HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
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
03-28-2010, 03:13 PM
  #51
Hamilton Tigers
Registered User
 
Hamilton Tigers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Hamilton
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,292
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by billy blaze View Post
Copp's Coliseum renovations would have been paid for by the owners of the arena, the approximately 600, 000 citizens of Hamilton
That was not determined.

Such matters were not even close to being discussed. Having done so would have been way too premature.

The Copps reno was just conceptual in nature and ended there.

Hamilton Tigers is offline  
Old
03-28-2010, 03:15 PM
  #52
Brodie
Moderator
watcher on the walls
 
Brodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Michigan
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 11,841
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noteman View Post
So how many total threads is this on the Phoenix situation?
At least 30 since the bankruptcy, I believe there ere a few on the search for an owner prior to that as well. We're talking easily 32,000 posts on the subject.

Brodie is offline  
Old
03-28-2010, 03:22 PM
  #53
billy blaze
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,480
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamilton Tigers View Post
That was not determined.

Such matters were not even close to being discussed. Having done so would have been way too premature.

The Copps reno was just conceptual in nature and ended there.
not true

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/stor...lie-copps.html

Quote:
As part of the deal, city council agreed to lobby upper levels of government for infrastructure funding to help pay for a larger renovation of Copps.

billy blaze is offline  
Old
03-28-2010, 03:29 PM
  #54
billy blaze
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,480
vCash: 500
Just for people not familiar with S Ontario, a similiar dance is being played out in Hamilton that was played out in Arizona eight to ten years ago with respect to sporting stadium location. Southern Ontario has been awarded the 2015 Pan Am Games- the Federal and Provincial gov't along with the City have put up the money for a 15, 000 seat outdoor stadium, the football team that plays in the CFL is expected to kick in to expand the seating to approximately 25, 000, however from a business sense the football team is balking at the location of the proposed stadium saying ancillary revenue cannot be garnered from the choice of City Council ( 600 parking spaces)- similiar to the complaints of the Glendale- Scottsdale era

billy blaze is offline  
Old
03-28-2010, 03:31 PM
  #55
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 20,054
vCash: 500
@ThomasSteen; As soon as CBC stops paying for broadcast rights with my tax dollars, and as soon as the City of Quebec's Mayor, the Premier & Feds' back off of their promise to provide 50%+ of the funding for a new arena (in Hamilton reno fee's top $160M with the city/feds/prov kicking in most if not all of it) fine. Guess I'm wrong. Free land or other sweetheart deals & subsidies was given up in every single case you mention with the exception of Toronto. Nowhere nearly as cut & dry apples to oranges comparison between COG/IEH/Reinsdorf & other deals between local & state governments & Canadian taxpayer support. Crying a river about cutbacks in essential services wont stop it from happening in Arizona nor does it ever stop it north of the 49th.

Killion is offline  
Old
03-28-2010, 03:50 PM
  #56
GSC2k2*
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,375
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by billy blaze View Post
How disingenuous. Billy, I have read enough of your posts that you know the meaning of the term "lobby".

GSC2k2* is offline  
Old
03-28-2010, 03:54 PM
  #57
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 20,054
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamilton Tigers View Post
That was not determined. Such matters were not even close to being discussed. Having done so would have been way too premature. The Copps reno was just conceptual in nature and ended there.
Sorry, but such matters were discussed, openly & in the media, with MP's, MPP's & the Feds' all weighing in with their vociferous support to spend "whatever it takes" to renovate Copps, split 4 ways, in unequal portions govern-mentally heavy. Again, it's just totally wrong to assume a mantle of piety in relation to taxpayer subsidies for venues/on going operational costs in comparison to the US. Argue the merits or demerits of doing so, whether or not a markets even feasible, but dont argue with the facts. IEH, Kaites/Reinsdorf want breaks. Either they get them in Glendale or they'll leave & get them elsewhere. Arizona if challenged by Goldwater will simply claim the potential loss of the team far outweighs the costs in keeping them, with Selig & very likely the NFL weighing in in favor of the proposal. Like I said, Reinsdorfs' punching below his weight on this file. No wonder Kaites is quoted as saying he "knows exactly where the Coyotes will be playing next year". Hutzpah?. Maybe not.

Killion is offline  
Old
03-28-2010, 04:51 PM
  #58
WJG
Running and Rioting
 
WJG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Country: Ireland
Posts: 12,568
vCash: 500
So assuming Glendale votes in favor of either IEH or Reinsdorf and Goldwater challenges, what kind of timeline would we be looking at? Would this be expected to be tied up in court past the NHL's June 10th sublease expiration (and likely relocation deadline)?

WJG is offline  
Old
03-28-2010, 05:10 PM
  #59
Tinalera
Registered User
 
Tinalera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Known Universe
Posts: 5,843
vCash: 500
I'm going to make a rare prediction (which doesn't amount to much I'll admit ).

I'm going to say Tuesday, the offer gets turned down. From a totally non-hockey related standpoint, the US gov just put through a massive Healthcare bill which has polarized a a good part of the country. My (purely gut) guess says that the COG are going to be gun shy about any sort of endeavor that puts public money (in this case a tax increase) to the Coyotes(yes I know it isn't Yotes specific, its for the whole area), particularly it being a Republican state. I don't think they feel it will go over very well with the public at large and COG will nix it.

I could be very wrong, and if I am so be it. That's just my gut (your milage may vary )

Tinalera is offline  
Old
03-28-2010, 08:28 PM
  #60
ovi1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: WINNIPEG
Country: Canada
Posts: 74
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinalera View Post
I'm going to make a rare prediction (which doesn't amount to much I'll admit ).

I'm going to say Tuesday, the offer gets turned down. From a totally non-hockey related standpoint, the US gov just put through a massive Healthcare bill which has polarized a a good part of the country. My (purely gut) guess says that the COG are going to be gun shy about any sort of endeavor that puts public money (in this case a tax increase) to the Coyotes(yes I know it isn't Yotes specific, its for the whole area), particularly it being a Republican state. I don't think they feel it will go over very well with the public at large and COG will nix it.

I could be very wrong, and if I am so be it. That's just my gut (your milage may vary )

funny when you go through in the heath care bill.....this makes a little bit of sense. Who knows, I'm leaning towards approval only because the COG does does not want a big empty building for an undetermined amount of time. Its just more logical that if they are going to pay for this place no matter what...why not at least have a permanent tenant. They main problem both these proposals is going to face is trying to PROVE to the city that they CAN make this a money making franchise in the future.

ovi1 is offline  
Old
03-28-2010, 08:57 PM
  #61
hockeydadx2*
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,147
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinalera View Post
I'm going to make a rare prediction (which doesn't amount to much I'll admit ).

I'm going to say Tuesday, the offer gets turned down. From a totally non-hockey related standpoint, the US gov just put through a massive Healthcare bill which has polarized a a good part of the country. My (purely gut) guess says that the COG are going to be gun shy about any sort of endeavor that puts public money (in this case a tax increase) to the Coyotes(yes I know it isn't Yotes specific, its for the whole area), particularly it being a Republican state. I don't think they feel it will go over very well with the public at large and COG will nix it.

I could be very wrong, and if I am so be it. That's just my gut (your milage may vary )
That's logical, but so far as I know, only Seattle has not given in and forked over money at the end of one of these games. Everybody else bends over, applies their own lube, and takes it. The X factor in Phoenix is that the building still has to be paid for somehow.

I'm guessing, for better or worse, that CoG will give in. They won't be able to justify paying the mortgage on a white elephant building that sits empty much of the year, and they will argue that restaurants, hotels, etc will collect money from it's use that will also generate tax dollars. It's an old argument that has been used successfully many times over, and they will argue that it is the lesser of two evils, and the deal will get done.

hockeydadx2* is offline  
Old
03-28-2010, 10:17 PM
  #62
JetStar9er
Go Jets Go!
 
JetStar9er's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 35
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brodie View Post
At least 30 since the bankruptcy, I believe there ere a few on the search for an owner prior to that as well. We're talking easily 32,000 posts on the subject.
My guess is because there are so many Winnipegers on here, which in turn, is a sign of our desire.

JetStar9er is offline  
Old
03-28-2010, 10:30 PM
  #63
ps241
2.6% chance
 
ps241's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 9,042
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Running Riot View Post
So assuming Glendale votes in favor of either IEH or Reinsdorf and Goldwater challenges, what kind of timeline would we be looking at? Would this be expected to be tied up in court past the NHL's June 10th sublease expiration (and likely relocation deadline)?
i have wanted to ask this question as well and was hoping you would get an answer from one of the several posters who seem to have a legal background.

the 2nd part is if the state in fact does attempt to put a bill to the floor that will address the tax districts...i asked but was unable to attain an answer about how many votes would be needed at the state level to pass the bill?

ps241 is offline  
Old
03-28-2010, 10:47 PM
  #64
WJG
Running and Rioting
 
WJG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Country: Ireland
Posts: 12,568
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art.Vandelay View Post
In an interview last week Kaites said he knows exactly how the hockey saga is going to end, but would not elaborate.
It's probably nothing, but this comment has fascinated me since I first read it.

I wonder what Kaites meant when he said it? How can anything be assumed at this point? I'd say Glendale voting in favor of keeping the Coyotes is about 50/50 right now, and even then, Reinsdorf and IEH have an equal chance of being approved by the council.

Reinsdorf cannot assume he'd be approved by Glendale, but at the same time he cannot assume he'd be rejected either.

WJG is offline  
Old
03-29-2010, 12:50 AM
  #65
Artyukhin*
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,831
vCash: 500
did the NHL shoot itself in the pocket book?


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...rticle1498075/

Quote:
- Bankers are balking at financing this venture after they learned financier Jeffrey Vinik paid only about $100-million in cash for the Tampa Bay Lightning. They are asking hard questions about why the Coyotes would be worth 60 per cent more.

Quote:
A banker who has handled many franchise evaluations and sales says the Coyotes, in their present location, are worth $50-million.

Artyukhin* is offline  
Old
03-29-2010, 01:09 AM
  #66
Brodie
Moderator
watcher on the walls
 
Brodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Michigan
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 11,841
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Running Riot View Post
It's probably nothing, but this comment has fascinated me since I first read it.

I wonder what Kaites meant when he said it? How can anything be assumed at this point? I'd say Glendale voting in favor of keeping the Coyotes is about 50/50 right now, and even then, Reinsdorf and IEH have an equal chance of being approved by the council.

Reinsdorf cannot assume he'd be approved by Glendale, but at the same time he cannot assume he'd be rejected either.
I took it as Kaites saying Reinsdorf would end up with the team or they would relocate... either way, he knows what's going to happen.

Brodie is offline  
Old
03-29-2010, 01:39 AM
  #67
MAROONSRoad
f/k/a Ghost
 
MAROONSRoad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Maroons Rd.
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,060
vCash: 500
If anyone is interested, below is linked the Supreme Court of Arizona’s recent decision in Turken v. Gordon (or the “CityNorth Case”) concerning the “gift clause” in the Arizona constitution. It’s an interesting read. Here are a few select quotes:

Quote:
When public funds are used to purchase something from
a private entity, finding a public purpose only begins the
constitutional inquiry. Wistuber also requires us to examine
the “consideration” received from the private entity. The
Gift Clause is violated when that consideration, compared
to the expenditure, is “so inequitable and unreasonable
that it amounts to an abuse of discretion, thus providing
a subsidy to the private entity.”
Quote:
The term “consideration” has a settled meaning in
contract law
. It is a “performance or return promise” that is
“bargained for . . . in exchange for the promise of the other
party..”
Quote:
For the reasons above, we vacate the opinion of the
court of appeals. Because we apply our clarification of the
Wistuber consideration test prospectively
, we affirm the
superior court’s dismissal of Turken’s Gift Clause claim.
Link:

http://www.ssd.com/pdf/publicfinance...n_v_Gordon.pdf

GHOST

MAROONSRoad is offline  
Old
03-29-2010, 01:52 AM
  #68
Doug Smail
Registered User
 
Doug Smail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Flora and McGregor
Country: Canada
Posts: 309
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GHOSTofMAROONSroad View Post
If anyone is interested, below is linked the Supreme Court of Arizona’s recent decision in Turken v. Gordon (or the “CityNorth Case”) concerning the “gift clause” in the Arizona constitution. It’s an interesting read. Here are a few select quotes:

Link:

http://www.ssd.com/pdf/publicfinance...n_v_Gordon.pdf

GHOST

from what ive read and heard, i just cant see COG going for this. theres just no way. am i being biasly blind?

Doug Smail is offline  
Old
03-29-2010, 05:26 AM
  #69
billy blaze
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,480
vCash: 500
The biased media (Shoalts) weighs in again

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...rticle1515420/

Quote:
While council is not expected to vote on either proposal tomorrow, a decision is expected soon because council is drawing up its 2010-11 budget.
Quote:
A source said Reinsdorf's latest lease proposal for Jobing.com Arena contains an escape clause - probably tied to revenue and ticket sales - that would allow the team to leave. Ice Edge has not asked for a similar clause.
Quote:
Even if Glendale wants to subsidize whoever owns the Coyotes, the city of 250,000 people simply may not have the money. The 2010-11 budget is expected to have a deficit of $16.3-million, up $2-million from earlier forecasts. The city has already announced plans to cut jobs as part of a plan to reduce the deficit.

billy blaze is offline  
Old
03-29-2010, 07:26 AM
  #70
CGG
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 416
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,209
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
@ThomasSteen; As soon as CBC stops paying for broadcast rights with my tax dollars, and as soon as the City of Quebec's Mayor, the Premier & Feds' back off of their promise to provide 50%+ of the funding for a new arena (in Hamilton reno fee's top $160M with the city/feds/prov kicking in most if not all of it) fine. Guess I'm wrong. Free land or other sweetheart deals & subsidies was given up in every single case you mention with the exception of Toronto. Nowhere nearly as cut & dry apples to oranges comparison between COG/IEH/Reinsdorf & other deals between local & state governments & Canadian taxpayer support. Crying a river about cutbacks in essential services wont stop it from happening in Arizona nor does it ever stop it north of the 49th.
I think you're going a little astray here.

(1) HNIC is about the only thing that actually makes money for the CBC. Therefore, your tax dollars don't pay for NHL hockey coverage. Because they make money from hockey you actually pay less in tax dollars for the other crap that's on CBC the rest of the week.

(2) Montreal. What kind of sweetheart deal did they get for their arena? Last I checked, they even had to pay $11 million a year in property taxes, greater than all 24 US NHL arenas COMBINED. What a deal.

CGG is offline  
Old
03-29-2010, 08:37 AM
  #71
King_Stannis
Registered User
 
King_Stannis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Country: United States
Posts: 700
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovi1 View Post
funny when you go through in the heath care bill.....this makes a little bit of sense. Who knows, I'm leaning towards approval only because the COG does does not want a big empty building for an undetermined amount of time. Its just more logical that if they are going to pay for this place no matter what...why not at least have a permanent tenant.
If they are losing even more money by leasing to that tenant, then indeed it might make sense to keep the arena dark. Alternatively, they could schedule other events that would make money. It has to be analyzed from a cost-benefit point of view to avoid long term financial catastrophe.

That is theoretical, by the way. I am not saying that is or is not the case with CoG and the Coyotes.

King_Stannis is offline  
Old
03-29-2010, 08:42 AM
  #72
TrentSteele
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 259
vCash: 500
Let me know if I'm mistaken, as many of you followed the court case more than I, but IEH was the only group that had a LOI in before the end of 2009, which was a cut off date for local bids, correct? So if Glendale turns down the IEH bid, the NHL is free to relocate regardless of whether or not COG accepts Reinsdorfs proposal (not saying they will, but they are free to do so, correct?)

Let's say that the COG does accept Reinsdorf's bid. What are the chances that Goldwater will not put up any fight whatsoever? Will the NHL want to wait for that battle to be fought, while they still own the team. If Goldwater wins, and they can't sell to him, they will be stuck with the team for another season. So do they risk that, or would they rather accept a relocation bid over Reinsdorf which probably carries less risk to the NHL.

TrentSteele is offline  
Old
03-29-2010, 09:29 AM
  #73
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 53,554
vCash: 500
Yes, IEH was the only group to submit an LOI before the calendar end of 2009.

And there probably won't be any ramifications to NHL WRT lack of due diligence in finding local buyer if lease agreement falls apart.

Unless Guido and Rafael convince them otherwise , GI will fight tooth and nail against any perceived (not just real) abuse of gift clause. (Regardless of whether the net result means the city is worse off if team leaves.)

If COG decides to go forward with a lease modification/expansion (to bring in other/new sources of revenue) and GI sues, there may be an escape clause that allows team to relocate if GI wins, or they may be SOL - depends on how it's written.

YMMV

LadyStanley is offline  
Old
03-29-2010, 09:31 AM
  #74
MAROONSRoad
f/k/a Ghost
 
MAROONSRoad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Maroons Rd.
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,060
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrentSteele View Post
Let's say that the COG does accept Reinsdorf's bid. What are the chances that Goldwater will not put up any fight whatsoever? Will the NHL want to wait for that battle to be fought, while they still own the team. If Goldwater wins, and they can't sell to him, they will be stuck with the team for another season. So do they risk that, or would they rather accept a relocation bid over Reinsdorf which probably carries less risk to the NHL.
A major factor to consider is financing -- assuming that traditional financing will be required for anyone to complete the deal. Banks will consider all types of risk -- including political/legal type risks -- in any proposed deal financing. If the NHL wants to sell the team prior to the start of next season, the amount of time available to complete a deal could thus also be a factor.

GHOST

MAROONSRoad is offline  
Old
03-29-2010, 09:35 AM
  #75
TrentSteele
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 259
vCash: 500
I can see the NHL positioning themselves to make Goldwater the bad guys in this. Whichever lease proposal meets the approval of Glendale (if any) is going to be fought by Goldwater, so I think the NHL will just throw there arms up, and say GI is preventing us from doing anything here, we are FORCED to go elsewhere.

TrentSteele 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 03:28 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.