make sense in the long run, given the hypothetical motivations of the NHL and the ownership players involved.

It may interest Leafs fans initially, but all hockey fans can look at the tea leaves on this deal and what it may indicate for the future of the NHL. This is going to be the richest deal in Canadian sports history.

If you break down the details, it may mean the emergence of a 2nd NHL team in Toronto through relocation; which will benefit the entire NHL.

The change in ownership of Maple Leaf Sports Entertainment (MLSE) from the Ontario Teacher's Pension Plan (OTPP) (79.53%) to a trifecta between Rogers Communications (37.5%), Bell Canada Enterprises Inc (37.5%) and Larry Tanenbaum (25%) appears confusing at first. Two competitors in telecommunications with a shared ownership interest in one hockey team? But why assume that this would be the long-term ownership position of the Leafs.

Especially given the fact they are in the most lucrative hockey market in the world.

No one appears to be willing to step back and unravel motivational factors here between not just the potential buyers and sellers but also the NHL. It is mysterious only if you can not look forward in time a bit and keep in mind both the NHL's agenda and the ownership agendas here from all parties.

Lets break it down with a collection of facts, some of which may appear unrelated at first but then tie them all together and put a bow on top.

Star-divide

What exactly is MLSE?

It is a private company that owns the Maple Leafs, the Raptors of the NBA, the Air Canada Center (ACC) (important), the soccer team - the Toronto FC and the AHL's Toronto Marlies.

Why would the OTPP sell such a profitable investment or even put it on the market?

This is an excellent question and one SB Nation's Pension Plan Puppets put as.

" I have always been a skeptic about the OTPP selling their share of MLSE. It's an asset that generates a lot of cash for them and the report that they were looking to develop a regional television network seemed to confirm my initial thought that the OTPP was more interested in getting a sense of the market value of their share before focusing on maximizing their return. While the OTPP has an underfunded pension obligation and a few high-profile investment write-offs recently, I didn't think that the Golden Goose would ever be sold. Then again, it still might not be ~ PPP - SBNation "

Answer: It will be sold and this is why. One of the paralyzing features of a pension plan holding ownership control, which Leafs fans are well aware of, is their one and only priority is protecting their investment and profit, not winning a Cup.

So why did OTPP put MLSE on the market?

Buy low - sell high. If the NHL is thinking about finding a way to introduce a 2nd NHL team in Toronto than it is a good time to sell. As a OTPP investment manager on this asset they will conclude that the investment has peaked if another NHL team in Toronto is on the horizon, which means it is time to sell. The OTPP has likely been on the same page as the NHL, with its previous entrenched southern expansion, prior to the relocation of the Jets, but the NHL has turned the page now. The OTPP can see the higher likelihood of relocations in the future.

The Southern Experiment is Done - NHL teams will move now to where the profit margins are.

With the movement of the Atlanta Thrashers to Winnipeg the first flare has gone up that the NHL's mentality of defend a franchise at all costs in its location, like it was the Alamo, is gone. Teams will relocate now.

NHL history also shows that when the League is in a relocation period it happens in a tight timeline and then stabilizes for several years which makes perfect sense. It is best to have a stable league. Better for fans and better for business. The Thrashers move to Winnipeg is only the first of more to come, that much is certain.

1976-82 (6 year relocation period in which the Seals -> Cleveland Barons who merged with the North Stars / KC Scouts --> Colorado Rockies --> New Jersey / Atlanta --> Calgary )\

1993-97 (4 year relocation period in which Minnesota --> Dallas / Quebec City --> Colorado / Winnipeg --> Phoenix / Hartford --> Carolina)

2011 - 20?? (Atlanta --> Winnipeg… x --> y etc)

The Jets Season Ticket Success

This likely took everyone in hockey aback except for people in Winnipeg of course.

Gary Bettman, when he announced the relocation to Winnipeg, must have felt a little silly in retrospect about encouraging fans to buy season tickets and to get out and support the team in his speech that day.

Only someone who had no idea what was coming would even say such a thing. Bettman's comment was completely unnecessary. If he had any idea of what was about to happen he certainly would have phrased it differently. No one needs to encourage anyone in Winnipeg to support the Jets.

It isn't just that the Thrashers moved to Winnipeg, that alone is signal enough, but the fact that expensive Jets season tickets, with 3-5 year commitments to boot, all sold out within 17 min? The phone lines had to be closed on the first day after putting 8,000 people on a waiting list. That should be a pretty clear message about what is waiting north of the border as far as product demand goes.

It must have been a splash of cold water into the face of the NHL and ownership groups. How many millions in potential revenue has the league wasted by resisting market forces for so many years?.

Winnipeg has always been misunderstood by many analysts, especially south of the border. Quick and snappy dismissive remarks about its small population of 750,000 people, not being able to support a NHL team in comparison to American cities with millions has always missed the essence of the issue.

It isn't the size of your boat, it is the motion of your hockey fans. A large population with a small % of hockey fans will whither in the face of a small population where everyone is a hockey fan.

The pent-up demand for NHL hockey in Canada is high, very high.

The New Economics of the NHL

This report is a little dated at April 2011, it was written and researched prior to the NHL announcing its new T.V. deal. It is a little heady suggesting that Canada can support 12 NHL teams but its' theme is spot on. Canada can certainly support more NHL teams, that must be obvious even to a blind man at this point, unless they need to be run over in another stampede for Jets season tickets.

Read the full report here - University of Toronto - School of Public Policy and Governance - Mowat Centre for Policy Innovation "The New Economics of the NHL"

What city is at the very top from a financial perspective, scoring a A to A+? Yes, you guessed it, Toronto is #1. Montreal is 3rd with an A- ranking and guess who ranked 7th? A paltry appearance and surely one of the weaker Canadian candidates right? Well that would be Winnipeg with a grade of B-.

I recommend reading the report in its entirety but in particular the sections on Toronto and Montreal, which from a business perspective are literally eye-popping and jaw dropping for those who are thinking about investing.

There is gold in the ice, in the Greater Toronto area. Surely it must be obvious to everyone and no where is the gold more plentiful than the Golden Horseshoe, also known as the Greater Toronto Area.

The only thing lacking for a second team in Toronto, and Montreal for that matter, is they lack a second rink for the 2nd team to play in. The solution? As highlighted in the Mowat Report, share the existing ACC in Toronto and the existing Bell Centre in Montreal. Both brand new state of the art hockey arenas.

Is it becoming clear why these recent moves by these particular owners on MLSE may make more sense now?

Great Recession what Great Recession ?

In the middle of the greatest economic down turn since the Great Depression, the Canadian economy has been steaming along like the little engine that could. NHL team values have hit an all-time high and this is despite escalating player salaries that are starting to present a two-tier NHL and a lot of hand wringing south of the border.

Yet there are challenges currently, 18 of 30 teams are losing money ESPN

The ranking isn't just about current value, it is also about operating income and the debt / value ratio. Refer to this handy sortable list from Forbes for a clear picture on who is and isn't on top - money wise.

Why is NHL hockey prospering in a climate where disposable income in the United States for the sports consumer is declining? Probably several reasons but the widening gap between successful and struggling teams is increasing and it is a problem that needs to be addressed.

One quick solution will be relocation of the struggling teams.

Tweet from Bell CEO about working with the NHL

Working with the NHL to accommodate their needs? Do tell, and what are the NHL's needs? Successful relocations to better markets? A healthy NHL with more profitable teams in locations where demand for the product is higher? A NHL that maximizes profit is a better NHL for everyone.

Bell Canada has a minority stake in the Canadiens.

While the Habs are primarily owned by the Molson family, they did overpay heavily on the team. Bell owns a minority stake of 18% on the Habs. More on that later.

The NHL has just accepted a radical realignment structure for next year

One of the key elements of the new alignment structure is much greater flexibility. It is now much easier to move teams around the 4 new mini-conferences. The old East is also underrepresented and it is likely we are about to see more teams move. An expansion will hardly be popular with many fans BUT if additional teams are added this alignment structure will allow for it without much issue.

Conclusion

What we may be seeing shaking out in Toronto is what in Blackjack is called a split.

In this case the pocket aces are the Toronto Market and the spilt allows two NHL teams to emerge, the Leafs and one relocated franchise. Two hands to be played simultaneously all while navigating thorny issues of conflict of interest in majority ownership and divided market share.

Based on what we know so far the ownership of MLSE is broken out as 25% for Larry Tanenbaum, Bell (37.5%) and Rogers (37.5%).

The new co-ownership of the ACC is key and it would likely be divided 50/50 between the Leafs final majority ownership and Team Two in Toronto. Lets call them the Toronto St. Pats for discussion purposes.

Assets in MLSE will be valued and shuffled around but the most important thing to fall out of this deal is an ownership group of MLSE that collectively agrees to add another NHL team to the Toronto market. That is the key first step.

They will share the ACC for all games, that much is pretty certain and where the other assets end up doesn't really matter too much outside of deciding who will be the single majority owner of the Leafs and St. Pats.

(1) Larry Tanenbaum is the likely candidate to acquire majority ownership on the Leafs and 50% of the ACC. With the Leafs valued at ~500 million and with him selling his remaining stake in the Raptors and Toronto FC it will get him into at the very least a majority ownership position on the Leafs and their AHL affiliate Marlies.

Tanenbaum will likely get a sweet-heart deal here for finally opening up the Toronto market to a 2nd team. Something that is long over-due, at least from a financial perspective. Tanenbaum has maintained the Chair position on MLSE which is key in him having control going forward.

(2) Rogers will likely be the ownership player to drive a relocation deal and to get majority control of the new relocated Coyotes St.Pats. They will work with Bell temporarily, with Bell as the minority owner of the St.Pats. The remaining assets Raptors etc will probably go to Bell to grease the deal. In this manner we can see how the assets of MLSE will be broken up to serve the long term goals of the players.

Now enter stage 2. A few years down the road IF this even happens at all, Bell will sit as minority owner and watch the split market carefully in Toronto. It will have the inside track on all financial details and if it likes what it sees, well, remember that other team and other 'A' list Canadian market, yes that would be Montreal.

Whatever Toronto has and is working well Montreal will want to. It is a Canada thing.

Few notes on how this will work

(1) The Molson family overpaid for the Montreal Canadiens in 2009. Here is where part 2 of this saga will make sense for those who can not wrap their mind around Bell being involved.

The Molson family has owned and sold the Canadiens several times in history and they took a real bath the last time around.

" In a town with lots of old money, the Molsons’ is perhaps the oldest: John Molson founded the family business in 1786. (His descendants’ net worth has been estimated at $500 million.) But in spending roughly $575 million to acquire the hockey club, its arena and a concert promotion business last year—more than twice what Molson Inc. got in 2001 for 80.1% of the team—Geoff Molson and his two brothers seemingly engaged in a very un-old money thing: Sell low, buy high. ~ Globe and Mail

After having a couple years to watch the Toronto experiment and assuming it is a financial success Bell and Molson will start talking about two general options.

(1) Bell will buy Molson completely out or at least up is stake to majority owner.

OR

(2) Bell will repeat the Blackjack split in the Montreal Market with another relocated team, a Montreal Maroons.

In both cases Bell will carefully shuffle its stake in MLSE to create revenue when required to bolster its existing 18% stake in the Montreal Canadiens. Selling off to Tanenbaum and Rogers as required.

If the financial statements on a Toronto market with two teams is not ideal and by ideal the expectation would be the Toronto St.Pats would emerge as a top 5 NHL team valuation wise immediately. The Thrashers after moving to Winnipeg increased in value 21% - Refer to Forbes valuation link above.

Bell may prefer caution if a similar kind of valuation increase doesn't occur on the St.Pats and may merely increase its stake in the Montreal Canadiens. If the Financials turn out to be the gold many expect them to be, they may split the Montreal market and accept another relocated team with the NHL's blessing and sell their remaining stake in the Habs to the Molson family.

This is how in the long run thorny issues of conflict of interest in majority ownership and market share may be avoided and how everyone can benefit.

Those pesky T.V. and broadcast rights that everyone is in tizzy over now? (So many links I can't possibly post all the Toronto media jabber on this topic) Those will mainly be grease to smooth the internal transactions in the coming years with the final picture coming out with Rogers getting broadcast rights for Ontario and the Senators, Leafs and St.Pats. Coinciding nicely with the end of CBC HNIC contract in 2014.

And with Bell getting broadcast rights on the Habs, the Montreal Maroons possibly and soon to be returned Nordiques in Quebec. Quebecers are already full of Jets envy and are banging their picks and shovels into frozen dirt already with a state of the art modern arena in Quebec City on the horizion.

Quebec City unlike Winnipeg is not ready today and will not be until Fall of 2015 at the earliest but we will see teams move sooner than that.

The T.V. rights etc will fall nicely along the divide bettween Quebec and Ontario just as they always have for centuries. The language issue is always there and it simply is a strucuture that both sides can find to be mutually benefical. The NHL will be only too happy to cheerlead from the side lines.

Bell and Rogers fighting over T.V. rights for the Leafs is as silly as talking about a Canadian civil war. This ownership plan would never have been put into motion without at least an agreement in principle of the direction and goals of it in the coming years.

Poll
So, what do you think? Do the recent ownership changes in MLSE post the possibility of the emergence of another team in Toronto, which will share the ACC with the Leafs?
Dude, stop smoking whatever you are smoking - No
22 votes
Maybe
8 votes
Interesting - you could be onto something
45 votes
This topic is of no interest to me
1 votes

76 votes | Poll has closed

Comment 36 comments  |  2 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Here's what I think

The most viable locations going into the future, if all planning goes according to plan are
A) Kansas City because the Sprint Center already exists, is only 4 years old and has a hockey capacity of 17,544. It is one of the only options that is ready to support a team instantly.
B) Portland and the Rose Garden is the other option that comes to mind as a suitable location for supporting a franchise, as at least they have winter in Oregon. the Rose Garden can hold 18,280 for hockey games
C) Quebec City has been working with local and provincial governments, as well as groups such as Quebecor in financing a new arena to replace the aging Colisee Pepsi. My thoughts are a team will only relocate to Quebec City once the arena is completed
D) Markham, Ontario has plans for a new arena, with the CEO of Bauer Hockey Graeme Roustan, $940 million dollar man Rudy Bratty and Markham mayor Frank Scarpitti working to make a 19,500 seat venue.
I think that Markham/Toronto CAN support another NHL team. I also believe Quebec City can support one. The buildings just need to get built first. So if Gary Bettman wants to relocate the Coyotes as soon as next year, the only viable options I see are Kansas and Portland as the buildings are there are and ready to go

In Canada our balls are bigger
Writer for Arctic Ice Hockey

by canadian texan on Dec 12, 2011 12:00 AM EST reply actions  

A) KC had a NHL team once and failed big. Who is the new owner of the KC Scouts 2.0 ? Who in the U.S. is ready to put 100 millions into a hockey team in a market that failed and in the middle of a huge economic downturn in the U.S.A. ?

B) Portland – Maybe but the city population is only 500K – the metro is 2.2 million fair enough not sure if the market is hockey intense but I could check out the Winterhawks attendance to see if they are selling out – same problem though with the economy in the States.

C) QC will get a team for sure.

D) Markham / Toronto – but one of the big hurdles that has held a 2nd team out of Toronto for decades. It isn’t a new idea is Leafs ownership not wanting to give up any of its market. The current ownership structure has emerged gives a way out of that.

If the will was there and they wanted to break MLSE into pieces and value them on paper and get a second team, they could do it for next season by sharing the ACC… That is my story and I am sticking to it : )

Consider contributing to Wiki if you can. It is has come a long way since its inception in quality and its founders have resisted attempts to commercialize it. Lets keep it alive with a few dollars each.

by Mitch Smith on Dec 12, 2011 12:12 AM EST up reply actions  

Initial market research on Portland doesn't look good

http://www.yelp.com/biz/portland-winterhawks-portland

EastCoast T.
Portland, OR

It’s too bad that Portland isn’t a hockey town because watching a WinterHawks game is a fun way to spend an evening. Sure attendance is lousy, but the team is good and the skill level in the WHL (Western Hockey League) is impressively high. WinterHawks games are also a great place to take kids. My infant son is a huge fan of the Zamboni and of the antics of the team mascot Tom-A-Hawk. And unlike attending a professional sports game, we aren’t bombarded throughout the game by super-loud music and incessant advertisements.

The NHL really must learn from the Southern Expansion. It isn’t the size of the city and a good size facility ready to go is of little value if it is half empty.

Before the NHL does another round in the U.S.A two things have to happen, first and foremost the economy has to turn around. Secondly, it has to be a city that has shown it has strong support already for lower tier hockey. That’s my view anyway…

Consider contributing to Wiki if you can. It is has come a long way since its inception in quality and its founders have resisted attempts to commercialize it. Lets keep it alive with a few dollars each.

by Mitch Smith on Dec 12, 2011 12:29 AM EST up reply actions  

I get where you're coming from

I don’t really see Kansas City as a great option either, but the venue is there. That’s the main selling point to me. I don’t think it’s viable long term though, and yes the economy is crappy. See “Canada” circa 1996

And in my mind the NHL moving to another location within the States is not a great option. i’m just trying to find a new location for the Coyotes in the immediate future, and Quebec City will not be ready for that by 2012-13. The fans might be but I just don’t know about the building. They’d have to start doing temporary renovations for just one season at the Colisee Pepsi and work like mad at building the new arena in time for 2013-14.

My only objections to splitting time in the ACC is that it becomes a scheduling nightmare. 3 pro teams, plus various other events, would make the schedules for the teams all sorts of bad, which is why I think they’d need the new venue.

As for the lower tier levels of hockey, Winnipeg lost a WHL team due to lack of support, and while the support for the Moose was amongst the best in the league, it didn’t pack the building every night either. So i’m not sure if that’s the greatest way to judge the passion of the fan base.

In Canada our balls are bigger
Writer for Arctic Ice Hockey

by canadian texan on Dec 12, 2011 12:38 AM EST up reply actions  

Living in New York and visiting MSG on several occasions I have less concerns about sharing the ACC because I saw how that building was used almost non-stop every day. Madonna concert at night, Rangers game the next afternoon and the Knicks the next day. The NHL regular season is about 6 months – so about 180 days.

Each team only has 41 home games. So we are talking 82 games out of 180 days. 46% over the NHL season. I think the Raptors can fit in there for the remaining 54% and you still have 6 months of non-hockey season to fill up with concerts and so forth. The summer is when most of those happen anyway.

It isn’t to state that the ACC is to be shared indefinitely. I don’t see that as being viable either but for the short term I see it as being a solution for a Yotes relocation next year.

Consider contributing to Wiki if you can. It is has come a long way since its inception in quality and its founders have resisted attempts to commercialize it. Lets keep it alive with a few dollars each.

by Mitch Smith on Dec 12, 2011 1:07 AM EST up reply actions  

You might get some long stretches with no home games that might hurt the on-ice/court performances is the only real problem i might see. you wouldn’t see a 6 game home-stand like the Jets are about to have

In Canada our balls are bigger
Writer for Arctic Ice Hockey

by canadian texan on Dec 12, 2011 1:42 AM EST up reply actions  

The next team to move will be heading north of the border, in my opinion.

Owners aren’t stupid. They’ve seen the cash cow TNSE just created simply by moving a team north.

2012: The year we clip the Hawk.

by WinnipegTitanFan13 on Dec 12, 2011 1:37 AM EST up reply actions  

I think you outlined several legitimate points and crafted a well-thought out argument.

I hadn’t really given it much thought. What I absolutely agree with is that I think we’re going to see teams start to relocate. I have long maintained that Bettman fought so hard for Phoenix because as soon as one team moved, the others will follow. Its just good business putting teams, you know, where they make money. Shocking, I know. I see the ‘Yotes moving to Quebec City next year, and then it’ll become a question of who’s going next and where. If I’m a fan of a Sun Belt team right now, I’m getting awfully antsy seeing the success of the Jets franchise.

2012: The year we clip the Hawk.

by WinnipegTitanFan13 on Dec 12, 2011 1:31 AM EST reply actions  

I’m not sure about QC next year but do believe they will get a team for sure when the new arena is done in 2015.

I can see at least two more relocations, QC and one more. Obviously I have my bet on Toronto, the financials there are just unreal if you read that Mowat report.

It appears to be a sure-fire money maker. If only I could invest in it, in this market finding something that will give you a 20% return over the year is pretty tough.

Consider contributing to Wiki if you can. It is has come a long way since its inception in quality and its founders have resisted attempts to commercialize it. Lets keep it alive with a few dollars each.

by Mitch Smith on Dec 12, 2011 2:12 AM EST up reply actions  

Interesting take on the whole thing. A few details:

- How many head-to head between the St-Pats and Leafs? 7& 9? That means you actually have to schedule either 75 or 73 games, not 82.

- I doubt the same scheme holds in Montréal. The Molson will already split their market once / if Québec gets a team. You raise a valid point comparing market size between canadian and american markets, but you can’t use the same logic comparing Toronto and Montréal. The Habs’s core market is probably something like 70% Montréal / 30% rest of Québec, if not 60/40. Once the Nordiques are back, a big part of that second slice goes away and I doubt they’d allow their market to shrink again, especially since Le Centre Bell already is one of the busiest arena in North America.

by Olivier on Dec 12, 2011 2:18 AM EST reply actions  

Excellent points

Schedule – you are right, it will be even less dates occupied in the ACC, easier to share then.

On Montreal – you are right – I am pushing my luck on anticipating a market split in Montreal at this point or even in the next decade. I don’t see the Molson family being in a position to take full ownership of the Habs while Bell starts a 2nd Montreal team. This is in addition to your points on Quebec market share.

From what I have gathered from the internet, the Molson family is not doing quite as well financially. Which makes me think they will be open to selling a controlling interest to Bell.

I will stand by my thought that Bell will use MLSE assets as revenue sources to at the very least take a majority ownership position on the Habs as well as make a handshake with the Rogers not to bid on Quebec hockey broadcasting rights which they will stake out.

A potential split of the Montreal hockey market would only occur years and years later after very careful analysis on the Toronto experience. I stand by expecting Bell to take broadcasting rights in Quebec though, I think that is valid.

Consider contributing to Wiki if you can. It is has come a long way since its inception in quality and its founders have resisted attempts to commercialize it. Lets keep it alive with a few dollars each.

by Mitch Smith on Dec 12, 2011 2:29 AM EST up reply actions  

Just one detail: Bell, having purchased CTV and thus TSN and RDS already own the Habs’s broadcasting rights.

Otherwise, fascinating stuff.

by Olivier on Dec 12, 2011 3:01 AM EST up reply actions  

Yes but that deal was signed in 2006 and is only a ten year deal. It will be up in 2016. I imagine Bell wants to keep it and not have Rogers enter into a bidding war.

I also was thinking mainly of the CBC HNIC deal which I believe expires in 2014.

That is really the crown jewel for the Canadian market and where that falls will be interesting if it isn’t split.

Consider contributing to Wiki if you can. It is has come a long way since its inception in quality and its founders have resisted attempts to commercialize it. Lets keep it alive with a few dollars each.

by Mitch Smith on Dec 12, 2011 3:34 AM EST up reply actions  

Didn’t account for that aspect of the schedule either. Well done

In Canada our balls are bigger
Writer for Arctic Ice Hockey

by canadian texan on Dec 12, 2011 3:54 AM EST via mobile up reply actions  

One thing to take into account is that the Toronto Raptors also play at the ACC. I’m guessing there might be some issues organizing home games for three different franchises.

Canucks fans talking about the Canucks: Pass it To Bulis!

by skeeter_dan on Dec 12, 2011 5:08 AM EST reply actions  

Long-term I don’t envision a permanent sharing of the ACC with the St.Pats. Long term I anticipate a second arena being cleared in Markham or elsewhere in Toronto, as Canadian Texan mentioned.

Sharing the ACC is just a short-term solution to allow for a relocation this off-seaon or next. It can happen fairly quickly if the three ownership players and the NHL agree.

The NHL at this point has really run its course on the Yotes and who knows, remember Jim Balsillie? If further cash is needed to buy a relocated team – you can bet he may get a call and would probably be speed dialing his banker to unlock a few hundred million to purchase the Yotes.

Consider contributing to Wiki if you can. It is has come a long way since its inception in quality and its founders have resisted attempts to commercialize it. Lets keep it alive with a few dollars each.

by Mitch Smith on Dec 12, 2011 2:22 PM EST up reply actions  

This is an excellent piece, Mitch

A term I think about a lot nowadays is “market saturation.” It’s a hard concept to pin down because you need to tease it out from underneath poor performance and a weak Canadian dollar to figure out if it’s there. I think you could argue that we saw it in the 1970s, when the WHA nearly doubled the number of Canadian teams, and even some good ones had to fold. Otherwise, the Nords and Jets seem like they were hit by the Canadian dollar as much as they were performance (what if the Nords had stuck around one more year?). In other words, I think (if it does happen) a second team in the Toronto area could be an interesting exercise in what these markets are capable of supporting. And what better climate than at the present, when the Leafs are a middle-of-the-pack team, rather than at the top of the NHL?

On the flip side, I don’t quite think we’ve seen market saturation in the U.S., because of the recession, but I do think that potentially fruitful markets have been underserved (Milwaukee please oh please!!!).

Co-Manager at Arctic Ice Hockey

Want Jets historical stats, Gabe Desjardins metrics, Jets prospect scouting reports, player previews, and old school photos from the WHA days? Get your copy of the First Commemorative Maple Street Press Winnipeg Jets Annual for 2011-12 here.

by Bettman's Nightmare on Dec 12, 2011 11:48 AM EST reply actions  

Thanks Ben

As far as market analysis goes on sports teams, I have always been one that is leery of a market that needs a winning team to get fan support. That isn’t reality, not everyone can be the Red Wings. On an investment basis, you want your market to be solid through good times and bad. Not a fad that comes and goes with a Cup win.

My take on the original Jets / Nords relocations was really the dollar exchange rates not the fans. To this day I believe that community support for QC and the Jets in Winnipeg was very high and never wavered, even after they left. It wasn’t fan support in my view, it was exchange rates.

This is one of the reasons why the Toronto market is such gold. Long standing evidence exists that such a high concentration of hockey fans will continue to attend games even with a losing team. The risk is very minimal, investment wise.

The market split had the same critics when the Mets came to New York but it increases rivalries and is a good thing imo.

Consider contributing to Wiki if you can. It is has come a long way since its inception in quality and its founders have resisted attempts to commercialize it. Lets keep it alive with a few dollars each.

by Mitch Smith on Dec 12, 2011 2:03 PM EST up reply actions  

I am not an economic person by any means, and please correct me if I am wrong about this but:

Is it not a conflict of interest to have an investment in two teams in the NHL?

Does Bell not have to sell their share in Montreal now that they own part of the leafs?

If this is true, then neither Rogers or Bell could own any potential split market team.

-"I'm not drinking and driving, I'm driving while I'm drinking....Right boys!?"
Lest we forget: Brett Lebda

by kudzupo on Dec 12, 2011 1:34 PM EST reply actions  

I don't believe so

Looking at the CFL, 2 of the teams (Toronto Argonauts, B.C. Lions) are owned by the same person (David Braley) and that isn’t perceived as a conflict if interest. I would be very surprised to hear Bell getting forced to sell their shares in the Habs

In Canada our balls are bigger
Writer for Arctic Ice Hockey

by canadian texan on Dec 12, 2011 1:48 PM EST via mobile up reply actions  

I have heard not a murmur anywhere that Bell is being pushed to sell the Habs, in fact the opposite message came out that Bell is committed to the Habs.

As long one owner does not have majority ownership in two NHL teams, the NHL will be ok with it I suspect, at least on a short term basis and if they are looking for new locations for potential relocations.

I think the end game here in this MLSE deal is for each owner here to have a majority ownership over 50% in three separate NHL teams. That is my take.

I speculate Tanenbaum gets 51+% on the Leafs / Rogers gets 51+% on Toronto Team 2 (St.Pats – ie relocated Coyotes) and Bell gets 51% on the Habs.

Consider contributing to Wiki if you can. It is has come a long way since its inception in quality and its founders have resisted attempts to commercialize it. Lets keep it alive with a few dollars each.

by Mitch Smith on Dec 12, 2011 1:52 PM EST up reply actions  

That would make sense. I could buy that the NHL would allow part ownership in more than one team.

-"I'm not drinking and driving, I'm driving while I'm drinking....Right boys!?"
Lest we forget: Brett Lebda

by kudzupo on Dec 12, 2011 1:55 PM EST up reply actions  

Bell has indicated that the involvement of Bell’s pension fund is, at least in part, intended to ensure Bell can retain its existing 18% interest in the Montreal Canadiens, as NHL rules prevent any shareholder that owns more than 30% of a team from being involved in the ownership of any other team.8

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maple_Leaf_Sports_%26_Entertainment

by Alex Hemsky on Dec 12, 2011 1:56 PM EST up reply actions  

Thx for the info.

In my eyes this makes my case that we are going to see further fluctuations in ownership % in the long-run on MLSE, for Bell certainly.

I can’t see it being an indefinite ownership arrangement running over the line like this, pension fund or not. Bell will be looking to sell its % in the Leafs and perhaps increase its stake elsewhere, perhaps another MLSE asset or the Habs…

Again the end game is another relocated team in Toronto.

Consider contributing to Wiki if you can. It is has come a long way since its inception in quality and its founders have resisted attempts to commercialize it. Lets keep it alive with a few dollars each.

by Mitch Smith on Dec 12, 2011 2:09 PM EST up reply actions  

Why wouldn’t OTPP just hang around to get the massive payout that’s sure to come when a team invades its territory?

All hockey all the time at The Globe and Mail

by James Mirtle on Dec 12, 2011 6:01 PM EST reply actions  

The OTPP has its own priorities. The pension may be the largest in Canada but it is under-funded, teachers living longer, declining ratio of working to retired teachers.

http://www.otpp.com/wps/wcm/connect/otpp_en/home/plan+funding/funding+challenges

The OTPP had MLSE on the market months ago, I think their investment team crunched some serious numbers. They may feel that a liquidation now for further diversification of pension investments in a down market is better timed than waiting for this off-season or even next off-season to negotiate a sweet-heart deal for a few million more.

It is nice to think about maximizing your return at a later date but they can’t sit on that cash, they have to be ready to invest it right away. I’m sure at this moment it is being spread into a down market already.

If they wait and the market jumps in the meantime over the next year or two, any additional increase in price they would have got from MLSE would be off-set by assets that had risen even more in value over the same time period.

If they feel the gain in MLSE is not greater than the gain they can get by getting into other investments right now, they will move MLSE now, which they did.

Consider contributing to Wiki if you can. It is has come a long way since its inception in quality and its founders have resisted attempts to commercialize it. Lets keep it alive with a few dollars each.

by Mitch Smith on Dec 12, 2011 6:34 PM EST up reply actions  

They would gain hundreds of millions if a team enters their market. Do these other advantages equate to that much gain in a short span?

I believe a second team will land in the GTA at some point; I don’t believe this sale says anything about that being imminent.

All hockey all the time at The Globe and Mail

by James Mirtle on Dec 12, 2011 6:36 PM EST up reply actions  

I think any territory payment has been one of the big hurdles.

A 2nd team in Toronto is not a new idea, its been talked about before but who is ready to put forward that kind of money on top of the franchise price and relocation fee?

With OTPP or any single owner ready to command such power to an outsider at the table, it becomes a non-starter. It would take decades for a 2nd team in Toronto to gain back ground financially.

This new ownership structure to me lays out a much easier path that avoids all the potentially paralyzing negotiations, co-ownership of the ACC etc.

With Bell and Rogers as two separate owners of the same market it is easier to see how on a hand-shake and with the right deals they can agree to ultimately having ownership control of two separate teams to stay onside with NHL ownership rules.

Anyway, it is just a theory and my speculation. We will know relatively quickly if there is anything to it. It may not happen at all but Bell is pushing the limit on the NHL ownership rules at the moment.

Consider contributing to Wiki if you can. It is has come a long way since its inception in quality and its founders have resisted attempts to commercialize it. Lets keep it alive with a few dollars each.

by Mitch Smith on Dec 12, 2011 6:45 PM EST up reply actions  

Also on the investment side, you have to factor in that if OTPP had hung around for the big pay day and another team did emerge they would now still have the Leafs on their hands which would probably take some degree of reduced value in a split market.

Can they move that asset now? How does it off-set etc etc…

Anyway, without knowing that details, I assume the OTPP investment team put some serious time into their calculations and their decision.

Also, you may know this but doesn’t the NHL have to approve the selling of a team and change in ownership?

Consider contributing to Wiki if you can. It is has come a long way since its inception in quality and its founders have resisted attempts to commercialize it. Lets keep it alive with a few dollars each.

by Mitch Smith on Dec 12, 2011 6:51 PM EST up reply actions  

Of course the final point is to wonder exactly how Gary Bettman and NHL are seeing this and how they are nudging folks in this whole situation. The NHL stands to potentially gain a lot with a new Team in the T dot.

Not even a whisper about needing their approval this time around. Which the deal needs as well but I suspect Bettman had his wake-up call in Winnipeg with the instant sell-out.

Consider contributing to Wiki if you can. It is has come a long way since its inception in quality and its founders have resisted attempts to commercialize it. Lets keep it alive with a few dollars each.

by Mitch Smith on Dec 12, 2011 11:17 PM EST reply actions  

You’re making a lot of assumptions and I fail to see anything in your article that really backs up these ideas. First, it always seemed that the basis for Roger and Bell purchasing MLSE was the possibility of creating a regional sports brand similar to the YES Network, which is now worth more than $3 billion. Basically, Rogers and Bell have the purchased the ability to print money for themselves by showing the Leafs and Leafs-related content 365 days a year. The other issue I had deals with the last bit about MLSE spinning the Leafs off to Tannenbaum, but retaining control of the ACC, TFC, Raptors, in order to secure his approval for a second Toronto team. I guess my issue is why Tannenbaum even cares. A second Toronto team does nothing to impact the Toronto Maple Leafs, and even stuffs the coffers of MLSE owners through a relocation fee (shared by all 29 teams) and likely a second market encroachment fee that would go directly to MLSE.

Additionally, the NHL does not even need the Leafs approval to move a second team to the GTA. The bankruptcy dealings with the Coyotes established this as a proven fact. The Leafs can easily be outvoted (and likely would be) by the remaining BoGs. But I have my doubts the Leafs would even vote against such a proposal. I’m going to invoke Occam’s Razor here. I find it far more likely that MLSE wouldn’t be opposed to a second Toronto team as long as they build their own arena outside of the city center (Markham for example) and their bank accounts get stuffed sufficiently by the 2nd team’s ownership group. Rogers and Bell then purchase the broadcast rights for the 2nd team, put them on their brand new MLSE Network, and charge massive amounts of $$ for ads.

Pension Plan Puppets
I hope YouTube comes down to film this.

by birky on Dec 13, 2011 11:19 AM EST reply actions  

I qualified my article several times as speculative and as a theory. So of course it has assumptions but I think they are reasonable ones.

The Hockey News picked up the 2nd team in Toronto idea the next day, conveniently, although he mentions Copps as the location instead of sharing the ACC which I think is much more likely so as not to intrude on the Buffalo market short-term.

http://www.thehockeynews.com/articles/43507-Campbell-Leafs-sale-means-Toronto-one-step-closer-to-second-NHL-team.html

(1) I think assuming two fierce competitors working together happily over the long run is a bigger assumption on your part. In the world of mergers and acquisitions I see MLSE as a prime asset to be broken up into pieces under this ownership group and them going their separate ways eventually, rather than kept intact as you seem to be implying.

It just has to do with competition rules and Bell is already pushing the limit all the time.

http://www.broadcastermagazine.com/news/crtc-finds-bell-mobility-in-breach-of-rules-for-exclusive-programming-rights/1000757930/

(2) As far as Tannenbaum and who ultimately gets majority control of the Leafs, well that is kind of irrelevant to my general theme which is ultimately a 2nd team in Toronto. You can turn the Rubicks ownership cube however you want – maybe Tannenbaum sells completely out for max return for his pocket, who knows.

The point is only that now the ownership group is structured in such a way that you can postulate how it is easier for a 2nd team to emerge in Toronto through internal negotiations and mutual self-interest from these three ownership players – instead of an outsider like Balsillie trying to come to the table and take a piece of their pie.

(3) Avoiding an expensive market encroachment fee by one of the three taking ownership of the 2nd team and giving up other assets was kind of my whole point.

I could be wrong though, Blackberry Jim may be sitting quietly with a gag ball and rubber mask on his face while Gary Bettman holds his leash. Just waiting to blow his load of cash all over the NHL, Bell, Roger and Tannenbaum. Fair enough, but those negotiations could become paralyzed fairly quick and I think time is of the essence here for the NHL anyway.

(4) I am totally on board for the Markham arena in the long-run as you say, I expect that actually – Bettman has got to want the Yotes moved for next year and QC isn’t ready. Is the NHL really willing to suffer through yet another year of an ownerless team?

My point is that I can see how they can go to the T.dot pretty quick with a few signatures and handshakes between the MLSE owners now, all while staying on-side with NHL ownership rules…

Again it is just a theory, it is speculative. I have no sources to quote or any of that. Take it or leave it.

Consider contributing to Wiki if you can. It is has come a long way since its inception in quality and its founders have resisted attempts to commercialize it. Lets keep it alive with a few dollars each.

by Mitch Smith on Dec 13, 2011 3:23 PM EST up reply actions  

What’s the incentive for Tannenbaum to own the majority share of the Leafs and give up on a potential windfall from an encroachment fee? He’s already running MLSE with only 25% of the investment, and I’m sure he makes plenty in profit every year. It seems that he may be far better off to keep Rogers and Bell in the fold, use their existing infrastructure to build up MLSE’s sports network (if they choose that route), and reap his share of the profits.

Pension Plan Puppets
I hope YouTube comes down to film this.

by birky on Dec 13, 2011 3:32 PM EST up reply actions  

Internally I think Tannenbaum holds the most power at the table and has the most to gain short-term financially. Bell and Rogers long-term with their broadcast rights.

Rogers and Bell to meet their goals would likely give him well over his 25% share of an encroachment fee from an outsider but they will give it to him in paper assets internally. This aspect is what provoked me to write the article.

If you go outside you have to find a buyer for the 2nd team – Yotes – it isn’t small change and it has to be special buyer, one that passes the NHL’s litmus test.

If you go outside you need a buyer with ready money. That is a little tricker in this market climate and for the amount we are talking about. That money is all likely invested and an outsider may not be as likely to want to sell low on his investments to generate cash to wade in on what would be a massive payment for the Yotes, the relocations fee AND the encroachment fee which I think I read would also be in the 100+ millions.

Crazy Blackberry Jim may go for it.

All the assets down to the hotdog cookers at the ACC are valued. MLSE is a huge bundled asset and how those assets are broken up and moved to Tannenbaum would account for any 25% of an encroachment fee he may have received.

For example maybe the Marlies are worth that 25 million (25% of 100 million encroachment fee) Tannenbaum laughs and says nope give me 30% – 30 million. Fine – Bell and Rogers simply pass the asset over to Tannenbaum and add on the hotdog cookers and 100% concession rights at the ACC or whatever. Done – Bell and Rogers have precise goals and it is the broadcasting realm where they will make most of their money. I’m betting they are more than happy to divest themselves of most of MLSE assets in exchange for their key goals.

At the bottom line and at the end of the day I see Tannenbaum getting more than a windfall from an encroachment fee, I see him getting full ownership of the Leafs – the Marlies and half the ACC. Adding all that up he will likely be well above his 25% stake in MLSE AND any % he would have received from a 100+ million encroachment fee. He will gain huge, on paper – he may even end up as majority owner of the Raptors – who knows.

The whole aspect of internal movement of MLSE assets is what will allow Tannenbaum to get his maximum return. Cripes didn’t the guy already increase from 20% to 25% his holding and for what? Allowing the change in ownership to go through.

Consider contributing to Wiki if you can. It is has come a long way since its inception in quality and its founders have resisted attempts to commercialize it. Lets keep it alive with a few dollars each.

by Mitch Smith on Dec 13, 2011 3:55 PM EST up reply actions  

Oh and why does Bell and Rogers want that 2nd team in Toronto. I think you already know this although you didn’t state it because obviously it will double their hockey content in a market where demand outstrips supply.

They will be thinking long-term on this and calculating out their returns. I am sure they have already done so and they ultimately will make the most money from the two teams through their ads and bundled 4 tier content (T.V., IPads, Smartphones, Internet)…

And it will be much more than they would have made with just the Leafs in town.

Consider contributing to Wiki if you can. It is has come a long way since its inception in quality and its founders have resisted attempts to commercialize it. Lets keep it alive with a few dollars each.

by Mitch Smith on Dec 13, 2011 4:11 PM EST up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

The finest Winnipeg Jets analysis on the internets

FanPosts


Managers

Hawerchuk_small Hawerchuk

Gary_bettman_bad_dreams_small Bettman's Nightmare

Grapes_small canadian texan

Howe_small TJCAPS

Editors

Ryan_small SO_RyanP

0_small maplestirup

Jets2_small arby_18