HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Arizona Coyotes
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Non-Ownership Thread: Who Cares Edition

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-05-2013, 01:33 PM
  #576
goyotes
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,515
vCash: 500
Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. This team is gone. The NHL will pretend to hold out some hope for another owner, but the window has closed. I will enjoy my STs for this final year and hope to watch the Coyotes in another playoff run.

The bottom line is, excuses aside, if the Coyotes average 16,000 fans paying close to NHL prices for tickets, the team would have been bought and sold 2 or 3 years ago. Face it. The NHL fans in the Valley either didn't support this team well enough, or there just aren't enough NHL fans in the Valley to support an NHL team.

None of us diehard hockey fans want to accept this reality, but it is in fact reality.


Last edited by goyotes: 02-05-2013 at 01:42 PM.
goyotes is offline  
Old
02-05-2013, 02:41 PM
  #577
XX
Lots of Try
 
XX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Executionville
Country: United States
Posts: 28,464
vCash: 500
http://www.azpbs.org/arizonahorizon/...d.php?id=14221

Mind = blown

Weiers sounds like he is saying, in all but name, that they have put the arena on the table. Also definitely mentions Gallacher without dropping his name by flat out stating "this person has the ability, it's a question of desire." Weiers seems very hawkish. In soundbite form, he sounds like a moron. But here, he demonstrates more tact than Scruggsie ever had.

XX is offline  
Old
02-05-2013, 02:58 PM
  #578
Rabbit
Captain Cook
 
Rabbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: South Bay California
Country: United States
Posts: 4,446
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by XX View Post
http://www.azpbs.org/arizonahorizon/...d.php?id=14221

Mind = blown

Weiers sounds like he is saying, in all but name, that they have put the arena on the table. Also definitely mentions Gallacher without dropping his name by flat out stating "this person has the ability, it's a question of desire." Weiers seems very hawkish. In soundbite form, he sounds like a moron. But here, he demonstrates more tact than Scruggsie ever had.
Funny, last night i was thinking the same thing. When Jamison's bid fell through, and i learned that the Weiers was NOT going to give him any kind of break at all, i couldn't stand him. After a few days however, he seems pretty proactive in the process of keeping the Coyotes here. I really don't know what to think

Rabbit is offline  
Old
02-05-2013, 03:17 PM
  #579
rt
Usually Incorrect
 
rt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Rarely Sober
Country: United States
Posts: 43,228
vCash: 500
Can somebody explain how owning the arena is more attractive than a very large fee for managing the arena? I know Weiers is not interested in the large fee, but how is putting the rights to the arena on the table now that the management fee is off the table going to attract more people to the liquidation sale than the last offer of fifteen-ish million annually to run the thing?

I'm not saying it isn't more attractive, I'm just looking for an education.

Also, isn't the out clause attractive because it allows for the potential for portable franchise? Doesn't being tied to the arena cancel that out?

If you own the arena and you own the team, you will essentially be operating without any additional "subsidy" (other than maybe tax sheltering), right? How is that better? Again, I'm not saying it's not, I am just not in a position to see it, without it being spelled out for me.

__________________
This poster should not be taken seriously under any circumstances.
rt is offline  
Old
02-05-2013, 03:29 PM
  #580
rt
Usually Incorrect
 
rt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Rarely Sober
Country: United States
Posts: 43,228
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by XX View Post
Seattle isn't ready. NHL has handshake agreements with Markham and QC, but has an owner in Seattle who wants a team in the future. They need to buy time, without it seeming obvious. They also need someone to take a legit shot at making the Coyotes work. Enter Gallacher, who gets assurances by the NHL the Coyotes will be portable and there will be a buyer in 5 years. He makes a go of it in Phoenix. Expansion to QC and Markham puts the fanbase at ease, thinking all is safe.

The NHL gets:
- A chance to negotiate with QC and Markham without hiding the Coyotes behind their back.
They want to save the relocation for Seattle or Portland, who need a team to hit the ground running. Canadians will watch anything
- Grooms a new billionaire entrant into the old boys club

- Gets to sit in front of Edmonton, Calgary and anyone else who needs a new arena and point at the great lengths they went to prevent the city from losing on its investment

- A chance to figure out if Phoenix will work with the right conditions.
Possibly a chance that the Suns/ASU/Tribes or some combination thereof express interest in a new arena, letting the NHL ditch the Glendale circus and get on the right side of town
- Doesn't suffer the negative optics of letting another team run off to Canada

Gallacher gets to play around with an NHL team for 5 years or so, and can sell it or move it if he wants. Likely a promise that the NHL won't charge him further relocation fees if he does so, to make the surefire losses in Phoenix more palatable.
Alright, I can see some of that. Here are my issues from an NHL standpoint; the idea is that they get their money back on the Coyotes (170-ish) from Gallacher, and don't have to incur any further losses in owning the team. Sounds good. But if you accept that as their motivation, how can you also accept Gallacher's motivation in this? If he's going to agree to lose money in Phoenix for the next five years, because it is understood he'll be able to sell for relo at a profit, why would the NHL let him make that money, rather than hanging onto the club and making that money themselves? If Gallacher supposes he'll end up ten million ahead, why wouldn't the NHL want to be in that same position? If he figures he'll end up with a huge negative, even after selling for relo, why would he agree to this? Short of "getting to play" for a few years? I can't see that as a reasonable enough motivating factor to believe this guy as real candidate and not another tire kicker.

Now, you did mention the NHL putting themselves in a better bargaining position for expansion once they've unload Phoenix. How much better will it be? I'm trying to figure out how much Gallacher figures he can make by losing money for five years and then selling for relo, versus how much extra the NHL thinks they can get by not being leveraged in negotiations with expansion markets. It doesn't seem to add up.

How can both the NHL and Gallacher come out ahead in a scenario where he's sold the team with the understanding that he can move it in five years?

rt is offline  
Old
02-05-2013, 03:42 PM
  #581
knowsthegame
Registered User
 
knowsthegame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Tale of 2 NHL cities
Posts: 865
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=rt;59098141 If Gallacher supposes he'll end up ten million ahead, why wouldn't the NHL want to be in that same position? [/QUOTE]
The NHL never wanted to be in the position of owning franchises. They were forced to by the bankrupcy and Balsille.

knowsthegame is offline  
Old
02-05-2013, 04:00 PM
  #582
XX
Lots of Try
 
XX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Executionville
Country: United States
Posts: 28,464
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rt View Post
If he's going to agree to lose money in Phoenix for the next five years, because it is understood he'll be able to sell for relo at a profit, why would the NHL let him make that money, rather than hanging onto the club and making that money themselves?
First, the NHL wants to be rid of the Coyotes. It does not look good to have a team run by the league. Second, Gallacher is in a unique position. There is some chatter that he would take the team to Portland if the Coyotes don't work. We know the NHL likes Portland, so it's a natural fit. He can likely buy the team and eat the losses for a few years and still come out ahead of what they'd charge for a Portland team. He could also flip it to Seattle, again for a profit.

I am making the assumption that they won't lose 30 million a year. I attribute that number to an absurd lack of effort. See how many events are booked.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rt View Post
Now, you did mention the NHL putting themselves in a better bargaining position for expansion once they've unload Phoenix. How much better will it be?
I would venture a guess that, by not having the Coyotes behind their backs, the NHL can squeeze another 20-30 million each out of Markham and QC versus a relocation. The NHL also doesn't like to be told what to do, if you remember the court proceedings. By not having to satiate the beggars in QC and Markam, they get to do things on their own terms. That includes not selling to an owner they'd prefer not be in the club as a last resort to be rid of the Coyotes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rt View Post
Can somebody explain how owning the arena is more attractive than a very large fee for managing the arena? I know Weiers is not interested in the large fee, but how is putting the rights to the arena on the table now that the management fee is off the table going to attract more people to the liquidation sale than the last offer of fifteen-ish million annually to run the thing?

I'm not saying it isn't more attractive, I'm just looking for an education.
The arena is a fixed asset, and its value will depreciate pretty steadily. Real estate is a pretty good place to park money if you are going to do so. A new owner would also have cost certainty; he gets to make as much as he can book. There's no more middleman, so no more dealing with the council. Depending on the legality of it, he might be able to get a good deal on the arena. And he also wouldn't be 'tied' to the arena. He could just flip the damn thing to AEG or whomever wants to own an arena in a major development. He is only bound by the rules the NHL sets forth for relocation, which is both good and dangerous. Weiers said that selling the arena wasn't an option before, both for the NHL and for the city. That indicated to me that no one with the resources to buy the arena had emerged, until now.

I am building a drop in price into these assumptions. Should he be able to buy the arena, I see the NHL as much more willing to drop the price.

XX is offline  
Old
02-05-2013, 04:32 PM
  #583
NHLfan4life
Who is PKP???
 
NHLfan4life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Glendale
Country: United States
Posts: 688
vCash: 500
http://www.azcentral.com/community/g...ernatives.html

Anything come out of this? A couple of reporters were supposed to live tweet but I can't find anything on Twitter. Started at 1:30.

NHLfan4life is offline  
Old
02-05-2013, 04:52 PM
  #584
Sciamachy
Formerly Sceva Sct
 
Sciamachy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: wanderer
Posts: 1,727
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NHLfan4life View Post
http://www.azcentral.com/community/g...ernatives.html

Anything come out of this? A couple of reporters were supposed to live tweet but I can't find anything on Twitter. Started at 1:30.
https://twitter.com/PaulGiblinAriz

https://twitter.com/StephLRusso

Sciamachy is offline  
Old
02-05-2013, 04:53 PM
  #585
Naurutger
Free Max!
 
Naurutger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maricopa County
Country: United States
Posts: 5,305
vCash: 1025
Quote:
Originally Posted by NHLfan4life View Post
http://www.azcentral.com/community/g...ernatives.html

Anything come out of this? A couple of reporters were supposed to live tweet but I can't find anything on Twitter. Started at 1:30.
Joyce is tweeting out her thoughts but after a little discussion, it does not appear they said anything new or dramatic.

Naurutger is offline  
Old
02-05-2013, 05:11 PM
  #586
XX
Lots of Try
 
XX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Executionville
Country: United States
Posts: 28,464
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by naurutger View Post
Joyce is tweeting out her thoughts but after a little discussion, it does not appear they said anything new or dramatic.
Alvarez is a clown. How does someone like that get voted in?

XX is offline  
Old
02-05-2013, 05:20 PM
  #587
NHLfan4life
Who is PKP???
 
NHLfan4life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Glendale
Country: United States
Posts: 688
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by XX View Post
Alvarez is a clown. How does someone like that get voted in?
Apathy. 'Nuf said.

NHLfan4life is offline  
Old
02-05-2013, 07:33 PM
  #588
cobra427
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,600
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by XX View Post
http://www.azpbs.org/arizonahorizon/...d.php?id=14221

Mind = blown

Weiers sounds like he is saying, in all but name, that they have put the arena on the table. Also definitely mentions Gallacher without dropping his name by flat out stating "this person has the ability, it's a question of desire." Weiers seems very hawkish. In soundbite form, he sounds like a moron. But here, he demonstrates more tact than Scruggsie ever had.
The interview sounded like he is trying to work out a different deal. I still think a shorter term deal, 5 years, makes sense and perhaps if the team moves, they would have to pay the COG a fee in order to leave. Another option is on the table, maybe not previously though of and it could be selling the arena also....

cobra427 is offline  
Old
02-05-2013, 08:55 PM
  #589
rt
Usually Incorrect
 
rt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Rarely Sober
Country: United States
Posts: 43,228
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by XX View Post
First, the NHL wants to be rid of the Coyotes. It does not look good to have a team run by the league. Second, Gallacher is in a unique position. There is some chatter that he would take the team to Portland if the Coyotes don't work. We know the NHL likes Portland, so it's a natural fit. He can likely buy the team and eat the losses for a few years and still come out ahead of what they'd charge for a Portland team. He could also flip it to Seattle, again for a profit.

I am making the assumption that they won't lose 30 million a year. I attribute that number to an absurd lack of effort. See how many events are booked.
Okay, between this post and the one from Killion in the other thread, I think I'm starting to see where you guys are coming from. You are basically suggesting that whoever buys this team withe the five year out clause should actually be inclined to make a legitimate go of it, here? That the new owner's first choice would be to have a successful franchise in Phoenix and actually take steps to see that through. Then, the five year out is a plan B? A just in case?

I guess that makes sense. Especially with three attractive markets likely to need teams soon in Seattle, TO2, and QC. Only two will get expansion and that'll leave at least one ready to pay through the teeth for a relo.

I guess I was confused because I assumed that everyone was assuming that whoever bought the team with the five year out would just be "serving time" here, and chomping at the bit to take the team and skip town ASAP.

rt is offline  
Old
02-05-2013, 10:43 PM
  #590
Naurutger
Free Max!
 
Naurutger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maricopa County
Country: United States
Posts: 5,305
vCash: 1025
Quote:
A good source tells me Winterhawks owner Bill Gallacher is not going to be involved in the purchase of the NHLís Phoenix Coyotes
http://portlandtribune.com/pt/12-spo...-elite-company

Quote:
Weiers said he has received calls from other potential buyers, but would not name them. He added that Jamison is still allowed to put forth a new offer.
http://ktar.com/?sid=1607943&nid=131

The new mayor also got criticized during today's meeting for negotiating with the other parties without council's direction...I think he is all talk. Glendale does not own the team...his role is to recruit...not sell...


Last edited by Naurutger: 02-05-2013 at 10:48 PM.
Naurutger is offline  
Old
02-05-2013, 10:55 PM
  #591
XX
Lots of Try
 
XX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Executionville
Country: United States
Posts: 28,464
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by naurutger View Post

The new mayor also got criticized during today's meeting for negotiating with the other parties without council's direction...I think he is all talk. Glendale does not own the team...his role is to recruit...not sell...
I find that funny considering the council neither knows what negotiation is nor knows how to sell anything.

XX is offline  
Old
02-06-2013, 12:01 AM
  #592
Rabbit
Captain Cook
 
Rabbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: South Bay California
Country: United States
Posts: 4,446
vCash: 500
I'm am currently in running for the next term as the mayor of the City of Glendale. I'm going to forsee a surefire deal if elected.

Rabbit is offline  
Old
02-06-2013, 12:08 AM
  #593
rt
Usually Incorrect
 
rt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Rarely Sober
Country: United States
Posts: 43,228
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rabbit3119 View Post
I'm am currently in running for the next term as the mayor of the City of Glendale. I'm going to forsee a surefire deal if elected.
Dude, cut out the middle man and just buy the effing team. Put a crisp, clean one dollar bill on the table, and slide it dramatically across the table. You will have accomplished more in this process than IEH, Reinsdorf, Hulsizer, Treliving, Jamison, and Gallacher combined.

rt is offline  
Old
02-06-2013, 09:22 AM
  #594
ajmidd12
Know-It-All
 
ajmidd12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Hungover
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,553
vCash: 500
Good luck gents, hope something pans out. Good or bad hope it is resolved soon for your sanity sake.

ajmidd12 is offline  
Old
02-06-2013, 04:37 PM
  #595
Naurutger
Free Max!
 
Naurutger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maricopa County
Country: United States
Posts: 5,305
vCash: 1025
Had brief discussions on this yesterday but:

In the Box: Coyotes hit nine-year high, Stars vs. Avs hits season low

http://www.sbnation.com/nhl/2013/2/6...its-season-low

Naurutger is offline  
Old
02-06-2013, 11:08 PM
  #596
Mork
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,576
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Mork
Quote:
Originally Posted by goyotes View Post
Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. This team is gone. The NHL will pretend to hold out some hope for another owner, but the window has closed. I will enjoy my STs for this final year and hope to watch the Coyotes in another playoff run.

The bottom line is, excuses aside, if the Coyotes average 16,000 fans paying close to NHL prices for tickets, the team would have been bought and sold 2 or 3 years ago. Face it. The NHL fans in the Valley either didn't support this team well enough, or there just aren't enough NHL fans in the Valley to support an NHL team.

None of us diehard hockey fans want to accept this reality, but it is in fact reality.
I don't particularly blame Coyotes fan, Goyotes, or the lack of them. All sports franchises go through attendance cycles, and in a new market it just might have taken more seed money and patience to cultivate the market.

When Moyes' ownership failed, with $3.3-bilion annual revenue league-wide, the NHL would have had ample resources to see the team through to new ownership even if it had to take a loss in doing so.

The fault lies with lack of business judgement and/or lack of commitment to the Phoenix market on the part of the NHL.

You can never fault fans for not attending . . . the team has to earn their entertainment dollars. You can't blame the City of Glendale: foolish as they were (beyond foolish even), I don't know what more the COG could have done.

Kudos to Coyotes fans like yourself for sticking with it as long as you have.

Mork is offline  
Old
02-07-2013, 09:07 AM
  #597
Guest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,266
vCash: 500
With strong ownership and the image that goes along with that I truly believe the past 4 seasons (including this one) would have had some of the best attendance in the team's history in AZ. Being a playoff team is enough to draw fans as that indicates a winner. Without a real owner people are hesitant to commit to a team, even if they are winning, if they could be gone at the end of the year.

Guest is offline  
Old
02-07-2013, 10:20 AM
  #598
Whileee
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 9,419
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rt View Post
Can somebody explain how owning the arena is more attractive than a very large fee for managing the arena? I know Weiers is not interested in the large fee, but how is putting the rights to the arena on the table now that the management fee is off the table going to attract more people to the liquidation sale than the last offer of fifteen-ish million annually to run the thing?
I don't know why some people still think that the Jobing.com arena is a big inducement to take the Coyotes. The COG has already told prospective owners that they can essentially have the Jobing.com and all of its revenue without paying a dime to own it, while Glendale continues to pay the arena debt. On top of that, they have been offering a very lucrative fee to manage the arena, which a prospective owner would forfeit if they bought the arena.

I think that the last few years have made it clear that the only package that might attract a legitimate owner includes: 1) free use of the Jobing.com arena and all of its revenue streams (hockey and non-hockey); 2) a generous subsidy from Glendale to offset the operating costs / losses from the arena and the Coyotes and; 3) a greatly discounted sale price to purchase the team from the NHL.

Glendale agreed to two of the three conditions, but apparently the NHL has remained firm on the sale price. Whoever might emerge as a potential owner in the future will almost certainly still require these three conditions to be met. Selling or even giving the Jobing.com arena to someone would be of no interest if it also required the owner to purchase the Coyotes at the NHL's asking price and operate it in Glendale without large subsidies.

I have no idea about Weiers skill or capacity as a mayor or negotiator, but unless he finds a way to meet the above conditions his bluster will be only hot air.

One possibility might be less subsidy in return for a shorter lease. But I think it will be very contentious to develop criteria determining whether an owner can relocate the team in a few years. In the meantime, fans would have to pay considerably higher ticket prices (and perhaps parking), without the long-term security of local ownership.

Whileee is offline  
Old
02-07-2013, 10:56 AM
  #599
Naurutger
Free Max!
 
Naurutger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maricopa County
Country: United States
Posts: 5,305
vCash: 1025
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
With strong ownership and the image that goes along with that I truly believe the past 4 seasons (including this one) would have had some of the best attendance in the team's history in AZ. Being a playoff team is enough to draw fans as that indicates a winner. Without a real owner people are hesitant to commit to a team, even if they are winning, if they could be gone at the end of the year.
Its sad, the diehard fans don't want a full emotional attachment because you never know if the team is staying. Every time bad news spreads I know the ticket office gets tons of calls about canceling the remaining season ticket payments. I know the ticket office will call old season ticket holders and ask them to return but the answer is always the same; owner first. I bailed on a few games when the deal fell apart this year and in the past as well. People wonder why you can buy cheap tickets on stubhub...its because disgruntled fans dont value their tickets in the same way...its just so hard.

But the good news is that this is translating into higher TV ratings. People may not want to spend hundreds of dollars on a team that might leave but they are still interested in the team.

Naurutger is offline  
Old
02-07-2013, 12:44 PM
  #600
Naurutger
Free Max!
 
Naurutger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maricopa County
Country: United States
Posts: 5,305
vCash: 1025
Ray Whitney says league, not Don Maloney, made call not to meet contract expectations
Quote:
“Not having an owner, trying to go to the National Hockey League to get approval on a contract like I got, which I’m assuming Don has to do, it’s not necessarily Don saying no. It’s Don fighting to get the dollar where he wants it, but it’s the league saying, ‘We’re not giving a 40-year-old a two-year contract,’” Whitney said. “Bill Daly and those guys aren’t really out here on a day-to-day basis watching games. They’re just saying, ‘He’s 40, and we’re not giving it to him.’ I would guess.”
http://www.azcentral.com/sports/coyo...ectations.html

Naurutger 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 05:12 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.