The last time the Canadiens visited Dallas was the 8th of March, 2009. Kovalev scored as he recovered from his long walk, Kostitsyn made the dome after a month of criticism and overblown allegations, Carey Price won a rare game that winter and Guy Carbonneau was the coach.
It was an auspicious time, because that game was the last of a road trip, the beginning of a return to backup duty for Halak in the face of form and the last act in Guy Carbonneau's reign.
18 months on a lot has changed. Only one of the starting All-Star team from that season is actively playing for the Canadiens. The team has a new captain, a new coach, have jettisoned the Halak issue and mostly have new personnel throughout.
The last time this team was in Dallas wasn't the catalyst for all that happening, but it certainly seemed to represent some sort of deadline for Bob Gainey, a self-imposed threshold to take control and take a new direction.
That point in time was also significant for Dallas. Because just as the Canadiens used those two unexpected points to eventually vault to eighth where they would win a tie-break to make the playoffs, Dallas needed these points. The two teams were two of the sad sack stories of 2009. Montreal was defending conference champion with a complete loss of poise from January. Dallas were perennial favourites off a conference final appearance struggling through a bad start and pretty bad February themselves. A moral victory that included beating the Sharks and then the playoff rival Ducks was curtailed by the Montrealers. And losing to the laughing stock item of February in early March led to a run that was soon to become 2 wins in 11 games and no playoffs.
At the same time on the banks of the Mersey...
Both franchises also shared more than a game in time. In early 2009, they also had the shared fate of being beset with owners who leveraged their way to everything in their empires, just when leverage was going out of style in a bad bad way.
Partners in crime (the Liverpool saga was criminal, as a Reds fan I can assure you) George Gillett and Tom Hicks were only beginning after the New Year to discover that the sports jewels they held in summer of 2008, before all hell broke loose in London and New York, were going to be the millstones round their respective necks.
Gillett, who was probably on the shakier ground to begin with was the first to move. Rumours that he denied in December 2008 of a sale, were now being confirmed in March. Hicks must have known he wouldn't be far behind, as he was defaulting on loans in April. And a default on a $100 million loan is not usually something that just creeps up on you.
As a fan of the Canadiens and the Reds, I am happy to say that the Gillett days are behind us. Luckily as a football fan, I can say the same about Hicks. Yet 21 months after that last meeting, the Stars are still the property of Tom Hicks (at least formally - it's well known he's trying his best to free some cash by releasing the Stars).
And what can new owners do for you?
Well, at least initially, it seems they can ignore their own debts as they try to establish a reputation as team the fans can like. Montreal's new ownership has meant less ceremonies and better hockey, an overhaul in ethic on the team.
Dallas is winning enough now, but fate has handed them a healthy hand. If they lost Richards or Ribeiro before the deadline would Hicks' money back them replacing either one? That said, new owners aren't always that quick on the uptake in this way...
So as we watch the puck drop tonight in the Big D, downing the appropriate Molson refreshment, let's remember how fortunate we are not to be reading a piece again about the frosty looks that will be shooting between former buds Gillett and Hicks, and even that Captain Obvious ("Pas facile de gagner sur la route") is going to be renting a luxury box, not standing on one behind the bench, even if Kostitsyn is still looking for a way to be a 25-goalscorer without a no-goal game.
Showing posts with label Liverpool. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Liverpool. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Thursday, September 10, 2009
The Height Of Sport
Second only to the Canadiens in my personal sporting hierarchy is international football. England is my poison.
Yesterday, I watched as my second team gave a clinic to the 9th ranked team in the world – beating Croatia 5-1 with as many near misses as goals. No matter how exciting rookie's skating backwards in Brossard can be – I'm afraid Habs news took a back seat.
Not only was it exciting, it ended well – something I can't take for granted in watching sports these days. And thank goodness for England; because, if I'm honest, they probably give me more exciting moments than from 15-odd years of Canadiens hockey have. David Beckham's injury-time free kick against Greece in 2001, Michael Owen's run against Colombia, the 5-1 mauling of Germany are moments that stand up with The Kovalev:Koivu:Zednik line clinic against Boston, Theodore's pirouette save and the thrashing of Carolina pre-Gerber pulling.
Hockey still wins 350 nights out of 365, hence the blog. But some nights football can just take over with it's magic.
Last night was one of those nights for me. You see, it's getting down to the wire in qualifying campaigns for next summer's World Cup in South Africa. The first round of the NHL playoffs is the only real equivalent to nights like last night in hockey terms. A night where many teams could qualify, and many could be eliminated. A night where the possibilities for future match-ups create the intrigue and the suspense. A night where I care about every game and every goal because it could affect my team.
40 teams faced off in 20 matches yesterday. A few teams qualified (England – hooray, Paraguay) and several were ousted (Saudi Arabia, Trinidad, Finland, Belarus, Scotland, et al). And the competition tightened with about 50-odd teams vying for the remaining 21 places.
It's an excitement that would be hard to replicate in hockey, to be fair, since rivalries between teams rarely reach the pitch they can when it's countries involved. And quite simply, there just isn't the blanket interest from every region of the world (sans N America, of course) that football can count on. At the very least, the Olympics give us all a chance to cheer for something/someone else than the marathon to the Cup.
The run down
If members of the Canadiens organization and alumni are soccer fans, this is what they would have seen and felt last night:
Jaraoslav Halak: Witnessed his countrymen exact an efficient plan in Belfast to beat Northern Ireland with a 0-2 victory. Any and all Slovaks are probably quite proud of this edition of their national team which is one point away from clinching the first place in any tournament round-robin competition since independence.
Roman Hamrlik, Jaroslav Spacek, Tomas Plekanec: Viewed a lesson in how to come back from the brink. 5th in the group and with a negative goal difference things didn't look good. A couple of good results from the other group members and a romp of 7-0 over tiny San Marino takes them back within reach of a playoff shout. They'll need help from their former countrymen to do it now, so look for the D to be extra nice to Halak.
Brian Gionta, Hal Gill, Paul Mara et al: The Americans again look poised to qualify while their population ignores them. The team on the rise walked over Trinidad and Tobago who won't be making a return to the party this time. Chances that the guys watched? Slim. But like hockey, soccer is a niche sport in the US – sometimes the players come from the same pool (Higgins, for example, starred in both).
Scott Gomez: Scott has double CONCACAF celebrations as his native US have assured themselves that place I mentioned above. and, in handling the thus far impressive Costa Rica, Mexico, the country of his paternal ancestry has now also assured themselves the same breathing room.
Yannick Weber, Robert Mayer: The Swiss got a free ticket into Euro as hosts and didn't avail themselves very well at all, winning a single match. Before last night the Swiss were teetering on the edge of another qualification, but took the lead from their goaltenders rather than their ski team as they crumpled under the pressure. Losing the lead they had gained in the first half, Switzerland only managed a 2-2 draw against footballing minnows Latvia. If Weber and Mayer are keen scoreboard watchers like most soccer fans, they will have had reason to celebrate some, though, as Greece managed to prove once again what a fluke the European championship was as they handed a rare point to Moldova (costing themselves a valuable 2 points). Switzerland still hold the cards, so the young Habs may still be smiling.
Andrei Markov, Alex Kovalev: Russia, with football's version of Scotty Bowman at the helm (Guus Hiddink), again impressed. They have paced Germany all the way and it seems that their match against each other on the 10th of October in Moscow could be a qualifying classic.
Saku Koivu, Petteri Simila: When you get drawn into a group with Russia and Germany in most sports, you're not going to be going home happy many times. Last night, though, the Finland football team showed why how much they miss the leadership that their national hockey team has, as they somehow managed to draw a game with a principality 3 miles across (Liechtenstein). usually Liechtenstein restrict themselves to taking points from Luxembourg.
Brothers Kostitsyn: Not much joy for the Kostitsyns as Belarus' draw vs. Ukraine means they won't go any further. On the bright side, by holding the Yellow and Blue to a point, the lovely Belarussians made my afternoon a lot more enjoyable – as it meant England would only require a single point from a draw for automatic qualification. One less distraction for the brothers won;t be a bad thing – though perhaps they'll turn to Mother Russia?
George Gillett: Watched as his main men Fernando Torres, Dirk Kuyt and Steven Gerrard all flew on qualified teams – Gerrard with 2 exceptional England goals. More joy as Glen Johnson (sounds like a hockey player) showed his worth on the England wing.
Habs bandwagon: The Habs bandwagon will be happy, because the team they supported all along (after Zidane's headbutt) also won on the night and Italy look safe to qualify without a playoff. The first country to be asked to do so as defenders of the crown.
Cristobal Huet, Mike Ribeiro: Hockey sensibilities aside, i am English after all. I had to shoehorn the fact that both France and Portugal may falter this year in somehow. France managed a draw and saw favourable results from their rivals so aren't down and out yet. Portugal is set for a shower of Ronaldo tears as they made their bed long ago. Ask Italy what happens when Sweden and Denmark stand in your way to qualification (I'm sure we won't see that kind of sportsmanship from never-dived before Portugal, though).
Obviously we hope all the Canadiens have a really celebratory June, but if they are soccer fans, at this point it looks like Halak, Johansson, Weber and the American contingent may need the most beer and BBQ meat on hand. I'm already planning for the most exciting month of the quadrennial.
June 11:
World Cup Opener – 11 am
Game 2 – 1:30 pm
Stanley Cup clincher? – 7 pm
A man can dream...
Yesterday, I watched as my second team gave a clinic to the 9th ranked team in the world – beating Croatia 5-1 with as many near misses as goals. No matter how exciting rookie's skating backwards in Brossard can be – I'm afraid Habs news took a back seat.
Not only was it exciting, it ended well – something I can't take for granted in watching sports these days. And thank goodness for England; because, if I'm honest, they probably give me more exciting moments than from 15-odd years of Canadiens hockey have. David Beckham's injury-time free kick against Greece in 2001, Michael Owen's run against Colombia, the 5-1 mauling of Germany are moments that stand up with The Kovalev:Koivu:Zednik line clinic against Boston, Theodore's pirouette save and the thrashing of Carolina pre-Gerber pulling.
Hockey still wins 350 nights out of 365, hence the blog. But some nights football can just take over with it's magic.
Last night was one of those nights for me. You see, it's getting down to the wire in qualifying campaigns for next summer's World Cup in South Africa. The first round of the NHL playoffs is the only real equivalent to nights like last night in hockey terms. A night where many teams could qualify, and many could be eliminated. A night where the possibilities for future match-ups create the intrigue and the suspense. A night where I care about every game and every goal because it could affect my team.
40 teams faced off in 20 matches yesterday. A few teams qualified (England – hooray, Paraguay) and several were ousted (Saudi Arabia, Trinidad, Finland, Belarus, Scotland, et al). And the competition tightened with about 50-odd teams vying for the remaining 21 places.
It's an excitement that would be hard to replicate in hockey, to be fair, since rivalries between teams rarely reach the pitch they can when it's countries involved. And quite simply, there just isn't the blanket interest from every region of the world (sans N America, of course) that football can count on. At the very least, the Olympics give us all a chance to cheer for something/someone else than the marathon to the Cup.
The run down
If members of the Canadiens organization and alumni are soccer fans, this is what they would have seen and felt last night:
Jaraoslav Halak: Witnessed his countrymen exact an efficient plan in Belfast to beat Northern Ireland with a 0-2 victory. Any and all Slovaks are probably quite proud of this edition of their national team which is one point away from clinching the first place in any tournament round-robin competition since independence.
Roman Hamrlik, Jaroslav Spacek, Tomas Plekanec: Viewed a lesson in how to come back from the brink. 5th in the group and with a negative goal difference things didn't look good. A couple of good results from the other group members and a romp of 7-0 over tiny San Marino takes them back within reach of a playoff shout. They'll need help from their former countrymen to do it now, so look for the D to be extra nice to Halak.
Brian Gionta, Hal Gill, Paul Mara et al: The Americans again look poised to qualify while their population ignores them. The team on the rise walked over Trinidad and Tobago who won't be making a return to the party this time. Chances that the guys watched? Slim. But like hockey, soccer is a niche sport in the US – sometimes the players come from the same pool (Higgins, for example, starred in both).
Scott Gomez: Scott has double CONCACAF celebrations as his native US have assured themselves that place I mentioned above. and, in handling the thus far impressive Costa Rica, Mexico, the country of his paternal ancestry has now also assured themselves the same breathing room.
Yannick Weber, Robert Mayer: The Swiss got a free ticket into Euro as hosts and didn't avail themselves very well at all, winning a single match. Before last night the Swiss were teetering on the edge of another qualification, but took the lead from their goaltenders rather than their ski team as they crumpled under the pressure. Losing the lead they had gained in the first half, Switzerland only managed a 2-2 draw against footballing minnows Latvia. If Weber and Mayer are keen scoreboard watchers like most soccer fans, they will have had reason to celebrate some, though, as Greece managed to prove once again what a fluke the European championship was as they handed a rare point to Moldova (costing themselves a valuable 2 points). Switzerland still hold the cards, so the young Habs may still be smiling.
Andrei Markov, Alex Kovalev: Russia, with football's version of Scotty Bowman at the helm (Guus Hiddink), again impressed. They have paced Germany all the way and it seems that their match against each other on the 10th of October in Moscow could be a qualifying classic.
Saku Koivu, Petteri Simila: When you get drawn into a group with Russia and Germany in most sports, you're not going to be going home happy many times. Last night, though, the Finland football team showed why how much they miss the leadership that their national hockey team has, as they somehow managed to draw a game with a principality 3 miles across (Liechtenstein). usually Liechtenstein restrict themselves to taking points from Luxembourg.
Brothers Kostitsyn: Not much joy for the Kostitsyns as Belarus' draw vs. Ukraine means they won't go any further. On the bright side, by holding the Yellow and Blue to a point, the lovely Belarussians made my afternoon a lot more enjoyable – as it meant England would only require a single point from a draw for automatic qualification. One less distraction for the brothers won;t be a bad thing – though perhaps they'll turn to Mother Russia?
George Gillett: Watched as his main men Fernando Torres, Dirk Kuyt and Steven Gerrard all flew on qualified teams – Gerrard with 2 exceptional England goals. More joy as Glen Johnson (sounds like a hockey player) showed his worth on the England wing.
Habs bandwagon: The Habs bandwagon will be happy, because the team they supported all along (after Zidane's headbutt) also won on the night and Italy look safe to qualify without a playoff. The first country to be asked to do so as defenders of the crown.
Cristobal Huet, Mike Ribeiro: Hockey sensibilities aside, i am English after all. I had to shoehorn the fact that both France and Portugal may falter this year in somehow. France managed a draw and saw favourable results from their rivals so aren't down and out yet. Portugal is set for a shower of Ronaldo tears as they made their bed long ago. Ask Italy what happens when Sweden and Denmark stand in your way to qualification (I'm sure we won't see that kind of sportsmanship from never-dived before Portugal, though).
Obviously we hope all the Canadiens have a really celebratory June, but if they are soccer fans, at this point it looks like Halak, Johansson, Weber and the American contingent may need the most beer and BBQ meat on hand. I'm already planning for the most exciting month of the quadrennial.
June 11:
World Cup Opener – 11 am
Game 2 – 1:30 pm
Stanley Cup clincher? – 7 pm
A man can dream...
Thursday, March 26, 2009
It's All Relative
George Gillett's in a huff because the media are focused on him these days. We all know the story of his asset review at the moment, we all know about his big loan up for renewal. But George is being as adamant as he can be about his intentions to sell (undecided) and the state of his businesses:
Why shouldn't we believe that? After all, as we can see, George Gillett has the stature of an NHL player. It's all relative as they say.
I think to understand Gillett's statement, one needs to spend a minute in the man's shoes. How else could someone state that one club with an estimated $510 million in debt and another with and estimated $240 million in debt have relatively small debts in this difficult world.
I am well aware that many businesses are run in this way. But a lot of things we knew to be certain about business have changed in the past few months, haven't they? Isn't it true that banks used to be able to take risk so long as they could sell it along to other banks and gamblers? I think this practice is now seriously in question. Is it not fathomable then, in a financial environment where banks' purse strings are tight as they've been in a while, that running a business on more than 2/3 debt might be going out of fashion. Don't tell me you don't think so too, George. If you didn't, BMO would be looking to help another billionaire come multimillionaire.
To be fair, one can see where the rosy picture of the Canadiens comes from. In relation to his other assets a team with 72% debt and an operating profit (albeit shrinking thanks to currency markets) is a gem. In total, George has been taking a hit if you trust the estimates. According to this article, George Gillett had a net worth of $1.1 billion in November 2007. Whereas this new list from January of this year shows his dramatic fall from grace to £300 million (or $435 million in USD). Not a good year.
Canadiens (Gillett's) debt can hurt them (him as Habs owner)
I find it hard to fathom that in all the articles I read about the Canadiens value (from Forbes) that no one bothers to mention the Canadiens debt load (also from Forbes). Because of this debt, the Canadiens owner must earn more money than, say, Mike Ilitch in Detroit (who has no debt) in order to service his interest payments.
If revenue goes down across the league – Detroit suffers because they might have to get a loan, but Montreal suffers more because their owner (already in debt) runs closer to the line. This is the kind of situation where owners start sapping profits to make sure they don't default on payments. This is the situation fans in Liverpool have been complaining about for a while.
I'm not saying Montreal is going to fold. I am merely suggesting that despite the operating profit that we all hear about, the Canadiens might not be a good enough investment for Gillett to hang onto at the moment – hence the portfolio review.
In terms of the way this bad news can hurt the performance of the team – I'd think that's minimal. Compared to the bombshells of the weeks before this one was tame. Last season, this would have been the Canadiens bombshell of the year, this year it's almost good news.
It's all relative. Aren't you glad?
"The businesses are all in excellent shape financially, they all are healthy, they've got strong incomes and relatively small debt in this difficult world," Gillett said.
Why shouldn't we believe that? After all, as we can see, George Gillett has the stature of an NHL player. It's all relative as they say.I think to understand Gillett's statement, one needs to spend a minute in the man's shoes. How else could someone state that one club with an estimated $510 million in debt and another with and estimated $240 million in debt have relatively small debts in this difficult world.
I am well aware that many businesses are run in this way. But a lot of things we knew to be certain about business have changed in the past few months, haven't they? Isn't it true that banks used to be able to take risk so long as they could sell it along to other banks and gamblers? I think this practice is now seriously in question. Is it not fathomable then, in a financial environment where banks' purse strings are tight as they've been in a while, that running a business on more than 2/3 debt might be going out of fashion. Don't tell me you don't think so too, George. If you didn't, BMO would be looking to help another billionaire come multimillionaire.
To be fair, one can see where the rosy picture of the Canadiens comes from. In relation to his other assets a team with 72% debt and an operating profit (albeit shrinking thanks to currency markets) is a gem. In total, George has been taking a hit if you trust the estimates. According to this article, George Gillett had a net worth of $1.1 billion in November 2007. Whereas this new list from January of this year shows his dramatic fall from grace to £300 million (or $435 million in USD). Not a good year.
Canadiens (Gillett's) debt can hurt them (him as Habs owner)
I find it hard to fathom that in all the articles I read about the Canadiens value (from Forbes) that no one bothers to mention the Canadiens debt load (also from Forbes). Because of this debt, the Canadiens owner must earn more money than, say, Mike Ilitch in Detroit (who has no debt) in order to service his interest payments.
If revenue goes down across the league – Detroit suffers because they might have to get a loan, but Montreal suffers more because their owner (already in debt) runs closer to the line. This is the kind of situation where owners start sapping profits to make sure they don't default on payments. This is the situation fans in Liverpool have been complaining about for a while.
I'm not saying Montreal is going to fold. I am merely suggesting that despite the operating profit that we all hear about, the Canadiens might not be a good enough investment for Gillett to hang onto at the moment – hence the portfolio review.
In terms of the way this bad news can hurt the performance of the team – I'd think that's minimal. Compared to the bombshells of the weeks before this one was tame. Last season, this would have been the Canadiens bombshell of the year, this year it's almost good news.
It's all relative. Aren't you glad?
Monday, March 23, 2009
Controversy Of The Week
Canadiens Possibly Up For Sale
We took a week off the off-ice controversies after 3 solid soap-opera plots, but we're back in business.
According to the Globe and Mail (via La Presse), the Montreal Canadiens may be put up for sale by American owner and perennial worldwide debt leaderboard member:
This all sounds very familiar, as there have been stories about Gillett's intentions for the team already this season.
In December, I commented on the story and highlighted the fact it could be true, precisely because Gillett is known to this Liverpool FC fan to be a slippery character. But as I said in December, the biggest reason for concern is not Gillett's character, but the way he runs his businesses – that is on the edge with a huge debt load.
In December, George denied the rumours (of course, he's denied the Dubai bids for Liverpool in the past too). But there's a saying isn't there: "Where there's smoke, there's fire."
In case anyone has been so immersed in hockey that they haven't noticed, running businesses on a massive operational deficit is not really working out for many people these days. Since the banks went under in the US and the UK, borrowing has dried up and rates for borrowers have been tightened. With Liverpool FC in astronomical debt and no buyer, it is not inconceivable that Gillett would dangle the Canadiens and their $240 million debt to help his own personal portfolio out from under a bit.
Last year I asked: Can people like Gillett continue to operate businesses as they always did without any consequences?
We may be about to get our answer.
What does this mean for the Canadiens?
That's a hard question to answer, especially for someone with such limited understanding of the ins and outs of big business deals.
However, you can be sure that if the Canadiens ownership is under review, it is not the coin-minting machine we all assumed it was. One reason must surely be the burden of the interest on Gillett's debt which could be crippling to the owner, if not the team. It certainly does not auger well for the team (a best case is a neutral outcome). It does not auger well at all for the league either, if a franchise with sell-out after sell-out and 24-hour TV coverage can be a loser.
This spring fans have been calling widely for a retooling, presumably through the free agent market (unless they fancy a Maxwell and Ryan White on the top lines). One has to wonder what a team stretching to pay interest on a league-high debt will behave like at the moment of truth. Big offers for many big stars? You'd have to be skeptical. A trigger-shy Gillett on July 1 could lead to another year of bridesmaid signings and another year of watching the teams who beat us that day, beat us later on in the year.
As for the rest of this season – will it be a distraction? I tend to believe this is quite minor compared to all the other distractions.
It is out of the players control and could hardly make them any worse than they have been. Will it hinder any rebound? If it does stop players from playing for their pride and championship aspirations, then that off-season retooling, big purse or not, probably can't come soon enough...
According to the Globe and Mail (via La Presse), the Montreal Canadiens may be put up for sale by American owner and perennial worldwide debt leaderboard member:
“BMO Capital Markets has been retained to evaluate all the possible financial strategies involving the Gillett family's interests in Montreal (which include the Bell Centre and Gillett Entertainment Group),” Habs president Pierre Boivin told La Presse, which reported speculation of a sale in today's editions. “We could be talking about re-capitalization, restructuring of debt, new investors, or even an outright sale. The process is under way, but we are still at the beginning of it.”
This all sounds very familiar, as there have been stories about Gillett's intentions for the team already this season.
In December, I commented on the story and highlighted the fact it could be true, precisely because Gillett is known to this Liverpool FC fan to be a slippery character. But as I said in December, the biggest reason for concern is not Gillett's character, but the way he runs his businesses – that is on the edge with a huge debt load.
In December, George denied the rumours (of course, he's denied the Dubai bids for Liverpool in the past too). But there's a saying isn't there: "Where there's smoke, there's fire."
In case anyone has been so immersed in hockey that they haven't noticed, running businesses on a massive operational deficit is not really working out for many people these days. Since the banks went under in the US and the UK, borrowing has dried up and rates for borrowers have been tightened. With Liverpool FC in astronomical debt and no buyer, it is not inconceivable that Gillett would dangle the Canadiens and their $240 million debt to help his own personal portfolio out from under a bit.
Last year I asked: Can people like Gillett continue to operate businesses as they always did without any consequences?
We may be about to get our answer.
What does this mean for the Canadiens?
That's a hard question to answer, especially for someone with such limited understanding of the ins and outs of big business deals.
However, you can be sure that if the Canadiens ownership is under review, it is not the coin-minting machine we all assumed it was. One reason must surely be the burden of the interest on Gillett's debt which could be crippling to the owner, if not the team. It certainly does not auger well for the team (a best case is a neutral outcome). It does not auger well at all for the league either, if a franchise with sell-out after sell-out and 24-hour TV coverage can be a loser.
This spring fans have been calling widely for a retooling, presumably through the free agent market (unless they fancy a Maxwell and Ryan White on the top lines). One has to wonder what a team stretching to pay interest on a league-high debt will behave like at the moment of truth. Big offers for many big stars? You'd have to be skeptical. A trigger-shy Gillett on July 1 could lead to another year of bridesmaid signings and another year of watching the teams who beat us that day, beat us later on in the year.
As for the rest of this season – will it be a distraction? I tend to believe this is quite minor compared to all the other distractions.
It is out of the players control and could hardly make them any worse than they have been. Will it hinder any rebound? If it does stop players from playing for their pride and championship aspirations, then that off-season retooling, big purse or not, probably can't come soon enough...
Friday, November 07, 2008
Team Ownership
For Sale Or Not, And Who To Believe
Team Ownership
For Sale Or Not, And Who To Believe
In the build up to the season, through training camp and since, hockey has provided a nice distraction to all the bad news coming out of fund management firms, banks and finance ministers the world round.
And while Canadiens fans have been treated to more good news than most on the ice, behind the scenes in the NHL owners circuit I was starting to get a sneaky feeling that something may be brewing.
So when I awoke this morning and saw this story from RDS about Jim Balsillie and the Montreal Canadiens, I can’t say I was blown away. George Gillett has come out and flatly denied the statements of devious Jim (of Nashville saviour fame). The story is so sensitive in Montreal that RDS has already changed the headline three times in a few hours and have settled on George Gillett’s denial. So, those waking up later will have to rely on my word that this all happened.
So now we have one leaked comment, probably out of context from La Presse. And we have a statement from the guy who should know best, the guy who owns and would have to sell the Canadiens. Most would give the benefit of the doubt to the defender here – the owner.
However, the question about this statement is whether we can take it at face value. George Gillett, for all his likable qualities (and recent PR about them in the North American press) has been speaking out of both sides of his mouth a bit recently. You wouldn’t have to tour the terraces at Anfield (Liverpool FC’s home ground) for very long to find someone with something negative to say about our Georgie Boy. He's admitted his embarrassment at the situation himself, in fact.
The reason: fans feel they have been lied to. George and his partner Tom Hicks (also owner of the Dallas Stars) made three pivotal promises when they took over the club:
1) They would increase the funds available for transfers
2) They would build a new stadium
3) They would not burden the club with their own personal debts
A year and a bit later, it seems they have mostly defaulted on all three promises. The transfer kitty initially jumped but was topped up almost immediately through the sale of players – bringing them back to the starting point and no extra cash layout. The stadium is on hold. And, the Americans have borrowed heavily while using the club profits to pay down the interest – exactly as they promised they wouldn’t. From the Gazette:
Incidentally, Gillett and Hicks also flatly denied claims of selling the club, which juxtaposes with the engagement of Merrill Lynch by the two men. From the Times:
There is obvious concern over broken promises; but, that to me is actually very reasonable given that no one at all, banker, businessman or doomsday merchant, predicted the global banking system to fall down.
No, the biggest concern is the third point – that Gillett operates his companies while carrying a great load of debt. Liverpool FC is in debt. The Canadiens too, are in a massive hole of debt ($240 million, in fact, as per Forbes). Rough calculations of the Habs finances show that although it is some team’s plans to pay down debt (Red Wings anyone), Gillett’s plan is to service the interest and no more.
I don’t want to be alarmist, it is common business practice to run enterprises in this way. The problem is, October showed us that what is known about business is all up in the air now. If banks can go out of business overnight, can’t venture capitalists too? Can people like Gillett continue to operate businesses as they always did without any consequences?
Is it not conceivable that sports leagues will suffer eventually from the credit crunch as well? Wouldn’t it be feasible that individuals who rely on credit to finance upwards of 50% of their empires might also have to re-adjust?
Put those two together and you have George Gillett's predicament, nice guy and brilliant owner that he has been for Montreal
So, in light of all that, should we really be surprised that rumours of selling the Habs should crop up just now?
I, for one, am not surprised. News like this was to be expected, whether true or not. I would be no more surprised if it were true than if it were a fabrication – both scenarios make sense to me.
Nor am I worried. For all the credit we give George Gillett, it is Bob Gainey who takes care of us fans. He will still be as intelligent, calculating and frugal as he is now even under the RIM tycoon. I don’t see the change of ownership as a threat to the viability of the Canadiens over the long term or to their play on the ice.
If as a fellow fan, this interests you as much as it does me, though. I suggest you keep your eyes on the British press in January of next year, as it will be very interested to see how Gillett does in refinancing his massive debt in the UK (due to come up with RBS late January) – a debt that makes the Canadiens $240 million debt looks like a pittance; and one that probably has the potential to knock two pretty big business men down if the bankers are hard on them.
If only for the good of the Canadiens, I hope that January brings good news, whether it be for Gillett or Balsillie…
As a closing thought, I will reflect on the naive days of my youth, when Molson owned the team. At that time, I was a fan who dreamt of being a club owner. I imagined club ownership to be an extension of fandom, with more decision making power. For people who spend form their own pockets to push their team over the top – for pride, for pleasure, for us.
As time has gone by, it has become increasingly clear to me that owners are not in these ventures to make a loss, or even to break even. They are in the business of owning sports franchises for one reason – making money. I don’t hold it against them. Nor will I cry for them when they don’t.
And while Canadiens fans have been treated to more good news than most on the ice, behind the scenes in the NHL owners circuit I was starting to get a sneaky feeling that something may be brewing.
So when I awoke this morning and saw this story from RDS about Jim Balsillie and the Montreal Canadiens, I can’t say I was blown away. George Gillett has come out and flatly denied the statements of devious Jim (of Nashville saviour fame). The story is so sensitive in Montreal that RDS has already changed the headline three times in a few hours and have settled on George Gillett’s denial. So, those waking up later will have to rely on my word that this all happened.
So now we have one leaked comment, probably out of context from La Presse. And we have a statement from the guy who should know best, the guy who owns and would have to sell the Canadiens. Most would give the benefit of the doubt to the defender here – the owner.
However, the question about this statement is whether we can take it at face value. George Gillett, for all his likable qualities (and recent PR about them in the North American press) has been speaking out of both sides of his mouth a bit recently. You wouldn’t have to tour the terraces at Anfield (Liverpool FC’s home ground) for very long to find someone with something negative to say about our Georgie Boy. He's admitted his embarrassment at the situation himself, in fact.
The reason: fans feel they have been lied to. George and his partner Tom Hicks (also owner of the Dallas Stars) made three pivotal promises when they took over the club:
1) They would increase the funds available for transfers
2) They would build a new stadium
3) They would not burden the club with their own personal debts
A year and a bit later, it seems they have mostly defaulted on all three promises. The transfer kitty initially jumped but was topped up almost immediately through the sale of players – bringing them back to the starting point and no extra cash layout. The stadium is on hold. And, the Americans have borrowed heavily while using the club profits to pay down the interest – exactly as they promised they wouldn’t. From the Gazette:
"Liverpool has been saddled with big debt after the takeover by Tom Hicks and George Gillett Jr., owner of the Canadiens. But that duo has been hit hard by the credit crunch and plans to build a new stadium have been put off because they haven't been able to raise the money."
Incidentally, Gillett and Hicks also flatly denied claims of selling the club, which juxtaposes with the engagement of Merrill Lynch by the two men. From the Times:
“The American businessman has been at the centre of the turmoil that has engulfed the Anfield club since he and Hicks took control. Plans to build a new stadium in Stanley Park have been shelved while the pair attempt to ride out the global economic crisis although as reported in The Times last month, they have signalled that they are ready to sell their stake at Anfield after engaging Merrill Lynch, the investment bank, to find a buyer for the club.”
There is obvious concern over broken promises; but, that to me is actually very reasonable given that no one at all, banker, businessman or doomsday merchant, predicted the global banking system to fall down.
No, the biggest concern is the third point – that Gillett operates his companies while carrying a great load of debt. Liverpool FC is in debt. The Canadiens too, are in a massive hole of debt ($240 million, in fact, as per Forbes). Rough calculations of the Habs finances show that although it is some team’s plans to pay down debt (Red Wings anyone), Gillett’s plan is to service the interest and no more.
I don’t want to be alarmist, it is common business practice to run enterprises in this way. The problem is, October showed us that what is known about business is all up in the air now. If banks can go out of business overnight, can’t venture capitalists too? Can people like Gillett continue to operate businesses as they always did without any consequences?
Is it not conceivable that sports leagues will suffer eventually from the credit crunch as well? Wouldn’t it be feasible that individuals who rely on credit to finance upwards of 50% of their empires might also have to re-adjust?
Put those two together and you have George Gillett's predicament, nice guy and brilliant owner that he has been for Montreal
So, in light of all that, should we really be surprised that rumours of selling the Habs should crop up just now?
I, for one, am not surprised. News like this was to be expected, whether true or not. I would be no more surprised if it were true than if it were a fabrication – both scenarios make sense to me.
Nor am I worried. For all the credit we give George Gillett, it is Bob Gainey who takes care of us fans. He will still be as intelligent, calculating and frugal as he is now even under the RIM tycoon. I don’t see the change of ownership as a threat to the viability of the Canadiens over the long term or to their play on the ice.
If as a fellow fan, this interests you as much as it does me, though. I suggest you keep your eyes on the British press in January of next year, as it will be very interested to see how Gillett does in refinancing his massive debt in the UK (due to come up with RBS late January) – a debt that makes the Canadiens $240 million debt looks like a pittance; and one that probably has the potential to knock two pretty big business men down if the bankers are hard on them.
If only for the good of the Canadiens, I hope that January brings good news, whether it be for Gillett or Balsillie…
As a closing thought, I will reflect on the naive days of my youth, when Molson owned the team. At that time, I was a fan who dreamt of being a club owner. I imagined club ownership to be an extension of fandom, with more decision making power. For people who spend form their own pockets to push their team over the top – for pride, for pleasure, for us.
As time has gone by, it has become increasingly clear to me that owners are not in these ventures to make a loss, or even to break even. They are in the business of owning sports franchises for one reason – making money. I don’t hold it against them. Nor will I cry for them when they don’t.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Koivu Got It Right: Team Should Start in Europe
As a Habs and NHL fan you are surely aware of the up-coming 100th anniversary of the Montreal Canadiens. You may have missed the other important hockey centennial celebration, however – the 100th anniversary of the founding of the International Ice Hockey Federation (IIHF).
This landmark date passed us by in May. The celebrations took place just down the road at the IIHF World Championships in Quebec City and Halifax. May 15th to be precise. Or the 16th, to be less so (it was a 2-day meeting in Paris, who knows when they worked and when they drank).
More importantly, you may also have missed the IIHF’s announcement the previous May to dedicate a new Cup during the centennial season of international ice hockey honouring the roots of competitive ice hockey. The Cup will be called the Victoria Cup – named in honour of the Victoria skating rink in Montreal where the first organised hockey game was played on March 3, 1875. (This building, no longer in its original state, was located on Stanley street a stone throw from the Bell Centre. If you’re curious, it is now a car rental place and should have a plaque on or nearabout it – though I haven’t sought it out for myself).
This press release from the IIHF gives an idea of what the Victoria Cup is and what it will aspire to become:
Apparently in their infinite arrogance, the NHL will refuse to commit sending the Stanley Cup Champions for this game. Now, I completely understand this decision with the leagues as they currently are. Why would the NHL mandate one of its members to go participate in a game that should be a foregone conclusion?
I can think of several reasons, off the top of my head:
1) To honour the history of hockey
2) To create excitement in Europe (something that is clearly on the league marketers’ minds these past two seasons)
3) Showing the IIHF a little bit of good will once in a while might actually help get the NHL some support in labour disputes like the one over Radulov. His was not the first, and it certainly won't be the last.
Still count your blessings M. Fasel, Bettman and the cronies have done far worse than throw the Rangers Europe's way. That any NHL team at all is competing is an accomplishment. Take for example the fact that Canada held its very first World Championships just last spring in Quebec City and Halifax a hundred years after the IIHF was formed.
And, at least the IIHF got the Rangers, there were 20 odd worse options.
But really, this Victoria Cup could have been greeted in style with either the Stanley Cup champion Red Wings or the league’s elder statesmen Canadiens – both laden with European talent. I think the Canadiens, in particular though, should have been able to rise above both the NHL and Hockey Canada in this case and give this inaugural Victoria Cup its due, especially when celebrating their own anniversary.
Evidently, they were not able to do that. Now the Rangers will likely add the Victoria Cup to their trophy cupboard to go with their 4 Stanley Cups.
Better options
Don’t tell me that the IIHF wanted the Rangers though. Sure, they’re doing some great retroactive spin-doctoring now, but the IIHF wanted higher prestige for their game than this.
Admittedly, I didn’t remember that the Rangers were the first NHL club to ever play against a European club (back in 1975). Their game, which ended in a bit of a wash for CSKA, and strangely didn’t make the top 100 memorable moments in international hockey history.
No, if you are to believe the rumours, barring a commitment for the Stanley Cup champions, the IIHF wanted the Canadiens (One story from last year here):
And even with the Rangers in the bag, he can’t stop dreaming of having the Habs in Bern:
"Ever since the historic game between the Montreal Canadiens and CSKA Moscow on New Year's Eve 1975, hockey fans around the world have been longing for games between NHL clubs and European teams.”
The IIHF president (Rene Faisel) clearly has a sense of history. Because not only are the Canadiens, the oldest and most accomplished NHL team, they also have international pedigree. After all, it is the Canadiens CSKA NYE classic, not the forgettable Rangers game, that is firmly entrenched at no. 23 on the all-time greatest moments. What’s more, the Canadiens and the IIHF are the same age.
So why no Habs?
Are we or are we not the most historic and important hockey team in the world?
This is where I get to thinking that Saku Koivu and his European compatriots, by staying in Europe, are right where they should have been to start the Canadiens "Centenary". in my opinion, someone dropped the ball on this one in the Canadiens chain of command.
It seems the Canadiens would rather have a golf tournament and a few meaningless exhibitions in a 3/4 full arena than acknowledge a new competition named in honour of their city.
I can hear the responses now: "We need to focus on winning the Cup", "We need to be ready for opening night", etc.
Nonsense. If a team can travel to LA from Montreal, it can travel to Switzerland.
And, there is no way that fatigue from early October should affect a professional athlete in May (no matter how much you want to believe Carey Price). If this competition would break them, then they were never champions to begin with.
And if I hear that the Ducks had a slow start because they played in London, I will be astounded that whoever it is buys Brian Burke's spin-doctoring at wholesale rates (we all know what Niedermayer means to them).
No, the Canadiens could handle it. Would win it.
And should have been honoured to be first in line. They should honour their elder hockey cousins after the honour was paid to the city of Montreal in the naming of the Cup. Sharing a hundredth birthday is something special (even if it is 18 months apart really). And, in a year where special things are meant to happen, the Victoria Cup is so much more special than an NHL All Star game sleeper or a draft or a bobblehead night or beer giveaways (well,maybe not that last one...)
I am willing to bet the Wanderers weren't so thrilled at defending every challenge that came their way for the Stanley Cup from Western Canada when they were tring to win their own league. But, now we look back on that and count their Stanley Cups as legendary.
The step up missed
The Canadiens could be in the same enviable position as the mega teams of world football (Real, Man U, AC) who we know by first name – well the hockey equivalents, anyway. As I see it, they currently have some marquee international draws. Finland's captain and arguably best centre ever. The most exciting young Czech forward in the NHL. A serious glut of Russian talent. Slovakia's future star goalie. The entire Belarus hockey system. Add to that, they recently were the NHL standard bearers for Switzerland and France, and you can see there might be interest for the Habs overseas.
What's more, the Canadiens are also (as far as I know) now one of the easiest teams to follow from overseas. First, you have the English and French media engines, and then, there's the wonderful online broadcasts from RDS which can be accessed anywhere (though you'd have to be keen to watch a game at 2 am in parts of Russia). Even so, extended highlights, interviews and the like are all available too, which makes the Canadiens a definite stand out among their NHL peers.
The time is ripe for a team to step beyond the Nashvilles and Atlantas of the league. Too bad it could be the Rangers...
George Gillett should know better. He owns Liverpool, one of the biggest sporting brands in the world. Teams like Liverpool (and especially Man United) frequently take their show on the road to Asia or the Middle East to not only give a shout to fans in those countries, but to stoke the fire and cash in on some revenue along the way. And Liverpool, of all teams – European champions extraordinaire, even when they can't score against Burnley.
I'll be watching the first Victoria Cup, because who knows it might just be history. After all, the KHL is becoming pretty real these days. And, NHL teams are flocking to Europe yearly.
The only dilemma is getting myself a Metallurg shirt in time for the game. Could never stomach a Rangers win...
This landmark date passed us by in May. The celebrations took place just down the road at the IIHF World Championships in Quebec City and Halifax. May 15th to be precise. Or the 16th, to be less so (it was a 2-day meeting in Paris, who knows when they worked and when they drank).
More importantly, you may also have missed the IIHF’s announcement the previous May to dedicate a new Cup during the centennial season of international ice hockey honouring the roots of competitive ice hockey. The Cup will be called the Victoria Cup – named in honour of the Victoria skating rink in Montreal where the first organised hockey game was played on March 3, 1875. (This building, no longer in its original state, was located on Stanley street a stone throw from the Bell Centre. If you’re curious, it is now a car rental place and should have a plaque on or nearabout it – though I haven’t sought it out for myself).
This press release from the IIHF gives an idea of what the Victoria Cup is and what it will aspire to become:
“The one-game Victoria Cup will be played at Berne’s 16,789-capacity PostFinance-Arena, also the main venue for the 2009 IIHF World Championship. The winner will receive the Victoria Cup, a trophy to be awarded annually to the winner of game between Europe’s top team and an NHL-challenger.”
Apparently in their infinite arrogance, the NHL will refuse to commit sending the Stanley Cup Champions for this game. Now, I completely understand this decision with the leagues as they currently are. Why would the NHL mandate one of its members to go participate in a game that should be a foregone conclusion?
I can think of several reasons, off the top of my head:
1) To honour the history of hockey
2) To create excitement in Europe (something that is clearly on the league marketers’ minds these past two seasons)
3) Showing the IIHF a little bit of good will once in a while might actually help get the NHL some support in labour disputes like the one over Radulov. His was not the first, and it certainly won't be the last.
Still count your blessings M. Fasel, Bettman and the cronies have done far worse than throw the Rangers Europe's way. That any NHL team at all is competing is an accomplishment. Take for example the fact that Canada held its very first World Championships just last spring in Quebec City and Halifax a hundred years after the IIHF was formed.
And, at least the IIHF got the Rangers, there were 20 odd worse options.
But really, this Victoria Cup could have been greeted in style with either the Stanley Cup champion Red Wings or the league’s elder statesmen Canadiens – both laden with European talent. I think the Canadiens, in particular though, should have been able to rise above both the NHL and Hockey Canada in this case and give this inaugural Victoria Cup its due, especially when celebrating their own anniversary.
Evidently, they were not able to do that. Now the Rangers will likely add the Victoria Cup to their trophy cupboard to go with their 4 Stanley Cups.
Better options
Don’t tell me that the IIHF wanted the Rangers though. Sure, they’re doing some great retroactive spin-doctoring now, but the IIHF wanted higher prestige for their game than this.
“René Fasel had said he hoped to have ‘a team with some history’ represent the NHL at the Victoria Cup event, and we are extremely pleased the Rangers agreed to participate,” said NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman. “We also are delighted to help the IHF celebrate its 100th Anniversary.”
“We agreed that the Rangers would be the optimal club to represent the NHL in the first Victoria Cup,” said IIHF President René Fasel on the decision to have the New York Rangers become the NHL-challenger in the inaugural Victoria Cup. “The Rangers were the first ever NHL club to play against a European team when they met CSKA Moscow in New York on December 28, 1975, they have been one of the NHL teams that have most often shown enthusiasm to go overseas and there is no doubt that many Europeans fans will have no problems identifying with the heavy international presence that the club has. But first and foremost, the New York Rangers are one of the most identifiable clubs in all of hockey and professional sports.”
Admittedly, I didn’t remember that the Rangers were the first NHL club to ever play against a European club (back in 1975). Their game, which ended in a bit of a wash for CSKA, and strangely didn’t make the top 100 memorable moments in international hockey history.
No, if you are to believe the rumours, barring a commitment for the Stanley Cup champions, the IIHF wanted the Canadiens (One story from last year here):
If International Ice Hockey Federation president Rene Fasel had his choice, the Montreal Canadiens will represent the NHL in a European exhibition series in September 2008.
The final decision will be made by the league in conjunction with the IIHF, but Fasel knows who he wants.
"As a Francophone who grew up as a Canadiens fan, it would be a dream for me to have the Canadiens," he said during an interview in French on Tuesday. "But the decision is not up to me. We will have to talk with the league."
The Canadiens are the oldest hockey team in the world and celebrate their own centennial anniversary in 2009. They would be a perfect fit for what Fasel has in mind for the inaugural exhibition series.
"We'd like to have a team that has a great history behind it like the Original Six teams do," he said.
The IIHF expects the decision about which NHL team will play in the event to be made by December. The European team that competes in 2008 will be the winner of the European Champions Cup tournament next January in St. Petersburg, Russia.
And even with the Rangers in the bag, he can’t stop dreaming of having the Habs in Bern:
"Ever since the historic game between the Montreal Canadiens and CSKA Moscow on New Year's Eve 1975, hockey fans around the world have been longing for games between NHL clubs and European teams.”
The IIHF president (Rene Faisel) clearly has a sense of history. Because not only are the Canadiens, the oldest and most accomplished NHL team, they also have international pedigree. After all, it is the Canadiens CSKA NYE classic, not the forgettable Rangers game, that is firmly entrenched at no. 23 on the all-time greatest moments. What’s more, the Canadiens and the IIHF are the same age.
So why no Habs?
Are we or are we not the most historic and important hockey team in the world?
This is where I get to thinking that Saku Koivu and his European compatriots, by staying in Europe, are right where they should have been to start the Canadiens "Centenary". in my opinion, someone dropped the ball on this one in the Canadiens chain of command.
It seems the Canadiens would rather have a golf tournament and a few meaningless exhibitions in a 3/4 full arena than acknowledge a new competition named in honour of their city.
I can hear the responses now: "We need to focus on winning the Cup", "We need to be ready for opening night", etc.
Nonsense. If a team can travel to LA from Montreal, it can travel to Switzerland.
And, there is no way that fatigue from early October should affect a professional athlete in May (no matter how much you want to believe Carey Price). If this competition would break them, then they were never champions to begin with.
And if I hear that the Ducks had a slow start because they played in London, I will be astounded that whoever it is buys Brian Burke's spin-doctoring at wholesale rates (we all know what Niedermayer means to them).
No, the Canadiens could handle it. Would win it.
And should have been honoured to be first in line. They should honour their elder hockey cousins after the honour was paid to the city of Montreal in the naming of the Cup. Sharing a hundredth birthday is something special (even if it is 18 months apart really). And, in a year where special things are meant to happen, the Victoria Cup is so much more special than an NHL All Star game sleeper or a draft or a bobblehead night or beer giveaways (well,maybe not that last one...)
I am willing to bet the Wanderers weren't so thrilled at defending every challenge that came their way for the Stanley Cup from Western Canada when they were tring to win their own league. But, now we look back on that and count their Stanley Cups as legendary.
The step up missed
The Canadiens could be in the same enviable position as the mega teams of world football (Real, Man U, AC) who we know by first name – well the hockey equivalents, anyway. As I see it, they currently have some marquee international draws. Finland's captain and arguably best centre ever. The most exciting young Czech forward in the NHL. A serious glut of Russian talent. Slovakia's future star goalie. The entire Belarus hockey system. Add to that, they recently were the NHL standard bearers for Switzerland and France, and you can see there might be interest for the Habs overseas.
What's more, the Canadiens are also (as far as I know) now one of the easiest teams to follow from overseas. First, you have the English and French media engines, and then, there's the wonderful online broadcasts from RDS which can be accessed anywhere (though you'd have to be keen to watch a game at 2 am in parts of Russia). Even so, extended highlights, interviews and the like are all available too, which makes the Canadiens a definite stand out among their NHL peers.
The time is ripe for a team to step beyond the Nashvilles and Atlantas of the league. Too bad it could be the Rangers...
George Gillett should know better. He owns Liverpool, one of the biggest sporting brands in the world. Teams like Liverpool (and especially Man United) frequently take their show on the road to Asia or the Middle East to not only give a shout to fans in those countries, but to stoke the fire and cash in on some revenue along the way. And Liverpool, of all teams – European champions extraordinaire, even when they can't score against Burnley.
I'll be watching the first Victoria Cup, because who knows it might just be history. After all, the KHL is becoming pretty real these days. And, NHL teams are flocking to Europe yearly.
The only dilemma is getting myself a Metallurg shirt in time for the game. Could never stomach a Rangers win...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)