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
11-18-2012, 07:56 PM
  #801
ajmidd12
Know-It-All
 
ajmidd12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Hungover
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,553
vCash: 204
Quote:
Originally Posted by aqib View Post
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
That's where you and I differ, this whole situation with the Coyotes is, for lack of a better term, ********. (EDIT - the blocked out word started with a "b" )

The NHL is making themselves look second rate with this "class" act, combined with a lockout every 4-5 years. If it weren't for the Winnipeg Jets being back in town, I would be done with this joke of a league. You've got a bunch of overpriced overpayed players who couldn't make it in the KHL (see Evander Kane), a bunch of owners who are subsidizing half a dozen teams, and a commissioner who probably doesn't even know how to play the game.

The league hasn't shown near enough dedication to keeping teams where they are previously, why now? What makes Phoenix so special? The market obviously doesn't work.


Last edited by ajmidd12: 11-18-2012 at 08:01 PM.
ajmidd12 is offline  
Old
11-18-2012, 08:53 PM
  #802
Tinalera
Registered User
 
Tinalera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Known Universe
Posts: 6,009
vCash: 500
Part of me wants to see Clark put through the deal, for only this reason: because the almost certain legal hurdles/challenges/trips through the courts-I think we may finally hear big parts of the story come out; particularly if it involves parties who want to do their best canary impression in order to save their necks.

I expect we might see a whole lot of dirty laundry that even Borax won't be able to get some answers finally to what's really going on.

I suspect it will be rather informative

I think the Yotes fans, team stay or team go, need to hear what's really happening, because if things are even half as...."enlightening" as I think they are, it's goning to be a severe punch in the gut and a real serious look at how city politics can operate if left to its own devices.

Tinalera is offline  
Old
11-18-2012, 08:58 PM
  #803
WinterEmpire
Unregistered User
 
WinterEmpire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,416
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajmidd12 View Post
The league hasn't shown near enough dedication to keeping teams where they are previously, why now? What makes Phoenix so special? The market obviously doesn't work.
Coyotes have an arena and city willing to subsidize the team's loses. Until the one of those two things go away there is no reason to move.

WinterEmpire is offline  
Old
11-18-2012, 09:01 PM
  #804
aqib
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,364
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajmidd12 View Post
That's where you and I differ, this whole situation with the Coyotes is, for lack of a better term, ********. (EDIT - the blocked out word started with a "b" )

The NHL is making themselves look second rate with this "class" act, combined with a lockout every 4-5 years. If it weren't for the Winnipeg Jets being back in town, I would be done with this joke of a league. You've got a bunch of overpriced overpayed players who couldn't make it in the KHL (see Evander Kane), a bunch of owners who are subsidizing half a dozen teams, and a commissioner who probably doesn't even know how to play the game.

The league hasn't shown near enough dedication to keeping teams where they are previously, why now? What makes Phoenix so special? The market obviously doesn't work.
You and I are agreeing. when the league bent over backwards for the Oilers (and had they done so for the original Jets) that would be justified because those cities had fan bases that had supported the teams. Phoenix? No

aqib is offline  
Old
11-18-2012, 09:11 PM
  #805
aqib
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,364
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinalera View Post
Part of me wants to see Clark put through the deal, for only this reason: because the almost certain legal hurdles/challenges/trips through the courts-I think we may finally hear big parts of the story come out; particularly if it involves parties who want to do their best canary impression in order to save their necks.

I expect we might see a whole lot of dirty laundry that even Borax won't be able to get some answers finally to what's really going on.

I suspect it will be rather informative

I think the Yotes fans, team stay or team go, need to hear what's really happening, because if things are even half as...."enlightening" as I think they are, it's goning to be a severe punch in the gut and a real serious look at how city politics can operate if left to its own devices.
I think there will be plenty of time for ex-post analysis of the financial shenanigans of Glendale even if the deal falls apart. AZ Central will cover it and its not like Glendale council meetings won't still be online. Anyone interested can keep following it. I may peak in every once and a while. However, a lot of us will lose interest in Glendale once the team is out of there if it does happen

aqib is offline  
Old
11-18-2012, 09:17 PM
  #806
Joe T Choker
Roll Wide Roll
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Country: Italy
Posts: 23,199
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WinterEmpire View Post
Coyotes have an arena and city willing to subsidize the team's loses. Until the one of those two things go away there is no reason to move.
Unless I'm mistaken, didn't this country just have an election & didn't clark's replacement lose in the said election, this matter is closed IMO

Joe T Choker is offline  
Old
11-18-2012, 09:26 PM
  #807
Whileee
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 7,758
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathToAllButMetal View Post
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.
I'm not sure it really matters whether Clark et al. pass a motion in favor of the Jamison lease prior to their departure from city council. I can't see the contract with Jamison being signed before the new mayor and council are sworn in, and they could overturn the deal. That's what makes this whole gambit by Skeete, Clark and other council members and Jamison to pass the lease before the new council is seated seem so futile and cynical. Perhaps they are going for a symbolic act, but it will most likely poison the water more and Jamison will need all the good will he can muster from the new mayor and council to ultimately pass a durable lease agreement. If Jamison doesn't recognize that, then he is foolish. If he does, then he is just not serious about this deal.

Whileee is offline  
Old
11-18-2012, 09:34 PM
  #808
Whileee
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 7,758
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoarding Assets View Post
Unless I'm mistaken, didn't this country just have an election & didn't clark's replacement lose in the said election, this matter is closed IMO
Clark lost in the election to a candidate who has publicly questioned the subsidy. The majority of council members on the incoming council have expressed opposition to the Jamison deal, at least with its current conditions. Perhaps more importantly, there are a host of financial issues that need to be sorted out, including some serious questions about the status of the general fund after an audit note some important problems with financial transactions executed by the previous city manager and staff. It would seem prudent to let the incoming council sort out those issues before trying to pass a motion on a $320 million agreement.

Whileee is offline  
Old
11-18-2012, 09:51 PM
  #809
blues10
Registered User
 
blues10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,030
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by aqib View Post
I think there will be plenty of time for ex-post analysis of the financial shenanigans of Glendale even if the deal falls apart. AZ Central will cover it and its not like Glendale council meetings won't still be online. Anyone interested can keep following it. I may peak in every once and a while. However, a lot of us will lose interest in Glendale once the team is out of there if it does happen
Rebecca, Lisa and Sonu have tried their best. Objective -most of the time. knowledgeable- some of the time - honest opinion -some of the time -

I will stick with Sunnucks, as he actually spoke with some people involved in this.

A population of citizens who could care less where their tax dollars are spent - all of the time.

Evidence the 3 -6 citizens of a city of 300 000 who opposed the spending habits of the four musketeers at council meetings. Kudos to l'ill gary and willy d. most Canadian cities would have told them to take a hike 3+ year ago. An insurance policy? William! you have got to be kidding me!

My message to the COG - RAM this through and let the fireworks begin.

I am all in for some court shennanigans i hope the COG does not dissapoint.

Question of the day: Horatio was Ed's assistant city manager. Will he be indicted too? I was able to place a bet will a friend in Scottsdale.


Last edited by blues10: 11-18-2012 at 10:05 PM.
blues10 is offline  
Old
11-18-2012, 09:55 PM
  #810
blues10
Registered User
 
blues10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,030
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whileee View Post
Clark lost in the election to a candidate who has publicly questioned the subsidy. The majority of council members on the incoming council have expressed opposition to the Jamison deal, at least with its current conditions. Perhaps more importantly, there are a host of financial issues that need to be sorted out, including some serious questions about the status of the general fund after an audit note some important problems with financial transactions executed by the previous city manager and staff. It would seem prudent to let the incoming council sort out those issues before trying to pass a motion on a $320 million agreement.
One of the rare seats in Maricopa County where they are still not counting the ballots!

GJ should have also applied for the BMF (ballot management fee) to go in tandem with his AMF.

blues10 is offline  
Old
11-18-2012, 10:02 PM
  #811
blues10
Registered User
 
blues10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,030
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whileee View Post
I'm not sure it really matters whether Clark et al. pass a motion in favor of the Jamison lease prior to their departure from city council. I can't see the contract with Jamison being signed before the new mayor and council are sworn in, and they could overturn the deal. That's what makes this whole gambit by Skeete, Clark and other council members and Jamison to pass the lease before the new council is seated seem so futile and cynical. Perhaps they are going for a symbolic act, but it will most likely poison the water more and Jamison will need all the good will he can muster from the new mayor and council to ultimately pass a durable lease agreement. If Jamison doesn't recognize that, then he is foolish. If he does, then he is just not serious about this deal.
If he was serious about this deal wouldn't he have given up his ownership stake in the San Jose Sharks over a year ago?

GJ remains a partial proud owner of the Sharks or l'ill gary and willy d's strawman

blues10 is offline  
Old
11-18-2012, 10:52 PM
  #812
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 blues10 View Post
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.
I'm not sure why you would applaud me as I think Glendale is a terrible location for an NHL team and that the team would have been relocated a long time ago if it had been subjected to free market forces. I highlighted this point in the past although I post less often now.

Glendale decided to massively subsidize the franchise - otherwise it would have been moved a year after the bankruptcy.

My above posts are simply trying to address a new factor which is being largely ignored in this thread - the likelihood that the bottom revenue teams will get $20 million plus per year under the new CBA with few, if any, performance targets. That could be a factor in the viability of the franchise.

For the avoidance of doubt, I would like to see the team moved to a better market.

MAROONSRoad is offline  
Old
11-18-2012, 11:10 PM
  #813
blues10
Registered User
 
blues10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,030
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MAROONSRoad View Post
I'm not sure why you would applaud me as I think Glendale is a terrible location for an NHL team and that the team would have been relocated a long time ago if it had been subjected to free market forces. I highlighted this point in the past although I post less often now.

Glendale decided to massively subsidize the franchise - otherwise it would have been moved a year after the bankruptcy.

My above posts are simply trying to address a new factor which is being largely ignored in this thread - the likelihood that the bottom revenue teams will get $20 million plus per year under the new CBA with few, if any, performance targets. That could be a factor in the viability of the franchise.

For the avoidance of doubt, I would like to see the team moved to a better market.
Revenue sharing is a unique entity in the NHL. We'll charge $20.00 a ticket and give alot away for free. you charge $150 and give us some $$$$$.

Edit: Too expensive


Last edited by blues10: 11-18-2012 at 11:25 PM. Reason: erroneous post
blues10 is offline  
Old
11-19-2012, 02:12 AM
  #814
Alexdaman
Registered User
 
Alexdaman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Montreal, Qc
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,186
vCash: 50
PHX has no owner the team is basically the property of the league and the city is covering the losses. With the lockout going on I just don't see the team making profit when all of this is over.

If the season is cancelled and an agreement is reached between the league and the PA for next season. I'm quite confident that Phoenix will have moved to Quebec city and the team will play at the old colisée before moving to the new arena. I just don't see how the city of Glendale will keep on wanting fund the team and the league having to fuel more revenue sharing in the Arizona desert.

Alexdaman is offline  
Old
11-19-2012, 08:12 AM
  #815
Slashers98
Registered User
 
Slashers98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Quebec City
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,165
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blues10 View Post
If he was serious about this deal wouldn't he have given up his ownership stake in the San Jose Sharks over a year ago?

GJ remains a partial proud owner of the Sharks or l'ill gary and willy d's strawman
Jamison is not a partial owner of the Sharks any more and he was kicked out of his CEO job with the Sharks in 2010: http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=5520199

The Sharks have lost money every year since the lockout and Jamison is not the messiah that everyone is waiting for.

Slashers98 is offline  
Old
11-19-2012, 09:08 AM
  #816
blues10
Registered User
 
blues10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,030
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slashers98 View Post
Jamison is not a partial owner of the Sharks any more and he was kicked out of his CEO job with the Sharks in 2010: http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=5520199

The Sharks have lost money every year since the lockout and Jamison is not the messiah that everyone is waiting for.
Simply not true. He is still an owner just not CEO. That is why he is a strawman for Gary.

Quote:
SAN JOSE SPORTS & ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES OWNERSHIP GROUP Kevin Compton, Hasso Plattner, Stratton Sclavos, Gary Valenzuela, Gordon Russell, Rudy Staedler, Floyd Kvamme, Greg Jamison, Harvey Armstrong, Tom McEnery, George Gund III



http://sharks.nhl.com/club/page.htm?id=79735&navid=NAV

blues10 is offline  
Old
11-19-2012, 09:21 AM
  #817
cbcwpg
Registered User
 
cbcwpg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Between the Pipes
Country: United Nations
Posts: 5,741
vCash: 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by blues10 View Post
Simply not true. He is still an owner just not CEO. That is why he is a strawman for Gary.

http://sharks.nhl.com/club/page.htm?id=79735&navid=NAV
Also according to the last Media Guide published by the Sharks, Greg Jamison is still part of the ownership group. A 5 second Google search to find the answer.

He still has a place to call home when this Coyotes fiasco finally comes to an end.

cbcwpg is offline  
Old
11-19-2012, 09:22 AM
  #818
Slashers98
Registered User
 
Slashers98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Quebec City
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,165
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blues10 View Post
Simply not true. He is still an owner just not CEO. That is why he is a strawman for Gary.






http://sharks.nhl.com/club/page.htm?id=79735&navid=NAV
I'm sure that's simply because their Website is not updated.

Slashers98 is offline  
Old
11-19-2012, 09:46 AM
  #819
cbcwpg
Registered User
 
cbcwpg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Between the Pipes
Country: United Nations
Posts: 5,741
vCash: 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slashers98 View Post
I'm sure that's simply because their Website is not updated.
As of an AUG 20, 2012 article published by the San Jose Mercury News :

http://www.mobilitytechzone.com/news...20/6520945.htm

Greg Jamison Age: 62 Occupation: Former San Jose Sharks CEO; will give up share of Sharks if successful in current effort to purchase the Phoenix Coyotes and keep the team in Arizona.

Outside interests: On the board of the Monterey Peninsula Foundation, which oversees the AT&T Pebble Beach National Pro-Am.


Makes perfect sense when you think about it. Why would you give up ownership in the Sharks until you actually become the owner of the Coyotes, which has a very good chance of never happening.

cbcwpg is offline  
Old
11-19-2012, 09:48 AM
  #820
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Pacific NW
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,208
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slashers98 View Post
I'm sure that's simply because their Website is not updated.
I havent seen, heard or read anything that contradicts the Sharks website. Indeed, hard to believe that an "edgy" tech savvy club in what is effectively Silicon Valley would be so remiss as to "forget" to update their website. Ive been watching that fairly closely as it would be telling. You'd think that if he had sold his shares an announcement would've been forthcoming from both the team & the league, indicative of his intentions to sever ties with the Sharks, freeing him up to go "all in" with the Coyotes. That he hasnt done so as of yet combined with his purchase of a Junior franchise in the Bay area last summer raises some troubling questions. Youd think if he was confident in his ability to raise the capitol requirements to buy the team, get a deal done with Glendale & affect a resurrection he'd have divested himself of his San Jose' interests but no, he's still a minority owner, an NHL insider, former member of the all powerful 10 member Executive Board.

Killion is online now  
Old
11-19-2012, 10:05 AM
  #821
Slashers98
Registered User
 
Slashers98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Quebec City
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,165
vCash: 500
All right guys, I guess you're right and that Jamison is still a minority owner of the Sharks! Good for him, because he won't buy the Coyotes!

Slashers98 is offline  
Old
11-19-2012, 10:39 AM
  #822
NHLfan4life
Who is PKP???
 
NHLfan4life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Glendale
Country: United States
Posts: 688
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by aqib View Post
You and I are agreeing. when the league bent over backwards for the Oilers (and had they done so for the original Jets) that would be justified because those cities had fan bases that had supported the teams. Phoenix? No
As has been said and proven many times over, the Jets had the lowest ticket prices at the time and the lowest attendance. They didn't support their team at that time. Sure, they had lots of fans but they weren't going to the games. They had a last minute rally with 8000 fans but it was too late. Nobody (government or otherwise) wanted to pay to keep the team there. It wasn't just the NHL not wanting to bend over backwards, it was that there was nobody to negotiate with to keep them there. Winnipeg basically said NOPE.

NHLfan4life is offline  
Old
11-19-2012, 10:49 AM
  #823
cbcwpg
Registered User
 
cbcwpg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Between the Pipes
Country: United Nations
Posts: 5,741
vCash: 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by NHLfan4life View Post
As has been said and proven many times over, the Jets had the lowest ticket prices at the time and the lowest attendance. They didn't support their team at that time. Sure, they had lots of fans but they weren't going to the games. They had a last minute rally with 8000 fans but it was too late. Nobody (government or otherwise) wanted to pay to keep the team there. It wasn't just the NHL not wanting to bend over backwards, it was that there was nobody to negotiate with to keep them there. Winnipeg basically said NOPE.
The Jets 1.0 has been hashed over so may times, it no longer needs to be mentioned. Teams leave for various reasons, that's just a fact, and things change.

I crunched the published attendance numbers ( yeah I know they are not accurate, but apples to apples ) for the Coyotes before BK and the Jets 1.0 because I was curious myself. And what I found was interesting.... Both teams in both cities averaged the same 81% capacity attendance. So attendance wise, nothing has changed for this franchise, no matter where they play.

cbcwpg is offline  
Old
11-19-2012, 10:55 AM
  #824
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Pacific NW
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,208
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slashers98 View Post
All right guys, I guess you're right and that Jamison is still a minority owner of the Sharks! Good for him, because he won't buy the Coyotes!
.... ya, its not really a case of wanting to disprove your contention that Jamison had indeed sold his interests in San Jose Slashers, frankly I wish it were true, as it would demonstrate confidence in his ability to close the transaction in Glendale. That he hasnt done so as I mentioned earlier is a wee bit troubling, though to some extent I can understand why he wouldnt have done so. If the sale craters and he's sold his interests in SJSE, absolutely looking at the NHL from the outside in. He has investments of over two decades in San Jose, the community at large. Selling his shares should he actually be able to pull this off shouldnt be a problem, probably has standing offers. Couple of phone calls & he's out, off the books.

Killion is online now  
Old
11-19-2012, 11:02 AM
  #825
Slashers98
Registered User
 
Slashers98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Quebec City
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,165
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
.... ya, its not really a case of wanting to disprove your contention that Jamison had indeed sold his interests in San Jose Slashers, frankly I wish it were true, as it would demonstrate confidence in his ability to close the transaction in Glendale. That he hasnt done so as I mentioned earlier is a wee bit troubling, though to some extent I can understand why he wouldnt have done so. If the sale craters and he's sold his interests in SJSE, absolutely looking at the NHL from the outside in. He has investments of over two decades in San Jose, the community at large. Selling his shares should he actually be able to pull this off shouldnt be a problem, probably has standing offers. Couple of phone calls & he's out, off the books.
No problem Killion, I understand your argument and it makes a lot of sense actually.

Slashers98 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 02:21 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.