HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Arizona Coyotes
Notices

Coyotes ownership [IEH, Reinsdorf, NHL, Glendale and all related topics]

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-05-2010, 08:05 PM
  #1
Yote Devil
Registered User
 
Yote Devil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Prescott/Tempe,AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 121
vCash: 500
Coyotes ownership [IEH, Reinsdorf, NHL, Glendale and all related topics]

http://http://www.bizjournals.com/ph...9/daily59.html
Some good news!


Last edited by mouser: 04-09-2010 at 01:40 AM.
Yote Devil is offline  
Old
04-05-2010, 08:09 PM
  #2
SniperHF
Global Moderator
Ryantology
 
SniperHF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Country: United States
Posts: 14,521
vCash: 500
ya got a bum link. Didn't ESPN report something similar a few days ago too?

SniperHF is offline  
Old
04-05-2010, 08:10 PM
  #3
Naych_PHX
Are you, kidding me?
 
Naych_PHX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: phoenix
Posts: 5,663
vCash: 500
Try this one. http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/s...9/daily59.html

The article is from April 2nd BTW.

Naych_PHX is offline  
Old
04-05-2010, 08:26 PM
  #4
Yote Devil
Registered User
 
Yote Devil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Prescott/Tempe,AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 121
vCash: 500
sorry guys haha still new to posting

Yote Devil is offline  
Old
04-06-2010, 06:58 PM
  #5
TeamTippett
Formally TeamTurris
 
TeamTippett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Phx
Country: United States
Posts: 5,325
vCash: 500
http://phoenix.bizjournals.com/phoen...5/daily31.html

Quote:
Glendale officials say they are open to letting Chicago White Sox owner Jerry Reinsdorf out of his lease if he buys the Phoenix Coyotes and can’t turn around its bottom line in five or six years.
Again I think this is a bad idea, either commit to the market or not. The City can't control how adeptly or ineptly an owner operates this franchise, history is not on the Cities side.

TeamTippett is offline  
Old
04-06-2010, 07:43 PM
  #6
jmichael7753
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,064
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeamTurris View Post
http://phoenix.bizjournals.com/phoen...5/daily31.html



Again I think this is a bad idea, either commit to the market or not. The City can't control how adeptly or ineptly an owner operates this franchise, history is not on the Cities side.
I dont mind it. At least the COG is ready to play ball.

jmichael7753 is offline  
Old
04-06-2010, 07:45 PM
  #7
MP
Registered User
 
MP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,926
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeamTurris View Post
Again I think this is a bad idea, either commit to the market or not. The City can't control how adeptly or ineptly an owner operates this franchise, history is not on the Cities side.
It's clear by now that a new lease will include some kind of out-clause, regardless of who owns the team. Five or six years seems a realistic deadline, provided the team keeps making the playoffs.

I can live with that. The argument in favor of keeping the team in Phoenix is based on the notion that a well-run, winning team will draw more fans, attract more sponsors, command a more lucrative television contract, and in general turn a profit for the owner, the NHL, and the city. I think that's a good argument at this point. But if the team succeeds on the ice for several consecutive years and continues to lose money anyway, there's no good reason to keep it here.

We may never know, but that may be the reality JR and IEH were asking CoG to face. An out-clause would definitely be a risk from the city's perspective, but it seems that CoG decided it was worth taking.

MP is offline  
Old
04-06-2010, 08:00 PM
  #8
SniperHF
Global Moderator
Ryantology
 
SniperHF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Country: United States
Posts: 14,521
vCash: 500
My issue with the 'out' in a lease is not that they are getting a 5 year window to turn the teams finances around. It's obvious that is enough time. I worry about what 'conditions' there are for that window and whether or not they would honored even if the terms were met for the team to stay. I don't trust, JR, IE, GB, COG anymore than JB.

SniperHF is offline  
Old
04-06-2010, 08:08 PM
  #9
Sinurgy
Embrace Passion
 
Sinurgy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Tempe, AZ
Posts: 7,417
vCash: 500
I question the end game of any owner seeking a 5yr out clause.

Sinurgy is offline  
Old
04-06-2010, 08:21 PM
  #10
Colt45Blast
is in your head
 
Colt45Blast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: everytime
Country: Mexico
Posts: 25,198
vCash: 500
Even if COG has approved both leases that doesn't mean were in the clear of having the team here outclause or not.
The NHL still would need to approve the sale to either group and IceEdge has not been approved as an owner yet unlike JR. Hell the league may not give IceEdge the 5 games they want in SK.
How ****ed up would that be if the NHL still relocates the Coyotes even those COG has done what was asked of them by those who say they want to keep the team here?
Posted via Mobile Device

Colt45Blast is offline  
Old
04-06-2010, 08:22 PM
  #11
Alberta Yote
Nice run
 
Alberta Yote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In your kitchen
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,695
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinurgy View Post
I question the end game of any owner seeking a 5yr out clause.
The end game is to not lose their *** if better management and a reasonably successful on-ice product isn't enough to make the team profitable.

These guys didn't make their money by not hedging their investments to a degree.

I know it might sound a bit hollow being I'm a dirty rotten Canadian, but I sure don't see a problem with a new owner putting some of the onus back on the fanbase to do their part and show over a 5 year period that they will support the team consistently.

Alberta Yote is offline  
Old
04-06-2010, 08:23 PM
  #12
XX
... Waiting
 
XX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: 48th State
Country: United States
Posts: 27,184
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinurgy View Post
I question the end game of any owner seeking a 5yr out clause.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeamTurris View Post
Again I think this is a bad idea, either commit to the market or not. The City can't control how adeptly or ineptly an owner operates this franchise, history is not on the Cities side.
Did it ever strike you two that it might just be a prerequisite for getting financing for any sort of deal? Having a clean, contractual out cuts deep into the risk factor from the bank side, if not eliminating it. The franchise can always be sold and barring a meltdown in franchise values (which would mean everyone has a problem) they can probably recover most, if not all of their money.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SniperHF View Post
My issue with the 'out' in a lease is not that they are getting a 5 year window to turn the teams finances around. It's obvious that is enough time. I worry about what 'conditions' there are for that window and whether or not they would honored even if the terms were met for the team to stay. I don't trust, JR, IE, GB, COG anymore than JB.
I'm sure the conditions will have specific metrics about them. That is to say that JR can't up and move the team if they are turning a profit or their situation looks good. It all has to be hashed out to be fair to both sides. I say the out clause is a good thing, for the above reason and for the fact that if in 5 years this team isn't doing better it means the on ice product will have sucked for a decade.

Move them, in that case. Especially if they are hovering near life support, again. We'd be better off letting them go, and angling for an expansion franchise in the future, if ever.

XX is offline  
Old
04-06-2010, 08:57 PM
  #13
Art.Vandelay
@kash2112
 
Art.Vandelay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Glendale, AZ
Posts: 1,483
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alberta Yote View Post
The end game is to not lose their *** if better management and a reasonably successful on-ice product isn't enough to make the team profitable.

These guys didn't make their money by not hedging their investments to a degree.

I know it might sound a bit hollow being I'm a dirty rotten Canadian, but I sure don't see a problem with a new owner putting some of the onus back on the fanbase to do their part and show over a 5 year period that they will support the team consistently.
I'm a dirty rotten American and I agree with this message.



The Coyotes have been here since 1996 and have yet to make money. Many of the issues are explainable such as the AWA obstructed view seats, bad AWA lease, poor on ice product, poor team management, poor ownership etc.

But at some point, we are going to run out of excuses. If Reinsdorf truly tries to turn things around but is unable to make things work because the fans just aren't there, then we deserve to lost the team. It's that simple. This will be our last chance and a large portion of the success or failure of this team is in our laps.

Art.Vandelay is offline  
Old
04-06-2010, 09:15 PM
  #14
Blackhawkswincup
Global Moderator
 
Blackhawkswincup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chicagoland
Country: United States
Posts: 101,083
vCash: 340
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinurgy View Post
I question the end game of any owner seeking a 5yr out clause.
JR is a good man

Sox were in the Coyotes position badly in debt and almost relocated 3 times (3rd time MLB Commish came in and used best interest of game power to prevent sale to Eddie Debartalo Sr who wanted to move Sox to New Orleans)

It takes time to negotiate debt and pay it off. JR did it with both Bulls and Sox and I am sure he would put all effort into making it work in Glendale especially with his connections to city and his living in Arizona (Soon to be full time)

He will give the Coyotes a chance to succeed , But if things dont improve he needs to know he has a way out and I think that is only fair

Blackhawkswincup is offline  
Old
04-06-2010, 11:18 PM
  #15
TeamTippett
Formally TeamTurris
 
TeamTippett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Phx
Country: United States
Posts: 5,325
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinurgy View Post
I question the end game of any owner seeking a 5yr out clause.
thank you, I mean if JR is such the sports mogul then he should know whether "it" works in this market or not.

Ice Edge has committed to the remaining 26 years and has not requested an out clause.

TeamTippett is offline  
Old
04-06-2010, 11:25 PM
  #16
TeamTippett
Formally TeamTurris
 
TeamTippett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Phx
Country: United States
Posts: 5,325
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alberta Yote View Post
The end game is to not lose their *** if better management and a reasonably successful on-ice product isn't enough to make the team profitable.

These guys didn't make their money by not hedging their investments to a degree.

How do you hedge a poorly performing, poorly managed hockey franchise? I'm serious and curious, why didn't Moyes hedge his investment?

I know it might sound a bit hollow being I'm a dirty rotten Canadian, but I sure don't see a problem with a new owner putting some of the onus back on the fanbase to do their part and show over a 5 year period that they will support the team consistently.
I will just interject that the fan base has been put threw the ringer with the franchise ever since it moved to the Valley, I think it's fair to expect some "proove it" onus on the franchise it's self. This is the 2nd/3rd potential "move" for this team since I have been living here. 1st time was to Portland in 2001, then a lock out, then the Gretzky debockle, then the Summer of Bankruptcy now facing a looming 5 year out clause where all this talk about moving surfaces again, NOPE I'm sorry, I will not go threw this B.S. anymore. Ice Edge is not asking for an out clause.

TeamTippett is offline  
Old
04-06-2010, 11:52 PM
  #17
XX
... Waiting
 
XX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: 48th State
Country: United States
Posts: 27,184
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeamTurris View Post
NOPE I'm sorry, I will not go threw this B.S. anymore.
So you'd rather lose the team?

XX is offline  
Old
04-06-2010, 11:54 PM
  #18
zz
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,661
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeamTurris View Post
Ice Edge has committed to the remaining 26 years and has not requested an out clause.
Do you seriously think IEH will still be around to pay the bills in 5 years if the franchise isn't profitable?


zz is offline  
Old
04-07-2010, 12:01 AM
  #19
Snarky Coyote
Registered User
 
Snarky Coyote's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Now with more snark
Country: United States
Posts: 242
vCash: 500
Ice Edge wont care about a escape clause becuse they can just declare bankruptcy and break the lease..... carefully and with the blessings of the NHL

Dont get me wrong I am kinda rooting for Ice Edge to get the team but business is business and if it doesnt work it doesnt work. I do not feel entitled to have an NHL franchise here forever regardless of profitibility. I dont think that as a city we are owed anything and I believe the only reason the Coyotes are still here is that the second the NHL screws glendale over they will not get another "free" stadium built for them in a non original 6 town. Its a healthy dose of self interest that just happens to work for us Yotes fans. Now personally I would be heartbroken. I have been a sth since the 2nd year and I am just a working guy but my wife and I splurge on lower level seats instead of vacations, credit cards ect. Its what we do, but still I cant expect the team to be here forever, and if it goes after a fair chance, well then so be it.


Last edited by Snarky Coyote: 04-07-2010 at 12:06 AM.
Snarky Coyote is offline  
Old
04-07-2010, 12:06 AM
  #20
LT
Registered User
 
LT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Thunder Bay ON Can
Country: Canada
Posts: 563
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeamTurris
NOPE I'm sorry, I will not go threw this B.S. anymore.

Quote:
Originally Posted by XX View Post
So you'd rather lose the team?
I understand the thought of it seems insincere asking for an out clause but it only makes smart business sense given the history. No fan here has any power so like it or not if that's the only deal available to give it a go one last time then so be it.

I would also throw this back on anyone and ask them if they would commit to a 25 year house mortgage with no out clause? Things happen and even in our own personal lives we try to leave things flexible just in case. That doesn't mean we aren't wanting things to work or aren't committed to our situations. Just thought I would throw in a different perspective.

Personally, still want them in Winnipeg.

LT is offline  
Old
04-07-2010, 12:12 AM
  #21
Colt45Blast
is in your head
 
Colt45Blast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: everytime
Country: Mexico
Posts: 25,198
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by zz View Post
Do you seriously think IEH will still be around to pay the bills in 5 years if the franchise isn't profitable?

Nope! He thinks turning the Comerica Club into a stripclub and Toyota Club into a casino will do that!
Posted via Mobile Device

Colt45Blast is offline  
Old
04-07-2010, 01:28 AM
  #22
RR
Moderator
 
RR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Cave Creek, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 8,037
vCash: 500
From Brahm Resnik's Twitter:

Quote:
#Coyotes For Sale: Bill before ctte Wed am will show JR's juice at Capitol. Allows bonding for Yotes/arena $$.
Senate Bill 1083

RR is offline  
Old
04-07-2010, 01:32 AM
  #23
SR
Registered User
 
SR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
Country: United States
Posts: 2,143
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RR View Post
From Brahm Resnik's Twitter:



Senate Bill 1083
Marc, whats that even mean?

SR is offline  
Old
04-07-2010, 03:16 AM
  #24
RR
Moderator
 
RR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Cave Creek, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 8,037
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SR17 View Post
Marc, whats that even mean?
I'm no lawyer, but I think it means COG, NHL, MLB, Reinsdorf, and who knows how many other special interests have presented what they believe is a blueprint to the state Legislature on how to get around the gift clause. IOW, new revenue streams.

RR is offline  
Old
04-07-2010, 10:29 AM
  #25
zz
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,661
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LT View Post
I would also throw this back on anyone and ask them if they would commit to a 25 year house mortgage with no out clause?
Your metaphor would only make sense if the arena itself was for sale, in which case in could be compared to a house with a mortgage. If you're actually comparing the purchase of a house (a fixed asset that does not make or lose money) to a professional hockey team (a for-profit business), well... that's just plain retarded.

zz 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 07:37 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.