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 LXXIV: Be Seeing You

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-15-2013, 12:43 PM
  #501
gifted88
Dante the poet
 
gifted88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Guelph, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,307
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcwpg View Post
There have been hints that they are not willing, but we won't know until we know. I could still see it being a possibility that the NHL decides to go all in for one more season and keep owning and running the team, BUT they would have to do so without the CoG anteing up another $25M. That we know will not be happening.

Not to distract from those in Seattle or QC that think they will be getting a team, but at this time the NHL may just not want to put a team in either ( or any other ) place. And yes I have heard all the arguments how a team "could" play in either city in temporary facilities, yada, yada.... but, if you are honest about it, neither city is an ideal situation right now. So even if the NHL is open to locating a team in either place, they just may think it not a good time to move yet.

Now, if the NHL does decide to go for one more year in Glendale out of their own pocket, for the sole purpose of just buying time until Seattle or QC is "ideal", then they sure better be upfront and tell the people watching the Coyotes this is the case. Somehow I doubt they would do that. You will hear " we are still looking for local ownership ".
How many payments of $25 mil has been made to the NHL? I was under the impression they have only received/taken one $25 mil payment over 3 years?

I see a bunch of personal opinions on options for next year including, a sale keeping them in Glendale, relocation, or even contraction, but I rarely see anyone with the very unpopular believe that the NHL is actually willing to own this franchise another year. Thought I may have missed something.

gifted88 is offline  
Old
04-15-2013, 12:49 PM
  #502
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Pacific NW
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,173
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcwpg View Post
...Somehow I doubt they would do that. You will hear " we are still looking for local ownership ".
Yepp. Pretty much what it boils down to cbc. Though like you Id rather doubt they'd telegraph the fact that this is it thats all folks, one more year or else type dealeo. But sure, its entirely possible they stay parked in Glendale for another year. Makes sense on a few levels.

Killion is online now  
Old
04-15-2013, 12:57 PM
  #503
Tinalera
Registered User
 
Tinalera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Known Universe
Posts: 6,009
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Yepp. Pretty much what it boils down to cbc. Though like you Id rather doubt they'd telegraph the fact that this is it thats all folks, one more year or else type dealeo. But sure, its entirely possible they stay parked in Glendale for another year. Makes sense on a few levels.
I agree with you on this-wouldn't surprise me if the Yotes end up with a "lame duck" year (lame duck in this case being the possiblity of a "temp" GM and coach, depending on how Msrs Tippett and Maloney deal with the end of their contracts.) Plus a year from now NHL will have a much better on idea on the arena situation in Seattle, and QC's arena will be that much further along, meaning IF they went to QC, the Colisee would be in use for one less year.

I do wonder how Bettman would convince CoG to run the team for another year WITHOUT any sort of renumeration from Glendale.

Tinalera is offline  
Old
04-15-2013, 01:01 PM
  #504
Ugmo
Registered User
 
Ugmo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Country: Austria
Posts: 8,268
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinalera View Post
I agree with you on this-wouldn't surprise me if the Yotes end up with a "lame duck" year (lame duck in this case being the possiblity of a "temp" GM and coach, depending on how Msrs Tippett and Maloney deal with the end of their contracts.) Plus a year from now NHL will have a much better on idea on the arena situation in Seattle, and QC's arena will be that much further along, meaning IF they went to QC, the Colisee would be in use for one less year.

I do wonder how Bettman would convince CoG to run the team for another year WITHOUT any sort of renumeration from Glendale.
I'm trying to figure out the logic here: why would the league stay in Glendale and lose, what, 30 million dollars or so that they would have to beg from the rest of the owners, or sell the team to PKP (or mystery man in Seattle) and have a new owner cover most of the losses (which would most likely be a lot lower at least in Quebec even with a worse arena)? Why would the league do this unless they literally cannot get what they are asking from PKP or Seattle mystery owner?

Ugmo is online now  
Old
04-15-2013, 01:18 PM
  #505
cbcwpg
Registered User
 
cbcwpg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Between the Pipes
Country: United Nations
Posts: 5,737
vCash: 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ugmo View Post
I'm trying to figure out the logic here: why would the league stay in Glendale and lose, what, 30 million dollars or so that they would have to beg from the rest of the owners, or sell the team to PKP (or mystery man in Seattle) and have a new owner cover most of the losses (which would most likely be a lot lower at least in Quebec even with a worse arena)? Why would the league do this unless they literally cannot get what they are asking from PKP or Seattle mystery owner?
It's not just about the money IMO. It's about can we or should we do it at this time?

When the Thrashers moved to Winnipeg, there was a massive amount of work that had to be done most of which people on the outside didn't see happening or were aware of. It was not a case of let's move and we will make due. There were a lot of little things ( lighting, dressing rooms, camera positions, things the NHLPA wants, building code things, the glass, press box, etc. ) the NHL demanded be in place to bring the game up to the NHL standard and keep in mind that TNSE started a full year doing these things and planning for these things, before they had even bought the Thrashers. Now to go to where ever in May and tell the new owner they have to have a list of 100 items in place before we can play games and get this done before next season, it just may not be possible in 5-6 months.

Now maybe the NHL cuts whomever a break and cuts the list down to a minimum of things required to save time and get it done... dunno. I just know what TNSE went thru, and it is daunting task.


Last edited by cbcwpg: 04-15-2013 at 01:26 PM.
cbcwpg is offline  
Old
04-15-2013, 01:19 PM
  #506
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Pacific NW
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,173
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ugmo View Post
I'm trying to figure out the logic here: why would the league stay in Glendale and lose, what, 30 million dollars or so that they would have to beg from the rest of the owners, or sell the team to PKP (or mystery man in Seattle) and have a new owner cover most of the losses (which would most likely be a lot lower at least in Quebec even with a worse arena)? Why would the league do this unless they literally cannot get what they are asking from PKP or Seattle mystery owner?
Ya, doesnt make much sense does it? The only thing I can figure is that perhaps in hanging tough down there in Glendale they somehow feel they can gain leverage in demanding that much more if & when more than one serious buyer rises to the fore on a Relo. Yet even then, like, why bother? If your going to lose $25M+ over the course of the 2013/14 season, why then expect PKP, Seattle or wherever to have pay that much more of an already inflated price? It really is maddeningly confusing, trying to figure out what the heck their game plan is here. Fact is, I dont think there actually is anyone in Seattle wanting to chew on that one at this time, not with everything still in flux. Levin's plan called for a separate arena altogether in Bellevue. So unless there are top secret destinations, perhaps Southern Ontario, Im at a loss. Either sell the damn franchise to PKP already or let people know your hanging out in Glendale for another year, still hoping to secure local ownership.

Killion is online now  
Old
04-15-2013, 01:26 PM
  #507
Ugmo
Registered User
 
Ugmo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Country: Austria
Posts: 8,268
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcwpg View Post
It's not just about the money IMO. It's about can we or should we do it at this time?

When the Thrashers moved to Winnipeg, there was a massive amount of work that had to be done most of which people on the outside didn't see happening or were aware of. It was not a case of let's move and we will make due. There were a lot of little things ( lighting, dressing rooms, camera positions, things the NHLPA wants, building code things, the glass, press box, etc. ) the NHL demanded be in place to bring the game up to the NHL standard and keep in mind that TNSE started a full year doing these things and planning for these things, before they had even bought the Thrashers. Now to go to where ever in May and tell the new owner they have to have a list of 100 items in place before we can play games and get this done before next season, it just may not be possible in 5-6 months.

I thought QC had already assured the league they could be NHL-ready within a relatively short period of time.

Ugmo is online now  
Old
04-15-2013, 01:27 PM
  #508
Tommy Hawk
Registered User
 
Tommy Hawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,398
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Llama19 View Post
"Glendale’s new arena consultants will begin to elicit proposals Monday [April 15] from outside companies to manage Jobing.com Arena."

Source: http://www.azcentral.com/community/g...ment-deal.html

The posting of the RFP should be here...

http://www.glendaleaz.com/purchasing...ortunities.cfm

Be seeing you!

Addendum:

Duh! RFP is under BEACON SPORTS CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC (awarded on March 26) control and doesn't have to be 'publicly' disclosed.

Source: http://www.glendaleaz.com/Clerk/agen.../032613-21.pdf
That is not necessarily a true statement. There was a recent court ruling in New Mexico that if the company is doing work specifically on behalf of the public entity, their records, such as evaluations of responses to proposals, the proposal, etc., are subject to the freedom of information laws.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Ya, doesnt make much sense does it? The only thing I can figure is that perhaps in hanging tough down there in Glendale they somehow feel they can gain leverage in demanding that much more if & when more than one serious buyer rises to the fore on a Relo. Yet even then, like, why bother? If your going to lose $25M+ over the course of the 2013/14 season, why then expect PKP, Seattle or wherever to have pay that much more of an already inflated price? It really is maddeningly confusing, trying to figure out what the heck their game plan is here. Fact is, I dont think there actually is anyone in Seattle wanting to chew on that one at this time, not with everything still in flux. Levin's plan called for a separate arena altogether in Bellevue. So unless there are top secret destinations, perhaps Southern Ontario, Im at a loss. Either sell the damn franchise to PKP already or let people know your hanging out in Glendale for another year, still hoping to secure local ownership.
Bettman promised the NHL owners they would not lose money on the deal if they bought the team. He can only do that if he keeps increasing the price by the amount of money the team loses less the 50 or so mil from CoG. We do not know how much they are drawing from last season because the NHL has not been timely in their submission of their actual cash losses. Also, their was a deadline for submission as well and I think if the deadline has passed, the new CoG council would take a harder line about releasing the money than the old council. It is also possible the actual cash losses were not that big because of the long playoff run.

Tommy Hawk is offline  
Old
04-15-2013, 01:29 PM
  #509
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Pacific NW
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,173
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcwpg View Post
It's not just about the money IMO. It's about can we or should we do it at this time?... Now to go to where ever in May and tell the new owner they have to have a list of 100 items in place before we can play games and get this done before next season, it just may not be possible in 5-6 months.
I cant imagine Seattle pulling this off from a dead start. No way no how. Forget it. Playing out of Key Arena isnt even remotely viable. Never mind Hansen & the NBA which if craters... and good luck striking a decent Lease on a new facility once your in town & entrenched, stuck. Could wind up with a Colangelo or ASG type situation or worse. You'd lose as much or more than you would in Phoenix. Crazy to even think about it. As it stands, Quebec would have to be going full out to get things ready for an October start from May/June. So unless theres some mystery market of major size with an existing AHL franchise & the infrastructure to pull it off ala Winnipeg, not seeing any other options. Either stay put or pull the trigger & head to QC.

Killion is online now  
Old
04-15-2013, 01:33 PM
  #510
mesamonster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Scottsdale, AZ.
Country: United States
Posts: 1,031
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Ya, doesnt make much sense does it? The only thing I can figure is that perhaps in hanging tough down there in Glendale they somehow feel they can gain leverage in demanding that much more if & when more than one serious buyer rises to the fore on a Relo. Yet even then, like, why bother? If your going to lose $25M+ over the course of the 2013/14 season, why then expect PKP, Seattle or wherever to have pay that much more of an already inflated price? It really is maddeningly confusing, trying to figure out what the heck their game plan is here. Fact is, I dont think there actually is anyone in Seattle wanting to chew on that one at this time, not with everything still in flux. Levin's plan called for a separate arena altogether in Bellevue. So unless there are top secret destinations, perhaps Southern Ontario, Im at a loss. Either sell the damn franchise to PKP already or let people know your hanging out in Glendale for another year, still hoping to secure local ownership.
If they make the decision to stay without Tip and GMDM, the white flag will have been thrown by GB! Little to no structure in the management both on and off the ice, players not willing to come as FA`s w/o tip! A whole host of issues would render such a decision even worse than a lame duck year. Losses could conceivably approach $40-50MM! As for the midget, he would not be honest, it would put in play his never ending set of new one act charades. He would need to find new actors willing to play the "hide the nut" game for another year. If this occurs I hope the fans entirely boycott the game and teach GB an economic lesson that he or the owners will never forget!

Another option, though highly unlikely, would be contraction, oh my the fireworks would be soaring but may allow him to add another expansion team in the future!

mesamonster is offline  
Old
04-15-2013, 01:40 PM
  #511
GF
Registered User
 
GF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 412
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mesamonster View Post
Another option, though highly unlikely, would be contraction, oh my the fireworks would be soaring but may allow him to add another expansion team in the future!
Or three...

GF is offline  
Old
04-15-2013, 01:40 PM
  #512
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Pacific NW
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,173
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommy Hawk View Post
...We do not know how much they are drawing from last season because the NHL has not been timely in their submission of their actual cash losses. Also, their was a deadline for submission as well and I think if the deadline has passed, the new CoG council would take a harder line about releasing the money than the old council. It is also possible the actual cash losses were not that big because of the long playoff run.
As you'll recall Tommy, the COG was short the full $25M for the 2011/12 season, depositing app $20M into escrow. That money apparently hasnt been touched by the NHL, who legally have had every right to withdraw it since last May/June. Very strange dont you think? Now the NHLPA was claiming in Feb/Mar 2011 they were entitled to 57% of it, that it represented HRR and should therefore be pooled however we were lead to believe that that issue had been resolved. Apparently not, as it resurfaced in a report yet again about 8 weeks ago, that no, those funds were still being disputed, a bone of contention. Perhaps thats why the NHL hasnt withdrawn the funds. Needless to say, its a muddy situation. There seems to be a lot of balls in the air & I dont think Bettman has all of them under control at all. He's literally playing it on the fly, spinning badly.

Killion is online now  
Old
04-15-2013, 01:41 PM
  #513
cbcwpg
Registered User
 
cbcwpg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Between the Pipes
Country: United Nations
Posts: 5,737
vCash: 350
Too bad Vegas isn't taking bets on this....

Stay - with NHL as owner

Stay - with new owner

Go - Seattle

Go - QC

Go - other

Contract

cbcwpg is offline  
Old
04-15-2013, 01:42 PM
  #514
MNNumbers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,190
vCash: 500
I have 2 questions, both of which I think relate to this business:

1) Can you imagine this League (NHL) or any league, for that matter, announcing a relocation of a franchise before the prior year is finished? I can't imagine it. So, if it ever happens, the new place will be starting from ground zero to make it work. In this case, it seems to me that is why we say QC is ahead of Seattle right now. They have enough pieces in place to make a summer turnover work, although I predict they would have go hard, and the first 2 weeks might be perhaps not perfect. One other advantage they have is that if the fan experience is not perfect for even a couple of months, no QC fans will care.

2) Why does the NHL care about the condition of a temp arena? As long as it is well established that it is a temp facility (new facility has shovels in the ground), the league won't be losing any money - that would all fall on the owner in the market, right? It seems "optics" is the only reason the League cares?

I can see NHL not moving the SEA themselves, and wanting to lose $$, but if they sell to Levin, or whomever, it is not their problem any more, right?

Please help me understand this better.

MNNumbers is online now  
Old
04-15-2013, 01:50 PM
  #515
McRib
2nd Rate Fan
 
McRib's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Saskatoon
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,420
vCash: 500
So uh, what's the coles notes lately, boys and girls?

I've been too busy watching my team start sliding down the standings.

McRib is offline  
Old
04-15-2013, 01:52 PM
  #516
cbcwpg
Registered User
 
cbcwpg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Between the Pipes
Country: United Nations
Posts: 5,737
vCash: 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by MNNumbers View Post
2) Why does the NHL care about the condition of a temp arena? As long as it is well established that it is a temp facility (new facility has shovels in the ground), the league won't be losing any money - that would all fall on the owner in the market, right? It seems "optics" is the only reason the League cares?
Just going to throw this out as an example. In Winnipeg's case ( although it was not a temp arena ) the NHL had an issue with the specific type of glass they had in the MTS Centre. Even though they had a pro AHL team playing in the arena for a long time, the NHL told them they had to go out and buy new glass for safety reasons before the Thrashers could play there. As well they had to rip out some seats so the NHL could have the TV cameras in very specific places. Like I said, a lot of little things.

I don't think the NHL cares so much about the condition of the arena as far as the fan experience goes, but anything to do with safety, quality of the game, and some of the NHLPA demands, must be addressed.

cbcwpg is offline  
Old
04-15-2013, 02:43 PM
  #517
Hal1971
Registered User
 
Hal1971's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Quebec City
Posts: 117
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcwpg View Post
Just going to throw this out as an example. In Winnipeg's case ( although it was not a temp arena ) the NHL had an issue with the specific type of glass they had in the MTS Centre. Even though they had a pro AHL team playing in the arena for a long time, the NHL told them they had to go out and buy new glass for safety reasons before the Thrashers could play there. As well they had to rip out some seats so the NHL could have the TV cameras in very specific places. Like I said, a lot of little things.

I don't think the NHL cares so much about the condition of the arena as far as the fan experience goes, but anything to do with safety, quality of the game, and some of the NHLPA demands, must be addressed.
The glass where updated last summer to NHL standard in the old colisée

Hal1971 is offline  
Old
04-15-2013, 04:32 PM
  #518
Mightygoose
Registered User
 
Mightygoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Ajax, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,278
vCash: 514
Quote:
Originally Posted by MNNumbers View Post
I have 2 questions, both of which I think relate to this business:

1) Can you imagine this League (NHL) or any league, for that matter, announcing a relocation of a franchise before the prior year is finished? I can't imagine it. So, if it ever happens, the new place will be starting from ground zero to make it work. In this case, it seems to me that is why we say QC is ahead of Seattle right now. They have enough pieces in place to make a summer turnover work, although I predict they would have go hard, and the first 2 weeks might be perhaps not perfect. One other advantage they have is that if the fan experience is not perfect for even a couple of months, no QC fans will care.

2) Why does the NHL care about the condition of a temp arena? As long as it is well established that it is a temp facility (new facility has shovels in the ground), the league won't be losing any money - that would all fall on the owner in the market, right? It seems "optics" is the only reason the League cares?

I can see NHL not moving the SEA themselves, and wanting to lose $$, but if they sell to Levin, or whomever, it is not their problem any more, right?

Please help me understand this better.
In reference to #1. The only cases I know of a relocation being announced before the start of the final season are cases where the team moves within the same metro area (i.e. Islanders to Brooklyn or NJ Nets to Brooklyn). Outside of that I can only think of Jets 1.0 but it was a case where they couldn't get a new home in time for the 95/96 season hence a lame duck

For #2. Daly has already said that Key Arena works as a temporary building and we all know Le Colisee is good short term.

If things don't work out with any of the prospective buyers, its not too late to move this off-season. The next shoe can drop by the end of the week depending on the Kings/Seattle outcome. From there I think it depends on when the Yotes get eliminated and events came move prerrty quick after that.

Mightygoose is offline  
Old
04-15-2013, 04:40 PM
  #519
JimAnchower
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Country: Isle of Man
Posts: 405
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcwpg View Post
Too bad Vegas isn't taking bets on this....

Stay - with NHL as owner

Stay - with new owner

Go - Seattle

Go - QC

Go - other

Contract
Vegas would probably add another option for "Go - Toronto/Hamilton" just entice to people to bet on that.

My guess is Quebec, Toronto/Hamilton, and Seattle would be the three favorites, probably somewhere around 3:2 to 5:1 for each. Stay with NHL still as owner would be some distance behind them, at about 12:1, with Go Other right near it. Stay with new owner would be around 18:1. Contract would be around 30:1.

Keep in mind, these odds would be set based on where the money will likely go, not how things will actually happen.

JimAnchower is offline  
Old
04-15-2013, 05:00 PM
  #520
MNNumbers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,190
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightygoose View Post
In reference to #1. The only cases I know of a relocation being announced before the start of the final season are cases where the team moves within the same metro area (i.e. Islanders to Brooklyn or NJ Nets to Brooklyn). Outside of that I can only think of Jets 1.0 but it was a case where they couldn't get a new home in time for the 95/96 season hence a lame duck

For #2. Daly has already said that Key Arena works as a temporary building and we all know Le Colisee is good short term.

If things don't work out with any of the prospective buyers, its not too late to move this off-season. The next shoe can drop by the end of the week depending on the Kings/Seattle outcome. From there I think it depends on when the Yotes get eliminated and events came move prerrty quick after that.
Thanks for the response. I must not have represented my questions well. Here is my interest:

In the case of 1) No league is likely to announce a relo before the prior season is finished. So, in the case of PHX in the NHL, no matter when it happens, if they leave, a whole lot of stuff will have to happen fast. That is my thought. Not in favor of any city, but that's just the facts. The new city will have lots to do in a hurry.

In the case of 2) I am not interested in an argument between Key and Colisee or between Seattle and Quebec. I just don't understand why the temp facility is any issue. One poster pointed out that NHL safety standards require a certain glass. And, NHL media requires a certain size press area, and TV capability. These are helpful answers. Perhaps the PA requires something in the way of the club house or locker or whatever they call it. All these are things I can understand. The rest, like seats, obstructed view, etc all seem like they impact the owners' bottom line, so they shouldn't matter to the league at all "If you want to lose money playing there will a new bldg gets built, that's your business."

Thanks again.

MNNumbers is online now  
Old
04-15-2013, 05:34 PM
  #521
KevyD
Make It 30!!!!
 
KevyD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Niagara
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,998
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scoobs View Post
So uh, what's the coles notes lately, boys and girls?

I've been too busy watching my team start sliding down the standings.
I asked a similar question a week ago and the answer was, "Nothing new".


KevyD is online now  
Old
04-15-2013, 05:57 PM
  #522
YEMELIN74
Registered User
 
YEMELIN74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Lévis
Country: Iceland
Posts: 1,154
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to YEMELIN74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ugmo View Post
I thought QC had already assured the league they could be NHL-ready within a relatively short period of time.
Actually they changed the glasses and the boards last summer to meet the nhl needs, last year they also had a plan to renovate the dressing rooms and change the compressor. But since the coyotes never came they decided to put this plan on ice and they said that could do this in a relative short period of time if for the coyotes are relocated to quebec

YEMELIN74 is offline  
Old
04-15-2013, 06:09 PM
  #523
WildGopher
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 220
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scoobs View Post
So uh, what's the coles notes lately, boys and girls?

I've been too busy watching my team start sliding down the standings.
Funny, so have I.

WildGopher is offline  
Old
04-15-2013, 06:29 PM
  #524
WildGopher
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 220
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightygoose View Post
In reference to #1. The only cases I know of a relocation being announced before the start of the final season are cases where the team moves within the same metro area (i.e. Islanders to Brooklyn or NJ Nets to Brooklyn). Outside of that I can only think of Jets 1.0 but it was a case where they couldn't get a new home in time for the 95/96 season hence a lame duck.
Norm Green announced the North Stars move to Dallas on March 8th or 10th, but that crazed dude had an ulterior motive. He actually ran it up the flagpole to the league the idea that the Stars play their playoff games that spring in their new city, to build his fan base when the games were most exciting. The league said no way, and they didn't make the playoffs in the end, anyway.

But your general point is correct, announcements of team moves come after a season, unless you go back in time (Giants to San Fran., for example).

WildGopher is offline  
Old
04-15-2013, 06:56 PM
  #525
Tinalera
Registered User
 
Tinalera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Known Universe
Posts: 6,009
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ugmo View Post
I'm trying to figure out the logic here: why would the league stay in Glendale and lose, what, 30 million dollars or so that they would have to beg from the rest of the owners, or sell the team to PKP (or mystery man in Seattle) and have a new owner cover most of the losses (which would most likely be a lot lower at least in Quebec even with a worse arena)? Why would the league do this unless they literally cannot get what they are asking from PKP or Seattle mystery owner?
NHL doesn't seem to connect with logic

Don't get me wrong, your comment makes sense-why would they lose another 30 milllion for one more year? My thought (and sense of it all), it just strikes me as something the NHL would do-nothing seems to surprise me anymore in this saga. It's just the past couple years now it seems that when end of playoffs come up, we wait in anticipation for some sort of resolution, and the NHL continues to push it forth another year (granted they have had monies in year past, they won't this year or next). I also kind of think we're going to get another year of "well let's just see if these groups have the money/set up" game going again as it gets dragged out and out.

The other reason is that, as NHL has shown, for whatever reason, be it them owning the team or what have you, they continue to push for the team in Phoenix-reasons for that have been debated many times-no one really knows why they don't just cut bait and move on.

I just think right now we'll have to wait to see how the how arena management situation-with or without the Yotes-plays out. But in the end, yes it would make sense for the NHL to just cut bait-but it wouldn't surprise me if Bettman somehow convinces the BoG to keep the team there "just one more year"-for whatever reason.

I'm just hoping we see SOMETHING-either the Yotes miss the playoffs and maybe get something then-or if they make it and when they're finished them-just SOMETHING!

A thrown bone would be nice!

Tinalera 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 10:45 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.