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
02-14-2013, 12:38 PM
  #701
Naurutger
Free Max!
 
Naurutger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maricopa County
Country: United States
Posts: 5,257
vCash: 500
Council discusses next steps in Coyotes deal

Quote:
At the end of the meeting, Weiers concluded that the majority of the council was in favor of moving forward with pursuing updating the management agreement and entertaining proposals from potential buyers.
http://www.glendalestar.com/news/art...9bb2963f4.html

Nothing new but some of the members still think they own the team...

Naurutger is offline  
Old
02-14-2013, 12:46 PM
  #702
XX
SOS
 
XX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: 48th State
Country: United States
Posts: 27,636
vCash: 500
Quote:
Councilmember Norma Alvarez was a little more skeptical with offering continued support. She asked Skeete how much the city was receiving from the NHL in rent for using the arena.

“I need to know how much money we have received from the NHL,” Alvarez said. “What’s the incentive?”


Alvarez is not qualified to be handling something intangible like a sports team.

Quote:
“The real question here is do we want to let the NHL to stay in Glendale, or do we want to entertain other options,” he asked. “We don’t need to speculate or try to guess at generated revues, we just need to see the actual money.”
Weiers doesn't fare any better with this gem. Sports and spending money on facilities like arenas is ALL about projected revenue. It's a gamble, and not a hard science. To sit there and ask for a dollars in, dollars out statement is absolutely stupid.

Quote:
Sherwood stressed a need for focus and urgency with regard to the plan.

“After the season ends, there is a good chance the team will leave,” he said. “This will have been a four-year process on May 5. I think we need to have a focal point, and turn it over to a professional negotiator in the next three to four months as the season continues.

"We need some focus. If we haven’t been able to get a buyer with the deal we have, then we probably won’t be able to get anyone else. We need to assign a task force. We have a precious three or four months to get this done, or we have to come up with a Plan B that doesn’t include hockey.”
Sherwood gets it. I am impressed. Why not bring in a negotiator? I'm sure the league would prefer not to deal with the city directly.

XX is online now  
Old
02-14-2013, 12:51 PM
  #703
Naurutger
Free Max!
 
Naurutger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maricopa County
Country: United States
Posts: 5,257
vCash: 500
I have said this before but I may or may not work for a local government that has sporting facilities (not Glendale). The goal is to encourage economic development and to try and breakeven with the stadium (or close to it). Its not suppose to be a money generator but a business generator (sales tax from other businesses and increased traffic to your city centers). Glendale members seem to have another perspective. I too would love to know the amounts in and out for that region as a whole. They usually only focus on the stadium part.

Naurutger is offline  
Old
02-14-2013, 01:03 PM
  #704
XX
SOS
 
XX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: 48th State
Country: United States
Posts: 27,636
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by naurutger View Post
I too would love to know the amounts in and out for that region as a whole.
It's impossible to calculate. A large portion of value that a sports team brings to the table is intangible. The facility and the team provide social capital, which is not something you can calculate. Put another way; how can you calculate how many job offers are passed up because the hockey team is gone? You can't. I don't think anyone will make such a decision based on the Coyotes alone, but the availability of entertainment and nightlife in a city is a huge factor in corporate recruiting. It's just one example of how a sports team gives back without any money changing hands.

Phoenix went from backwater attraction to the main stage largely due to acquiring a team in all four major sports. Glendale has certainly upped its profile by having the Cardinals, Coyotes and Westgate. You can sit there and stare at cash flow statements all you want, but the benefits will not be immediate or always show up in the form of raw revenue. Building sports facilities is not unlike building a museum or a library. Those institutions have a value to the community beyond just the nonexistent revenue they generate.

The previous council understood this, though they handed over close to $50 million without getting much in return. So there has to be a happy medium there.

XX is online now  
Old
02-14-2013, 01:46 PM
  #705
TeamTippett
Formally TeamTurris
 
TeamTippett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Phx
Country: United States
Posts: 5,325
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by naurutger View Post
Council discusses next steps in Coyotes deal



http://www.glendalestar.com/news/art...9bb2963f4.html

Nothing new but some of the members still think they own the team...
Alverez is an idiot, I'm sorry that's mean and rude but its simply fact at this point.

TeamTippett is offline  
Old
02-14-2013, 02:11 PM
  #706
MP
Registered User
 
MP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,973
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by XX View Post
Alvarez is not qualified to be handling something intangible like a sports team.
She seems to belong to that breed of local politician who runs for office because the bylaws say you can't leave your dumpster on the sidewalk overnight but people still do that, and there's kids with the skateboards getting black gunk all over the curbs and it looks awful and Someone Should Do Something about it.

MP is offline  
Old
02-14-2013, 02:13 PM
  #707
zz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,669
vCash: 500
Despite these people being idiots (which I'm not disputing), the city would have been better served looking at cash in / cash out and letting the team go years ago. They've been played and wasted $ 50 M, thinking this was a straight business negotiation.

At an nonnegotiable price tag of $ 170M, the arena management deal is not (and never was) the problem. It's an overpriced asset, pure and simple. We now know the league will never waver from it, otherwise it would already have done so.

The only workaround was to use some shenanigans to get the city to come up with the cash to reduce the price (the Hulsizer / "parking rights" deal), but GWI made sure that couldn't happen. Once that (probably illegal) option was off the table, so were our chances at keeping the team.

Over the past four years we saw what happens when savvy, ruthless & smart businessmen deal with locally elected morons. Taxpayers get ****ed.

zz is online now  
Old
02-14-2013, 02:20 PM
  #708
Colt45Blast
Tippett's Tool
 
Colt45Blast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Country: Mexico
Posts: 25,733
vCash: 500
For all of the complaining I hear about these politicans now and days it's often not mentioned that these same people who are in office are there because of the voters. Just because the people vote for someone one doesn't agree with doesn't mean they are stupid even though there are plenty of people regardless of who they are that really shouldn't be voting in the 1st place if they don't have a clue about the canadates or what the current system set up is for that matter.

Colt45Blast is offline  
Old
02-14-2013, 02:52 PM
  #709
zz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,669
vCash: 500
Eh, I can't vote. But I do pay taxes.

zz is online now  
Old
02-14-2013, 09:32 PM
  #710
RemoAZ
Stugots
 
RemoAZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Glendale, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 2,388
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by XX View Post

Sherwood gets it. I am impressed. Why not bring in a negotiator? I'm sure the league would prefer not to deal with the city directly.
I've been calling for this from the beginning. I even emailed the mayor and asked her to bring in a professional to help get the deal done. I think that was before she went senile. After all the money they've wasted, a few extra bucks for a pro negotiator seems like a very small expense.

RemoAZ is offline  
Old
02-15-2013, 12:06 PM
  #711
Naurutger
Free Max!
 
Naurutger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maricopa County
Country: United States
Posts: 5,257
vCash: 500
Positive Progress For The Phoenix Coyotes' Financial Situation

http://www.fiveforhowling.com/2013/2...cial-situation

Naurutger is offline  
Old
02-15-2013, 02:55 PM
  #712
Whileee
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,956
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by naurutger View Post
Positive Progress For The Phoenix Coyotes' Financial Situation

http://www.fiveforhowling.com/2013/2...cial-situation
This is encouraging, but also illustrates why the NHL's asking price remains too high. Last year the Thrashers were sold to Winnipeg owners for $170 million (including the relocation fee), which is the reported price for the Coyotes.

Based on the cited analysis, the annual revenues based on the "Fan Cost Index" would be >$33 million higher in Winnipeg than in Glendale, even if the Coyotes were averaging 17,000 per game (>$44 million higher annually in Winnipeg if the Coyotes average 12,000 attendance per game). So, it seems obvious that the NHL is asking an inflated price for a local sale of the Coyotes, and this likely explains why a local sale has not been completed, even with the large arena management fee offered by the City of Glendale.

The most obvious solution to a local sale is a substantial drop in the selling price by the NHL to be more commensurate with the market, along with the sort of support already put on the table by Glendale in the form of an arena management fee.

Whileee is offline  
Old
02-15-2013, 03:26 PM
  #713
XX
SOS
 
XX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: 48th State
Country: United States
Posts: 27,636
vCash: 500
Sell the team for $90m to a deep pocketed owner, with a ~10m a year AMF and this team will be fine. But that requires compromise on the part of the league and the city. If I am the council, I do nothing but rail Bettman and anyone put forth on the asking price. Publicly flog them. Daily press releases about how the league is trying to sell the team for twice what it is worth, passing the burden to the city.

Don't let them hide out of the spotlight like this. It's absurd. Look at the deal the Blues sold for.

Quote:
Along with the Blues and arena lease, Stillman’s group will get an American Hockey League team and a share of the Peabody Opera House for the $120 million. The Blues had the second- best record in the NHL this season but were upset in the second round of the Stanley Cup playoffs by the Los Angeles Kings.
A much better team (and a less distressed asset) sold for $120 million + an AHL franchise (which can be resold) + a large share of the opera house. A venue which had just completed $79 million in renovations.

Yet the Coyotes are 'worth' 170 million. Are you ****ing kidding me Gary?

XX is online now  
Old
02-15-2013, 03:42 PM
  #714
Whileee
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,956
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by XX View Post
Sell the team for $90m to a deep pocketed owner, with a ~10m a year AMF and this team will be fine. But that requires compromise on the part of the league and the city. If I am the council, I do nothing but rail Bettman and anyone put forth on the asking price. Publicly flog them. Daily press releases about how the league is trying to sell the team for twice what it is worth, passing the burden to the city.

Don't let them hide out of the spotlight like this. It's absurd. Look at the deal the Blues sold for.



A much better team (and a less distressed asset) sold for $120 million + an AHL franchise (which can be resold) + a large share of the opera house. A venue which had just completed $79 million in renovations.

Yet the Coyotes are 'worth' 170 million. Are you ****ing kidding me Gary?
I agree. I think that Glendale and Coyotes' fans have given Bettman and the NHL a much too easy ride. Glendale sided with the NHL in the BK auction, and has since pledged over $50 million to help the NHL. Fans have put up with almost 4 years of existential uncertainty, after years of shaky ownership. If the NHL wants to live up to its public vows of support for the market, they should lower the asking price substantially and share the financial load with the COG. I'm still puzzled as to why the COG and many of the most vocal Coyotes supporters (on these board and other forums) still seem so reluctant to put any responsibility and pressure on Bettman and the NHL. Strange.

Whileee is offline  
Old
02-15-2013, 04:03 PM
  #715
Sinurgy
Embrace Passion
 
Sinurgy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Tempe, AZ
Posts: 7,469
vCash: 500
What's really pissing me off is they would've done this anyway, paying that much to win in BK court had NOTHING to do with the Phoenix market and EVERYTHING to do with the NHL maintaining control over their ownership club/rules. Yet they insist on passing the buck to any prospective owners who then in turn pass the buck on to the city. I'm not convinced it's Bettman driving this though, I think it's cheapskate bully owners like Jeremy Jacobs who refuse to take any hit on this, cheap ****ers!

Sinurgy is offline  
Old
02-15-2013, 04:06 PM
  #716
XX
SOS
 
XX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: 48th State
Country: United States
Posts: 27,636
vCash: 500
Sell it to Gallacher for $90m, $200 million over 20 years, standard 7 year out (Portland/Seattle).

Too easy.

For those doing math at home, the asset can be flipped for $200 million+ easily. At $90m, Gallacher has 7 years to lose ($110m + $70m AMF) roughly $180 million, or roughly $25 million every year. At that point he still wouldn't be out anything. Basically what Moyes was losing. Except Gallacher isn't a moron, can book events and the new CBA is much more friendly.

XX is online now  
Old
02-15-2013, 07:26 PM
  #717
DesertDawg
Registered User
 
DesertDawg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Superstition Mts
Posts: 4,660
vCash: 500
The NHL really screwed Glendale. In less then 5 years, after getting the city to build them a stadium, they renege on the original lease agreement by declaring bankruptcy, after mishandling the franchise. Then the NHL bought the team for $140mil and held the city ransom. Now they are selling the franchise for $30 mil more. If I was the city, I would question the legality of bankruptcy to get out of the original lease agreement and try to force the team to pay the fee in the original lease agreement.

DesertDawg is offline  
Old
02-15-2013, 09:36 PM
  #718
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 11,816
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DesertDawg View Post
The NHL really screwed Glendale. In less then 5 years, after getting the city to build them a stadium, they renege on the original lease agreement by declaring bankruptcy, after mishandling the franchise. Then the NHL bought the team for $140mil and held the city ransom. Now they are selling the franchise for $30 mil more. If I was the city, I would question the legality of bankruptcy to get out of the original lease agreement and try to force the team to pay the fee in the original lease agreement.
I don't like how the league office has handled everything, but the bankruptcy was filed by Moyes, not the league. Further, the league was never a signatory to the lease and only took ownership off the team after the court voided Moyes' lease with Glendale.

mouser is offline  
Old
02-15-2013, 10:26 PM
  #719
DesertDawg
Registered User
 
DesertDawg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Superstition Mts
Posts: 4,660
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mouser View Post
I don't like how the league office has handled everything, but the bankruptcy was filed by Moyes, not the league. Further, the league was never a signatory to the lease and only took ownership off the team after the court voided Moyes' lease with Glendale.
Sorry, but It doesn't pass the smell test...

DesertDawg is offline  
Old
02-15-2013, 11:07 PM
  #720
lockstock
Registered User
 
lockstock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Kauai
Country: United States
Posts: 870
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DesertDawg View Post
Sorry, but It doesn't pass the smell test...
That boat has sailed. The judge asked the CoG what they wanted to do. They threw in their lot with the NHL and signed off on a new AMULA with the NHL. Judge Baum told them there was no going back. You can't unring the bell and get a do over just because you entered into a no win agreement (in hindsight) and it didn't turn out the way you wanted it to.

If they contested it, the Coyotes would've been gone 3 seasons ago and they would be fighting for money from Moyes in court for breaking the lease. They kicked the can down the road. Looks like the least painful short term decision with a slim chance for success ended up being the worst choice they could've made. Unless they get an owner, it'll be $50 to 70 million they've paid to the NHL, they won't have an anchor tenant, and bonds will start coming due before long. Ouch. Like that one councilman said, it's time to start making some serious decisions either way. If this is a soccer game, we're down 2-0 and we're on injury time.

lockstock is offline  
Old
02-16-2013, 12:56 AM
  #721
Colt45Blast
Tippett's Tool
 
Colt45Blast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Country: Mexico
Posts: 25,733
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by lockstock View Post
That boat has sailed. The judge asked the CoG what they wanted to do. They threw in their lot with the NHL and signed off on a new AMULA with the NHL. Judge Baum told them there was no going back. You can't unring the bell and get a do over just because you entered into a no win agreement (in hindsight) and it didn't turn out the way you wanted it to.

If they contested it, the Coyotes would've been gone 3 seasons ago and they would be fighting for money from Moyes in court for breaking the lease. They kicked the can down the road. Looks like the least painful short term decision with a slim chance for success ended up being the worst choice they could've made. Unless they get an owner, it'll be $50 to 70 million they've paid to the NHL, they won't have an anchor tenant, and bonds will start coming due before long. Ouch. Like that one councilman said, it's time to start making some serious decisions either way. If this is a soccer game, we're down 2-0 and we're on injury time.
??????

I don't remember any of this.

For what I remembered, if the judge did decide that Glendale was entitled to damages then they would only be an unsecured creditor. This was before the NHL even said they would put in a bid to buy the team out of court in order to prevent Ballsilly from using the courts to get what he wants. Once it became clear that Judge Balm was going to ignore the previous ruilings of the Islanders and Pens lease and not make Glendale a secure creditor, the City had no choice but to pick a horse in the race but who they picked didn't matter since everything was in the hands of the judge.

If the lease was upheld in the 1st place I doubt the team would have moved given the cost of the relocation penalty and Moyes would have had to sell the team locally for even less than what the NHL is currently asking for unless he wanted to really get shafted even more.

I wonder if there is anyway Judge Balm's ruiling can be appealed in anyway and if any displinary action can be taken against him? I doubt it but I wish.


Last edited by Colt45Blast: 02-16-2013 at 01:45 AM.
Colt45Blast is offline  
Old
02-16-2013, 03:53 AM
  #722
lockstock
Registered User
 
lockstock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Kauai
Country: United States
Posts: 870
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AP View Post
??????

I don't remember any of this.

For what I remembered, if the judge did decide that Glendale was entitled to damages then they would only be an unsecured creditor. This was before the NHL even said they would put in a bid to buy the team out of court in order to prevent Ballsilly from using the courts to get what he wants. Once it became clear that Judge Balm was going to ignore the previous ruilings of the Islanders and Pens lease and not make Glendale a secure creditor, the City had no choice but to pick a horse in the race but who they picked didn't matter since everything was in the hands of the judge.

If the lease was upheld in the 1st place I doubt the team would have moved given the cost of the relocation penalty and Moyes would have had to sell the team locally for even less than what the NHL is currently asking for unless he wanted to really get shafted even more.

I wonder if there is anyway Judge Balm's ruiling can be appealed in anyway and if any displinary action can be taken against him? I doubt it but I wish.
I could be misremembering, it was so long ago. The way I remember it, it could've gone down several ways. Rim Jim offered CoG $50MM to let Moyes out of the lease and back a sale moving the team. NHL offered to fight and keep the team in Glendale and find a new owner. But they weren't keeping the team in Glendale unless the new temp AMULA was signed. Baum liked it because he didn't have to make a ruling against the city, everyone kicked the can down the road. But in doing so, they gave up the right to claim damages for the broken lease. It's more complicated than that, but that's what I remember from that part of it.

lockstock is offline  
Old
02-16-2013, 06:57 AM
  #723
Kaizen
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Prince George B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,140
vCash: 500
I saw where Moyes had a personal guarantee with the league re: the Coyotes.
Did COG also have a guarantee from Moyes? Personal guarantees theoretically are supposed to survive bankruptcies - can COG not go after Moyes if the team does actually move?

Can the NHL still call on Moyes to make good on his guarantee if the team is sold locally for a loss?

Has anyone seen the guarantee Moyes signed - I'm curious as to what the conditions/parameters of the guarantee might be.

Kaizen is offline  
Old
02-16-2013, 11:13 AM
  #724
goyotes
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,498
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaizen View Post
I saw where Moyes had a personal guarantee with the league re: the Coyotes.
Did COG also have a guarantee from Moyes? Personal guarantees theoretically are supposed to survive bankruptcies - can COG not go after Moyes if the team does actually move?

Can the NHL still call on Moyes to make good on his guarantee if the team is sold locally for a loss?

Has anyone seen the guarantee Moyes signed - I'm curious as to what the conditions/parameters of the guarantee might be.
The NHL's suit against Moyes was transferred from NY (where the NHL filed) to Arizona recently. Nothing has been decided re: the Moyes personal guarantee.

The CoG did agree to void the AMULA when it threw its weight behind the NHL's bid. The NHL has blood all over its hands. The problem is no reporter has really done the digging or asked the hard questions to point out just how much the NHL has screwed the CoG. And, much like Atlanta, no one will. The NHL will ride off to another market and the Coyote saga may be discussed at some level locally, but it will not damage the NHL's reputation.

There simply is no one willing to call out the NHL and hold them accountable. And, the CoG trusted the NHL three years ago, and Judge Baum tried to warn the City that money on the table weighs more than money offered as a promise.

goyotes is offline  
Old
02-16-2013, 11:17 AM
  #725
Colt45Blast
Tippett's Tool
 
Colt45Blast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Country: Mexico
Posts: 25,733
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by lockstock View Post
I could be misremembering, it was so long ago. The way I remember it, it could've gone down several ways. Rim Jim offered CoG $50MM to let Moyes out of the lease and back a sale moving the team. NHL offered to fight and keep the team in Glendale and find a new owner. But they weren't keeping the team in Glendale unless the new temp AMULA was signed. Baum liked it because he didn't have to make a ruling against the city, everyone kicked the can down the road. But in doing so, they gave up the right to claim damages for the broken lease. It's more complicated than that, but that's what I remember from that part of it.
I do remember the $50 Million as an offer to Glendale since that would have been more than what they would have gotten as an unsecured creditor, if the judge allowed that. The 50 Million was also based on the team relocating as well. No matter what, the City found itself between a rock and a hard place when being a secure creditor was not an option.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaizen View Post
I saw where Moyes had a personal guarantee with the league re: the Coyotes.
Did COG also have a guarantee from Moyes? Personal guarantees theoretically are supposed to survive bankruptcies - can COG not go after Moyes if the team does actually move?

Can the NHL still call on Moyes to make good on his guarantee if the team is sold locally for a loss?

Has anyone seen the guarantee Moyes signed - I'm curious as to what the conditions/parameters of the guarantee might be.
The origional lease is long gone and sadly it appeArs nothing can be done. The NHL making such a call? The NHL is suing Moyes for $75 Million and if the NHL does get that, I doubt they would use that money towards the asking price as well.

If the NHL was concerned for the city, then they would have asked the judge to have Glendales Lease held up in court in the 1st place. OnCe this got into the courtroom, it was every man and his lawyer for himself.

Colt45Blast 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 07:41 PM.

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

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