HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Arizona Coyotes
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Coyotes Financial Situation aka Show Me the Money Thread #2

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-07-2009, 01:34 PM
  #26
zyllyx
STH Hipster
 
zyllyx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Peoria
Country: United States
Posts: 3,281
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matzel View Post
I appreciate Buddhaful's attempts at bringing some sense to the reader comments discussion in the latest G&M article. I wrote a lengthy comment myself last night - showing that there are other opinions out there than MPC's.

Unfortunately, the post never made it through censorship. The worst thing I said was something like this:
'I am not sure what kind of game Anthony Davies is playing, but I think that the knowledgeable Canadian hockey fans probably realize that he might not be playing with a full deck of cards.'

Other than that, I stated facts, reiterated Buddhaful's comments and offered my own point of view as someone who has cheered for this franchise for almost 20 years and the light at the end of the tunnel that I see with this young, up and coming team.

Too bad that it was not posted but I think the debate is pretty well over anyways.
Doesn't seem to me that there were a lot of "knowledgeable Canadian hockey fans" responding to that thread. It's a choir that Shoalts is preaching to that doesn't care anything for any truth or facts except ones that aim the Coyotes for Hamilton or contraction.

But thanks, Matzel, we appreciate your effort even if it didn't get through their system...

zyllyx is offline  
Old
02-07-2009, 02:04 PM
  #27
TJinAZ
Registered User
 
TJinAZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 410
vCash: 500
More

Quote:
FACT: The team resides in a market where it needs to compete for dollars against 3 other major sports. Also the market is extremely fair weathered in nature. \

FACT: The economy really sucks, and all local sports teams are feeling the pinch.

FACT: we don't really know any other facts.
FACT: Coyotes ticket sales are up over double digits this year

FACT: Coyotes TV ratings are up 100% this year


Goes to show winning more games trumps the economy.

Also can we immediately remove the title of "knowledgable Canadian Hockey Fan" from any poster that says the team should move back to Winnipeg? I think that is a definite indicator of complete lack of knowledge of the economics of the NHL.

TJinAZ is offline  
Old
02-07-2009, 02:14 PM
  #28
zyllyx
STH Hipster
 
zyllyx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Peoria
Country: United States
Posts: 3,281
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TJinAZ View Post
Also can we immediately remove the title of "knowledgable Canadian Hockey Fan" from any poster that says the team should move back to Winnipeg? I think that is a definite indicator of complete lack of knowledge of the economics of the NHL.
I think anyone with half a brain knows that Winnipeg is not the focal point of relocation advocates. I think the largest relocation lobbies bring up Winnipeg as a possibility but only to swing support for their cause. The ones making the loudest noise are the ones who want a team in Hamilton.

zyllyx is offline  
Old
02-07-2009, 02:24 PM
  #29
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 11,690
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gump Hasek View Post
What we do know is that the Coyotes do lose money, and that the amount of those losses is known at the NHL BOG level, because their losses must be stated in order to receive their portion of revenue sharing money. To state losses, the Coyotes can be assumed to have fully shared their books with the league, and as well as their entire financial history to date, likely.
It's not necessary to even have losses to receive revenue sharing, let alone state them. Teams are only required to report revenue and player costs. I very much doubt the NHL has full access to the P&L sheets of the NHL clubs, the owners wouldn't stand for that.

I would expect the NHL does have access to the Coyotes current financial information now, but only as a condition of the league advancing revenue payments. Whether that information is held within the Commissioner's office only or distributed to the entire BoG is a good question.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Gump Hasek View Post
What we also know is that a national paper located in the hockey capital of the world likely has better sources than do you and I, even better sources than your local rag as well for that matter. Brunt & others such as Bob McCown do indeed have NHL BOG level sources, sources who likely are frustrated at the amount of money they are shoveling annually into the Phoenix money pit, with no indication that it will stop anytime soon, and as such they are venting their frustrations to media who will both listen and fully comprehend, because apparently their concerns fall on some deaf ears at the NHL executive level.
The goofy thing about all the media frenzy, want to know a dirty little secret?

It doesn't financially matter to the other owners how much the Coyotes are losing.

The revenue sharing payments have no ties to whether a club is making or losing money. If the Coyotes disappeared tomorrow, do you know how much less $ Toronto, Rangers, Montreal, Vancouver, Boston, Detroit, etc would pay into the revenue sharing pot? The difference would be less than 1%. In fact the teams that would benefit the most: Atlanta, Columbus, Nashville etc because they would receive even larger revenue sharing payments.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Gump Hasek View Post
If the reports that the Coyotes could lose 45 million this year are even remotely accurate, and given that the past losses they've stated at the BOG level are in the record at that level, it really is not that difficult nor a stretch of the imagination for a BOG member to add 45+30+? & eventually arrive at a 200 million dollar figure. It is certainly within the realm of possibility that the G&M are correct with their 200 million dollar guess, IMO. It is not as large a stretch of the imagination as some would have you believe.
Again, I'm confident those figures are not stated at the BoG level. What has been publicly stated:

2006-2007 season, Shumway stated the team had lost $30m. However that figure included things that were clearly not operating the hockey team such as $5m losses running the eventually folded NLL Sting lacrosse team.

2007-2008 season, Shumway is on record saying the financial results improved 20%. No indication if this is net operating income, net revenue or some other measurement though.

2008-2009 season. The team hasn't made any public statements. The $45m number being tossed around appears to be pure speculation.

mouser is offline  
Old
02-07-2009, 03:22 PM
  #30
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 11,690
vCash: 500
For the curious, after a lot of research and number crunching over the past couple months.

I suspect the team has been running a hockey operations loss in the ballpark of $10m the past couple seasons. For those not familiar with business financial accounting, operating profit/loss (EBIT) is a measure of business profitability that excludes interest and income tax expenses. In the case of the Coyotes that $10m estimate is only the core hockey club operations itself and excludes any non-hockey related business.


Why would you look at a view of a business that doesn't include interest expenses, taxes or other non-hockey business? Because as a potential investor/buyer you're looking at the core business profitability and you will probably change the debt/equity ratios during or after the purchase. Suppose you were a wealthy investor with hundreds of millions and the option to buy only one of the following two businesses?

Business A: net profits -$5m, costs $50m to buy (-10% annual ROI)
Business B: net profits +$5m, costs $100m to buy (+5% annual ROI)

Which one would you buy? The answer is you don't have enough information. Now I tell you that Business A has $100m in debt with 15% annual debt service fees and Business B has zero debt. You're wealthy enough to pay off the debt, what do the two businesses look like now:

Business A: net profits +$10m, costs $150m to buy (+6.67% annual ROI)
Business B: net profiles +$5m, costs $100m to buy (+5% annual ROI)


So how could the team have an operational hockey loss of $10m but report $30m in losses for 06-07? We know $5m of that was the lacrosse team (non-hockey operations). I suspect the figure does not include revenue sharing the team would have received of around $10m. That would leave around $5m for debt service, which fits reasonably well with reported debt load of the team at the time.

If that is indeed the case that operational losses are in the $10m range it explains how important a lease renegotiation could be for a new investor/owner. Turning the -$2.5m for parking into a +$2.5m would generate $5m, a tax break on the $1m or so the city of Glendale collects annually on tickets, merchandise and concessions for hockey and other arena events or other incentives could have a material impact on profitability. Even the annual lease of $500k is material when compared to $10m.


BTW, looking around the league, there doesn't appear to be a common practice whether the teams receiving revenue sharing (all 12 or 13 of them) include the revenue sharing $'s in their profitability claims. Nashville clearly is, saying they expect to break a profit this year, other teams don't appear to include it such as San Jose. Phoenix appears to be in the later camp of not including it.


Last edited by mouser: 02-07-2009 at 03:58 PM.
mouser is offline  
Old
02-07-2009, 04:43 PM
  #31
TeamTippett
Formally TeamTurris
 
TeamTippett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Phx
Country: United States
Posts: 5,325
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TJinAZ View Post
FACT: Coyotes ticket sales are up over double digits this year

FACT: Coyotes TV ratings are up 100% this year


Goes to show winning more games trumps the economy.

Also can we immediately remove the title of "knowledgable Canadian Hockey Fan" from any poster that says the team should move back to Winnipeg? I think that is a definite indicator of complete lack of knowledge of the economics of the NHL.
Yes and having TV ratings up helps next season potentially, but regardless Advertising dollars across the board are half of what they were a year ago and this is for all sports (except NFL) How many commercials do we have for Blue Water Casino and Phillips and Associates? There not pulling the money they need from TV advertising. As for tix being up, most nights the upper bowl is sold fairly well but it's the higher priced lowerbowl that is 50/50 most nights, this is reflective of the economy. But the Coyotes have progressively been loosing advertisements both on ice and on TV, How much do you really thing "Verve" energy drink pays? They lost the partnership w/ Bud and Hensley (the local dist of Bud products) They lost Altell and picked up AT&T so thats a wash.

As for the $200mill figure That was reported in the G&M as well as the Republic so 2 places I'm taking that as fact until otherwise. Look nothing about this will be anything but speculation, since no privetly held corporation will open their books. We can assume the $80m note with the hedge fund is fact, do your really think Moyes then shelled out $120m of his own money to fill the rest of that gap? While I'm no rich guy I do know rule one for rich guys is this; "Why spend your money when you can spend someone else's!" We assume the franchise is worth $140m I am willing to bet my life savings on that the debt from this team is equal to or exceeds what the team is worth. Hence why I have said Bankruptcy is in our future, but I don't think thats necessarily a bad thing. Look IF we assume the debt is $140 bucks the interest alone on that is somewhere between $11m and $20m, which plays into Mousers $10m figure from ^^^^. Thats crippling when your operating a narrow margin like we are. I would just like to know what the picture is if there is no debt servicing?

TeamTippett is offline  
Old
02-07-2009, 05:17 PM
  #32
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 11,690
vCash: 500
It's usually difficult to get a debt ratio of 100% against an asset like a sports team. I think the Devils are the only team believed to be that high and at least half that debt went towards building their new arena that opened last season.

Usually debt covenants have restrictions. The reported $80m hedge fun loan probably has conditions on it that restrict how much more $ the team can borrow from other sources, precisely to avoid a possible situation where the team has more debts than assets and the hedge fund could take a bath in bankruptcy. There are still possibilities like Moyes loaning $ to himself or other creative accounting tricks though.


I'd love nothing more than to discover the team has $100mil in debt with a criminal loansharking outfit that charges 25% annual interest. That would be a very bad thing for Moyes personally, but a very good thing if you're a fan of the Coyotes remaining in Arizona.

mouser is offline  
Old
02-07-2009, 05:52 PM
  #33
TeamTippett
Formally TeamTurris
 
TeamTippett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Phx
Country: United States
Posts: 5,325
vCash: 500
It's not hard to get a 100% loan to value ratio when the underlying asset decreases in value. Why do you think all these banks are insolvent? All their underlying assets (debt) is constantly diminishing in value if anyone can determine what the value is.

You would think that a hedge fund would put restrictions on other debt this team could take out, but then again I never thought it would have been a bright idea to give people mortgages who's only qualification is they have a pulse. But here we are.

You know me Mouser I NEED this team to stay here if for my (in)sanity, I think it's safe that we all can agree that the Debt is whats crippling the franchise, we can dispute numbers, but at the end of the day the Credit Cards are maxed out.

TeamTippett is offline  
Old
02-07-2009, 05:54 PM
  #34
phxroadrunner
Registered User
 
phxroadrunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 150
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mouser View Post
It's not necessary to even have losses to receive revenue sharing, let alone state them. Teams are only required to report revenue and player costs. I very much doubt the NHL has full access to the P&L sheets of the NHL clubs, the owners wouldn't stand for that.
I wouldn't think that the owners have a choice. I think it's perfectly reasonable for a franchisor(NHL) to require detailed and accurate financials from a franchisee (team owners).
I'm an owner of a franchise-based business and I'm required to submit monthly, detailed P&L statements.

phxroadrunner is offline  
Old
02-07-2009, 06:59 PM
  #35
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 11,690
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by phxroadrunner View Post
I wouldn't think that the owners have a choice. I think it's perfectly reasonable for a franchisor(NHL) to require detailed and accurate financials from a franchisee (team owners).
I'm an owner of a franchise-based business and I'm required to submit monthly, detailed P&L statements.
The sports teams really are a different breed of franchise you have to admit. The teams are definitely required to report certain revenue (HRR - Hockey Related Revenue) and certain costs (e.g. player costs) as part of the CBA. The league doesn't publicly release any figures that would require more detailed profitability information such as interest payments and debt. Also the owners truly own the league, there's no central corporate parent outside of the franchise members themselves.

I'm going to guess your franchise is a self-contained incorporated business? The NHL teams are incorporated with the franchise being only one part of the business in many cases. For example, in 06-07 Shumway claimed that Coyotes Holdings (the parent company owning and operating the Coyotes franchise) lost $30m. Reports at the time said $5m of that was due to the lacrosse team they operated in the arena. Does the team report $30m in losses or $25m in losses to the BoG? Suppose the team took a loan of $5m out to cover the lacrosse loss and is still paying $500k annually in debt service do you report that every year forward?

There are accounting/incorporation standards that can be employed to unravel complexities like this and force uniformity onto the club reporting, but outside of the CBA mandated figures no indication that the NHL has required the franchises to organize their businesses in a way to uniformly report back-end numbers. There's probably some amount of extra information the NHL does request from its teams regularly but I doubt it would meet accounting standards.


Curious how detailed your P&L requirement is. Do you have to report items like outstanding loans, debt service and depreciation?

mouser is offline  
Old
02-07-2009, 08:22 PM
  #36
phxroadrunner
Registered User
 
phxroadrunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 150
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mouser View Post

I'm going to guess your franchise is a self-contained incorporated business?


Curious how detailed your P&L requirement is. Do you have to report items like outstanding loans, debt service and depreciation?
We're an LLC and, yes, we report all those items. Our franchisor is very interested in how our balance sheet looks. They pay close attention to our debt-to-equity ratio and require a minimum capital standard.

I can obviously understand the owners reluctance to share detailed financials with the Players Association, but I would think they would need to be more forthcoming with their fellow owners and the league office.

phxroadrunner is offline  
Old
02-07-2009, 09:05 PM
  #37
Mayo Taco Monday
Registered User
 
Mayo Taco Monday's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 983
vCash: 510
Send a message via MSN to Mayo Taco Monday
quick question. Were the Coyotes released from their leas at US airways center or are they still on the hook for part of that?

Mayo Taco Monday is offline  
Old
02-08-2009, 01:20 AM
  #38
Coyote_Fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Country: United States
Posts: 665
vCash: 500
Is it possible that all of this negative press out of Toronto is just to drive the value oft he Coyotes down even further so someone can swoop in and buy them for dirt cheap? Because I still cannot see how they are losing that much money. So say they are losing $40 million this year would imply that they didnt even generate enough money to pay a single player. Even though they made atleast 20 million (average of 13k/game*$40 average ticket price*42 home games) this season off of attendance alone.

Coyote_Fan is offline  
Old
02-08-2009, 02:05 AM
  #39
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 11,690
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesedog1 View Post
quick question. Were the Coyotes released from their leas at US airways center or are they still on the hook for part of that?
Good question.

I know the original AWA lease when the team first moved here expired in 2001. I haven't seen a report how many years the lease was extended after that.

Going back to 2001, it was originally expected Los Arcos would be built by then and the team was looking for a new arena deal when that fell apart. Seems unlikely the team would want to sign a long extension with AWA after 2001, though Colangelo would have had an advantage in negotiations.

mouser is offline  
Old
02-09-2009, 12:35 AM
  #40
Coyote_Fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Country: United States
Posts: 665
vCash: 500
i think their lease was up when they talked about moving to Portland. I'm pretty sure they signed 1 year leases till the Job opened.

Coyote_Fan is offline  
Old
02-10-2009, 01:54 PM
  #41
Gump Hasek
Spleen Merchant
 
Gump Hasek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: 222 Tudor Terrace
Posts: 7,411
vCash: 1250
Quote:
Originally Posted by mouser View Post
It doesn't financially matter to the other owners how much the Coyotes are losing.
Actually, it does, in spades.

The reason the Coyotes receive revenue sharing monies is because their revenue taken in is far below the mean. If the Coyotes (and other drains on the league pool) were eventually located in markets where that wasn't the case, where the gap between rich & poor wasn't as wide, the owner's revenue sharing costs might eventually decline, or at least not be earmarked for the same culprits annually. It would mean a brighter future for all involved.

If the team has in fact (as has been reported by the G&M) pledged all team assets against debt, then the franchise is at risk of being sold in exchange simply for someone willing to cover the debt. Or it could potentially be placed into chapter 11 bankruptcy if the financial picture is as bad as is being reported. Either scenario is detrimental to the franchise value of the whole, meaning the other owners.

You can also be sure that the league is fully aware at the BOG level of all of the Coyote financial losses, since the Coyotes are now being monitored by the league financial higher-ups and the Coyotes must consult with the league prior to making any large financial decisions. That sounds like the league are fully aware of the tenuous situation the franchise is facing, as they are watching how the pennies are now being spent.

Gump Hasek is offline  
Old
02-10-2009, 02:15 PM
  #42
TeamTippett
Formally TeamTurris
 
TeamTippett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Phx
Country: United States
Posts: 5,325
vCash: 500
I don't know why revenue sharing is a big deal? I'm quite certain the Toronto Blue Jays receive revenue from the Red Sox and Yankees. You don't think their is a wide "gap" between the money the Yankees print and the Florida Marlins? In fact Baseball, Basketball, and Football all have some sort of revenue sharing program where poorer teams receive capital from their richer brothers. Hockey is just the last of the 4 to adopt a policy.

TeamTippett is offline  
Old
02-10-2009, 02:35 PM
  #43
MP
Registered User
 
MP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,954
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeamTurris View Post
I don't know why revenue sharing is a big deal? I'm quite certain the Toronto Blue Jays receive revenue from the Red Sox and Yankees. You don't think their is a wide "gap" between the money the Yankees print and the Florida Marlins? In fact Baseball, Basketball, and Football all have some sort of revenue sharing program where poorer teams receive capital from their richer brothers. Hockey is just the last of the 4 to adopt a policy.
And the bottom line is that it's extremely unlikely that the Yankees, Red Sox, Maple Laughs, or Habs or any of the other high-profile franchises would slash ticket prices if revenue sharing suddenly went away. Anyone who is actually upset about revenue sharing is simply manufacturing outrage at something that has never, and will never, affect them. As the saying goes, Hell hath no fury like that of the uninvolved.

MP is offline  
Old
02-10-2009, 02:41 PM
  #44
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 11,690
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gump Hasek View Post
Actually, it does, in spades.

The reason the Coyotes receive revenue sharing monies is because their revenue taken in is far below the mean. If the Coyotes (and other drains on the league pool) were eventually located in markets where that wasn't the case, where the gap between rich & poor wasn't as wide, the owner's revenue sharing costs might eventually decline, or at least not be earmarked for the same culprits annually. It would mean a brighter future for all involved.
If the Coyotes revenue magically increased tomorrow by $30mil, the top 10 revenue teams like Toronto, Rangers, Montreal, etc would pay more money into the revenue sharing system.

The Coyotes wouldn't be receiving of any of it, but the other dozen revenue receiving teams would get more total $ than they do today.


The CBA Salary Cap design mandates revenue sharing, there's no way the league could financially operate under the Cap rules without it. If you don't like revenue sharing, you should be targeting the Salary Cap itself or find a way for the NHL to generate $500mil+/year in TV deals or other new central revenue.

mouser is offline  
Old
02-10-2009, 02:41 PM
  #45
Jake16
 
Jake16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 1,320
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeamTurris View Post
I don't know why revenue sharing is a big deal? I'm quite certain the Toronto Blue Jays receive revenue from the Red Sox and Yankees. You don't think their is a wide "gap" between the money the Yankees print and the Florida Marlins? In fact Baseball, Basketball, and Football all have some sort of revenue sharing program where poorer teams receive capital from their richer brothers. Hockey is just the last of the 4 to adopt a policy.
The folks in Toronto that post here think that if the Leafs didn't have to pay $10M or so to the revenue sharing pool and instead could pay 60M in profits to the shareholders of MLSE instead of 50M (of which none of them are) and then: (a) the Leafs would actually be good; (b) ticket prices in Toronto would be lower. Neither are true.

Jake16 is offline  
Old
02-10-2009, 02:48 PM
  #46
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 11,690
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeamTurris View Post
I don't know why revenue sharing is a big deal? I'm quite certain the Toronto Blue Jays receive revenue from the Red Sox and Yankees. You don't think their is a wide "gap" between the money the Yankees print and the Florida Marlins? In fact Baseball, Basketball, and Football all have some sort of revenue sharing program where poorer teams receive capital from their richer brothers. Hockey is just the last of the 4 to adopt a policy.
The Blue Jays receive about 2.5x to 3x as much total $'s from MLB revenue sharing when compared to the $'s Phoenix receives from the NHL.

Taking into account MLB's total revenue is about 2.5x higher than the NHL's the Jay and Yotes both receive about the same % of their respective league's total revenue in sharing payments.

mouser is offline  
Old
02-10-2009, 03:05 PM
  #47
Jake16
 
Jake16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 1,320
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mouser View Post
The Blue Jays receive about 2.5x to 3x as much total $'s from MLB revenue sharing when compared to the $'s Phoenix receives from the NHL.

Taking into account MLB's total revenue is about 2.5x higher than the NHL's the Jay and Yotes both receive about the same % of their respective league's total revenue in sharing payments.
I guess we should quickly load up the moving van and move 'em to a "traditional" baseball market (in America, of course).

Jake16 is offline  
Old
02-10-2009, 03:19 PM
  #48
berklon
Registered User
 
berklon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 853
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake16 View Post
I guess we should quickly load up the moving van and move 'em to a "traditional" baseball market (in America, of course).
Go ahead, not a lot of people care for baseball in Toronto... but it's still more than people in Phoenix care for hockey.

The Jays actually profited for quite a while in Toronto, can Phoenix say the same thing? Has Phoenix ever had a year where they didn't lose money?

berklon is offline  
Old
02-10-2009, 03:40 PM
  #49
zyllyx
STH Hipster
 
zyllyx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Peoria
Country: United States
Posts: 3,281
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by berklon View Post
Go ahead, not a lot of people care for baseball in Toronto... but it's still more than people in Phoenix care for hockey.
Do you actually live here?

If you don't, you are absolutely unqualified to make that statement.

zyllyx is offline  
Old
02-10-2009, 04:10 PM
  #50
TeamTippett
Formally TeamTurris
 
TeamTippett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Phx
Country: United States
Posts: 5,325
vCash: 500
I'm sure the Raptors receive revenue from their wealthier brothers south of the Border. I think we need to move the Raptors to a market where they already have several basketball teams, I think Ft Wayne Indiana.

TeamTippett is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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



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