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 CXXVII: Neither a Barroway Nor a Lender Be

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-16-2017, 06:18 PM
  #101
cobra427
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 4,274
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom ServoMST3K View Post
We've only known the franchise was on shaky financials since 2009. It's probably been on shaky financials since the move from the WHA to the NHL.
Go look at the history of this franchise from the WHA beginning in the Peg. This franchise has been on shaky ground since 1972, 45 years, nothing new here, just more drama, the team is staying in the valley.

cobra427 is offline  
Old
05-16-2017, 06:36 PM
  #102
Fairview
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 825
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cobra427 View Post
Go look at the history of this franchise from the WHA beginning in the Peg. This franchise has been on shaky ground since 1972, 45 years, nothing new here, just more drama, the team is staying in the valley.
Where are they going to play? The ownership and the NHL have said that GRA is not acceptable? The ownership does not have the money to build an arena and the state does not seem inclined to build one for them. Who is going to cave?


Last edited by Fairview: 05-16-2017 at 07:03 PM.
Fairview is offline  
Old
05-16-2017, 07:04 PM
  #103
Llama19
Registered User
 
Llama19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Outside GZ
Country: United States
Posts: 5,235
vCash: 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by cobra427 View Post
Go look at the history of this franchise from the WHA beginning in the Peg. This franchise has been on shaky ground since 1972, 45 years, nothing new here, just more drama, the team is staying in the valley.
25 years in the Peg...20 years in the Valley...yep they are due for a move...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fairview View Post
Where are they going to play? The ownership and the NHL have said that GRA is not acceptable? The ownership does not have the money to build an arena and the state does not seem inclined to build one for them.
Beyond the 2017/18 season, ending around the first week in April 2018...we should know by then...or much sooner...since the lease extension will need to be decided by Dec 31, 2017...

Llama19 is offline  
Old
05-16-2017, 07:25 PM
  #104
Confucius
Registered User
 
Confucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,228
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blues10 View Post
Good to see the event was a success at GRA in spite of the NHL and IAs dislike of the facilities location.
Starting as low as $12.50 a game, Damn

Confucius is offline  
Old
05-16-2017, 08:04 PM
  #105
cobra427
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 4,274
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fairview View Post
Where are they going to play? The ownership and the NHL have said that GRA is not acceptable? The ownership does not have the money to build an arena and the state does not seem inclined to build one for them. Who is going to cave?
Details, TSA or GRA....Until the NHL wants the team to move. There will likely be a change in control of the Coyotes and a new arena deal sorted out in the next 18 months.

cobra427 is offline  
Old
05-16-2017, 08:19 PM
  #106
blues10
Registered User
 
blues10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,264
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Confucius View Post
Starting as low as $12.50 a game, Damn
Well with the successful ticket event and Segal's letter to Seattle speaking of increased revenues at GRA things are looking up.

https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/De...e%20Center.pdf

Too bad the NHL and IA have poisoned the drinking water in Glendale.

Quote:
"Over the past 15 years, different ownership groups, including the National Hockey League itself, have worked arm in arm with the NHL office and officials to explore every possible option to make Glendale and its arena work as the Coyotes' home. The bottom line remains the same: the team's owners continue to lose tens of millions of dollars annually. Consistent losses of such magnitude are not sustainable — not for an NHL franchise, nor any other business," the team said.
Something doesn't add up. Someone may be lying.

blues10 is offline  
Old
05-16-2017, 08:27 PM
  #107
Fairview
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 825
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cobra427 View Post
Details, TSA or GRA....Until the NHL wants the team to move. There will likely be a change in control of the Coyotes and a new arena deal sorted out in the next 18 months.
Not going to be TSA, and both the ownership and the league have said that GRA is not an option and that the team will not remain there long term. In the past, the league said they were ready to move the team out of the state without the subsidy that they conned out of Glendale. So, with the subsidy now gone, are you suggesting that the league was lying when they threatened Glendale council into approving the golden subsidy and that no matter how long it takes and at any cost, they have decided to keep the team where it is? How are they going to convince their next victim to build an arena for them and subsidize the team after the way they dealt with Glendale?

The change in control of the team is likely the best chance for the team to remain. An owner with real money and a realization that it is GRA or bust for the team in Arizona.

Fairview is offline  
Old
05-16-2017, 08:42 PM
  #108
DowntownBooster
Registered User
 
DowntownBooster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 724
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cobra427 View Post
Go look at the history of this franchise from the WHA beginning in the Peg. This franchise has been on shaky ground since 1972, 45 years, nothing new here, just more drama, the team is staying in the valley.
I don't think you can compare the situation in Phoenix/Arizona to what transpired in Winnipeg prior to the relocation in 1996. The Jets had been playing in an outdated arena since the mid-70s and had no control over concessions or parking revenue. During this period, governments throughout the U.S. were funding state of the art facilities which allowed teams to maximize revenues to pay ever increasing player salaries. By the early 90s it was apparent that the Jets would no longer be able to operate without sustaining massive financial losses. Jets owner Barry Shenkarow did not want to sell the team but only reluctantly did so when it became apparent that what was required, namely a new facility along with a salary cap and revenue sharing, were not forthcoming. Had these things been in place like they are for the current Winnipeg Jets it is most likely the team would never have moved away. On the other hand, the Coyotes have had access to those requirements that the Jets so badly needed. Even though things didn't work out for the original Winnipeg Jets, I do hope the Coyotes can succeed in Arizona.


DowntownBooster is offline  
Old
05-16-2017, 08:49 PM
  #109
blues10
Registered User
 
blues10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,264
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fairview View Post
Not going to be TSA, and both the ownership and the league have said that GRA is not an option and that the team will not remain there long term. In the past, the league said they were ready to move the team out of the state without the subsidy that they conned out of Glendale. So, with the subsidy now gone, are you suggesting that the league was lying when they threatened Glendale council into approving the golden subsidy and that no matter how long it takes and at any cost, they have decided to keep the team where it is? How are they going to convince their next victim to build an arena for them and subsidize the team after the way they dealt with Glendale?

The change in control of the team is likely the best chance for the team to remain. An owner with real money and a realization that it is GRA or bust for the team in Arizona.
Sounds like a solution. Barroway will have to go back on his threat but it makes the most sense to do so.

Quote:
Team owner Andrew Barroway also issued a statement saying Glendale no longer is an option because the team loses tens of millions of dollars playing in Gila River Arena. He added that if the team reaches a point where "there is simply no longer a path forward in Arizona," then "we will work with our partners in the league office and across the NHL to determine our next steps."
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/...rena/98881006/

blues10 is offline  
Old
05-16-2017, 09:15 PM
  #110
Fairview
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 825
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blues10 View Post
Sounds like a solution. Barroway will have to go back on his threat but it makes the most sense to do so.



http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/...rena/98881006/
There is a path forward in Arizona. It is the GRA, with their overly team friendly lease terms. Unfortunately, for the fans... the ownership and the NHL clearly stated that they will not stay at GRA. If there isn't another victim willing to build an arena for the team and subsidize the team's operating costs then as Borrowaway has stated they will have no other choice but look at other options. They have been looking for a sugar daddy for about 2 years and so far no luck...if anything, it would seem that any potential saviours have become wise to the deception offered up by the ownership group and league office.

Fairview is offline  
Old
05-16-2017, 09:38 PM
  #111
blues10
Registered User
 
blues10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,264
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fairview View Post
There is a path forward in Arizona. It is the GRA, with their overly team friendly lease terms. Unfortunately, for the fans... the ownership and the NHL clearly stated that they will not stay at GRA. If there isn't another victim willing to build an arena for the team and subsidize the team's operating costs then as Borrowaway has stated they will have no other choice but look at other options. They have been looking for a sugar daddy for about 2 years and so far no luck...if anything, it would seem that any potential saviours have become wise to the deception offered up by the ownership group and league office.
Time for Barroway to kiss and make up with Glendale, although he really doesn't have to but just exercise the yearly lease option in perpetuity.

Will the NHL just cover the loans to IA and pay off the LOC and call it a day? Seems like there may only be one way to make the NHL whole.

This ownership charade game should shake things out and and make the view through the haboob more clear.

blues10 is offline  
Old
05-16-2017, 10:03 PM
  #112
MNNumbers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,967
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fairview View Post
There is a path forward in Arizona. It is the GRA, with their overly team friendly lease terms. Unfortunately, for the fans... the ownership and the NHL clearly stated that they will not stay at GRA. If there isn't another victim willing to build an arena for the team and subsidize the team's operating costs then as Borrowaway has stated they will have no other choice but look at other options. They have been looking for a sugar daddy for about 2 years and so far no luck...if anything, it would seem that any potential saviours have become wise to the deception offered up by the ownership group and league office.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blues10 View Post
Time for Barroway to kiss and make up with Glendale, although he really doesn't have to but just exercise the yearly lease option in perpetuity.

Will the NHL just cover the loans to IA and pay off the LOC and call it a day? Seems like there may only be one way to make the NHL whole.

This ownership charade game should shake things out and and make the view through the haboob more clear.
While I would sincerely hope that some clarity develops soon, I am not sure it will. The reality is that Barroway and IA and Bettman are all saying the same things....

1: We want a path forward in Arizona
2: The bill SB 1149 offered that (we all know this was because of the subsidies hidden in the bill, NOT because of the potential location).
3: GRA is NOT a path forward.
4: The reason is that GRA is not close enough to the fans (but, again, we all know the reason is that there is no more operating subsidy for the team there).

So, the conclusion is that ALL parties who have anything to say about the ownership right now are hoping for a new arena with subsidies. That's not going to change this summer because of Barroway buying out IA, or IA buying out Barroway. Or, neither being able to do that.

All of which means, basically, that this team is staying right where it is until Bettman and the BOG decide it can be sold for relocation. Until they decide that, we won't know anything.....

Although, we can still guess. And, I guess that this next year is it. I say that because I am thinking more and more that there may have been some rights involved in the purchase that make it impossible for the NHL to take over the franchise before 5 years were up. That could be the reason for the 5-year loan. And, I say that because it seems a little beyond reason to think they would go through another charade of a Senate bill for a new arena next year....

MNNumbers is online now  
Old
05-16-2017, 10:19 PM
  #113
Llama19
Registered User
 
Llama19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Outside GZ
Country: United States
Posts: 5,235
vCash: 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fairview View Post
There is a path forward in Arizona. It is the GRA, with their overly team friendly lease terms. Unfortunately, for the fans... the ownership and the NHL clearly stated that they will not stay at GRA. If there isn't another victim willing to build an arena for the team and subsidize the team's operating costs then as Borrowaway has stated they will have no other choice but look at other options. They have been looking for a sugar daddy for about 2 years and so far no luck...if anything, it would seem that any potential saviours have become wise to the deception offered up by the ownership group and league office.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MNNumbers View Post
...Although, we can still guess. And, I guess that this next year is it. I say that because I am thinking more and more that there may have been some rights involved in the purchase that make it impossible for the NHL to take over the franchise before 5 years were up. That could be the reason for the 5-year loan. And, I say that because it seems a little beyond reason to think they would go through another charade of a Senate bill for a new arena next year....
Yes, this has been the speculation by others, too...contractually, the NHL (who is the current sugar daddy) cannot make the final cash call until the five-years are up with their LOC...

Also, the Senate bill was the last moonshot...and not unlike North Korea...it all blew up at the launch pad...

There is no next year relaunch in the Arizona legislature...

Llama19 is offline  
Old
05-16-2017, 10:23 PM
  #114
JDogindy
Registered User
 
JDogindy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Country: United States
Posts: 1,100
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Confucius View Post
Starting as low as $12.50 a game, Damn
I know it's a season package, but there's minor league teams that charge more.

JDogindy is offline  
Old
05-16-2017, 10:23 PM
  #115
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 32,282
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MNNumbers View Post
Although, we can still guess. And, I guess that this next year is it. I say that because I am thinking more and more that there may have been some rights involved in the purchase that make it impossible for the NHL to take over the franchise before 5 years were up. That could be the reason for the 5-year loan. And, I say that because it seems a little beyond reason to think they would go through another charade of a Senate bill for a new arena next year....
... pretty much this, yes.... thats my assumption as well as really nothing else makes any sense, explains a lot.... as for continuing to lobby, they likely will, theyve got a slimmer than slim chance of course but in terms of optics & PR it would serve a purpose. To do nothing would send the wrong signal to their fan base, open admission its a lame duck season, were' outta here.

Killion is offline  
Old
05-16-2017, 11:00 PM
  #116
awfulwaffle
Registered User
 
awfulwaffle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Country: United States
Posts: 9,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDogindy View Post
I know it's a season package, but there's minor league teams that charge more.
For the cheapest ticket?

Plus I'm guessing that was the "fan zone" - that is it doesn't include every game of the season.

awfulwaffle is offline  
Old
05-17-2017, 12:33 AM
  #117
Glacial
Registered User
 
Glacial's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,544
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Llama19 View Post
Yes, this has been the speculation by others, too...contractually, the NHL (who is the current sugar daddy) cannot make the final cash call until the five-years are up with their LOC...

Also, the Senate bill was the last moonshot...and not unlike North Korea...it all blew up at the launch pad...

There is no next year relaunch in the Arizona legislature...
North Korea's been making overall progress on developing long-range missiles or learning from every failure. I'm not sure the Coyotes owners & NHL are learning from each failure and they certainly don't seem to be making any overall progress in profitability or in achieving their agenda.

Glacial is offline  
Old
05-17-2017, 01:35 AM
  #118
WildGopher
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 888
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by awfulwaffle View Post
For the cheapest ticket?

Plus I'm guessing that was the "fan zone"
I'll correct your typo there for you - those $12.50 tickets are actually for the "far" zone - seats directly behind the new tarps in the upper corners. All the sounds, none of the sights of a hockey game, but for only 1/2 the price!

WildGopher is offline  
Old
05-17-2017, 01:37 AM
  #119
Shawa666
Registered User
 
Shawa666's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Québec, Qc, Ca
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,581
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by awfulwaffle View Post
For the cheapest ticket?

Plus I'm guessing that was the "fan zone" - that is it doesn't include every game of the season.
Yes. I've paid more to see a run of the mill Midget AAA game.

Shawa666 is offline  
Old
05-17-2017, 07:54 AM
  #120
JimAnchower
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Country: Isle of Man
Posts: 1,142
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MNNumbers View Post
Although, we can still guess. And, I guess that this next year is it. I say that because I am thinking more and more that there may have been some rights involved in the purchase that make it impossible for the NHL to take over the franchise before 5 years were up. That could be the reason for the 5-year loan. And, I say that because it seems a little beyond reason to think they would go through another charade of a Senate bill for a new arena next year....
Oh, I think they'll try the Senate route again for a new arena next year. Whether or not it would be charade remains to be seen, though I am in the "yes" camp. I don't think they'll have a problem finding a senator willing to go along, after all politicians like seeing their name in the paper. If it has any chance of passing, the Coyotes will have to contribute more, and probably a lot more, for the arena. And there will likely be "reports" of talks with private developers and going back downtown.

JimAnchower is offline  
Old
05-17-2017, 08:32 AM
  #121
Slashers98
Registered User
 
Slashers98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Quebec City
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,980
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimAnchower View Post
Oh, I think they'll try the Senate route again for a new arena next year. Whether or not it would be charade remains to be seen, though I am in the "yes" camp. I don't think they'll have a problem finding a senator willing to go along, after all politicians like seeing their name in the paper. If it has any chance of passing, the Coyotes will have to contribute more, and probably a lot more, for the arena. And there will likely be "reports" of talks with private developers and going back downtown.
It didn't work this year, what makes you think it will work next year? Ice Arizona doesn't have money to contribute more...

Slashers98 is offline  
Old
05-17-2017, 09:03 AM
  #122
mesamonster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Scottsdale, AZ.
Country: United States
Posts: 1,871
vCash: 500
Let's presume the Coyotes will play 17-18 at GRA. What is the financial carnage going to look like? With $12.50 seats, tarps, free food and likely a non playoff team the red ink is going to be unimaginable! Cash calls in October and the likelihood of not renewing the lease will chase all hope from the arena. Does the league step in at this point and announce relocation or do they continue on with the deception?

mesamonster is offline  
Old
05-17-2017, 09:07 AM
  #123
Llama19
Registered User
 
Llama19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Outside GZ
Country: United States
Posts: 5,235
vCash: 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimAnchower View Post
Oh, I think they'll try the Senate route again for a new arena next year. Whether or not it would be charade remains to be seen, though I am in the "yes" camp. I don't think they'll have a problem finding a senator willing to go along, after all politicians like seeing their name in the paper. If it has any chance of passing, the Coyotes will have to contribute more, and probably a lot more, for the arena. And there will likely be "reports" of talks with private developers and going back downtown.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slashers98 View Post
It didn't work this year, what makes you think it will work next year? Ice Arizona doesn't have money to contribute more...
So, the first/original bill partnering with ASU was a 50/50 split...
then, the revised bill went with a site neutral model...
however, the split went to a 47/53...
guess which portion was IceArizona's...

Will there be a third attempt...most likely...
but it will be all talk and not an actual bill...
as the legislation session timing does not work...
prior to a lease extension required in December 2017...


Last edited by Llama19: 05-17-2017 at 10:18 AM. Reason: typo...
Llama19 is offline  
Old
05-17-2017, 09:16 AM
  #124
TheLegend
Moderator
Megathread Gadfly
 
TheLegend's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Orbiting BoH
Country: United States
Posts: 8,300
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildGopher View Post
I'll correct your typo there for you - those $12.50 tickets are actually for the "far" zone - seats directly behind the new tarps in the upper corners. All the sounds, none of the sights of a hockey game, but for only 1/2 the price!
Kinda like what Edmonton did with there "concourse only ticket" special. Only Oilers fans probably got gouged for them.

Those seats have a decent sight line (been in them before) and have been historically set at a low price.

When GRA opened the last four rows in the upper north end were set at a low price in order to entice people who do not have a lot of money a chance to see a professional sports contest and possibly lure them into buying a more expensive seat later on.

IIRC, they made up about 5% of the arena's total capacity. Yet some folks around here act like the entire building is priced at $12.50.

TheLegend is offline  
Old
05-17-2017, 09:54 AM
  #125
The Feckless Puck
Registered Loser
 
The Feckless Puck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 11,006
vCash: 1233
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLegend View Post
And when that got shown to be a gross exaggeration he shifted gears to equating Gary Drummond's lack of media exposure to Anthony LeBlanc's self-imposed exile from the media (at the league's bequest probably).
mesa may have a point, though, TL... considering the big push behind publicizing Drummond's role very recently through Morgan et al., the fact that he's suddenly disappeared from the point position he has occupied until now does seem somewhat remarkable. If Barroway is indeed on the cusp of buying out the other IA partners, it doesn't seem unreasonable that Drummond has gone quiet - although as an owner it's not like he can just pick up and leave without it being reported...

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLegend View Post
IIRC, they made up about 5% of the arena's total capacity. Yet some folks around here act like the entire building is priced at $12.50.
Well, I've been to minor league games that cost more, but the seats I got at those games were a hell of a lot better than the $12.50 nosebleeds they're advertising at GRA.

Beyond that, though, I've never understood the perverse pride that people have taken in the high cost of going to NHL games, unless they're trying to make debate points about demand. $12.50 per game for the worst seats in the house actually sounds reasonable, something an average person could afford. In other words, some actual ROI on the fan side for a change.

__________________
feckless [fek-lis]: ineffective; incompetent; futile. So, my Coyotes.
The Feckless Puck 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 11:24 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.