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.

Phoenix LXIV: Will You Still Need Me, Will You Still Read Me, on Thread LXIV?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-14-2012, 10:21 PM
  #676
Major4Boarding
Global Moderator
Private Equity
 
Major4Boarding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: South of Heaven
Country: Scotland
Posts: 1,764
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsinottawa View Post
My question for all the legal folks here is what happens if the AMF is signed by CoG and then there are legal challenges? Is the contract still in effect while the cases are settled, or is it suspended until a resolution?
IIRC, and I'm not legal folk nor playing one, the Agreement had a severability clause that it says something along the lines of any portion is prohibited by law or found invalid under any law, that part would be ineffective. The rest of the Agreement would stand. I need to find PDF of Agreement again.

Major4Boarding is offline  
Old
11-14-2012, 10:28 PM
  #677
CHRDANHUTCH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Auburn, Maine
Country: United States
Posts: 14,850
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 Whileee View Post
But she needs Knaack to follow her into the dark alley, and Knaack might be getting a bit nervous. In any case, if the remnants of city council do vote in favor of the Jamison lease, I think that is only the beginning of the story. We might see a flurry of legal and political challenges that will tie things up indefinitely. The first delay will likely be a petition to put the deal to a referendum. If that is successful, then the deal will be in limbo until the referendum. Meanwhile, I don't think that a legal challenge based on the gift clause is unlikely.

Jamison and the NHL had their opportunity to push a deal like this through 10 or 12 months ago. But because of the delays in lining up investors I think that chance has passed. They either have to come up with a real compromise for Glendale or I think that a local deal won't be completed.
how can a local deal be voted on by the BOG, if no league business can be conducted until a CBA is completed, Whileeee, you forgot the initial presser introducing GJ, ALL He was Told, was present a lease to COG, Which is exactly where we are.... tht's why this is on hold....

CHRDANHUTCH is offline  
Old
11-14-2012, 10:31 PM
  #678
blues10
Registered User
 
blues10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,029
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Doctor View Post
Anytime Clark is worried, it can only be a good thing.

(Except on those rare occasions of it being a harbinger of a worse thing to come...)
It is Knaack that she is worried about, must be the the heartburn acting up again.

Quote:
Joyce Clark‏@clarkjv

I urge everyone to review tonight's council meeting & what CM says. Go to http://www.glendaleaz.com and cable channel 11 to watch online & worry


Joyce Clark‏@clarkjv

That should be watch CM Knaack
https://twitter.com/clarkjv

blues10 is offline  
Old
11-14-2012, 10:38 PM
  #679
cbcwpg
Registered User
 
cbcwpg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Between the Pipes
Country: United Nations
Posts: 5,694
vCash: 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRDANHUTCH View Post
how can a local deal be voted on by the BOG, if no league business can be conducted until a CBA is completed, Whileeee, you forgot the initial presser introducing GJ, ALL He was Told, was present a lease to COG, Which is exactly where we are.... tht's why this is on hold....
This has been discussed before IIRC. League business can be done at anytime regardless of there being a CBA or not. And by "league business" I would say anything like the sale of a team that does not involve the NHLPA at all, which selling the Coyotes does not. Players have no say in the sale of a team.

cbcwpg is offline  
Old
11-14-2012, 10:40 PM
  #680
blues10
Registered User
 
blues10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,029
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRDANHUTCH View Post
how can a local deal be voted on by the BOG, if no league business can be conducted until a CBA is completed, Whileeee, you forgot the initial presser introducing GJ, ALL He was Told, was present a lease to COG, Which is exactly where we are.... tht's why this is on hold....
League business can still be conducted. The Ducks were sold in June 2005 and the lockout didn't end until July 2005.

blues10 is offline  
Old
11-14-2012, 10:50 PM
  #681
blues10
Registered User
 
blues10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,029
vCash: 500
We can probably expect a flurry of articles to come out in the next coulple weeks.

This one made me laugh.

Quote:
The city estimates the tax revenue alone from each game missed is in the neighborhood of $60,000. I can't certify it, but I'm guessing it's much, much higher.

As Glendale faces yet another vote on the Coyotes' future in the Valley, it would be a wonder why they would consider turning down a restructured arena management fee with prospective owner Greg Jamison. The city can't survive astronomical loss like that, especially considering it is already in debt.
http://arizonasports.com/?sid=1575371&nid=137

blues10 is offline  
Old
11-14-2012, 11:03 PM
  #682
blues10
Registered User
 
blues10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,029
vCash: 500
Always nice to see parking back in the picture.

Quote:
Incoming Glendale mayor Jerry Weiers is not keen on city plans to pay Jamison to run the arena and allowing him to collect parking revenue on city-owned lots at Jobing.com Arena and Westgate City Center.
http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/n...prove-new.html

blues10 is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 12:27 AM
  #683
OthmarAmmann
Money making machine
 
OthmarAmmann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: NYC
Posts: 2,539
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CasualFan View Post
I saw Othmar say the Odham Tribe rumor was one that makes sense from a potential investor perspective. It would be the best work ever if the tribe was the money behind JIG and the rubes at city hall never did due diligence before handing over bundled assignability for contracts on city assets. I know, it's a really unlikely scenario, but it is Glendale.
To be honest I can't think of why anybody else would want to invest. At least the tribe has a reason to want to have the city in their pocket for a few hundred mil.

OthmarAmmann is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 01:17 AM
  #684
AllByDesign
Thomas who?
 
AllByDesign's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Location, Location!
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,299
vCash: 500
Just a quick observation here, folks.

I have notices many statements regarding the efforts of council pushing a new lease deal before the newly elected members can have their say.

I can't agree with this. I understand the logic. I really do. I see a different picture, though.

The current council was elected to serve their full term. This doesn't mean that they pack their bags if not re-elected. They finish the job they started.

Regardless of how misguided we may feel current council is, it would be un-ethical to pack it in, and wait for the new council to come aboard in 2013 to deal with today's business.

I'm not a Clark fan, but it is her job to try and clean up as much old business as possible before the new blood comes in.

My opinion may not be popular, but it isn't off point.

AllByDesign is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 01:54 AM
  #685
sipowicz
The Original
 
sipowicz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,573
vCash: 1989
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllByDesign View Post
Just a quick observation here, folks.

I have notices many statements regarding the efforts of council pushing a new lease deal before the newly elected members can have their say.

I can't agree with this. I understand the logic. I really do. I see a different picture, though.

The current council was elected to serve their full term. This doesn't mean that they pack their bags if not re-elected. They finish the job they started.

Regardless of how misguided we may feel current council is, it would be un-ethical to pack it in, and wait for the new council to come aboard in 2013 to deal with today's business.

I'm not a Clark fan, but it is her job to try and clean up as much old business as possible before the new blood comes in.

My opinion may not be popular, but it isn't off point.

Your right, the current city council has every right to vote on any city matter before them except this isn't like a decision to build a new library or fire the dog catcher, what is before them is the biggest decision Glendale will face since building the stadium and arena. This late into their term and with new council members and a new mayor coming into office in less than two months you would think this decision would be postponed.

sipowicz is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 02:05 AM
  #686
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,366
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRDANHUTCH View Post
how can a local deal be voted on by the BOG, if no league business can be conducted until a CBA is completed, Whileeee, you forgot the initial presser introducing GJ, ALL He was Told, was present a lease to COG, Which is exactly where we are.... tht's why this is on hold....
Sigh - how many times do you need to be corrected on this bogus claim.


Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRDANHUTCH View Post
totally unknown, Regardless of what Glendale does approving the lease, that cannot supersede the league as a whole, Tinalera, the franchise cannot be turned over to GJ, FOR League approval, until the CBA is solved, unlike what just happened w/ Memphis being sold and the new owner approved by the NBA BOG...
You've claimed this before - despite actual evidence (the Ducks sale to Samuelli during the last Lockout) to the contrary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRDANHUTCH View Post
you're forgetting one thing: there was an active CBA then, now it's not, All of you are forgetting that the CBA takes precedence over each franchise, which in this case, means public knowledge over COG's lease w/ Jamison as well as any city budget vote, the NHL cannot approve and/or close said deal, if the lockout remains.
No.

The CBA is only a labor agreement between the League/Clubs and the NHLPA/Players.

It has no impact on the ability of clubs to make other contractual agreements. Hell, the Ducks were sold from Disney to Samuelli during the last lockout (sales agreement signed 2/25/05, sale approved by BoG 6/16/05).

kdb209 is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 05:03 AM
  #687
Evil Doctor
Army Recruit
 
Evil Doctor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Cambridge, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,180
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllByDesign View Post
Just a quick observation here, folks.

I have notices many statements regarding the efforts of council pushing a new lease deal before the newly elected members can have their say.

I can't agree with this. I understand the logic. I really do. I see a different picture, though.

The current council was elected to serve their full term. This doesn't mean that they pack their bags if not re-elected. They finish the job they started.

Regardless of how misguided we may feel current council is, it would be un-ethical to pack it in, and wait for the new council to come aboard in 2013 to deal with today's business.

I'm not a Clark fan, but it is her job to try and clean up as much old business as possible before the new blood comes in.

My opinion may not be popular, but it isn't off point.
You are right technically right up to a point, but by convention, especially in a case where a majority of council is new members you don't saddle the new council with decisions and obligations that they may have no ability to overturn or correct. It is one thing for outgoing councillors to continue represent their constituents over minor things like noise complaints and the need for stop signs and such, but it would be unethical for a lame duck council not to table all the important business till the new council can look at it.

The old council has lost its mandate, and they're in a period of transition. The old councillors are supposed to be assisting the new councillors with getting up to speed on their duties, not stabbing them in the back.

There is nothing going on that can't keep for a couple of months, my feeling is that everything is going to get tabled....

Evil Doctor is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 07:18 AM
  #688
GuelphStormer
Registered User
 
GuelphStormer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Guelph, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,706
vCash: 500
OK, first things first ... who's making the popcorn and should we order pizza? wings? both? riesling, syrah, JD and Glenfidich already ordered, so that's covered. who wants sleeman? who wants coors lite? and can someone bring a few of those nifty snuggies?

this is gonna be good!

GuelphStormer is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 07:33 AM
  #689
aj8000
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 683
vCash: 3000
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllByDesign View Post
Hey, speaking of that... Anyone seen jetsfan88 lately?
Yes, he is hanging out on the competition.

aj8000 is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 07:44 AM
  #690
GF
Registered User
 
GF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 412
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blues10 View Post
We can probably expect a flurry of articles to come out in the next coulple weeks.

This one made me laugh.



http://arizonasports.com/?sid=1575371&nid=137
So in order to make 60,000$ a game (2.4m$ a year) this guy urges the city to go forward with a deal that will cost the city 16m$ a year??? How many exactly are graduated from Clarkonomics University??? And he claims to care about Glendale's economic situation.... right!

Why don't Glendale just go with an AHL team? The ticket prices already are at AHL prices. They would have some 30 events a year and it would be much more affordable for everyone involved. Then in a few years, if fans start showing and hockey frenzy catches up in Arizona, they could have an NHL team again. Just an idea.

GF is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 07:51 AM
  #691
cbcwpg
Registered User
 
cbcwpg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Between the Pipes
Country: United Nations
Posts: 5,694
vCash: 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllByDesign View Post
Just a quick observation here, folks.

I have notices many statements regarding the efforts of council pushing a new lease deal before the newly elected members can have their say.

I can't agree with this. I understand the logic. I really do. I see a different picture, though.

The current council was elected to serve their full term. This doesn't mean that they pack their bags if not re-elected. They finish the job they started.

Regardless of how misguided we may feel current council is, it would be un-ethical to pack it in, and wait for the new council to come aboard in 2013 to deal with today's business.

I'm not a Clark fan, but it is her job to try and clean up as much old business as possible before the new blood comes in.

My opinion may not be popular, but it isn't off point.
You are absolutely correct. The current council has the right to continue to do their business as they see fit until the end of their terms.

The only issue here is that the vote to give Jamison $320M is such a large decision that will affect Glendale for the next 20 years, that the incoming council would like the current council hold off, so the new council isn't burdened with cleaning up what they see as a disaster if the lease gets approved as is. In fact the new council might also vote YES to giving Jamison a lease, but maybe they want to rework it even more.

One has to wonder, why is Clark etc. in such a rush to pass by vote the Jamison lease? If this lease is the right thing to do for the CoG why not wait? If its a good thing the new council should also pass it or is it because they know the new council will vote NO to it because it's not a good thing.

This is no longer about whats good for the CoG, its about certain people wanting to leave their mark.


Last edited by cbcwpg: 11-15-2012 at 08:02 AM.
cbcwpg is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 08:04 AM
  #692
CasualFan
Tortious Beadicus
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bay Area, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,120
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllByDesign View Post
Just a quick observation here, folks. I have notices many statements regarding the efforts of council pushing a new lease deal before the newly elected members can have their say. I can't agree with this. I understand the logic. I really do. I see a different picture, though. The current council was elected to serve their full term. This doesn't mean that they pack their bags if not re-elected. They finish the job they started. Regardless of how misguided we may feel current council is, it would be un-ethical to pack it in, and wait for the new council to come aboard in 2013 to deal with today's business. I'm not a Clark fan, but it is her job to try and clean up as much old business as possible before the new blood comes in.
My opinion may not be popular, but it isn't off point.
You're totally on point and I agree with everything you said. The complete failure of fiduciary duty here is approving a contract prior to resolving GF balance and inappropriate fund transfer issues. The city received an audit showing their former City Manager cooked the books in what appears to be a crude (and likely criminal) version of a ponzi scheme. They don't know what their true GF balance is. Might want to get that sorted out before you sign off on any more contracts, particularly one for 1/3 billion dollars in additional liability that was primarily negotiated by that former City Manager. Regardless of whether they are reelected, retiring, etc, the approach in Glendale is rather unique. A competent council would be cleaning up old business. And there is no bigger spill than the fund fraud.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NHLfan4life View Post
Mr. Jones is in fantasy land.
Well, yeah, he is in Glendale; the fantasy kingdom built by the council rubes who stubbornly throw millions at a non viable hockey entertainment business and wonder why their deficit keeps growing.

CasualFan is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 08:18 AM
  #693
CasualFan
Tortious Beadicus
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bay Area, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,120
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcwpg View Post
This is no longer about whats good for the CoG, its about certain people wanting to leave their mark.
They've left their mark pretty well already

What amuses me the most is the same council that was wrong about the economic impact of the team/arena; wrong about development around the spring training stadium; wrong about the NHL BK bid; wrong about the first $25MM subsidy; and wrong about the second $25MM subsidy; they still think they've got it all figured out.

They don't get much more delusional than the Glendale Four. At least the Mayor and that semi-senile Lieberman finally looked at the actual results of their decisions, saw the disaster they built, and changed course.

CasualFan is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 08:57 AM
  #694
NHLfan4life
Who is PKP???
 
NHLfan4life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Glendale
Country: United States
Posts: 688
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GF View Post
So in order to make 60,000$ a game (2.4m$ a year) this guy urges the city to go forward with a deal that will cost the city 16m$ a year??? How many exactly are graduated from Clarkonomics University??? And he claims to care about Glendale's economic situation.... right!

Why don't Glendale just go with an AHL team? The ticket prices already are at AHL prices. They would have some 30 events a year and it would be much more affordable for everyone involved. Then in a few years, if fans start showing and hockey frenzy catches up in Arizona, they could have an NHL team again. Just an idea.
You conveniently left out that he said the loss is probably much higher that that.

And I've been to Westgate 5 times in the past 3 weeks. The place is a ghost town at night now.

NHLfan4life is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 09:02 AM
  #695
Whileee
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 7,668
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllByDesign View Post
Just a quick observation here, folks.

I have notices many statements regarding the efforts of council pushing a new lease deal before the newly elected members can have their say.

I can't agree with this. I understand the logic. I really do. I see a different picture, though.

The current council was elected to serve their full term. This doesn't mean that they pack their bags if not re-elected. They finish the job they started.

Regardless of how misguided we may feel current council is, it would be un-ethical to pack it in, and wait for the new council to come aboard in 2013 to deal with today's business.

I'm not a Clark fan, but it is her job to try and clean up as much old business as possible before the new blood comes in.

My opinion may not be popular, but it isn't off point.
In my view, it doesn't really matter what folks think about the ethics of a "midnight ordinance" to push through the Jamison lease. I think that the real issue is that if the objective is to actually conclude an agreement that keeps the Coyotes in Glendale such a political maneuver will almost certainly end up in disaster. So even if you think it is ethical, it remains an obviously doomed plan that could only result in a "Pyrrhic victory".

If there was no way of reversing their actions, then perhaps you could argue that they will accomplish something important before leaving office. However, the Jamison lease ordinance won't go into effect immediately. Moreover, the agreement has to be signed by the City, the "Arena Manager" and the "Team Owner" since it is a tripartite agreement. So, until the contract agreement is signed, I would think that it can be modified and even overturned by the incoming mayor and council. In that light, how stupid is Jamison to think that he will advance his cause by meeting separately with the "pro" council members, two of which will not be there in a few weeks, while sidelining the other council members and the new mayor?

Moreover, remember that this Jamison lease can be challenged through a petition for a referendum. As soon as someone takes out papers to mount a petition, it will grind the agreement process to a halt until either the petition is unsuccessful in gathering enough signatures, or the referendum is held and the Jamison lease is upheld. By rushing through with this lease, Jamison and his supporters in city council are annoying incoming council members and the new mayor, and blowing wind into the sails of folks that might start a petition. I would imagine that the business group that tried unsuccessfully to overturn the sales tax, or even city workers who see their jobs in jeopardy just might consider lending a hand to the petition.

What Jamison and the NHL (and I daresay the Coyotes' supporters) need to realize is that reality has already started to settle in to Glendale. They have massive financial problems, and are now going to have to deal with the nefarious financial practices of the former City Manager that could taint city council. Glendale can and will help Jamison and the NHL to run a franchise in Glendale through a very favorable lease, that would even include a healthy direct subsidy. But they missed their chance to execute a lease of the sort being demanded by Jamison now due to Jamison's delays in getting investors together. If this lease agreement is killed, as I think it will be, and the Coyotes are relocated, then blame Jamison and the NHL, not Glendale. Glendale has done more than could ever possibly be expected to try to keep the team there.

Whileee is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 09:02 AM
  #696
cheswick
Non-registered User
 
cheswick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Peg City
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,895
vCash: 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by NHLfan4life View Post
You conveniently left out that he said the loss is probably much higher that that.

And I've been to Westgate 5 times in the past 3 weeks. The place is a ghost town at night now.
So the city estimates that teh loss is $60,000 a game. The writer "can't certify it" but "guesses" that its much much higher than that (he never said it was probably much higher than that. It was a guess). Based on what? Why doesn't he elaborate why he's guessing its much higher than the city's estimate? It seems to be the sole rational he has to guess it's higher than that is to push his agenda and its not based on any sort of facts.


I do like the comment on the article though "Also if team moves and Westgate turns into a Ghost Town, the NFL will think hard about moving the Super Bowl scheduled for a couple of years from now." If the Coyotes leave we lose the super bowl too!!! Give me a break

cheswick is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 09:24 AM
  #697
cbcwpg
Registered User
 
cbcwpg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Between the Pipes
Country: United Nations
Posts: 5,694
vCash: 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheswick View Post
So the city estimates that teh loss is $60,000 a game. The writer "can't certify it" but "guesses" that its much much higher than that (he never said it was probably much higher than that. It was a guess). Based on what? Why doesn't he elaborate why he's guessing its much higher than the city's estimate? It seems to be the sole rational he has to guess it's higher than that is to push his agenda and its not based on any sort of facts.
Hey maybe the losses to the CoG are $1,000,000 a game, but I can't certify it, and it's just a WAG.

All we can go by is what the CoG says. The CoG estimates their tax losses per game are $60,000 which happens to be the exact same amount that the CoG pays less to Jamison via the AMF according to the lease agreement ( if there actually was a signed lease ) for every game missed during a lockout.

For every game not played because of a lockout or a strike, the city would pay $60,000 less in arena-management fees.

http://www.azcentral.com/community/g...html#protected

Of course the CoG bases it's estimates using some questionable sources, so who really knows what the real tax losses are. Given the fact that we are locked out, the CoG should be gathering some useful data as to what it really costs to not have the Coyotes.

cbcwpg is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 09:26 AM
  #698
Whileee
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 7,668
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NHLfan4life View Post
You conveniently left out that he said the loss is probably much higher that that.

And I've been to Westgate 5 times in the past 3 weeks. The place is a ghost town at night now.
You left out the part where he say that he's "guessing" that the loss is probably much higher than that. But there is no need to "guess" on the tax revenues, because there have been actual studies about this. Projections of tax and parking revenue in relation to the Jobing.com and Westgate have been over-estimated from the beginning.

Whileee is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 09:29 AM
  #699
CGG
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 416
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,220
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheswick View Post
So the city estimates that teh loss is $60,000 a game. The writer "can't certify it" but "guesses" that its much much higher than that (he never said it was probably much higher than that. It was a guess). Based on what? Why doesn't he elaborate why he's guessing its much higher than the city's estimate? It seems to be the sole rational he has to guess it's higher than that is to push his agenda and its not based on any sort of facts.

I do like the comment on the article though "Also if team moves and Westgate turns into a Ghost Town, the NFL will think hard about moving the Super Bowl scheduled for a couple of years from now." If the Coyotes leave we lose the super bowl too!!! Give me a break
I can't fathom how it can possibly be more than $60,000 a game. We're talking a temporarily-high 2.9% municipal tax rate, so $60,000 would translate to $2,068,920 per game in sales directly relating to the Coyotes. Meaning those sales wouldn't happen at the Job / Westgate without a Coyotes game.

Figure 12,000 fans a game (to be generous, that's historically high for Oct and Nov) and that works out to each Coyotes fan paying $172 for a night of Coyotes hockey. So, in addition to a $35 ticket and maybe $25 for dinner, plus $0 for parking, the average fan must also spend $112 in beer and/or new sneakers before and after the game. Sorry, the math doesn't add up. No way are the 'Yotes directly responsible for $60,000 per game in city tax revenue. The concept that the real number is "much higher" is laughable - when has the city ever under-estimated how much money the Coyotes bring in for the city? Never.

Even if it is more than that, let's say double. That meands the city pulls in $120,000 per game night, or $5 million a year. Sounds like they really need to spend $15 million a year to preserve that $5 million (grossly inflated) revenue they generate. That's some good reckoning there, fellas. Beasley would be proud.

The article also whines about McFadden's losing $18,000 to $30,000 in sales each non-game night. Won't someone please think about McFadden's! Take the high number, multiply by 41, and we get $1.25 million roughly for the year that McFadden's will lose in sales. Again, bang-up reason to spend $15 million on Jamison & Friends to manage the arena - to keep that $1.25 million in overpriced bar food sales at Westgate. Isn't it cheaper for the city to just give $1.25 million to Mr. McFadden instead of propping up a money-losing sinkhole in maroon uniforms to the tune of $15 million a year?

I also call shananigans on the idea that the NFL will move the SuperBowl they have already awarded to Arizona simply becuase Jimmy Buffet's Margaritaville across the parking lot closes up shop. Nice try though. And of course lest we forget the last SuperBowl that Glendale hosted actually cost the city about $2 million. Yes, they lost money hosting the SuperBowl. Good work, guys!

CGG is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 09:51 AM
  #700
powerstuck
User Registered
 
powerstuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Quebec City
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,350
vCash: 500
YAY Joyce is back on twitter ! And she unblocked Canadians double yay !

Btw, I found the whole Coyotes fan club.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...type=1&theater

powerstuck 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 03:08 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.