The Business of HockeyDiscuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Franchise sales, valuations, TV contracts, ratings, expansion, relocation, the CBA and work stoppage discussion goes here.
Phoenix XLIII: How to Bake Cupcakes in Less Than Two Weeks
Im curious to know why anyone thinks the team has a chance of being successful in Phoenix.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gotaf7
I also curious.
See below. Have fun! We're closing in on 69,000 posts. I am starting to think 100,000 posts is doable!
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209
Happy Groundhog Day to all ...
Phil: There is no way that this thread is *ever* going to end as long as this groundhog keeps seeing his shadow. I don't see any other way out. He's got to be stopped. And I have to stop him.
PhilPhoenix: I have been stabbed, shot, poisoned, frozen, hung, electrocuted, and burned. Moyesed, JBed, Baumed, Ice Edged, JRed, Jamisoned, and Hulzsized.
Rita: Oh, really? PhilPhoenix: ...and every morning thread I wake up without a scratch on me, not a dent in the fender... I am an immortal.
Followed by the Interregnum between Kings Phoenix the XXXVII-th and Phoenix the XXXVIII-th:
[PYTHON]
The most interesting thing about King Charles, the first
Is that he was 5 foot 6 inches tall at the start of his reign
But only 4 foot 8 inches tall at the end of it because of
Oliver Cromwell, Lord Protector of England Puritan
Born in 1599 and died in 1658 September
[/PYTHON]
I think this just might be the most poorly written, most convoluted, and least informative article on the Coyotes' ownership situation yet. And that is saying something. Note that the "poll" affiliated with the article asks the hopelessly naive question: "Will Jeremy Roenick step up and help save the Coyotes?" Who is this writer?
The names of Jim Balsillie, Ice Edge Holdings, Jerry Reinsdorf, former San Jose Sharks President and CEO Greg Jamison and briefly, Jeremy Roenick, have been mentioned at one time or another with the hopes of keeping the team in Arizona.
Jim Balsille has been mentioned with the hopes of keeping the team in Arizona? Thats a new one.
Jim Balsille is a smart man & there is no way that if he buys tha coyotes that he will keep them in Phoenix that is just bad business he would move them to Hamilton .
Jim Balsille is a smart man & there is no way that if he buys tha coyotes that he will keep them in Phoenix that is just bad business he would move them to Hamilton .
Balsillie "pooped" on any chance for him to become an NHL owner and on Hamilton to have any chance of having an NHL team. We all know that. He cost the NHL millions and screwed up an orderly transition of ownership in Phoenix from Moyes to Reinsdorf.
Im curious to know why anyone thinks the team has a chance of being successful in Phoenix.
Its' never really been given much of a fighting chance CyNick. Landed at the AWA in Phoenix when Burke&Gluckstern were shooed away from Minneapolis when that city refused to provide them with tax benefits & lease breaks. Jerry Colangelo of the Suns' welcomed them with a punitive rental agreement shorting revenue streams, the facility inappropriate for hockey. Burke eventually sold & moved on to the Islanders, Gluckstern bringing in Ellman & Moyes, moving on to Glendale. Lousy on-ice product, ownership clueless, the rest is history.... Will it work?. I believe so, however, the damage done over the past 2.5yrs combined with the past 10 has created a rather steep hill to climb from a deep trench. Turnarounds can be quick & dramatic. The buildings grossly underbooked, while Maloney's been unable to sign UFA's & RFA's to long term contracts, thus crippling efforts to really make an impact, go deep in the playoffs. Sales & Admin have been cut to the bone. A lot of work to be done, expensive, but IMO worth it & very much doable....
My prediction is that if there is an announcement, it will be something to the effect: "The NHL has agreed to terms on the sale of the Phoenix Coyotes to a group led by Greg Jamison, subject to the the successful negotiation of a long-term lease agreement with the City of Glendale. The NHL continues to be committed to the Phoenix market and is hopeful that Mr. Jamison and the City of Glendale can quickly come to a lease agreement."
I think we are heading towards something that will sound very similar to that.
I also have a sneaking suspicion that it may also include a tone of: "If Glendale does not approve a lease that will allow the team to be competitive, the NHL will be forced to explore other options for the 2012-2013 season."
I still don't think Glendale can sneak the kind of subsidy the Coyotes are seeking past Goldwater. But I cannot wait to see them try to again.
Qc - I am guessing you are in Quebec, and perhaps English is not your first language. My guess would be based on a few things I have noticed. Sorry if I am wrong about that.
Anyway, (and I don't mean this as criticism), If I am right about English, I think you do very well.
However, in the above quote, the word should be "price", not "prize." In English, a prize is something awarded for winning an event. The "price" is the amount paid to attempt to win the award.
So, $200Million is the price. The team would be the prize, for all the work involved.
Again, please take this in the spirit that I am trying to be helpful, not critical.
Who ever buys the coyotes is going to move them it is just a matter of when & where because you will find no one that would be stupid enough to keep them in Phoenix especially in a election year .
Qc - I am guessing you are in Quebec, and perhaps English is not your first language. My guess would be based on a few things I have noticed. Sorry if I am wrong about that.
Anyway, (and I don't mean this as criticism), If I am right about English, I think you do very well.
However, in the above quote, the word should be "price", not "prize." In English, a prize is something awarded for winning an event. The "price" is the amount paid to attempt to win the award.
So, $200Million is the price. The team would be the prize, for all the work involved.
Again, please take this in the spirit that I am trying to be helpful, not critical.
Cheers.
or it could've just been a typo as "C" and "Z" are fairly close on the keyboard
I think we are heading towards something that will sound very similar to that.
I also have a sneaking suspicion that it may also include a tone of: "If Glendale does not approve a lease that will allow the team to be competitive, the NHL will be forced to explore other options for the 2012-2013 season."
I still don't think Glendale can sneak the kind of subsidy the Coyotes are seeking past Goldwater. But I cannot wait to see them try to again.
Yes, but does that not strike you as being exceedingly disingenuous?. The NHL can simply transfer the AMUL to an incoming owner yet instead if they play that card they'll be transferring the onus & responsibility onto the COG's shoulders. Scapegoating the city for its own failures in facilitating a sale.
Secondly, what subsidies could Glendale possibly provide beyond paying a revised fair market value Arena Management Fee?. With Westgate in flux, a CFD isnt feasible at the moment; the parking rights are held (I assume) within the AMUL. Bondings' right of the question. The only "relief" I can envision would simply have to come from the league itself and to date, theyve' remained inflexible as clearly they have at least one if not two options to sell for relo and recoup their investments in full...
If those options didnt exist, then sure, we'd likely see them getting creative from price to terms, actually living up to their platitudes...
CF, please correct me if I am wrong, but should the COG sell Jamison the arena at a discounted price, they could justify it under Turken by showing that COG losses over a specified span of years would be greater than the loss in a discounted sale of the arena.
This, IMO is the way to navigate the Gift Clause; just sell the damned building.
Yes, but does that not strike you as being exceedingly disingenuous?. The NHL can simply transfer the AMUL to an incoming owner yet instead if they play that card they'll be transferring the onus & responsibility onto the COG's shoulders. Scapegoating the city for its own failures in facilitating a sale.
The NHL can transfer or extend the AMUL at their discretion. I would have serious questions about the wisdom of doing either as well as serious doubts about an incoming owner desiring that arrangement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion
Secondly, what subsidies could Glendale possibly provide beyond paying a revised fair market value Arena Management Fee?. With Westgate in flux, a CFD isnt feasible at the moment; the parking rights are held (I assume) within the AMUL. Bondings' right of the question. The only "relief" I can envision would simply have to come from the league itself and to date, theyve' remained inflexible as clearly they have at least one if not two options to sell for relo and recoup their investments in full...
I would imagine a properly motivated group of politicians and lawyers could find quite a few creative ways to subsidize a franchise despite Glendale's perilous market rating.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottrocks58
CF, please correct me if I am wrong, but should the COG sell Jamison the arena at a discounted price, they could justify it under Turken by showing that COG losses over a specified span of years would be greater than the loss in a discounted sale of the arena. This, IMO is the way to navigate the Gift Clause; just sell the damned building.
First, there would have to be an interest in buying the building. Why would Jamison buy the arena when he already realizes the revenue from all events? Further, Glendale would no longer be able to pay the team an "Arena Management Fee" for a building the city doesn't own. There is no incentive for Jamison (or any other franchise owner, in any market, in any sport) to own the venue.
That aside, the Gift Clause prohibits governmental entities from lending their credit to individuals or private companies. I am not suggesting the sale of the arena would merit a challenge, however, if Glendale is paying the debt for a property that is owned by a private company that would lend itself to an investigation into violating the credit lending prong of the Gift Clause.
First, there would have to be an interest in buying the building. Why would Jamison buy the arena when he already realizes the revenue from all events? Further, Glendale would no longer be able to pay the team an "Arena Management Fee" for a building the city doesn't own. There is no incentive for Jamison (or any other franchise owner, in any market, in any sport) to own the venue.
That aside, the Gift Clause prohibits governmental entities from lending their credit to individuals or private companies. I am not suggesting the sale of the arena would merit a challenge, however, if Glendale is paying the debt for a property that is owned by a private company that would lend itself to an investigation into violating the credit lending prong of the Gift Clause.
Jeremy Roenick, when he announced that he was part of the proposed ownership group, fronted the idea that the group wanted the building. He said that it made more economic sense to purchase the team and the building.
I suspect that the avoidence of lease payments and the ability to maximize all possible revenue streams is what they were looking for. Should JR/Jamison be able to own the building and energize the populace, there is probably more upside to owning the building than to having an ongoing lease and subsidy agreement. That is all predicated on a reasonable price for the building.
CF, please correct me if I am wrong, but should the COG sell Jamison the arena at a discounted price, they could justify it under Turken by showing that COG losses over a specified span of years would be greater than the loss in a discounted sale of the arena.
This, IMO is the way to navigate the Gift Clause; just sell the damned building.
That would probably be more difficult than selling the team. Nobody bid on Westgate, someone could have bought it all for 40 million. The city sold bonds to cover the 180 million on the building, how can they sell it for less? What would happen to the bond holders? If you owned the building you would really be screwed. No chance on just up and leaving. Plus you'd be paying taxes.
Jeremy Roenick, when he announced that he was part of the proposed ownership group, fronted the idea that the group wanted the building. He said that it made more economic sense to purchase the team and the building.
