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 LXXII: Send in the Clowns

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-25-2013, 02:06 PM
  #451
CasualFan
Tortious Beadicus
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bay Area, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,102
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
It was "mused aloud" by Mayor Weiers about 10 days ago. For further edification & amusement, see "Four Ring Circus" at joyceclarkunfiltered.com and I suppose the "legitimacy" part is debatable as per source however, I cant think of one good reason for that source to fully fabricate such a fiction. While I applaud the notion of thinking outside the box, this particular idea & concept would be anathema to ever consummating a local sale, as the anchor tenancy of the franchise simply must be enjoined with the full Arena Management Contract.
Mused aloud? That's the source? I see. Until there is a credible report, this looks like just another low wattage effort by "Joyce Clark Unfiltered". I think it's safe to dismiss this "four contract approach" as just another ignorant misinterpretation or outright fabrication by TeamBeavis.

CasualFan is offline  
Old
02-25-2013, 02:09 PM
  #452
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 20,070
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CasualFan View Post
Mused aloud? That's the source? I see.
... yep. Thats the "source". Deep Waters CF. Better strap on the Aqualung.

Killion is offline  
Old
02-25-2013, 06:10 PM
  #453
Llama19
Registered User
 
Llama19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Apocalypse, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 1,128
vCash: 1100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
... yep. Thats the "source". Deep Waters CF. Better strap on the Aqualung.
It looks like the Aqualung is warranted, we have entered the Bermuda Triangle...

To quote:

"Who is to say that if the City has indeed hired Beacon Sports to negotiate a sale of the Coyotes, whether Beacon Sports would share information with a Reinsdorf?? If the Coyotes end up being purchased by a Reinsdorf, it should be examined very carefully. Based upon the original Reinsdorf proposal to buy the Coyotes, they wanted an 'opt out' clause of 5 years. That is not enough time to build the kind of fan base needed to make the team viable. From all appearances the Coyotes would be moved. How many dedicated fans are willing to invest financially and emotionally in a team that could move?"

Source: http://joyceclarkunfiltered.com/anot...beacon-sports/

Llama19 is offline  
Old
02-25-2013, 06:56 PM
  #454
ajmidd12
Know-It-All
 
ajmidd12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Hungover
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,548
vCash: 204
Haven't been here in awhile, what did I miss? My guess, nothing....

When is this team moving It's only fair that the fine people of Arizona get a proper chance to say goodbye to this team.

ajmidd12 is offline  
Old
02-25-2013, 07:40 PM
  #455
Matzel
Registered User
 
Matzel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Eastern Canada
Country: Germany
Posts: 1,247
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Matzel
Quote:
Originally Posted by aqib View Post
So who should fill the gap between the $140 million (now $170 million) and whatever the franchise is actually worth. Either the league eats that cost or it gets passed to the city in some way. You want to know why the city should eat it, I conversely want to know why the league (and consequently the other 29 teams) eat it?
Because the league insisted on dictating where its franchises are located. Why should there not be a price tag on that privilege?

Matzel is offline  
Old
02-25-2013, 08:21 PM
  #456
aqib
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,328
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Llama19 View Post
It looks like the Aqualung is warranted, we have entered the Bermuda Triangle...

To quote:

"Who is to say that if the City has indeed hired Beacon Sports to negotiate a sale of the Coyotes, whether Beacon Sports would share information with a Reinsdorf?? If the Coyotes end up being purchased by a Reinsdorf, it should be examined very carefully. Based upon the original Reinsdorf proposal to buy the Coyotes, they wanted an 'opt out' clause of 5 years. That is not enough time to build the kind of fan base needed to make the team viable. From all appearances the Coyotes would be moved. How many dedicated fans are willing to invest financially and emotionally in a team that could move?"

Source: http://joyceclarkunfiltered.com/anot...beacon-sports/
5 years on top of 10 years they have already been in Glendale and 17 that they have been in Arizona. A shorter term is the only realistic option Glendale has. It may, dare I say, save the team in the short term.

aqib is offline  
Old
02-25-2013, 08:51 PM
  #457
XX
... Waiting
 
XX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: 48th State
Country: United States
Posts: 26,017
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by aqib View Post
So I suppose AEG owns every team in every arena it manages? Same with Global Spectrum I guess? How about Aramark and Deleware North who seem to run the concession stands at half the sports venues in the country? Do they book the shows and own the teams too?
AEG is a subcontractor on most leases. Rather than furnish a staff and manage the arena, they (the lessee or facility owner) contract that out to a provider who can do it all. Suffice to say, most do not have the experience or network that operators like AEG do, so there's motivation for this outsourcing to happen. AEG and others like them can then skim healthy agreed upon profit margins from the operations of buildings they neither own nor lease.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aqib View Post
Their have been a whole lot of hairbrained schemes here. Putting a hockey team in this market, building a second arena in a suburb in the West Valley, writting $25 million checks, agreeing to a $320 million management contract, etc but finding different ways to cut losses on an arena is not one of them
Great operations are streamlined. There's nothing smooth or easy about 4 different contracts. The city will 'save' money by not agreeing to a ridiculous AMF subsidy, but they would be handing the arena over to a bunch of surefire morons. No legitimate potential partner would agree to such a structure. This is why it is not commonplace. Economies of scale, integration and all that jazz.

XX is offline  
Old
02-25-2013, 09:26 PM
  #458
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 20,070
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by XX View Post
No legitimate potential partner would agree to such a structure. This is why it is not commonplace. Economies of scale, integration and all that jazz.
Ya, its messy, built in dysfunctional. An NHL (or NBA, whatever) franchise needs all of those revenue streams themselves, as their anchor tenant may or may not be a bit of a lost leader, up's & downs, winning & losing, cyclical, and certainly in this case, mandatory. Concert & event bookings, sponsorship & advertising revenues, concessions, merchandising sales, parking, the whole 9 yards.

Even then its complex. Witness what previous COO of St. Louis Dave Checketts did in signing a 20yr concessions contract for the Scottrade Centre with Levy Foods. Received $10M up-front, in his jeans, but on the back-end for 20yrs, low margin returns from Levy that are in fact punitive and well short of the mark that one should expect. Whether or not Towerbrook Financial, Checketts majority partner got a piece of that I know not, but I doubt it. Parking as well, the main parking garage next to Scottrade is city owned, the team receiving nothing on that front.

So even with a well established club, a busy building, critical that all engines pistons are firing in sync, revenue streams maximized. This is why St.Louis went so cheaply, app $120M plus some assumption of debt. Revenue streams wiped out by previous ownership & management, monies taken off the table. You start divvying up an Arena Management Contract, same thing. Its just basic, Sports Ownership 101. That it would even be entertained or suggested shows an appalling lack of understanding, intelligence.

Killion is offline  
Old
02-25-2013, 10:01 PM
  #459
Tommy Hawk
Registered User
 
Tommy Hawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,201
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Llama19 View Post
It looks like the Aqualung is warranted, we have entered the Bermuda Triangle...

To quote:

"Who is to say that if the City has indeed hired Beacon Sports to negotiate a sale of the Coyotes, whether Beacon Sports would share information with a Reinsdorf?? If the Coyotes end up being purchased by a Reinsdorf, it should be examined very carefully. Based upon the original Reinsdorf proposal to buy the Coyotes, they wanted an 'opt out' clause of 5 years. That is not enough time to build the kind of fan base needed to make the team viable. From all appearances the Coyotes would be moved. How many dedicated fans are willing to invest financially and emotionally in a team that could move?"

Source: http://joyceclarkunfiltered.com/anot...beacon-sports/
COG hiring Beacon to negotiate a sale of the Yotes. I did not know the city owned the yotes.

I guess you can't stop stupid or 1d10ts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by XX View Post
AEG is a subcontractor on most leases. Rather than furnish a staff and manage the arena, they (the lessee or facility owner) contract that out to a provider who can do it all. Suffice to say, most do not have the experience or network that operators like AEG do, so there's motivation for this outsourcing to happen. AEG and others like them can then skim healthy agreed upon profit margins from the operations of buildings they neither own nor lease.

Great operations are streamlined. There's nothing smooth or easy about 4 different contracts. The city will 'save' money by not agreeing to a ridiculous AMF subsidy, but they would be handing the arena over to a bunch of surefire morons. No legitimate potential partner would agree to such a structure. This is why it is not commonplace. Economies of scale, integration and all that jazz.
Exactly. You hire an arena manager to manage the arena and the operations, not own a sports team. And you not hire a sports team that is your tenant as the arena manager when they have no experience in that area nor do they go out and hire someone who does.

Tommy Hawk is offline  
Old
02-25-2013, 11:15 PM
  #460
halligan10
Registered User
 
halligan10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Palm Harbor
Country: United States
Posts: 386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Llama19 View Post
It looks like the Aqualung is warranted, we have entered the Bermuda Triangle...

To quote:

"Who is to say that if the City has indeed hired Beacon Sports to negotiate a sale of the Coyotes, whether Beacon Sports would share information with a Reinsdorf?? If the Coyotes end up being purchased by a Reinsdorf, it should be examined very carefully. Based upon the original Reinsdorf proposal to buy the Coyotes, they wanted an 'opt out' clause of 5 years. That is not enough time to build the kind of fan base needed to make the team viable. From all appearances the Coyotes would be moved. How many dedicated fans are willing to invest financially and emotionally in a team that could move?"

Source: http://joyceclarkunfiltered.com/anot...beacon-sports/
Even 5 years wont buy it. If they loose 20M-30M a year thats 100M-150M and they have to buy the team for about 170M....Even with a lucrative contract from Glendale its going to be hard. It's fascinating that no one can tell what is going to happen at the end yet.

halligan10 is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 02:13 AM
  #461
TheLegend
Megathread Refugee
 
TheLegend's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: The Anxiety Closet
Country: United States
Posts: 3,151
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CasualFan View Post
Mused aloud? That's the source? I see. Until there is a credible report, this looks like just another low wattage effort by "Joyce Clark Unfiltered". I think it's safe to dismiss this "four contract approach" as just another ignorant misinterpretation or outright fabrication by TeamBeavis.
Not a fabrication, CF.

It was a concept Weiers brought up in an interview locally, but I can't recall which media outlet had it (been looking tho).

TheLegend is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 07:43 AM
  #462
GuelphStormer
Registered User
 
GuelphStormer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Guelph, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,580
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matzel View Post
Because the league insisted on dictating where its franchises are located. Why should there not be a price tag on that privilege?
exactly.

GuelphStormer is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 11:32 AM
  #463
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 20,070
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matzel View Post
Because the league insisted on dictating where its franchises are located. Why should there not be a price tag on that privilege?
Unfortunately one cant even apply the normal mores' of the explanatory components of moral responsibility when it comes to big business & most government. They have become as inapplicable as they are inexplicable. We live in an age where the very idea of accepting responsibility for ones actions are no longer acceptable to a fairly large segment of the population. Owning it, avoidance of penance & payment, making it right idealistic anachronisms. No quarter is given by the NHL. Hardballers with quite the arsenal, plenty of options. Everyone's expendable. They simply open the cargo doors in their C-130's at 15,000 feet, re-shuffling the flight deck & cargo holds, parachuting their "problems" onto a frozen wasteland somewhere else, the miscreants or recipients of their largesse rather than given warm clothes, a compass, map, snowshoes & food, matches, instead stripped naked and handed a tube of Saran Wrap, told "keep warm eh, were rootin for ya... Bombs away". Touchdown in a whiteout, 50 below, soon attacked and ripped apart by packs of wolves. Lovely. Sign me up.

Killion is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 11:55 AM
  #464
cbcwpg
Registered User
 
cbcwpg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Between the Pipes
Country: United Nations
Posts: 5,427
vCash: 350
Smith taking a wait and see approach

http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2...smith-on-hold/

It appears ongoing ownership woes with the Phoenix Coyotes have cause contract talks between the National Hockey League club and goaltender Mike Smith to stall. At least based on the comments of general manager Don Maloney.

“Our thought is to let the season play out,” Maloney told Fox Sports Arizona on Monday.

“Until our ownership is resolved, we’re going to table Mike’s contract and hope things work out later.”

cbcwpg is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 01:25 PM
  #465
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 20,070
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcwpg View Post
“Until our ownership is resolved, we’re going to table Mike’s contract and hope things work out later.”[/I]
Ya, talk about being in a holding pattern. That guy in particular, one of the premier goaltending talents in the league you'd definitely wanna hang onto, but with absolutely no certainty, not a thing Maloney can do about it. Just a caretaker at this point.

Killion is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 02:50 PM
  #466
mesamonster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Scottsdale, AZ.
Country: United States
Posts: 1,011
vCash: 500
A little different take on this thread, but nonetheless worthy of some thought: With Schlemko signing a 2 year deal yesterday, Tippett, and I am not sure about Maloney, is in the last year of his contract. To my knowledge he has not been renewed for next year and/or beyond! Is this GB signaling that he does not expect the team to remain and therefore no new contract for one of the best coaches in the league?

mesamonster is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 03:06 PM
  #467
cbcwpg
Registered User
 
cbcwpg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Between the Pipes
Country: United Nations
Posts: 5,427
vCash: 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by mesamonster View Post
A little different take on this thread, but nonetheless worthy of some thought: With Schlemko signing a 2 year deal yesterday, Tippett, and I am not sure about Maloney, is in the last year of his contract. To my knowledge he has not been renewed for next year and/or beyond! Is this GB signaling that he does not expect the team to remain and therefore no new contract for one of the best coaches in the league?
It is a bit strange for Tippett to not renew, because coaching jobs are few and far between when compared to player jobs. By that I mean the players may question where they live and as a result my wait before signing a contract, but to me, coaches want to coach regardless of where it is. And say the team does move to QC and the new owners don't want Tippet... wouldn't it be in his best interest to sign an extension now for a few years to guarantee his money. Signing a deal and then getting removed by new ownership is better than not signing a new deal and then getting removed.

Or we are reading this all wrong and it's not Tippet that doesn't want a new contract, but it's the NHL not offering him a new contract... The NHL knows the team is moving to QC and the NHL knows the new owners do not want Tippett, so the new owners have told the NHL to not sign him. They don't want to pay for his contract when they are going to remove him right away.

cbcwpg is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 03:14 PM
  #468
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 20,070
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mesamonster View Post
Is this GB signaling that he does not expect the team to remain and therefore no new contract for one of the best coaches in the league?
Well, its pretty much a Catch22 isnt it? Many ways to interpret the signings or non-signings of whomever, the acquisition of players, those outbound, just a complete cluster****. I suppose if someone were to ask Gary Bettman about Tippetts status, he'd just refer them to Maloney, "ask him". Maybe he answers with a "well, we dont want to saddle the incoming ownership group with lengthy contracts in making personnel decisions". Who knows? A guy like Schlemko, he's just happy slappy to have a contract, probably doesnt care where he plays. Mr. Schlemko will Schlepp his act wherever it takes him and hopes its at the NHL level. Got himself a ticket aboard the Magical Mystery Tour.

Killion is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 03:25 PM
  #469
Tinalera
Registered User
 
Tinalera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Known Universe
Posts: 5,845
vCash: 500
Something I've been thinking after the realignment came out today (yea I know there's a thread on this), but I was thinking this as it pertains to the Yotes being on the schedule what/how ect with relocation.

Here goes a really loopy idea/speculation:

Apparently this new re-alignment (this is Yotes related, bear with me!) is set for just next 3 years according to Friedman, so here's my consipiracy theory number 4564:

Bettman/NHL talking to Quebcor and asking this: "You want a team in QC, that's fine-do want one now or possibly in 3 years with expansion. If you want one NOW, fine, you can buy the team and relocate, HOWEVER-you're team will Pacific division for the next 3 years-ergo we are NOT going to change the Yotes current location, you will take the Yotes location the way Winnipeg did with Atlanta. (And yes travelwise that would be nuts, but how BAD does Quebecor want it?)

OR, you can be nice, wait for an expansion, and and we'll do some finagling around with the teams to make sure you end up in the soon to be "Central" division."

If they wait for expansion, then I don't know what happens to the Yotes-however a team moved to SEATTLE wouldn't have to change a thing, though I don't know where they would play.

Just wondering if Bettman/NHL has quietly given that little ultimatum to QC-which would you rather have: be in the NHL NOW, and play in the "Pacific" and all that entails, or wait 3 years when I suspect expansion will happen and you get to be assigned to where Montreal et al will be?

Tinalera is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 03:50 PM
  #470
mesamonster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Scottsdale, AZ.
Country: United States
Posts: 1,011
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcwpg View Post
It is a bit strange for Tippett to not renew, because coaching jobs are few and far between when compared to player jobs. By that I mean the players may question where they live and as a result my wait before signing a contract, but to me, coaches want to coach regardless of where it is. And say the team does move to QC and the new owners don't want Tippet... wouldn't it be in his best interest to sign an extension now for a few years to guarantee his money. Signing a deal and then getting removed by new ownership is better than not signing a new deal and then getting removed.

Or we are reading this all wrong and it's not Tippet that doesn't want a new contract, but it's the NHL not offering him a new contract... The NHL knows the team is moving to QC and the NHL knows the new owners do not want Tippett, so the new owners have told the NHL to not sign him. They don't want to pay for his contract when they are going to remove him right away.
I think the latter explanation is closest to the truth! Coaches with a reputation like Tippetts are usually in high demand, all the more reason why the NHL would want to tie him up! That is unless, GB knows now, that the team is moving to QC and they will be looking for a French-Canadian coach. I have heard that if the team were to go to QC, that would not be a preferred destination for Tip. That said, perhaps both sides have agreed to see where the team may go, or if the team may go? To your first point , what harm does it do Tippett if he signs a renegotiated deal to stay in PHX, or with an opt out if the team relocates?

mesamonster is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 03:50 PM
  #471
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 20,070
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinalera View Post
Just wondering if Bettman/NHL has quietly given that little ultimatum to QC-which would you rather have: be in the NHL NOW, and play in the "Pacific" and all that entails, or wait 3 years when I suspect expansion will happen and you get to be assigned to where Montreal et al will be?
Ya, I dont know TL, but it just seems implausible logistically, from an executional standpoint to sell the team to Seattle upon conclusion of this season and then expect them to turn it all around and on a dime? Quebec strikes me as being the only destination where that could be accomplished successfully.

Winnipeg had to go flat-out from the end of May to October after acquiring the Thrashers, and they had an AHL infrastructure and by that time game-ready arena pretty much ready to go. Im pretty sure Seattle gets its wish, an NBA franchise, step one, but to include what will be effectively a full-on expansion team along with?

And playing at Key, thats seriously problematical IMO. Still, with an $80M "top up" (if Hansen lands an NHL franchise as well as an NBA team Seattle kicks in $80M more to defray construction costs) awaiting any ownership group from the city, anythings possible.

Absolutely no idea what the NHL's thinking here, what they'll do. Both QC & Seattle have pluses & minuses, be it relocation or expansion, however if true the NHL has absolutely no plans to expand, as in absolutely not, then maybe Hamilton or Markhams in play as well. Maximum relocation & indemnification fee's charged. Im at a loss, just an exercise in futility trying to figure that lot out.

Killion is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 03:53 PM
  #472
Tinalera
Registered User
 
Tinalera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Known Universe
Posts: 5,845
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Ya, I dont know TL, but it just seems implausible logistically, from an executional standpoint to sell the team to Seattle upon conclusion of this season and then expect them to turn it all around and on a dime? Quebec strikes me as being the only destination where that could be accomplished successfully.

Winnipeg had to go flat-out from the end of May to October after acquiring the Thrashers, and they had an AHL infrastructure and by that time game-ready arena pretty much ready to go. Im pretty sure Seattle gets its wish, an NBA franchise, step one, but to include what will be effectively a full-on expansion team along with?

And playing at Key, thats seriously problematical IMO. Still, with an $80M "top up" (if Hansen lands an NHL franchise as well as an NBA team Seattle kicks in $80M more to defray construction costs) awaiting any ownership group from the city, anythings possible.

Absolutely no idea what the NHL's thinking here, what they'll do. Both QC & Seattle have pluses & minuses, be it relocation or expansion, however if true the NHL has absolutely no plans to expand, as in absolutely not, then maybe Hamilton or Markhams in play as well. Maximum relocation & indemnification fee's charged. Im at a loss, just an exercise in futility trying to figure that lot out.
QC has the Colisee, so the playing isnt the issue-but they'd be playing as a "West Coast" team if Bettman refused to budge on Yotes location, and I there would be understandable consternation from QC fans about that (mind you, hey could you imagine La Belle Province with a Montreal/QC Stanley Cup Final? Oh my....)


That's why the Yotes situation is so intriguing-the only other option (currently from what I see) is NHL runs the Yotes "free" for the next 3 years and then relocates to QC/Seattle/Markham and/or expasion or combination. But the question is who/what runs the Yotes for the next 3 years if they stay put?

The thought of this saga going on ANOTHER 3 years though...oyyyyyyy

Tinalera is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 03:58 PM
  #473
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 20,070
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mesamonster View Post
To your first point , what harm does it do Tippett if he signs a renegotiated deal to stay in PHX, or with an opt out if the team relocates?
But why, why would the NHL even care enough to re-sign him? He isnt the second coming of Toe Blake & Scotty Bowman all wrapped up in one. Coaches are Mercenaries. Hired to be fired. As dispensable as yesterdays pop song. He isnt free to negotiate with anyone until the end of the season, his contract expires, and by that time Id imagine the NHL figures it'll have resolved this matter one way or the other. Theres no need to re-sign him or anyone else for that matter. There just gonna play the string out, let the cards fall where they may with respect to team personnel. Casualties? So what? They'll all land on their feet somewhere.

Killion is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 04:25 PM
  #474
Free Torts
Registered User
 
Free Torts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,411
vCash: 883
Send a message via MSN to Free Torts
Tippett is one employee of the Coyotes - along with Maloney, who has done more with less than any GM in the league since this mess began - who won't have any difficulty finding work elsewhere if this all blows up.

Free Torts is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 05:07 PM
  #475
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 20,070
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinalera View Post
QC has the Colisee, so the playing isnt the issue-but they'd be playing as a "West Coast" team...The thought of this saga going on ANOTHER 3 years though...oyyyyyyy
Ya, Crazy like a Fox if the Yotes do wind up in Quebec City assigned to the Western Conference. Heck, about 50% of the population in places like Banff, Canmore, Invermere, Fernie, Kelowna, Whistler... ex-Quebecer's. Pretty sure if given their druthers, held a referendum like and asked Quebecer's "if we could magically relocate the entire city to lets say somewhere nice in Beautiful BC, buildings & all, would you vote yes or no"? Done. Outta there. Bye bye Montreal. No love lost either.... but seriously, its just a minor detail easily remedied if not immediately at some point down the road, and I simply cannot see the NHL just "parking" the franchise any longer in Glendale awaiting either Quebec or Seattles new arenas to come on-line. Something will be done this spring for sure. Its just all beyond being tenable any longer.

Killion 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 08:11 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.