HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie
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 CXXIX: I buy you out, you don't buy me out

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-28-2017, 10:17 PM
  #51
Boris Zubov
Registered User
 
Boris Zubov's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 483
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by madhi19 View Post
Poor Moe Greene he did not even get a statue...
Nor a plaque, or even a signpost...

Boris Zubov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2017, 11:26 PM
  #52
cobra427
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 4,371
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fairview View Post
After the Coyotes leave, the market will be far more likely to build for the Suns..rather than risk losing them too. The Suns have a valid binding agreement that they can keep in place. Meanwhile..it is Glendale or bust for the Coyotes...and both Bettman and the new owner have said it won't be Glendale.
Sure, but they aren't leaving and Sarver can stay in his crappy arena for 4 more years. Once Sarver figures out the Coyotes aren't leaving, he'll have to go in on an arena downtown. The reservation is a smoke screen for the Suns, all sides know it. A single use suns arena on the same deal terms won't get built today. Phoenix would support an NHL/NBA downtown arena.

cobra427 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2017, 11:41 PM
  #53
Boris Zubov
Registered User
 
Boris Zubov's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 483
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cobra427 View Post
Sure, but they aren't leaving and Sarver can stay in his crappy arena for 4 more years. Once Sarver figures out the Coyotes aren't leaving, he'll have to go in on an arena downtown. The reservation is a smoke screen for the Suns, all sides know it. A single use suns arena on the same deal terms won't get built today. Phoenix would support an NHL/NBA downtown arena.
Your optimism is commendable, but you still haven't come up with a solution to their biggest problem. What do they do in the interim while they wait 4-5 years minimum before that joint arena is constructed? Who funds the losses? Will Barroway be able to sustain another $100M waiting for that to happen?

Obviously none of us know anything for certain, but I couldn't be as positive as you seem to be given the circumstances.

Boris Zubov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-29-2017, 01:20 AM
  #54
Tom ServoMST3K
PAINT LIVES!
 
Tom ServoMST3K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Just off 75
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,209
vCash: 949
What about the possibility of a Sarver sale to a more well off party, who can afford to eat some losses?

I bet Silver's rolodex is way better than Bettman's, especially at this point.

Tom ServoMST3K is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-29-2017, 05:58 AM
  #55
georgevanlynn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Country:
Posts: 2,559
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcwpg View Post
2022 is correct. That's 5 years and yes it could actually take that long to plan out and build a multiuse arena, but then the big question becomes... what does Barroway do for 5 years?

The only practical thing would be to keep playing in Glendale on the year-by-year lease. But that comes with fairly substantial losses in the pocketbook, which is their whole reasoning for wanting a new arena somewhere else. Over 5 years that could add another $100MM or more of debt to the debt the team already has. The only way I see Barroway waiting 5 years and taking that extra debt on would be an ironclad assumption that once the new building is finished, the Coyotes become profitable, all the while sharing revenues with the Suns. How likely is that?
I'm thinking that one way they could pull this off is by hopefully having more success on the ice, thus drawing better crowds and more revenue so that the losses don't get as massive (one playoff game alone is worth like a million+?). This way they could survive for 5 more seasons.

And considering that, realistically, the absolute earliest they could possibly have new arena is probably for the 2020 season, 2022 is only two seasons further than that. Are those 2 years really what makes or breaks this?

georgevanlynn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-29-2017, 06:11 AM
  #56
TheCLAM
Registered User
 
TheCLAM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Niagara Falls
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,512
vCash: 500
What happen to the old he's too young to be GM? GM's are going to kill him in trades

TheCLAM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-29-2017, 06:44 AM
  #57
Fairview
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 870
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cobra427 View Post
Sure, but they aren't leaving and Sarver can stay in his crappy arena for 4 more years. Once Sarver figures out the Coyotes aren't leaving, he'll have to go in on an arena downtown. The reservation is a smoke screen for the Suns, all sides know it. A single use suns arena on the same deal terms won't get built today. Phoenix would support an NHL/NBA downtown arena.
That is your take. What I heard Borrowaway and GB both say was that they were not willing to stay in Glendale without a clear path forward. How long would they be willing to wait? If Sarver doesn't move, and just decides to wait, then there will be no clear path in Arizona for about 5 years. No arena announcement during that time is quite possible.
Sarver will go to the reservation with 100% of the revenue in a heartbeat(as would the Coyotes) rather than 50% of revenue in a downtown building, especially if they would have to contribute $$ to any construction.The reservation will give them more bang for their buck.
The dual use arena is a last resort for both teams.

Fairview is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-29-2017, 07:13 AM
  #58
cbcwpg
Registered User
 
cbcwpg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Between the Pipes
Country: United Nations
Posts: 10,025
vCash: 500
^---

Actually, waiting, would be Sarver's best move. If he starts getting pressure from Silver and Bettman to help a brother out and go in on a shared facility, all Sarver has to do is call them on it and say " Come talk to me in 4 years ". If he doesn't want to end up in a facility and having to share revenues with the Coyotes, then make the problem go away.... just wait.

cbcwpg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-29-2017, 07:24 AM
  #59
Headshot77
Bad Photoshopper
 
Headshot77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Country: United States
Posts: 2,110
vCash: 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by Llama19 View Post
The Coyotes are all about that A E S T H E T I C

Headshot77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-29-2017, 08:52 AM
  #60
OmniCube
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,556
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boris Zubov View Post
Your optimism is commendable, but you still haven't come up with a solution to their biggest problem. What do they do in the interim while they wait 4-5 years minimum before that joint arena is constructed? Who funds the losses? Will Barroway be able to sustain another $100M waiting for that to happen?

Obviously none of us know anything for certain, but I couldn't be as positive as you seem to be given the circumstances.
They could stay. They could leave. I don't know the answer here and neither does anyone else on this board. Coyotes fans obviously hope they stay and rightfully so; who wants to lose their team?

OmniCube is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-29-2017, 09:20 AM
  #61
Llama19
Registered User
 
Llama19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Outside GZ
Country: United States
Posts: 5,413
vCash: 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcwpg View Post
^---

Actually, waiting, would be Sarver's best move. If he starts getting pressure from Silver and Bettman to help a brother out and go in on a shared facility, all Sarver has to do is call them on it and say " Come talk to me in 4 years ". If he doesn't want to end up in a facility and having to share revenues with the Coyotes, then make the problem go away.... just wait.
Exactly...Sarver has the best luxury...time...

Unfortunately...with the heavily leveraged Barroway...time is not on his side...

Just like the original IceArizona crew who had an interest-free NHL LOC -- which just so happens would have been due this year -- could not pay their bills...

So, Barroway [cough, cough] buys them out...in the hopes that someone else will either:
build him a new arena (with subsidies) somewhere in the East Valley or buys him out and moves the team...
from all indications...it is the latter...

Llama19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-29-2017, 09:49 AM
  #62
mesamonster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Scottsdale, AZ.
Country: United States
Posts: 1,904
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cobra427 View Post
Sure, but they aren't leaving and Sarver can stay in his crappy arena for 4 more years. Once Sarver figures out the Coyotes aren't leaving, he'll have to go in on an arena downtown. The reservation is a smoke screen for the Suns, all sides know it. A single use suns arena on the same deal terms won't get built today. Phoenix would support an NHL/NBA downtown arena.
Presuming they stay, and are forced to play another five years in Glendale, who will be paying for such a pleasure? The fans have been abused for many years with a substandard product, they have responded by paying less and showing up more infrequently. The accumulated debt and lack of game night revenue is a crippling force that cannot be sustained in perpetuity. Yet Cobra, you seem to be of the opinion that money is ALWAYS going to come from somewhere. Who or what is that somewhere?

The debt, sparsity of revenues and location make this franchise an albatross! Any funds spent on this moribund franchise from this point forward are wasted dollars. The entities responsible for paying operating deficits for this franchise (Barroway and possibly the NHL) are not in this to lose money, can you agree with that? The only entitiy, I know of, that can do that is the federal government, they print their own money to resolve the issue of negative cash flow. So who is it that is going to keep them in AZ. when the money is gone?

mesamonster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-29-2017, 10:25 AM
  #63
CHRDANHUTCH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Auburn, Maine
Country: United States
Posts: 18,072
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to CHRDANHUTCH Send a message via MSN to CHRDANHUTCH Send a message via Yahoo to CHRDANHUTCH
Quote:
Originally Posted by Llama19 View Post
Exactly...Sarver has the best luxury...time...

Unfortunately...with the heavily leveraged Barroway...time is not on his side...

Just like the original IceArizona crew who had an interest-free NHL LOC -- which just so happens would have been due this year -- could not pay their bills...

So, Barroway [cough, cough] buys them out...in the hopes that someone else will either:
build him a new arena (with subsidies) somewhere in the East Valley or buys him out and moves the team...
from all indications...it is the latter...
SOME OF YOU VETS, ARE FORGETTING, one thing: why did the Coyotes 'opt out' of TSRA, or were they told to in 2003, because truly, the Suns narrative has not changed one bit since the Coyotes arrival in 1996.

CHRDANHUTCH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-29-2017, 10:39 AM
  #64
MNNumbers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,026
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRDANHUTCH View Post
SOME OF YOU VETS, ARE FORGETTING, one thing: why did the Coyotes 'opt out' of TSRA, or were they told to in 2003, because truly, the Suns narrative has not changed one bit since the Coyotes arrival in 1996.
Hutch,

The reason they opted out of TSRA in 2003, is that they were renting from the Suns, so they had to survive on game revenues only. And, the place has way way too many obstructed seats for hockey. They were losing lots and lots of money there.

That's the reason Ellman was looking for a development situation in Scottsdale with an arena, and the reason that he then went to Glendale. Because he needed his own arena, in order to make enough money to survive.

Now, I am not sure why that is relevant here, because the discussion about the Suns, is about a NEW place, not a re-union at TSRA. And, the debt load that Barroway is carrying for the franchise is quite a bit larger than it was in 2003.

Perhaps you can answer your own question, is you have something to add.

Thanks.

MNNumbers is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-29-2017, 10:57 AM
  #65
CHRDANHUTCH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Auburn, Maine
Country: United States
Posts: 18,072
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to CHRDANHUTCH Send a message via MSN to CHRDANHUTCH Send a message via Yahoo to CHRDANHUTCH
Quote:
Originally Posted by MNNumbers View Post
Hutch,

The reason they opted out of TSRA in 2003, is that they were renting from the Suns, so they had to survive on game revenues only. And, the place has way way too many obstructed seats for hockey. They were losing lots and lots of money there.

That's the reason Ellman was looking for a development situation in Scottsdale with an arena, and the reason that he then went to Glendale. Because he needed his own arena, in order to make enough money to survive.

Now, I am not sure why that is relevant here, because the discussion about the Suns, is about a NEW place, not a re-union at TSRA. And, the debt load that Barroway is carrying for the franchise is quite a bit larger than it was in 2003.

Perhaps you can answer your own question, is you have something to add.

Thanks.
it doesn't matter, if a new arena or TSRA, MNN, the two have never co-existed, imho, it will cost the state hockey overall, there is no beneficial reason for putting hockey or the Coyotes, financially or otherwise, as the prime tenant in Phoenix or in a shared facility.... then you forget the white elephant, uh, what happens to Glendale/GRA and AEG, IF THEY'RE MANAGING WHAT, if there's no tenant, that's your primary focus of this thread going forward, imho, YMMV.

CHRDANHUTCH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-29-2017, 10:57 AM
  #66
Llama19
Registered User
 
Llama19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Outside GZ
Country: United States
Posts: 5,413
vCash: 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by MNNumbers View Post
Hutch,

The reason they opted out of TSRA in 2003, is that they were renting from the Suns, so they had to survive on game revenues only. And, the place has way way too many obstructed seats for hockey. They were losing lots and lots of money there.

That's the reason Ellman was looking for a development situation in Scottsdale with an arena, and the reason that he then went to Glendale. Because he needed his own arena, in order to make enough money to survive.

Now, I am not sure why that is relevant here, because the discussion about the Suns, is about a NEW place, not a re-union at TSRA. And, the debt load that Barroway is carrying for the franchise is quite a bit larger than it was in 2003.

Perhaps you can answer your own question, is you have something to add.

Thanks.
Agree...as it seems CHRDANHUTCH is attempting to re-write history...

Jerry Colangelo (then owner of the Suns) and Phoenix businessmen Steven Gluckstern and Richard Burke bought the team originally...

Not to go back into the sorted past of a history lesson...
because MNNumbers has summarized it nicely...
fast forward to today...
and the narrative really has not changed...
Barroway needs a new arena which is highly unlikely to happen...

Llama19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-29-2017, 11:01 AM
  #67
CHRDANHUTCH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Auburn, Maine
Country: United States
Posts: 18,072
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to CHRDANHUTCH Send a message via MSN to CHRDANHUTCH Send a message via Yahoo to CHRDANHUTCH
Quote:
Originally Posted by Llama19 View Post
Agree...as it seems CHRDANHUTCH is attempting to re-write history...

Not to go back into the sorted past of a history lesson...
because MNNumbers has summarized it nicely...
fast forward to today...
and the narrative really has not changed...
Barroway needs a new arena which is highly unlikely to happen...
WRONG, then it means no pro hockey, in Arizona, because the Coyotes will never be a prime tenant in their own arena, folks, unless it's staying in Glendale, this narrative of working with the Suns accomplishes WHAT? NOTHING.... WHAT exactly has changed since 2003...

if you want to run the narrative of the Coyotes first, fine, but no way are the Suns ever playing second fiddle

CHRDANHUTCH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-29-2017, 11:04 AM
  #68
Llama19
Registered User
 
Llama19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Outside GZ
Country: United States
Posts: 5,413
vCash: 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRDANHUTCH View Post
WRONG, then it means no pro hockey, in Arizona, because the Coyotes will never be a prime tenant in their own arena, folks, unless it's staying in Glendale, this narrative of working with the Suns accomplishes WHAT? NOTHING.... WHAT exactly has changed since 2003...

if you want to run the narrative of the Coyotes first, fine, but no way are the Suns ever playing second fiddle
The Coyotes have been the prime tenant since 2003 in Glendale...

They just no longer receive a subsidy for playing there...

Llama19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-29-2017, 11:23 AM
  #69
Llama19
Registered User
 
Llama19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Outside GZ
Country: United States
Posts: 5,413
vCash: 91

Llama19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-29-2017, 11:31 AM
  #70
JDogindy
Registered User
 
JDogindy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Country: United States
Posts: 1,127
vCash: 500
God, I'm hoping they don't pay attention and accidentally post tweets & Facebook posts insulting the Coyotes & IceArizona because that seems like what they'd do.

JDogindy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-29-2017, 12:19 PM
  #71
Boris Zubov
Registered User
 
Boris Zubov's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 483
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRDANHUTCH View Post
WRONG, then it means no pro hockey, in Arizona, because the Coyotes will never be a prime tenant in their own arena, folks, unless it's staying in Glendale, this narrative of working with the Suns accomplishes WHAT? NOTHING.... WHAT exactly has changed since 2003...

if you want to run the narrative of the Coyotes first, fine, but no way are the Suns ever playing second fiddle
So what's your point? Are you saying they can't make in AZ either way? Or a new arena for them alone is their only way forward?

Even if they get their own building without the Suns, they need a subsidy to offset a chunk of their losses. Or a new owner with much deeper pockets.

Boris Zubov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-29-2017, 12:36 PM
  #72
CHRDANHUTCH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Auburn, Maine
Country: United States
Posts: 18,072
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to CHRDANHUTCH Send a message via MSN to CHRDANHUTCH Send a message via Yahoo to CHRDANHUTCH
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boris Zubov View Post
So what's your point? Are you saying they can't make in AZ either way? Or a new arena for them alone is their only way forward?

Even if they get their own building without the Suns, they need a subsidy to offset a chunk of their losses. Or a new owner with much deeper pockets.
if that was the case, folks, they would've had stayed in PHOENIX

CHRDANHUTCH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-29-2017, 12:49 PM
  #73
cbcwpg
Registered User
 
cbcwpg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Between the Pipes
Country: United Nations
Posts: 10,025
vCash: 500
Giving Barroway the benefit of the doubt here and avoiding the whole buy it to flip it theory, you have to really wonder what the H - E - Double Hockey Sticks Barroway is thinking. This team had a $15MM/yr subsidy and was still losing money. This team has one of the best leases / agreements with the city they reside in and they are still losing money. A study was done that said the team would have to go to the Stanley Cup semi-finals every year to even have a chance to break even. And all now with swimming in debt.

It doesn't get clearer than this... from the Boss himself..

"The Coyotes' current location is not economically capable of supporting a successful NHL franchise," Bettman wrote in a letter to the Legislature. "For the past 15 years, a succession of ownership groups have tried everything imaginable to make the Glendale location financial sustainable. Our combined efforts have all yielded the same result -- a consistent economic loss."

I know the above was in reference to Glendale, but ( JMO ) I think it will be the same anywhere in the state.

Even if a shared arena was built, what would be the Coyotes best scenario? Something like: The Coyotes get all the revenues generated when they host hockey games, the Suns get all the revenues generated when they host basketball games, and the two teams split all the remaining revenues from all the other events above what they have to pay back to the gov't for helping to build the place. And this is somehow going to make up the $15MM-30MM the Coyotes lose each year?


Last edited by cbcwpg: 06-29-2017 at 12:56 PM.
cbcwpg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-29-2017, 01:09 PM
  #74
mesamonster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Scottsdale, AZ.
Country: United States
Posts: 1,904
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcwpg View Post
Giving Barroway the benefit of the doubt here and avoiding the whole buy it to flip it theory, you have to really wonder what the H - E - Double Hockey Sticks Barroway is thinking. This team had a $15MM/yr subsidy and was still losing money. This team has one of the best leases / agreements with the city they reside in and they are still losing money. A study was done that said the team would have to go to the Stanley Cup semi-finals every year to even have a chance to break even. And all now with swimming in debt.

It doesn't get clearer than this... from the Boss himself..

"The Coyotes' current location is not economically capable of supporting a successful NHL franchise," Bettman wrote in a letter to the Legislature. "For the past 15 years, a succession of ownership groups have tried everything imaginable to make the Glendale location financial sustainable. Our combined efforts have all yielded the same result -- a consistent economic loss."

I know the above was in reference to Glendale, but ( JMO ) I think it will be the same anywhere in the state.

Even if a shared arena was built, what would be the Coyotes best scenario? Something like: The Coyotes get all the revenues generated when they host hockey games, the Suns get all the revenues generated when they host basketball games, and the two teams split all the remaining revenues from all the other events above what they have to pay back to the gov't for helping to build the place. And this is somehow going to make up the $15MM-30MM the Coyotes lose each year?
The attempt to analyze this using logic is counter productive. All of the numbers associated with this charade point in one direction-FINANCIAL FAILURE! There can only be one explanation and that is that AB is completely nuts! I strongly believe he has had opportunities to exit the this swamp but has resisted and in fact doubled down. By now, GB knows what fate lies beyond and when AB approached him about buying out his partners and assuming the Citi debt and the NHL revolving line he did`t think twice and agreed. GB, by doing so, off loaded a league problem on a foolhardy individual willing to roll the dice. When the house of cards comes tumbling down, GB will be upset, frustrated and disappointed. However, he will be free of his obligations and have a clean sheet to start over from. AB, without a buyer, no new arena prospects, mountains of debt and hemorrhaging cash will have no option but to exit the Valley in utter disgrace. Mark your calendars for this December 2017, the auto lease renewal will be just around the corner and unwilling to sign he will be forced to turn the asset over to a BK judge!

mesamonster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-29-2017, 01:57 PM
  #75
WildGopher
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 892
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cobra427 View Post
Phoenix would support an NHL/NBA downtown arena.
Maybe. But the mood of elected officials, at least as reflected by the reaction of the legislature to the Worsley arena bill, seems to be a lot less enthusiastic these days. Add the fact that the Phoenix area has two perfectly serviceable arenas, and you wonder if anything more than a modernization of Talking Sick for basketball will happen.

You just have to ask if there aren't too many arenas. I'm in Milwaukee for business, and outside my hotel room is the old arena the NBA's old Milwaukee Hawks used; in the block to the north is the Bucks' Bradley Center; and in the block north of that, construction is well progressing on the Bucks' new arena. Really? Three arenas? Seeing the three lined up in a row like that really visually shows how we've gone off the rails using taxpayer dollars to fund these buildings for others to make money, and then replacing them when they're still viable venues.

Admittedly, the Bucks put a good chunk of money in for the construction, and I credit them for that. But would the Coyotes? I just don't think they have the will, or even the ability, to contribute much. Fans love their sports, but I think taxpayers are getting tired of being taken for this ride every 20-25 years.

WildGopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 03:59 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.