HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

Phoenix CXXIV: Is there a statute of limitations on Perjury in Arizona?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-08-2017, 11:47 AM
  #76
wildcat48
Registered User
 
wildcat48's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: South Portland, ME
Country: United States
Posts: 4,006
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by madhi19 View Post
Jeff Blair show on The fan 590 10:16 AM EST: John Shannon claim he been told the NHL, has not made any payroll payment for the Yotes yet. Operative word is yet. Cash call mentioned.
Well since Shannon broached the subject first I will let the cat out of the bag. When I was a beat writer in Portland (ME) covering the Coyotes' AHL affiliate. They missed minor league payroll once during the 2013-14 season. It was covered by local ownership, although I do not know if they were refunded for the two-week pay period they covered. We approached them about information when heard about what was going on and the local ownership begged us not to report it because they were having their own financial issues with trying to rebuild the franchise after the lease dispute. We agreed to hold off on the story... Looking back I regret doing that knowing what I know now.


Last edited by wildcat48: 03-08-2017 at 12:01 PM.
wildcat48 is offline  
Old
03-08-2017, 11:49 AM
  #77
The Feckless Puck
Registered Loser
 
The Feckless Puck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 10,509
vCash: 1233
Quote:
Originally Posted by cutchemist42 View Post
Did anyone on hf actually think they had that money? I think even wishful Coyotes fans didnt believe that?
It seemed pretty obvious to me, back when they were Ice Edge and positioning themselves as a better alternative to Jerry Reinsdorf and Greg Jamison (!!), that they were small-timers. With my fan glasses on, I did sadly buy into their premise that the big issue with the Coyotes was that previous owners did not identify and rectify market inefficiencies correctly. I say "sadly" because the sad part is not that that isn't true - it's that I believed or hoped that IceArizona might actually be the group who could actually do this.

The list of inefficiencies and procedural shortfalls contributing to the Coyotes' failure is long and distinguished. A guy with the wealth and business acumen of a Mark Cuban could take one look at that list and improve this team's bottom line nearly immediately (although a true turnaround would still take years, because the hole's that big). The IA partners are not Mark Cuban - they're more like Shark Tank wannabes who did a 70% equity deal plus royalties with Kevin O'Leary, and they're going to get squashed like the cockroaches they are.

The Feckless Puck is offline  
Old
03-08-2017, 11:58 AM
  #78
cutchemist42
Registered User
 
cutchemist42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,011
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildcat48 View Post
Well since Shannon broached the subject first I will let the cat out of the bag. When I was a beat writer in Portland (ME) covering the Coyotes' AHL affiliate. They missed minor league payroll once during the 2013-14. It was covered by local ownership, although I do not know if were refunded for the two-week pay period. We approached them about information when heard about what was going on and the local ownership begged us not to report it because they were having their own financial issues with trying to rebuild the franchise after the lease dispute. We agreed to hold off on the story... Looking back I regret doing that knowing what I know now.
Wow, been playing us for suckers for years if they were truly that small-time....

cutchemist42 is online now  
Old
03-08-2017, 11:59 AM
  #79
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 31,444
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Feckless Puck View Post
It seemed pretty obvious to me, back when they were Ice Edge and positioning themselves as a better alternative to Jerry Reinsdorf and Greg Jamison (!!), that they were small-timers. With my fan glasses on, I did sadly buy into their premise that the big issue with the Coyotes was that previous owners did not identify and rectify market inefficiencies correctly. I say "sadly" because the sad part is not that that isn't true - it's that I believed or hoped that IceArizona might actually be the group who could actually do this.

The list of inefficiencies and procedural shortfalls contributing to the Coyotes' failure is long and distinguished. A guy with the wealth and business acumen of a Mark Cuban could take one look at that list and improve this team's bottom line nearly immediately (although a true turnaround would still take years, because the hole's that big). The IA partners are not Mark Cuban - they're more like Shark Tank wannabes who did a 70% equity deal plus royalties with Kevin O'Leary, and they're going to get squashed like the cockroaches they are.
... pretty much TFP.... and its all so sad. I for one totally believed (and still do) that with the right ownership group, monied, creative, aggressive & experienced, resurrection & quick turnaround no problem... and I tell you this, its based on over 40yrs worth of experience in the sports & entertainment sectors not just here in North America but elsewhere. Unfortunately, this league is as amateur as it gets. Completely reactive. The self dealing & lack of critical thought is just appalling. They had 3yrs to attract serious players in offering up some seriously creative financing which when combined with a compliant City Council (and without nearly bankrupting them as well) this should not have been a problem... and yes acknowledge & appreciate the opinions of those who claim otherwise, that the markets overcrowded, doesnt have enough corporate heft etc etc etc and no, not buying it.

Killion is online now  
Old
03-08-2017, 12:02 PM
  #80
RAgIn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Sudbury, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 898
vCash: 500
Gary Bettman clarifies that he's not giving up on Phoenix area

"I don't want it misconstrued. We are not giving up on the Coyotes in the Greater Phoenix area," Bettman said Wednesday, after the NHL general managers meetings wrapped up for the week.

I'm very confident," said Bettman. ``I want to repeat we have not given up on that market, but we wanted to make clear that the long-term future and viability of that team, the Coyotes, isn't going to be in Glendale."

http://www.espn.com/nhl/story/_/id/1...reater-phoenix

RAgIn is offline  
Old
03-08-2017, 12:03 PM
  #81
USAUSA1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 217
vCash: 500
So far in this thread I've seen

1. Nhl will get less money on their next tv deal with NBC? All signs show NBC is 1000% behind the nhl and there's no other major sport they can bid on realistically besides maybe MLB?

2. Mls is catching up to the nhl? Ok I am not responding to this load of bs again.

But I thought this thread was about Arizona?

Bettman pretty much gave up and unless something major will happen, expect the Coyotes in another state.

USAUSA1 is offline  
Old
03-08-2017, 12:06 PM
  #82
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 6,804
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by USAUSA1 View Post
So far in this thread I've seen

1. Nhl will get less money on their next tv deal with NBC? All signs show NBC is 1000% behind the nhl and there's no other major sport they can bid on realistically besides maybe MLB?

2. Mls is catching up to the nhl? Ok I am not responding to this load of bs again.

But I thought this thread was about Arizona?

Bettman pretty much gave up and unless something major will happen, expect the Coyotes in another state.
Depending on what happens with the coyotes and where they end up. NHL could get a few million more if example Coyotes relocate to a pacific northwest region like Seattle (just an example) it opens up a whole new audience to the league that normally wouldn't watch the league.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
03-08-2017, 12:07 PM
  #83
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 31,444
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RAgIn View Post
"I don't want it misconstrued. We are not giving up on the Coyotes in the Greater Phoenix area," Bettman said Wednesday, after the NHL general managers meetings wrapped up for the week.

I'm very confident," said Bettman. ``I want to repeat we have not given up on that market, but we wanted to make clear that the long-term future and viability of that team, the Coyotes, isn't going to be in Glendale."

http://www.espn.com/nhl/story/_/id/1...reater-phoenix
Ok.... So here we go with the followups, softer gentler messaging following yesterdays letters from Bettman & Barroway.... now we
should be able to determine as more follows just how imminent a potential Relocation might be.... According to this, not imminent.

Killion is online now  
Old
03-08-2017, 12:09 PM
  #84
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 6,804
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Ok.... So here we go with the followups, softer gentler messaging following yesterdays letters from Bettman & Barroway.... now we
should be able to determine as more follows just how imminent a potential Relocation might be.... According to this, not imminent.
Bettman/NHL will continue to deny relocation until it happens and they will continue to deny it right in the middle of the season.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
03-08-2017, 12:10 PM
  #85
The Feckless Puck
Registered Loser
 
The Feckless Puck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 10,509
vCash: 1233
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
Depending on what happens with the coyotes and where they end up. NHL could get a few million more if example Coyotes relocate to a pacific northwest region like Seattle (just an example) it opens up a whole new audience to the league that normally wouldn't watch the league.
Be careful, man - you don't want to fall into the trap of believing the hype the NHL is promising just because you might get a team.

The Feckless Puck is offline  
Old
03-08-2017, 12:10 PM
  #86
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,239
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by USAUSA1 View Post
So far in this thread I've seen

1. Nhl will get less money on their next tv deal with NBC? All signs show NBC is 1000% behind the nhl and there's no other major sport they can bid on realistically besides maybe MLB?

2. Mls is catching up to the nhl? Ok I am not responding to this load of bs again.

But I thought this thread was about Arizona?

Bettman pretty much gave up and unless something major will happen, expect the Coyotes in another state.
Where is the real national TV contract we were promised 25 years ago?

Melrose Munch is online now  
Old
03-08-2017, 12:13 PM
  #87
GJB
- - - -
 
GJB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Country: Sweden
Posts: 1,626
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by RAgIn View Post
"I don't want it misconstrued. We are not giving up on the Coyotes in the Greater Phoenix area," Bettman said Wednesday, after the NHL general managers meetings wrapped up for the week.

I'm very confident," said Bettman. ``I want to repeat we have not given up on that market, but we wanted to make clear that the long-term future and viability of that team, the Coyotes, isn't going to be in Glendale."

http://www.espn.com/nhl/story/_/id/1...reater-phoenix

Oh, yeah, so, yeah, right, so the Arizona Coyotes are 20 minutes drive away from being successful? Oh, makes sense Bettman. You're right, if the Coyotes move closer to Phoenix they will be a smashing success.


Disgraceful.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Capture.JPG‎ (56.5 KB, 28 views)

GJB is offline  
Old
03-08-2017, 12:17 PM
  #88
WildGopher
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 741
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuelphStormer View Post
it also clearly indicates who is actually calling the shots ... lest there have been any doubt.

these reports of payroll shortfalls / cashcalls are quite troublesome indeed. and certainly undermine IAs credibility in claiming to be able to come up with $170M.

what a mess.
My understanding is that IA can only come up with that $170 million with a little financing sleight of hand. They don't actually have access to any $170 million yet.

IF, but only if the Worsley bill passes, then IA can go to borrowers and get the $170 million to put into building construction. The collateral for that loan would be pretty solid - backed by the state's 2% sales tax, 1/2 of which is designated to go to IA to pay for its construction costs.

But if the Worsley bill doesn't pass, IA has no collateral, and even calling a banker to inquire about a loan of that size will elicit laughs so loud we'll all be able to hear them from the far-flung corners of the world where we're all posting from.

So IA doesn't have any reserve that we're aware of where they can pull money from a "construction fund" to pay for current needs. It's all tied up in that bill, which looks like it's toast. So there goes the $170 million up in smoke.

WildGopher is offline  
Old
03-08-2017, 12:18 PM
  #89
RAgIn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Sudbury, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 898
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Ok.... So here we go with the followups, softer gentler messaging following yesterdays letters from Bettman & Barroway.... now we
should be able to determine as more follows just how imminent a potential Relocation might be.... According to this, not imminent.
Exactly... I expect a similar scenario to what happened in Atlanta. Mind you, until the legislative session is over, these types of messages should be expected from the team and NHL. It's all about pressure.

I can't fathom a lame duck season... Hasn't work well in the past.

RAgIn is offline  
Old
03-08-2017, 12:18 PM
  #90
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 6,804
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Feckless Puck View Post
Be careful, man - you don't want to fall into the trap of believing the hype the NHL is promising just because you might get a team.
Oh you'll be surprised how much a boost the league will get in terms of interested fans in the pacific northwest if the region had a team.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
03-08-2017, 12:21 PM
  #91
cbcwpg
Registered User
 
cbcwpg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Between the Pipes
Country: United Nations
Posts: 9,629
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcwpg View Post
I do have a question for Bettman...

Does this mean if the long term lease was still in effect, then the location wouldn't be a problem and the Coyotes wouldn't need a new arena elsewhere??

Because, if the Coyotes do in fact need a new arena elsewhere to survive, even if the lease in Glendale had not been broken, then that would mean the NHL and IA never had any intentions of staying in Glendale long term and the whole lease with it's 5 year out clause was just a sham to buy time to find another home, and every thing the NHL and IA has said over the years has been nothing but a lie. Would this sum things up Gary??
So Bettman himself answered my question.

http://www.espn.com/nhl/story/_/id/1...reater-phoenix

"The fact that the Coyotes are even having discussions about moving out of Glendale is because the city of Glendale chose to terminate the long-term agreement they had with the team. Had they not terminated that agreement, we wouldn't be having this discussion. "

YET at the same time saying:

"The Coyotes current location in Glendale at Gila River River Arena is not economically capable of supporting a successful NHL franchise. For the past 15 years, a succession of ownership groups and the League have tried everything imaginable to make the Glendale location financially sustainable. Our combined efforts all have yielded the same result — a consistent economic loss."

***

So even with the $15 million/yr AMF the Coyotes got at one time under the long-term lease agreement, they still were losing buckets of money or as Bettman says " a consistent economic loss ", yet we are suppose to believe Bettman that there would be no talk of the Coyotes leaving Glendale even with a perpetual loss of money and the only reason they are leaving is because the lease was cancelled?!?. Sure Gary, sure...

Thanks for clearing it up Mr. Bettman. The whole IA ownership thing was a scam.


Last edited by cbcwpg: 03-08-2017 at 12:27 PM.
cbcwpg is offline  
Old
03-08-2017, 12:23 PM
  #92
XX
One More
 
XX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Tipplandia?
Country: United States
Posts: 41,451
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GJB View Post
Oh, yeah, so, yeah, right, so the Arizona Coyotes are 20 minutes drive away from being successful? Oh, makes sense Bettman. You're right, if the Coyotes move closer to Phoenix they will be a smashing success.
1. That's not the location of proposed arenas

2. That ignores the difficulty of dealing with traffic moving from the east valley to the west. Suffice to say, the commute sucks due to the lack of direct options to GRA. Also, most of the money in the valley (including corporate accounts) is on the east side.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Ok.... So here we go with the followups, softer gentler messaging following yesterdays letters from Bettman & Barroway.... now we
should be able to determine as more follows just how imminent a potential Relocation might be.... According to this, not imminent.
They'll give up real quick if there's no public funding to be had. Pretty straightforward.

XX is online now  
Old
03-08-2017, 12:25 PM
  #93
robertocarlos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Country: Denmark
Posts: 4,311
vCash: 110
Bettman sure knows how to bend the truth. There are no new sales taxes unless you raise the rate or you increase the number of people in an area or the economic activity in an area. Switching activity to a new area does not increase sales taxes.

Good-bye Coyotes.

robertocarlos is offline  
Old
03-08-2017, 12:27 PM
  #94
GuelphStormer
Registered User
 
GuelphStormer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Guelph, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,157
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildGopher View Post
My understanding is that IA can only come up with that $170 million with a little financing sleight of hand. They don't actually have access to any $170 million yet.

IF, but only if the Worsley bill passes, then IA can go to borrowers and get the $170 million to put into building construction. The collateral for that loan would be pretty solid - backed by the state's 2% sales tax, 1/2 of which is designated to go to IA to pay for its construction costs.

But if the Worsley bill doesn't pass, IA has no collateral, and even calling a banker to inquire about a loan of that size will elicit laughs so loud we'll all be able to hear them from the far-flung corners of the world where we're all posting from.

So IA doesn't have any reserve that we're aware of where they can pull money from a "construction fund" to pay for current needs. It's all tied up in that bill, which looks like it's toast. So there goes the $170 million up in smoke.
let's also be clear ... that supposed $170M is based on wishful thinking and glowing forecasts that would, even in the best case, only be achieved over a very, very long time period.

most importantly, it is premised on two untenable assumptions ... that those revenues would actually materialize, that the existence of the team in some new arena would actually drive economic gains; and that the team would actually be around long enough to pay them back.

given their proven track record, neither assumption is even remotely realistic.

GuelphStormer is online now  
Old
03-08-2017, 12:28 PM
  #95
BattleBorn
Global Moderator
Dead Dove-Do Not Eat
 
BattleBorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Country: Puerto Rico
Posts: 4,674
vCash: 859
Quote:
Originally Posted by robertocarlos View Post
Bettman sure knows how to bend the truth. There are no new sales taxes unless you raise the rate or you increase the number of people in an area or the economic activity in an area. Switching activity to a new area does not increase sales taxes.

Good-bye Coyotes.
The idea is that a new arena in a better place would increase sales taxes for the reasons you stated. It's likely true, just might be a dream at this point.

__________________
You didn't eat that, did you?
BattleBorn is online now  
Old
03-08-2017, 12:37 PM
  #96
Slashers98
Registered User
 
Slashers98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Quebec City
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,864
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BattleBorn View Post
The idea is that a new arena in a better place would increase sales taxes for the reasons you stated. It's likely true, just might be a dream at this point.
It's as likely as true as the existence of unicorns and centaurs. A pipe dream.

Slashers98 is offline  
Old
03-08-2017, 12:44 PM
  #97
BattleBorn
Global Moderator
Dead Dove-Do Not Eat
 
BattleBorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Country: Puerto Rico
Posts: 4,674
vCash: 859
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slashers98 View Post
It's as likely as true as the existence of unicorns and centaurs. A pipe dream.
They're operating under the assumption that a more centrally located facility would sell more tickets at a higher price and likely think concessions and the like would go up as well. I don't see any fault in that, it likely would happen.

The issue is that it's not looking like they're going to get the bill passed, he's trying to sell the people on passing the bill. "Pass this, and revenues to the state will go up." Whether people bite is another story. It's not an outright lie, though.

BattleBorn is online now  
Old
03-08-2017, 12:48 PM
  #98
JimAnchower
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Country: Isle of Man
Posts: 1,034
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BattleBorn View Post
They're operating under the assumption that a more centrally located facility would sell more tickets at a higher price and likely think concessions and the like would go up as well. I don't see any fault in that, it likely would happen.

The issue is that it's not looking like they're going to get the bill passed, he's trying to sell the people on passing the bill. "Pass this, and revenues to the state will go up." Whether people bite is another story. It's not an outright lie, though.
The issue is whether those additional revenues will cover the costs of bringing those revenues in. That's unlikely and they only need to look at Glendale to see an example where it didn't work.

JimAnchower is offline  
Old
03-08-2017, 12:49 PM
  #99
Llama19
Registered User
 
Llama19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Outside GZ
Country: United States
Posts: 4,795
vCash: 91
Some of the Glendale councilmembers/representatives are weighing in...

Bettman to Arizona: new arena or Coyotes will leave

To quote:

"“I fully expect (Bettman) to do anything he can to support Anthony LeBlanc and his hockey team,” [Glendale Vice Mayor Ian] Hugh said. “I expect (Bettman and the Coyotes) to try and get a meeting with elected officials, if he hasn’t already, to try and get support to pass this bill.”

“I must have missed the part of Mr. Bettman’s letter where he thanked the taxpayers of Glendale who have financially supported the Coyotes for 13 years,” said councilmember Lauren Tolmachoff. “Not only did the city pay the NHL $25 million twice when the team had no owners, but all the other ways the taxpayers have subsidized (the Coyotes), I must have missed the thank you in Bettman’s letter.”

“(Bettman’s letter) tells me they have some tactical maneuvers at the Legislature to keep pushing this taxing district, when nearly 80 percent of voters are against public funding,” [District 20 Rep. Anthony] Kern said. “It looks like they are trying to get something to keep this possible taxing district moving. This tells me that if they can’t make it in Glendale, where they have the second- or third-best lease agreement, they can’t make it anywhere.”"

Source: http://www.glendalestar.com/news/art...e8524c3f7.html

Llama19 is offline  
Old
03-08-2017, 12:49 PM
  #100
Slashers98
Registered User
 
Slashers98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Quebec City
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,864
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BattleBorn View Post
They're operating under the assumption that a more centrally located facility would sell more tickets at a higher price and likely think concessions and the like would go up as well. I don't see any fault in that, it likely would happen.

The issue is that it's not looking like they're going to get the bill passed, he's trying to sell the people on passing the bill. "Pass this, and revenues to the state will go up." Whether people bite is another story. It's not an outright lie, though.
We all know that it's never going to happen like they predict... they said the same thing about Glendale and the profits never materialized and the Arizona legislators know it now, which is why the bill won't pass.

Slashers98 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 04:04 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2017 All Rights Reserved.