HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

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

Part X: Phoenix Coyotes - Between Scylla and Charybdis

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-04-2010, 04:50 PM
  #501
Fugu
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottrocks58 View Post
Pure speculation. Perhaps Glendale CoG went to a palm reader who told them to walk on Reinsdorf. As to the NHL, they seem dead set against moving the Coyotes, otherwise the team would have been gone long before the contrived bankruptcy.

I don't think losing hundreds of millions of dollars then walking away with nothing is really contrived. Moyes could have just handed the keys over and asked for one of those watches as a retirement present.

 
Old
08-04-2010, 04:57 PM
  #502
Tinalera
Registered User
 
Tinalera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Known Universe
Posts: 6,334
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
I don't think losing hundreds of millions of dollars then walking away with nothing is really contrived. Moyes could have just handed the keys over and asked for one of those watches as a retirement present.
But Fugu, do you know how much one of those watches COST? It wouldn't be "economically feasable" to the NHL! Get with the program!

Tinalera is offline  
Old
08-04-2010, 04:58 PM
  #503
ATHF
Go Jets Go!
 
ATHF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 846
vCash: 500
If anything, Reinsdorf is probably in it to see if he can score a cheap deal and if not at least try to give the COG some sort of negotiating leverage against IEH as they seem to be the only game in town until there is a source that is willing to name the "mystery buyers" that may or may not exist.

This is going to come down to whether the COG wants to screw themselves slowly by paying out money hand over fist to help subsidize whoever tries to buy the team or screw themselves quickly by letting the team walk and losing out on the payments for the arena to avoid having to deal with potential lawsuits, political fallout, etc. etc.

If they really want to set up some sort of subsidy, they should put it to some sort of emergency referendum to the residents of the city since they're going to be the ones that are going to be bending over if the team stays. I'd be willing to guarantee that that kind of vote would be about 240,000 against and about 10,000 for, give or take a few one way or the other.

ATHF is offline  
Old
08-04-2010, 05:06 PM
  #504
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottrocks58 View Post
The Coyotes had no creditors who were late in receiving payment at any time.
The NHL had already bailed the team out financially by the time bankruptcy went formal.

 
Old
08-04-2010, 05:16 PM
  #505
Hammer79
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Kelowna
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,599
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyStanley View Post
In response to the person who suggested taking kids to a AHL, ECHL or major junior game should the Coyotes move....

The only ice hockey teams left within an hour's drive will be adult league and club hockey.

The closest AHL team is in Texas. (And the reasons why there won't be a relocated AHL team have been specified before.)

The closest ECHL team is in Las Vegas.

The closest major junior team is like Iowa (USHL) or Portland, Oregon (WHL).
Assuming that the Coyotes did move though, it probably wouldn't be too hard to bring an AHL team to town to play in the rink. The fact that there isn't any close by AHL, ECHL or Junior teams kind of just goes to show that there really isn't much grass-roots support for hockey in the area in the first place.... If the team did relocate, but for years afterward an AHL consistently did well in the same area/rink, it might convince the NHL and potential owners that there is indeed a lot of grass-roots support for hockey which has developed there, and that they should be near the front of the line for a new team.

Hammer79 is offline  
Old
08-04-2010, 05:42 PM
  #506
Evil Doctor
Cryin' Hank crying
 
Evil Doctor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Cambridge, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,376
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MayDay View Post
What about these guys?

Looks like a minor pro team to me.
Gotta love the logo....

Evil Doctor is offline  
Old
08-04-2010, 05:49 PM
  #507
Scottrocks58*
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Phoenix
Country: United States
Posts: 3,066
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
I don't think losing hundreds of millions of dollars then walking away with nothing is really contrived. Moyes could have just handed the keys over and asked for one of those watches as a retirement present.
It's hard to make a profit on a distressed property. Moyes made his fortune buying up distressed trucking companies and turning them around so he well understood this.

When Moyes became the owner of the Coyotes, he agreed to a contract with the NHL. This contract in part specifically prohibited him from 1. Using the team as collateral for personal loans (the secured creditor in the BK) and 2. prohibiting him from putting the team into bankruptcy.

Moyes did it anyway and the Judge declined to rule on whether NHL ownership contract required that he throw out the request for relief. As to Moyes' need for relief, relief was already offered to him by the NHL which was paying the bills of the team for months prior to the bankruptcy and was organizing an orderly transfer of ownership.

This is why I called it contrived.

Scottrocks58* is offline  
Old
08-04-2010, 05:51 PM
  #508
Scottrocks58*
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Phoenix
Country: United States
Posts: 3,066
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammer79 View Post
Assuming that the Coyotes did move though, it probably wouldn't be too hard to bring an AHL team to town to play in the rink. The fact that there isn't any close by AHL, ECHL or Junior teams kind of just goes to show that there really isn't much grass-roots support for hockey in the area in the first place.... If the team did relocate, but for years afterward an AHL consistently did well in the same area/rink, it might convince the NHL and potential owners that there is indeed a lot of grass-roots support for hockey which has developed there, and that they should be near the front of the line for a new team.
This has been gone over before. We aren't Canadians so hockey is not in our blood and we really do keep a grudge. We would never support an AHL team given to us as a consolation prize. I applaud Winnipeg for supporting the Moose but it wouldn't work here.


Last edited by Scottrocks58*: 08-04-2010 at 05:53 PM. Reason: clarification
Scottrocks58* is offline  
Old
08-04-2010, 06:01 PM
  #509
Tommy Hawk
Registered User
 
Tommy Hawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,919
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottrocks58 View Post
Goldwater again? The state supreme court's interpretation of the gift clause is that the municipality must show a direct benefit, and not consider jobs or increased sales tax revenue, etc.

Well, if the Glendale subsidy is less than the lease money which Reinsdorf pays to the city, there is a direct benefit. Without the agreement the core tenant of the arena walks (Thank you TNSE and NHL - a stroke of genius having that contention of Glendale confirmed). Lease payments, even subsidized, are a direct benefit to Glendale of having a tenant over no lease payments due to no available tenant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToddGillForever View Post
Why on earth would the NHL want to wait another year on this to see what the court rules? I doubt Glendale goes there, anyhow. Council has probably gotten legal advice saying they just can't do what Reinsdorf is demanding. Assume that's why Reinsdorf walked in the spring.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottrocks58 View Post
Pure speculation. Perhaps Glendale CoG went to a palm reader who told them to walk on Reinsdorf. As to the NHL, they seem dead set against moving the Coyotes, otherwise the team would have been gone long before the contrived bankruptcy.
The amount of money Reinsdorf is asking for is more than the remaining amount of debt on the arena.

Reinsdorf is asking minimum of $65 mil (to actually purchase the team) and up to $165 mil (including the $100 mil to cover losses).

Financing Info:
To build the arena in 2003, Glendale issued revenue bonds backed by sales taxes as well as general obligation bonds for roads, sidewalks and other infrastructure around the Westgate area. The city issued $155 million of Series 2003A and B sales tax bonds in July 2003 for the bulk of the financing under the name Glendale Municipal Property Corp.

http://www.bondbuyer.com/issues/118_87/-303182-1.html


Based upon the rate for bonds issued by this entity for that period, i assumed 6.2%.

Based upon a 20 year bond the payments would be $8 mil per year and a 30 year bond payments would be $6.5 mil per year.

The arena is 7 years old, meaning either 13 or 23 years more left of payments.

13 years - $103 mil left to pay
23 years - $153 mil left to pay

Cheaper to not pay reinsdorf......



Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Stranger & stranger. If IEH's been dead in the water for weeks according to yet another un-named source, why are they continuing to twitter & tweet, why is their PR Flak giving quotes (just last week)?. Secondly, if indeed the NHL is adamant that the team stay in Glendale, they are going to have to step up to the plate, work with Glendale & whatever buyer they can secure & do something about their asking price, which is far more than the franchise is worth. If they cant/wont do that, either through an extension to their own line of credit assumable by the new owner or some other creative formula, a sale to keep the team in place will be next to impossible. At this stage in the game, one can only hope, if your a resident of Phoenix & fan, that whomever these "Mystery Buyers" might be hasten to the rescue, work the middle ground between IE/JR & the NHL/COG.
The state recognized that CoG screwed up.

http://www.azcentral.com/community/g...t-dropped.html

There is no white knight in shining armor to slay this albatross

Tommy Hawk is offline  
Old
08-04-2010, 06:07 PM
  #510
Tommy Hawk
Registered User
 
Tommy Hawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,919
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottrocks58 View Post
It's hard to make a profit on a distressed property. Moyes made his fortune buying up distressed trucking companies and turning them around so he well understood this.

When Moyes became the owner of the Coyotes, he agreed to a contract with the NHL. This contract in part specifically prohibited him from 1. Using the team as collateral for personal loans (the secured creditor in the BK) and 2. prohibiting him from putting the team into bankruptcy.

Moyes did it anyway and the Judge declined to rule on whether NHL ownership contract required that he throw out the request for relief. As to Moyes' need for relief, relief was already offered to him by the NHL which was paying the bills of the team for months prior to the bankruptcy and was organizing an orderly transfer of ownership.

This is why I called it contrived.
You conflict yourself. You say it is hard then you say Moyes did it with trucking companies so it can;t be too hard. Distressed companies are the easiest to make a profit on, depending on what you do with it....

The reason? typically the sum of the parts is greater than the cost of the whole. Like selling an old car for parts gets you more money than selling the whole car.

Tommy Hawk is offline  
Old
08-04-2010, 06:13 PM
  #511
Scottrocks58*
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Phoenix
Country: United States
Posts: 3,066
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommy Hawk View Post
You conflict yourself. You say it is hard then you say Moyes did it with trucking companies so it can;t be too hard. Distressed companies are the easiest to make a profit on, depending on what you do with it....

The reason? typically the sum of the parts is greater than the cost of the whole. Like selling an old car for parts gets you more money than selling the whole car.
Perhaps I wasn't clear. It's hard to make a profit when selling a distressed property, not buying one. As to the car parts example, Ch7 is for dismantling companies. Ch11 is allowed because the law recognizes that sometimes the whole is worth more than the sum of its parts.

Scottrocks58* is offline  
Old
08-04-2010, 06:14 PM
  #512
Fugu
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottrocks58 View Post
It's hard to make a profit on a distressed property. Moyes made his fortune buying up distressed trucking companies and turning them around so he well understood this.

When Moyes became the owner of the Coyotes, he agreed to a contract with the NHL. This contract in part specifically prohibited him from 1. Using the team as collateral for personal loans (the secured creditor in the BK) and 2. prohibiting him from putting the team into bankruptcy.
My memory is fuzzy on this point, but I think Elman was the guy that got everyone into this fine pickle. Moyes never wanted to own an NHL team but apparently he decided to partner up with Elman and subsequently take over the team.

A contract between two parties does not supersede the law-- Moyes always had the right to put the team under bankruptcy protection. Lawyers may try to insert all sorts of language into contracts, but what is actually enforceable will still be a matter of law should it come to blows.

As someone pointed out to you, the NHL was already paying the bills. If that's not a distressed asset, well, I'm not sure what you'd call one then.

Quote:
Moyes did it anyway and the Judge declined to rule on whether NHL ownership contract required that he throw out the request for relief. As to Moyes' need for relief, relief was already offered to him by the NHL which was paying the bills of the team for months prior to the bankruptcy and was organizing an orderly transfer of ownership.

This is why I called it contrived.
And if it had no basis in law, I doubt a court would have handled it.

The relief that was offered had some serious strings attached. Maybe Moyes wanted to give them a taste of their own medicine and offer his own bitter pill in return. His seems to be one of those designer drugs that dissolves very slowly.


However one point you seem to continue to ignore is that no one else wants the team unless "somebody" gives them tens of millions of dollars in subsidies. Why aren't you called that contrived ownership?

 
Old
08-04-2010, 06:19 PM
  #513
Fugu
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinalera View Post
But Fugu, do you know how much one of those watches COST? It wouldn't be "economically feasable" to the NHL! Get with the program!

Sumimasen, Tinalera-san. Moyes should know it was a great honor and privilege to spend that much money and expect nothing in return, and you know, the ever-increasing franchise values that Bettman promises guys when he's courting them as prospective buyers.

Not even a watch.

 
Old
08-04-2010, 06:22 PM
  #514
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 15,138
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommy Hawk View Post

Financing Info:
To build the arena in 2003, Glendale issued revenue bonds backed by sales taxes as well as general obligation bonds for roads, sidewalks and other infrastructure around the Westgate area. The city issued $155 million of Series 2003A and B sales tax bonds in July 2003 for the bulk of the financing under the name Glendale Municipal Property Corp.

http://www.bondbuyer.com/issues/118_87/-303182-1.html


Based upon the rate for bonds issued by this entity for that period, i assumed 6.2%.

Based upon a 20 year bond the payments would be $8 mil per year and a 30 year bond payments would be $6.5 mil per year.

The arena is 7 years old, meaning either 13 or 23 years more left of payments.

13 years - $103 mil left to pay
23 years - $153 mil left to pay

There were add'l bonds besides the MPC 2003A & B bonds (which were 30 yr bonds).

The total outstanding bond principal (according to the 2009-10 CoG Budget Book) is ~$156M.

The total outstanding debt service (P&I) is ~$156M + ~$134M = ~$290M.

IIRC, most of the bonds did not allow for early payment.

Cut and Pasting from some of the older PHX BK threads.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209
Quote:
Originally Posted by leek
BTW, minor point the arena cost $225 million. Glendale contributed $180 million.
Looking at the Glendale bonds - they issued $155.2M in 2003 for the arena:

The series 2003A bonds ($49.940,000) are tax exempt munis.
The series 2003B bonds ($105,260,000) are taxable munis.

The Glendale budget lists two other smaller arena bond issues, showing an additional ~$12M in principal outstanding. I do not have the original issue numbers for these.

So you are looking at ~$167+M that Glendale put up in bonds.

Quote:
Table 2-10

Outstanding Municipal Property Bonds

Issue Year Issued Principal Balance Outstanding

AMFP – Arena 2002 $5,055,000
AMFP - Refunding - Arena 2003 $7,250,000
MPC Bonds - Arena Taxable 2003B $96,590,000
MPC Bonds - Arena Tax Exempt 2003A $47,245,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209
From the City of Glendale 2009-2010 Budget Book via Mirtle's blog:

Quote:
http://www.glendaleaz.com/Budget/AnnualBudgetBooks.cfm

I’m using the FY 2010 Annual Budget Book. I’m looking at the lines for the MPC Bonds – Series 2003A – Arena Tax Exempt, the MPC Bonds – Series 2003B – Arena Taxable, the AMFP Series 14 – Arena, and the AMFP Refunding Series 16 – Arena in the schedule for long term debt. Those look like the bonds I want. The first two series show principal being paid off each year, in addition to interest. The last two, which are much smaller, only show interest, so the principal is lurking in its entirety to be paid off eventually.

...

What the schedule shows is that over the coming years, on those lines, Glendale has to make approximately the following payments:

FY 09-10: $1,735,000 principal, $8,050,000 interest
FY 10-11: $1,635,000 principal, $7,397,000 interest
FY 11-12: $1,780,000 principal, $7,944,000 interest
FY 12-13: $1,855,000 principal, $7,885,000 interest
FY 14 & Beyond: $149,135,000 principal, $103,093,000 interest.

That’s kind of an odd amortization schedule, so my guess is that there’s some floating rate stuff in there, which would mean that these are estimates. That’s somewhere between $9 million and $10 million per year until the principal is due on the second two lines of debt.

kdb209 is offline  
Old
08-04-2010, 06:30 PM
  #515
Scottrocks58*
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Phoenix
Country: United States
Posts: 3,066
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
My memory is fuzzy on this point, but I think Elman was the guy that got everyone into this fine pickle. Moyes never wanted to own an NHL team but apparently he decided to partner up with Elman and subsequently take over the team.

A contract between two parties does not supersede the law-- Moyes always had the right to put the team under bankruptcy protection. Lawyers may try to insert all sorts of language into contracts, but what is actually enforceable will still be a matter of law should it come to blows.

As someone pointed out to you, the NHL was already paying the bills. If that's not a distressed asset, well, I'm not sure what you'd call one then.



And if it had no basis in law, I doubt a court would have handled it.

The relief that was offered had some serious strings attached. Maybe Moyes wanted to give them a taste of their own medicine and offer his own bitter pill in return. His seems to be one of those designer drugs that dissolves very slowly.


However one point you seem to continue to ignore is that no one else wants the team unless "somebody" gives them tens of millions of dollars in subsidies. Why aren't you called that contrived ownership?
Fugu, one can contractually agree to give up a right, even a constitutional right (Freedom of Speech waived by a confidentiality agreement, etc.)

In Moyes case, he voluntarily waived his right to put the team in bankruptcy.

As to the Judge, he decided to rule very narrowly and avoid ruling on every single contested issue but that the NHL could not be adequately compensated with a financial award for a relocation against its will. I personally wish that he had made a more comprehensive ruling, but that was it.

Moyes was no victim. People lose money in losing enterprises all the time. A significant part of Moyes losses with the Coyotes were directly tied to increased revenues in Moyes other companies through inflated contracts. That also came out in the BK

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post

However one point you seem to continue to ignore is that no one else wants the team unless "somebody" gives them tens of millions of dollars in subsidies. Why aren't you called that contrived ownership?
Sorry for taking up so much space today, but I wanted to address this issue before I left the computer.

The NHL is, in my opinion, asking for an unrealistically high price to purchase the Coyotes. I understand their need to make themselves whole, but purchasers aren't going to bite without relief, either the purchase price or in the form of subsidies, or both. Either way, Glendale put themselves into this ridiculous position and it is going to cost them to get out of it.

Scottrocks58* is offline  
Old
08-04-2010, 06:43 PM
  #516
Fugu
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottrocks58 View Post
Fugu, one can contractually agree to give up a right, even a constitutional right (Freedom of Speech waived by a confidentiality agreement, etc.)

In Moyes case, he voluntarily waived his right to put the team in bankruptcy.

As to the Judge, he decided to rule very narrowly and avoid ruling on every single contested issue but that the NHL could not be adequately compensated with a financial award for a relocation against its will. I personally wish that he had made a more comprehensive ruling, but that was it.

Moyes was no victim. People lose money in losing enterprises all the time. A significant part of Moyes losses with the Coyotes were directly tied to increased revenues in Moyes other companies through inflated contracts. That also came out in the BK
Yes, Scottrocks, there are no victims in this game, the NHL, Moyes, COG, JR, JB..... not a one. The fans, of course, have no say in the matter.

A great many people have lost money, while looking forward, no one is really volunteering [apparently] to lose their own money, but they are trying to get COG to mitigate that risk for them. Taxpayer and bond money, because, as we know, public bonds were devised to help pay for pro sports franchises.

Moyes' losses or gains indeed did not come out in the BK because Moyes personally wasn't declaring bankruptcy, just a lot of speculation by several vocal posters here that that may have been the case. I always did wonder why Moyes would want to get out if the parent company (-ies) was making so much money from the alleged shell game. Yes, I know, he wanted to buy back shares in Swift, etcetera, but who would walk away from the golden goose for a mere egg or two?

 
Old
08-04-2010, 06:47 PM
  #517
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottrocks58 View Post
We aren't Canadians so hockey is not in our blood...
Then the team won't be missed much.

Next topic...



Last edited by Dado: 08-04-2010 at 06:53 PM.
 
Old
08-04-2010, 07:01 PM
  #518
HockeyAndTheSox
Let's Go Pens&Yotes!
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: AZ & PA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,808
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gump Hasek View Post
The irony of a Phoenix Coyote fan pontificating that cities shouldn't gain teams at the expense of other cities is priceless.
Because I had a direct say in the Coyotes moving to Phoenix, right? I didn't even live in Phoenix until a few years after they moved down here. I don't even think Phoenix was the first option for the Jets were they? Didn't Minnesota get a chance first and it fell through?

Plus, I know what its like to almost lose your team (Penguins), and honestly I wouldn't wish that upon anyone.

Don't automatically assume I was all for the Coyotes coming to Phoenix just because I'm taking the side of "leave Phoenix where they are and let stable ownership who cares about hockey try to build a better fanbase and team"

HockeyAndTheSox is offline  
Old
08-04-2010, 07:01 PM
  #519
Fugu
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
Then the team won't be missed much.

Next topic...

Be nice.

 
Old
08-04-2010, 07:02 PM
  #520
Tinalera
Registered User
 
Tinalera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Known Universe
Posts: 6,334
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Sumimasen, Tinalera-san. Moyes should know it was a great honor and privilege to spend that much money and expect nothing in return, and you know, the ever-increasing franchise values that Bettman promises guys when he's courting them as prospective buyers.

Not even a watch.
But you see, Fugu-san, it is the mere fact there were able to speak with Bettman and be devined by his holy presence and influence, that it was a honor, nay, a JOY to spend that much money and expect nothing!

A watch, that would be offensive to Moyes, for it would tarnish the full honor of his bankruptcy, so that the NHL would be pleased, and possibly offer him another opportunity in future to have the honor of losing more money with another franchise.

Konnichiwa, Fugu-san

Tinalera is offline  
Old
08-04-2010, 07:06 PM
  #521
Fugu
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarioGeno71 View Post
Because I had a direct say in the Coyotes moving to Phoenix, right? I didn't even live in Phoenix until a few years after they moved down here. I don't even think Phoenix was the first option for the Jets were they? Didn't Minnesota get a chance first and it fell through?

Plus, I know what its like to almost lose your team (Penguins), and honestly I wouldn't wish that upon anyone.

Don't automatically assume I was all for the Coyotes coming to Phoenix just because I'm taking the side of "leave Phoenix where they are and let stable ownership who cares about hockey try to build a better fanbase and team"

Yes, but you were the person who tried to make what should be a business discussion into an emotional plea and bring in the much-despised BOBH word of "deserving" a team.

Like others have said, professional sports is a luxury and a business. If we're really going to talk about the children, there are far better issues to raise with regard to taxpayer funds and disbursement than subsidizing sports.

 
Old
08-04-2010, 07:08 PM
  #522
HockeyAndTheSox
Let's Go Pens&Yotes!
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: AZ & PA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,808
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcwpg View Post
You can't, because the statement you want explained to the kid is irrelevant to a kid. The problem with everyone on this board is they are applying emotions to a situation that has nothing to do with emotions. You are using the word "deserve" which is wrong. No city deserves an NHL team. The only reason any NHL team is where it is today is because that city happens to be a place where the owner can find enough people to line his pockets. That's it... it's all about the MONEY the owners can make. I guarentee you, there is not a single owner in the NHL that wouldn't apply for relocation or try and sell thier team, if they lost money like the Coyotes have. I don't care if it's one of the original 6 teams.. if one of those teams started to lose money for 15 straight years and they could be moved somewhere else so they could make money, the team would be gone. Fan loyalty, history, or if a city deserves a team or not, is irrelevant.

I think junior teams are there for the community, pro teams are only there to make money. Doesn't answer your question, but that is reality.

Honestly, tell the kid his team is leaving and that's that. He will cry for as long as it takes to get his next XBOX game, then he will forget about it. Kind of like the entire city of Phoenix will react if the Coyotes leave. 15 years after the fact people in Winnipeg still talk about the Jets... 15 minutes after the Coyotes leave Phoenix, nobody will care.
Be that as it may, No city "deserves" an NHL team, but also, no city/fanbase deserves to LOSE an NHL team. Like I've said, I would be all for Winnipeg getting a team back. Expand the NHL! There's quite a few ownership groups willing to put the work in to get teams back in WPG and QC, right? When the NHL decides to expand, I hope they consider those two places first before anything like Vegas/KC or Southern Ontario.

HockeyAndTheSox is offline  
Old
08-04-2010, 07:10 PM
  #523
Fugu
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinalera View Post
But you see, Fugu-san, it is the mere fact there were able to speak with Bettman and be devined by his holy presence and influence, that it was a honor, nay, a JOY to spend that much money and expect nothing!

A watch, that would be offensive to Moyes, for it would tarnish the full honor of his bankruptcy, so that the NHL would be pleased, and possibly offer him another opportunity in future to have the honor of losing more money with another franchise.

Konnichiwa, Fugu-san
Aha, so desu-ne, Tinalera-san. "Mo ichi do, kudasai, Bettman-san," should be Moyes's mantra.

 
Old
08-04-2010, 07:15 PM
  #524
HockeyAndTheSox
Let's Go Pens&Yotes!
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: AZ & PA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,808
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Doctor View Post
You are aware of course that Hamilton and Kansas City had NHL teams at one time....?
Hamilton had the tigers from 20-25, right? That team is defunct and also has a major NHL team within 50 miles of it, right?

Winnipeg's nearest team is Minnesota followed by Calgary (if my geography is correct), both hundreds of miles away.

As for the Scouts, they were around for 2 years and then moved to Colorado. Now they're the Devils. Sure, I'd be for seeing a team in KC, but the Blues are also not extremely far away in St. Louis.

HockeyAndTheSox is offline  
Old
08-04-2010, 07:18 PM
  #525
HockeyAndTheSox
Let's Go Pens&Yotes!
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: AZ & PA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,808
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by roccerfeller View Post
I agree that Phoenix fans had no control over where the Jets landed, but many Winnipeggers look at it as "Phx stealing them away", and this creates the animosity. Here's to what happens...regardless of whatever path it goes down.
See, I don't understand why that creates animosity between Peggers and the Coyotes fans... It's not like those fans stole your team. If anything, blame your ownership and the NHL for making that decision, right?

HockeyAndTheSox 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 02:43 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2016 All Rights Reserved.