Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

- - - - -

[Report] Canucks Owner Aquilini Getting Divorced


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
72 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_AriGold_*

Guest_AriGold_*
  • Guests
  • Joined: --

Posted 16 March 2012 - 06:40 PM

Discussion regarding ownership of the Canucks will be allowed but any comments regarding the private life of Aquilini or his family will not be. - Hockeyville88


The Vancouver Canucks have become caught in the middle during the high-profile divorce proceedings of one of the team's owners.
Businessman Francesco Aquilini and his wife Taliah are splitting up after about 20 years of marriage. Taliah Aquilini was granted an order on Friday that allows her to demand a precise value for all of her husband's holdings.
During the lifetime of the marriage, Francesco Aquilini and his family have built an empire worth billions of dollars, including real estate holdings, agriculture and the Canucks -- estimated by Forbes magazine to be worth about $300 million.
Aquilini told CTV News that he's disappointed that his marriage is ending and promised that the divorce won't end with a split in the Canucks' ownership.
"With the Canucks, it will be business as usual and the team will continue to operate," he said.
The section 57 order granted to Taliah Aquilini says that the pair has no reasonable prospect of getting back together. The couple will return to court on April 3.

http://www.ctvbc.ctv...ishColumbiaHome

Edited by AriGold, 16 March 2012 - 08:33 PM.


#2 Logitek

Logitek

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 508 posts
  • Joined: 28-June 06

Posted 16 March 2012 - 06:42 PM

Aquilini told CTV News that he's disappointed that his marriage is ending and promised that the divorce won't end with a split in the Canucks' ownership.

"With the Canucks, it will be business as usual and the team will continue to operate," he said.

Pointless news / pointless thread... no need to discuss it.

Get out of his private life and get your own instead of trying to make a lame thread to get another post

Edited by Logitek, 16 March 2012 - 06:42 PM.


#3 Guest_AriGold_*

Guest_AriGold_*
  • Guests
  • Joined: --

Posted 16 March 2012 - 06:44 PM

In the original thread it said to post it when it could be with a credible source.

She wants to own the Canucks, thats pretty big news to canucks fans.

Grow up and understand this is a discussion board.

Edited by AriGold, 16 March 2012 - 06:44 PM.


#4 hockeyville88

hockeyville88

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Super Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,086 posts
  • Joined: 24-October 06

Posted 16 March 2012 - 06:44 PM

Friendly reminder when posting about this topic: Please respect the forum rules and refrain from making personal statements regarding the Aquilini family. This thread is to talk about ownership of the Canucks, not the private lives of the Aquilinis. Thanks
Posted Image
Sig credit: GoaltenderInterference. Thanks!

#5 Logitek

Logitek

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 508 posts
  • Joined: 28-June 06

Posted 16 March 2012 - 06:45 PM

Oh I'm sorry I must have overlooked the blaringly obvious statement that she wants the Canucks in your originally posted article

#6 Bitter Melon

Bitter Melon

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,062 posts
  • Joined: 04-August 11

Posted 16 March 2012 - 06:47 PM

Friendly reminder when posting about this topic: Please respect the forum rules and refrain from making personal statements regarding the Aquilini family. This thread is to talk about ownership of the Canucks, not the private lives of the Aquilinis. Thanks


Just for clarity's sake, where do we draw the line between personal life and ownership? Because the divorce sort of goes hand-in-and with ownership.

#7 Guest_AriGold_*

Guest_AriGold_*
  • Guests
  • Joined: --

Posted 16 March 2012 - 06:48 PM

Just for clarity's sake, where do we draw the line between personal life and ownership? Because the divorce sort of goes hand-in-and with ownership.


I say just keep the comments about the Canucks and not about him and her.

#8 hockeyville88

hockeyville88

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Super Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,086 posts
  • Joined: 24-October 06

Posted 16 March 2012 - 06:50 PM

Just for clarity's sake, where do we draw the line between personal life and ownership? Because the divorce sort of goes hand-in-and with ownership.

Thanks for asking:

I'd say anything speculatory - i.e "they are getting divorced because ______" will not be allowed
Statements about their private lives or their personalities - i.e "person X is apparently not nice and I heard that ____" will not be allowed

Discussing the ownership as pertaining to the Canucks - i.e "Implications on the team, revenue, ticket prices, team stability, etc." will be allowed

Discussions about legal proceedings that have been reported by credible media sources will be allowed

Provide sources where possible

Hope that clarifies
Posted Image
Sig credit: GoaltenderInterference. Thanks!

#9 Logitek

Logitek

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 508 posts
  • Joined: 28-June 06

Posted 16 March 2012 - 06:50 PM

Seriously.. What is there possibly to discuss related to the Canucks at this point?

Absolutely nothing

Anyways I don't really care.. but this is so pointless.. enjoy your evening.

#10 DollarAndADream

DollarAndADream

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,621 posts
  • Joined: 27-March 07

Posted 16 March 2012 - 06:51 PM

What is there even to discuss if we can't talk about him or her?

OMGz I loved the Canucks and I hope they don't split ownershipz. :)

x1vXIze.png
RIP LB/RR - Signature credit to JimLahey

small.pngCDCEHL


#11 Get real canuck fans

Get real canuck fans

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,366 posts
  • Joined: 06-March 08

Posted 16 March 2012 - 06:51 PM

Hope she has a case of Schneidermania,lol

#12 stexx

stexx

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,266 posts
  • Joined: 19-April 08

Posted 16 March 2012 - 06:55 PM

what is francesco's stake in the canucks? do each of the brothers own a third each?, if so wouldnt be too hard for them to buy out her stake. Sad situation for the family, hopefully it ends peacefully unlike the dodgers debacle.

#13 The Kassassin Train

The Kassassin Train

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,110 posts
  • Joined: 03-August 05

Posted 16 March 2012 - 06:57 PM

How crazy would it be if she became the Canucks owner and a year later the Canucks won the cup?

I wonder if she would be the first female professional sports team owner to have a franchise win a championship!

The key difference is that Sopel can fill in for Seabrook and Campbell just fine. Bieksa, he is garbage so in that sense he is like the worst defenseman in the league.


When Cody (Hodgson) gets older, he might be better than Datsyuk.


Let's not push this guy (Kassian). He's still immature, and if he fails on the 2nd line it's because he isn't ready. Some guys really need years to develop, it's how well and how fast players adapt to the game. In my opinion, I'd rather have Horvat getting 2nd line minutes. He will start off on the 3rd line next season but I see him making the transition, being a great compliment to whoever plays his wings.

At this point, I don't see Kassian fitting in to any role other than a 3rd. If players like Kassian start getting 2nd line minutes then we just stay inconsistent as a team.


The idiocy on CDC....

#14 c00kies

c00kies

    Cookie Monster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,591 posts
  • Joined: 06-January 07

Posted 16 March 2012 - 06:57 PM

Seriously.. What is there possibly to discuss related to the Canucks at this point?

Absolutely nothing

Anyways I don't really care.. but this is so pointless.. enjoy your evening.


I don't know about you, but I sort of care about who owns the Canucks.
Posted Image
Thanks to Blueberries for the sig :)

#15 RunningWild

RunningWild

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,764 posts
  • Joined: 09-December 10

Posted 16 March 2012 - 06:59 PM

Ya, this is 'potentially' huge concern for the Canucks org going forward.

Generally speaking, anytime sports team owners are involved in a divorce, you have to be concerned about $$. Is the new owner willing to still spend to the cap? Are they going to provide endless amounts of $$ (like they have thus far) to keep this team competitive (i.e. sleep Dr.s, nutritionists etc). Will it effect ticket prices? Will the new owner have the same 'vision' for this team?

Not sure how divorces work, are assets frozen to some extent till the divorce is finalized? July 1st is closely approaching, will Gillis have the OK to spend? He can say "it's business as usual" all he wants, but it's not necessarily up to him right, pretty much up to the courts?

Edited by RunningWild, 16 March 2012 - 07:12 PM.


#16 Vigneault's Timeout

Vigneault's Timeout

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,678 posts
  • Joined: 02-January 10

Posted 16 March 2012 - 07:01 PM

How crazy would it be if she became the Canucks owner and a year later the Canucks won the cup?

I wonder if she would be the first female professional sports team owner to have a franchise win a championship!


When you say a year later.... you mean this summer, right?

And the next too, if that's what you meant.... totally cool with that.
Posted Image

#17 Bitter Melon

Bitter Melon

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,062 posts
  • Joined: 04-August 11

Posted 16 March 2012 - 07:03 PM

Well this is just speculation here, but Mr. Aquilini's wife apparantly doesn't have any stake in his assets. I doubt it she will get the Canucks.

http://www.theglobea...article2372334/

Edited by Jquiet, 16 March 2012 - 07:07 PM.


#18 Stark

Stark

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,012 posts
  • Joined: 26-September 11

Posted 16 March 2012 - 07:03 PM

Isn't she appearing on Real Housewives of Vancouver or something?
Posted Image

R.I.P. LB RR PD


#19 Bitter Melon

Bitter Melon

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,062 posts
  • Joined: 04-August 11

Posted 16 March 2012 - 07:08 PM

Here is my source, for some reason it won't be linked to the above post.

http://www.theglobea...article2372334/

#20 Stark

Stark

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,012 posts
  • Joined: 26-September 11

Posted 16 March 2012 - 07:10 PM

I don't know about you, but I sort of care about who owns the Canucks.


I agree with this. I'd like Aquilini to stay owner of the Canucks.
Posted Image

R.I.P. LB RR PD


#21 surtur

surtur

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Joined: 19-March 10

Posted 16 March 2012 - 07:11 PM

wouldn't this have to be allowed by the NHL board of directors or whatever .. any time a team changes ownership...?
i don't think it is just hey i want it ok it yours .. type of deal. but who knows ..
hope everything ends well and stays out of the media as much as possible.
Nucks will be fine.

Release The KraKassian
Kassianthe_Krakensm.jpg


#22 hockeyville88

hockeyville88

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Super Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,086 posts
  • Joined: 24-October 06

Posted 16 March 2012 - 07:11 PM

A British Columbia Supreme Court on Friday granted an order to declare that Francesco Aquilini, chairman of the Vancouver Canucks, and his wife Tali’ah “have no reasonable prospect of reconciliation with each other.”
The couple, who were married in 1994, separated in January of 2011.

The Aquilini Investment Group owns Canucks Sports & Entertainment, which includes the Vancouver Canucks and Rogers Arena, the building located on prime land in the city’s downtown core. The team is worth $300-million, Forbes Magazine estimated recently.

Francesco Aquilini, the eldest of three brothers, runs the team. It is unclear what individual stake he has in the club, along with brothers Roberto and Paolo, and father Luigi.

In an interview, Mr. Aquilini said the hockey team would not be affected by the divorce proceedings.
“It’s business as usual,” Mr. Aquilini, 51, said in a telephone interview Friday afternoon after the court session concluded. He did not appear in court.

“This is a personal and private matter, and I hope the media will respect our privacy. It’s really unfortunate. My wife and I are ending our marriage.”

The question of the Canucks, operations and ownership, arise because of the recent fortunes of another prominent North American sports franchise, baseball’s Los Angeles Dodgers. Frank McCourt, former owner of the Dodgers and their stadium, battled with his wife Jamie in their divorce proceedings over the fate of the team. The acrimonious and public fight landed the Dodgers in bankruptcy court. Mr. McCourt agreed to pay Ms. McCourt $130-million to relinquish any claim on the team. Major League Baseball took over the Dodgers last year and the team is being auctioned off through a court process.

Tracey Jackson, a lawyer for Tali’ah Aquilini, argued in favour of the granting of the order that declared irreconcilable differences between Mr. and Ms. Aquilini, section 57 under B.C.’s Family Relations Act. Jackson said the order was necessary to protect Ms. Aquilini’s interests while the two sides discuss assets as their divorce proceedings unfold.

“It is a complicated structure,” Jackson said of the Aquilini assets.

Ms. Aquilini, 43, is the owner of the family home but otherwise has no stake in any significant assets, the court was told. The couple has five children, four of whom are younger than 18. After court on Friday, she would not say what her aims were, or why the case was proceeding publicly.

“It’s just not appropriate for us to talk,” Ms. Aquilini said as she walked with her lawyer.

Jackson said in court that she sought the order because there had been a “marked changed in behaviour and attitude” by Mr. Aquilini in recent months, as the parties worked through the divorce. The lawyer alleged there were questions about Mr. Aquilini’s actions around “structuring” of his assets.

The two sides are scheduled to return to court April 3 for a judicial case conference, a mediation-type session. For such a conference, financial statements by attendees must be sworn.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/business-as-usual-canucks-chairman-says-as-divorce-case-proceeds/article2372334/
Posted Image
Sig credit: GoaltenderInterference. Thanks!

#23 canIcrytoo

canIcrytoo

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 186 posts
  • Joined: 12-July 10

Posted 16 March 2012 - 07:31 PM

I'd just like to know where you got the idea that she that the not to be mentioned person wants the Canucks??? Not once did it mention her the not to be named persons interest in the Franchise, in any of the articles posted or in the video on the news. So Im assuming you assumed out of pure speculation?



sorry let me edit this for the anal folks.

Edited by canIcrytoo, 16 March 2012 - 07:34 PM.

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you

Posted Image

#24 bobopan

bobopan

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,531 posts
  • Joined: 02-August 05

Posted 16 March 2012 - 07:35 PM

Yikes..i hope this doesn't effect the teams ability to spend..Not to sound sexist either but i wouldn't want his wife owning this team.

#25 Ghostsof1915

Ghostsof1915

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,096 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 07

Posted 16 March 2012 - 07:43 PM

I hope the Canucks don't run into the same issues as the LA Dodgers. :(

http://en.wikipedia....nership_dispute
GO CANUCKS GO!
"The Canucks did not lose in 1994. They just ran out of time.." Barry MacDonald Team1040

Posted Image

#26 Tony Romo

Tony Romo

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,861 posts
  • Joined: 16-January 11

Posted 16 March 2012 - 07:43 PM

http://forum.canucks...5#entry10481705


Why did my thread get closed?
I created the thread to ask if it would have any affect on the team. Like what happened with the la dodgers.
Posted Image Posted Image


Thanks to Raoul Duke for the Russell Wilson sig.

#27 sandman44

sandman44

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 518 posts
  • Joined: 05-January 06

Posted 16 March 2012 - 07:45 PM

My wife would like to own the Canucks.
"You understand Captain that this mission does not exist, nor will it ever exist."

Fade to Lack

...he took a face from the ancient gallery, and he walked on down the hall...

#28 Opmac

Opmac

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,526 posts
  • Joined: 09-December 07

Posted 16 March 2012 - 07:46 PM

Hopefully this doesn't come across as sexist, but...

I wouldn't be concerned one bit. I don't think Taliah Aquilini has the capacity to run a business the calibre of Canucks Sports & Entertainment, if she doesn't have a background in business and business management. So she won't take control of the team.

Francesco, Paolo, and Roberto are the identified "Governors" of the team, so I assume they each have a 33% stake in the team. If Taliah Aquilini wants 50% of Aquilini, she would only get 16.5% stake in the team. It would break down as:

Franceso Aquilini - 16.5%
Paolo Aquilini - 33%
Roberto Aquilini - 33%
Taliah Aquilini - 16.5%

Francesco + Paolo + Roberto = 83.5%

No expert, but that's what I think.

Posted Image


#29 sandman44

sandman44

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 518 posts
  • Joined: 05-January 06

Posted 16 March 2012 - 07:47 PM

My wife would like to own the Canucks.

And move em to Nova Scotia.
"You understand Captain that this mission does not exist, nor will it ever exist."

Fade to Lack

...he took a face from the ancient gallery, and he walked on down the hall...

#30 SunnyHours

SunnyHours

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 165 posts
  • Joined: 04-March 10

Posted 16 March 2012 - 07:50 PM

Ya, this is 'potentially' huge concern for the Canucks org going forward.

Generally speaking, anytime sports team owners are involved in a divorce, you have to be concerned about $$. Is the new owner willing to still spend to the cap? Are they going to provide endless amounts of $$ (like they have thus far) to keep this team competitive (i.e. sleep Dr.s, nutritionists etc). Will it effect ticket prices? Will the new owner have the same 'vision' for this team?

Not sure how divorces work, are assets frozen to some extent till the divorce is finalized? July 1st is closely approaching, will Gillis have the OK to spend? He can say "it's business as usual" all he wants, but it's not necessarily up to him right, pretty much up to the courts?


Good post! My initial reaction was the same. If they end up splitting or divvying up their worth, that could potentially have huge implications for the Canucks. Sad that this has to happen - divorce is so common these days. A prenup should be the standard, not the thing everyone is afraid to talk about.




Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.