View Single Post
Old
02-05-2013, 04:00 PM
  #582
XX
One More
 
XX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Tipplandia?
Country: United States
Posts: 40,950
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rt View Post
If he's going to agree to lose money in Phoenix for the next five years, because it is understood he'll be able to sell for relo at a profit, why would the NHL let him make that money, rather than hanging onto the club and making that money themselves?
First, the NHL wants to be rid of the Coyotes. It does not look good to have a team run by the league. Second, Gallacher is in a unique position. There is some chatter that he would take the team to Portland if the Coyotes don't work. We know the NHL likes Portland, so it's a natural fit. He can likely buy the team and eat the losses for a few years and still come out ahead of what they'd charge for a Portland team. He could also flip it to Seattle, again for a profit.

I am making the assumption that they won't lose 30 million a year. I attribute that number to an absurd lack of effort. See how many events are booked.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rt View Post
Now, you did mention the NHL putting themselves in a better bargaining position for expansion once they've unload Phoenix. How much better will it be?
I would venture a guess that, by not having the Coyotes behind their backs, the NHL can squeeze another 20-30 million each out of Markham and QC versus a relocation. The NHL also doesn't like to be told what to do, if you remember the court proceedings. By not having to satiate the beggars in QC and Markam, they get to do things on their own terms. That includes not selling to an owner they'd prefer not be in the club as a last resort to be rid of the Coyotes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rt View Post
Can somebody explain how owning the arena is more attractive than a very large fee for managing the arena? I know Weiers is not interested in the large fee, but how is putting the rights to the arena on the table now that the management fee is off the table going to attract more people to the liquidation sale than the last offer of fifteen-ish million annually to run the thing?

I'm not saying it isn't more attractive, I'm just looking for an education.
The arena is a fixed asset, and its value will depreciate pretty steadily. Real estate is a pretty good place to park money if you are going to do so. A new owner would also have cost certainty; he gets to make as much as he can book. There's no more middleman, so no more dealing with the council. Depending on the legality of it, he might be able to get a good deal on the arena. And he also wouldn't be 'tied' to the arena. He could just flip the damn thing to AEG or whomever wants to own an arena in a major development. He is only bound by the rules the NHL sets forth for relocation, which is both good and dangerous. Weiers said that selling the arena wasn't an option before, both for the NHL and for the city. That indicated to me that no one with the resources to buy the arena had emerged, until now.

I am building a drop in price into these assumptions. Should he be able to buy the arena, I see the NHL as much more willing to drop the price.

XX is offline