Faceoff Factor

Comments

1. Ben Schmidt

   Aug 18, 05:39 PM

   I’m baffled why people are mad. I thought it was obvious at the time that he was threatening to move the team just to get the politicians to actually do something. The fact that the sales to Del Baggio and Balsillie were yanked only further supported this belief: after all, it was the conditions that Balsillie not be allowed to move the team that sank that deal in the end.

   In the end, Lemieux kept the team in Pittsburgh – and now people are complaining that he did? Ridiculous.

   As for the complaints about government money being used – I’d back that more if it weren’t for the fact that most of the arenas and stadiums in the United States are built using public money – including the other two stadiums in Pittsburgh. At least the new Pens arena will be expressly built to be multi-purpose, so it won’t just be a venue for the Penguins, unlike Heinz Field and PNC Park, which are built solely for the function of having their respective sports played in them.

2. Matt Bodenschatz

   Aug 18, 05:56 PM

   People aren’t happy unless there is something to complain about. It’s that simple.

3. Pens1967

   Aug 18, 07:05 PM

   This isn’t going to win me any friends here, but I have always separated Lemieux on the ice from Lemieux off the ice. I’ve never bought into the argument that he “saved” the team by buying it out of bankruptcy. Lemieux was the largest creditor and unlikely to recover much of what he was owed unless he bought the team. I’ve always found it interesting that Lemieux came out of retirement to play the last 4-5 years of his career at 4M a year. Coincidentally, that added up to almost the entire 20M Lemieux had been “owed” by Baldwin prior to bankruptcy.

   Mario has always been about taking care of himself first. I don’t believe for a second that Mario would not have sold the team to the highest bidder. On three different occassions, he and his group accepted bids from individuals or groups that wanted to move the team. This is especially noteworthy since one of the bidders, Jim Renzi and his partners, publically committed to keeping the team in Pgh. Mario could certainly have taken a few million less from Renzi.

   Further, Lemieux only got interested in remaining part of ownership when the Pens won the Crosby sweepsteaks. He saw winning hockey again would come to Pgh and thus put more money in his pocket.

   Finally, the fact is the city was going to get a new arena. All the posturing wasn’t necessary, but, IMHO, it served Mario’s self-interest.

4. Matt Bodenschatz

   Aug 18, 09:21 PM

   Pens, you’ve proven your knowledge long ago. Your opinion of Lemieux won’t change that — at least in my viewpoint.

   With that being said, I just tend to think Lemieux has more of an emotional stake in this team than people want to believe. Of course it is business first — and it should be — but there is plenty of emotion that follows through.

   Consider this: if Lemieux were to allow this team to leave, his name in Pittsburgh would be forever tarnished. Maybe you don’t think that matters to him, but the simple fact that he has the ability and means to move anywhere in the world he chooses — including Montreal, California, etc, etc — and he remains in Pittsburgh is testament to this. He’s done so much in the community with regard to donations, programs, etc. that he hasn’t done elsewhere. If he allowed the team to move, he would have to move…and I don’t think that ever was an option.

   Also consider that, though he had numerous offers on the table to keep the team in Pittsburgh, how many of them were realistic? How many of those ownerships groups would have been deemed financially sound and capable of sustaining ownership for the longhaul? And how many of the owners with intentions to move were in the same situation? Balsillie never was in position to buy the Penguins, just like he never was in position to buy Nashville. His purchase never would be allowed. I doubt it’s coincidence that Lemieux’s golfing buddy took the first steps in purchasing the team, then backed out when moving wasn’t an option.

   This, in my opinion, was the first step in Lemieux posturing for the new arena. Step two came when he went to KC and did some negotiating. Unlike you, I’m not so sure a new arena would have been funded to the extend it is if posturing wasn’t involved.

   If the Penguins clearly were staying in Pittsburgh regardless of the arena situation, what benefit does the government have to fund a large portion of it? Even after his negotiating ploys, as I believe them to be, Rendell and his colleagues remained difficult to deal with. The plan, all along, was to build an arena, but the public funding wouldn’t have been even remotely close to what it was.

   Now, as I said above, I don’t doubt business is Lemieux’s primary reason for ownership. But aside from a small group of billionaires who treat their teams as “hobbies,” what owners don’t look at the bottom line first and foremost?

   And, just to add — what’s so wrong with Lemieux coming out of retirement to make some money? Name a player in the NHL who isn’t playing for the same reason. The difference between Lemieux and the others is that he is an owner and people automatically perceive owners to be rich. He needed/wanted to earn the money that was rightfully his. Let’s not forget that, in his time as ownership, he has repaid every penny owed to the many, many people who were owed money over the years.

   I’m not looking to put Lemieux on a pedestal, as he’s far from perfect. Regardless of one’s views of Lemieux, I simply find it odd that, even with the team staying in Pittsburgh and Lemieux’s clear initiative to win, fans are lashing out. Your opinion, Pens1967, seems to be more of stating facts and not allowing opinions to cloud them. Others, however, seem to have an axe to grind with the big guy. These are the ones I see in a different light. Can’t we all just be happy the team’s future is secure regardless of the means by which it came to be?

5. Pens1967

   Aug 18, 10:59 PM

   Matt, I’m happy the Pens are staying and have a young nucleus that could set them up for a string of championships ala the Steelers of the 70s.

   I don’t begrudge anyone making money or operating in their own self-interest, which I believe we all do.

   I do think if the team moved, Mario would have gone from hero to goat and he would not have wanted that. But I think he would have been able to turn that around into sympathy for himself, too. Mario is quite savvy, which a lot of people underrate.

   I have a gripe with people who put Mario on a pedastool. Yes, he does a lot with charity, but then so do Georges Laraque, Charlie Batch and many, many other local athletes. Yes, he chooses to live in Pgh, but so do many of his former teammates, Steeler and Pirate players.

   Honestly, I see Lemieux being to Burkle as McClatchy was to the Nuttings. Mario is the face of the franchise, but Burkle has the financial reigns. I follow politics pretty closely and as soon as I learned Ron Burkle was the true majority owner, I knew an arena deal would be done because of his relationship with Rendell in Democratic political circles.

   I just wish people would take off the rose colored glasses when looking at Lemieux.

6. Matt Bodenschatz

   Aug 18, 11:25 PM

   Pens, I ask you this, then: if Burkle is the one in charge and Lemieux is the face, and since Burkle is friends with Rendell and an arena deal was a sure thing, why would Lemieux risk his reputation the way he did? What purpose did it serve? If the arena was to be built all along, Lemieux stood to make big bucks all along, and selling the team wasn’t in his best interest. Why then, did he all of a sudden change his tune when an arena deal was reached?

   If it was a sure thing all along, he wouldn’t have tried to sell the team. I believe the arena was anything but definite. Sure, the state had money for it, but not enough to necessarily get something that was worthwhile. I also believe intentions weren’t ever to move or sell the team, but to create the distinct possibility that the city, county and state could lose the team if it didn’t pony up.

   Let’s be honest, if this was a sure-thing, we would have seen none of the ploys we saw, as Lemieux would have had absolutely no reason to go through with them.

   Again, the point remains — this is in the past. The team is here for the future, and it’s time to put what’s in the past in the past. Who cares how or why the team is here, let’s just celebrate the fact that it is here…and here to stay.

7. Pens1967

   Aug 19, 06:42 AM

   Matt, as I said, I follow Pennsylvania and national politics pretty closely. It’s been obvious to me that Lemieux and Rendell don’t get along very well. As I also said above, Mario is quite savvy, but he made a mistake when he made the IOC agreement and then tried to bully Rendell into accepting it. I lived in Philly when Rendell was mayor and he’s very pragmatic, but Lemieux entirely misread him. Mario should never have signed that exclusive agreement with IOC and then they both tried to bully Rendell into accepting it. I knew that wasn’t going to work the minute Lemieux/IOC tried it. That’s where the rub came and from whence all the posturing derived. Rendell was always working a plan B with the city, county and state on alternate funding scenarios. In the end, Burkle, because of his relationship with both Mario and Rendell, was the mediator and broker.

   IMHO, it was the rocky Lemieux/Rendell relationship created a lot of the tension and subsequent posturing. I think if Mario had stepped aside and let Burkle handle negotiations with Rendell, things would have been much calmer and actually gotten done sooner.

   Also, even though many think Lemieux still has a lot of influence, look at the fact that of Mario’s men, only Sawyer remains. The rest of the management, including CEO Moorehouse, are Burkle’s people now.

8. Matt Bodenschatz

   Aug 19, 09:33 AM

   Pens, clearly, you have a handle on this whole situation, but what I don’t understand is this…and I’m purely asking as a means of understanding.

   If Burkle is and was in charge, and Lemieux is the face of the group who took up the cause with IOC, how could the team have moved? Burkle is in charge and he was sure a deal could be worked out, so was there really any threat of leaving? I don’t think so. It just seems like a way to get a potentially better deal. Maybe it worked. Maybe it didn’t. But there seems no indication the team ever would have moved.

9. Pens1967

   Aug 19, 01:03 PM

   Matt, what follows is just an educatuated guess, but FWIW anyway.

   I remember when Lemieux first got control of the team from the banruptcy court, he really didn’t have the financial resources to own the team by himself. I seem to recall that minority owners were brought on board over the years. I don’t know how or when Burkle was brought in as an investor, but I liken it to how the Nuttings gradually got full control of the Pirates – buying out other minority owners until they had the franchise. Again, like the Nuttings, Burkle prefers to stay in the background and was content to allow Lemieux a free rein. I honestly don’t know how much of a hand Burkle had in the IOC agreement. I suspect it was probably initiated by IOC and seen as a “win-win” by the Penguins; thus the agreement. What makes me think it was IOC’s idea is the “exclusivity” clause in the agreement whereby the Pens couldn’t discuss any other options with anyone else. It didn’t make a lot of sense from the Pens end because it boxed them in and was a big gamble. Again, I suspect IOC and the Pens both misread the situation thinking 1} the Gaming Commission was going to cave to political pressure and 2)that Rendell was willing to exert pressure on them.

   I think the team certainly could have been moved and I think the threat was real, but unique circumstances conspired to prevent that. As you said, Lemieux had a self-interest in maintaining his status as a sports and civic icon. Burkle had an interest in helping Rendell. Rendell and all the pols had an interest in making sure the team stayed put. In the end, it worked out for everyone – the Pens, the owners, the fans, the Hill District and the city.

   I do think the IOC agreement was the crux of the problem, though. It left too little time between the PGC decision and the “drop dead” date for a new arena. That necessitated the intense “save the Pens” campaign and ensured a lot of needless angst and recriminations.

10. Matt Bodenschatz

    Aug 19, 01:29 PM

    Pens, I can’t disagree with any of that. I do, however, think Lemieux — along with partner Burkle — knew the team was staying but wanted to add leverage to sweeten the deal. The antics — which included selling to Balsillie, and talking to KC reps — were a ploy. I can’t blame them for that. I just don’t see Lemieux being willing to destroy his legacy by allowing the team to move — which is why I don’t get all of the anger over Lemieux’s posturing. If the team was never leaving, who cares what he said in the negotiating process? It’s just like salary arbitration. Both sides say things they don’t mean in order to win the case. Sometimes one or both sides come out of it with harsh feelings, but why? It’s all negotiating.

11. Pens1967

    Aug 19, 03:09 PM

    Matt, I do agree that much of what went on was posturing and part of what passes for “normal” negotiations these days.

    But when the Pens ownership signed these letters of intent, that was not a ploy, IMHO. Those were legally binding documents. Don’t forget the Pens never returned the 5M(?) non-refundable fee from Basille. I don’t think anyone willingly gives up 5M to be part of a negotiating ploy.

    Lastly, I think there is no love lost between Lemieux and Rendell.

    PS – I think Ash and Stoosh owe us pne this week. ;)

12. Matt Bodenschatz

    Aug 19, 03:13 PM

    Great convo, as usual, Pens!

13. Cetowva

    Aug 19, 05:30 PM

    in regards to a previous post concerning Lemieux being the largest creditor when the Penguins filed for bankruptcy under Marino, that is true; however, ALL player contracts were guaranteed and would have been paid in full. Neither Lemieux (nor Stevens, Francis, etc, (other players who were owed deferred compensation from previous player contracts) would have lost one cent from what they were owed. Their compensation may have taken longer to receive, but they would have been paid in full, thru the bankruptcy sale (which they were when Lemieux’s group bought the team out of bankruptcy). Obligations due to outside creditors could be negotiated, in terms of their reimbursement, but the deffered compensation from player contracts had to be paid in full. This is why Lemieux was able to use the full amount of his deferred contract as equity in buying the team out of bankruptcy.

    Just making a point – anyone can go research that fact. It’s an old pet peeve when people state Lemieux only bought the team to recover the money he was owed. He would’ve gotten the money he was owed – in full – and not had to deal with a decades worth of headaches had he not purchased the team out of bankruptcy.

    Now for my last pet peeve – why is it that no one acknowledges that the city/county/state didn’t start to get serious with a financing plan until the tangible threat of the team leaving arose? It seems the politicians took Lemiuex’s ties to the community for granted when it came to negotiations – why not take them away from their comfort level?

14. Pens1967

    Aug 19, 06:27 PM

    I think we have to acknowledge that the city, county and state told the Penguins a new arena would be on the back burner after Heinz Field and PNC Park because of the city and county’s financial resources were stretched too thin. The commitment was always there for a new arena. It just wasn’t on the timetable Lemieux et al eventually wanted.

    Lemieux absolutely boxed himself in when he signed the agreement with IOC that did not allow for any other negotiations. The city, county and state were more than willing to talk about alternative funding, but the Pens’ were prohibited from doing so by their legal agreement with IOC. The
    Pens left themselves with absolutely no wiggle room. How was the city, county, state supposed to “get serious” when they couldn’t even talk to the team?

    As for the bankruptcy, we agree Lemieux was the largest secured creditor. That’s why he was given first chance to buy the team or liquidate it. I’m not a lawyer, but as I understand it, the way the law works is that the secured creditors get paid first from whatever money is generated from bankruptcy proceedings, but they are not guaranteed 100% payback. Anything left over is shared among the non-secured creditors.

    Here’s the P-G story from the time of the bankruptcy which clears up a lot of misconceptions:

    http://www.post-gazette.com/Penguins/19981014pens1.asp

15. Dabich

    Aug 20, 05:27 PM

    Bottom line is, The Pens ARE staying, they ARE getting a new Arena, and Lemieux IS staying also. I’m a happy fan.
    Next?

16. Heem

    Aug 20, 08:44 PM

    “I remember when Lemieux first got control of the team from the bankruptcy court, he really didn’t have the financial resources to own the team by himself. I seem to recall that minority owners were brought on board over the years.”

    You don’t know what you are talking about. Lemieux was always a and still is a minority owner. Burkle has been running the show since day 1. Lemieux only came back to recoup the $30 million he stood to lose as an unsecured debt if the team went bankrupt. He couldn’t wait to sell the team when Del Baggio showed up, but the deal went under because Burkle changed his mind about selling.

    It realy gauls me to see idiotic articles like this one defending Mr Greed. This is the man who supervised the selling off of every decent player and then turns around and tries to sneak himself a $10 million salary when no one is watching? How much proof does anyone need that he is all about greed.

    He bullied and threatened Pittsburgh for years. The publics now ends up giving huge corporate charity to Lemieux, a very rich man, and Burjkle, a multi-billionaire.

    AND YOU HAVE THE $$#@$ NERVE TO CRITICIZE PEOPLE FOR BEING ANGRY WHEN LEMIEUX THROWS SALT IN THE WOULD BY HAVING THE NERVE TO LIE THOUGH HIS TEETH?

    You jock sniffers are a bunch of children who need to grow up.

17. Matt Bodenschatz

    Aug 20, 09:38 PM

    Heem — that last sentence kind of proves the maturity level in which you post.

Commenting is closed for this article.