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/Ownership Situation #6

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-07-2009, 05:37 PM
  #176
dashingsilverfox*
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Paradise
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,652
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhoPhan View Post
The Coyotes generate money for Glendale beyond the percentage of gate receipts the city receives. Simply, the area surrounding the stadium was developed because of the stadium itself, and without a hockey team at the center of it, every business there suffers. The Coyotes, especially if they can draw, are a huge driver for the local economy.
Is there a link to what the actual economic impact is?

It would have to be huge since the COG could be on the hook for as much as $38M/year under Reinsdorf's plan.

dashingsilverfox* is offline  
Old
08-07-2009, 05:58 PM
  #177
RR
Registered User
 
RR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Cave Creek, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 8,306
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alberta Yote View Post
Most of these articles think of the arena as a stand alone development in it's benefit to the City though.

Westgage has 6.5 million square feet of planned restaurants, shops, entertainment areas that are there already or are being developed based in part on the 500,000-750,000 people that would have been expected to come the the arena each year for Coyotes hockey games. If those people are no longer there, what is the impact on the existing businesses and any that are considering locating there?

Now the City has an empty arena and huge and very sparkly new development that is struggling mightily to not become a wasteland. That makes the City appear very unprosperous which would be an extremely difficult thing to overcome for future growth.

See the difference when you look big picture like the City obviously is as opposed to just the arena itself?

Now, since I live in Alberta and have only visited the area several times I'd expect some of the locals that post here can expand on my point.
You did a good job. The analysis by the accountant is woefully incomplete.

Remove those 500,000-750,000 who attend the games; those who visit Westgate on game nights for dinner, drinks, watching the games in the sports bars (not counted in TV ratings, BTW); and the vacationers in the fall, winter and spring for hockey, football and spring training who support other businesses in Glendale, and it's easy to see how $15M-$30M in additional revenues could be lost to the city.

RR is offline  
Old
08-07-2009, 06:05 PM
  #178
RR
Registered User
 
RR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Cave Creek, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 8,306
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dashingsilverfox View Post
Is there a link to what the actual economic impact is?

It would have to be huge since the COG could be on the hook for as much as $38M/year under Reinsdorf's plan.
I doubt the numbers are broken out separately in the budget and financials, but will nose around. But check out the link to get an idea of what Westgate is all about and why it's more than just a hockey arena, and why there is so much at risk if the anchor tenant leaves:

http://www.westgatecitycenter.com/index.php

RR is offline  
Old
08-07-2009, 06:10 PM
  #179
RR
Registered User
 
RR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Cave Creek, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 8,306
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dashingsilverfox View Post
Here's one of the darlings of the Phoenix media saying exactly the same thing:

"No. But, to speculate for a minute here, I also think there's little chance that the elected officials in Glendale will sign off on incentives this big. It's not just that taxpayers are fed up around here; it's also that Cardinals president Michael Bidwill has already indicated he opposes the tax surcharge plan, and he's a guy with clout. Beasley was certainly within his rights to attempt to negotiate such a deal, but personally, I don't see it going through."

http://communities.canada.com/thepro...-glendale.aspx
So, could Bidwell change his mind if the Cardinals received, say, a portion of the revenue? He may be opposed now when he gets nothing, but he's not stupid!

RR is offline  
Old
08-07-2009, 06:31 PM
  #180
TeamTippett
Formally TeamTurris
 
TeamTippett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Phx
Country: United States
Posts: 5,342
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dashingsilverfox View Post
James Mirtle, who writes the blog, is actually a sports editor at the Globe and Mail.
Strike one, Strike two. Looses any credibility in my eyes.

TeamTippett is offline  
Old
08-07-2009, 09:05 PM
  #181
bobbop
Henrik & Pop
 
bobbop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Suburban Phoenix
Country: United States
Posts: 5,265
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dashingsilverfox View Post
That tax district proposal has virtually no chance of being passed. The Cardinals have already said they not prepared to solve a "hockey problem".
The last I checked, Michael Bidwill is not a voting member of the Glendale City Council. Taxes and levys that certain people oppose are passed all the time. While the Cardinals are certainly capable of making a lot of noise , there is absolutely no guarantee that their POV would kill any tax proposal. Frankly, I think the Fiesta Bowl Committee could play a major role here.

And I would caution is that the reports of what was proposed, was was being discussed etc. were in a filing that was only visible for 90 minutes. If the good folks at the Arizona Republic captured the entire document, I'd like to see it. I would imagine that like any political proposal there were nuances, trial baloons and other parts that are simply not being reported, either because they were not captured, they are not sexy enough to make the paper or they represent the Moyes' attorneys synopsis of the key points and little more. I can't imagine that the city council is voting on a one sheeter that has two points -- an 11% tax district and a $15MM yearly payment if the team is still losing $ in 5 years. There's got to be more. A lot more.

bobbop is offline  
Old
08-07-2009, 09:40 PM
  #182
dashingsilverfox*
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Paradise
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,652
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeamTurris View Post
Strike one, Strike two. Looses any credibility in my eyes.
I'm curious about who you do find credible in this soap opera.

Moyes?

Bettman? He was lying about the team's fianancial situation until a few months ago.

Reinsdorf? The no money down, no risk owner.

Ice Edge? The let's play in Saskatoon so we don't lose our shirts owner?

Balissille?I'll pay the big bucks if I can move the team.

Strike 5, you're out.

dashingsilverfox* is offline  
Old
08-07-2009, 09:44 PM
  #183
dashingsilverfox*
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Paradise
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,652
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RousselRising View Post
I doubt the numbers are broken out separately in the budget and financials, but will nose around. But check out the link to get an idea of what Westgate is all about and why it's more than just a hockey arena, and why there is so much at risk if the anchor tenant leaves:

http://www.westgatecitycenter.com/index.php
I appreciate the link but I'm dubious fewer than 10 thousand fans a game 41 times a year (410,000 visitors) would outweigh the concessions that Reinsdorf is asking for.

I'd love to see what you can dig up.

dashingsilverfox* is offline  
Old
08-07-2009, 09:48 PM
  #184
dashingsilverfox*
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Paradise
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,652
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RousselRising View Post
So, could Bidwell change his mind if the Cardinals received, say, a portion of the revenue? He may be opposed now when he gets nothing, but he's not stupid!
What do you think the impact on consumers will be if they are asked to pay nearly 25 percent more to visit Westgate, attend a Cardinal's game or buy dinner?

Don't forget the school of unintended consequences.

Wouldn't it make more sense to double the price of tickets to Coyotes games and see if there really is any fan support?

dashingsilverfox* is offline  
Old
08-07-2009, 10:18 PM
  #185
MainDotC
Depth Defenceman
 
MainDotC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Westerville, OH
Country: United States
Posts: 17,659
vCash: 50
Send a message via Skype™ to MainDotC
What this document that was released into public record accidentally and caused Reisdorf to consider withdrawing his bid?

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/2009/08/07/moyes_lawyer/

MainDotC is online now  
Old
08-07-2009, 10:27 PM
  #186
SJUTim56
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Phoenix
Country: United States
Posts: 7
vCash: 500
IMO giving JR the key to the city and access to the city banking accounts would be better than doing nothing and letting the Coyotes move. Anyway you look at it, it would have a devastating effect on the residents of Glendale. The Bonds still have to be paid and the city will either raise taxes, implement a city wide sales tax increase, shift money from other services (Police, Fire Dept., Schools), or maybe go bankrupt.

I'm hoping that MLSE puts in a bid to keep the team here in Phoenix, it would be worth it for them with the potential loss of TV money and merchandising over a five/ten year period due to another team setting on their toes.

Maybe Mirtle should do some poking around and find out where the MLSE legal staff has been traveling to. Maybe that could be his next story.

SJUTim56 is offline  
Old
08-07-2009, 10:49 PM
  #187
bobbop
Henrik & Pop
 
bobbop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Suburban Phoenix
Country: United States
Posts: 5,265
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al_in_Utica View Post
What this document that was released into public record accidentally and caused Reisdorf to consider withdrawing his bid?

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/2009/08/07/moyes_lawyer/
It's an article about the document but not the document itself.

bobbop is offline  
Old
08-07-2009, 11:04 PM
  #188
SniperHF
Global Moderator
Desert Ranger
 
SniperHF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Country: United States
Posts: 17,323
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dashingsilverfox View Post
I'm curious about who you do find credible in this soap opera.
Reinsdorf? The no money down, no risk owner.

Balissille?I'll pay the big bucks if I can move the team.

Strike 5, you're out.
Actually I think both Balsillie and Reinsdorf are very credible. Reinsdorf doesn't appear to be hiding his "no money down no risk" plan and Balsillie certainly isn't hiding his intentions. Reinsdorf is the businessman trying to capitalize on another's struggles and Balsillie is on a mission. Both are acting in accordance with that.

SniperHF is online now  
Old
08-07-2009, 11:06 PM
  #189
yakko
Registered User
 
yakko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Northern California
Country: United States
Posts: 3,867
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dashingsilverfox View Post
Strike 5, you're out.
Just because you can list additional biased or unreliable sources of information, doesn't make the initial source any more credible. The Globe and Mail has repeatedly proven biased and unreliable. The reports from the situation that occurred in Nashville also paint the Globe and Mail as either an unwitting pawn to Basillie and his representatives or complicit in the twisting of facts for the purpose of supporting Balsillie.

There is plenty of factual information coming out of the court proceedings. If you want to subscribe to one set of opinions or speculations, you are obviously welcome to it. Expecting others to follow you or trust sources just because you can cite more unreliable or biased sources is disingenuous.

yakko is offline  
Old
08-07-2009, 11:18 PM
  #190
TeamTippett
Formally TeamTurris
 
TeamTippett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Phx
Country: United States
Posts: 5,342
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dashingsilverfox View Post
I'm curious about who you do find credible in this soap opera.

Moyes?

Bettman? He was lying about the team's fianancial situation until a few months ago.

Reinsdorf? The no money down, no risk owner.

Ice Edge? The let's play in Saskatoon so we don't lose our shirts owner?

Balissille?I'll pay the big bucks if I can move the team.

Strike 5, you're out.
No Coyotes fan on here will ever trust the dribble that the Globe & Mail prints as "news" it's been nothing but borderline slander from day one. As for the Blog comment, ****** I can type up something and post a blog, WT_? On this board we have had extensive discussions about the creditability of "bloggers" b/c two of our mods are journalist, well one is a journalist student.

TeamTippett is offline  
Old
08-07-2009, 11:52 PM
  #191
gorsk11
Registered User
 
gorsk11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: AZ
Posts: 292
vCash: 500
Attendance Numbers

Just something I thought of today - that I don't think anyone has mentioned to the folks who beat us up about our attendance numbers in the past few years...

We had 14,000+ paid attendance or actual attendance was 11,000+. Attendance has increased the last two years....

Plus now the PHX Roadrunners have ceased operations - they averaged over 3,000 in attendance per game... They had a high of 6,400 fans for one game...

Many folks (especially some up north posters) have no idea that we have a minor league team playing here also in the desert.

With no Roadrunners - there is some potential for some of those fans to attend the Yotes. I know like many - some our very sour on what the Yotes have had to offer

Here is the Roadrunners article on attendance

http://www.arizonarubber.com/story.cfm?id=1645

Although I'm sure the bankruptcy and its delays will hurt ticket sales for this year.

gorsk11 is offline  
Old
08-07-2009, 11:59 PM
  #192
RR
Registered User
 
RR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Cave Creek, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 8,306
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dashingsilverfox View Post
I appreciate the link but I'm dubious fewer than 10 thousand fans a game 41 times a year (410,000 visitors) would outweigh the concessions that Reinsdorf is asking for.

I'd love to see what you can dig up.
I'm shocked that you are dubious.

Fewer than 10,000? Where do you get that? I go to more than 41 games a year and for you to suggest less than 10,000 is the average in the arena each night over a season is delusional. 14,632 last year per according to Mirtle.

It will be a waste of time to try and convince you of anything to persuade you that you are wrong, so all I can offer is simple math: fans attending games + diners on game night + shoppers on game nights + bar patrons on game nights + hotel guests on game nights + Cardinals and Fiesta Bowl attendees who attend Saturday night and other hockey games while visiting + spring training baseball fans who visit all through March = far more $$$$$ spent in Glendale (which is more than Westgate and Jobing, BTW) than 44 nights without the Coyotes.

RR is offline  
Old
08-08-2009, 12:05 AM
  #193
RR
Registered User
 
RR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Cave Creek, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 8,306
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dashingsilverfox View Post
What do you think the impact on consumers will be if they are asked to pay nearly 25 percent more to visit Westgate, attend a Cardinal's game or buy dinner?

Don't forget the school of unintended consequences.

Wouldn't it make more sense to double the price of tickets to Coyotes games and see if there really is any fan support?
25%? What dark hole did you pull that number from?

Double the price of tickets? If the product on the ice warranted it, sure, why not.

I'm not supporting the terms of the rumored deal leaked by Moyes' lawyers, but I am calling BS on people like you who take it as gospel and run with it as if it is a fact, claiming empirical knowledge that it is true and it cannot work. Neither is fact, both are speculation, and time will tell if there is an ultimate deal between JR and the COG. At that point we can argue based on facts, not hyperbolic speculation.

RR is offline  
Old
08-08-2009, 12:28 AM
  #194
RR
Registered User
 
RR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Cave Creek, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 8,306
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeamTurris View Post
No Coyotes fan on here will ever trust the dribble that the Globe & Mail prints as "news" it's been nothing but borderline slander from day one. As for the Blog comment, ****** I can type up something and post a blog, WT_? On this board we have had extensive discussions about the creditability of "bloggers" b/c two of our mods are journalist, well one is a journalist student.
I did not know that. Which two? (PM me if it's off-the-record ).

I would love for any journalist, particularly a G&M "journalist," to examine the Moyes acquisition of Swift in 2007, taking the company private, the subsequent troubles at Swift since that time, and the skyrocketing expenses of the Coyotes that coincide with Swift's free-fall.

Any chance the 100% Moyes-owned and private company Swift spread its expenses (shared staff, office space, etc.) to Moyes's stable of other private businesses? A rhetorical question, and a great story it would make.

Poor Jerry my butt!

RR is offline  
Old
08-08-2009, 01:34 AM
  #195
James Mirtle
Registered User
 
James Mirtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 226
vCash: 500
Hi everyone... lots of fun in this thread.

I used the term "may" in the headline for a reason because we really don't know what the extra financial benefits of the Coyotes are to the area. What seems highly unlikely (to me) is that the team produces the amount of economic benefit that would outweigh concessions as high as Reinsdorf is proposing.

Think of it this way: Coyotes games have averaged about 12,000 paid fans per game over the past couple years, all of whom come to the Westgate area 41 times a year and many of whom park, or shop, or whatever nearby. But in terms of real economic benefit, we're looking at (a) people coming into the area from outside the city who are bringing money in (as opposed to locals would who potentially spend much of that disposable income in the city anyway) and (b) taxes, etc., generated on the sale of food, drinks and the like which directly benefit the city's coffers.

(I haven't been to the retail complex, so you folks will know more about its viability without the Coyotes there than I do. At the moment, it doesn't appear as though there are many non-hockey events there.)

In order for those 12,000 fans a game to bring in $23-million in extra revenues, they'd each have to contribute about $50 in net gain every time they visited the area.

Do they? I honestly don't know — I'm not a Glendale accountant with access to all the figures. But what's clear is that in terms of rent and debt repayment, the team is contributing very little to the city right now, and it's a worthwhile question what type of concessions are worth giving up to save that contribution.

There's no question it would be a loss to lose the building's anchor tenant; what I'm arguing is that that loss may not be quite as burdensome on taxpayers as the new special taxing district.

I'd honestly like to hear all arguments on the subject because I think it's a critical part of what happens going forward. And feel free to contact me via email to discuss "credibility" issues if you wish.

James Mirtle is offline  
Old
08-08-2009, 02:30 AM
  #196
gorsk11
Registered User
 
gorsk11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: AZ
Posts: 292
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Mirtle View Post
Hi everyone... lots of fun in this thread.

I used the term "may" in the headline for a reason because we really don't know what the extra financial benefits of the Coyotes are to the area. What seems highly unlikely (to me) is that the team produces the amount of economic benefit that would outweigh concessions as high as Reinsdorf is proposing.
.
.
.
I'd honestly like to hear all arguments on the subject because I think it's a critical part of what happens going forward. And feel free to contact me via email to discuss "credibility" issues if you wish.
I appreciate your comment. I think its valid to look at the cost of COG vs the potential revenue.

My thoughts - I am a STH btw...We really don't know what JR and the COG will agree on. I'm not sure what was posted by Moyes attorney was what JR requested or what the COG is willing to do. Or if it was just a negotiating position. I'm sure the COG will look at the numbers closely and determine what they think is the best approach. I do believe the posting was malicious - Moyes has everthing to gain if the local bids fall apart.

I do know the restaurants are very busy on game nights especially on the weekends. The Saturday night games always have a larger turnout/attendance than weeknight games. And especially when the Canadian teams are here. People are there pre-game and post-game.

Mr. Mirtle - I am interested in your perspective on the Coyotes losses, specifically the teams expenses based on your research. I find it hard to believe even if we were drawing say 17,000 in attendance, $50 Avg ticket price, we would still be losing 18-20+ million. That seems ridiculous.

gorsk11 is offline  
Old
08-08-2009, 02:35 AM
  #197
RR
Registered User
 
RR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Cave Creek, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 8,306
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Mirtle View Post
Hi everyone... lots of fun in this thread.

I used the term "may" in the headline for a reason because we really don't know what the extra financial benefits of the Coyotes are to the area. What seems highly unlikely (to me) is that the team produces the amount of economic benefit that would outweigh concessions as high as Reinsdorf is proposing.
Reasonable, unless you consider that Reinsdorf's position is that his management of the team and Arena will deliver more hockey fans AND more consumers to events at Jobing and Westgate, like concerts and shows.

Quote:
Originally Posted by James Mirtle View Post
Think of it this way: Coyotes games have averaged about 12,000 paid fans per game over the past couple years, all of whom come to the Westgate area 41 times a year and many of whom park, or shop, or whatever nearby. But in terms of real economic benefit, we're looking at (a) people coming into the area from outside the city who are bringing money in (as opposed to locals would who potentially spend much of that disposable income in the city anyway) and (b) taxes, etc., generated on the sale of food, drinks and the like which directly benefit the city's coffers.
Again, reasonable. But, you must remember that many like myself do not live in Glendale and would not spend money in that city if not for the Coyotes. And if you're conditioned to visit a venue 41+ times a year, what impact will it have on you and how you spend your money over a fiscal year if you have 41+ less reasons to do business at Westgate? Not to mention your friends, relatives and visitors you introduce to the Center who might not otherwise patronize those businesses had you not made them acutely aware of their existence and the value they could provide to you as a consumer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by James Mirtle View Post
(I haven't been to the retail complex, so you folks will know more about its viability without the Coyotes there than I do. At the moment, it doesn't appear as though there are many non-hockey events there.)
Get your butt down here, I'll be happy to show you around. Meals and cocktails on me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by James Mirtle View Post
In order for those 12,000 fans a game to bring in $23-million in extra revenues, they'd each have to contribute about $50 in net gain every time they visited the area.

Do they? I honestly don't know I'm not a Glendale accountant with access to all the figures. But what's clear is that in terms of rent and debt repayment, the team is contributing very little to the city right now, and it's a worthwhile question what type of concessions are worth giving up to save that contribution.
Again, you're thinking too simplistically (too much like a journalist, not like a marketer ). Crowds beget crowds. Families of four may not be able to afford $100 for game tickets and dinner at The YardHouse, but they might be able to swing a movie and burgers at Johnny Rockets while joining in with the hockey fans post-game at Westgate along with the free music at the outdoor Fountain. Would they choose AMC 20 and Johnny Rocket's at Westgate on game nights to be part of the excitement of the crowd, or might they hit another venue?

Quote:
Originally Posted by James Mirtle View Post
There's no question it would be a loss to lose the building's anchor tenant; what I'm arguing is that that loss may not be quite as burdensome on taxpayers as the new special taxing district.

I'd honestly like to hear all arguments on the subject because I think it's a critical part of what happens going forward. And feel free to contact me via email to discuss "credibility" issues if you wish.
I don't question "credibility." You can only report and form opinions in response to the questions you ask and the answers you receive. But until you visit, your story is incomplete...nudge, nudge, wink, wink, know what I mean, know what I mean...

RR is offline  
Old
08-08-2009, 02:40 AM
  #198
gorsk11
Registered User
 
gorsk11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: AZ
Posts: 292
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RousselRising View Post

Get your butt down here, I'll be happy to show you around. Meals and cocktails on me.
RR - Just thought I let you know. You've done a great job with the discussions on the BOH forum.....I'll be happy to buy and have a cold one with you when the season gets here.

gorsk11 is offline  
Old
08-08-2009, 02:43 AM
  #199
James Mirtle
Registered User
 
James Mirtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 226
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RousselRising View Post
I don't question "credibility." You can only report and form opinions in response to the questions you ask and the answers you receive. But until you visit, your story is incomplete...nudge, nudge, wink, wink, know what I mean, know what I mean...
I think there's a fairly solid chance I'll make a trip to Phoenix this year. I was in Nashville in February to look at that franchise's viability, the fan base and talk to ownership and fans, and it was a great experience.

I'll get into the expenses v. revenue question tomorrow, but I will say this: If you talk to executives in the NHL, they feel you need to generate about $85-million in revenues in this league to break even. The Coyotes' expenses last year were exactly $85-million.

Now, you can run a team cheaper than that. The Predators do it, and they've said they're close to breaking even the past two years. I don't have their balance sheet, so it's difficult to compare, but it is possible. Even if we're looking at $75-million in expenses, however, the Coyotes are generating $16.5-million less than that in revenue and that's with the largest revenue sharing payments in the league.

They have a ways to go, even with a full building. This is an extremely difficult league to make a profit in (outside of the top 10 markets).

James Mirtle is offline  
Old
08-08-2009, 03:02 AM
  #200
XX
Avoiding the Cap
 
XX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Since 2015
Country: United States
Posts: 34,329
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Mirtle View Post

In order for those 12,000 fans a game to bring in $23-million in extra revenues...
Again, when we talk about slapstick journalism, this is right up There. You are assuming, rather, using a phantom number (12,000) fans to objectively justify the 23 million "extra revenues." Is it lost on you that perhaps the Coyotes are worth more to Westgate than simple attendance numbers? Using very shoddy, if not shady math when trying to justify one point or the other (this goes for supports of the team, as well) it does the cause no good and only makes people who use such numbers as a crutch look the part of a fool. I am tired of both sides nonsense when it comes to the raw numbers.

But I love when a Canadian journalist or TV hack tells me about the viability of the team here based on assumptions they make from AP articles, Google Maps and their own desires. I am accusing you of none of the above, but it is a fair warning to those who want to talk about the Coyotes. You can be the objective, wise journalist that people trust while saying negative things. I'm not about to proclaim myself the expert of all things Westgate but Id like to think that what goes into revenue equations is a wee bit more complex than straight attendance numbers.

It would also be wise to distance yourself from the conjecture and focus more on reality. This "23 million" number is just that; a number. None of you are privy to the negotiations so you do not know how they got this number, nor do you know what $15 million in concessions are, or what a 11% surcharge entails and onto what it will apply. Stop drawing conclusions from nothing and focus on the facts.

Maybe then people wont call you out on message boards

XX 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 02:14 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.