HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Arizona Coyotes
Notices

Ownership Cluster**** Thread: NHL and GJ, Put Up or Shut Up!

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-12-2012, 11:32 AM
  #301
rt
Usually Incorrect
 
rt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Rarely Sober
Country: United States
Posts: 41,336
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by yotesreign View Post
Putting aside all the political pitfalls and fallout of another local city or 'burb poaching the team from Glendale which I think would be serious roadblocks to that effort, even putting that aside, I don't see the idea of moving the team downtown or expecting another Arizona suburb to build them an equivalent arena as realistic. And I don't see any private business deciding it would make sense to build a new $230+ arena in Scottsdale or Chandler or Phoenix to house the team, and I don't see Robert Sarver offering to buy the team or partner with someone else to buy it yet. I think he has his hands full with the Suns.

But that really doesn't matter. Let someone with the money to do it come forward and announce he wants to do that, or let Sarver announce he wants to buy into the team and move it to downtown. Then it is something worth talking about. Until then, I think it's just 'dreaming online'.
Yeah, I think that's pretty clear.

rt is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 11:35 AM
  #302
rt
Usually Incorrect
 
rt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Rarely Sober
Country: United States
Posts: 41,336
vCash: 500
What details have come out of CBA discussions concerning revenue sharing? Have we had any numbers come out? Anyone know what is being discussed?

Have to wonder how that might impact just how flexible Jamison can be in terms of renegotiating his AMF with COG.

rt is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 11:42 AM
  #303
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 goyotes View Post
You do know that Ballsack's offer to the CoG was not contingent on him getting the team, but merely on the CoG throwing itself behind the sale to Ballsack? All the City had to do was agree to not contest Ballsack as a buyer, and of course, agree to forgo its claim of damages if the lease was allowed to be breached. Had the City done that, the City would be positive $100M.

My point wasn't that the City should have done this. My point was those decisions to not make a deal with Ballsack and to put up two $25M payments, were all made under Scrugg's leadership and her as the primary cheerleader. How she can now justify those decisions while working towards ensuring the Coyotes leave town, is beyond me. It amounts to throwing away $100M in my opinion. I was simply calling her out as a terrible leader.
I am totally with you regarding Scruggsie's terrible leadership in this issue but it is important to note that, IMHO, the terrible started with her latest switch to non-support of the Jamieson group and the lease proposal. When she told Baldsilly to go pound sand she was right on.

There are situations when elected officials have to stand on principle and 'RIM-Jim' trying to move a professional sports franchise without league blessings is bush league. Your math example not withstanding, the offer extended by the guy who should have worried about his BB empire was a non-starter from the get-go and entirely pointless.

Matzel is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 12:03 PM
  #304
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 rt View Post
What details have come out of CBA discussions concerning revenue sharing? Have we had any numbers come out? Anyone know what is being discussed?

Have to wonder how that might impact just how flexible Jamison can be in terms of renegotiating his AMF with COG.
The G&M had a recent article on revenue sharing. (not without taking a few jabs at the Yotes as you may expect...)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...rticle5103058/

If you don't want to read the article:

In its last proposal, the NHLPA is looking for $260.0mm annual revenue sharing;
The NHL has offered as much as $200.0mm annual revenue sharing.

The expired CBA had about $150.0mm in annual revenue sharing.

Matzel is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 12:29 PM
  #305
rt
Usually Incorrect
 
rt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Rarely Sober
Country: United States
Posts: 41,336
vCash: 500
Pretty remarkable. If the league gets 50/50 and the players get the league to go up to say 225 in revenue sharing, I'd say becoming an owner of a smaller market team has become much more appealing proposition, no? Especially if you've got a local municipality forking over a decent amount of dough annually to manage their arena, in which your team is the only anchor tenant.

rt is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 12:32 PM
  #306
Colt45Blast
It Works Everytime!
 
Colt45Blast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Country: Mexico
Posts: 25,099
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by yotesreign View Post
Putting aside all the political pitfalls and fallout of another local city or 'burb poaching the team from Glendale which I think would be serious roadblocks to that effort, even putting that aside, I don't see the idea of moving the team downtown or expecting another Arizona suburb to build them an equivalent arena as realistic. And I don't see any private business deciding it would make sense to build a new $230+ arena in Scottsdale or Chandler or Phoenix to house the team, and I don't see Robert Sarver offering to buy the team or partner with someone else to buy it yet. I think he has his hands full with the Suns.

But that really doesn't matter. Let someone with the money to do it come forward and announce he wants to do that, or let Sarver announce he wants to buy into the team and move it to downtown. Then it is something worth talking about. Until then, I think it's just 'dreaming online'.
Do keep in mind that I never said that team was going to move back to downtown but rather open to the idea of. At best I was suggesting more that this is something the NHL should consider trying to do in case it doesn't workout in the end with Glendale for a couple of good reasons.

1. The NHL has clearly soften its stance how much seating is needed in new arenas the moment the league allowed for the Islanders to move to the Barkleys Center in Brooklyn.

2. Remember when Gary Bettman said that relocation is only neccessary if there is no other option? It would be bad from a PR standpoint if the team just relocated after not working it out with Glendale to least explore the option of moving the team back to downtown if someone other than Sarver is willing to own the team there, ask the City of Phoenix if they are willing to work on an agreement to workout a deal for the team, or try to get Jamison or someone else buy the Coyotes and try to make Sarver an offer he can't refuse to buy the Suns.

If the team relocates out of AZ, it will make the league look very bad when others in town and in the more objective people in the media start asking; Why not bother trying to get the team back in downtown when the Glendale failed to come though in the end?


Last edited by Colt45Blast: 11-12-2012 at 03:27 PM.
Colt45Blast is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 01:11 PM
  #307
rt
Usually Incorrect
 
rt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Rarely Sober
Country: United States
Posts: 41,336
vCash: 500
The Islanders moved because they did not have a local government willing to provide a suitable facility. Leaving in spite of such a thing is so completely different. The population and the facility are the only two redeeming qualities about this market. This isn't the mid nineties, and I'm quite sure the NHL would much prefer the safer money nearer the border. I honestly don't believe the market potential that brought the team to Phoenix is what is keeping the team in Phoenix. Not at all. It is the building plain and simple, in my opinion.

Honestly, if I were the NHL I wouldn't really be worried about the precedent set by abandoning Glendale or how it would impact the image of the league. Obviously it doesnt make Seattle or Quebec nervous at all. The Islanders are already moving. How many new buildings, not already well into the works will the nhl need in the next ten years? Will any arena construction ten or more years away even remember Glendale, let alone consider the lesson learned in Glendale. I seriously doubt it.

Personally, I believe in the very long term upside of this market. I believe the NHL does too. In this economic climate, though, I might be more concerned about grabbing the quick cash at hand. I'm of the Lilly livered variety, though. Bettman and the others seem to have vastly superior resolve.

rt is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 01:49 PM
  #308
Colt45Blast
It Works Everytime!
 
Colt45Blast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Country: Mexico
Posts: 25,099
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rt View Post
The Islanders moved because they did not have a local government willing to provide a suitable facility. Leaving in spite of such a thing is so completely different. The population and the facility are the only two redeeming qualities about this market. This isn't the mid nineties, and I'm quite sure the NHL would much prefer the safer money nearer the border. I honestly don't believe the market potential that brought the team to Phoenix is what is keeping the team in Phoenix. Not at all. It is the building plain and simple, in my opinion.
The only thing the NHL cares about is paying off the line of credit it took out to get the team out of bankruptcy, where the team is to get that paid off doesn't matter all that much as they prefer not to move the team to a place that could eat into their profit off an expansion team. Also, when the Islanders move after their lease is complete, their former arena should be in no doubt paid-off in full, where as should the Coyotes move out of Glendale now or in the near future, the arena debt is not paid in full.

Quote:
Honestly, if I were the NHL I wouldn't really be worried about the precedent set by abandoning Glendale or how it would impact the image of the league. Obviously it doesnt make Seattle or Quebec nervous at all. The Islanders are already moving. How many new buildings, not already well into the works will the nhl need in the next ten years? Will any arena construction ten or more years away even remember Glendale, let alone consider the lesson learned in Glendale. I seriously doubt it.
Except the problem is that any future facilites for any sports league is going to need voter approval. The tide has changed dramtically over the years as the public now saying more and more for the owners of these teams to pay for a new building out of their own pocket. Leaving the taxpayers on the hook for the costs assoicated with Jobing.com Arena is only going to lead to a much more stronger opposition by the voters and many other politicans. I wouldn't be surprised if some states start passing laws stating that owners of teams playing in building that receives public funding are fully responsible of that kind of debt no matter what as a result of the Coyotes getting relocated.


Last edited by Colt45Blast: 11-12-2012 at 01:56 PM.
Colt45Blast is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 03:53 PM
  #309
_Del_
Registered User
 
_Del_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: SkullcrusherMountain
Posts: 2,931
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by rt View Post
The Islanders moved because they did not have a local government willing to provide a suitable facility.
If Glendale is no longer willing to come to terms on a lease, doesn't this situation meet that condition? It doesn't matter that the facility is already there. It isn't willing to provide it at suitable terms.

If I'm Jamison or the NHL, I look I at least float the idea of a lease to Phoenix. He'll be the owner of a team with no place to put it. If Jamison and the league are committed to the Valley, it would make sense to at least explore favourable terms with the city for a US Airways lease if the bridge with Glendale is burnt.

If they really aren't able to come to terms with Glendale, why would it matter financially to Glendale if the city moves to Quebec, Seattle or Phoenix?

_Del_ is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 04:09 PM
  #310
yotesreign
Registered User
 
yotesreign's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Goldwater Blvd
Country: United States
Posts: 1,549
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rt View Post
The Islanders moved because they did not have a local government willing to provide a suitable facility. Leaving in spite of such a thing is so completely different. The population and the facility are the only two redeeming qualities about this market. This isn't the mid nineties, and I'm quite sure the NHL would much prefer the safer money nearer the border. I honestly don't believe the market potential that brought the team to Phoenix is what is keeping the team in Phoenix. Not at all. It is the building plain and simple, in my opinion.

Honestly, if I were the NHL I wouldn't really be worried about the precedent set by abandoning Glendale or how it would impact the image of the league. Obviously it doesnt make Seattle or Quebec nervous at all. The Islanders are already moving. How many new buildings, not already well into the works will the nhl need in the next ten years? Will any arena construction ten or more years away even remember Glendale, let alone consider the lesson learned in Glendale. I seriously doubt it.

Personally, I believe in the very long term upside of this market. I believe the NHL does too. In this economic climate, though, I might be more concerned about grabbing the quick cash at hand. I'm of the Lilly livered variety, though. Bettman and the others seem to have vastly superior resolve.
That building is one of the best in the league. IT and the willingness of the City of Glendale (which after all, owns that building whether an NHL team is here or not) to support it, pay for it, pay to maintain it, pay to manage it (and many critics would say, at $50 million over two years, $300+ million over 20 years, grossly OVERPAY someone to manage it) - is why the NHL still owns the team. It is NOT that Phoenix is some golden market. It is the building and the city's willingess to pay for that building and the associated costs. The guys who brought the team here are long gone. Burke/Gluckstern, Colangelo...

That said, the NHL still needed $25 million two years ago and $20 million last year to stay. When that tap is shut off and if no new owner comes forward to take over... we'll see how long the NHL stays here.

I wouldn't spend any time thinking they'll thoughtfully raise an eyebrow and wonder if Bob Sarver as any interest in a hockey team.

Lockout Fever - Catch It!

yotesreign is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 04:25 PM
  #311
awfulwaffle
Registered User
 
awfulwaffle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Country: United States
Posts: 6,240
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by yotesreign View Post
I wouldn't spend any time thinking they'll thoughtfully raise an eyebrow and wonder if Bob Sarver as any interest in a hockey team.

Lockout Fever - Catch It!
Oh god, if Sarver were to own the Coyotes, I would seriously contemplate Suicide.

awfulwaffle is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 04:29 PM
  #312
Colt45Blast
It Works Everytime!
 
Colt45Blast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Country: Mexico
Posts: 25,099
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Del_ View Post
If Glendale is no longer willing to come to terms on a lease, doesn't this situation meet that condition? It doesn't matter that the facility is already there. It isn't willing to provide it at suitable terms.

If I'm Jamison or the NHL, I look I at least float the idea of a lease to Phoenix. He'll be the owner of a team with no place to put it. If Jamison and the league are committed to the Valley, it would make sense to at least explore favourable terms with the city for a US Airways lease if the bridge with Glendale is burnt.

If they really aren't able to come to terms with Glendale, why would it matter financially to Glendale if the city moves to Quebec, Seattle or Phoenix?
Excatly! As far as I'm concerned, the ones who don't want to see hockey back in Downtown Phoenix, if it doesn't workout with Glendale in the end, even if the owner of the Coyotes manages to get a sweetheart deal to play at the US Airways Center are those who complain about the limited view seats.

I say, who ****ing cares? If you don't like those seats, then either don't go to the games and watch the games on tv or be willing to pay the price to sit somewhere else in the arena. Besides, come playoff time, no one gave a rats ass anyway about how limted the view was in those seats anyways.


Last edited by Colt45Blast: 11-12-2012 at 04:59 PM.
Colt45Blast is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 04:32 PM
  #313
rt
Usually Incorrect
 
rt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Rarely Sober
Country: United States
Posts: 41,336
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Del_ View Post
If Glendale is no longer willing to come to terms on a lease, doesn't this situation meet that condition? It doesn't matter that the facility is already there. It isn't willing to provide it at suitable terms.

If I'm Jamison or the NHL, I look I at least float the idea of a lease to Phoenix. He'll be the owner of a team with no place to put it. If Jamison and the league are committed to the Valley, it would make sense to at least explore favourable terms with the city for a US Airways lease if the bridge with Glendale is burnt.

If they really aren't able to come to terms with Glendale, why would it matter financially to Glendale if the city moves to Quebec, Seattle or Phoenix?
Doesn't matter to Glendale. It matters to the NHL.

US Airways Center holds about 16k for hockey, right?

Colisée Pepsi holds about 15k, right?

Average ticket price in Phoenix would be something like 30-40 bucks, right? What about QC? 75-80 bucks a ticket until the new arena opens in 2015, and probably more like 90-100 after that, I would guess, and that building will seat over 18k, IIRC. Plus, QC will sell out every single home game until at least 2019, I would imagine. Certainly they'll sell out the first three years back, and again for at least a few years once the new building is open. Historically the Nordiques always had tremendous attendance numbers, even when they sucked. Even if the economy in the states gets better between now and 2019 and things in Canada level off, I'm not sure that puts the ledger back to even. QC lost the team because of the barn, not the market. The new is being built. It will be there.

Expanding to QC and keeping the team in Glendale would be ideal, but if bridges get burned in Glendale than QC is quite obviously a better landing spot that US Airways Center in Phoenix.

rt is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 04:34 PM
  #314
rt
Usually Incorrect
 
rt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Rarely Sober
Country: United States
Posts: 41,336
vCash: 500
Anyone remember when the Coyotes were nearly sent packing for Portland Oregon because they couldn't get an arena built in the Phoenix area. Then Glendale built them an arena and they were saved?

Why is now different from then? Other than Phoenix now being a less appealing market due to the economy?

rt is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 04:43 PM
  #315
Colt45Blast
It Works Everytime!
 
Colt45Blast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Country: Mexico
Posts: 25,099
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rt View Post
Expanding to QC and keeping the team in Glendale would be ideal, but if bridges get burned in Glendale than QC is quite obviously a better landing spot that US Airways Center in Phoenix.
True but that doesn't mean that the landing spot in Downtown Phoenix isn't profitable at all if the owner gets the kind of lease they want and the next CBA works in the owners favor. In the end, the NHL just wants its money back and they really don't care that much how they get but would rather they their money back on the sale of the Coyotes in AZ and not have that sale eat at the profit of what would be if QC got a team at the cost of expansion.

Also, while from a business stand point, QC would be better in terms of making a profit no matter what, that means the owner in QC would be less motivated to have a winning product on the ice, while the opposite is true in AZ.

Colt45Blast is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 04:54 PM
  #316
Colt45Blast
It Works Everytime!
 
Colt45Blast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Country: Mexico
Posts: 25,099
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rt View Post
Anyone remember when the Coyotes were nearly sent packing for Portland Oregon because they couldn't get an arena built in the Phoenix area. Then Glendale built them an arena and they were saved?

Why is now different from then? Other than Phoenix now being a less appealing market due to the economy?
Yes and I also remember Matt Hulsier said that the Coyotes did manage to make a profit for one season while they played in downtown despite having a lease where their only form of revenue was off of ticket sales and no salary cap either in that time.

The team has never turned a profit once in Glendale with a new arena, even with the salary cap in place and has been under the threat of relocation for quite sometime now. What we have learned in this mess is that it's not so much the building that is the difference maker if a team can make a profit or not but rather the other conditions that come into play; How the owner operates the team, revenue streams, etc.

If anything compared to the Islanders, what helps them out in playing in Brooklyn with much less seats than the U.S Airways Center is the tv deal they get from MSG Network but that doean't mean such a stream would never be available to the Coyotes in the future no matter where they play under the right conditions.


Last edited by Colt45Blast: 11-12-2012 at 05:00 PM.
Colt45Blast is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 05:45 PM
  #317
knowsthegame
Registered User
 
knowsthegame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Tale of 2 NHL cities
Posts: 864
vCash: 500
If the deal with Jameson doesn't get done, it will be because Glendale council couldn't/wouldn't get the lease agreement approved.
If the team does not get sold to Jameson it will be gone IMO.
With no other buyers, why Glendale hasn't been able to finalize this lease after all this time is beyond me.

knowsthegame is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 06:54 PM
  #318
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 AP View Post
Also, while from a business stand point, QC would be better in terms of making a profit no matter what, that means the owner in QC would be less motivated to have a winning product on the ice, while the opposite is true in AZ.
Not necessarily. Under the new CBA, if revenue sharing includes playoff revenues, the Yotes may shoot themselves in the foot when they perform well in the playoffs as they would have to share (some of their) playoff revenue. A deep playoff run could spell financial hardship.

The G&M article I linked above looks at it in more detail but there may be a case for the have-not-teams to stay athletically unsuccessful for an improved bottom line.

I have got to hope that this will not be the case and the new CBA will ensure that on-ice-success is every owner`s top priority.

Matzel is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 07:19 PM
  #319
_Del_
Registered User
 
_Del_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: SkullcrusherMountain
Posts: 2,931
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by rt View Post
Anyone remember when the Coyotes were nearly sent packing for Portland Oregon because they couldn't get an arena built in the Phoenix area. Then Glendale built them an arena and they were saved?
The issue was the terms of the lease at AWA. If you could get a USAC lease that was favourable, why wouldn't they take it? I don't know that they can or would get a workable lease downtown. It might be completely unworkable. I'm just saying that if they're truly interested in staying in the market, they'd look at it. It might even embarrass Glendale enough to get a deal done there.

There's no question that QC would be a better investment than either Glendale or Phoenix -- to date the league has preferred to maintain the local market. What I don't see is why moving to Phoenix is any less preferable to staying in Glendale from the league's view of maintaining the local market. If they were solely interested in the immediate monetary aspect AZ-QC, the team would already be gone from Glendale.

_Del_ is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 07:52 PM
  #320
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 11,287
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matzel View Post
Not necessarily. Under the new CBA, if revenue sharing includes playoff revenues, the Yotes may shoot themselves in the foot when they perform well in the playoffs as they would have to share (some of their) playoff revenue. A deep playoff run could spell financial hardship.

The G&M article I linked above looks at it in more detail but there may be a case for the have-not-teams to stay athletically unsuccessful for an improved bottom line.

I have got to hope that this will not be the case and the new CBA will ensure that on-ice-success is every owner`s top priority.
Under the last CBA there was no incentive for teams to be unsuccessful. All teams (including the Yotes) contributed a portion of their playoff revenue to the revenue sharing pool. Eligible teams received revenue sharing based on their pre-season and regular season revenues--playoff revenues weren't included.

While we don't know what the full details of the next CBA will be I think its highly unlikely they'll create a system where teams have a financial incentive to not make the playoffs.

mouser is online now  
Old
11-12-2012, 07:56 PM
  #321
Colt45Blast
It Works Everytime!
 
Colt45Blast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Country: Mexico
Posts: 25,099
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matzel View Post
Not necessarily. Under the new CBA, if revenue sharing includes playoff revenues, the Yotes may shoot themselves in the foot when they perform well in the playoffs as they would have to share (some of their) playoff revenue. A deep playoff run could spell financial hardship.

The G&M article I linked above looks at it in more detail but there may be a case for the have-not-teams to stay athletically unsuccessful for an improved bottom line.

I have got to hope that this will not be the case and the new CBA will ensure that on-ice-success is every owner`s top priority.
Holy ****!!! If this turns out to be the case then it won't really matter where the team plays in the Phoenix Area. As long as the league is against this than I would be willing to leave the netrual side of this CBA mess and slightly side with the owners.

Quote:
Originally Posted by _Del_ View Post
The issue was the terms of the lease at AWA. If you could get a USAC lease that was favourable, why wouldn't they take it? I don't know that they can or would get a workable lease downtown. It might be completely unworkable. I'm just saying that if they're truly interested in staying in the market, they'd look at it. It might even embarrass Glendale enough to get a deal done there.

There's no question that QC would be a better investment than either Glendale or Phoenix -- to date the league has preferred to maintain the local market. What I don't see is why moving to Phoenix is any less preferable to staying in Glendale from the league's view of maintaining the local market. If they were solely interested in the immediate monetary aspect AZ-QC, the team would already be gone from Glendale.
Couldn't said it better myself. With regards to the lease though, having a brand spanking new or current lease redone may not be neccessary if Saver is willing to own the team or if another party willing to own Coyotes is willing to make Sarver an offer he can't refuse in exchange for the Suns.

Of course Sarver did say he wasn't interested in the Coyotes at the time Gary Bettman asked him if he wanted to own them before the bankruptcy but that was on the condition that the team plays in Glendale under the origional lease there. Sarver may have a change of heart now if the team is available for him to buy and he plays the team in USAC. The downside would be if Sarver did own the Coyotes, we may never seen the team in the finals given the way he operated the Suns. The upside would be the Coyotes would have way more revenue streams available to them if they are under the same ownership as the Suns.

Colt45Blast is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 08:50 PM
  #322
_Del_
Registered User
 
_Del_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: SkullcrusherMountain
Posts: 2,931
vCash: 50
Phoenix owns USAC. The Coyotes would need a lease to play in the facility no matter who owns the team.

_Del_ is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 08:54 PM
  #323
Colt45Blast
It Works Everytime!
 
Colt45Blast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Country: Mexico
Posts: 25,099
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Del_ View Post
Phoenix owns USAC. The Coyotes would need a lease to play in the facility no matter who owns the team.
Good point. So depending on the wording of the lease, the Coyotes maybe able to bypass this requirement of a seperete lease if they are listed under the same ownership name as the Suns.


Last edited by Colt45Blast: 11-12-2012 at 09:00 PM.
Colt45Blast is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 10:15 AM
  #324
Naurutger
#FreeMax
 
Naurutger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maricopa County
Country: United States
Posts: 5,065
vCash: 1329
Facebook.com/joyce.clark.338:

Quote:
In response to my written request (see below) regarding the lease management agreement with Hockey Partners, LLC the Acting City Manager responded that he will place the item on Council's Nov. 20 workshop agenda followed a week later, Nov. 27, on Council's meeting agenda for a vote.
So I hear rumblings that the agreement has been finalized between Jamison and Glendale. So now the real fun starts with stalling, politics, council voting, library watch, and (hopefully) BOG votes....

Naurutger is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 10:28 AM
  #325
awfulwaffle
Registered User
 
awfulwaffle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Country: United States
Posts: 6,240
vCash: 500
Does anyone know the TV deal with the Coyotes and Fox Sports AZ?

Also, isn't the naming rights to the arena coming up? I don't know what they got through Jobing.com, but couldn't they possibly find someone that would pay more?

awfulwaffle is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:13 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.