View Single Post
02-13-2013, 08:05 AM
Registered User
Shawa666's Avatar
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Québec, Qc, Ca
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,532
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by cbcwpg View Post
The asset is reasonably priced if you are QC or Seattle, but it is not reasonably priced for being in Glendale.

It's no different than a house. Why is the exact same house in City A $190,000, but in City B its $450,000? Because that is what the market will bare AND still allow the seller to sell. If the seller in City A asks for $400,000 what happens? The house sits on the market unsold for 4 seasons. Everything in the world only has value if someone is willing to pay for it.

The only reasons I see for the NHL to insist on the price of $170M are:

1- When Bettman bought the team out of BK he promised his bosses ( the owners ) that he was going to make them whole on the sale including expenses. Truth be told, IMO 80% of the other owners don't give a rat's behind about the Coyotes staying in Glendale. Maybe they did in the beginning, but after 4 years... they just want their money back.

2- The NHL is keeping the price high for the sole purpose of selling it in a relocation and have no intentions of keeping it in Glendale. They have been able to use the CoG's desperation to finance losses for two years and people's desire to get something using other peoples money ( re: Hulsizer, IEH, etc. ) to buy time until the team can be moved.
A sports franchise is easily protable. Did you forget the Atlanta to Winnipeg move already?

Originally Posted by XX View Post
On the contrary, the NHL is nearly the sole cause of this. Glendale built the arena under the guise that an NHL team would be the main tenant, and signed the club to a 30 year lease accordingly. The NHL, for whatever reason, allowed Moyes to place the team into bankruptcy which voided the lease that the city was counting on. The league then held the team hostage, with all parties aware that TNSE was ready and willing to take a team at any point. During this fiasco, Atlanta boiled over and the NHL's hand was forced. Do we send Phoenix or Atlanta? For the sake of keeping up appearances, and with the benefit of the money from Glendale, the league sent Atlanta packing. Now they've been forced to wait until a new market is ready and willing, which QC seems to be.
The NHL had no say in this matter initially. Moyes overestimated the Hockey Market in Phoenix pure and simple. The team was already nosediving financially when it managed to get a swwetheart deal with Glendale. Remember, all franchises are independant theoretically. Moyes had every right to put the team in bankruptcy. The NHL moved in to prevent what it percieved as an hostile takeover by Balsilie.

The Atlanta situation was simple. ASG tought that the market couldn't sustain both the Hawks and the Thrashers. They believed that their best bet was in keeping the Hawks and threw the keys of the Trashers on Gary's desk.

At no point was the NHL, throughout this entire process, forced to legitimately look for a local buyer.
There is still no serious buyer willing to keep the Yotes in Phoenix. For a good reason.

If you consider their moral imperative as a corporation (profits for stakeholders) then their actions to this point are actually rather predictable. Why sell the team for a discount when you can extract full price and then some from a new market? Optics be damned. If Winnipeg or QC had built an arena specifically for a team, only to watch that team snake off, you guys would be screaming bloody murder. I think the league crosses over into dangerous territory, legally speaking, when they front buyers as legitimate (and deals as solid) when they have no intention of realistically selling the team to a local buyer. They managed to coax $50 million out of a city under duress, and this is somehow okay because the council deserved it?
I beg your pardon, but Glendale could and should have told the League to stuff it.

Why should a city watch a major investment crumple before their very eyes because the NHL didn't handle Moyes correctly? Why should the city be coerced into giving up hefty subsidies because the NHL didn't do its job?
Because it is not the 29 other team's duty to ensure the viability of the Phoenix franchise. Glendale made a lot of bad deals in hopes of riding the housing bubble. The City of Glendale was simply too small for the risk it took in building the It was a stupid plan and it backfired. It's as simple as that.

Normally, a corporation would just write off that $70 million as the cost of defending their legal franchising rights. Why do you think the NBA, NFL and MLB were all hovering around, curious about the outcome? I believe at one point they even sent letters in support of the NHL. The right to dictate where you do business is worth everything. But when you have the opportunity to externalize that cost and pass it off to the public, why not? It's absolutely predictable, if you consider the amoral and pathological nature of a corporation.

I am thoroughly disgusted by this. The illusion that the league cares about the markets in which it operates has been totally shattered for me. It will be nearly impossible for me to support a business that conducts itself in such a way.

I'm curious to see your argument supporting the NHL (or any other business) in offloading costs onto taxpayers.
You're seriously telling me that you tought that the NHL cared about it's markets?


Did you not know that the team you loved so much was not an expansion team?

If anything the relocation wave of the late 90's should have taught you never to trust the League.

Shawa666 is offline