HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

Phoenix CXXIII: Who Wants to Pay Our Bills?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-17-2017, 10:37 AM
  #126
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 31,065
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLegend View Post
As it stands now.... Key Arena isn't viable, but it could be reconditioned in the relative short term to be a temporary venue if the SoDo arena project gets off the ground.

Never underestimate what the leagues will or will not do. They'll say a venue "isn't acceptable" in order to get a new modern one going.
... yes, and then further qualify that with "but that doesnt necessarily mean you'll get a team".... and thats something Seattle wants to reverse. They want a guarantee from either or both leagues that yes, they'll absolutely get a team ('s) before deciding on what to do be it Hansen or Key or both or God only knows. There was a time when the NHL permitted teams to move (Hartford) and awarded Expansion Franchises to places like San Jose & Tampa who didnt have state of the art buildings up & open for business however, thats obviously all changed... They clearly arent averse to shoehorning teams into Basketball Specific facilities despite the lousy sight~lines & fan experience, the disaster that was the Coyotes playing out of the then called AWA in Phoenix, the unfolding & pending disaster in Brooklyn. And while originally built hockey friendly, the Sonics ownership over 30yrs reconfigured that building to the point of practically no-return for it ever being hockey friendly again without bringing in Dynamite Monkeys to make major & seriously pricey structural changes, and thats just for starters. Hastily moving the Coyotes to Seattle & installing them in Key would IMO be a real gamble & not the way you'd want to start off in cultivating the market. Its a gamble. Hansen an unknown. What kind of a Lease is he prepared to offer the NHL Club? And when you think that through, you cant help but think Colangelo & the Coyotes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcwpg View Post
http://arizonasports.com/story/10259...anchise-value/

Based on 2015-16 numbers, Forbes reports the Suns value at $1.1 billion, with revenue of $173 million and operating income of $26.3 million.

***

That operating income... see how it is a positive number and not a loss... that's why the Suns aren't exactly entertaining the idea of hooking up with the Coyotes in a new arena. They want to keep that as a positive number.
Bingo. As NBA owners go Sarver is not in the upper echelons in terms of personal wealth, nor is he predisposed towards any real sense of munificence, of municipal benevolence whereby he'd be inclined to part with any of that operating income because he believes the Coyotes are an important part of the Cities & regions fabric. Indeed the very notion that he is is laughable. Colangelo made comments recently, words to the effect that "had I known the NHL was going to arrive in Phoenix, why, I'd have taken that into consideration when building"... Mmm.... Unhuh.... Sure you would've. And if you'd have done so, would you have then provided them with a favorable Lease, shared revenues, given them a fighting chance when your construction costs would have been even higher and that as it was you were swimming in a sea of red ink to pay for that new building? Sarvers going to have to invest some serious money, be it a new building or a complete reno of TSA. He's not made of money. The Coyotes would only complicate matters for himself, for his business model & plan, for the Suns & secondary tenants, for concert & event bookings etc etc etc. Not gonna happen. He's in the Bird Seat. Knows it. Biding his time. He has time. A luxury the Coyotes dont have after burning their bridges in Glendale, proclaiming despite having still an extremely favorable year x year Lease that the location is so much of an obstacle that they simply cant survive out there.


Last edited by Killion: 02-17-2017 at 10:51 AM.
Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2017, 10:46 AM
  #127
j1012
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 238
vCash: 500
Killion,

I agree about Key and its terrible sight lines for hockey.
Too bad the Tacoma Dome no longer has ice making.
I wonder if the Showare Center could add temporary seating to match the Key

j1012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2017, 10:46 AM
  #128
Slashers98
Registered User
 
Slashers98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Quebec City
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,775
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by j1012 View Post
In Hansen's original MOU, he has allocated $$ to be used to get Key into being a temporary arena, so you are correct.

It looks like it wouldn't be known until summer on how the city will vote, BUT if a team shows up, that will change things

Seattle is not a short-term solution for the NHL. Why do people keep mentioning it?

Slashers98 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2017, 10:49 AM
  #129
MNNumbers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,527
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
... yes, and then further qualify that with "but that doesnt necessarily mean you'll get a team".... and thats something Seattle wants to reverse. They want a guarantee from either or both leagues that yes, they'll absolutely get a team ('s) before deciding on what to do be it Hansen or Key or both or God only knows. There was a time when the NHL permitted teams to move (Hartford) and awarded Expansion Franchises to places like San Jose & Tampa who didnt have state of the art buildings up & open for business however, thats obviously all changed.

They clearly arent averse to shoehorning teams into Basketball Specific facilities despite the lousy sight~lines & fan experience, the disaster that was the Coyotes playing out of the then called AWA in Phoenix, the unfolding & pending disaster in Brooklyn. And whole originally built hockey friendly, the Sonics ownership over 30yrs reconfigured that building to the point of practically no-return for it ever being hockey friendly again without bringing the blasters to make major & seriously pricey structural changes, and thats just for starters. Hastily moving the Coyotes to Seattle & installing them in Key would IMO be a real gamble & not the way you'd want to start off in cultivating the market. Its a gamble. Hansen an unknown. What kind of a Lease is he prepared to offer the NHL Club? And when you think that through, you cant help but think Colangelo & the Coyotes.



Bingo. As NBA owners go Sarver is not in the upper echelons in terms of personal wealth, nor is he predisposed towards any real sense of munificence, of municipal benevolence whereby he'd be inclined to part with any of that operating income because he believes the Coyotes are an important part of the Cities & regions fabric. Indeed the very notion that he is is laughable. Colangelo made comments recently, words to the effect that "had I known the NHL was going to arrive in Phoenix, why, I'd have taken that into consideration when building"... Mmm.... Unhuh.... Sure you would've. And if you'd have done so, would you have then provided them with a favorable Lease, shared revenues, given them a fighting chance when your construction costs would have been even higher and that as it was you were swimming in a sea of red ink to pay for that new building? Sarvers going to have to invest some serious money, be it a new building or a complete reno of TSA. He's not made of money. The Coyotes would only complicate matters for himself, for his business model & plan, for the Suns & secondary tenants, for concert & event bookings etc etc etc. Not gonna happen. He's in the Bird Seat. Knows it. Biding his time. He has time. A luxury the Coyotes dont have after burning their bridges in Glendale, proclaiming despite having still an extremely favorable year x year Lease that the location is so much of an obstacle that they simply cant survive out there.
Seems like you have 2 parts here, Killion, so I would like to say "I agree" logically with both parts:

1- A quick relocation of a hockey team to Seattle would not be a good idea, in my opinion. Combine the short time frame to establish market awareness, and a staff, and I still can't believe that IA would be the owners, so you have new owners organizing the whole thing without a pre-existing foundation. Then, add that fact that Key would not be great for hockey in the beginning, and the new owners would have MORE debt on top of them. I can't believe that's a good idea. Which doesn't, of course, preclude someone from trying it. Yet, I think that's another disaster for the league. Think about it....You're playing 2 years in a barn that's not good for you, swimming in red ink. The fan experience is not going to be as good as it could be. All the while, a new barn is being built. Sometime while that happens, NBA comes calling with an expansion team just as the new barn opens. All your buzzz...KILLED. No, that's a disaster.

2- Sarver. Exactly. Further, if this bill passes and leads to a new arena, how does the Legislature not also enable the Suns in a few years? The Legislators have GOT to be thinking about that, too, right?

MNNumbers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2017, 10:56 AM
  #130
The Feckless Puck
Registered Loser
 
The Feckless Puck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 10,301
vCash: 1233
Quote:
Originally Posted by MNNumbers View Post
1- A quick relocation of a hockey team to Seattle would not be a good idea, in my opinion. Combine the short time frame to establish market awareness, and a staff, and I still can't believe that IA would be the owners, so you have new owners organizing the whole thing without a pre-existing foundation. Then, add that fact that Key would not be great for hockey in the beginning, and the new owners would have MORE debt on top of them. I can't believe that's a good idea. Which doesn't, of course, preclude someone from trying it. Yet, I think that's another disaster for the league. Think about it....You're playing 2 years in a barn that's not good for you, swimming in red ink. The fan experience is not going to be as good as it could be. All the while, a new barn is being built. Sometime while that happens, NBA comes calling with an expansion team just as the new barn opens. All your buzzz...KILLED. No, that's a disaster.
Considering that that's almost the same set of circumstances that the Coyotes encountered when they first moved from Winnipeg, I agree it'd be a disaster.

Then again, the Coyoteroaches have survived all of the nuclear bombs thrown at them for 20 years now, so who am I to judge?

The Feckless Puck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2017, 11:04 AM
  #131
MNNumbers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,527
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Feckless Puck View Post
Considering that that's almost the same set of circumstances that the Coyotes encountered when they first moved from Winnipeg, I agree it'd be a disaster.

Then again, the Coyoteroaches have survived all of the nuclear bombs thrown at them for 20 years now, so who am I to judge?
This is why, generally, I don't understand the Seattle thing. If it were my money, I would only attempt if I KNEW I didn't have to compete with the NBA, ever.

Now, there is one small window of thought that makes that possible, and it is these things all aligning:

1- Seattle City Council decides to go ahead with a Key remodel, and it's a full up remodel to make a fully modern facility, NBA and NHL ready.
2- That causes Hansen to give up on SODO, which is a decent possibility.
3- The money that Hansen has tied up in the land is not immediately accessible to him otherwise.
4- That leads to NHL being able to get into the new Key, first, and tie down all the revenue, making NBA, if it comes, the tenant in the NHL barn.

Only if those things happen, can I see NHL being viable in Seattle. Competing with the NBA on level terms is a loss, imo

MNNumbers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2017, 11:14 AM
  #132
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 31,065
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by j1012 View Post
Killion,

I agree about Key and its terrible sight lines for hockey.
Too bad the Tacoma Dome no longer has ice making.
I wonder if the Showare Center could add temporary seating to match the Key
Yes, the Tacoma Dome is a beautiful old building, Geodesic Dome, Buckminster Fuller, what we used to call back in the day "Hippy Houses". Quite popular in the 60's & 70's with off-the-grid counter culture types who'd build mini-versions of them off in the wilds. Relatively cheap to construct compared to more traditional housing. The Tacoma Dome however, used miles upon miles of trussing & girders, nothing cheap about it.... However, it too would require some serious $$$ to make it NHL ready. There arent any suites to speak of, dressing rooms & media etc, the seats themselves, ice-plant, just on & on not to mention location & traffic down that corridor south from Seattle, north from Portland so unfortunately not practicable... Showare Center in Kent only seats 6500 and no, no real room to beef that up, not to mention displacing the Seattle Thunderbirds who avg about 4700 attendance along with 2 other tenants, concerts & events. So thats out. Way too small, inflict major damage on a very successful WHL Club something thats a concern as it is should the NHL arrive in WA State.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slashers98 View Post
Seattle is not a short-term solution for the NHL. Why do people keep mentioning it?
Hansen's arena plans, City of Seattle & King County, no NHL team in the PNW beyond Vancouver, a market the NHL should have & could have had a team in were they honest operators as early as the mid-70's. And I totally agree. As a shorty-term fix, its pathetic. Risky as all Hell. Thats just not good business, to be gambling in parachuting a team into Key Arena. Bad start. Team could easily fail, wind up having to move out of market & state. Too many things that could go wrong. Dust has to settle. That Seattle has jumped the Que (pun intended) on QC is a way of thinking that alternately makes me see red & then just freezes my brain. I can barely read the Seattle threads. Never seen such a Cluster#### in my life. Completely circular. Like some evil experiment, hamsters caught on a wheel. Almost on par with whats going on in Arizona.... I mean, look, I live out here on the Westcoast, love to see a team in Seattle AND Portland but lets get real already. Just a nightmare.

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2017, 11:26 AM
  #133
royals119
Registered User
 
royals119's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: West Lawn, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 408
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuelphStormer View Post
(Long time lurker, first time poster in this thread)

The reporter is the only one who called this a "maintenance cost". The slide says "occupancy cost". I take that to mean this is what the Coyotes are going to be spending annually to inhabit the building. If I were to figure out what the "occupancy costs" are for my house I would include my mortgage payment, electric, gas, sewer, cable, property tax, repairs, etc. I'm sure this is a similar calculation. It probably includes the $170,000 and any interest on the financing amortized over some number of years. It could also include any costs they expect to incur related to the building. Including all the expected utilities, employee costs, repairs, cost of food, supplies, etc if they are expecting to be the building manager (and in that case they probably keep all the income from tickets, concessions, parking, etc for all events, and possibly a management fee from the city too, but they aren't showing their income sources here, just their expenses)

I don't think this is them setting up for a subsidy, this is the opposite, it is them showing how much they are contributing, and making it look like they are giving so much more money to this project than most other teams do. They might try to add a subsidy when they start negotiating the actual lease, but this is just the expense side of the ledger.

royals119 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2017, 11:49 AM
  #134
cbcwpg
Registered User
 
cbcwpg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Between the Pipes
Country: United Nations
Posts: 9,430
vCash: 500
^----

Just me, but I'm not so much questioning the statement that it will cost $24.4 million to occupy the arena, maybe it will who knows, but I'm questioning where IA is going to get the money to cover this since this appears to be a significant increase over what it's costing in Glendale.

Tin-foil hat time... I do find it interesting that the amount IA is saying it will cost to occupy the new arena is $24.4 million / yr which is almost the exact same amount the NHL was asking Glendale per year ( $25 million ), a few years back.

cbcwpg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2017, 12:11 PM
  #135
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 31,065
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MNNumbers View Post
Sarver. Exactly. Further, if this bill passes and leads to a new arena, how does the Legislature not also enable the Suns in a few years? The Legislators have GOT to be thinking about that, too, right?
Yeah, agreed on the edited parts... Llama posted an interesting link the other day pursuant to Worsley and "what he might be thinking" as well.... Seems he & his Wife have designs on creating an exclusively "Acoustic Concert Hall", cost north of $25M, all done through a Charity, NFP (not for profit) that they control. That this would attract World Class Conductors & Symphonies, Opera & so on. That Metro Phoenix doesnt have an all-acoustic concert hall & therefore somehow gets over-looked as a result.... Well, they do in fact have a couple of beautiful facilities in Symphony Hall & Comerica Theater, Herberger Theater Center & other venues... designed, in-built to accommodate fully acoustic & or electric performances. Very carefully crafted in fact. The detail, sound & civil engineers sparing no expense in configuring interior acoustics, from stage & bowl configuration, seating arrangements including balconies, materials used from floor to ceiling, carefully placed baffling & just on & on & on. Excellent sound quality regardless of acoustic or acoustic-electric or fully electrified performances. You dont go full-on "acoustic" as there just arent that many touring symphonies & or solo acts to keep the lights on. So... Here comes Worsley riding Shotgun on an almost totally generic "agnostic" TIF proposal and you really have to wonder if what he isnt really doing is of self-interest... for the purposes of self-aggrandizement in creating a monument to himself, to his family name all wrapped up in a bow of public munificence & benevolence, of completely ego driven legacy. This TIF employed in order to get that project done though how it would work through an NFP exactly, not sure, Im not a tax lawyer.


Last edited by Killion: 02-17-2017 at 12:16 PM.
Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2017, 12:23 PM
  #136
The Feckless Puck
Registered Loser
 
The Feckless Puck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 10,301
vCash: 1233
Quote:
Originally Posted by royals119 View Post
I don't think this is them setting up for a subsidy, this is the opposite, it is them showing how much they are contributing, and making it look like they are giving so much more money to this project than most other teams do.
I interpret it as a projection of their occupancy cost of the arena to make the arena management fee that they WILL be asking for from the host city seem more palatable.

There is no way that occupancy costs would be that high organically in a brand-new building with fairly low maintenance costs over the first years of the building's lifespan, with no costs involved in owning the arena (the city will own the building "free and clear"). Unless they are including recouping the $170M investment into construction into those occupancy costs, the numbers just don't make any sense - particularly given that the arena will be one of the smallest in the league.

Long story short, I am firmly convinced that this is, if not a direct ask, then a precursor to a big subsidy ask disguised as an AMF - and they will justify it by citing the low "true" cost of the host city/arena owner payment to build ($55M, a bargain!).

The Feckless Puck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2017, 12:56 PM
  #137
TheLegend
Moderator
Megathread Gadfly
 
TheLegend's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Orbiting BoH
Country: United States
Posts: 7,568
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slashers98 View Post
Seattle is not a short-term solution for the NHL. Why do people keep mentioning it?
Because it's there. Just as QC was in the days before they spent $380 million in taxpayer monies to build Centre Videotron.

TheLegend is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2017, 01:20 PM
  #138
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 31,065
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLegend View Post
Because it's there. Just as QC was in the days before they spent $380 million in taxpayer monies to build Centre Videotron.
Right. But it wasnt "hidden". QC in need of a new building of that size, House that Beliveau Built opening in 1949 so... I dont have a problem with tax payer funded arenas provided everyones up-front about it, numbers pencil out, process transparent and only when its absolutely necessary. Thats just not the case here with Metro Phoenix & IA TL.... as you know a large part of the dysfunction going on up in Seattle due to the problems created by the Sonics' with Key in the never-ending demands for taxpayer funded upgrades & reno's, the City & County absolutely Gun Shy, beyond due-diligence in entertaining anything & apparently demanding that both the NBA & the NHL award them teams before they agree to anything by whatever form of delivery the team arrives including written guarantee's. Buttoned up real tight.

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2017, 01:29 PM
  #139
USAUSA1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 134
vCash: 500
If you don't invest in your city, nobody will want to come there for events,etc. I know the popular thing is for people to say lets invest in our education for the children,parks,roads,blah,blah. But they complain about everything else. They don't understand the importance of arenas and how much revenue it generates and the jobs it creates. My city definitely need a new arena, no one but the WWE and disney on ice book events.

USAUSA1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2017, 01:33 PM
  #140
cbcwpg
Registered User
 
cbcwpg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Between the Pipes
Country: United Nations
Posts: 9,430
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Right. But it wasnt "hidden". QC in need of a new building of that size, House that Beliveau Built opening in 1949 so... I dont have a problem with tax payer funded arenas provided everyones up-front about it, numbers pencil out, process transparent and only when its absolutely necessary. Thats just not the case here with Metro Phoenix & IA TL.... as you know a large part of the dysfunction going on up in Seattle due to the problems created by the Sonics' with Key in the never-ending demands for taxpayer funded upgrades & reno's, the City & County absolutely Gun Shy, beyond due-diligence in entertaining anything & apparently demanding that both the NBA & the NHL award them teams before they agree to anything by whatever form of delivery the team arrives including written guarantee's. Buttoned up real tight.
I agree re: Quebec, and if the same situation was in Phoenix, IE: if the arena in Glendale was 40 years old, there would most likely IMO be very little opposition. But when you have a new-ish facility that still is being paid for a long time yet... people are going to question it.

If someone even suggested a new arena in these neck of the woods, without the existing one falling to the ground because of age, that person would quickly find themselves shipped out of town.

cbcwpg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2017, 01:38 PM
  #141
Boris Zubov
Registered User
 
Boris Zubov's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 205
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by USAUSA1 View Post
If you don't invest in your city, nobody will want to come there for events,etc. I know the popular thing is for people to say lets invest in our education for the children,parks,roads,blah,blah. But they complain about everything else. They don't understand the importance of arenas and how much revenue it generates and the jobs it creates. My city definitely need a new arena, no one but the WWE and disney on ice book events.
What city would that be?

Boris Zubov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2017, 01:39 PM
  #142
TheLegend
Moderator
Megathread Gadfly
 
TheLegend's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Orbiting BoH
Country: United States
Posts: 7,568
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Right. But it wasnt "hidden". QC in need of a new building of that size, House that Beliveau Built opening in 1949 so... I dont have a problem with tax payer funded arenas provided everyones up-front about it, numbers pencil out, process transparent and only when its absolutely necessary. Thats just not the case here with Metro Phoenix & IA TL.... as you know a large part of the dysfunction going on up in Seattle due to the problems created by the Sonics' with Key in the never-ending demands for taxpayer funded upgrades & reno's, the City & County absolutely Gun Shy, beyond due-diligence in entertaining anything & apparently demanding that both the NBA & the NHL award them teams before they agree to anything by whatever form of delivery the team arrives including written guarantee's. Buttoned up real tight.
I was referring to the QC market as a "long term solution." Makes not much difference if an old facility is 14 years old or 40. If there's a new barn in the works then the NHL and/or NBA are going to give it serious care consideration if they want to be in that market.

TheLegend is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2017, 01:49 PM
  #143
cbcwpg
Registered User
 
cbcwpg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Between the Pipes
Country: United Nations
Posts: 9,430
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by USAUSA1 View Post
If you don't invest in your city, nobody will want to come there for events,etc. I know the popular thing is for people to say lets invest in our education for the children,parks,roads,blah,blah. But they complain about everything else. They don't understand the importance of arenas and how much revenue it generates and the jobs it creates. My city definitely need a new arena, no one but the WWE and disney on ice book events.
Not to go off topic, but read :

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/s...orth-the-cost/

https://psmag.com/america-has-a-stad...7e1#.c9pjnk20f

In a nutshell, they don't do what the people building them say they will do. And I am not against building new arenas / stadiums because I do believe there are some benefits, just not the ones that the people building these facilities always claim. Say it's for civic pride, say it's to just replace an aging facility... just don't claim it will save the economy, because it won't.

Winnipeg is a prime example of this. The Jets moved away back in the '90s and as it turned out, some of the best historical growth Winnipeg ever saw was without having an NHL team. And now that the team is back, there is proof that it has actually hurt the bottom line of some businesses and organizations, by taking money away from those and shuffling it to the team. All an NHL team does is change where people spend their money, it does not create any new money.

cbcwpg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2017, 02:08 PM
  #144
Slashers98
Registered User
 
Slashers98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Quebec City
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,775
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLegend View Post
Because it's there. Just as QC was in the days before they spent $380 million in taxpayer monies to build Centre Videotron.
There is no place to play in Seattle right now, that's a big difference...

Slashers98 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2017, 02:18 PM
  #145
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 31,065
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLegend View Post
I was referring to the QC market as a "long term solution." Makes not much difference if an old facility is 14 years old or 40. If there's a new barn in the works then the NHL and/or NBA are going to give it serious care consideration if they want to be in that market.
Only up to a certain point TL. Unless the ownership is seriously monied (like Steve Ballmer for eg) and can afford to do everything privately, with private funding & carry it indefinitely even then the Leagues prefer the P3 Model, "just to be safe" so to speak. That the locals are "invested" (including State if possible, see Reinsdorfs "seat tax" in Chicago as another eg). Clearly Seattle stood up & took notice of the fact that Ballmer in conjunction with Hansen were trying to work them over with a P3 & when they wouldnt balk, he splits town for the brighter lights of LA & drops $2B on a team alone while Leasing in a shared facility. Now youve got Hansen going 100% private and even then, mistrust, dysfunction, political minefield. He's gotta be asking for something beyond a street vacation at some point & if he cant get it from the County/City, then the potential NHL Franchise is a nice ready target. Charge them, collect the Lions Share of every revenue steam & good luck boys. Doomed. If the NHL sends the Coyotes there then their backs are really against the wall playing out of Key. The NHL knows this. Not workable. They need control, and they need public dollars in a considerable number of markets. How much is too much? Or in the case of the Coyotes in Arizona, how long is a piece of string? No end to their demands.... And if theres already an existing facility thats practically brand new as is the case in Arizona & the Club does in fact have a reasonable Lease & still wont/cant cut it, to then ask the State & whatever other muni to pay the bulk of the freight (with the Clubs still neophyte & reckless owners financed up the ying-yang as it is) for the next 15-20yrs, well whats that?... As for "Quebec City being a long term solution", inference being what, that its not? That the CDN$ is gonna crater, that market lacks any corporate heft or the Separatists run riot or a Meteor hits the St.Lawrence, Quebec City taken out by a Tsunami & radiation?... alien bug turning the region into a Zombie wasteland?.... like the kids say, cool story Bro. Exactly the web of lies, deceit & disinformation the League would have you believe.


Last edited by Killion: 02-17-2017 at 02:38 PM.
Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2017, 02:58 PM
  #146
powerstuck
Nordiques Hopes Lies
 
powerstuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Town NHL hates !
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,964
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MNNumbers View Post
This is why, generally, I don't understand the Seattle thing. If it were my money, I would only attempt if I KNEW I didn't have to compete with the NBA, ever.

Now, there is one small window of thought that makes that possible, and it is these things all aligning:

1- Seattle City Council decides to go ahead with a Key remodel, and it's a full up remodel to make a fully modern facility, NBA and NHL ready.
2- That causes Hansen to give up on SODO, which is a decent possibility.
3- The money that Hansen has tied up in the land is not immediately accessible to him otherwise.
4- That leads to NHL being able to get into the new Key, first, and tie down all the revenue, making NBA, if it comes, the tenant in the NHL barn.

Only if those things happen, can I see NHL being viable in Seattle. Competing with the NBA on level terms is a loss, imo
If I was an NHL owner in Seattle and I somehow attempted to block NBA from coming back, might aswell kill myself because it's obvious Seattle is much more sentimental when it comes to Sonics.

What Starves is doing in Phoenix would be a big NO-NO in Seattle if the roles were inversed.

powerstuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2017, 03:17 PM
  #147
TheLegend
Moderator
Megathread Gadfly
 
TheLegend's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Orbiting BoH
Country: United States
Posts: 7,568
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slashers98 View Post
There is no place to play in Seattle right now, that's a big difference...
Not at the moment... but that can change in short order. The difference is the NHL seems to value that market (at least Jeremy Jacobs does, and he's got the pull) so unfortunately there are different standards being applied.

Sucks I know.... because I feel QC needs to have an expansion team, and really should've had one by now.

TheLegend is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2017, 03:55 PM
  #148
MNNumbers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,527
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by powerstuck View Post
If I was an NHL owner in Seattle and I somehow attempted to block NBA from coming back, might aswell kill myself because it's obvious Seattle is much more sentimental when it comes to Sonics.

What Starves is doing in Phoenix would be a big NO-NO in Seattle if the roles were inversed.
NHL would not have to 'block' NBA from coming. What NHL needs to do is get there first with control of the building. In other words, control of the money from concessions, events, naming rights, etc. If NHL has that, NBA can come and pay rent. That works for NHL. Nothing else will there.

MNNumbers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2017, 09:32 PM
  #149
Whileee
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 24,338
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by royals119 View Post
(Long time lurker, first time poster in this thread)

The reporter is the only one who called this a "maintenance cost". The slide says "occupancy cost". I take that to mean this is what the Coyotes are going to be spending annually to inhabit the building. If I were to figure out what the "occupancy costs" are for my house I would include my mortgage payment, electric, gas, sewer, cable, property tax, repairs, etc. I'm sure this is a similar calculation. It probably includes the $170,000 and any interest on the financing amortized over some number of years. It could also include any costs they expect to incur related to the building. Including all the expected utilities, employee costs, repairs, cost of food, supplies, etc if they are expecting to be the building manager (and in that case they probably keep all the income from tickets, concessions, parking, etc for all events, and possibly a management fee from the city too, but they aren't showing their income sources here, just their expenses)

I don't think this is them setting up for a subsidy, this is the opposite, it is them showing how much they are contributing, and making it look like they are giving so much more money to this project than most other teams do. They might try to add a subsidy when they start negotiating the actual lease, but this is just the expense side of the ledger.
If a substantial number of people actually think that the Coyotes owners will put that much of their own money into the occupancy costs, then either there are a lot of gullible people in AZ or LeBlanc is a PR genius. IA will make sure that someone else pays (I.e. tax payers), and they'll take credit for generating the tax dollars that get diverted. When LeBlanc and the NHL are around, taxpayers better watch their wallets. Where do people actually think IA will get the money to contribute that much when their business has huge debts and large annual losses?

Whileee is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2017, 09:44 PM
  #150
WildGopher
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 551
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Llama19 View Post
And, that is what LeBlanc has in the Senate Committee forwarding 'his' bill out of committee...

It is like getting in the mail, from your local car dealership, a key to a brand new car for free...

All you have to do is come down to the dealership, step up to the car, insert the key, and then turn it...

What? It did not work? So sorry...we have a nice little number away over here you may be interested in, for a low, low payment...

(See what I did there, WildGopher... )
Gotcha. All you're doing by weaving that car thing into your post is to recognize what all the top political pundits have been saying all along: that our nation's urgent transportation needs require a forward-thinking solution to solve them - new state-funded hockey arenas!

WildGopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:45 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2017 All Rights Reserved.