HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

Balsillie/Phoenix part IV

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-22-2009, 01:33 PM
  #1
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 11,339
vCash: 500
Balsillie/Phoenix part IV

Can Jim and Gary set aside their differences?

Can Jerry get any return on his investment from the bankruptcy court?

Can Redfield force the NHL to accept new owners and relocation against their will?

Can Luke and Laura save Port Charles from the evil plot of Mikkos to unleash a new ice age upon the earth?


Tune in to the fourth episode of Balsillie/Phoenix:


previous thread: http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=643692

mouser is offline  
Old
05-22-2009, 01:37 PM
  #2
Bitterman
Registered User
 
Bitterman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 436
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RousselRising View Post
Then why would Hamilton taxpayers pay $120M to upgrade Copps for just 2-3 years?
Already discussed in later posts. RIM owns the land not JB so unless he buys the land from RIM it's not an option anyway. It could only become an option if JB wins the bid for a movable franchise and Hamilton is rejected as a destination. Kitchener/Waterloo are outside the territorial limits or any current franchise so he'd need somewhere to play while an arena was being built.

Bitterman is offline  
Old
05-22-2009, 01:38 PM
  #3
BigFatCat999
I love GoOoOlD
 
BigFatCat999's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Campbell, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 9,915
vCash: 500
I'm rootting for Mikkos on this one. More ice, more skating surface.

BigFatCat999 is offline  
Old
05-22-2009, 01:41 PM
  #4
Art.Vandelay
@kash2112
 
Art.Vandelay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Glendale, AZ
Posts: 1,483
vCash: 500
Quote:
Now, if the Bankruptcy judge rules that the new owner cannot relocate who on earth is going to buy a team that swallowed a poison pill with locals that still can't move? If he rules against relocation the value of the franchise drops like a stone and the creditors get next to nothing unless the NHL picks up the tab... and I can't see the owners agreeing to that.
If the team stays in Phoenix, the only creditor seriously impacted will be Moyes.

The NHL is pushing the Reinsdorf bid of $130mm to keep the team in Phoenix. Does that sound like they are not agreeing?

Art.Vandelay is offline  
Old
05-22-2009, 01:45 PM
  #5
Jet
Moderator
Chevel-takesadayoff
 
Jet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: New Glasgow
Country: Scotland
Posts: 16,987
vCash: 50
This is the dilemma for the NHL in a nutshell:

There are teams that are failing and may never be viable in their markets for a long time, if ever.

There are a few markets that really want a franchise and have a very good chance to be solid performers.

As I see it, the NHL could contract and then expand, though that would look very bad for the league and I don't think they would go for it.

Solution? Relocation fee. Charge 200 million for a team to move, of course still subject to BOG approval. Seems like a damned simple idea to me. Unfortunately, for my hometown (Winnipeg) this would probably exclude us from getting a team through relocation, as first buying a team and then paying a large relocation fee would be very prohibitive.

Jet is offline  
Old
05-22-2009, 01:47 PM
  #6
HockeyScholar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 607
vCash: 500
Honest question:

What is the logical reason for keeping a hockey team in Phoenix?

Points to consider:
-lost 40 million dollars last year according to the commissioner
-averaged 8000 people per game on their television broadcasts

The old argument was that we need Phoenix for that mythical ESPN deal. Well that is obviously false now that we've seen the numbers.

Enlighten me.

HockeyScholar is offline  
Old
05-22-2009, 01:50 PM
  #7
CHRDANHUTCH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Auburn, Maine
Country: United States
Posts: 14,853
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to CHRDANHUTCH Send a message via MSN to CHRDANHUTCH Send a message via Yahoo to CHRDANHUTCH
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art.Vandelay View Post
If the team stays in Phoenix, the only creditor seriously impacted will be Moyes.

The NHL is pushing the Reinsdorf bid of $130mm to keep the team in Phoenix. Does that sound like they are not agreeing?
that's what's being decided through mediation----the minute Moyes put the Coyotes into bankruptcy---he was essentially removed as their representative from the Board, and the franchise is staying in Glendale for '09-10 that much is certain.

CHRDANHUTCH is offline  
Old
05-22-2009, 01:52 PM
  #8
Bitterman
Registered User
 
Bitterman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 436
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art.Vandelay View Post
If the team stays in Phoenix, the only creditor seriously impacted will be Moyes.

The NHL is pushing the Reinsdorf bid of $130mm to keep the team in Phoenix. Does that sound like they are not agreeing?
My understanding is that the supposed Reinsdorf offer has remained hidden from the court and the public so the question is, did the NHL give Reinsdorf an escape clause to move the team should the losses continue? I've heard he was given an escape clause after 2 years but that's just rumor but the only way the NHL could really make that happen would be for the team to go into Bankruptcy anyway, if only to get out from under the lease agreement.

Bitterman is offline  
Old
05-22-2009, 01:53 PM
  #9
Egil
Registered User
 
Egil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 8,832
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jet228 View Post
This is the dilemma for the NHL in a nutshell:

There are teams that are failing and may never be viable in their markets for a long time, if ever.

There are a few markets that really want a franchise and have a very good chance to be solid performers.

As I see it, the NHL could contract and then expand, though that would look very bad for the league and I don't think they would go for it.

Solution? Relocation fee. Charge 200 million for a team to move, of course still subject to BOG approval. Seems like a damned simple idea to me. Unfortunately, for my hometown (Winnipeg) this would probably exclude us from getting a team through relocation, as first buying a team and then paying a large relocation fee would be very prohibitive.
The problem is that the overall team in location X is worth say $300 mil. With your fee, the team would then be getting $100 mil, the league $200 mil. So any franchise wanting to sell and move would NOT be too keen on this.

Egil is offline  
Old
05-22-2009, 01:54 PM
  #10
Egil
Registered User
 
Egil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 8,832
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bitterman View Post
My understanding is that the supposed Reinsdorf offer has remained hidden from the court and the public so the question is, did the NHL give Reinsdorf an escape clause to move the team should the losses continue? I've heard he was given an escape clause after 2 years but that's just rumor but the only way the NHL could really make that happen would be for the team to go into Bankruptcy anyway, if only to get out from under the lease agreement.
I had heard that the Reinsdorf lease was similar to the one in Nashville (escape clause based on Attendance metrics). That is of course speculation.

Egil is offline  
Old
05-22-2009, 01:54 PM
  #11
TaketheCannoli
RIP
 
TaketheCannoli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 8,392
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyScholar View Post
Honest question:

What is the logical reason for keeping a hockey team in Phoenix?

Points to consider:
-lost 40 million dollars last year according to the commissioner
-averaged 8000 people per game on their television broadcasts

The old argument was that we need Phoenix for that mythical ESPN deal. Well that is obviously false now that we've seen the numbers.

Enlighten me.

Wow- that's an easy one. The Coyotes are a business. If someone wants to make a bid to buy them, because they believe it is worth it to them to own the team, perhaps because their pro-forma shows they can begin to turn a profit in a time that's acceptable to the bidder, and the court accepts their bid, then voila hockey will be in Phoenix for the forseeable future.

TaketheCannoli is offline  
Old
05-22-2009, 01:55 PM
  #12
TaketheCannoli
RIP
 
TaketheCannoli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 8,392
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Egil View Post
I had heard that the Reinsdorf lease was similar to the one in Nashville (escape clause based on Attendance metrics). That is of course speculation.

Link?

TaketheCannoli is offline  
Old
05-22-2009, 01:58 PM
  #13
Jet
Moderator
Chevel-takesadayoff
 
Jet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: New Glasgow
Country: Scotland
Posts: 16,987
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Egil View Post
The problem is that the overall team in location X is worth say $300 mil. With your fee, the team would then be getting $100 mil, the league $200 mil. So any franchise wanting to sell and move would NOT be too keen on this.
I'm talking about a relocation fee independant of purchase costs for the franchise.

Jet is offline  
Old
05-22-2009, 01:59 PM
  #14
Bitterman
Registered User
 
Bitterman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 436
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Egil View Post
The problem is that the overall team in location X is worth say $300 mil. With your fee, the team would then be getting $100 mil, the league $200 mil. So any franchise wanting to sell and move would NOT be too keen on this.
If teams could only move if they paid an expansion fee then you'd just see more teams declare Bankruptcy. Few have the stomach to buy an existing franchise where they are now, let alone pay a huge sum to join the club elsewhere. The NHL was banking on a southern Ontario team paying a huge expansion fee somewhere far down the road and are really fighting to keep that possibility intact.

Bitterman is offline  
Old
05-22-2009, 02:01 PM
  #15
TaketheCannoli
RIP
 
TaketheCannoli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 8,392
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jet228 View Post
I'm talking about a relocation fee independant of purchase costs for the franchise.
This whole relocation fee thing is one of the basic issues the NHL, MLB, the NFL and the NBA will fight tooth and nail to keep. I suspect there is no amount that would be acceptable. The issues are much bigger than this.

TaketheCannoli is offline  
Old
05-22-2009, 02:01 PM
  #16
Bitterman
Registered User
 
Bitterman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 436
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Egil View Post
I had heard that the Reinsdorf lease was similar to the one in Nashville (escape clause based on Attendance metrics). That is of course speculation.
I'd like to see a link as well. I'd also be curious if the Attendance metrics include or exclude the number of tickets the team is buying up to qualify for revenue sharing. A major loophole that will surely be fixed in the next CBA.

Bitterman is offline  
Old
05-22-2009, 02:03 PM
  #17
Gulvorn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Ohio St/Cincy/Dayton
Country: United States
Posts: 4,578
vCash: 500
Well I just recently did research project on the city design of Phoenix and really part of the problem with the city is that it's so horizontally built, that it requires so much commuting and it's just basically endless suburbs. I think the NHL generally needs a more urban environment where people can easily get to the arena where it's part of other places to go. Is there really much to do in Glendale around the arena? Are college kids hanging out there? Do people go there even if they aren't going to a hockey game? Part of making a business successful is making yourself part of an atmosphere and environment where people want to watch hockey or watch a sports game. I don't think Glendale works for a sport of growing popularity in the desert.

Still though, they could play in the Diamondbacks Stadium, they'd probably quadruple their profit

Gulvorn is offline  
Old
05-22-2009, 02:05 PM
  #18
Art.Vandelay
@kash2112
 
Art.Vandelay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Glendale, AZ
Posts: 1,483
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRDANHUTCH View Post
that's what's being decided through mediation----the minute Moyes put the Coyotes into bankruptcy---he was essentially removed as their representative from the Board, and the franchise is staying in Glendale for '09-10 that much is certain.
The mediation is essentially to decide the control issue. However, the control issue has become a moot point. Both the NHL and Moyes agree that the team needs to be in bankruptcy.

The next big date is June 22. That's when oral arguments are presented on the relocation issue.

There has been nothing said concrete that the team will be in Glendale next season yet.

Art.Vandelay is offline  
Old
05-22-2009, 02:06 PM
  #19
Bad Karma
Registered User
 
Bad Karma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Nashville
Country: United States
Posts: 516
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Egil View Post
I had heard that the Reinsdorf lease was similar to the one in Nashville (escape clause based on Attendance metrics). That is of course speculation.
The Preds attendance agreement was originally written into the lease with the city of Nashville in 97 (I think I'd have to go drag the papers out of whatever hole I hid them in) back when Leipold gained ownership.

It was the purchase agreement that had the attendance and monetary loss provision to sell.

Reinsdorf would assume the current lease.

Bad Karma is offline  
Old
05-22-2009, 02:10 PM
  #20
Art.Vandelay
@kash2112
 
Art.Vandelay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Glendale, AZ
Posts: 1,483
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bitterman View Post
My understanding is that the supposed Reinsdorf offer has remained hidden from the court and the public so the question is, did the NHL give Reinsdorf an escape clause to move the team should the losses continue? I've heard he was given an escape clause after 2 years but that's just rumor but the only way the NHL could really make that happen would be for the team to go into Bankruptcy anyway, if only to get out from under the lease agreement.
That's part of the problem. All details on the Reinsdorf offer are speculation including the price and terms.

Even if the NHL gives the prospective buyer a relocation clause, the City of Glendale remains a hurdle there. I can see them given lease concessions to make the team profitable in Glendale, but just cannot see them give up the relocation penalty.

Art.Vandelay is offline  
Old
05-22-2009, 02:11 PM
  #21
HockeyScholar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 607
vCash: 500
And you honestly think there are businessmen interested in buying the team, keeping it in Phoenix, and losing tens of millions of dollars each year? These benevolent buyers are so concerned about the hockey tradition in Arizona that they'll take yearly $40 million losses and keep the team in Phoenix?

We'll be back in the same situation in a few years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by leek View Post
Wow- that's an easy one. The Coyotes are a business. If someone wants to make a bid to buy them, because they believe it is worth it to them to own the team, perhaps because their pro-forma shows they can begin to turn a profit in a time that's acceptable to the bidder, and the court accepts their bid, then voila hockey will be in Phoenix for the forseeable future.

HockeyScholar is offline  
Old
05-22-2009, 02:14 PM
  #22
TaketheCannoli
RIP
 
TaketheCannoli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 8,392
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyScholar View Post
And you honestly think there are businessmen interested in buying the team, keeping it in Phoenix, and losing tens of millions of dollars each year? These benevolent buyers are so concerned about the hockey tradition in Arizona that they'll take yearly $40 million losses and keep the team in Phoenix?

We'll be back in the same situation in a few years.

If a buyer believes they can make it work and is willing to put up the money to do it, AND the court and the NHL agree, then it's their business.

TaketheCannoli is offline  
Old
05-22-2009, 02:15 PM
  #23
Egil
Registered User
 
Egil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 8,832
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jones93 View Post
The Preds attendance agreement was originally written into the lease with the city of Nashville in 97 (I think I'd have to go drag the papers out of whatever hole I hid them in) back when Leipold gained ownership.

It was the purchase agreement that had the attendance and monetary loss provision to sell.

Reinsdorf would assume the current lease.
Nobody is assuming the current lease my friend. Nobody.

http://www.faceoff.com/story.html?id...d-e9e1a3d3a089

Speculation that Reisndorf's offer is for $130 mil and requiring $15 mil a year in stuff from Glendale vis a vis the Lease.

Egil is offline  
Old
05-22-2009, 02:16 PM
  #24
Bitterman
Registered User
 
Bitterman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 436
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art.Vandelay View Post
That's part of the problem. All details on the Reinsdorf offer are speculation including the price and terms.

Even if the NHL gives the prospective buyer a relocation clause, the City of Glendale remains a hurdle there. I can see them given lease concessions to make the team profitable in Glendale, but just cannot see them give up the relocation penalty.
I agree which is why I have a hard time believing the Reinsdorf offer is factual because it makes no sense for him to put himself in place of Moyes and tied to the city no matter the losses. And there's no chance Reinsdorf will declare Bankruptcy to escape the lease and move either.

The losses in Phoenix from here on out will be staggering so I see no scenario in which the Yotes survive and stay in place long term.

Bitterman is offline  
Old
05-22-2009, 02:17 PM
  #25
Jake16
 
Jake16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 1,320
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gulvorn View Post
Well I just recently did research project on the city design of Phoenix and really part of the problem with the city is that it's so horizontally built, that it requires so much commuting and it's just basically endless suburbs. I think the NHL generally needs a more urban environment where people can easily get to the arena where it's part of other places to go. Is there really much to do in Glendale around the arena? Are college kids hanging out there? Do people go there even if they aren't going to a hockey game? Part of making a business successful is making yourself part of an atmosphere and environment where people want to watch hockey or watch a sports game. I don't think Glendale works for a sport of growing popularity in the desert.

Still though, they could play in the Diamondbacks Stadium, they'd probably quadruple their profit
Don't know where to start with this as it would take pages to explain, but any attempt to compare metro Phoenix to other cities is a hopeless and futile exercise. We are not a city with a large central downtown. But we are not just endless suburbs. More a collection of small cities. For instance, Scottsdale, is not really a suburb, its a separate city next to Phoenix. The Valley is very unique in the way its structured and it has alot to do with the population explosion post-1950's.

Jake16 is offline  
Closed Thread

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 05:49 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.