Jump to content

Tampa Bay Lightning Sold


jkrdevil

Recommended Posts

Breaking new the Tampa Bay Lightning along with the leasing rights for the St. Pete Times forum and adjacent property. The Team was sold to a group that includes Jeff Sherrin, Oren Koules, and Doug Maclean.

-Sherrin is a Coral Springs, FL real estate developer

-Koules is a Hollywood producer of such fine films as Dumb & Dumberer, the Saw films, and is the executive producer of the TV show Two and Half Men. He is also a former minor league hockey player who played in the Blackhawks system. He also owned a minor league hockey team.

-Doug MacLean is of course everybody's favorite GM formerly of the Columbus Blue Jackets.

It seems Sherrin is the money and the local guy where Koules and MacLean going to be the ones who run the hockey end of things.

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2007/aug/07/li.../?news-breaking

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, IT'S TIME TO TALK 'BOUT MOVING DEM TO HAMILTON!!! :cursing:

Please?

..... aw c'mon now, I can't have fun with that? ^_^

This sale caught me off-guard. I wonder what motivated Bill Davidson to sell the team?

He's getting old....lol. I think this is a good move, I am watching the press conference and the guys seem very dedicated to a team, and will treat it as their job, not as a toy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, IT'S TIME TO TALK 'BOUT MOVING DEM TO HAMILTON!!! :cursing:

Please?

..... aw c'mon now, I can't have fun with that? ^_^

This sale caught me off-guard. I wonder what motivated Bill Davidson to sell the team?

He's getting old....lol. I think this is a good move, I am watching the press conference and the guys seem very dedicated to a team, and will treat it as their job, not as a toy.

Makes you wonder if the Pistons and Shock are far behind

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So let me get this straight, in charge of hockey will be: Doug MacLean, a man who has gotten the Blue Jackets to a whopping zero playoff appearances in almost 10 years and some Hollywood producer who decided it was a good idea to make a sequel to Dumb & Dumber without the original actors?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... *Sniff* Oh God... that's funny... what a bunch of idiots... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Man... say goodbye to that team being competitive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So let me get this straight, in charge of hockey will be: Doug MacLean, a man who has gotten the Blue Jackets to a whopping zero playoff appearances in almost 10 years and some Hollywood producer who decided it was a good idea to make a sequel to Dumb & Dumber without the original actors?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... *Sniff* Oh God... that's funny... what a bunch of idiots... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Man... say goodbye to that team being competitive.

I think not, they are in full cooperation with the current hockey operations (GM Jay Feaster and head coach John Tortorella). Don't forget, he also took the upstart Florida Panthers to the Stanley Cup Final in 1996. You can't blame him for the problems with Columbus, he was just working with what the ownership was letting him do. One of the co-owners (the Hollywood producer) also was associated with the show Two and a Half Men.

Makes you wonder if the Pistons and Shock are far behind

I would say not likely, just a few months ago when some Lightning suitors were proverbially "kicking the tires" of the Lightning, Davidson claimed they were not for sale, yet when the right group comes along, he took the deal. It will definitely help by having local ownership (as MacLean and one of the other guy said they would bove to Tampa Bay in the press conference)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think not, they are in full cooperation with the current hockey operations (GM Jay Feaster and head coach John Tortorella). Don't forget, he also took the upstart Florida Panthers to the Stanley Cup Final in 1996. You can't blame him for the problems with Columbus, he was just working with what the ownership was letting him do. One of the co-owners (the Hollywood producer) also was associated with the show Two and a Half Men.

Ahhh yes... the 1996 Florida Panthers, what a run they had. The Florida team was carried by Vanbiesbrouck and the neutral zone trap. Back then, you could that. But those were different times.

MacLean was the coach, not in charge of anything that has to do with scouting talent or putting a competitive product on the ice. After leading the Panthers to the playoffs in both the 1995-96 and 1996-97 seasons, MacLean was fired at the beginning of the 1997-98 campaign when the Panthers started with a 7-12-4 record. He has not made the playoffs since.

Doug MacLean is a better coach than Tortorella, in my opinion, who just rips on his own players all the time. Although, one could argue that they each only had one good year. (And they were both great runs, I'll give them that.)

Feaster is an okay GM, but this team still does not have a bonafide winning goalie. (Maybe Homlqvist... maybe)

I'd say they need to clean house in the upper management and coaching. As long as they don't put MacLean in there, there is hope for the Lightning.

Still, I'm glad to see that they are not moving and that someone bought the team. I like the Lightning, they are our expansion cousins and I wish them well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, IT'S TIME TO TALK 'BOUT MOVING DEM TO HAMILTON RED DEER!!! :cursing:

Fixed that for you.

This is funny for so many reasons.

None of which I feel like sharing with you all right now.

Besides, EVERYone knows that the Lightning will move to Winnipeg. If not for the Stanley Cup thing, they would have moved there years ago! [/facetiousness]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's been reported by some outlets that despite the success of the team the last few years, they still aren't profitable. If this turns out to have been true, what does this say about the economics of the NHL nowadays? This is team that is drawing fans, attention, and corporate support, but still can't turn a profit; that can't be good. It's certainly a different problem than Nashville is having, nor would anyone in their right mind want to consider moving this team, but the league needs to take a closer look at what's going on and start thinking about a longer term solution for all franchises.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oren Koules also played in the WHL (http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php3?pid=8990) and is a co-owner of the junior hockey Helena Bighorns. He's also working on some other hockey acquisitions.

This deal came together very fast. I think I saw one statement that it was done in 6 weeks, which sounds about right because I know it could not have started before Oren's divorce settlement was finalized in late June. The announcement threw me off guard because I was expecting it around the first of September.

Marc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's been reported by some outlets that despite the success of the team the last few years, they still aren't profitable. If this turns out to have been true, what does this say about the economics of the NHL nowadays? This is team that is drawing fans, attention, and corporate support, but still can't turn a profit; that can't be good. It's certainly a different problem than Nashville is having, nor would anyone in their right mind want to consider moving this team, but the league needs to take a closer look at what's going on and start thinking about a longer term solution for all franchises.

Yes but I believe the team does control the building and gains revenue from non-hockey events at the arena which makes it a very profitable deal. The team itself could be losing money but all together the owner could be making a profit because of all the extra stuff tied to owning the the team. I would venture to guess that in today's sports world most teams on their own aren't profitable what makes them profitable is the extra stuff such as leasing rights to the venue. For example the Yankees have lost money the last few years however their TV network that they own has made enough money to offset the losses. That why you can have teams lose money but the franchise value go up the the Lightning (not to mention the prestige that comes with owning a team which also boost the price).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The team itself could be losing money but all together the owner could be making a profit because of all the extra stuff tied to owning the the team.

Precisely, and its far more widespread than the world of sports.

Let's say Person A decides to open up a chain of 5 Jiffy Lube franchises. He sets up a total of 5 corporations and 5 LLC's: one corporation each to operate each of the franchises themselves, and one LLC to own/lease each of the buildings in which the franchises are located.

-- Each of the LLC's gives Person A an indirect tax write-off for years through initial building costs, amortization and depreciation, provided he doesn't sell off the property.

-- Each of the corporations pays rent to its corresponding LLC, giving the corporation a tax-reducing expense.

-- The rent paid by the corporations to the LLC's is then funneled through to Person A, either as salary, a management fee, or through other, completely legal means with taxes deducted beforehand - while Person A's paying his personal income taxes on the money, his business is getting enough in write-offs to more than make this a de-facto tax free process.

-- Each of the corporations, being separate from one another, prevents Person A from losing his entire chain should something catastrophic happen that the franchise is held liable for.

The same thing's applied to sports. Person A buys an AAFL franchise. He then forms 5 entities: one for the franchise itself, one for the stadium (presuming for sake of example he built or owns the facility), one for his local television network, one for his local radio network, and one for his merchandising. The franchise pays rent to the stadium, the other three pay the franchise for rights, royalties, etc. In a way its a case of completely legal money laundering, provided its done properly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's been reported by some outlets that despite the success of the team the last few years, they still aren't profitable. If this turns out to have been true, what does this say about the economics of the NHL nowadays? This is team that is drawing fans, attention, and corporate support, but still can't turn a profit; that can't be good. It's certainly a different problem than Nashville is having, nor would anyone in their right mind want to consider moving this team, but the league needs to take a closer look at what's going on and start thinking about a longer term solution for all franchises.

Ideally, the Salary Cap is suppose to limit this.

In my opinion, it doesn't seem like the NHL is making so much money that the Cap can rise by $11-million in two years. And part of the CBA is that the Salary Basement has to be $16-million lower than the Cap.....in other words, teams that are already losing money now have to spend at least $34-million this season to avoid being penalized. The owners wanted a fiscal-responsible system put in place, but it only works if you limit spending....raising the Cap by $5-million a season isn't exactly preaching financial stability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.