The Business of HockeyDiscuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Franchise sales, valuations, TV contracts, ratings, expansion, relocation, the CBA and work stoppage discussion goes here.
Phoenix LVII (or MDCCLXXVI): Declarations of (In)Dependence
I thought it was cute. I can't believe someone has not used it before me - unsure because I have not been reading the posts.
Perhaps I have started a trend. Just think of all the possibilities! CBCWPG has already joined the party.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CasualFan
Governments perform "legislative" actions and "administrative" actions. Only legislative actions may be referred to ballot.
So... modifying the budget to find the money from somewhere other than a tax increase would be considered "administrative"?
Lol, love opening the can of worms. I could have some fun if I could get one of the law clerks' west law password. I would only do it if I had the freebie student code.
Tell me about it. I'm half tempted to send Cobbinator an email with all the caselaw, secondary sources, and sample pleadings. CasualPAC!
So... modifying the budget to find the money from somewhere other than a tax increase would be considered "administrative"?
Yes, that's why I wrote "a budget is a budget" The budgeted amount for this year's payment to the NHL was $20M, yet they still entered in an agreement for $25M.
Tell me about it. I'm half tempted to send Cobbinator an email with all the caselaw, secondary sources, and sample pleadings. CasualPAC!
If he plays dumb, the trial court would practically lead him down the right path; provided his complaint isn't defective.
Years ago, I had a personal injury case where the plaintiff was pro se (three attorneys withdrew) and her rog responses (well bill of particulars here, as NY doesn't have rogs as of right in most cases) was a letter "responding to our questionnaire"
She beat our motion to dismiss with no opp papers with significant guidance of the judge during arguments.
I thought it was cute. I can't believe someone has not used it before me - unsure because I have not been reading the posts.
Perhaps I have started a trend. Just think of all the possibilities! CBCWPG has already joined the party.
So... modifying the budget to find the money from somewhere other than a tax increase would be considered "administrative"?
Yeah. No room to appeal specific budget allocations, just how the money is raised if it's raised through political actions, such as tax increases, specific levies, etc. Or so I gather. The US system of municipal government is wildly different than the rules we play by here in Ontario. We are a lot more structured by the province when it comes to financial matter, and don't have these petition/ballot/recall measures that seem to be in every US state, city, and town.
Yes, that's why I wrote "a budget is a budget" The budgeted amount for this year's payment to the NHL was $20M, yet they still entered in an agreement for $25M.
That is incredibly poor budget planning. Glendale can pull the $5 million from other accounts if it wants, but I can't even imagine any sane council okaying that. Sat through a lot of budgets and don't understand how you could ever reduce a line item based on a hope that something unexpected might happen and save you cash. That's just nuts, and it's tantamount to pulling off an act of fraud as you'd pass a much better-looking budget than the reality would likely wind up being.
No resolution to that sort of nonsense, though. Other than a general election.
As someone who has said this team would move ever since Balsille's attempt to purchase it, I think it's finally set in stone that this team is staying put for the foreseeable future.
Hopefully the next CBA includes expansion, or the Islanders get relocated, because Quebec still needs a team.
I think that the significance of the anti-tax petition that is likely going to a referendum has broader political and financial implications for the City of Glendale and the city council. It appears that there a significant backlash has emerged against the rather grandiose economic development plans and profligate spending ways of city council. The clear signal on the political front that seems to be emerging is towards a more constrained approach to public finances, and it appears that the electorate is going to have a chance of limiting the revenue tap available to raise money for the spending plans of the city council. In a way, it almost seems like it is signaling the end of an era in Glendale civic politics and urban development. I'm not sure if this will be good or bad for Glendale, but it almost certainly will be a very different environment in the coming months and years.
I think it's more likely they fold the team than move them to Quebec.
I believe the NHLPA will not take that likely. Expansion chip card can always be held until needed to play but I believe the NHLPA knows they are holding that card and are prepared for it.
I believe the NHLPA will not take that likely. Expansion chip card can always be held until needed to play but I believe the NHLPA knows they are holding that card and are prepared for it.
I'm not sure on this, but I'm pretty sure the NHLPA has no say on this. A team can't operate without an owner. Yeah, sure, the league could be the "owner," but it's not the NHL's job to own franchises. Being owned by the NHL is as good as being owned by no one. Now the NHL doesn't want to own the team, and outside of the questionable JIG, nobody wants to own it.
The NHLPA can't force them to operate a team if they don't want to... nor can they force someone to buy it.
Yeah, the loss of jobs would suck for them... but they'll come back soon.
I honestly don't know what the NHL is doing at this point.
The one month extensions they're giving to COG make it appear as if they want to see the team remain in Phoenix. However, they won't actually guarantee that the Coyotes will play there next year.
It's also potentially too late into the summer to relocate the team (assuming it happens after August 1st). TNSE had to rush things and they already had a functional hockey operation in place and an additional two months. I also don't buy the theory that the NHL is giving Phoenix more time because of a potential lock out or delayed start to the season.
I think it's safe to say No Nordiques this year as I believe it becomes way too late in August.
Isn't that a typical Daly/Bettmann quote that essentially says nothing at all? "Moving forward" could mean finding the best solution for the team, and "where they are at the end of the month" could be Quebec City.
You could resurrect the funding argument in the context of the tax referendum as a back door way to get the AMF bill on the ballot without protracted litigation if the city realizes it's best interests.
However, I stress that the league will wait until the dust settles. Bettman has not been ramrodding this through as his own profession is an attorney and he is still active with CLE.
I believe that a drop dead date for a solution can come as late Sept. 1. Current hockey ops staff can relocate with the team and Remparts can handle ticket and corporate sales etc. It's not the ideal solution, but neither is playing in Colisee. Moving into a new building would be the ideal choice. Of course, Jamison can complete the purchase and all is moot.
I believe it's too late now for a move to Quebec City and frankly I want to see the NHL fail miserably in Phoenix next season, especially after they lost most of their good players (Whitney, Pyatt, Aucoin, now Doan?). They really think they will draw 15,000 fans in November when people don't give a crap about hockey unless it's a playoff series and even then, as we saw, they have tickets giveaways to fill their arena.
Let them lose face, Glendale politicians, Bettman, Daly and Jamison, and then I'll grab a cold beer and laugh at their demise!
We can wait a few years in Qc City, especially since the New Colisee is not ready yet, and also because I have young children, so I wouldn't be able to attend all the home games!
I believe it's too late now for a move to Quebec City and frankly I want to see the NHL fail miserably in Phoenix next season, especially after they lost most of their good players (Whitney, Pyatt, Aucoin, now Doan?). They really think they will draw 15,000 fans in November when people don't give a crap about hockey unless it's a playoff series and even then, as we saw, they have tickets giveaways to fill their arena.
Let them lose face, Glendale politicians, Bettman, Daly and Jamison, and then I'll grab a cold beer and laugh at their demise!
We can wait a few years in Qc City, especially since the New Colisee is not ready yet, and also because I have young children, so I wouldn't be able to attend all the home games!
In the long run, it would be better to not put a team into QC until the new arena is ready to go. There is no rush to put a team in QC at this moment. And besides, the entertainment value in watching this never ending attempt by Bettman to keep a team where no where near enough people care, is priceless.
Let them lose face, Glendale politicians, Bettman, Daly and Jamison, and then I'll grab a cold beer and laugh at their demise!
You know, this is a good point. Just let them continue on this path, watch the attendance numbers continue to dwindle, all the good players leave, and run the entire franchise into the ground.
Can you imagine an NHL game with only 2-3,000 people in attendance? I think it could happen in Phoenix. Maybe just completely destroying the team until *no one* gives a crap anymore *is* the solution.
I believe it's too late now for a move to Quebec City and frankly I want to see the NHL fail miserably in Phoenix next season, especially after they lost most of their good players (Whitney, Pyatt, Aucoin, now Doan?). They really think they will draw 15,000 fans in November when people don't give a crap about hockey unless it's a playoff series and even then, as we saw, they have tickets giveaways to fill their arena.
Let them lose face, Glendale politicians, Bettman, Daly and Jamison, and then I'll grab a cold beer and laugh at their demise!
We can wait a few years in Qc City, especially since the New Colisee is not ready yet, and also because I have young children, so I wouldn't be able to attend all the home games!
That a boy Fred!
Personally I still believe Quebec will have a franchise, next year with Relo of thses same @&#! Coyotes or through expansion.
I honestly don't know what the NHL is doing at this point.
The one month extensions they're giving to COG make it appear as if they want to see the team remain in Phoenix. However, they won't actually guarantee that the Coyotes will play there next year.
It's also potentially too late into the summer to relocate the team (assuming it happens after August 1st). TNSE had to rush things and they already had a functional hockey operation in place and an additional two months. I also don't buy the theory that the NHL is giving Phoenix more time because of a potential lock out or delayed start to the season.
I would suggest your last statement (bolded) is the only realistic solution to this now. The various players simply need more time to finalize and implement.
We have all become obsessed with deadlines which would normally make sense ... but in order to achieve either one of the only two realistic outcomes (a relatively stable but very complicated purchase arrangement to remain in Glendale; or a harried and logistically challenging relocation) more time is necessary to sort out all kinds of very messy issues.
Perhaps Im naive, but I really dont think the status quo is palatable for anyone and contraction does not make financial sense, I think, especially given probable BoG pushback given various ownership maladies other clubs currently face and the real possibility that current owners would be obliged to swallow losses (BK$142M + interest + LOSS$X * 3 years) that future owners would benefit from year(s) from now ((~ RELO$200M x (Ham + QC + Seattle + LV + Houston + Markham + Saskatoon + Springville + Mayberry)). [all #'s ballparked]
Contraction costs could actually push some other clubs over their own financial cliffs, and I doubt the profitable teams (read: Canadian) are eager to take on a disproportionate share of expected contraction costs. David Thomson isn't likely to want to pay another $5M to $10M to underwrite contraction a year after he joined the club. And unless PKP is fully aware and cooperative in all this, I would similarly imagine he wouldn't be keen on having to up his purchase price given a new, higher expansion surtax.
But Im just sitting here with my finger up my ***, and I have no inside information to support any of this. It's all speck-a-lation.
I apologize if this has been proposed before, but would it be prudent or even possible to suspend the team for one year? The other 29 teams could carry one extra player for one year to smooth the way with the NHLPA. The extra cost of that roster spot would be far less than each team’s share of potential losses in 2012 – 2013. If a solution can be found, those players would be released to play for the resurrected Coyotes or to the relocated franchise.
This would give the challenges in Phoenix time to play out and time to see whether GJ can actually raise the funds to purchase. A one year hiatus would give all sides the better part of a year to create a permanent solution, while demonstrating that “business as usual” is no longer acceptable. Before the 2013 - 2014 season, the team would either be sold to local investors, relocated, or folded.
I really have no dog in this fight. I don’t care whether the team relocates or stays, but this ongoing soap opera is far more damaging to the NHL’s reputation than a one year hiatus, with a solution in sight at the end of the process.
I have been saying that "folding" the franchise is a potential outcome. I would like to modify that use the key buzzwords:
suspend
uncertainty
3rd parties
You can use them in any order:
"suspend the operation of the franchise due to uncertainty created by 3rd parties"
"3rd parties have created uncertainty that cause the operation of the franchise to be suspended"
"Fold" is an ugly word. I should never have suggested the NHL would "fold" the team. If faced with no options and no subsidy, the league may opt to "suspend" the operation of the franchise. Which is not folding it.
* You do not have to post all new responses informing me that the NHL would never, never, ever, ever, suspend operations of the team. All previous posts that the NHL would never, ever, ever, never fold the team apply to this slight modification of language.
I can't believe someone has not used it before me - unsure because I have not been reading the posts.
