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 IX: Phoenix Coyotes Post-bankruptcy UPD: Pres Moss fired 6/30 with IEH input

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-23-2010, 01:28 AM
  #76
TheLegend
Megathread Refugee
 
TheLegend's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: The Anxiety Closet
Country: United States
Posts: 3,366
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToddGillForever View Post
I've heard that story. I don't buy it. What would Reinsdorf have done with the lease? You really think that he would have just slipped Moyes $140 million or whatever, no questions asked? We've never heard what exactly Reinsdorf was prepared to do on the day the team went into bankruptcy. All we know is what Bettman has said later on. And if Jerry was that interested way back then, he'd own the team by now.

I know about the Rodier gambit, and am not sure if it's entirely folly. I mean, Balsillie came within a whisker of buying the club. You get a different judge from Baum and maybe he gets the team. Or if Balsillie had offered Glendale more than $40 million, he gets enough councillors on board to swing a vote and get them to endorse his bid.
Rodier's "gambit" went 0-for-3. Hardly qualifies it as a sure thing.

And... Balsillie was never close to getting the team.

Certainly... a different judge might have seen things differently. However the NHL was ready to run this all the way to the US Supreme Court if need be (with the other three major pro leagues standing next to them). Baum more than likely would have ended up with the case no matter what happened since he is the lead BK judge in the southwest and is considered one of the best in the US.

Lots of "ifs" all the way around (including my own above)..... makes for great fodder on discussion boards.

TheLegend is offline  
Old
06-23-2010, 01:41 AM
  #77
TheLegend
Megathread Refugee
 
TheLegend's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: The Anxiety Closet
Country: United States
Posts: 3,366
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottrocks58 View Post
I certainly would hope so, but the question still remains, why did they only go half way on this. Perhaps negotiations with Ellman regarding some type of quid pro quo have not been completed. I am sure that Ellman, in return for this, would like some or all of the previous fines, penalties or claims brought against him by the city mitigated.

I with RR's view that the timeline called for simplicity (ie K.I.S.S.)


Quote:
Originally Posted by RR View Post
Let's see if any of the crack media here bother to ask the question so we can get the official answer.


TheLegend is offline  
Old
06-23-2010, 01:46 AM
  #78
MAROONSRoad
f/k/a Ghost
 
MAROONSRoad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Maroons Rd.
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,069
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RR View Post
Peter, they already ARE part of the agreement. The CFD that was approved and is being created allows for them; property owners (Ellman) have already petitioned to join the CFD; and their petition to join has been approved.
Ellman may want to join to keep his options open, but that is not material; what is material is how much he is willing and able to contribute. Obviously, having the Coyotes in Glendale, enhances the worth of his property to some extent, so the questions is by how much and how much can he pass along to his tenants or personally absorb for 41 nights per year of NHL hockey versus other alternatives?

GHOST

MAROONSRoad is offline  
Old
06-23-2010, 01:58 AM
  #79
MAROONSRoad
f/k/a Ghost
 
MAROONSRoad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Maroons Rd.
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,069
vCash: 500
I would like to see one of the proponents of the CFD plan lay out the financials of how it would work. If I recall correctly, there are 3 elements: 1) new parking charges (for Hockey and Non-hockey events), 2) ticket surcharges (for Hockey and Non-hockey events) and 3) voluntary charges/fees on property owners.

I think the general belief is that $25 MM would be needed to be raised for the franchise to break even on an operational, not investment basis.

GHOST

MAROONSRoad is offline  
Old
06-23-2010, 01:59 AM
  #80
RR
Moderator
 
RR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Cave Creek, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 8,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GHOSTofMAROONSroad View Post
Ellman may want to join to keep his options open, but that is not material; what is material is how much he is willing and able to contribute. Obviously, having the Coyotes in Glendale, enhances the worth of his property to some extent, so the questions is by how much and how much can he pass along to his tenants or personally absorb for 41 nights per year of NHL hockey versus other alternatives?

GHOST
It's more about how many customers the arena, Cardinals Stadium, and Spring Training can drive into his tenants' shops than it is property values. The latter is only important if you're selling.

The better the traffic, the better his tenants do. The better they do, the more he can charge. No tenant is going to accept some kind of massive increase in the cost of doing business if the business they're generating doesn't warrant it. They'll move elsewhere.

Ellman, like his tenants, has to balance that out, as do patrons at Westgate.

RR is offline  
Old
06-23-2010, 02:01 AM
  #81
MarkMM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Delta, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 941
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToddGillForever View Post
All of what you write about Phoenix are purely your opinions. I, for instance, don't believe Phoenix is a promising market with the right ownership and leadership. You can quite easily conclude that the market is a total failure, impossible to rescue, just based on the albatross of the lease with Glendale, the location of the arena, the past money-losing history, and so forth. There are at least as many negatives about the Phoenix situations as there were about Winnipeg in the mid-90s, no matter how thick your rose-coloured glasses are.

As for Winnipeg, I sort of agree. But you sure didn't see the NHL stepping in there to buy the club and prop it up with losses over a season or two to try and get local ownership to step forward and get a rink built, etc. Maybe if those efforts were made back then, the MTS Centre gets built 4-5 years earlier, etc. You can make very good arguments for trying harder in Winnipeg. But the fact of the matter is that the NHL deep thinkers believed that there was a more promising market out there that suited the US TV objective, so the Jets got yanked.
Very true, the points about Phoenix are my opinions and they are subject to debate. But the issues of marketing and team management are within the hands of a Phoenix owner, whether or not they can pull it off.

But you were comparing Phoenix's situation and Winnipeg's, and while it can be argued on either side about Phoenix's marketability issues, what cannot be argued is the inability for a Winnipeg owner to fix the Canadian dollar, get an arena built at the time, get a revenue sharing agreement or a salary cap.

We can debate whether or not Phoenix can work or not. But the point is that the argument that Phoenix and Winnipeg are comparable situations just doesn't stand up.

MarkMM is offline  
Old
06-23-2010, 02:11 AM
  #82
MAROONSRoad
f/k/a Ghost
 
MAROONSRoad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Maroons Rd.
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,069
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RR View Post
It's more about how many customers the arena, Cardinals Stadium, and Spring Training can drive into his tenants' shops than it is property values. The latter is only important if you're selling.

The better the traffic, the better his tenants do. The better they do, the more he can charge. No tenant is going to accept some kind of massive increase in the cost of doing business if the business they're generating doesn't warrant it. They'll move elsewhere.

Ellman, like his tenants, has to balance that out, as do patrons at Westgate.
I'd submit that the two are directly related: a) amount you can charge for rent (due to customer traffic) and b) property values. It's all part of the equation, which as you said needs to be considered and balanced by all parties. Also, under the IEH plan, those 41 dates could be trimmed down to 36 dates if they decide to play games in Saskatoon, etc., a factor I failed to mention.

GHOST

MAROONSRoad is offline  
Old
06-23-2010, 03:24 AM
  #83
DeathToAllButMetal
Let it all burn.
 
DeathToAllButMetal's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,348
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Complete fabrications given by numerous parties in various depositions & interviews. Nice one. Baum was a hack lawyer with a cheesy diploma from a lousy law school in Tempe' who wouldnt' be able to make up his mind to stay or go if his house was on fire?. Heard that story. Dont buy it. If getting Blackballed from a club you desperately want to join, likely for life, based on a long-odds legal scenario, after 2 previous very public skirmishes' isnt the very definition of "folly" I dont know what is. Ask Jerry Moyes as he's writing a final cheque to the NHL for, maybe as much as $61M, if this strategy wasnt folly?. And your advice would have had TNSE step into the middle of that?. Stick to Defence Todd.
Lighten up, Francis.

I've never said any of that about Baum or the whole situation. Nice strawman. I never said that Rodier's strategy was admirable, but that it's not the dumbest thing I've ever heard given how vulnerable some NHL franchises have been in recent years. Again, Balsillie was very close to buying the team. If Glendale had bit on his $40 million offer, Baum could very well have sided with the city and awarded the team to Balsillie, and backed away from the whole argument about how much control pro leagues have over franchise location and relocation. Remember, Baum tried to avoid that whole mess, and really stepped around it all by declaring all the bids unsuitable.

Also, the blackballing or whatever you think is going on with the NHL and Balsillie...come on, how would that have applied here? If a legit buyer with funding had shown up at the bankruptcy and thrown down $250 million or so to buy and move the Coyotes to Winnipeg, do you really think that the NHL would have fought? I don't. That whole battle was about Southern Ontario, not the Coyotes. If another viable option had come along that would have let the NHL wrap up the whole mess last summer without taking on the huge financial risk of buying the team and funding its losses for a year or more, I think the BoG would have gone for it.

And you can bet that TN made inquiries here behind the scenes. Chipman didn't just wake up last month and decide "Gee, I better look into this Phoenix thing." I'd bet anything that TN and the NHL have had conversations going back to the spring of 2009 about all of this, and were ready to step in at the NHL's request. I would also bet that promises have been made to TN that they'll get the next team that goes on the block. The NHL has to have promised them something for their role here as the standby options if no "local" buyer can be found. Maybe the NHL made these promises to keep TN out of the bankruptcy mess last year. Who knows. But you can be sure that TN isn't doing all this just to be nice guys.

BTW, how many billionaires should the NHL "blackball" for not playing by Bettman's rules? Balsillie, Chipman, who else? It's not like there is this huge line of megarich guys waiting to buy an NHL team. Where the BoG is concerned, money talks.

DeathToAllButMetal is offline  
Old
06-23-2010, 05:59 AM
  #84
supahdupah
Registered Boozer
 
supahdupah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,936
vCash: 500
So, the city is creating a CFD on it's own property to gift whatever they collect via the CFD to IEH so they can pay their loans, as well as fund the hockey team? Nice. I guess I don't see how this gets around the gift clause. It's just another layer of abstraction. If the land is owned by the city it's taxpayer money thats being collected. This still seems like a huge long shot that the city was willing to gamble $25million on.

supahdupah is offline  
Old
06-23-2010, 08:04 AM
  #85
King Woodballs
MVP! MVP! MVP!
 
King Woodballs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Your Mind
Posts: 32,148
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by supahdupah View Post
So, the city is creating a CFD on it's own property to gift whatever they collect via the CFD to IEH so they can pay their loans, as well as fund the hockey team? Nice. I guess I don't see how this gets around the gift clause. It's just another layer of abstraction. If the land is owned by the city it's taxpayer money thats being collected. This still seems like a huge long shot that the city was willing to gamble $25million on.

Welcome to six weeks ago.
I dont understand how it can fly but they will go down trying I guess

King Woodballs is offline  
Old
06-23-2010, 08:24 AM
  #86
Caps4Life
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 71
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GHOSTofMAROONSroad View Post
I would like to see one of the proponents of the CFD plan lay out the financials of how it would work. If I recall correctly, there are 3 elements: 1) new parking charges (for Hockey and Non-hockey events), 2) ticket surcharges (for Hockey and Non-hockey events) and 3) voluntary charges/fees on property owners.

I think the general belief is that $25 MM would be needed to be raised for the franchise to break even on an operational, not investment basis.

GHOST
I agree with Ghost. Can someone rough this out to see what it all adds up to? How many parking spaces are included? Charge per space? How many events are they adding ticket surcharges to and what do those charges need to be to make this pencil?

Caps4Life is offline  
Old
06-23-2010, 08:31 AM
  #87
ps241
The Danish Dash!
 
ps241's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,843
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottrocks58 View Post
I certainly would hope so, but the question still remains, why did they only go half way on this. Perhaps negotiations with Ellman regarding some type of quid pro quo have not been completed. I am sure that Ellman, in return for this, would like some or all of the previous fines, penalties or claims brought against him by the city mitigated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GHOSTofMAROONSroad View Post
Ellman may want to join to keep his options open, but that is not material; what is material is how much he is willing and able to contribute. Obviously, having the Coyotes in Glendale, enhances the worth of his property to some extent, so the questions is by how much and how much can he pass along to his tenants or personally absorb for 41 nights per year of NHL hockey versus other alternatives?

GHOST
Quote:
Originally Posted by RR View Post
It's more about how many customers the arena, Cardinals Stadium, and Spring Training can drive into his tenants' shops than it is property values. The latter is only important if you're selling.

The better the traffic, the better his tenants do. The better they do, the more he can charge. No tenant is going to accept some kind of massive increase in the cost of doing business if the business they're generating doesn't warrant it. They'll move elsewhere.
Ellman, like his tenants, has to balance that out, as do patrons at Westgate.
yes the fact Westgate was not included "YET" is not insignificant IMHO

Ellman is between a rock and a hard place here......if he benefits directly from any form of hardship he passes on to his tenants he will face the fall out. that could come in the form of a lawsuit (maybe....maybe not) but trust me when i say he will definitely face it when it comes time to deal with the leases that expire after 10 years. this is not magic folks and these are the best of times for tenants dealing with extensions.....in the 30 years i have been leasing it is the most favorable times to be a tenant and landlords are very flexible in all but the AAA locations.

a quick view of his bars and restaurants shows they lack the big boys (national chains like Darden, Brinker International, OSI, Cheesecake factory) who have the most sophisticated real estate departments and location analysis abilities......translation.....if they didn't and haven't gotten in up to this point then there is a very good reason. i think this development is probably borderline already.....Ellman and his people would know better but you can't get blood out of a stone.

Ellman could play chicken with the NHL, CoG and any new owner and say.....go ahead and take your parking charges and ticket surcharges but i am not going to tax my businesses or pass on any costs because they can't afford it and my council is advising me it could open us to legal action (we have no idea what his lease agreements look like with his tenants and whether this could form a breach or whether they have designated parking pools that are exempt from charges etc etc)

In the case of Ellman saying "no" to Westgate charges he could still possibly keep the NHL but also keeps his development and tenants happier......no new charges but same old NHL....."sorry guys you are going to have to deal with your customers having to pay to park on game and concert nights but those are the brakes and its out of my control". That he might be able to sell but wow if he tries to cut a sweetheart deal for himself in this era in this development without expecting an offset in future base rent and vacancies then reality has left the building Alice.

roll your tenants into the hardships of a CFD....pay the price.....don't allow the CFD to include Westgate and possibly lose the Yotes......i guess only Ellman knows which door to pick here



either way to assume the lack of inclusion of Westgate in the CFD is a non issue might be premature

ps241 is online now  
Old
06-23-2010, 08:43 AM
  #88
Hawker14
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,016
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caps4Life View Post
I agree with Ghost. Can someone rough this out to see what it all adds up to? How many parking spaces are included? Charge per space? How many events are they adding ticket surcharges to and what do those charges need to be to make this pencil?
I believe there are 5,500 parking spaces.

There are approx. 75-80 events at the arena, including hockey (according to the BCSP report), and Jobing.com arena claims 1,200,000 patrons.

My back of the napkin (to borrow a term) estimates equate to an additional charge of about $8 per person per event for the parking and ticket surcharges.

However, the MOU also contemplates $5m annually from property owners, so their inclusion in the CFD is paramount. I am surprised to learn they weren't part of it's creation.

Could it be that the CoG, as the only property owner in the CFD, will be providing these $5m in annual funds to the CFD ?


Last edited by Hawker14: 06-23-2010 at 09:05 AM.
Hawker14 is offline  
Old
06-23-2010, 09:34 AM
  #89
Scottrocks58*
Six
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Phoenix
Country: United States
Posts: 3,066
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToddGillForever View Post

I know about the Rodier gambit, and am not sure if it's entirely folly. I mean, Balsillie came within a whisker of buying the club. You get a different judge from Baum and maybe he gets the team. Or if Balsillie had offered Glendale more than $40 million, he gets enough councillors on board to swing a vote and get them to endorse his bid.
That's simply no more than a "crying in your beer" argument. Baum is the senior bankruptcy judge in Arizona and is an internationally known scholar on bankruptcy law. Pining for a judge of lessor quality is, for lack of a better word, disrespectful to American jurisprudence. The controlling law is quite clear - the NHL would need compensation for damages done - that being the loss of control of their markets and ability to determine ownership for the franchise. Those damages could not be make whole with a monetary award and so the Balsillie offer to purchase the team was declined. As to Balsillie buying off the COG, it would have been wasted money. In the judge's opinion the wishes of Glendale were not pertinent to his decision.

Scottrocks58* is offline  
Old
06-23-2010, 09:42 AM
  #90
aj8000
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 684
vCash: 3000
Quote:
Originally Posted by RR View Post
Peter, they already ARE part of the agreement. The CFD that was approved and is being created allows for them; property owners (Ellman) have already petitioned to join the CFD; and their petition to join has been approved.
Have you seen the petition? My first impression when I read the part about the petition was that just the city signed it; therefore, forming the CFD with city owned land. If Westgate was on board, (ie already signing the petition) then adding them to the initial creation of the CFC would be logical and would not have been any different then just adding the city owned land.

It appears to me that they are still negotiating with the landowners around the arena, or they have not gone to them yet due to timing.

I also wonder if Ellman sold the Yotes to get out of the losses, why would he now agree to fund those same losses under a CFD? (I could be misinterpreting the earlier posts on the Yotes Saga in this new thread)

aj8000 is offline  
Old
06-23-2010, 11:31 AM
  #91
peter sullivan
Winnipeg
 
peter sullivan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,273
vCash: 500
they dont need a CFD to impose ticket surcharges....they dont need a CFD to charge for parking....they do need a CFD to impose a tax on private property owners...yet they are not included in the CFD?....it makes no sense to me.

they might be able to raise the $7.5m with the ticket and parking levies, so ellman will essentially be finaincing the coyotes losses to the tume of $5-$10m per year out of his own pocket....how can it not be significant that he is not part of the plan right from the start....surely it cant proceed without him.

for my own curiosity, why would any private land owner voluntarily join this tax programme?....just to keep foot traffic to the mall?.....will he recouperate that amount of money from tenant leasing every year?....seems steep to me.

peter sullivan is offline  
Old
06-23-2010, 11:52 AM
  #92
aj8000
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 684
vCash: 3000
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter sullivan View Post
they dont need a CFD to impose ticket surcharges....they dont need a CFD to charge for parking....they do need a CFD to impose a tax on private property owners...yet they are not included in the CFD?....it makes no sense to me.

they might be able to raise the $7.5m with the ticket and parking levies, so ellman will essentially be finaincing the coyotes losses to the tume of $5-$10m per year out of his own pocket....how can it not be significant that he is not part of the plan right from the start....surely it cant proceed without him.

for my own curiosity, why would any private land owner voluntarily join this tax programme?....just to keep foot traffic to the mall?.....will he recouperate that amount of money from tenant leasing every year?....seems steep to me.
From my understanding, Phase two of Westgate has not been completed and that Phase one has about 450,000 sqft of rent-able space; therefore, if 5 mil is coming from Westgate (using numbers provided here) that means over $11/sq ft in CAM. Since Westgate is not fully rented, that money will come out of Ellmans pocket.

ouch

aj8000 is offline  
Old
06-23-2010, 12:17 PM
  #93
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 21,662
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToddGillForever View Post
Lighten up, Francis.Also, the blackballing or whatever you think is going on with the NHL and Balsillie...come on, how would that have applied here? If a legit buyer with funding had shown up at the bankruptcy and thrown down $250 million or so to buy and move the Coyotes to Winnipeg, do you really think that the NHL would have fought? I don't. That whole battle was about Southern Ontario, not the Coyotes. If another viable option had come along that would have let the NHL wrap up the whole mess last summer without taking on the huge financial risk of buying the team and funding its losses for a year or more, I think the BoG would have gone for it.
Aye Carumba. Err, by a, what was it?. 28-0 vote not to approve JB in what was apparently a fairly "uncomfortable" meeting with the BOG's last year?.Very definition of "Blackballing" TGF. They simply dont trust the guy to play by their rules based on past history & here we were again, costing the league tens of millions in legal fee's & embarrassment all based on the premise of an MLSE "veto" & anti-trust, using BK to end-run not only the NHL's but so too MLB/NBA/NFL positions on their perogatives concerning ownership & location?. Why didnt he appeal Baums' decision?. Why toss the gloves, leave the ring?. To Chipman/Tomsons credit, they knew it be wise to leave well enough alone. They'd have wound up being painted with the same brush as Balsillie. I think you may be underestimating the dynamic between the BOG's & Gary Bettman. He was/is adamant that the Coyotes remain in Arizona. Even if Paul Allen, Jerry Bruckheimer or whomever had entered the fray with plans to buy & relo the team to Portland or KC, they'd have been told no, but by all means bid, negotiate with the COG, re-work the lease, whatever, give it a good 5yrs yadda yadda. The league bought & funded the Yotes using a LOC with a bank. Hasnt cost the teams one sou to date. This wasnt "all about Southern Ontario"; this was all about Glendale & the Phoenix Coyotes staying put. Like him or lump him, Bettman & his legal team finessed this situation & continue to do so. On the other side of the coin, whats not altogether clear, is whether or not Winnipeg was or is being callously used by the league to turn the screws down on the COG. And I do agree with your assertion that the NHL can ill afford to alienate billionaires knocking at the door. But thats a whole other thread.

Killion is online now  
Old
06-23-2010, 12:38 PM
  #94
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 21,662
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ps241 View Post
The fact Westgate was not included "YET" is not insignificant. roll your tenants into the hardships of a CFD....pay the price.....don't allow the CFD to include Westgate and possibly lose the Yotes......I guess only Ellman knows which door to pick here. Either way to assume the lack of inclusion of Westgate in the CFD is a non issue might be premature
Indeed. Curiouser & curiouser. It was rumored some time ago that Ellman was having a struggle with this. Is it a crack in the armor or simply a matter of expediency in setting up the CFD?. Without the inclusion of the projected revenue streams' coming in from Westgate; "Houston, we have a problem"....

Killion is online now  
Old
06-23-2010, 12:42 PM
  #95
Whileee
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 7,941
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Indeed. Curiouser & curiouser. It was rumored some time ago that Ellman was having a struggle with this. Is it a crack in the armor or simply a matter of expediency in setting up the CFD?. Without the inclusion of the projected revenue streams' coming in from Westgate; "Houston, we have a problem"....
No worries... they still have Saskatoon.

Whileee is offline  
Old
06-23-2010, 12:59 PM
  #96
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 21,662
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whileee View Post
No worries... they still have Saskatoon.
And Lake Havasu. When she freezes' over I'm thinkin "Outdoor Classic".

Killion is online now  
Old
06-23-2010, 01:04 PM
  #97
RR
Moderator
 
RR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Cave Creek, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 8,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulligan View Post
I believe there are 5,500 parking spaces.
Believe it's closer to 7,500.

http://hockey.ballparks.com/NHL/PhoenixCoyotes/newindex.htm

Quote:
Cost of Construction $180 million
Population Base 3,300,000
On Site Parking 7,500

RR is offline  
Old
06-23-2010, 01:09 PM
  #98
Whileee
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 7,941
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RR View Post
Believe it's closer to 7,500.
It doesn't matter how many spaces, as much as how many cars. An average of 2/car seems low, especially once the parking fees are introduced. Many of the non-hockey events will draw significantly less than 10,000 patrons, don't you think?

Whileee is offline  
Old
06-23-2010, 01:15 PM
  #99
Whileee
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 7,941
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulligan View Post
I believe there are 5,500 parking spaces.

There are approx. 75-80 events at the arena, including hockey (according to the BCSP report), and Jobing.com arena claims 1,200,000 patrons.

My back of the napkin (to borrow a term) estimates equate to an additional charge of about $8 per person per event for the parking and ticket surcharges.

However, the MOU also contemplates $5m annually from property owners, so their inclusion in the CFD is paramount. I am surprised to learn they weren't part of it's creation.

Could it be that the CoG, as the only property owner in the CFD, will be providing these $5m in annual funds to the CFD ?
With 80 events and 1,200,000 patrons, that suggests an average of 15,000 patrons per event. If the Coyotes average 13,500 per game for 45 games, then all other events need to average almost 17,000. That doesn't seem realistic at all.

Whileee is offline  
Old
06-23-2010, 01:55 PM
  #100
Hawker14
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,016
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RR View Post
Very well could be. I was referencing http://www.glendaleaz.com/Clerk/agen.../062408-07.pdf recital d. regarding Coyote Center Development's obligation to provide 5,500 spaces to the CoG on the parking land.

Hawker14 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 07:41 PM.

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.