I'm astonished that you would come to this conclusion after reading these recent articles.
His conclusion is that there are more people in this thread that want a team in Winnipeg then in Phoenix and he is going to try and stir the pot as much as possible. GTF could care less about the Coyotes staying in Phoenix, he cares about getting under posters skin.
random, kinda, sorta, not really related question... who own the trademark to the winnipeg jets "brand"... Meaning primarily the logo, name and associated images?
Owns! Owns!
__________________ "It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the fight in the dog!" ~ V.Lombardi
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Underdog For This Useful Post:
Except Hartford I believe. The NHL may have acquired them now though.
Yup. Pretty sure the league acquired the trademark a couple years ago. It was originally left in Hartford as part of the sale, and I would bet (no evidence, just a bet) that the trademark was given to the NHL on the condition that it only be used in conjunction with Hartford. In short, no Manitoba Whalers.
Going to AWA or US Airways, finding parking in that zoo of downtown around the arena can no way be more convenient then just rolling down the freeway an additional 10 minutes.
It's all relative.. now coming from Tempe would really suck.. the I-10 is awful
I know you've questioned my comments on the commute in the past - but the following experiment is true and tested (and comes with receipts if you like):
All travel began exactly from an undisclosed located in Scottsdale (approximately 100th at Shea for those who know the area) at 5:15pm sharp. I used the quickest method possible for both locations.
1) Wednesday January 26, 2011. Leave at 5:15. Arrive and park at the Jefferson Garage across the street. At the arena doors at 5:52. Suns lose, bummer.
2) Wednesday February 2, 2011. Leave at 5:15pm. Arrive and park at Westgate, short walk to arena. At the arena doors at 6:29. Coyotes get rocked.
I'm much more of a hockey fan than NBA fan, and I've watched the Suns many, many more times than the Yotes - simply because of the commute. Can you imagine trying to convince fans of other sports to pack up the family and header across the desert for an ice hackey match? The worst idea ever was building the arena in a farmer's field with the Field of Dreams mentality.
The Following User Says Thank You to JBR For This Useful Post:
Wow, okay, you need to start reading and understanding posts before replying. Seriously. If you want to PM me and ask me to clarify something, I'd be more than happy to accomodate you before you actually go ahead and make a post that makes you look like you're not paying attention to what you're replying to.
Since you didn't, let's go through my post.
"If I perceived something to have such a low value that I didn't even want to spend my own money on it, I probably wouldn't buy it in the first place."
What this means is that the price being asked for an item does not reasonably reflect my perception of the value of the item. If I don't see value for money, I'm not going to buy it. Also, I specified my own money. When you take a loan from the bank, you are still technically paying with your own money in the sense that you will be required to satisfy that debt to actually be the sole 'owner'.
So if I saw a house that I perceived to be overpriced based on its features, I wouldn't buy it. Someone else may see the features and benefits of that property, and deem it to be in line with the asking price. Same with a car.
So, perceived value. It's obvious that a financially-minded guy like Hulsizer sees an issue in putting the full purchase price into the team for various reasons (all of which have already been mentioned in this thread) and his perceived value of the team and where he would be required to operate it is not in line with the NHL's asking price. Of course, the NHL wants what the NHL wants, and Hulsizer is attempting to limit his risk exposure by having the CoG front a healthy portion of the funds to secure the team, which may (GWI) or may not (CoG) be illegal.
Interestingly, Matthew Hulsizer pays exactly SQUAT back to the CoG in return for their money. Glendale is estimating that their returns from the parking rights (that everybody involved claims the other guy owns) will be sufficient to cover these costs, but the validity of the study has been called into question many times with no answer from those who have been called upon to stand behind it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by valo403
Hulsizer is getting a lot of subsidy here, but he's still commiting big dollars long term. He's willign to put in the amount of his money/credit that he values the team at, the rest of it is about paying off all the mess that has developed over the years.
And now you suddenly understand that there is a difference in perceived value of the team and its location from Hulsizer's viewpoint versus what the league would need to make a sale. So are you purposely trolling me by pretending to not understand my posts? Because it's a bit tedious trying to make sure you and I are conversing on the same mental playing field here, on a level with the rest of the adults in the thread.
I know you've questioned my comments on the commute in the past - but the following experiment is true and tested (and comes with receipts if you like):
All travel began exactly from an undisclosed located in Scottsdale (approximately 100th at Shea for those who know the area) at 5:15pm sharp. I used the quickest method possible for both locations.
1) Wednesday January 26, 2011. Leave at 5:15. Arrive and park at the Jefferson Garage across the street. At the arena doors at 5:52. Suns lose, bummer.
2) Wednesday February 2, 2011. Leave at 5:15pm. Arrive and park at Westgate, short walk to arena. At the arena doors at 6:29. Coyotes get rocked.
I'm much more of a hockey fan than NBA fan, and I've watched the Suns many, many more times than the Yotes - simply because of the commute. Can you imagine trying to convince fans of other sports to pack up the family and header across the desert for an ice hackey match? The worst idea ever was building the arena in a farmer's field with the Field of Dreams mentality.
I concede your point.. after moving to N. Scottsdale.. but that's why winning will need to be so important moving forward. You have to capture fans so they don't care about the commute and increase the odds they are rewarded for their travel.
The Following User Says Thank You to Jordan! For This Useful Post:
Wow, okay, you need to start reading and understanding posts before replying. Seriously. If you want to PM me and ask me to clarify something, I'd be more than happy to accomodate you before you actually go ahead and make a post that makes you look like you're not paying attention to what you're replying to.
Since you didn't, let's go through my post.
"If I perceived something to have such a low value that I didn't even want to spend my own money on it, I probably wouldn't buy it in the first place."
What this means is that the price being asked for an item does not reasonably reflect my perception of the value of the item. If I don't see value for money, I'm not going to buy it. Also, I specified my own money. When you take a loan from the bank, you are still technically paying with your own money in the sense that you will be required to satisfy that debt to actually be the sole 'owner'.
So if I saw a house that I perceived to be overpriced based on its features, I wouldn't buy it. Someone else may see the features and benefits of that property, and deem it to be in line with the asking price. Same with a car.
So, perceived value. It's obvious that a financially-minded guy like Hulsizer sees an issue in putting the full purchase price into the team for various reasons (all of which have already been mentioned in this thread) and his perceived value of the team and where he would be required to operate it is not in line with the NHL's asking price. Of course, the NHL wants what the NHL wants, and Hulsizer is attempting to limit his risk exposure by having the CoG front a healthy portion of the funds to secure the team, which may (GWI) or may not (CoG) be illegal.
Interestingly, Matthew Hulsizer pays exactly SQUAT back to the CoG in return for their money. Glendale is estimating that their returns from the parking rights (that everybody involved claims the other guy owns) will be sufficient to cover these costs, but the validity of the study has been called into question many times with no answer from those who have been called upon to stand behind it.
And now you suddenly understand that there is a difference in perceived value of the team and its location from Hulsizer's viewpoint versus what the league would need to make a sale. So are you purposely trolling me by pretending to not understand my posts? Because it's a bit tedious trying to make sure you and I are conversing on the same mental playing field here, on a level with the rest of the adults in the thread.
No. You are not. That's the point. You are paying with someone else's money and your credit. Different purchasing structures are going to involve different valuations, it's part of the equation.
I concede your point.. after moving to N. Scottsdale.. but that's why winning will need to be so important moving forward. You have to capture fans so they don't care about the commute and increase the odds they are rewarded for their travel.
but winning, although important can not be guaranteed like location can. Once you are in a great location - it's likely to stay great for a long, long time. The same IS NOT true for winning.
It is not too late for Glendale to keep the Coyotes in town legally. The city should pursue more private investment in the deal by having the NHL reduce its upfront sales price for the team and spread any balance out over the 30 year arena lease term. It should also demand that the NHL promise not to relocate the Coyotes over the term of the lease. The city should reduce the management fee so that it does not reimburse the future owner of the Coyotes for operating expenses that only benefit the team. And if the future owner of the Coyotes really believes he can turn the bankrupt team around, Glendale should demand a 100% asset-backed guarantee of all revenues that have been promised to the city.
There are legal ways to keep the Coyotes in town and protect taxpayers; Glendale should choose one.
The Following User Says Thank You to troutman For This Useful Post:
It is not too late for Glendale to keep the Coyotes in town legally. The city should pursue more private investment in the deal by having the NHL reduce its upfront sales price for the team and spread any balance out over the 30 year arena lease term. It should also demand that the NHL promise not to relocate the Coyotes over the term of the lease. The city should reduce the management fee so that it does not reimburse the future owner of the Coyotes for operating expenses that only benefit the team. And if the future owner of the Coyotes really believes he can turn the bankrupt team around, Glendale should demand a 100% asset-backed guarantee of all revenues that have been promised to the city.
There are legal ways to keep the Coyotes in town and protect taxpayers; Glendale should choose one.
Nice, and kind of surprising, to see that from GWI. It's the first thing I've seen where they seem to be showing a desire to do something beyond grandstand or stick hard to a certain position. This doesn't change their position, and I wouldn't expect them to, but at least it recognizes that there's a downside for taxpayers in Glendale if this team is just allowed to leave. I guess the question is whether or not any of these suggestions are actually marketable.
No. You are not. That's the point. You are paying with someone else's money and your credit. Different purchasing structures are going to involve different valuations, it's part of the equation.
There's a significant difference between "Here's a wad of cash, don't worry about it" and "Here's a wad of cash, you have to directly pay us back the sum you borrowed plus a healthy serving of interest."
Nice, and kind of surprising, to see that from GWI. It's the first thing I've seen where they seem to be showing a desire to do something beyond grandstand or stick hard to a certain position. This doesn't change their position, and I wouldn't expect them to, but at least it recognizes that there's a downside for taxpayers in Glendale if this team is just allowed to leave. I guess the question is whether or not any of these suggestions are actually marketable.
GWI prepared a list of proposed solutions on April 21st:
The council received an update on the Coyotes from city executives in a closed-door session Tuesday, which lasted about 15 minutes, City Councilwoman Joyce Clark said.
Clark said the update could be characterized as "optimistic" and said "I do think there's time left on the clock" for the city to work things out to keep the team. She declined to provide more details.
Councilman Phil Lieberman said there is a "possibility" the council could vote on changes to the agreement next week. The council agenda, which lists the upcoming items up for a council vote, is typically released to the public Friday afternoon.
The city would face at least one snag if it continues to pursue some amount of bond financing for the deal.
Moody's Investors Service has withdrawn its ratings on bonds that Glendale planned to sell for the Coyotes deal.
The credit ratings agency withdrew its ratings because too much time elapsed without the bonds selling, said spokesman Abbas Qasim.
There may or may not be a revised deal to sell the Phoenix Coyotes for councillors from the suburban city of Glendale to approve next Tuesday – one councillor says he expects one, while those close to prospective buyer Matthew Hulsizer say they are not aware of anything.
One thing for sure is that if, as sources indicated last week, a smaller municipal bond sale is still part of the new bid, then Glendale and the NHL will face another delay. Moody’s Investors Services withdrew its rating on the original bond offering of $116-million (all currency U.S.) when the sale stalled because the Goldwater Institute, a public watchdog group, vowed to go to court to block it. A new rating for the bonds must be issued before buyers will look at them. A Moody’s spokesman declined to say how long that would take.
