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
Notices

The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

Sportsnet: Jamison group about to finalize Coyotes purchase

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-06-2013, 03:51 PM
  #26
cutchemist42
Registered User
 
cutchemist42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,012
vCash: 500
The finances won't be there in a few years, the NHL should be embarrassed this is what it takes to keep a franchise in Phoenix.

cutchemist42 is offline  
Old
01-06-2013, 03:55 PM
  #27
cbcwpg
Registered User
 
cbcwpg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Between the Pipes
Country: United Nations
Posts: 9,633
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cutchemist42 View Post
The finances won't be there in a few years, the NHL should be embarrassed this is what it takes to keep a franchise in Phoenix.
They should be, but for some reason I see Bettman and Daly in thier offices giving each other high-fives and saying "suckers" when ever talk of the CoG comes up.

cbcwpg is offline  
Old
01-06-2013, 05:14 PM
  #28
Tom ServoMST3K
WPG PO Wins: 0
 
Tom ServoMST3K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Just off 75
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,377
vCash: 949
Ive followed this for a while, and coulor me unimpressed. Time to put up or shut up Jameison

Tom ServoMST3K is offline  
Old
01-06-2013, 07:04 PM
  #29
Mork
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,258
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Mork
I think something really will happen, more or less concurrently with the end of the lockout. What it is that will happen beats me, but somehow this should get resolved.

Mork is offline  
Old
01-06-2013, 07:23 PM
  #30
atomic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 287
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puckclektr View Post
So that means that the coyotes are staying. **** this. I am done with the NHL. I wish the NHL would just give up on these markets and put another one here in Toronto were there is a demand for it. Ballsille proved that there is a demand for tickets here. It is also indicative with the sales of leaf tickets. Yet sales of teams for a lot less money to Nashville Phoenix etc.
The lockout was enough to **** me off. Now I have to continue driving to buffalo or Detroit to watch a game. Because the only way I can get into the acc is to buy from a scalper and it is going to cost me 400 a pair for crappy seats.
Damn you NHL.
If the Coyotes were going to move they wouldn't move to the Toronto area anyway.

atomic is offline  
Old
01-06-2013, 07:29 PM
  #31
atomic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 287
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DyerMaker66 View Post
Yeah: "Pay 300 bucks a seat or don't watch hockey at all" is a great choice! Way to know your fanbase, NHL! Way to capitalize on underutilized markets! Great business strategy!
you can watch on tv. we have two nfl teams within 30 miles of each other here. (Redskins and Ravens) and still the cheapest seat is 200 bucks for a ravens game and were talking 70,000 seats per stadium. I don't go to games I watch them on TV. Instead of blaming the NHL how about blaming people paying crazy prices for tickets.

atomic is offline  
Old
01-06-2013, 07:33 PM
  #32
Wingsfan2965*
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 6,746
vCash: 500
Wasn't the team on the verge of being sold two years ago?

Wingsfan2965* is offline  
Old
01-06-2013, 07:51 PM
  #33
Jesus Christ Horburn
Registered User
 
Jesus Christ Horburn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Country: Ireland
Posts: 13,942
vCash: 500
Show me the money.

Jesus Christ Horburn is offline  
Old
01-06-2013, 07:54 PM
  #34
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 17,614
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cutchemist42 View Post
The finances won't be there in a few years, the NHL should be embarrassed this is what it takes to keep a franchise in Phoenix.
Well, think about it.

The worst thing that can happen when owning a franchise is to lose money.

However, when someone else (in this case, the city of Glendale) is willing to cover those losses, who cares? I'm not a Glendale taxpayer, you're not a Glendale taxpayer, and I'd be willing to bet that a good 99.5% of us on these boards aren't Glendale taxpayers. Those are the only people who this actually affects. If Glendale wants to bankrupt their city, what's that to you or me?

Mayor Bee is offline  
Old
01-06-2013, 08:32 PM
  #35
Mork
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,258
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Mork
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
Well, think about it.

The worst thing that can happen when owning a franchise is to lose money.

However, when someone else (in this case, the city of Glendale) is willing to cover those losses, who cares? I'm not a Glendale taxpayer, you're not a Glendale taxpayer, and I'd be willing to bet that a good 99.5% of us on these boards aren't Glendale taxpayers. Those are the only people who this actually affects. If Glendale wants to bankrupt their city, what's that to you or me?
I agree.

I've never seen anyone from Glendale complain on these boards about the cost of the Yotes. If it's fine with them, it's fine with me too.

They can pay the freight to their hearts' content.

I would only guess that either they are apathetic about the whole thing, or somehow think that paying whatever it is they're going to be paying is in the long-term interests of their community. God Bless them either way: it's their town, and their money.

Mork is offline  
Old
01-06-2013, 09:43 PM
  #36
DyerMaker66*
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 10,718
vCash: 547
Quote:
Originally Posted by atomic View Post
you can watch on tv. we have two nfl teams within 30 miles of each other here. (Redskins and Ravens) and still the cheapest seat is 200 bucks for a ravens game and were talking 70,000 seats per stadium. I don't go to games I watch them on TV. Instead of blaming the NHL how about blaming people paying crazy prices for tickets.
Yes: I should blame people who actually watch the sport and support the league! It's their fault my city doesn't have a team.

DyerMaker66* is offline  
Old
01-06-2013, 09:44 PM
  #37
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 50,219
vCash: 1020
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puckclektr View Post
So that means that the coyotes are staying. **** this. I am done with the NHL.
So, you just made it through the entire lockout and THIS is what finally pushed you over the edge?

tarheelhockey is online now  
Old
01-06-2013, 09:54 PM
  #38
JetsFlyHigh
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 683
vCash: 500
Let Glendale run itself to the ground. Won't be too long. I heard JIG is importing investors. That's desperate and laughable.

JetsFlyHigh is offline  
Old
01-06-2013, 10:17 PM
  #39
Butch 19
King me
 
Butch 19's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Geographical Oddity
Country: United States
Posts: 11,734
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
So, you just made it through the entire lockout and THIS is what finally pushed you over the edge?
nice!

I open up a Phoenix Coyote thread and I see more comments re the mapleleafs. I guess some things won't ever change!

Butch 19 is offline  
Old
01-06-2013, 10:47 PM
  #40
cobra427
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 4,079
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian Airlines View Post
I'm confident that the GWI will step in the moment that a deal is announced. This deal is against Arizona state law. It'll never go through.
Do you know how the GWI operates? It is against the law, love to hear your basis? Never go through, based on what?

cobra427 is offline  
Old
01-06-2013, 11:02 PM
  #41
TheLegend
Moderator
Megathread Gadfly
 
TheLegend's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Orbiting BoH
Country: United States
Posts: 7,737
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuelphStormer View Post
can someone clarify?

if the purchase is not completed by jan 31, does the AMF lapse? and if so, does the new council then have the legal ability to rework that agreement?
The current AMF would be dead.

Any new agreement would be up to the presiding city council... if they choose to even negotiate one.

TheLegend is online now  
Old
01-06-2013, 11:07 PM
  #42
TheLegend
Moderator
Megathread Gadfly
 
TheLegend's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Orbiting BoH
Country: United States
Posts: 7,737
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian Airlines View Post
I'm confident that the GWI will step in the moment that a deal is announced. This deal is against Arizona state law. It'll never go through.
How is it illegal????

Even the legal minds in the main thread have yet to explain how it is so.

TheLegend is online now  
Old
01-06-2013, 11:10 PM
  #43
TheLegend
Moderator
Megathread Gadfly
 
TheLegend's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Orbiting BoH
Country: United States
Posts: 7,737
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WJG View Post
Show me the money.
Acting as agent for the NHL???

TheLegend is online now  
Old
01-06-2013, 11:12 PM
  #44
TheLegend
Moderator
Megathread Gadfly
 
TheLegend's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Orbiting BoH
Country: United States
Posts: 7,737
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DyerMaker66 View Post
Yes: I should blame people who actually watch the sport and support the league! It's their fault my city doesn't have a team.
There is a plethora of factors why you're city doesn't have an NHL team (where ever that is). That isn't one of them.

TheLegend is online now  
Old
01-07-2013, 12:09 AM
  #45
wildthing202
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Douglas, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 909
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to wildthing202 Send a message via Yahoo to wildthing202
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLegend View Post
How is it illegal????

Even the legal minds in the main thread have yet to explain how it is so.
Gift Clause?

Article 9 Section 7 of the Arizona State Constitution.

7. Gift or loan of credit; subsidies; stock ownership; joint ownership
Section 7. Neither the state, nor any county, city, town, municipality, or other subdivision of the state shall ever give or loan its credit in the aid of, or make any donation or grant, by subsidy or otherwise, to any individual, association, or corporation, or become a subscriber to, or a shareholder in, any company or corporation, or become a joint owner with any person, company, or corporation, except as to such ownerships as may accrue to the state by operation or provision of law or as authorized by law solely for investment of the monies in the various funds of the state.

Turken v. Gordon, et al, Ariz. S. Ct. No. CV-09-0042-PR
PDF - https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...55534169,d.dmQ

2nd PDF - http://www.squiresanders.com/files/P...t_Agreemen.pdf

wildthing202 is offline  
Old
01-07-2013, 01:24 AM
  #46
madhi19
Just the tip!
 
madhi19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Cold and Dark place!
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,898
vCash: 500
Jamison better wait a bit to take a look at that CBA. 44 Million in floor that tied to the cap that will start rising again in year 3. Barely a bit more revenue sharing and less stricter rules to get it so more teams will get a piece of that 200 Million. If he really has the money and am doubfull on that I give it a 50/50 chances that he walk away and blame the new CBA. Hell if Jamison does not have the cash he blame the new CBA anyway.


Last edited by madhi19: 01-07-2013 at 02:08 AM.
madhi19 is offline  
Old
01-07-2013, 02:04 AM
  #47
TheLegend
Moderator
Megathread Gadfly
 
TheLegend's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Orbiting BoH
Country: United States
Posts: 7,737
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildthing202 View Post
Gift Clause?

Article 9 Section 7 of the Arizona State Constitution.

7. Gift or loan of credit; subsidies; stock ownership; joint ownership
Section 7. Neither the state, nor any county, city, town, municipality, or other subdivision of the state shall ever give or loan its credit in the aid of, or make any donation or grant, by subsidy or otherwise, to any individual, association, or corporation, or become a subscriber to, or a shareholder in, any company or corporation, or become a joint owner with any person, company, or corporation, except as to such ownerships as may accrue to the state by operation or provision of law or as authorized by law solely for investment of the monies in the various funds of the state.

Turken v. Gordon, et al, Ariz. S. Ct. No. CV-09-0042-PR
PDF - https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...55534169,d.dmQ

2nd PDF - http://www.squiresanders.com/files/P...t_Agreemen.pdf
I'm aware of the gift clause.
(Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and the following comments are my interpretation of it)

The law does allow cities to enter into agreements when there is a reasonable return on the city's investment.

In the case of the AMF.... the city is paying for a service. For the gift clause to come into play it would have to be proven the amount Glendale is paying is "grossly disproportionate" to what it gets in return. And the AZSC gave a broad definition of what "grossly disproportionate" is.

For GWI to win a gift clause case they'd have to prove the AMF for jobing.com arena is grossly disproportionate to similar agreements for other arenas. Glendale has already cited other arena management agreements that they feel fall close enough to the one they've enacted with Jamison.

That's not to say GWI wouldn't file suit anyway. They would like to see the "grossly disproportionate" loophole closed. If they feel they can get a benefit out of filing a GL case (ie bring in donations to their cause) then they probably would.

TheLegend is online now  
Old
01-07-2013, 07:41 AM
  #48
MNNumbers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,740
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLegend View Post
I'm aware of the gift clause.
(Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and the following comments are my interpretation of it)

The law does allow cities to enter into agreements when there is a reasonable return on the city's investment.

In the case of the AMF.... the city is paying for a service. For the gift clause to come into play it would have to be proven the amount Glendale is paying is "grossly disproportionate" to what it gets in return. And the AZSC gave a broad definition of what "grossly disproportionate" is.

For GWI to win a gift clause case they'd have to prove the AMF for jobing.com arena is grossly disproportionate to similar agreements for other arenas. Glendale has already cited other arena management agreements that they feel fall close enough to the one they've enacted with Jamison.


That's not to say GWI wouldn't file suit anyway. They would like to see the "grossly disproportionate" loophole closed. If they feel they can get a benefit out of filing a GL case (ie bring in donations to their cause) then they probably would.
Legend,

The 2 paragraphs highlighted are not the only possible interpretation of "What it gets in return." Several posters on the PHX threads have suggested that the 2 cases in the original post indicate that it it NOT a matter of comparing to other arenas only, but comparing to other arenas AND the benefits to Glendale from the use of the arena.

Under that interpretation, Glendale is contracting to pay twice the going rate, and gets nothing in return (the indirect benefits at the local merchants are not admissable in this case).

Now, I am not saying how the court would rule. And, I am not saying that Glendale shouldn't keep the team. But, under that interpretation I gave above, it seems GWI has a decent case, don't you think?

MNNumbers is online now  
Old
01-07-2013, 08:31 AM
  #49
DyerMaker66*
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 10,718
vCash: 547
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLegend View Post
There is a plethora of factors why you're city doesn't have an NHL team (where ever that is). That isn't one of them.
It's Hamilton and there isn't: There's literally 2 max.

I was being sarcastic in my reply.

DyerMaker66* is offline  
Old
01-07-2013, 10:02 AM
  #50
cobra427
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 4,079
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MNNumbers View Post
Legend,

The 2 paragraphs highlighted are not the only possible interpretation of "What it gets in return." Several posters on the PHX threads have suggested that the 2 cases in the original post indicate that it it NOT a matter of comparing to other arenas only, but comparing to other arenas AND the benefits to Glendale from the use of the arena.

Under that interpretation, Glendale is contracting to pay twice the going rate, and gets nothing in return (the indirect benefits at the local merchants are not admissable in this case).

Now, I am not saying how the court would rule. And, I am not saying that Glendale shouldn't keep the team. But, under that interpretation I gave above, it seems GWI has a decent case, don't you think?
Nobody knows how the court will interpret this issue, it is all speculation at this point. The interesting thing is we have not heard a word from GWI, so they either think they won't have a case or more likely, they have raised all the money they can from this now dead horse. Remember, GWI is interested in donations so they focus on the issues that generate donations. They likely have no interest in this issue any longer for that reason, if so there will be no challenge. Time will tell....

cobra427 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 06:52 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2017 All Rights Reserved.