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.

Part VII Phoenix Coyotes post bankruptcy

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-06-2010, 11:35 PM
  #951
bobbop
Henrik's Pop
 
bobbop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Suburban Phoenix
Country: United States
Posts: 4,818
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by lockstock View Post
I don't think they'll be able to charge $20 for parking. Maybe $15 for overflow NFL parking, but most concerts would probably be $10. That's what I remember paying whenever I've paid for event parking downtown. US airways doesn't have free parking, btw. You can park and ride on the light rail though.

Also, don't forget ticket surcharges for the CFD and some kind of tax on the businesses in westgate. Those restaurants serve a lot of meals 365 days a year. I wonder if they would charge hourly parking or anything like that on non-event days if they needed to generate more money.
There are plenty of stadium events that will use Glendale parking and generate revenue. The estimates are optomistic but not impossible.

bobbop is offline  
Old
06-06-2010, 11:36 PM
  #952
Whileee
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 7,761
vCash: 500
In a radio interview on May 25th IEH COO, Daryl Jones, casually rattled off how IEH would turn last year's $20 million loss into a break-even, or near break-even proposition.

Here is his breakdown:

$5 million more in parking revenue.
$7 million more in additional ticket sale revenue at Jobing arena in Phoenix.
$5 million in revenue for the Saskatoon games.

That leaves a deficit of $3 million, which he said could be dealt with through various administrative cost cuts.

I suppose that it is relevant that the Coyotes were about $10 million under the NHL average salary last year, and they have a number of key free agents (restricted and unrestricted) this year. It didn't seem that Jones has factored any increase in salary costs to his calculations.

I would be interested to know how people view his financial approach. Also, does it seem realistic that the team's salary costs will remain stable next year, and thereafter?

Whileee is offline  
Old
06-06-2010, 11:40 PM
  #953
Tommy Hawk
Registered User
 
Tommy Hawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,402
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter sullivan View Post
is the idea not to sell bonds anymore?.....i had assumed the CFD would still need to leverage the parking revenue to achieve the required $150m over the next 10 years to cover the loss fund and debt payment (and likely another $75m in the following 10 years to continue servicing the debt)...are you saying that they are doing that all through parking revenues over that time?...they cant possibly raise $15m per year in parking without leveraging that over time and selling bonds can they?

if they could charge the $20/$10 fees for parking as conditions stand today they would make just over $4m per year....where is all of this other money coming from if not bonds?

on another note, i don't think many acts popular enough to draw 10000+ crowds skip the phoenix market....they are playing somewhere right now, so to increase the number of events in glendale they are going to have to take business away from the other facility (US airways)....and that arena is centrally located, has free parking and will not be hampered by a requirement for $2m in ticket surcharges....not exactly an easy sell.
If you read the MOU, $7.5 comes from parking, which IEH apparently thinks will be able to be covered on a a year by year basis. If it is covered, then no need to float any bonds.

The loss reserve is to be funded annually from the taxes/fees on landowners on a year by year basis. Again, if the revenues cover the payments, no bonds.

Actually both are on a monthly basis.

No bonds also means no expense of selling the bonds (those greedy investment banker types you know).

I think that IEH probably picked numbers they thought were sustainable without needing to sell bonds.

I also think that the parking, the way it is worded (need some hep from GSC on this one) might pass the consideration and infrastructure (public good) muster. They are giving up a huge potential revenue stream for $7.5 mil a year.

Tommy Hawk is offline  
Old
06-06-2010, 11:43 PM
  #954
Hawker14
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,016
vCash: 500
Hopefully the CoG council found some common sense and will agree to a non-binding MOU that they should have agreed to two months ago.

Perhaps Beasley is smarter than he has appeared in the two city council meetings I've seen, instead of the bumbling idiot he has portrayed. Same for Tindall. I'm positive Ice Edge is the best option for the fans of the Coyotes, and the taxpayers of Glendale.

One question though, which until answered, is why I expect this deal to be at least 75% financed: referencing RR's post that several core members of Ice Edge (who are Leblanc, McCullough, Jordan, Jones, Breslow) have net worth's in excess of $100M I have to ask if anyone can verify this ?

Breslow, as the Chairman of the family business founded by his father, sold it for a reported $260 million in 2006. He also is reported to have donated/pledged $7 million for a hockey arena in his hometown of Lincoln in '07, a sign of someone with wealth. I would not be surprised if his net worth is $100M+.

Has anyone dug up anything on McCullough, Jordan or Jones that would suggest that they have the significant phantom wealth as stated by RR in the range of $100M+ to support his post? LeBlanc doesn't, so we can rule him out.

Who will cover estimated losses of $20 million/year when IEH will only get $7-12 million from the city (factoring out the $7.5m debt payment) ? How can these guys afford to cover $8-13 million in losses in what I presume will be an already highly leveraged business ?

I like these guys, but by simply digging under the surface, the more I wonder how they'll fund the losses. Breslow isn't wealthy enough to do it on his own.

I still think Reisndorf will be the end game that the City of Glendale will try to sell as the ultimate last resort. The CoG has no choice but to at least see this Ice Edge proposal through, even though the conclusion is likely known. After all, does the NHL really want an ownership gorup who's net worth is likely less than the $160-170 value of the money-losing asset they are trying to purchase ?


Last edited by Hawker14: 06-07-2010 at 12:10 AM.
Hawker14 is offline  
Old
06-06-2010, 11:51 PM
  #955
Tommy Hawk
Registered User
 
Tommy Hawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,402
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whileee View Post
I have already admitted that I am speculating about the level of financing for the purchase, and I have given my reason for that speculation. You seem to object to that and indicate that everything could have changed since mid-April, and that IEH "low-balled" their initial capital investment. That's fine. I think you are speculating about that. We will see shortly how much financing is required, and how much capital investment IEH is providing up front.

You seem to think that IEH has already lined up financing, whereas I think it is prudent not to jump to that conclusion because of the history of this situation and the complex nature of the deal. It looks like we will know in less than two weeks.

Your solution to ensuring that everyone is happy if the revenue stream is that some new owner comes and pays $325 million for the team and the arena. Would you agree that it is pure speculation to suggest that there will be an owner within the next five years who will be willing to pay >$250 million for the team?

First, you keep speculating as to the amount of financing, thinking it is going to be $150 mil. I think the NHL has a requirement that no more than a certain % of the purchase price, I would guess 168 which is JR's number, can be financed. I doubt it is 90%. I would think it is much lower. Your reason for the speculation is inconsistent with the information thus far that is public. Also, no one asked how much Reinsdorf is financing. We know that the CFD is putting in 65 mil which would be a direct financing of the team. There was no mention anywhere of IEH's initial capital investment.

Second, i just pointed out a scenario that could play out in the future. I did not say it was a solution to anything. If no one wants to buy the team in 5 years, they can purchase the arena and then, since they are leasing to themselves, the can void the lease. They can then leave any time they want. This is a brilliant, IMO, move. If the franchise is more valuable moving it, and the league lets them move, this could easily play out.

Tommy Hawk is offline  
Old
06-07-2010, 12:05 AM
  #956
Tommy Hawk
Registered User
 
Tommy Hawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,402
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulligan View Post
Who will cover estimated losses of $20 million/year when IEH will only get $7-12 million from the city (factoring in the $7.5m debt payment) ? How can these guys afford to cover $8-13 million in losses in what I presume will be an already highly leveraged business?
what 7.5 million debt payment? There is a payment of $7.5 million as long as the team has debt, it says nothing about that being the debt payment amount. For all we know, the debt payment amount could be 3 mil a year.

They will get $5 mil a year from the ticket surcharge/landowner CFD and, depending on how things are structured, could be getting more.

Also, the NHL requires certain financial criteria to be met. They still have to meet that. The NHL has not said anything about either group meeting or not meeting the criteria.

Lastly, i thought it was posted before, the NHL has a maximum amount of the purchase price which can be financed. I would guess that percent is 60%. How did I reach that number? Because I think JR is a snake, albeit a very craft one. He would use the 65 mil from the CFD as HIS equity stake and he would finance the rest thus not needing to put a significant amount of his own money into the business.


Last edited by Tommy Hawk: 06-07-2010 at 12:11 AM.
Tommy Hawk is offline  
Old
06-07-2010, 12:16 AM
  #957
Hawker14
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,016
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolvesfan View Post
what 7.5 million debt payment? There is a payment of $7.5 million as long as the team has debt, it says nothing about that being the debt payment amount. For all we know, the debt payment amount could be 3 mil a year.
Corrected my post below (changed from in to out ,long day).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulligan
Who will cover estimated losses of $20 million/year when IEH will only get $7-12 million from the city (factoring out the $7.5m debt payment) ? How can these guys afford to cover $8-13 million in losses in what I presume will be an already highly leveraged business?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolvesfan
They will get $5 mil a year from the ticket surcharge/landowner CFD and, depending on how things are structured, could be getting more.
Yes, that is where I got the $7-12 million/a year figure.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolvesfan
Also, the NHL requires certain financial criteria to be met. They still have to meet that. The NHL has not said anything about either group meeting or not meeting the criteria.

Lastly, i thought it was posted before, the NHL has a maximum amount of the purchase price which can be financed. I would guess that percent is 60%. How did I reach that number? Because I think JR is a snake, albeit a very craft one. He would use the 65 mil from the CFD as HIS equity stake and he would finance the rest thus not needing to put a significant amount of his own money into the business.


What is the financial criteria the NHL demands ? 50% equity ? 40% equity ? 0% equity ?


Last edited by Hawker14: 06-07-2010 at 12:30 AM.
Hawker14 is offline  
Old
06-07-2010, 12:38 AM
  #958
MAROONSRoad
f/k/a Ghost
 
MAROONSRoad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Maroons Rd.
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,069
vCash: 500
Comment by Daryl Jones as reported in the Winnipeg Sun:

Quote:
Its hard to gauge the probability of this deal closing. One thing that everyone has to be realistic about is there has been a great deal of financial turmoil in the world over the last 45 days, which is going to make it harder for us or any group to close this transaction though we do remain optimistic and feel good about our chances.
Link:

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL.../14287406.html

GHOST

MAROONSRoad is offline  
Old
06-07-2010, 12:40 AM
  #959
RR
Moderator
 
RR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Cave Creek, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 8,036
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulligan View Post
Hopefully the CoG council found some common sense and will agree to a non-binding MOU that they should have agreed to two months ago.

Perhaps Beasley is smarter than he has appeared in the two city council meetings I've seen, instead of the bumbling idiot he has portrayed. Same for Tindall. I'm positive Ice Edge is the best option for the fans of the Coyotes, and the taxpayers of Glendale.

One question though, which until answered, is why I expect this deal to be at least 75% financed: referencing RR's post that several core members of Ice Edge (who are Leblanc, McCullough, Jordan, Jones, Breslow) have net worth's in excess of $100M I have to ask if anyone can verify this ?

Breslow, as the Chairman of the family business founded by his father, sold it for a reported $260 million in 2006. He also is reported to have donated/pledged $7 million for a hockey arena in his hometown of Lincoln in '07, a sign of someone with wealth. I would not be surprised if his net worth is $100M+.

Has anyone dug up anything on McCullough, Jordan or Jones that would suggest that they have the significant phantom wealth as stated by RR in the range of $100M+ to support his post? LeBlanc doesn't, so we can rule him out.

Who will cover estimated losses of $20 million/year when IEH will only get $7-12 million from the city (factoring out the $7.5m debt payment) ? How can these guys afford to cover $8-13 million in losses in what I presume will be an already highly leveraged business ?

I like these guys, but by simply digging under the surface, the more I wonder how they'll fund the losses. Breslow isn't wealthy enough to do it on his own.

I still think Reisndorf will be the end game that the City of Glendale will try to sell as the ultimate last resort. The CoG has no choice but to at least see this Ice Edge proposal through, even though the conclusion is likely known. After all, does the NHL really want an ownership gorup who's net worth is likely less than the $160-170 value of the money-losing asset they are trying to purchase ?
IOW, Daryl Jones is a liar when he says publicly several core IEH members are worth >$100M each. That's your point, yes?

RR is offline  
Old
06-07-2010, 12:47 AM
  #960
Hawker14
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,016
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GHOSTofMAROONSroad View Post
Comment by Daryl Jones as reported in the Winnipeg Sun:



Link:

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL.../14287406.html

GHOST
Financial turmoil in past 45 days makes it harder ? They've claimed their financing was already in place.


Hawker14 is offline  
Old
06-07-2010, 12:58 AM
  #961
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolvesfan View Post
The future interest is not owed until it is accrued.
The interest obligation is accrued the moment the documents are signed. For planning purposes, how the monthly payment is split between interest and prinicipal repayments is often irrelevant. Not always - often - and it is reasonable to place this situation in the "often" category.

You of course are free to categorize it as you like.

Quote:
Name one form of debt that doesn't allow for early repayment?
How about a little known outfit you may have heard of known as the US Treasury? Most US debt - notes, bills, and bonds - is sold as non-callable. The Treasury has the legal right to issue callable bonds but generally chooses not to. Other examples are mortgages (depending on lender/jurisdication), and of course numerous corporate and municipal bonds, and all kinds of commercial loans.

Why would someone take on uncallable debt? Because it's easier to sell - because callable debt introduce uncertainties for the debt-instrument holder - because "easier to sell" translates to "lower interest rate" for the seller.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolvesfan View Post
Also, the NHL requires certain financial criteria to be met.
NHL has waived that requirement in the past.

Quote:
They still have to meet that.
Pure speculation on your part.

 
Old
06-07-2010, 01:03 AM
  #962
MAROONSRoad
f/k/a Ghost
 
MAROONSRoad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Maroons Rd.
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,069
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulligan View Post
Financial turmoil in past 45 days makes it harder ? They've claimed their financing was already in place.

Well since there are several IEH core members with 100s of millions, that shouldn't be a problem, right?
Mod: deleted.

GHOST


Last edited by Fugu: 06-07-2010 at 02:52 PM. Reason: not the Wpg thread
MAROONSRoad is offline  
Old
06-07-2010, 01:35 AM
  #963
peter sullivan
Winnipeg
 
peter sullivan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,273
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolvesfan View Post
If you read the MOU, $7.5 comes from parking, which IEH apparently thinks will be able to be covered on a a year by year basis. If it is covered, then no need to float any bonds.

The loss reserve is to be funded annually from the taxes/fees on landowners on a year by year basis. Again, if the revenues cover the payments, no bonds.

.
seriously...wow, i missed that?

who are these landowners that they going to tax and fee to collect $5-$10m every year for the next 5 years?...ellman?....why would anyone sign on for that?.....

what would the incentive be for the CFD to raise the extra $5m a year if ice edge cant draw from it if it isnt there?.....that seems like a bizarre clause.

its also seems odd that ice edge can make it work with $13.5m a year in subsidies when both reinsdorf and the NHL demanded $25m and most reports indicate that they lose $20-$25m.

if they are really hanging their hats on raising $1m more per game in saskatoon than they will in phoenix, i would love to see the breakdown of that....will a bank accept that as such a significant part of the business plan before the NHL agrees to it.


Last edited by peter sullivan: 06-07-2010 at 02:00 AM.
peter sullivan is offline  
Old
06-07-2010, 01:42 AM
  #964
MAROONSRoad
f/k/a Ghost
 
MAROONSRoad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Maroons Rd.
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,069
vCash: 500
IEH looks at the Coyotes as a "distressed asset" with a potential upside. If the COG can come up with the funds to pay down their debt charges to purchase the franchise and come up with an operating fund losses account to cover most of the losses, they will present that to a bank and see if they can get funding. That is basically what IEH is all about IMO.

GHOST

MAROONSRoad is offline  
Old
06-07-2010, 02:02 AM
  #965
peter sullivan
Winnipeg
 
peter sullivan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,273
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GHOSTofMAROONSroad View Post
Comment by Daryl Jones as reported in the Winnipeg Sun:

Link:

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL.../14287406.html

GHOST
that is a very odd quote from ice edge so late in the game.

peter sullivan is offline  
Old
06-07-2010, 02:02 AM
  #966
MAROONSRoad
f/k/a Ghost
 
MAROONSRoad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Maroons Rd.
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,069
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RR View Post
IOW, Daryl Jones is a liar when he says publicly several core IEH members are worth >$100M each. That's your point, yes?
I'm not sure if a couple of people with $100 MM "each" have any business owning an NHL franchise. Perhaps, their star players could buy them out or lend a hand. At least Moyes was able to absorb $300 MM in losses before trying to hand the keys to the NHL.

GHOST

Quote:
Originally Posted by peter sullivan View Post
that is a very odd quote from ice edge so late in the game.
No, it's not necessarily "odd," but more like realistic.

GHOST

MAROONSRoad is offline  
Old
06-07-2010, 02:31 AM
  #967
RR
Moderator
 
RR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Cave Creek, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 8,036
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter sullivan View Post
that is a very odd quote from ice edge so late in the game.
Jones messing with the Canadian media again?

I'm shocked there wasn't a follow-up question from the reporter, aren't you? That's a pretty significant statement to be made and just left there hanging by the reporter. If we're all jumping on it here, shouldn't it have piqued the curiosity of a professional journalist?

RR is offline  
Old
06-07-2010, 06:30 AM
  #968
Whileee
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 7,761
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolvesfan View Post
First, you keep speculating as to the amount of financing, thinking it is going to be $150 mil. I think the NHL has a requirement that no more than a certain % of the purchase price, I would guess 168 which is JR's number, can be financed. I doubt it is 90%. I would think it is much lower. Your reason for the speculation is inconsistent with the information thus far that is public. Also, no one asked how much Reinsdorf is financing. We know that the CFD is putting in 65 mil which would be a direct financing of the team. There was no mention anywhere of IEH's initial capital investment.

Second, i just pointed out a scenario that could play out in the future. I did not say it was a solution to anything. If no one wants to buy the team in 5 years, they can purchase the arena and then, since they are leasing to themselves, the can void the lease. They can then leave any time they want. This is a brilliant, IMO, move. If the franchise is more valuable moving it, and the league lets them move, this could easily play out.
Good grief. I have never suggested that they would need $150 million in financing. The only speculation I have made is that they need the majority of the purchase price financed by a bank. That would be at least $80 million or so. That was based on their first MOU where it was clear that they proposed that the "majority" of the purchase price was financed. You can disagree and speculate that they have more capital investment in their reworked deal. I prefer to speculate based on the several months of negotiation leading up to the April meeting. Fair enough?

I guess we'll see if the NHL and bank will like the strategy for future sale and relocation as much as you do.


Last edited by Whileee: 06-07-2010 at 06:56 AM.
Whileee is offline  
Old
06-07-2010, 06:50 AM
  #969
Tommy Hawk
Registered User
 
Tommy Hawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,402
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
The interest obligation is accrued the moment the documents are signed. For planning purposes, how the monthly payment is split between interest and prinicipal repayments is often irrelevant. Not always - often - and it is reasonable to place this situation in the "often" category.

You of course are free to categorize it as you like.



How about a little known outfit you may have heard of known as the US Treasury? Most US debt - notes, bills, and bonds - is sold as non-callable. The Treasury has the legal right to issue callable bonds but generally chooses not to. Other examples are mortgages (depending on lender/jurisdiction), and of course numerous corporate and municipal bonds, and all kinds of commercial loans.

Why would someone take on uncallable debt? Because it's easier to sell - because callable debt introduce uncertainties for the debt-instrument holder - because "easier to sell" translates to "lower interest rate" for the seller.
Interest is not accrued as soon as documents are signed. Not in any sense of any imagination. The interest obligation is only accrued when that actual date passes. That is what accruing means.

If you want to say they use the P&I payments for PLANNING purposes fine but that is a far cry from it actually accruing. What if this was a variable rate instrument? What interest rate would you accrue it at? Initial issue? First reset? the reset that occurs in year 5? Year 10? If you can accurately guess the rate that will be in place 5 years from now on a consistent basis, you would be rich.


Do you even know what callable bonds are? A little help for you http://www.sec.gov/answers/callablebonds.htm

Also, just because something is not callable does not mean it cannot be paid off early. Negotiations always occur with the major bondholders before the bonds are retired. Why? Because they want them to buy the new ones or they will give them the option of swapping it out. Also, i have NEVER seen a mortgage that cannot be paid off early. The federal government doesn't count. They do not operate in the real world. Do you think a business that operates every year on billions of dollars of a deficit, now trillions, each year would really be able to float bonds?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
NHL has waived that requirement in the past.

Pure speculation on your part.
Not speculation that they have to meet whatever the NHL says concerning their financing requirements. If the NHL waives or allows them to have more financing, fine but as of now, not waived to anyone's knowledge.


Quote:
IEH looks at the Coyotes as a "distressed asset" with a potential upside. If the COG can come up with the funds to pay down their debt charges to purchase the franchise and come up with an operating fund losses account to cover most of the losses, they will present that to a bank and see if they can get funding. That is basically what IEH is all about IMO.

GHOST
Good way to look at it. IEH obviously thinks they can run the whole thing (arena, team, etc.) better than the others were able to. Who knows, maybe they have a buyer lined up for the arena, else why put the clause of being able to buy the arena in the MOU? Maybe they outsource the arena management to AEG or MSG or someone else. Maybe they redo all the vendor contracts.

As GSC stated, (paraphrased) improving arena operations is not mutually exclusive to having the Yotes as the anchor tenant.

Tommy Hawk is offline  
Old
06-07-2010, 06:53 AM
  #970
Whileee
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 7,761
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RR View Post
Jones messing with the Canadian media again?

I'm shocked there wasn't a follow-up question from the reporter, aren't you? That's a pretty significant statement to be made and just left there hanging by the reporter. If we're all jumping on it here, shouldn't it have piqued the curiosity of a professional journalist?
I have listened to Daryl Jones' interview with the Edmonton radio station (May 25th) a couple of times. I am sure he wasn't "messing with the Canadian media again" when he listed how Ice Edge would break even on the Coyotes.

A couple of points raised eyebrows for me. First, he indicated that he expected costs to go down (from last year's operation by the NHL), not up. With a very low salary cost, and lots of free agents, does this mean that they are planning to run a cut-rate hockey operation? Teams seldom stay solid on the ice with that approach. On the other hand, if their salary goes up towards the league average, then his operating cost projection is several million dollars too low.

He proposes an increase of $7 million in ticket revenue. If the average ticket prices for that revenue is $50, then they would need to average an extra 3900 fans per game --- a perpetual sell-out. Perhaps they can increase private / luxury box sales instead, but this did seem quite optimistic.

I won't comment on the Saskatoon game projections ($1 million in profit per game), because I have a hard time seeing how the NHL will sanction this. Bettman hasn't sounded enthusiastic, to say the least.

Whileee is offline  
Old
06-07-2010, 07:04 AM
  #971
Tommy Hawk
Registered User
 
Tommy Hawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,402
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whileee View Post
Good grief. I have never suggested that they would need $150 in financing. The only speculation I have made is that they need the majority of the purchase price financed by a bank. That would be at least $80 million or so. That was based on their first MOU where it was clear that they proposed that the "majority" of the purchase price was financed. You can disagree and speculate that they have more capital investment in their reworked deal. I prefer to speculate based on the several months of negotiation leading up to the April meeting. Fair enough?

I guess we'll see if the NHL and bank will like the strategy for future sale and relocation as much as you do.
OK, 80 million is reasonable, others were throwing out 150 mil.

FYI, monthly/annual payment (approximate) for financing 80 million accruing and paying P&I monthly are as follows:

5% - 530k/6.34 mil
6% - 573k/6.88 mil
7% - 620k/7.44 mil (do we have a winner?)
8% - 669k/8.03 mil

Changing the term of the loan to 15 years, we get:

5% - 633k/7.59 mil
6% - 675k/8.10 mil
7% - 719k/8.63 mil
8% - 764k/9.17 mil

Tommy Hawk is offline  
Old
06-07-2010, 07:17 AM
  #972
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 55,513
vCash: 500
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...rticle1594192/

Shoalts Sunday evening story, emphasizing escape clause.

LadyStanley is offline  
Old
06-07-2010, 07:26 AM
  #973
CGG
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 416
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,220
vCash: 500
From the MOU, section 3.1(c):

Quote:
So long as Buyer has outstanding debt incurred for the purchase of the Coyotes outstanding, the CFD will pay to Buyer a Parking Operations Fee equal to the lesser of $7,500,000 or the amount due from Buyer on that debt (“CFD Payment”) in incremental monthly installments equal to 1/12 of the CFD Payment.
Figure the debt service on Ice Edge's purchase to be exactly $7.5 million per year. Nowhere in there does it say that the $7.5 million covers only interest payments, or only principal payments. For annual payments of $7.5 million on a 7% loan, they could theoretically have financing of $93.94 million, to be paid off by Glendale (I'm sorry, the CFD that Glendale has nothing to do with) over the next 30 years. If my made up numbers are accurate, that would be total debt payments of $225 million over 30 years that Glendale (er, the CFD) is responsible for.

I won't even get into the parking debate on whether $7.5 million is a realistic number for each year, since it isn't.

And did they really need the word "outstanding" in their twice? Did no one actually read the MOU before it was published?

Section 3.1.f.2 (ii):

Quote:
In the event the City has not secured a new buyer for the Minimum Sale Price during the notice period, Buyer may sell the Coyotes to a subsequent buyer who will honor the remaining term of the use and lease agreements that are anticipated by this MOU.
Seems everyone is jumping to conclusions that the team is locked in Glendale for the next 29 years. What exactly is the term of the AMULA? Completely undefined. Maybe the term is 6 years? Maybe the term is 29 years but gets reduced to 7 years if the COG can't find a buyer?

Section 3.3.a:

Quote:
Buyer will immediately implement ticket surcharges, which may vary between Hockey Events and non-Hockey Events, in an amount the parties mutually agree upon, for all Arena events in order to support operating and funding requirements of the CFD (“Ticket Surcharge.”)
I get the surcharge at non-Coyote events. It will make it that much more difficult to attract concerts and other events since the tickets will by definition have to be more expensive next year than they were last year, but whatever.

As for ticket surcharges at Coyotes games, uh, why not just increase the price? Fans balk at raising a $35 ticket to $40, no problem, let's call it a $35 ticket and a $5 surcharge, that'll work!


Last edited by CGG: 06-07-2010 at 07:53 AM.
CGG is offline  
Old
06-07-2010, 07:30 AM
  #974
CGG
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 416
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,220
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RR View Post
No. There is no feasible "free" parking anywhere near the arena, Westgate, or UoP Stadium.
Doesn't matter. How many options will there be nearby for $10 or even $15 parking if the arena actually starts charging $20 for parking for the state high school wrestiling championship? Why wouldn't U of P Stadium start charging $5 for parking during Coyotes games, it's right across the street. What in the CFD prevents that from happening?

The parking math assumes everyone will have to pay for parking, but further assumes that everyone will have to pay Westgate / The CFD for parking. That is not the case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulligan View Post
One question though, which until answered, is why I expect this deal to be at least 75% financed: referencing RR's post that several core members of Ice Edge (who are Leblanc, McCullough, Jordan, Jones, Breslow) have net worth's in excess of $100M I have to ask if anyone can verify this ?
I'm very interested in finding out just how much of their own money these guys have, but it doesn't seem like anyone wants you to question the supposed wealth of the Ice Edge guys. Even if they have found some rich guys to play with, the question isn't whether they have some guys with net worths of $100 million +, it's how much are these so-called hundred-millionaires willing to put into the team? Unless they're majority investors, it means very little. If a guy with $7 billion in net worth invests $500k in the Coyotes, that does little to help their financial situation, it just gives them a whole $500k more than they would have otherwise had.


Last edited by CGG: 06-07-2010 at 07:39 AM.
CGG is offline  
Old
06-07-2010, 09:55 AM
  #975
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 11,341
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CGG View Post
Seems everyone is jumping to conclusions that the team is locked in Glendale for the next 29 years. What exactly is the term of the AMULA? Completely undefined. Maybe the term is 6 years? Maybe the term is 29 years but gets reduced to 7 years if the COG can't find a buyer?
Term of the AMULA is 23 more years [seasons].

It's not a blank slate. The existing AMULA terms are going to remain in place except where amended by CoG and the buyer. Note that the MOU sections discussing the AMULA are titled "AMULA Amendment". Altering the # of years remaining would be a material change, meriting inclusion in the MOU with the other key points.

mouser is online now  
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 05:17 PM.

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.