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 bankruptcy/ownership Part XII: For a Few Dollars More

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-07-2009, 05:34 PM
  #76
MAROONSRoad
f/k/a Ghost
 
MAROONSRoad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Maroons Rd.
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,068
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kritter471 View Post
I think he's ripping on the idea that short-term failure means always failure, which is what people are using to say Phoenix will never be successful.
13 years, multiple ownership groups and one constant: 10s of millions of losses each and every year. Is that really short-term failure?

GHOST

MAROONSRoad is offline  
Old
08-07-2009, 05:53 PM
  #77
Crazy_Ike
Cookin' with fire.
 
Crazy_Ike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,081
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by GHOSTofMAROONSroad View Post
13 years, multiple ownership groups and one constant: 10s of millions of losses each and every year. Is that really short-term failure?
Two constants: millions in losses each year, and being terrible on the ice each year. They had a reasonably decent number of sellouts when they were able to make the playoffs (of course, they almost never advanced past the first round). And it held into the new arena era... for a while.

But after how many years of sucking with no past success to hold onto either, it's gonna take its toll. My own Hawks had a similar record of futility and their attendance was in the crapper too by the end of things. Everyone but Toronto and Montreal is vulnerable if it gets bad enough.

I would love to see how the Coyotes would draw if they were even at the league average for playoff performance. Maybe win more than one round in sixteen years...

It must be like cheering for the Detroit Lions.


Crazy_Ike is offline  
Old
08-07-2009, 06:27 PM
  #78
bbud
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,007
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irish Blues View Post
I have no idea where the "Ralston and Hunter got a nice settlement from the NHL" claim comes from, but I've talked to someone [sorry, no names] who is familiar with that case and the resulting litigation [RP's lawsuit vs. the NHL for denying it the ability to sell the franchise to who it wanted, and the league's countersuit against RP for terminating the Blues franchise without the league's consent] ... and I can safely say that

-- Bill Hunter didn't get anything from the league [he wasn't even a party to either lawsuit and never filed a claim against the League or Ralston Purina for the denial of the sale], and
-- Ralston Purina got nothing from the NHL, as both sides agreed to drop their claims against each other as part of sealing the records in the case [which I'm told happened when the League produced documents showing that Ralston Purina had engaged in actions that showed it had materially violated the League Constitution and that RP realized it was quite likely to lose both its case and the case the NHL had filed against it.] As part of the confidential settlement, the League agreed to facilitate the sale of the team and the proceeds given to RP [less expenses the League incurred]; if there was no sale, the team would be dissolved and RP would get whatever money was left over [again, less expenses the League incurred]. Additionally, Ralston Purina agreed to never become an owner of an NHL franchise, whether in whole or in part.

That's it. The NHL didn't pay out the first penny above what it would have had the sale to Hunter gone through.

And yes ... Ralston initially asked for $60 million when it filed suit against the NHL - which prompted the league's $78 million countersuit. The originally proposed sale to Hunter was for $12 million.
i stated Ralston - Purina got out a little less than what they really wanted but satisfied and Hunter took the PR and used it endlessly happy to have been a piece of NHL folklore it was also a completely different era and was not the same as what we are seeing here was the point.

bbud is offline  
Old
08-07-2009, 06:27 PM
  #79
Kritter471
Registered User
 
Kritter471's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Dallas
Country: United States
Posts: 7,714
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Kritter471
Quote:
Originally Posted by GHOSTofMAROONSroad View Post
13 years, multiple ownership groups and one constant: 10s of millions of losses each and every year. Is that really short-term failure?

GHOST
First if all, I don't believe the losses were as staggering until recently. I know the Coyotes didn't lose that magnitude of money when they were at their successful peak in the late 1990s.

13 years and multiple ownership groups is part of the problem. No consistency in on or off ice planning.

And in terms of professional sports, 13 years is short term in every league except probably the NFL (which is a significantly younger league than the other three). The Marlins and Rays are "young" MLB franchises, and the Marlins started play in 1993 while the Rays started play in 1998.

Kritter471 is offline  
Old
08-07-2009, 06:36 PM
  #80
Brodie
voted best
 
Brodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Michigan
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 16,014
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazy_Ike View Post
It must be like cheering for the Detroit Lions.
At least the Lions have made it past the first round in their existence.

Brodie is offline  
Old
08-07-2009, 06:42 PM
  #81
XX
It's finally over
 
XX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Jump City!
Country: United States
Posts: 43,001
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GHOSTofMAROONSroad View Post
13 years, multiple ownership groups and one constant: 10s of millions of losses each and every year. Is that really short-term failure?

GHOST
Quote:
Originally Posted by XavierX
If they stay, and Jerry Reinsdorf legitimately wants to move them, then so be it. Our beef (Coyote fans) is that since the team has arrived here, it has never been properly managed. Even in the playoff years the team was chalk full of veterans because the Coyotes had absolutely nothing in terms of a farm system. I believe the Coyotes produced 2 players in that time span; Briere and Kolanos. Neither really hit their stride with the Coyotes though Kolanos got violated by Varada.

Anyways. Fast forward to the present, and you have Gretzky running the team into the ground as hard as he can. Friends of his are littered throughout the organization and not coincidentally the only non-FoG is considered the best part of the organization; Maloney. Fans will support a well run team. The Coyotes have never been well run. Therefore, the fans have never had a reason to support the team.

You can go on about who deserves what or how people should support their team regardless. That's complete nonsense because the Coyotes aren't the only team in town. And even if they were, I wouldn't reward Mod edit: them with my hard earned money just because they cobble together a half-assed roster. That sort of thing is a vicious cycle and breeds idiocy. Ask Leaf fans or better yet Hawk fans. Why should they come out and support an idiotic regime? Just Because? That's crap.

Give Maloney and Reinsdorf 5 years and I can honestly say you'll have a contender and a profitable team. If all ills aren't fixed by then... move their ass. I wouldn't want a team to languish here if the next 5 years are like the last 5. Honestly, I don't see that happening under a competent business man in Jerry R and one of the best GMs in the league in Maloney. There's just too much sense between the two for things to be that bad.

I think Phoenix could be a model franchise in 5 years because no team in the valley really has a lot of history or success to lean on. The Suns and Diamondbacks are going to suck during this time and the Cardinals are a Boldin trade away from irrelevance. Now is the time.

Give us 5 years, and if we don't succeed, you can have your NHL hockey team back.
What I said in the last thread.

XX is offline  
Old
08-07-2009, 06:43 PM
  #82
Naych_PHX
Hey now!
 
Naych_PHX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: phoenix
Posts: 6,062
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GHOSTofMAROONSroad View Post
13 years, multiple ownership groups and one constant: 10s of millions of losses each and every year. Is that really short-term failure?
Yeah, it's not like the team made the playoffs the first four years they were here, sending Phoenix into a hockey frenzy every spring. And yeah, good point.. you would think multiple ownership groups and instability combined with almost no scouting in preparation for the draft in the early years would birth a succesful franchise for years to come! Plus, no one wants to watch hockey in a building unsuitable for it with hundreds of seats having an obstructed view, good luck trying to sell that to the masses.

Seriously though, whenever the Red Wings come to town (or any other popular team), the arena is filled with faux Red Wings fans just there to have a good time cheering for a winning team. It's not like people are running for the hills when a hockey game is being played.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazy_Ike View Post
Two constants: millions in losses each year, and being terrible on the ice each year. They had a reasonably decent number of sellouts when they were able to make the playoffs (of course, they almost never advanced past the first round). And it held into the new arena era... for a while.
Yeah... that's never happened in the new arena so far.

Naych_PHX is online now  
Old
08-07-2009, 06:55 PM
  #83
XX
It's finally over
 
XX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Jump City!
Country: United States
Posts: 43,001
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naych_PHX View Post
Seriously though, whenever the Red Wings come to town (or any other popular team), the arena is filled with faux Red Wings fans just there to have a good time cheering for a winning team. It's not like people are running for the hills when a hockey game is being played.
There are easily more hockey fans in Phoenix than say Nashville or Florida. The problem is that they all root for their old teams. The arena is generally packed anytime the Red Wings, Wild etc... come to town. Most people in AZ now are not natives but are from the cold states. I would know, I am one of them and it seems half the people I meet here in AZ are from Minnesota, Michigan etc...

Give them a reason to switch allegiances and this team will be solid. Prior to Maloney, the team was an embarrassment to the valley and hockey.

XX is offline  
Old
08-07-2009, 07:06 PM
  #84
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 67,746
vCash: 500
Just looked more closely at the Sharks away games against division rival, Phoenix, for the 09-10 schedule.

All four games (one preseason and three regular season) are the second of back-to-back games. All but the final RS game is a home-and-away arrangement; the final game is preceded by a tilt in LA. Game start times vary from 20-24 hours after the previous game.

I can’t see any circumstance that the Sharks would be able to fly cross country (overnight) and be ready for a game three hours earlier on four occasions. (NHL.com isn’t cooperating for me to check the schedules of the other division opponents, but I doubt they’d have as easy a time with their Phoenix games.)

Flight time to Phoenix is ~2.5 hours (Hamilton would be 5-6 hours plus customs; one way.)

LadyStanley is offline  
Old
08-07-2009, 09:14 PM
  #85
berklon
Registered User
 
berklon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,284
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by XavierX View Post
There are easily more hockey fans in Phoenix than say Nashville or Florida. The problem is that they all root for their old teams. The arena is generally packed anytime the Red Wings, Wild etc... come to town. Most people in AZ now are not natives but are from the cold states. I would know, I am one of them and it seems half the people I meet here in AZ are from Minnesota, Michigan etc...
This is where I think the whole argument of a team in Phoenix will grow the game is flawed. If the only people who are watching hockey down there are transplants from the Northern US and Canada who already watch hockey - then the sport isn't increasing it's fanbase. In fact, if what you say is true about these transplants only watching Coyotes games against their favorite teams where the used to live (Detroit for example) - then they're watching a lot less hockey than they would if they stayed in Detroit. The same holds true for transplants that move down to Florida and watch the Lightning and Panthers.

The other argument of people not wanting to spend money to watch a crappy team or the commute to Glendale being a major deterrent doesn't wash with me either when they average only 7,000 TV viewers per game. You don't have to spend money or commute to watch hockey on TV. Sure, if the team were better then viewership would be better - that's a given with any city... but 7,000 is MUCH too low a number even for a bad team IMO.

berklon is offline  
Old
08-07-2009, 09:32 PM
  #86
billy blaze
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,480
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyStanley View Post
Just looked more closely at the Sharks away games against division rival, Phoenix, for the 09-10 schedule.

All four games (one preseason and three regular season) are the second of back-to-back games. All but the final RS game is a home-and-away arrangement; the final game is preceded by a tilt in LA. Game start times vary from 20-24 hours after the previous game.

I can’t see any circumstance that the Sharks would be able to fly cross country (overnight) and be ready for a game three hours earlier on four occasions. (NHL.com isn’t cooperating for me to check the schedules of the other division opponents, but I doubt they’d have as easy a time with their Phoenix games.)

Flight time to Phoenix is ~2.5 hours (Hamilton would be 5-6 hours plus customs; one way.)

ummm i believe a new schedule would need to be drawn up, however that being said Phoenix will play in Phoenix this year mostly to empty arena

billy blaze is offline  
Old
08-07-2009, 09:37 PM
  #87
Naych_PHX
Hey now!
 
Naych_PHX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: phoenix
Posts: 6,062
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by berklon View Post
The other argument of people not wanting to spend money to watch a crappy team or the commute to Glendale being a major deterrent doesn't wash with me either when they average only 7,000 TV viewers per game. You don't have to spend money or commute to watch hockey on TV. Sure, if the team were better then viewership would be better - that's a given with any city... but 7,000 is MUCH too low a number even for a bad team IMO.
Except there's actually two unnamed teams with less viewership then that. So don't act like this is something unprecedented.

It's still much too low for my liking, personally.

Naych_PHX is online now  
Old
08-07-2009, 09:41 PM
  #88
NotBad*
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,728
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naych_PHX View Post
Except there's actually two unnamed teams with less viewership then that. So don't act like this is something unprecedented.

It's still much too low for my liking, personally.
Wich teams would those be.... Less than 7k per game..... ATL is one maybe.. whose the other

NotBad* is offline  
Old
08-07-2009, 09:45 PM
  #89
billy blaze
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,480
vCash: 500
McCown on Rodier

http://www.fadoo.ca/blog/display/ric...e-optimist-360

billy blaze is offline  
Old
08-07-2009, 09:54 PM
  #90
Brodie
voted best
 
Brodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Michigan
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 16,014
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naych_PHX View Post
Except there's actually two unnamed teams with less viewership then that. So don't act like this is something unprecedented.

It's still much too low for my liking, personally.
That would be a great point if it wasn't extremely likely that the other two teams are also in non-traditional markets.

Brodie is offline  
Old
08-07-2009, 10:44 PM
  #91
njdevsfn95
Help JJJ, Sprite.
 
njdevsfn95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 31,191
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotBad View Post
Wich teams would those be.... Less than 7k per game..... ATL is one maybe.. whose the other
lowest TV ratings of the season:

Tampa - 8565 (average)
Atlanta - 6161 (average)
Florida - 3557 (average)

Phoenix 12/13 v DET - 9280 (highest number of households for the season)

i dont have their average in my spreadsheet

njdevsfn95 is offline  
Old
08-07-2009, 11:18 PM
  #92
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 67,746
vCash: 500
http://coyotes.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=463704

Daly comments on ruling. (There's a link to the audio, or you can read the transcript.)

LadyStanley is offline  
Old
08-07-2009, 11:40 PM
  #93
nye
Registered User
 
nye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Siberia
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,887
vCash: 500
What is the likelihood that the league tells Baum that if he approves a bid by a party rejected by the NHL, that the league will dissolve the franchise?

What could be the legal implications of that?

Is there a smackdown for the league to play? Could this go the way of the Saskatoon Blues? I have no idea as my law degree cost $2.50 and was issued by Labatts.

nye is offline  
Old
08-07-2009, 11:57 PM
  #94
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 67,746
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nye View Post
What is the likelihood that the league tells Baum that if he approves a bid by a party rejected by the NHL, that the league will dissolve the franchise?

What could be the legal implications of that?

Is there a smackdown for the league to play? Could this go the way of the Saskatoon Blues? I have no idea as my law degree cost $2.50 and was issued by Labatts.
IIRC, a franchise cannot go into bankruptcy without league "approval", so the league could dissolve the franchise today. (They then might sell off assets - Zambonis and such - and perhaps player contracts via waiver/dispersion draft. Proceeds to pay creditors.)

LadyStanley is offline  
Old
08-08-2009, 12:03 AM
  #95
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 16,205
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyStanley View Post
IIRC, a franchise cannot go into bankruptcy without league "approval", so the league could dissolve the franchise today. (They then might sell off assets - Zambonis and such - and perhaps player contracts via waiver/dispersion draft. Proceeds to pay creditors.)
For what it's worth:

In one of the filings with a scanned pdf copy of the NHL Constitution - next to Article 3.9(a) "Involuntary Termination", the term which states that a franchise may be terminated for filing bankruptcy - a note is made in the margin (by whom?) "Not Enforceable".

kdb209 is offline  
Old
08-08-2009, 12:12 AM
  #96
nye
Registered User
 
nye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Siberia
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,887
vCash: 500
I'm wondering about what weapons the league has to fight off an owner they do not approve. Can they trout slap a bankruptcy judge?

nye is offline  
Old
08-08-2009, 12:26 AM
  #97
MAROONSRoad
f/k/a Ghost
 
MAROONSRoad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Maroons Rd.
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,068
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kritter471 View Post
First if all, I don't believe the losses were as staggering until recently. I know the Coyotes didn't lose that magnitude of money when they were at their successful peak in the late 1990s.

13 years and multiple ownership groups is part of the problem. No consistency in on or off ice planning.

And in terms of professional sports, 13 years is short term in every league except probably the NFL (which is a significantly younger league than the other three).
FYI, here's a sample from some links I saved:

The Burke/Gluckstern era (1996 -2001):

October 1, 1999 (Arizona Republic)

Quote:
There is no panic. Yet. No signs of an impending fire sale. So far. The payroll won't be slashed. For now.

But it could all change in a heartbeat for the Coyotes...

Owner Richard Burke insists he won't buckle under pressure from losing up to $10 million a year on the franchise...

"Once we get the arena vote passed, everything will be fine," Burke said...
Link:

http://hockey.ballparks.com/NHL/Phoe...s/articles.htm

January 20, 2000 (Associated Press)

Quote:
The team's lease at America West Arena in Phoenix expires 30 days after the 2001 season, though an extension has been promised.

But the inadequacy of the arena for hockey, and the revenue situation there, are factors that led Burke to press for the team's own arena.

The Tribune said the financial reports it saw showed that the franchise lost $23 million over the last two seasons.
Link:

http://assets.espn.go.com/nhl/news/2...20/302012.html


The Elman/Moyes era (2001 - 2005):

December 23, 2003 (ESPN)

Quote:
Yes, the residents of Glendale, Ariz., have committed plenty of money to help build a new 17,799-seat arena for the Phoenix Coyotes -- $180 million of the $220 million price tag to be exact...

If all goes as planned, Ellman and co-owner Jerry Moyes will recoup the $100 million they have lost since buying the team [less than 3 years ago] on arena revenue alone.
Link:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=1693100

April 14, 2006 (East Valley Tribune)

Quote:
The team was in bad financial shape when Ellman, Gretzky and Jerry Moyes purchased it in February 2001.

Ellman is hopeful the team will soon be in position to break even or turn a profit.

“Not only did this building make things better for the Coyotes financially but so does the new collective bargaining agreement, which allows us to control costs and be true partners with the players,” Ellman said.

As Ellman departs, the organization is still $65 million in debt.
Link:

http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/63201


The Moyes era (2005 - 2009):

April 27, 2007 (Phoenix Business Journal)

Quote:
Top team executives confirmed that financial losses will hover in the $30 million range this year.

"While that number is not unexpected, it is unacceptable," said team President and Chief Operating Officer Doug Moss...

"The last frontier we have to break through is television," Moss said. "In the States, hockey is not bred into the culture as it is Canada. It's not our natural sport."
Link:

http://phoenix.bizjournals.com/phoen...0/story14.html

April 28, 2009 (Arizona Republic)

Quote:
The Coyotes have never made money since owner Jerry Moyes became an investor in 2001, and annual financial losses have exceeded $20 million during his tenure...
Link:

http://www.azcentral.com/business/ar...eloan0429.html

Etc., etc., etc.

GHOST

MAROONSRoad is offline  
Old
08-08-2009, 01:41 AM
  #98
RR
Registered User
 
RR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Cave Creek, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 8,668
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nye View Post
I'm wondering about what weapons the league has to fight off an owner they do not approve. Can they trout slap a bankruptcy judge?
My money is on the judge ruling that the auction winner is the bidder who best takes care of the creditors, but rejects the claim that he has the legal authority to overrule the NHL's Constitution and by-laws regarding ownership approval of the league.

Judge meets his bankruptcy obligation to the creditors; let's it get appealed to the Ninth Circuit; and if JB loses there lets SCOTUS decide. If it ends up coming back to BK SCOTUS has ruled and he follows the order.

RR is offline  
Old
08-08-2009, 03:05 AM
  #99
XX
It's finally over
 
XX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Jump City!
Country: United States
Posts: 43,001
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GHOSTofMAROONSroad View Post
FYI, here's a sample from some links I saved:


GHOST
From $10 million to $67+. You tell me Ghost.

XX is offline  
Old
08-08-2009, 03:56 AM
  #100
Artyukhin*
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,831
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by XavierX View Post
From $10 million to $67+. You tell me Ghost.
when did the NHL jump into Phx with cash last year?

(nhl) now owed what 38-40 million?


id say the losses seem like there real

Artyukhin* 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 01:06 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.