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
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 XVII: Phoenix -- This Thread Title Available For Lease

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-20-2010, 03:13 PM
  #1
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 12,039
vCash: 500
Part XVII: Phoenix -- This Thread Title Available For Lease

On with the next installment.

mouser is online now  
Old
12-20-2010, 03:15 PM
  #2
billycanuck
Registered User
 
billycanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 461
vCash: 500
Arizona Coyotes

Team name to be changed to Arizona Coyotes. New logo maybe?
http://slapshot.blogs.nytimes.com/20...ikely-to-move/

billycanuck is offline  
Old
12-20-2010, 03:23 PM
  #3
ALA YotesPhan
Registered User
 
ALA YotesPhan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Nothern Alabama
Posts: 410
vCash: 500
Thread Title:
Glendale approves new Lease Thread Title

ALA YotesPhan is offline  
Old
12-20-2010, 03:26 PM
  #4
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 33,831
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by billycanuck View Post
Team name to be changed to Arizona Coyotes. New logo maybe?
http://slapshot.blogs.nytimes.com/20...ikely-to-move/
Why?

tarheelhockey is online now  
Old
12-20-2010, 03:27 PM
  #5
MHX
Hockey Makes Us...
 
MHX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,016
vCash: 500
Money for Nothing was short lived...

MHX is offline  
Old
12-20-2010, 03:29 PM
  #6
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 12,039
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
Why?
Probably more a nod to Glendale than anything else on the name change. The local NFL team did the same change a few years back and the MLB team has always been Arizona.

mouser is online now  
Old
12-20-2010, 03:36 PM
  #7
Coach
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 428
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALA YotesPhan View Post
Thread Title:
Glendale approves new Lease Thread Title
Goldwater asks for paperwork regarding Lease to new thread. Wondering if COG tax money was involved.

Coach is offline  
Old
12-20-2010, 03:46 PM
  #8
AllByDesign
Thomas who?
 
AllByDesign's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Location, Location!
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,299
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by billycanuck View Post
Team name to be changed to Arizona Coyotes. New logo maybe?
http://slapshot.blogs.nytimes.com/20...ikely-to-move/

Quote from the article
Quote:
“I don’t expect Goldwater will sue and win,” Hulsizer told The Arizona Republic.

So he expects them to sue?

AllByDesign is offline  
Old
12-20-2010, 03:49 PM
  #9
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 33,831
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mouser View Post
Probably more a nod to Glendale than anything else on the name change. The local NFL team did the same change a few years back and the MLB team has always been Arizona.
Got it. After digging a bit, the rationale does make sense. Both appeasing Glendale and offering an opportunity to re-brand.

tarheelhockey is online now  
Old
12-20-2010, 03:49 PM
  #10
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,583
vCash: 500
And yet again ...

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results - Albert Einstein

05-05-2009 Balsillie puts in $212.5 mil offer for the Coyotes
05-07-2009 Balsillie/Phoenix part II
05-18-2009 Balsillie/Phoenix part III
05-22-2009 Balsillie/Phoenix part IV
06-03-2009 Balsillie/Phoenix part V
06-09-2009 Balsillie/Phoenix Part VI
06-12-2009 Balsillie/Phoenix Part VII: I'm just waitin' on a judge
06-16-2009 Balsillie/Phoenix Part VIII: It's dead, Jim
06-24-2009 Balsillie/Phoenix Part IX: 'Dorf on Hockey
07-25-2009 Phoenix bankruptcy/ownership Part X: The Truth? You Can't Handle The Truth!
08-03-2009 Phoenix bankruptcy/ownership Part XI: A Fistful of Dollars?
08-07-2009 Phoenix bankruptcy/ownership Part XII: For a Few Dollars More
08-12-2009 Phoenix bankruptcy/ownership Part XIII: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly
08-21-2009 Phoenix bankruptcy/ownership Part XIV: The Wrath of Baum
08-27-2009 Phoenix bankruptcy/ownership Part XV - SITREP: SNAFU
09-02-2009 Phoenix bankruptcy/ownership Part XVI: Barbarian at the Gate
09-08-2009 Phoenix bankruptcy/ownership Part XVII: Wake Me Up When September Ends
09-10-2009 Phoenix bankruptcy/ownership Part XVIII: Is that a pale horse in the distance?
09-12-2009 Phoenix bankruptcy Part XIX: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Baum
09-21-2009 Phoenix Bankruptcy Part XX: There Will Be Baum
09-28-2009 Phoenix Bankruptcy Part XXI: 2009 -- A Sports Odyssey
10-26-2009 Phoenix Bankruptcy Part XXII: Long and winding road

11-24-2009 Keeping up with potential owners for NHL Phoenix Coyotes (UPD: Ice Edge signs LOI)
03-14-2010 Part II. Potential owners of NHL's Phoenix Coyotes
03-26-2010 Part III. Prospective Owners - Phoenix Coyotes (UPD Lease vote 4/13; IEH signs MOU)
04-10-2010 Part IV Phoenix Coyotes post bankrtuptcy; UPD COG approves Reinsdorf MOU, not IEH MOU
05-02-2010 Part V Phoenix Coyotes post bankruptcy UPD Reinsdorf out? IEH back in? else Winnipeg?
05-11-2010 Part VI Phoenix Coyotes post bankruptcy
05-23-2010 Part VII Phoenix Coyotes post bankrtuptcy
06-07-2010 Part VIII: Phoenix Coyotes Post-bankrtuptcy
06-22-2010 Part IX: Phoenix Coyotes Post-bankruptcy UPD: Pres Moss fired 6/30 with IEH input
07-26-2010 Part X: Phoenix Coyotes - Between Scylla and Charybdis
08-27-2010 Part XI: Phoenix Coyotes -- Greetings, Starfighter, You have been selected ...
09-16-2010 Part XII: Phx Coyotes - Still haven't found what I'm looking for
10-12-2010 Part XIII: Phoenix Coyotes - The Final Cut?
10-27-2010 Part XIV: Phoenix Coyotes - To Infinity And Beyond....
12-05-2010 Part XV: Phoenix - the battle of evermore
12-14-2010 Part XVI: Phoenix -- Money for Nothing
12-20-2010 Part XVII: Phoenix -- Thread Title Available For Lease

kdb209 is offline  
Old
12-20-2010, 03:49 PM
  #11
Kismet
Registered User
 
Kismet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 156
vCash: 375
I am in agreement with those in agreement that the biggest legal hurdle in the agreement is the funnelling of operating expenses charading as “Arena Management Fees”. But I am hoping someone here can clear up a question I have on the parking arrangement. I asked a few days ago, but I haven’t had a response. So, now that I’ve stuffed myself with enough cookies to fill the crushing loneliness and despair, I am willing to try again!

Section 8.1.2 of the draft agreement lists the not less than 5,500 parking spaces as the “City Parking Area

Section 8.1.5 designates “not less than 500 parking spaces of the City Parking Area as the Team Parking Area, which shall be reserved only for the Team, the Arena Manager and their designees.”

Section 8.1.1 seems to exclude the Team Parking Area from the Arena Parking Rights

Section 9.9.1 shows that the $100,000,000 payment is for the Arena Parking Rights

So, here it is...are they paying for the rights to 5,500 spots or 5,000?

Kismet is offline  
Old
12-20-2010, 04:22 PM
  #12
CGG
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 416
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,308
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kismet View Post
Section 8.1.2 of the draft agreement lists the not less than 5,500 parking spaces as the “City Parking Area

Section 8.1.5 designates “not less than 500 parking spaces of the City Parking Area as the Team Parking Area, which shall be reserved only for the Team, the Arena Manager and their designees.”

Section 8.1.1 seems to exclude the Team Parking Area from the Arena Parking Rights

Section 9.9.1 shows that the $100,000,000 payment is for the Arena Parking Rights

So, here it is...are they paying for the rights to 5,500 spots or 5,000?
Sounds a lot like the city only gets 5,000 spaces. 500 parking spots for the team? So every player and front office staff person gets about 7 spots each. Good deal. In theory that amount of parking spaces at a suburbuan Glendale mall is worth about $11 million. Sweet deal for Hulzy to get that for free!!!

CGG is offline  
Old
12-20-2010, 04:27 PM
  #13
Coach
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 428
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kismet View Post
I am in agreement with those in agreement that the biggest legal hurdle in the agreement is the funnelling of operating expenses charading as “Arena Management Fees”. But I am hoping someone here can clear up a question I have on the parking arrangement. I asked a few days ago, but I haven’t had a response. So, now that I’ve stuffed myself with enough cookies to fill the crushing loneliness and despair, I am willing to try again!

Section 8.1.2 of the draft agreement lists the not less than 5,500 parking spaces as the “City Parking Area

Section 8.1.5 designates “not less than 500 parking spaces of the City Parking Area as the Team Parking Area, which shall be reserved only for the Team, the Arena Manager and their designees.”

Section 8.1.1 seems to exclude the Team Parking Area from the Arena Parking Rights

Section 9.9.1 shows that the $100,000,000 payment is for the Arena Parking Rights

So, here it is...are they paying for the rights to 5,500 spots or 5,000?
Good Question, it reads like 5,000 arena spots + 500 team spots = 5500 total spots but i'm not sure.

Coach is offline  
Old
12-20-2010, 04:30 PM
  #14
goyotes
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,514
vCash: 500
Please correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the $17M going to the ownership group for operating the arena offset by the operating costs? If my understanding is correct, does anyone know what the operating costs are annually?

My point is that the $17M may be more defensible if it is offset with the risks undertaken that would include the operating expenses. Am I totally off base here, or is it just not clear from the lease documents? I have read media reports that could be interpreted as including the operating expenses as a leasee responsibility, and media reports making the $17M sound like a pure payment for providing arena operation managment but the costs all still fall on the arena owner Glendale.

goyotes is offline  
Old
12-20-2010, 04:38 PM
  #15
CGG
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 416
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,308
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by goyotes View Post
Please correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the $17M going to the ownership group for operating the arena offset by the operating costs? If my understanding is correct, does anyone know what the operating costs are annually?

My point is that the $17M may be more defensible if it is offset with the risks undertaken that would include the operating expenses. Am I totally off base here, or is it just not clear from the lease documents? I have read media reports that could be interpreted as including the operating expenses as a leasee responsibility, and media reports making the $17M sound like a pure payment for providing arena operation managment but the costs all still fall on the arena owner Glendale.
I believe you are wrong, so I will correct you. Let's assume for a second that Scruggy is correct and the operating costs on the arena are $17 million. Let's ignore the basic idea that those costs will decrease if and when the Coyotes go away.

This lease calls for the city to:
- pay $17 million a year for "arena management" to Hulzy
- not pay the operating costs on the arena of (let's assume for now) $17 million
- give up all rights to revenue from non-hockey events at the arena

So, MH gets to book acts at the arena, pocket the revenue, pay the operating cost, and pocket a $17 million fee.

If the Coyotes left, they could:

(a) manage the arena themselves and keep all non-hockey revenue, then pay for the operating costs themselves, or
(b) pay someone a nominal fee (around $1 million) to manage the arena and that firm would keep most of the revenue while covering most of the operating costs

The city is not only paying $17 million to Hulzy, they are also giving up rights to any and all revenues from non-hockey events (with a few exceptions that I'm sure someone will point out). In a sense they are double-paying Hulzy to manage the arena - he keeps revenue generated, and he keeps $17 million in management fees. It is quite easy to prove that outside parties would be willing to manage the arena for much less, and/or keep the revenues and cover the operating costs themselves.

The comments about the $17 million fee offsetting the operating costs of the arena are disingenuous at best, and deliberately misleading. Attempting to confuse people. Remember when MH put up $25 million and the city announced it had somehow escaped from having to pay $25 million in losses? Yeah, that wasn't exactly accurate either. The COG is grasping at straws. They can't actually explain how this benefits them, so they throw a whole bunch of numbers into their fact sheets hoping everyone will fall for it. I don't think it worked for Goldwater.

CGG is offline  
Old
12-20-2010, 04:53 PM
  #16
goyotes
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,514
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CGG View Post
I believe you are wrong, so I will correct you. Let's assume for a second that Scruggy is correct and the operating costs on the arena are $17 million. Let's ignore the basic idea that those costs will decrease if and when the Coyotes go away.

This lease calls for the city to:
- pay $17 million a year for "arena management" to Hulzy
- not pay the operating costs on the arena of (let's assume for now) $17 million
- give up all rights to revenue from non-hockey events at the arena

So, MH gets to book acts at the arena, pocket the revenue, pay the operating cost, and pocket a $17 million fee.

If the Coyotes left, they could:

(a) manage the arena themselves and keep all non-hockey revenue, then pay for the operating costs themselves, or
(b) pay someone a nominal fee (around $1 million) to manage the arena and that firm would keep most of the revenue while covering most of the operating costs

The city is not only paying $17 million to Hulzy, they are also giving up rights to any and all revenues from non-hockey events (with a few exceptions that I'm sure someone will point out). In a sense they are double-paying Hulzy to manage the arena - he keeps revenue generated, and he keeps $17 million in management fees. It is quite easy to prove that outside parties would be willing to manage the arena for much less, and/or keep the revenues and cover the operating costs themselves.

The comments about the $17 million fee offsetting the operating costs of the arena are disingenuous at best, and deliberately misleading. Attempting to confuse people. Remember when MH put up $25 million and the city announced it had somehow escaped from having to pay $25 million in losses? Yeah, that wasn't exactly accurate either. The COG is grasping at straws. They can't actually explain how this benefits them, so they throw a whole bunch of numbers into their fact sheets hoping everyone will fall for it. I don't think it worked for Goldwater.
So the operating costs do offset what the Owner gets as a "fee". That was my question. Thanks for answering it. The Goldwater Institutes potential concerns aside, my only point was that the owner doesn't pocket a fee AND the city still pays the operating expenses. He gets a fee, and takes the risk the fee will more than offset the expenses of arena management. With every new event the operating costs increase marginally. I wonder if anyone knows what the "nut" is just to keep the building operational. I have heard wide ranging numbers from less than $10M up to $18M. If we are talking about less than $5 - $10M a year, I'm not so sure this is the GI's best argument. It seems buying the right to sell parking for $100M is what people are focused on down here.

goyotes is offline  
Old
12-20-2010, 04:59 PM
  #17
Faltorvo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,728
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CGG View Post
Sounds a lot like the city only gets 5,000 spaces. 500 parking spots for the team? So every player and front office staff person gets about 7 spots each. Good deal. In theory that amount of parking spaces at a suburbuan Glendale mall is worth about $11 million. Sweet deal for Hulzy to get that for free!!!
This should give hulz about 300/350 premium spots to lease out or package in with suites. Dirty.

Interesting 500 spots x 60 events a year over the 30 years for the term of the Bond,

WOW!!! 900,000 lost opportunities to charge and you gotta believe these would have been in the premium $20 range in the lots.


Last edited by Faltorvo: 12-20-2010 at 05:12 PM.
Faltorvo is offline  
Old
12-20-2010, 05:02 PM
  #18
CGG
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 416
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,308
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by goyotes View Post
So the operating costs do offset what the Owner gets as a "fee". That was my question. Thanks for answering it. The Goldwater Institutes potential concerns aside, my only point was that the owner doesn't pocket a fee AND the city still pays the operating expenses. He gets a fee, and takes the risk the fee will more than offset the expenses of arena management. With every new event the operating costs increase marginally. I wonder if anyone knows what the "nut" is just to keep the building operational. I have heard wide ranging numbers from less than $10M up to $18M. If we are talking about less than $5 - $10M a year, I'm not so sure this is the GI's best argument. It seems buying the right to sell parking for $100M is what people are focused on down here.
The real barometer should be what someone else would be willing to sign up for to manage the arena. $1 million a year and the city keeps revenue? Do it for free but the manager keeps the revenues and assumes the operating cost? Does COG know what the going rate is for an arena like this? Places like Tulsa and Kansas City would be good benchmarks. But of course they just volunteered to pay MH $17 million for this. I'd love to see how they try to defend it.

CGG is offline  
Old
12-20-2010, 05:02 PM
  #19
Kismet
Registered User
 
Kismet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 156
vCash: 375
Quote:
Originally Posted by CGG View Post
Sounds a lot like the city only gets 5,000 spaces. 500 parking spots for the team? So every player and front office staff person gets about 7 spots each. Good deal. In theory that amount of parking spaces at a suburbuan Glendale mall is worth about $11 million. Sweet deal for Hulzy to get that for free!!!
It sounds like 5,000 to me, too...which doesn't make any of this prettier!

The "Fact" sheet informs us "Glendale will purchase the right to charge for parking from the demand created by the new arena manager and the Coyotes. The fee associated with this demand will generate more than $200 million over the term of the agreement."

At the Meeting, Beasley also suggested they had to show revenues of double the amount to get the bonds.

What is required to prove that the parking payment is not disproportionate...that they can break even or that they will see a 100% profit?

Kismet is offline  
Old
12-20-2010, 05:03 PM
  #20
WJG
Running and Rioting
 
WJG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Country: Ireland
Posts: 12,860
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllByDesign View Post
Quote from the article



So he expects them to sue?
Personally, I'm more interested in seeing what happens if Goldwater decides to sue/challenge/injunct/whatever at all.

What is the timeline like for these kinds of things? Days, weeks, months?

If this thing goes past January 1st and and there's still no end in sight (or at least not a guaranteed end - meaning there's a relatively good chance Goldwater might win), what would the NHL's course of action be?

My feeling is that after Jan. 1st, the rules of the game will have have changed. Given that the NHL will finally be allowed to talk to out-of-town interested desiring to relocate the team, we'll be able to finally be able to gauge how committed they are to keeping them in Glendale.

WJG is offline  
Old
12-20-2010, 05:10 PM
  #21
Kismet
Registered User
 
Kismet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 156
vCash: 375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Faltorvo View Post
This should give hulz about 300/350 premium spots to lease out or package in with suites. Dirty.
Ah, but 8.1.1 does attempt to shuttle that money back to the City..."All revenues, if any, received by the Arena Manager or the Team arising out of the use of the Team Parking Area shall be retained by or remitted to the City in accordance with procedures mutually agreed to by the Team and the City."

But, if they're suite/parking bundles, I s'pose Hulzy can argue the parking was thrown in for free.

Kismet is offline  
Old
12-20-2010, 05:21 PM
  #22
Faltorvo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,728
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kismet View Post
Ah, but 8.1.1 does attempt to shuttle that money back to the City..."All revenues, if any, received by the Arena Manager or the Team arising out of the use of the Team Parking Area shall be retained by or remitted to the City in accordance with procedures mutually agreed to by the Team and the City."

But, if they're suite/parking bundles, I s'pose Hulzy can argue the parking was thrown in for free.
Procedures mutually agreed to by the team and city

Anyone know what those are?

Faltorvo is offline  
Old
12-20-2010, 05:23 PM
  #23
goyotes
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,514
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Running Riot View Post
Personally, I'm more interested in seeing what happens if Goldwater decides to sue/challenge/injunct/whatever at all.

What is the timeline like for these kinds of things? Days, weeks, months?

If this thing goes past January 1st and and there's still no end in sight (or at least not a guaranteed end - meaning there's a relatively good chance Goldwater might win), what would the NHL's course of action be?

My feeling is that after Jan. 1st, the rules of the game will have have changed. Given that the NHL will finally be allowed to talk to out-of-town interested desiring to relocate the team, we'll be able to finally be able to gauge how committed they are to keeping them in Glendale.
I could be proven wrong, but from what I hear, this is low on the list for the GI. I believe if they were serious, they would move to stop the City from selling the bonds which means they will move quickly. Otherwise, most people will look at a GI suit after the bonds are sold are more grandstanding since they took no real effort to avoid the "tax" that will be imposed by repayment of the bond obligations. I'm not saying there will not be more sabre rattling before the ink dries on a sale of the team, but the GI has their hands pretty full right now with immigration issues, and Obamacare.

goyotes is offline  
Old
12-20-2010, 05:23 PM
  #24
Kismet
Registered User
 
Kismet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 156
vCash: 375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Faltorvo View Post
Procedures mutually agreed to by the team and city

Anyone know what those are?
Envelopes of cash left in the City's free suite(s)?

Kismet is offline  
Old
12-20-2010, 05:27 PM
  #25
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,583
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Faltorvo View Post
Procedures mutually agreed to by the team and city

Anyone know what those are?
No - but it would just depend on who is actually collecting the revenue.

If it is collected by CoG parking operations, it is retained by the City.

If it is collected by the team or the Arena Manager, it is remitted to the City.

Either way, if there is any explicit charge for the use of those spots, the revenues go back to CoG.

They just haven't formally spelled out the process - but the obligation is there.

If there is any dispute over what the revenue is, it goes to arbitration.

kdb209 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 12:34 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.