NHL threatens to get rid of Rangers’ owners, will this hurt the Rangers organization?

Question

http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/news;_ylt=Ap1hEjVl0vrqkHUviVTXcpIoc8UF?slug=ap-rangerslawsuit&prov=ap&type=lgns

What are your thoughts on this article?
Will this hurt the Rangers?

What are the specific grounds where the NHL can kick the owners out of the league and force them to sell the team?

Answer 1

It will do very little to hurt the organization.



1. No territorial fees. Wang didn't have to pay any when he bought the islanders, nor did Vanderbeek have to pay any when he bought the Devils.



2. The Rangers currently pay lease money to MSG. They are different companies under the same corporate umbrella.



The same thing will happen as happened when Ziegler forced Werblin to sell th franchise 20 yrs ago..............nothing.



As I said before.............if you want to be part of an organization, you have to play by the rules. Suing the organization isn't part of the rules.





Any violation of the league charter and rules allows the league to take over a US based franchise (the only case where the league can take over a Canadian based franchise is abandonment). In the case of the Rangers, the lawsuit, and their constant barrage of anti-NHL sentiment since they lost the case has led to this decision by the NHL.

Answer 2

Since I got mentioned without answering, I guess I'm obliged. I'm actually going to side with the Rangers on this one. OK, the Rags sued, then lost. I can see the league having control, as they are, in a sense, franchises. But now that the league won, it's going to punish them for being bold enough to say something bad about the NHL. Seems very petty to me, but that's Buttman for you.







Now that I have said this, I can't wait for MSG to take The Garden away and go home, if the NHL does manage to force a sale. We don't have a team, you don't get a place to play!



"Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome the Long Island Rangers! (or New Jersey Rangers)" I wonder if they will have to pay a territorial fee to either the Isles Or Devils if they are forced to play in either arena?



Edit- No worries, I was just bored at work. It gets slow after Father's Day and for the summer.

Move them to Vegas, now that's funny right there!



LITY- Isn't that payment simply for accounting purposes? If they own both the team and the arena, and the team is taken from them, doesn't it stand to reason that they aren't obligated to let the team play there? Unless they jack up the lease sky-high to force the league or new owners eslewhere.



Yang bought the Islanders, but didn't move it, so I would think there wouldn't be a territory fee in that instance. Plus they already paid a 4 million territory fee to the Rangers when they entered the league as an expansion franchise. I was referring if MSG plays hardball back at the NHL if the league takes the team away, so MSG retaliates by forcing the Rangers to play elsewhere as owners of The Garden by either raising rates so high or cancelling the lease. It would take a minimum of 3 years to build a new arena, I would guess.

Answer 3

I one-hundred-percent agree with Gary Bettman's outrage towards the New York Ranger's owners. Lest we forget the NHL governs each and all of its teams. Each team is therefore a franchise OF the National Hockey League- NOT the other way around. At the end of the day, the NHL has the authority to (and it this case, does) control its franchises



I see this situation like this. Picture your local McDonald's. Got it? All right, now envision the owner of that McDonald's paints the restaurant lime green and neon yellow. This throws the big wigs at the McDonald's corporation into a tailspin and demands that the owner paints said McDonald's back to the trademark red and yellow of the business. In this situation, the corporation controls the owner and his business, therefore the resturant is painted back to the original colors.



Same deal- the owners wanted to run the team website (I believe, from what I've heard) and the NHL did not allow it. In effect, the owners wanted to paint the website lime green and neon yellow.

Answer 4

this is seriously the stupidest thing ever, i don't understand why its such a big deal that the rangers had a different website than other teams but thats besides the point. i read the article before and i think that its all bull crap. if the nhl makes the rangers owners sell them its stupid but if they don't let them play at the garden anymore or not even let them play it will be the worst decision ever made. the rangers are a huge team with huge fan base and the garden is one of the most famous places that any team plays at plus the rangers are an original six team and to kick them out is stupid. i don't think that challenging the nhl about changing their website is that big a deal. this is the stupidest thing ever. i hope that this won't hurt the rangers.

Answer 5

As a Ranger fan, I hope not.



But, I must say... no one hates the dolans more than the Rangers faithful. I never liked them, and while I think this reflects more poorly on Bettman than on the Dolans (not that they're innocent), this will just turn more fans off to them.



I'm really tired right now, I'll reply with actual substance tomorrow.

Answer 6

i hope it hurts the rangers and that the person who is the new owner sends them off to New Mexico



i dont see why u think its funny, im serious

oh, ok i see

no one can outdo my xzibit car

Answer 7

Move 'em to Anarctica........then maybe they can actually beat the "penguins"!

http://www.polarcruises.com/Images/art_Penguins_emperor_and_chick.jpg