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.

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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-17-2012, 04:30 PM
  #776
Confucius
Registered User
 
Confucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,537
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMT21 View Post
Does it stretch the imagination to think that the new council could enlist the services of GWI to help them fight to overturn the lease?

GJ must realize that the new council will use whatever resources are at their disposal to fight this lease that the lame duck council will try to push thru.

It still amazes me that the outgoing council (at least half of them anyway) could make a decision of this financial magnitude without giving 2nd thought to the wishes of the new council of the future of Glendale.

GWI and the COG working together towards the same goal..... It's bizzaro world
Talk about GWI getting a gift. The new council could turn over everything the GWI asks for and maybe even some stuff they didn't.

Confucius is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 04:44 PM
  #777
Whileee
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,568
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blues10 View Post
Indeed. However, wasn't the June lease still missing some parts and was actually incomplete?

Wouldn't this current lease be complete in its entirety and ready to be executed, unlike the incomplete lease from June?
Sure, just like the Hulsizer lease that was approved.

The issue is that there are built-in delays with the COG process (permitting a petition drive), and there are a number of steps required before all three parties would be in a position to sign the contract (including conclusion of the sale of the franchise from the NHL to the "Team Owner"). As long as the lease remains unsigned, the COG is under no obligation to carry out the terms, and the new council could overturn the decision or put it on hold, etc.

The bottom line is that I don't think that a lease will actually be signed and carried out unless the new mayor and council are on board, and it seems that Jamison either doesn't understand that or he doesn't care.

Whileee is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 05:01 PM
  #778
blues10
Registered User
 
blues10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,040
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whileee View Post
Sure, just like the Hulsizer lease that was approved.

The issue is that there are built-in delays with the COG process (permitting a petition drive), and there are a number of steps required before all three parties would be in a position to sign the contract (including conclusion of the sale of the franchise from the NHL to the "Team Owner"). As long as the lease remains unsigned, the COG is under no obligation to carry out the terms, and the new council could overturn the decision or put it on hold, etc.

The bottom line is that I don't think that a lease will actually be signed and carried out unless the new mayor and council are on board, and it seems that Jamison either doesn't understand that or he doesn't care.
The man has certainly not been acting with any urgency. Perhaps this time once the lease is approved he will operate a little quicker, assuming he still has the "speculators" lined up.

blues10 is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 05:28 PM
  #779
sipowicz
The Original
 
sipowicz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,694
vCash: 1989
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whileee View Post
Sure, just like the Hulsizer lease that was approved.

The issue is that there are built-in delays with the COG process (permitting a petition drive), and there are a number of steps required before all three parties would be in a position to sign the contract (including conclusion of the sale of the franchise from the NHL to the "Team Owner"). As long as the lease remains unsigned, the COG is under no obligation to carry out the terms, and the new council could overturn the decision or put it on hold, etc.

The bottom line is that I don't think that a lease will actually be signed and carried out unless the new mayor and council are on board, and it seems that Jamison either doesn't understand that or he doesn't care.
As Bettmans straw-man in this fiasco, Old Gramps Jamison does as he is told, one week he is ready to sign, the next week he is not, he has the money to buy the team and then he does not... Gramps will be handsomely rewarded by the NHL when the dust settles, they may rename an award after him.

sipowicz is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 05:48 PM
  #780
checkerdome
Registered User
 
checkerdome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 848
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whileee View Post
As I understand it, city council will be asked to pass an ordinance authorizing the city manager to finalize and sign a lease with the "Arena Manager" and the "Team Owner".

The ordinance wouldn't go into effect right away (I think it will take effect after 30 days), because it's not an emergency. During that time, citizens could mount a petition to send it to a referendum. Even if that doesn't happen, the lease contracts will not go into effect until they are signed by all three parties (COG, Arena Manager and Team Owner). Before that happens, there has to be due diligence and the NHL has to sell the team to Jamison's investment group. My sense is that the NHL will not want to complete the sale to the Jamison investment group until there is clear sailing on the lease. During those delays, a new mayor and council will be sworn in (at the first council meeting in December, I think) and could overturn the motion passed by the previous city council.

That's why I think that this plan by Jamison and the gang of four council members is ultimately doomed, and could spell the end of efforts to keep the Coyotes in Glendale. It seems to signal that neither Jamison nor the NHL have any intention of negotiating better terms to help out Glendale. In that case, I think that there are too many opposing groups and too many mechanisms to kill the deal. A rushed passing of a motion in favor of this lease won't circumvent that, and is likely to just increase the opposition within city council and with the public. It's simply a very bad idea.
Thanks.

This explains a lot.

checkerdome is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 05:59 PM
  #781
blues10
Registered User
 
blues10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,040
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sipowicz View Post
As Bettmans straw-man in this fiasco, Old Gramps Jamison does as he is told, one week he is ready to sign, the next week he is not, he has the money to buy the team and then he does not... Gramps will be handsomely rewarded by the NHL when the dust settles, they may rename an award after him.
The award could be given anually to the team with the most delay of game penalties.

blues10 is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 06:02 PM
  #782
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Morocco
Country: Morocco
Posts: 22,104
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whileee View Post
The bottom line is that I don't think that a lease will actually be signed and carried out unless the new mayor and council are on board, and it seems that Jamison either doesn't understand that or he doesn't care.
... sadly, I get the strong impression its all about "impressions" Whileee. The total absence of anykind of serious public statements or proclamations, transparency, public dialogue, well, to suggest the man has been facile, duplicitous, disingenuous, less than forthcoming...

Killion is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 06:19 PM
  #783
Whileee
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,568
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
... sadly, I get the strong impression its all about "impressions" Whileee. The total absence of anykind of serious public statements or proclamations, transparency, public dialogue, well, to suggest the man has been facile, duplicitous, disingenuous, less than forthcoming...
I completely agree. If nothing else, the loyal groups supporting the Coyotes in Glendale could use some PR support from the guy. Instead, he's the mysterious, silent guy from California that wants hundreds of millions of dollars to manage Glendale's arena.

Whileee is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 06:28 PM
  #784
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Morocco
Country: Morocco
Posts: 22,104
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whileee View Post
Instead, he's the mysterious, silent guy....
.... spooky. Im watching High Plains Drifter at this very moment. Same dealeo.
Gets the citizenry to give him everything theyve got, paints the town red and then eff's off.

Killion is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 06:33 PM
  #785
cbcwpg
Registered User
 
cbcwpg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Between the Pipes
Country: United Nations
Posts: 5,928
vCash: 350
http://www.azcentral.com/community/g...n-coyotes.html

A sports economist who studies arena feasibility said the Jamison deal appeared excessive, with what appears to be a subsidy built in beyond what it would likely cost to run the arena. “As I see it, what they are doing is disguising a subsidy as a facility-management charge,” said Joel Maxcy of Temple University in Philadelphia.

YA THINK!?!?

Interim City Manager Horatio Skeete called the proposal a “package deal,” in response to it being questioned as a subsidy.

A 2010 study by the International Association of Venue Managers, a Texas-based group that tracks venues, found that among 21 arenas with a seating capacity of more than 12,000, the average annual operating expense is nearly $6million. By contrast, the mayor, who has supported deals with other Coyotes suitors, said the management fee for Jamison is a subsidy to help defray the hockey team’s losses.

No other council members responded to repeated requests for comment on the matter apart from Councilwoman Yvonne Knaack, who said she wouldn’t comment ahead of Tuesday’s workshop.

cbcwpg is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 07:16 PM
  #786
mesamonster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Scottsdale, AZ.
Country: United States
Posts: 1,043
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sipowicz View Post
As Bettmans straw-man in this fiasco, Old Gramps Jamison does as he is told, one week he is ready to sign, the next week he is not, he has the money to buy the team and then he does not... Gramps will be handsomely rewarded by the NHL when the dust settles, they may rename an award after him.

Said like it is! Gramps is nothing more than a shell game foisted upon this franchise by his puppeteer GB. Delusions of grandeur and putrid gullibility have led so many to actually believe that GJ is really a buyer. I have to ask , what has he said or done for any logical thinking human being to conclude anything? Honestly the last time we heard from this fraudster, in any meaningful way, was many months ago and even then his message and commitment was sketchy at the very best. Those who have used this thread to ask thew simple question of investor suitability are on the right track. To blindly hand over $320MM to a man who has yet to show anyone his or his investors balance sheets is reckless fiduciary disregard for the constituencies who elected them. All to say, GJ may see a lease from the Council but the NHL will never see the money. The last franchise that sold and had perhaps stronger economic fundamentals than PHX was TB for $110MM! Why on earth would anyone pay $170MM for something of lesser value? The answer: THEY WOULDN`T!!!!!!!

mesamonster is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 07:31 PM
  #787
Whileee
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,568
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcwpg View Post
http://www.azcentral.com/community/g...n-coyotes.html

A sports economist who studies arena feasibility said the Jamison deal appeared excessive, with what appears to be a subsidy built in beyond what it would likely cost to run the arena. “As I see it, what they are doing is disguising a subsidy as a facility-management charge,” said Joel Maxcy of Temple University in Philadelphia.

YA THINK!?!?

Interim City Manager Horatio Skeete called the proposal a “package deal,” in response to it being questioned as a subsidy.

A 2010 study by the International Association of Venue Managers, a Texas-based group that tracks venues, found that among 21 arenas with a seating capacity of more than 12,000, the average annual operating expense is nearly $6million. By contrast, the mayor, who has supported deals with other Coyotes suitors, said the management fee for Jamison is a subsidy to help defray the hockey team’s losses.

No other council members responded to repeated requests for comment on the matter apart from Councilwoman Yvonne Knaack, who said she wouldn’t comment ahead of Tuesday’s workshop.
It's not a very inspired disguise, but I guess that Skeete et al. are thinking it'll fool enough of the people for enough time....


Whileee is offline  
Old
11-18-2012, 12:14 AM
  #788
MAROONSRoad
f/k/a Ghost
 
MAROONSRoad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Maroons Rd.
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,069
vCash: 500
I haven't seen it addressed here, but how does enhanced revenue sharing play into any survival scenario for the Coyotes?

- Expired CBA provided $140 million per year.
- NHL has apparently agreed to up that to $220 million per year.
- NHPA has proposed Bettman have access to tens of millions - say $80 million -- per year to spend on troubled franchises as he or some committee sees fit.

So the Coyote could get their regular revenue sharing of around $15 million per year and an additional $10 million or more from Bettman.

MAROONSRoad is offline  
Old
11-18-2012, 09:35 AM
  #789
cbcwpg
Registered User
 
cbcwpg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Between the Pipes
Country: United Nations
Posts: 5,928
vCash: 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by MAROONSRoad View Post
I haven't seen it addressed here, but how does enhanced revenue sharing play into any survival scenario for the Coyotes?

- Expired CBA provided $140 million per year.
- NHL has apparently agreed to up that to $220 million per year.
- NHPA has proposed Bettman have access to tens of millions - say $80 million -- per year to spend on troubled franchises as he or some committee sees fit.

So the Coyote could get their regular revenue sharing of around $15 million per year and an additional $10 million or more from Bettman.
To get revenue sharing dollars they have to meet the revenue sharing criteria. The rumour is that along with more revenue sharing dollars, the NHL will change the revenue sharing criteria to make it easier to get those dollars. So you could be right... the Coyotes could end up getiing significant dollars ( ~ $20M ) each and evey year.

Which brings up a question some taxpayer in Glendale should be asking... If the NHL is going to end up giving say $20M to Jamison every year, why does he need $15M from the CoG each year? Should the AMF not be lowered to $6M ( which is the norm ) and let the NHL revenue sharing take care of any short-comings Jamison has?

cbcwpg is offline  
Old
11-18-2012, 10:33 AM
  #790
OthmarAmmann
Money making machine
 
OthmarAmmann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: NYC
Posts: 2,563
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MAROONSRoad View Post
I haven't seen it addressed here, but how does enhanced revenue sharing play into any survival scenario for the Coyotes?

- Expired CBA provided $140 million per year.
- NHL has apparently agreed to up that to $220 million per year.
- NHPA has proposed Bettman have access to tens of millions - say $80 million -- per year to spend on troubled franchises as he or some committee sees fit.

So the Coyote could get their regular revenue sharing of around $15 million per year and an additional $10 million or more from Bettman.
plus anywhere between $11 mm to $18 mm from COG. If they can't make a go of it with $40 mm free money then wtf.

OthmarAmmann is offline  
Old
11-18-2012, 12:00 PM
  #791
madhi19
Registered User
 
madhi19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Cold and Dark place!
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,207
vCash: 500
I don't see the revenue sharing slush fund run by comittee getting any leg. And if it does the NHL and PA derserve the crap infighting and whinning it going to get. Owners accusing other owners of picking financial winners and players accusing other players of taking their bread and butter! It would get ugly pretty fast.


Last edited by madhi19: 11-18-2012 at 01:57 PM.
madhi19 is offline  
Old
11-18-2012, 12:35 PM
  #792
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 cbcwpg View Post
To get revenue sharing dollars they have to meet the revenue sharing criteria. The rumour is that along with more revenue sharing dollars, the NHL will change the revenue sharing criteria to make it easier to get those dollars. So you could be right... the Coyotes could end up getiing significant dollars ( ~ $20M ) each and evey year.

Which brings up a question some taxpayer in Glendale should be asking... If the NHL is going to end up giving say $20M to Jamison every year, why does he need $15M from the CoG each year? Should the AMF not be lowered to $6M ( which is the norm ) and let the NHL revenue sharing take care of any short-comings Jamison has?
Why are you estimating only $20 million per year? There is $220 in revenue sharing money in the pot. The top 10 teams will receive nothing and will contribute the most, in excess of $100 million in the current proposal. The middle 10 teams will likely receive less than the bottom 10 teams.

If you divided the money between 20 teams equally it would amount to $11 million per season. If the bottom 10 teams receive more on average, it could easily be around $30 million per team. It could be in excess of $30 million for the bottom 5 teams, if the dollars are distributed according to need.

Let me give an example

Assumptions:
- $220 million per year in revenue sharing
- Bottom 15 teams in revenue eligible for revenue sharing
- Top 10 teams contribute $100 million into pot

1-10 teams: (minus 10 million per year)
11- 15 teams: no revenue sharing
16- 20 teams: 5 million per year ($25 million in revenue sharing)
21 - 25 teams: 10 million per year ($50 million in revenue sharing)
26 - 30 teams): 30 million per year ($150 million in revenue sharing)

That adds up to $225 million in revenue sharing.

And the NHLPA is asking for $260 million per year in revenue sharing per year, not $220 as used in the example above!


Last edited by MAROONSRoad: 11-18-2012 at 02:45 PM.
MAROONSRoad is offline  
Old
11-18-2012, 01:28 PM
  #793
MNNumbers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,218
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MAROONSRoad View Post
Why are you estimating only $20 million per year? There is $220 in revenue sharing money in the pot. The top 10 teams will receive nothing and will contribute the most, in excess of $100 million in the current proposal. The middle 10 teams will likely receive less than the bottom 10 teams.

If you divided the money between 20 teams equally it would amount to $22 million per season. If the bottom 10 teams receive more on average, it could easily be around $30 million per team. It could be in excess of $30 million for the bottom 5 teams, if the dollars are distributed according to need.

Let me give an example

Assumptions:
- $220 million per year in revenue sharing
- Bottom 15 teams in revenue eligible for revenue sharing
- Top 10 teams contribute $100 million into pot

1-10 teams: (minus 10 million per year)
11- 15 teams: no revenue sharing
16- 20 teams: 5 million per year ($25 million in revenue sharing)
21 - 25 teams: 10 million per year ($50 million in revenue sharing)
26 - 30 teams): 30 million per year ($150 million in revenue sharing)

That adds up to $225 million in revenue sharing.

And the NHLPA is asking for $260 million per year in revenue sharing per year, not $220 as used in the example above!
Maroons, I see what you are trying to do. However, I can't get your numbers to add up. You have 10 teams contributing 10M each. That's only 100M. But, the general schedule adds up OK.

I would prefer to see something else. I would prefer to see revenue sharing of this kind:
10% of gate receipts for each game to the road team. 10% of local TV contracts into a pool split evenly among all 30 teams.

MNNumbers is offline  
Old
11-18-2012, 01:39 PM
  #794
ajmidd12
Know-It-All
 
ajmidd12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Hungover
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,553
vCash: 204
Quote:
Originally Posted by MAROONSRoad View Post
Why are you estimating only $20 million per year? There is $220 in revenue sharing money in the pot. The top 10 teams will receive nothing and will contribute the most, in excess of $100 million in the current proposal. The middle 10 teams will likely receive less than the bottom 10 teams.

If you divided the money between 20 teams equally it would amount to $22 million per season. If the bottom 10 teams receive more on average, it could easily be around $30 million per team. It could be in excess of $30 million for the bottom 5 teams, if the dollars are distributed according to need.

Let me give an example

Assumptions:
- $220 million per year in revenue sharing
- Bottom 15 teams in revenue eligible for revenue sharing
- Top 10 teams contribute $100 million into pot

1-10 teams: (minus 10 million per year)
11- 15 teams: no revenue sharing
16- 20 teams: 5 million per year ($25 million in revenue sharing)
21 - 25 teams: 10 million per year ($50 million in revenue sharing)
26 - 30 teams): 30 million per year ($150 million in revenue sharing)

That adds up to $225 million in revenue sharing.

And the NHLPA is asking for $260 million per year in revenue sharing per year, not $220 as used in the example above!
Basically zero incentive to try and get back into the black...

And this my friends is why this league is a complete joke, you have a team hemmoraging money in excess of $40M / season, yet the team still exists?

Things like this would never happen in the NFL, the team would have been long since moved after the first potential buyer balked at the table.

ajmidd12 is offline  
Old
11-18-2012, 01:55 PM
  #795
MNNumbers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,218
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajmidd12 View Post
Basically zero incentive to try and get back into the black...

And this my friends is why this league is a complete joke, you have a team hemmoraging money in excess of $40M / season, yet the team still exists?

Things like this would never happen in the NFL, the team would have been long since moved after the first potential buyer balked at the table.
I agree Ajmidd,

That's why I say the revenue sharing should be a %age of gate and local TV, rather than a direct giveaway from the rich to the poor. If the gate is shared a little, and local TV money shared a little from a pool, it will not allow any franchise to be simply riding along sucking money from others.

MNNumbers is offline  
Old
11-18-2012, 01:58 PM
  #796
madhi19
Registered User
 
madhi19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Cold and Dark place!
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,207
vCash: 500
The only way to do revenue sharing and not have serious infighting is a set of rules that all teams must follow to get the cash. You can loosen up the rules but it must apply to every teams. And with looser rules more teams will qualify for revenue sharing and the money will have to be divided fairly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MNNumbers View Post
I agree Ajmidd,

That's why I say the revenue sharing should be a %age of gate and local TV, rather than a direct giveaway from the rich to the poor. If the gate is shared a little, and local TV money shared a little from a pool, it will not allow any franchise to be simply riding along sucking money from others.
It not a bad idea but that system will need some league standard that teams will have to meet otherwise you're back to square one. Plus you likely have to move the Leafs or the Habs in the west otherwise you have the Habs and Leafs sharing both with each other their gate six times.


Last edited by madhi19: 11-18-2012 at 02:08 PM.
madhi19 is offline  
Old
11-18-2012, 02:49 PM
  #797
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 MNNumbers View Post
Maroons, I see what you are trying to do. However, I can't get your numbers to add up. You have 10 teams contributing 10M each. That's only 100M. But, the general schedule adds up OK.

I would prefer to see something else. I would prefer to see revenue sharing of this kind:
10% of gate receipts for each game to the road team. 10% of local TV contracts into a pool split evenly among all 30 teams.
I'm assuming that revenue sharing will continue to be funded from a variety of sources as it is now, including 50% of gate of playoff games, a cut of national TV revenues, and contribution from top 10 teams.

....

The bottom line on my above posts, however, as it relates to this thread is this: teams like the Coyotes are likely to receive $20 - $30 million in revenue sharing under the new CBA and that revenue sharing is likely to come with fewer strings attached such as meeting of performance targets. At least that appears to be the case if reports in the media on the current negotiations are correct.

MAROONSRoad is offline  
Old
11-18-2012, 05:25 PM
  #798
blues10
Registered User
 
blues10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,040
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MAROONSRoad View Post
I haven't seen it addressed here, but how does enhanced revenue sharing play into any survival scenario for the Coyotes?

- Expired CBA provided $140 million per year.
- NHL has apparently agreed to up that to $220 million per year.
- NHPA has proposed Bettman have access to tens of millions - say $80 million -- per year to spend on troubled franchises as he or some committee sees fit.

So the Coyote could get their regular revenue sharing of around $15 million per year and an additional $10 million or more from Bettman.

I applaud you for your attempt at some sanity to keep a team that should be contracted or relocated.

go yotes go

Only $40 million plus in handouts to be a possible break even business.

Pass the hat around the dressing room and the others guys can keep this disaster afloat.

blues10 is offline  
Old
11-18-2012, 07:42 PM
  #799
aqib
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,392
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajmidd12 View Post
Basically zero incentive to try and get back into the black...

And this my friends is why this league is a complete joke, you have a team hemmoraging money in excess of $40M / season, yet the team still exists?

Things like this would never happen in the NFL, the team would have been long since moved after the first potential buyer balked at the table.
The NFL is a different business, they pool so much revenue and that you can make a profit before selling a ticket. I don't mind the NHL going the extra mile to save a team if the fan base has shown commitment like the Oilers in 97, but even they got weeks to get an ownership group together not years. Year 4 has to be the end

aqib is offline  
Old
11-18-2012, 07:53 PM
  #800
DeathToAllButMetal
Let it all burn.
 
DeathToAllButMetal's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,351
vCash: 500
Barely following this insanity any more, but want to post that I can't believe AZ doesn't have lame-duck rules for municipalities. We do in Ontario, for the run-up period before municipal elections and for the time between the elections and the swearing-in dates. Smart policy to have, to prevent exactly the sort of idiocy being contemplated in Glendale right now by the likes of Clark.

DeathToAllButMetal 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 03:27 AM.

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

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