The Business of HockeyDiscuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Franchise sales, valuations, TV contracts, ratings, expansion, relocation, the CBA and work stoppage discussion goes here.
For whatever it's worth, I believe that Hulsizer and Bettman are highly capable individuals. There is every reason to believe they have learned from their little setback and will soon release an air tight agreement that will see the Coyotes playing in Glendale for many years. We shall see, but that is my anticipation.
Selfishly, I hope there is also a civil complaint. What can I say, I'm litigious
So old deal is dead. I wonder if CoG taxpayers end up saving money because of Goldwater's interference (as a result of a new deal) if the COG council and Coyote fans will be sending Goldwater thanks for forcing the new deal.
Interesting. So the NHL started charging for parking after it took over? Or is CoG responsible for that? Or are you saying "let's find out who was charging for that!"
More or less that. The $10 parking charge has been brought up on this board more than once (by myself and a couple of the STHs). Mostly back when the discussion was centered around why parking had always been free or the $2.70 per ticket charge CoG got for parking in the lease.
But I guess nobody thought about following that money trail to see where it leads.
Last edited by TheLegend: 05-05-2011 at 11:12 PM.
Reason: speeling and grammer skilz are lacking tonyte.
It's people like you who I truly dislike in circumstances like this. I can truly say that I try to shut down every litigation with a threat, before I get sent out to pick. The only exception is a balls to the walls gung-ho excess carrier or allstate (they'll have you try a 25/50 fender bender with herniated disks to send a message).
The only time where I gotta leave it in the hands of 12 guys and gals is when I'm dealing with a drug case in bellwether mode and it doesn't normalltly end up pretty. After that, I bust a$$ with my client's settlement counsel to shut the litigation down as quickly as possible. Then again, the last time I drew a plaintiff's verdict was in 2001 in a non-drug nasty scaffold personal injury case (guy left a qudriplegic) because my client chose not to listen in a unified trial venue, d'oh!
I think you've just misread this thread. Having followed Casual Fan's posts for quite a while, I'm nearly certain your disdain is misplaced. He has an open mind and you or I would be happy to deal with him on a file. I've done civil, administrative and criminal litigation for 26 years, and my motto is never bite when a bark will do. Mind you, if you have to bite, make it hurt.
I also think that if litigation does ensue between Glendale and anyone (Goldwater, the NHL, you-name-it), it will hurt. The suggestion of a tortious interference claim in my view is absurd. What do you think?
Last edited by Mork: 05-05-2011 at 11:58 PM.
Reason: typo
More or less that. The $10 parking charge has been brought up on this board more than once (by myself and a couple of the STHs). Mostly back when the discussion was centered around why parking had always been free or the $2.70 per ticket charge CoG got for parking in the lease.
But I guess nobody thought about following that money trail to see where it leads.
I thought about that, but then I realized that I just hate parking in general.
Mod Edit:
Last edited by Fugu: 05-06-2011 at 06:23 AM.
Reason: only one way to get to do those! :)
I just don't understand any of this. Part of me wants the Yotes to stay now, just to see the financial apocalypse unfolding in Glendale the next few years.
THIS.
Monitoring the situation in Phoenix has become part of my routine now. I wouldn't mind seeing them succeed in keeping the team there just so I can continue to watch Gary FAIL. It's been the gift that just keep's giving.
I dont much care for Shoalts's "speculation". In one breath, he speculates a new deal will be forthcoming (while breaking it down of course) and on the other, says no one from the MH camp is aware of any new deal. Goldwater posted a link on their site to the January 25/11 documentation along with a PR re-confirming their position and as discussed at length earlier here today; so Shoalts's "speculation" that any Bond Issuance, for $50M or $50 seemingly ignores the realities of the situation on the ground. How does he know the COG is SOL on the $25M?. If a new deal is forthcoming whose to say whether or not the NHL deducts it from the Sale Price in order to expedite the sale?. He then suggests ASG "is closely monitoring the situation in Glendale" because......... yepp, they just wanna sell what they, like Jerry Moyes before them, dont have the right to sell, Relocation & a Big Fat Payday. This is the lead hockey writer with Canadas' "National" Newspaper?.
Here's another bit of wild speculation. Perhaps the COG is preparing a proposed financial arrangement that suits them (and perhaps the GWI), that hasn't yet been endorsed by the NHL and/or Hulsizer. This would ramp up the pressure on both parties to show if they are willing and able to be at all flexible in their terms. If not, it will be the NHL and/or Hulsizer who will have to put the thumbs down, thereby buying a bit of political cover for the COG. Perhaps this will be the COG "calling the bluff" of the NHL (and Hulsizer).
Just idle speculation, I know, but it would be wise politics if nothing else for the COG to proactively make a reasonable offer with better terms for their tax payers and force the NHL and Hulsizer to fully show their hand.
Here's another bit of wild speculation. Perhaps the COG is preparing a proposed financial arrangement that suits them (and perhaps the GWI), that hasn't yet been endorsed by the NHL and/or Hulsizer. This would ramp up the pressure on both parties to show if they are willing and able to be at all flexible in their terms. If not, it will be the NHL and/or Hulsizer who will have to put the thumbs down, thereby buying a bit of political cover for the COG. Perhaps this will be the COG "calling the bluff" of the NHL (and Hulsizer).
Just idle speculation, I know, but it would be wise politics if nothing else for the COG to proactively make a reasonable offer with better terms for their tax payers and force the NHL and Hulsizer to fully show their hand.
Yes, Whileee, that would make perfect sense. It is exactly what I had expected Glendale to do in the beginning, never anticipating they would roll over and play dead as they seem to have done.
I don't think it's ever too late to propse another deal that is more respectful of the Glendale taxpayers, but with them having missed the target time and again I can't imagine the City of Glendale suddenly learning to shoot straight. However, if they could, and would, that would definitely be the right move by putting the onus, as you correctly say, on ohers to accept or reject a.more attractive (to the taxpayer) and realistic (as to the gift clause) deal.
I think you've just misread this thread. Having followed Casual Fan's posts for quite a while, I'm nearly certain your disdain is misplaced. He has an open mind and you or I would be happy to deal with him on a file. I've done civil, administrative and criminal litigation for 26 years, and my motto is never bite when a bark will do. Mind you, if you have to bite, make it hurt.
I also think that if litigation does ensue between Glendale and anyone (Goldwater, the NHL, you-name-it), it will hurt. The suggestion of a tortious interference claim in my view is absurd. What do you think?
Quite frankly, it is a gray area to me overall and would want to know what venue it would be litigated in. Quite frankly it is borderline absurd, but haven't we all had absurd claims survive a summary judgment motion.
A) we need to know where the money ultimately winds up.
B) in what fashion was the original agreement amended?
C) the major wild card that one of us will have to research, was this issue dealt with in bankruptcy discharge orders?
If I catch my law clerk goofing off, I'll hit her with this task and a neat memo. I'll tell my managing partner its to promote our corp group.
Just idle speculation, I know, but it would be wise politics if nothing else for the COG to proactively make a reasonable offer with better terms for their tax payers and force the NHL and Hulsizer to fully show their hand.
Tactically, that makes' good sense Whileee. Unfortunately, Groupthink is so entrenched with this lot, any major retraction at this late date seemingly an exhibition of weakness they have no intention of showing. This continuing inflexibility & stubborn persistence within their camp has been both a hindrance & the Achillies heel that GW's sunk its teeth into. Absent a Bond issuance of at least $50-$60M (GW again), a revision of the Arena Mgmnt Contract (GW again); the creation of a CFD; Hulsizer & or the NHL providing the balance through cash or credit/terms (apparently not on), then really, what possible offer could the COG make that wouldnt be transparent in its designs to accomplish precisely the purpose you suggest, while completely alienating their "allies" in the NHL, MH & to a lesser extent, Steve Ellman?. They have done nothing but procrastinate for months; and those who procrastinate will have decisions made for them.
I doubt at this point in time that the COG is going on their own to create a new deal to vote on then present that to the NHL.
My feeling is that the NHL had to twist MH's hand a bit and give many concessions that we probably won't hear about for a long time to get a better deal on the table that GWI can't/won't interfere with.
If I'm the GWI and I see the bonds cut in half, this is now something that makes the money needed from parking rights a little more achievable. This is now in the realm of possibility. Now the big question is, what about the yearly subsidy?
I think if there is no yearly 20 million dollar subsidy to MH then this deal flies without a complaint from GWI, only a PR win.
Expansion in the South was supposed to be about growing the business, but it has just turned into a game of saving face and maintaining an appearance despite business results.
With all this wrangling to save the deal, has anyone actually looked at the hockey team? Or at a real plan to get the team back in the black? Revealing that the Yotes lost nearly $40 million last year didn't change a thing. Does anyone out there have any sort of business plan for how to stop the bleeding? Other than doubling ticket prices and somehow getting the attendance average up a good 40%?
I just don't understand any of this. Part of me wants the Yotes to stay now, just to see the financial apocalypse unfolding in Glendale the next few years.
Todd, it's quite easy. Apparently all the fans are staying away in droves out of protest because parking is free and Moyes paid himself too much for chartered flights and office space. Once Hulsizer takes control of the team they'll be back in the black in no time. What's $37 million in losses, all they have to do is basically triple ticket sales to break even. So if they can figure out how to get 37,500 people in the Job for each game, they're fine.
Honestly, does anyone have any math that shows how MH gets to making a profit? 5 years down the line? 10 years down the line?
You're openly rooting for thousands of people to be hurt financially, ruinously in some cases. If you think it's bad to support private sports franchise with public money, fine, but realize you're taking this all way more seriously than they are. Or you're being deeply unserious about the whole thing. Either way, it's very hard to give much credence to what you're saying.
Or perhaps he is just sick of the lengths the NHL have gone in this fiasco, to the point of now holding up taxpayers for money to pay in part for the franchise purchase... while at the same time seemingly ignoring that an offer exists elsewhere, one made by a group that includes the 17th richest man in the world and one that does not rely upon the backing of taxpayers to be concluded.
If I'm the GWI and I see the bonds cut in half, this is now something that makes the money needed from parking rights a little more achievable. This is now in the realm of possibility. Now the big question is, what about the yearly subsidy?....So the deal will be publicized today?
Yes, it brings the parking projections more in-line with realistic & achievable goals, cuts the burden on debt servicing in half, and will likely result in a better interest rate for the COG, but, BUT, whether the Bond issuance is for $50M or $50, the GWI has served notice that any issuance is illegal due to the agreement of January 25/11. This threat has frozen the COG in the past, why would they suddenly become strident now?. The GWI is also barking about the Arena Management Contract; wasnt sent out for tender, non-competitive bids, inflated values & costs to the COG; where is the money coming from to pay it (?) etc..... As manisback opined, seeking a declarative judgment could tie this up for months, the NHL an itchy client who are not about to lose control of the process through protracted litigation. Honestly, I cant see a way to get this done without the NHL & MH coughing up. Not gonna happen..... If indeed the COG has crafted some sort of an alternate financing plan that requires a vote, then yes, it will be or should be outlined in todays release of the Agenda for Tuesday, May the 10th's Council Meeting.
Or perhaps he is just sick of the lengths the NHL have gone in this fiasco, to the point of now holding up taxpayers for money to pay in part for the franchise purchase... while at the same time seemingly ignoring that an offer exists elsewhere, one made by a group that includes the 17th richest man in the world and one that does not rely upon the backing of taxpayers to be concluded.
since this is my 1st post i'll keep it easy. i know its been asked before but no one can seem to answer or dont want to answer it cause they know the answer is not good.
do you guys really think matthew hulsizer is your savior? is he the guy thats going to turn the team around and they will make money with his ownership? after everything you've seen of him, is he the guy that lead the team to the promise land? is it really that brain-dead simple?
i ask since no plan what so ever has come from him and he knows the teams a loser, money wise, in the market its in. thats why he wants someone else to pay fo it. i just wonder if he will use the same philosophy when it come to signing players?
I always felt that the BK was wrong and Glendale should do everything that was reasonable to keep the team there.
However, after 2 years of this, they really are trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.
Or perhaps he is just sick of the lengths the NHL have gone in this fiasco, to the point of now holding up taxpayers for money to pay in part for the franchise purchase... while at the same time seemingly ignoring that an offer exists elsewhere, one made by a group that includes the 17th richest man in the world and one that does not rely upon the backing of taxpayers to be concluded.
"Holding up taxpayers" is a funny way to put it. Everything that's been spent to this point is a sunk cost. People pay taxes to the government so that the government can, in theory, look out for their interests.
In this case, there are two options: pay no more money and let the team walk, or pony up now in the hopes that the team sticks around for a while. If the team walks, the city definitely loses money, and its residents suffer. If it stays, maybe they can continue to suffer, maybe they don't.
But I'm sure you've heard this before, and I'm not going to get sucked in to having the same basic debate that's been had a million ****ing times these past couple years. But if you really don't see any validity to the claim that Glendale and the NHL are trying to act in their own best interests, then I think you're being willfully ignorant. But that's your prerogative. What I don't understand is why people are taking this whole mess as a personal affront from the NHL.
Here's another bit of wild speculation. Perhaps the COG is preparing a proposed financial arrangement that suits them (and perhaps the GWI), that hasn't yet been endorsed by the NHL and/or Hulsizer. This would ramp up the pressure on both parties to show if they are willing and able to be at all flexible in their terms. If not, it will be the NHL and/or Hulsizer who will have to put the thumbs down, thereby buying a bit of political cover for the COG. Perhaps this will be the COG "calling the bluff" of the NHL (and Hulsizer).
I would not be surprised if this was indeed the case.
In this case, there are two options: pay no more money and let the team walk, or pony up now in the hopes that the team sticks around for a while. If the team walks, the city definitely loses money, and its residents suffer. If it stays, maybe they can continue to suffer, maybe they don't.
You left out another option, that would be that taxpayers could do much worse on this deal than your limited range of choices offered. That they spend good money after bad and incur a mountainous debt-load that inhibits their future competitive stance versus other communities that do not spend like drunken sailors.
An empty/dark arena in the future sans the Coyotes is not the sole future option BTW, but rather could see an arena that is managed more efficiently and with an alternate anchor tenant.
i ask since no plan what so ever has come from him and he knows the teams a loser, money wise, in the market its in. thats why he wants someone else to pay fo it. i just wonder if he will use the same philosophy when it come to signing players?
Yes, a business plan wouldve been nice & helped matters greatly....I'm not a Coyotes' fan per se', but I do believe the NHL can work in Phoenix. You've answered most of your own questions of course. I dont believe anyone in Phoenix is under the delusion that Matthew Hulsizer is the second coming of Mike Ilitch & Sam Pollock all rolled into one. He's an opportunist, exercising predatory practices depending on how you look at it. On one side of the coin; if you have a problem with potentially taxpayer funded private enterprise then ya, big problem. On the other, if you figure the loss of the team will far outweigh the "potential risk" to the taxpayer down the road, then you'd just go for it, glass half full, all in. No one else has stepped up to the plate, so really, the question as to whether or not he's a sinner or saint is rendered moot. If he does manage to acquire the team, I wouldnt expect them to be abysmal cellar dwellers. He has a hockey background; realizes the fragility of the market & need to be competitive. Look at Nashville?.
You left out another option, that would be that taxpayers could do much worse on this deal than your limited range of choices offered. That they spend good money after bad and incur a mountainous debt-load that inhibits their future competitive stance versus other communities that do not spend like drunken sailors.
An empty/dark arena in the future sans the Coyotes is not the sole future option BTW, but rather could see an arena that is managed more efficiently and with an alternate anchor tenant.
Maybe Glendale could do like they did during the lockout seemed to work real well, wonder why they can't do this today ?
Players and management were unable to reach an agreement over a salary cap in the league.
Fearing the worst, the city of Glendale, landlord of the Phoenix Coyotes, filled most of the Coyotes' 40 home games slated for Glendale Arena with other events, including concerts.
"From a financial standpoint, we miss hockey, but also it (NHL lockout) created other opportunities to bring in concerts and other events," Ed Beasley, city manager, told Newsradio 620 KTAR Wednesday.
Didn't sound like financial collapse then why now ?
