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 LXXIII: "This Space Available"

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-19-2013, 08:00 AM
  #76
CGG
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 416
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,229
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CasualFan View Post
It sounds like you are talking about fraud. I don't see how Glendale has any chance of establishing any of the required elements in a manner fastidious enough to satisfy their burden of proof. Glendale created Glendale's problems. They weren't coerced by falsity. The potential for a non-Glendale sale was well documented from the time the NHLs bid was submitted to the court. The city was a willing partner; not an innocent victim. I'm not excusing the NHLs actions, I think they took full advantage of the situation, but making that into a civil claim sounds like a huge stretch.

I guess the city could make a desperate heave that the specific performance clause in the Moyes AMULA survives contract rejection in BK. But that's a tough road to travel and the probability of success is very low while the cost of pursuing that remedy is very high.
I think you've perfectly foreshadowed the first chapter in the ongoing Glendale saga post team relocation. If I know the city of Glendale, they absolutely love spending gobs of money on something that has a very low probability of success. So they'll be all over this litigation over specific performance that they already rejected. It's a great way to continue to blame someone else for their troubles while spending a lot of money with no real benefit for the city or its citizens. Perfect.

CGG is offline  
Old
03-19-2013, 08:04 AM
  #77
GuelphStormer
Registered User
 
GuelphStormer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Guelph, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,757
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ugmo View Post
Not implausible at all... but a) why would Seattle be willing to meet the NHL's inflated price if PKP isn't? And b) why would Columbus have more clout than Quebec City? My memory might be faulty, but I seem to remember seeing the most recent revenue figures and 6 of the top 7 teams were Canadian (NYR being the other and Winnipeg still being represented with Atlanta's numbers). So that might well mean 8 of the top 9 highest grossing teams being Canadian including Quebec and Winnipeg - the league would be willing to sacrifice that just to snub their nose at PKP/not piss off Columbus?
and given that no clear ownership group has emerged in seattle, let alone one with demonstrated and sufficient operating capital to cover what would have to be 8 figure losses for two to four years, it's wishful thinking to suggest seattle has any advantage over QC, even if PKP wants to play hardball with the purchase price (which, from what I can tell, is a suggestion that has no basis in fact).

one could look at it another way, PKP refused to take the team this year given the uncertainty of the lockout, and insisted that the league cover losses in phoenix. knowing that nothing is likely to change in phoenix next year and losses will rack up, and knowing that there exists no other immediately viable relocation site other than hamilton, the nhl was willing to accept PKP's terms and let him have the team at the end of this season.

other than it actually owning the team now, im not sure why people seem to think the nhl has so much leverage here. im seeing it as the direct opposite. it has now run out of realistic options for the team and must move it. and seattle is simply not a viable immediate relocation site, so the only two options are QC and hamilton, and QC seems to have the advantage because PKP is standing by with a wad of cash and a brand new arena being built.

GuelphStormer is offline  
Old
03-19-2013, 08:13 AM
  #78
DoggyII
Registered User
 
DoggyII's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Peterborough, NH
Country: United States
Posts: 129
vCash: 500
Solution to Phoenix...

So the other night, my wife says to me (and I paraphrase): the league owns the Coyotes and can't find someone to own it to keep it in Phoenix. The other owners are basically paying to keep this team afloat and aren't getting any benefit from it. Why not just change the schedule...make them play all 82 games on the road (like the Harlem Globetrotters) and at least other owners in the league can get some extra ticket sales out of the deal. Certainly Phoenix will draw better in LA, Anaheim San Jose and Dallas.

Now...she was just kidding but it got me thinking.

Instead of one home town...let's give them four home towns. The NHL can do a "Survivor NHL City". Set up the club to play ten home games in Phoenix, ten in Houston, ten in Kansas City and ten in Seattle (or Portland or Vegas or Salt Lake City or wherever the NHL is interested in out West).

They change the name to the Western (Road) Warriors.

Over a a three year period where each year NHL fans (or owners or whatever criteria they want to use)...one city gets voted off. At the end of the third year, the NHL may have found none, one or maybe two viable cities. The negotiations begin in earnest between the two surviving cities and the NHL pulla a Winnipeg where they force season ticket holders in the winning city to commit to five years in order to secure the franchise.

Boom...NHL probably has good revenue for three years (plus the following five) with cities competing against each other (can't be much worse than what Phoenix does right now), an owner who knows what he will be getting plus a big commitment from fans so the franchise sale price should be higher.

Sorry...just trying to think outside the box for a ridiculous situation that has gone on so long and still seems to have no end in sight.

DoggyII is offline  
Old
03-19-2013, 08:23 AM
  #79
wildcat48
HFB Partner
 
wildcat48's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: South Portland, ME
Country: United States
Posts: 3,254
vCash: 500
I think folks are putting way too much emphasis on realignment and what happens to the Coyotes...

wildcat48 is offline  
Old
03-19-2013, 08:49 AM
  #80
gifted88
Dante the poet
 
gifted88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Guelph, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,318
vCash: 500
Interesting...but I doubt the NHL would want to pay more for travel expenses. And that's if the players are on board for living out of hotels in 4 different cities.

gifted88 is offline  
Old
03-19-2013, 08:55 AM
  #81
Conflicted Habs fan
Registered User
 
Conflicted Habs fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Montreal
Country: Martinique
Posts: 539
vCash: 50
I think its a briliant idea. But they should allow Quebec city, Hamilton and Markam be in on the game

Conflicted Habs fan is offline  
Old
03-19-2013, 09:05 AM
  #82
DoggyII
Registered User
 
DoggyII's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Peterborough, NH
Country: United States
Posts: 129
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conflicted Habs fan View Post
I think its a briliant idea. But they should allow Quebec city, Hamilton and Markam be in on the game
When any of those cities have a legit NHL arena...I say go for it (they need a solution for Phoenix like yesterday...or last year). I was focusing on the U.S. West since that is where the 'Yotes currently are and Phoenix, KC, Portland and Houston all have relatively new barns (Portland's is oldest at 1995).

I know it isn't a perfect setup and there are some obstacles to overcome but I don't think any of them are deal breakers. They could break up each ten game block into two five game homestands. Eight road trips and eight homestands.

DoggyII is offline  
Old
03-19-2013, 09:13 AM
  #83
Vinc360
Registered User
 
Vinc360's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,463
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
^^

That would make sense either way for coyotes. Going to Seattle or QC. However it would be 7-8-7-8 or 7-8-8-7. I don't see that would work good for schedule reasons. It makes better schedule reasons for phx to go to seattle and quebec and TOR 2 expansion.
And then what happens when expansion happens?

TOR2 and QC would both want to play in the northeast. Would we have a 10-team division?

IMO it actually makes MORE sense for QC to get the team... in every single way whatsoever. Seattle isn't even building the arena yet, and it also makes more sense schedule-wise in the long term.

Vinc360 is offline  
Old
03-19-2013, 09:21 AM
  #84
cbcwpg
Registered User
 
cbcwpg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Between the Pipes
Country: United Nations
Posts: 5,821
vCash: 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildcat48 View Post
I think folks are putting way too much emphasis on realignment and what happens to the Coyotes...
Agreed.

The NHL and NHLPA have already agreed to the new alignment and also agreed to reevaluate it in 2015.

This realignment was done to move Winnipeg back to the Western Conference ( as was agreed to by the NHL when they allowed the transfer of Atlanta to Winnipeg ) and fix a few other promises. This realignment was not done to facilitate the Coyotes moving. IF the Coyotes do move, they will play in the same division they are in now until 2015 when realignment will be re-evaluated.

cbcwpg is offline  
Old
03-19-2013, 09:23 AM
  #85
saskganesh
Registered User
 
saskganesh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the Annex
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,046
vCash: 500
It's an entertaining and creative idea. But I think a lot of the current players would want to be traded, so you'd have a team of leftovers, never were's and want-to-be's.

So it would be closer to the Washington Generals than the Harlem Globetrotters.

However, while it would make for a bad NHL team, I think it would make for a good movie.

saskganesh is offline  
Old
03-19-2013, 09:26 AM
  #86
saskganesh
Registered User
 
saskganesh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the Annex
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,046
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcwpg View Post
IF the Coyotes do move, they will play in the same division they are in now until 2015 when realignment will be re-evaluated.
I don't know. I just remember how quickly everything changed when the Nords because the Avs. Of course, since that was a team moving West, it was easier to do.

saskganesh is offline  
Old
03-19-2013, 09:36 AM
  #87
cbcwpg
Registered User
 
cbcwpg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Between the Pipes
Country: United Nations
Posts: 5,821
vCash: 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoggyII View Post
Sorry...just trying to think outside the box for a ridiculous situation that has gone on so long and still seems to have no end in sight.
Hey, it would be entertaining I guess, but let's not try to make the NHL look like bigger Bafoons then they already are.

My outside the box thinking is to give the CoG to June 2013... see if they have a real owner, and if not......FOLD'em. End, stop, finish, terminate, cease, pull-the-plug....

Then in two years or more, line up the cities that have actually built arenas on more than paper, get their business plans, and start handing out franchises ( or have a bidding war ). Whatever floats Gary's boat.

cbcwpg is offline  
Old
03-19-2013, 09:40 AM
  #88
MuzikMachine
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 678
vCash: 500
It's an out-of-the-box way of dealing with the Coyotes, however I don't see it happening. The Players Association would never support it and it would create a unprofessional image of the NHL - it's not something a a top tier, North American professional sports league would do with a team in financial difficulty. They would probably be folded first.

A scenario where it might it could play out is a Katrina-type situation where a franchise had to temporarily relocate due to a natural disaster/facilty damage and play all road games, but then return to their home city after a season or two.

MuzikMachine is offline  
Old
03-19-2013, 12:55 PM
  #89
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,219
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinc360 View Post
And then what happens when expansion happens?

TOR2 and QC would both want to play in the northeast. Would we have a 10-team division?

IMO it actually makes MORE sense for QC to get the team... in every single way whatsoever. Seattle isn't even building the arena yet, and it also makes more sense schedule-wise in the long term.
And Seattle is 1 month away before NBA takes the vote on the sale of the Kings to Seattle's group. If NBA approves the sale then Seattle is just an EIS away from starting construction of that arena.

If expansion happens then there will be a new realignment which will happen with the expansion happens. It makes better sense right now to move coyotes to Seattle even better for travel times. Isn't that the whole point of this 4 division realignment was to reduce travel times?

gstommylee is offline  
Old
03-19-2013, 01:00 PM
  #90
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,219
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcwpg View Post
Hey, it would be entertaining I guess, but let's not try to make the NHL look like bigger Bafoons then they already are.

My outside the box thinking is to give the CoG to June 2013... see if they have a real owner, and if not......FOLD'em. End, stop, finish, terminate, cease, pull-the-plug....

Then in two years or more, line up the cities that have actually built arenas on more than paper, get their business plans, and start handing out franchises ( or have a bidding war ). Whatever floats Gary's boat.
They won't fold the team if there are actually relocation options.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
03-19-2013, 01:17 PM
  #91
metalfoot
Karlsson!
 
metalfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Manitoba, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,547
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
And Seattle is 1 month away before NBA takes the vote on the sale of the Kings to Seattle's group. If NBA approves the sale then Seattle is just an EIS away from starting construction of that arena.

If expansion happens then there will be a new realignment which will happen with the expansion happens. It makes better sense right now to move coyotes to Seattle even better for travel times. Isn't that the whole point of this 4 division realignment was to reduce travel times?
Given WA, and the PNW in general though, an EIS is no slam-dunk approval by any means!

I agree that Seattle is the most 'logical' destination for an NHL team re: the realignment. But Quebec fits the criteria, mentioned when Winnipeg got Jets 2.0 of the NHL righting old wrongs and coming home again. So does KC. So does Cleveland. Seattle never had an NHL team per se, just a Western league team back in the 1920s when the Western league was an equal foe to the NHL...

metalfoot is offline  
Old
03-19-2013, 01:27 PM
  #92
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,219
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by metalfoot View Post
Given WA, and the PNW in general though, an EIS is no slam-dunk approval by any means!

I agree that Seattle is the most 'logical' destination for an NHL team re: the realignment. But Quebec fits the criteria, mentioned when Winnipeg got Jets 2.0 of the NHL righting old wrongs and coming home again. So does KC. So does Cleveland. Seattle never had an NHL team per se, just a Western league team back in the 1920s when the Western league was an equal foe to the NHL...
NHL has been wanting a team in seattle for years. We are finally going to address that one issue that has prevented Seattle from getting a team an arena. So you saying NHL should tell Seattle I'm sorry your not gonna get a team and go with a city like KC that has no one interested in bring a team there?

And EIS rarely kills a project. All it does is shows a pro and cons of the site and what needs to be done to mitigate those issues. All Hansen needs to do is throw more money into the project to mitigate those issues. Hansen knows what to expect from the EIS cause he did his own study of the site with his estate lawyer. Hansen has done his homework.

The EIS will not kill this project its rather or not NBA will approve a relocation to Seattle that would. NBA approving Kings sale to hansen's group the arena will get built. BTW the location of said arena is being built right next door to Safeco field 48k and The Clink 67k.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
03-19-2013, 01:31 PM
  #93
metalfoot
Karlsson!
 
metalfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Manitoba, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,547
vCash: 500
I'm not saying any such thing; I'm just pointing out some possible issues, that's all. The facts remain that Quebec has an older arena available to use immediately for NHL purposes with a new arena already being built, a more recent NHL past, and a rabid fan base, comparable to that of Winnipeg, which was an overnight success.

The NHL has been wanting a team in Seattle, yes, but is there a definite owner with all the revenue streams available to him/her/it?

metalfoot is offline  
Old
03-19-2013, 01:34 PM
  #94
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,219
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by metalfoot View Post
I'm not saying any such thing; I'm just pointing out some possible issues, that's all. The facts remain that Quebec has an older arena available to use immediately for NHL purposes with a new arena already being built, a more recent NHL past, and a rabid fan base, comparable to that of Winnipeg, which was an overnight success.

The NHL has been wanting a team in Seattle, yes, but is there a definite owner with all the revenue streams available to him/her/it?
I think both Quebec City and Seattle deserve teams but reality is what does the NHL want to do. Save relocation for Seattle and bring the bigger $$$ in QC and TOR2 in expansion fees? Seattle will not bring in amount of an expansion fee that QC and TOR 2 will bring.

If QC are getting the coyotes wait another year then do the realignment review next year when said relocation happens. I don't think having QC play in the most western divison makes any sense given one of the reasons of realignment was to reduce travel costs.

Levin has been the only person come out publicly with the interest of moving a team to Seattle and he's perfectly fine with Key Arena as temp facility. Only reason why no one else has come out yet cause well no point in having discussions with league until they know the arena will be built. Like i said NBA approves sale of the kings the arena will get built. Its hard to say no on a project when the NBA team has already there.

Hansen has 80m dollar reason to get a NHL team here. I'm sure there will be no issue between Hansen and majority owner of said seattle NHL team working out something regarding revenue streams.

Maybe there something more going on in the back ground regarding the coyotes and seattle than we know? There are rumors that if Seattle gets NBA kings they are getting coyotes.


Last edited by gstommylee: 03-19-2013 at 01:44 PM.
gstommylee is offline  
Old
03-19-2013, 02:14 PM
  #95
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 21,649
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoggyII View Post
Sorry...just trying to think outside the box for a ridiculous situation that has gone on so long and still seems to have no end in sight.
Ya, an amusing concept & discussed here before, but no. Theres no way the NHLPA would go along with it, let alone it being a terrible embarrassment for the league itself.

Killion is offline  
Old
03-19-2013, 02:49 PM
  #96
GuelphStormer
Registered User
 
GuelphStormer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Guelph, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,757
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
NHL has been wanting a team in seattle for years. We are finally going to address that one issue that has prevented Seattle from getting a team an arena. So you saying NHL should tell Seattle I'm sorry your not gonna get a team and go with a city like KC that has no one interested in bring a team there?
1) what evidence do you have that indicates the NHL wants a team in seattle? that they said so? the NHL has said a lot of things over the years, some true, some less so.

2) seattle certainly wouldn't be the first city to be left at the alter for a different bride. compared to hamilton or quebec (or even winnipeg until last year) seattle has absolutely nothing to whine about.

GuelphStormer is offline  
Old
03-19-2013, 02:59 PM
  #97
Gotaf7
Registered User
 
Gotaf7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Winterpeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 553
vCash: 50
Colorado to group A, Phoenix to Quebec and plays in group B. Alignment has nothing to do with where they will play knext year, I just can't see the NHL covering the losses in Glendale for another year.

Gotaf7 is offline  
Old
03-19-2013, 03:26 PM
  #98
LeafShark
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 706
vCash: 500
As strange (or not) as it may seem, the most likely option is to stay in Phoenix IMO. Before the recession and the ownership scuttle... Phoenix was actually a respectable expansion franchise. Also the NHL REALLY wants to stay in Phoenix, and the only market ready to receive RIGHT NOW is Quebec... (not KC, the market is too saturated and small). The easiest way to sell the franchise is to drop the price... next year with a 10M loss incurred for this season, the price would be $180M, which would be too much. However the ownership instability is definitely affecting revenue by my estimates minimum 10%. In my opinion, if suddenly I were to wave my magic wand, and there is an owner next season, the Coyotes would only have to make the playoffs to achieve a profit. I understand the hesitation in this market, but the recession and ownership problems really hit the market hard, and before, had respectable numbers, even with a terrible team.

The Phoenix sports market is definitely over-saturated, but it's a key market... probably a similar situation in Seattle once both an NBA team and an NHL team move in. I'm all for Seattle and QC, but I don't think the Phoenix Coyotes are moving (as embarrassing as this situation has been). The only reason the NHL moved Atlanta is because they literally had NO OTHER OPTIONS. ASG kicked the Thrashers out on the street, and made the lease agreement for the arena impossible to negotiate. I think Bettman see's Phoenix's efforts to keep the team, and he'd literally do everything in his power to keep the team there. Even if the team only loses 10M a year as opposed to 20M+ I see the team staying. There definitely would be a spike in revenues if stable ownership is announced, just as there was a dip when there was no owner. Miami and Phoenix are very comparable in terms of the recession impact, team "suckage", and TV contract importance.

2 counter points of the Miami example to note
1. Extremely favorable arena terms for Florida
2. Phoenix had gotten a little better while the Panthers still suck

In my opinion the NHL will stay at all costs for the next couple of years. Why move a team when you're going to do everything you can to get back into the market 15 years later. I think to the NHL, moving the team would be another Jets/Nordiques type of mistake. Just like Atlanta was a Hartford mistake.

Also the NHL now is the healthiest it's ever been since modern expansion. There is no need to talk contraction. Look at attendance numbers. Look at profits and revenues. Look at looked up leases and team stability. Phoenix is the only question mark. Expansion is coming. And yes, even Seattle could very well become another Phoenix if it were impacted by the same forces (although it would fare slightly better because of it's latitude, it's closeness to the Canadian border, and it's relatively stable economy). The NHL likes to think long term, and long term, Phoenix should have a team. Why take a team out, only to have a desire to give Phoenix another team 15 years down the road?

As embarrassing as the situation is, I expect the Coyotes to stay after this season, even if no ownership is found. The League will probably hold onto them until realignment and expansion talks start and when the Quebec and Seattle arenas are complete. That would be the perfect time to dish off the Coyotes off if necessary. What's another 2 or 3 years to the NHL?

LeafShark is offline  
Old
03-19-2013, 03:37 PM
  #99
Roughneck
Registered User
 
Roughneck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Calgary
Country: Ireland
Posts: 8,627
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Roughneck
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeafShark View Post
I understand the hesitation in this market, but the recession and ownership problems really hit the market hard, and before, had respectable numbers, even with a terrible team.
What they didn't have, was a profit.

Plus, their respectable numbers were something of a lie:


Roughneck is offline  
Old
03-19-2013, 04:09 PM
  #100
cbcwpg
Registered User
 
cbcwpg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Between the Pipes
Country: United Nations
Posts: 5,821
vCash: 350
Just a couple of points.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LeafShark View Post
As strange (or not) as it may seem, the most likely option is to stay in Phoenix IMO. Before the recession and the ownership scuttle... Phoenix was actually a respectable expansion franchise. Also the NHL REALLY wants to stay in Phoenix,
Minor, but the Coyotes were never an expansion franchise, they were relocated. More importantly thought, the NHL isn't the one that REALLY wants to stay in Phoenix. The CoG wants the team to stay so thier Westgate Mall empire-building project doesn't go belly up. Sure the NHL would like them to stay ( or at least the majority of owners paying Bettman's salary ), but not if it costs them a small fortune. This team is ONLY still in Glendale because of the willingness of the city to put $50M on the table.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LeafShark View Post
I understand the hesitation in this market, but the recession and ownership problems really hit the market hard, and before, had respectable numbers, even with a terrible team.
I just don't see any numbers being all that respectable. Money wise, according to what we find on the internet, this team has never turned a profit. Average attendance wise, according to ESPN, the best year the Coyotes have ever had was 15,585 in 1996-97 ( year 1 ). I don't care about the actual number other than to state that it has never been as good as year 1.

cbcwpg 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 03:57 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.