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
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

Part III. Prospective Owners - Phoenix Coyotes (UPD Lease vote 4/13; IEH signs MOU)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-27-2010, 11:44 PM
  #26
billy blaze
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,480
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ps241 View Post
this will be interesting to see what they propose? i assume if they have concessions of any sort (or added revenue streams) it would work in conjunction with the proposed legislation at the state level.....the tax zone!! i like the CoG timing....get out ahead of it if you're going to propose something and then put the heat on the state to get the tax zone passed at a later date.....if the state can't get it done and the deal dies the blame gets directed to the state....last man standing when the music stops....that is assuming the CoG have the political will to craft some kind of plan that can get the votes and pass a legal challenge



i will put my money on "the first of many".....i assume this has been worked out with one of the groups (Reinsdorf) and the CoG is taking the first step.

I have been at a 3 year old's birthday all afternoon and had time to reflect on this matter and i was struck by the simplicity of this situation......at the end of the day no matter how they package it with all the smoke and mirrors....a new owner is going to attempt directly or indirectly get an estimated $20 million dollars in tax payers dollars annually to offset the ongoing operations of the Phoenix Coyotes.....its not money to finance a new facility....its going to an individual to subsidize the operation of a team.

the cubs proposing a user fee on all tickets to all cactus league games to upgrade all facilities as needed (if that is accurate) makes some sense to me.....it is highway toll model

a tax zone around an arena that goes towards propping up a failing business model seems much different IMHO

now i assume JR and the politicians are smart enough to disguise it and try to make it bullet proof...probably the taxes will flow towards paying the debt on the arena and they will work compensating JR indirectly....but at the end of the day if the Yotes had a good owner and a viable business none of this would be necessary

it will be fascinating to watch it unfold and see how they actually propose this.....i assume Goldwater is licking their lips
the "cubs" tax deal is dead Selig has now stated that he will negotiate on behalf of all teams that hold spring training in Arizona

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports...,2820348.story

Quote:
The "Cubs tax" is still on the table, but it's as good as dead according to Commissioner Bud Selig.
Quote:
Selig said MLB had no choice but to take over the negotiation process.

"It got a little bit out of hand here," Selig said. "… There has to be a solution. … We have stepped in and we're going to stay in until we get a deal done."

billy blaze is offline  
Old
03-27-2010, 11:47 PM
  #27
suitup17
Registered User
 
suitup17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 738
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ps241 View Post
this will be interesting to see what they propose? i assume if they have concessions of any sort (or added revenue streams) it would work in conjunction with the proposed legislation at the state level.....the tax zone!! i like the CoG timing....get out ahead of it if you're going to propose something and then put the heat on the state to get the tax zone passed at a later date.....if the state can't get it done and the deal dies the blame gets directed to the state....last man standing when the music stops....that is assuming the CoG have the political will to craft some kind of plan that can get the votes and pass a legal challenge



i will put my money on "the first of many".....i assume this has been worked out with one of the groups (Reinsdorf) and the CoG is taking the first step.

I have been at a 3 year old's birthday all afternoon and had time to reflect on this matter and i was struck by the simplicity of this situation......at the end of the day no matter how they package it with all the smoke and mirrors....a new owner is going to attempt directly or indirectly get an estimated $20 million dollars in tax payers dollars annually to offset the ongoing operations of the Phoenix Coyotes.....its not money to finance a new facility....its going to an individual to subsidize the operation of a team.

the cubs proposing a user fee on all tickets to all cactus league games to upgrade all facilities as needed (if that is accurate) makes some sense to me.....it is highway toll model

a tax zone around an arena that goes towards propping up a failing business model seems much different IMHO

now i assume JR and the politicians are smart enough to disguise it and try to make it bullet proof...probably the taxes will flow towards paying the debt on the arena and they will work compensating JR indirectly....but at the end of the day if the Yotes had a good owner and a viable business none of this would be necessary

it will be fascinating to watch it unfold and see how they actually propose this.....i assume Goldwater is licking their lips
I don't see 20 million/year happening. If a team needs that much taxpayer money they should be gone. Why not use this money to help out all the affected people in the recession? Money better spent IMO.

suitup17 is offline  
Old
03-28-2010, 12:10 AM
  #28
bromine
Registered User
 
bromine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: WPG
Posts: 300
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by billy blaze View Post
the "cubs" tax deal is dead Selig has now stated that he will negotiate on behalf of all teams that hold spring training in Arizona

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports...,2820348.story
Does this affect the Coyotes situation or Reindorf's ability to get concessions from CoG?

bromine is offline  
Old
03-28-2010, 12:21 AM
  #29
billy blaze
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,480
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bromine View Post
Does this affect the Coyotes situation or Reindorf's ability to get concessions from CoG?
might enhance his chances if Selig can convince all other major league baseball teams that a "statewide" special taxing district would be beneficial. In the "Cubs" tax which Reinsdorf disagreed with, an 8% charge would have been applied to all spring training baseball tickets sold with all the money going to build the Cubs new stadium in Mesa, nothing in it for Jerry, his lobbyist Kaites is now proposing introducing special tax districts around sporting and entertainment venues in Arizona, the thinking being that by taxing all venues one could not construe an added benefit to a single individual or individual entity in violation of Arizona state gift clause, the cities would get the revenue from the tax, they would then give better lease conditions to entities knowing that they are somewhat covered by revenue from tax district.

billy blaze is offline  
Old
03-28-2010, 12:30 AM
  #30
ps241
Hero of CantonKiller
 
ps241's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 12,091
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bromine View Post
Does this affect the Coyotes situation or Reindorf's ability to get concessions from CoG?
i am guessing a mixed blessing.....Reinsdorf's deal is different than the Cubs proposed deal that is dead.

it is positive for the Yotes if Selig back's Reinsdorf's plan for tax districts around facilities and these two plans are co-beneficial then that might put strength in numbers and Jerry can kind of hide his somewhat brazen plan in amongst the Cactus league plans. its hard to imagine Selig (even though Reisdorf is a MLB owner) wanting to link any concessions for baseball with an NHL deal but we'll see.

The negatives are that if Selig does "negotiate on behalf of all teams" and he doesn't back JR's plan then it probably leaves Jerry's tax zone plan somewhat isolated and exposed.....also with all these teams lining up at the troff at the same time i assume there could be some back lash from the public

ps241 is offline  
Old
03-28-2010, 12:37 AM
  #31
ps241
Hero of CantonKiller
 
ps241's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 12,091
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by billy blaze View Post
might enhance his chances if Selig can convince all other major league baseball teams that a "statewide" special taxing district would be beneficial. In the "Cubs" tax which Reinsdorf disagreed with, an 8% charge would have been applied to all spring training baseball tickets sold with all the money going to build the Cubs new stadium in Mesa, nothing in it for Jerry, his lobbyist Kaites is now proposing introducing special tax districts around sporting and entertainment venues in Arizona, the thinking being that by taxing all venues one could not construe an added benefit to a single individual or individual entity in violation of Arizona state gift clause, the cities would get the revenue from the tax, they would then give better lease conditions to entities knowing that they are somewhat covered by revenue from tax district.
if this is Jerry's play how do they get the CoG to re-negotiate the current lease....i thought the lease was protected and that any amendment would need to be outside the existing lease and that is why JR was looking at the tax zone and Ice Edge was looking at parking and games in Saskatoon...none of those ideas seemed to touch the original lease?

i did find it interesting that Reinsdorf was looking at a 5 year out and retroactive compensation from the city in the range of $13 million a year in the first deal that was leaked during bankruptcy proceedings

from your understanding what can the CoG do to amend the current lease legally?

ps241 is offline  
Old
03-28-2010, 12:46 AM
  #32
bbud
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,671
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Check out the other articles in the margins of Art's citation:

http://phoenix.bizjournals.com/phoen...5/daily27.html

Mesa may have to face Goldwater.

http://phoenix.bizjournals.com/phoen...1/daily39.html

Cardinals win a state issued concession right for the stadium.


Does the state of Arizona [or Phx area cities] really have all this money to give to all these teams?
The local area has been closing fire stations and layed off firefighters and paramedics and they can find tax money for Hockey , i hope both GB and JR have heart attacks and not one damn paramedic to save their ***** theyd deserve it, damn priorities are so out of touch they should be kicked off the ship.

bbud is offline  
Old
03-28-2010, 01:02 AM
  #33
DrVanntastic
Registered User
 
DrVanntastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Wentzville, MO
Country: United States
Posts: 1,888
vCash: 630
So how many total threads is this on the Phoenix situation?

DrVanntastic is offline  
Old
03-28-2010, 01:10 AM
  #34
Puckschmuck*
Doan Shall Be Boo'ed
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,937
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noteman View Post
So how many total threads is this on the Phoenix situation?
Too many.

Puckschmuck* is offline  
Old
03-28-2010, 02:30 AM
  #35
TheLegend
Megathread Refugee
 
TheLegend's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: The Anxiety Closet
Country: United States
Posts: 3,827
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RR View Post
Actually, he's proposing an alternative to the Mesa plan. Create special taxing districts around ALL sports complexes in the Valley.
That's actually how I understood it. It just got lost between the brain and fingers..

TheLegend is online now  
Old
03-28-2010, 08:59 AM
  #36
Hamilton Tigers
Registered User
 
Hamilton Tigers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Hamilton
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,294
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbud View Post
The local area has been closing fire stations and layed off firefighters and paramedics and they can find tax money for Hockey , i hope both GB and JR have heart attacks and not one damn paramedic to save their ***** theyd deserve it, damn priorities are so out of touch they should be kicked off the ship.
I have a tough time wrapping my head around the idea of welfare for rich millionaires.

Hamilton Tigers is offline  
Old
03-28-2010, 10:21 AM
  #37
hockeydadx2*
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,147
vCash: 500
That's the reality of pro sports these days. There's not one team out there that is not getting something from their local government, one way or another, at least in the U.S.

hockeydadx2* is offline  
Old
03-28-2010, 01:12 PM
  #38
Hamilton Tigers
Registered User
 
Hamilton Tigers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Hamilton
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,294
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeydadx2 View Post
That's the reality of pro sports these days. There's not one team out there that is not getting something from their local government, one way or another, at least in the U.S.
And a big reason why Winnipeg and QC left the league. I don't think you see the same same support for multi-million dollar public funding to build sports venues for multi-millionaires in Canada. Sure it happens, but not to that extent, and IIRC, there wasn't enough public support to build new arenas for the Jets and Nordiques back then. Is this what happened with the Supersonics, too?

Am I remembering correctly? Can someone set the record straight?

Hamilton Tigers is offline  
Old
03-28-2010, 02:09 PM
  #39
billy blaze
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,480
vCash: 500
good read on COG's biggest impediment to enhancing leases with IE or Reinsdorf- The Goldwater Institute

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articl...servative.html

Quote:
Goldwater officials object to taxpayer-funded subsidies, saying that such incentives violate the gift clause of the state constitution. The clause generally limits governments' use of publicly-funded "gifts" to private entities. Phoenix crossed Goldwater on the issue when it offered a big incentive to a developer.

The city would refund half the sales taxes collected from the shops known as CityNorth for about 11 years, or $97.4 million, whichever came first. In return, Phoenix would get 3,180 free public parking spaces.

"They were giving this money to a major developer. Would they give it to the guy who wanted to open a coffee shop?" Bolick said.

The case eventually went before the state Supreme Court. The court's ruling came in January.

The court's decision allowed the incentive but noted that it "quite likely" violated the state Constitution, and it issued new guidelines on when cities can offer tax incentives.

Governmental bodies in Arizona must now consider whether a proposed tax subsidy is worth what the developer offers in return and whether the developer's offer will benefit the public.

billy blaze is offline  
Old
03-28-2010, 02:15 PM
  #40
WJG
Running and Rioting
 
WJG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Country: Ireland
Posts: 12,934
vCash: 500
It seems like IEH's proposal is in direct violation of the Gift Clause, but Reinsdorf may have found a way around it. It'll be interesting to see how things play out on Tuesday. Regardless of Reinsdorf's actual proposal, I think he has just enough political influence to get his plan approved by Glendale.

WJG is offline  
Old
03-28-2010, 02:17 PM
  #41
ovi1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: WINNIPEG
Country: Canada
Posts: 74
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamilton Tigers View Post
And a big reason why Winnipeg and QC left the league. I don't think you see the same same support for multi-million dollar public funding to build sports venues for multi-millionaires in Canada. Sure it happens, but not to that extent, and IIRC, there wasn't enough public support to build new arenas for the Jets and Nordiques back then. Is this what happened with the Supersonics, too?

Am I remembering correctly? Can someone set the record straight?
Correct sir....our mayor chose to spend on the PanAm games rather than a new arena.

I still cant believe that the public did not have the foresight to see that the NHL is probably one of the more important things Winnipeg had to build on..... as a City, and that losing them would be catastrophic.

ovi1 is offline  
Old
03-28-2010, 02:22 PM
  #42
billy blaze
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,480
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Running Riot View Post
It seems like IEH's proposal is in direct violation of the Gift Clause, but Reinsdorf may have found a way around it. It'll be interesting to see how things play out on Tuesday. Regardless of Reinsdorf's actual proposal, I think he has just enough political influence to get his plan approved by Glendale.
approval by the city is not the problem- litigation tying up the sale by the Goldwater Institute would be, the sale could go through to either IE or Reinsdorf, however if lease is found to be in contravention of Arizona Gift Clause, either party could be on the hook for whatever damages are deemed. CityNorth was a "ok it's wrong but we'll let it go this time, no more after this one" decision by the courts in Arizona

billy blaze is offline  
Old
03-28-2010, 02:39 PM
  #43
ps241
Hero of CantonKiller
 
ps241's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 12,091
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by billy blaze View Post
approval by the city is not the problem- litigation tying up the sale by the Goldwater Institute would be, the sale could go through to either IE or Reinsdorf, however if lease is found to be in contravention of Arizona Gift Clause, either party could be on the hook for whatever damages are deemed. CityNorth was a "ok it's wrong but we'll let it go this time, no more after this one" decision by the courts in Arizona
to follow this point then were Goldwater successful in blocking the CityNorth move through litigation? Or were they successful in getting the state to issue new (and i assume more onerous) guidelines in dealing with the gift clause??

ps241 is offline  
Old
03-28-2010, 02:47 PM
  #44
ps241
Hero of CantonKiller
 
ps241's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 12,091
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovi1 View Post
Correct sir....our mayor chose to spend on the PanAm games rather than a new arena.

I still cant believe that the public did not have the foresight to see that the NHL is probably one of the more important things Winnipeg had to build on..... as a City, and that losing them would be catastrophic.
yes perhaps Phoenix/Glendale will have the same type of issues Winnipeg had......almost everyone wanted the Jets to stay....things got really divided when it came to using any form of tax payers money to do so? the optics on propping up millionaires was a tasty political football

and as you so aptly said the same people had no problem blowing off $141 million of the taxpayers money for the Pan Am games that nobody noticed or cared about and tell me what the lasting legacy was (a useless ego play from a town with an inferiority complex that thought this might help...expensive therapy)....when the same cash could have gone into an arena that is used by all the public 215 days a year and only 50 of those days are for hockey

Politics is fascinating and in Winnipeg we showed how incredibly moronic and short sited a town could be deciding what horse to back....thank god we had a family that built the arena downtown

we will see how it plays out in Arizona.....JR seems like a very shrewd operator and he will need all his skills to pull this off

ps241 is offline  
Old
03-28-2010, 02:55 PM
  #45
hockeydadx2*
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,147
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamilton Tigers View Post
And a big reason why Winnipeg and QC left the league. I don't think you see the same same support for multi-million dollar public funding to build sports venues for multi-millionaires in Canada. Sure it happens, but not to that extent, and IIRC, there wasn't enough public support to build new arenas for the Jets and Nordiques back then. Is this what happened with the Supersonics, too?

Am I remembering correctly? Can someone set the record straight?
Even when the public is in principal against it, they find a way to get it done. That's what happened in Pgh with Heinz Field and PNC Park. The polls showed that people were heavily against helping to pay for the stadiums, but it happened anyhow.

The new arena is a bit different, since it is being built with casino money. Thus, the people are still helping to pay for it, but it looks less direct.

hockeydadx2* is offline  
Old
03-28-2010, 03:04 PM
  #46
billy blaze
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,480
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ps241 View Post
to follow this point then were Goldwater successful in blocking the CityNorth move through litigation? Or were they successful in getting the state to issue new (and i assume more onerous) guidelines in dealing with the gift clause??
they were not new guidelines, the CityNorth project was given the green light- it amounted to the City giving money to the developer for free parking spaces, the spaces worked out to half a million each, the court decided that the horse had left the barn already in this case but gave a stern warning that this would not be tolerated again

billy blaze is offline  
Old
03-28-2010, 03:10 PM
  #47
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 23,149
vCash: 500
As an earlier poster noted, its' fairly common for US based teams, in all leagues, to receive subsidies of one kind or another, common as mud. Unfortunately for IEH & JR/Kaites, their interests are in Arizona & I wont belabor the accurate assessments above in terms of the hows. whys' & wherefores, be it a good or bad thing. What I take issue with are the postings of my fellow Canadians' here who claim our govs' dont subsidize pro sports, albeit in a different way than the US, but its' subsidized none the less with taxpayer dollars; exhibits A&B;. A) CBC-NHL Broadcasting Fee's; B) Prov/Fed subsidies virtually promised for QC Arena Construction, Copps Coliseum Reno's. We have no right to pontificate.

Killion is offline  
Old
03-28-2010, 03:49 PM
  #48
Pegger5
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 260
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
As an earlier poster noted, its' fairly common for US based teams, in all leagues, to receive subsidies of one kind or another, common as mud. Unfortunately for IEH & JR/Kaites, their interests are in Arizona & I wont belabor the accurate assessments above in terms of the hows. whys' & wherefores, be it a good or bad thing. What I take issue with are the postings of my fellow Canadians' here who claim our govs' dont subsidize pro sports, albeit in a different way than the US, but its' subsidized none the less with taxpayer dollars; exhibits A&B;. A) CBC-NHL Broadcasting Fee's; B) Prov/Fed subsidies virtually promised for QC Arena Construction, Copps Coliseum Reno's. We have no right to pontificate.
Wrong , wrong and wrong, Those cities are asking for Government money but have not and most likely will not receive any. Nothing id firm on that. Quebec and Hamiliton are dreaming.. If they do it will be less than 15% of the capital cost as per MTSC in Winnipeg was.. The rest was 100% private money.. Glendale gave 80% of the money for the arena that taxpayers still have to pay for. All the new arena's in Canada including Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto and Montreal are all private and 90% or more built with private funds.

Also, No NHL team in Canada receives public money as a subsidy thus Winnipeg and Quebec losing their teams in 97 and 96..

Pegger5 is offline  
Old
03-28-2010, 03:53 PM
  #49
bbud
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,671
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
As an earlier poster noted, its' fairly common for US based teams, in all leagues, to receive subsidies of one kind or another, common as mud. Unfortunately for IEH & JR/Kaites, their interests are in Arizona & I wont belabor the accurate assessments above in terms of the hows. whys' & wherefores, be it a good or bad thing. What I take issue with are the postings of my fellow Canadians' here who claim our govs' dont subsidize pro sports, albeit in a different way than the US, but its' subsidized none the less with taxpayer dollars; exhibits A&B;. A) CBC-NHL Broadcasting Fee's; B) Prov/Fed subsidies virtually promised for QC Arena Construction, Copps Coliseum Reno's. We have no right to pontificate.
we are not laying off firefighters and paramedics and then giving direct tax incentives to attract pro sports there is some significant difference here.

bbud is offline  
Old
03-28-2010, 04:09 PM
  #50
billy blaze
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,480
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
As an earlier poster noted, its' fairly common for US based teams, in all leagues, to receive subsidies of one kind or another, common as mud. Unfortunately for IEH & JR/Kaites, their interests are in Arizona & I wont belabor the accurate assessments above in terms of the hows. whys' & wherefores, be it a good or bad thing. What I take issue with are the postings of my fellow Canadians' here who claim our govs' dont subsidize pro sports, albeit in a different way than the US, but its' subsidized none the less with taxpayer dollars; exhibits A&B;. A) CBC-NHL Broadcasting Fee's; B) Prov/Fed subsidies virtually promised for QC Arena Construction, Copps Coliseum Reno's. We have no right to pontificate.
Copp's Coliseum renovations would have been paid for by the owners of the arena, the approximately 600, 000 citizens of Hamilton

billy blaze 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 05:47 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.