The Ongoing Coyotes Sale Thread

[moon]

Originally Posted by shootsscores

Your team survived to play for one more year. Maybe. Get over yourself. Congrats on keeping a team you (and 1000 other people) care about. Be gracious in victory.

You are single handedly making me not like the coyotes. Stop acting like a jets fan.

fyp

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

One thing that would really help this debate is a good hard look at what costs the Glendale taxpayers more:

Covering the outstanding debt on an empty arena with no tenant and few dates in use

vs.

The cost of the bond offering, but having a team there generating revenue

Figure out which number is lower, and you have an idea of what Glendale really should be doing. I doubt very much the answer to that question is something Bouw and Arrow would want to hear.

Not necessarily.

If you take all aspects of the Glendale/Hulsizer/NHL deal, money in, money out and look at it through the prism of the entire term, including the "put" option for the Arena . . . . . it basically comes down to whether or not you think certain revenue streams from parking will be adequate enough.

I guess you could add in calculations for the present value of money put up front by Glendale versus the final end "put" of the arena at the end of term plus end of term for the bonds and see how that might impact things.

Glendale has one consultant opinion saying those parking revenues would be adequate enough and a second opinion saying they wouldn't be. Fair enough.

Goldwater is trying to argue this agreement violates the gift tax by saying they KNOW that 30 years from now taxpayers would be underwater which, of course, is far from known and a fairly ridiculous assertion of certainty given the length of time we're talking about.

In fact, Glendale could actually come out ahead, since it can move many revenue streams higher through time . . . . or we know there's as much chance of that as there is they might lose given the long time frame.

Goldwater can no more "prove" the deal violates the gift tax than Glendale could "prove" it wouldn't.

There's a pretty big certainty taxpayers are going to get pretty hosed if the team leaves, however.

The uncertainty of ownership creates operating losses all by themselves. Sponsors are reluctant to align themselves with a team that might move and season ticket holders would be wisely reluctant to commit emotionally and financially to such a situation.

Common sense but also tells you losses for the last few years may not reflect any reality if a more permanent solution were to be found in that market with a competent owner.

If the $25 million subsidy is indeed a 10 year committment then it almost looks like an attempt to smoke Goldwater out and force them to commit to a course of litigation, so the argument can be settled and the threat removed.

You should be pretty curious as to why Goldwater is up in arms about the lease but doesn't say a lot about the $25 million per year.

One other thing is sure here . . . . . the NHL does not want to return to Winnipeg.

Certain fans might hope that happens but if it ever does - and its pretty unlikely - it would be pretty much the last option the NHL had left.

Cowperson

[Daradon]

^^^

Agreed, GWI isn't a saviour of public means. I think they are pretty dirty too. Definitely up to campaigning.

But it doesn't change the aspects of the deal and the letter of the state law.

The deal is a bad business deal period. Bad for Glendale, and although the don't think so, bad for the NHL ultimately.

You don't have to be good at math to see it. As an owner they are getting paid to assume control in the hopes it will work out for the city and the league, when 15 years suggests it wont.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Daradon

When you win the first 2 years of the deal, but lose the next 8, it's a bad deal. That's how it's being looked at.

As we know, from hockey cap, paying up front doesn't always work. And the reverse is true here. It has to work both ways. Money and market share is assumed to grow.

And to that point, the Canadian contracts will be up for negotiation and renewal too. Not only will the easy money up here probably exceed that in a year or two, but its a bargain for anyone who wants to sign up south of the border later.

It's a deal. But that's all it is. It's better than nothing. It's hardly a feather in the cap or anything that can be argued upon for success or popularity of franchises like Phoenix.

How in the world are you coming to such a conclusion as this one?

No idea what the Canadian deals have to do with this and I simply dont understand why it has anything to do with what you are trying to discuss. They are totally seperate things. Not comparable other than combining them all to show how much revenue is created from all TV sources.

And again...since you seem to have a grasp on this, what would a fair deal have been for both sides?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Daradon

So you quote one person, vs 5 outlets of mine? And question their cred?

Weird. Not saying mine are big winners. But I've got 2 writers and three orgs vs your one writer.

I'll take one writer citing experts in media rights deals over 100 writers throwing out their uneducated opinions.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by transplant99

How in the world are you coming to such a conclusion as this one?

No idea what the Canadian deals have to do with this and I simply dont understand why it has anything to do with what you are trying to discuss. They are totally seperate things. Not comparable other than combining them all to show how much revenue is created from all TV sources.

And again...since you seem to have a grasp on this, what would a fair deal have been for both sides?

I have no idea. Like I said before, it's a deal, and therefore good enough.

A TV deal in the states, at any price, is good.

But it's hardly proof that things are succeeding or going in the right direction. If I go by the numbers given to me the reply, it only exceeds the Canadian deals by 1/8th and is locked in for 10 years.

As Canada is 1/9th the pop of the US, that's hardly a groundbreaker. There is a lot of missing equity there. So basically, a group with 1/9th the pop, is a mere 0.125 behind this GREAT BIG DEAL in terms of money. And will equal or better it very soon.

So yeah. It's good for the states. And its a move in the right direction. I have already stated both. But to use it as an argument, as Bouw and others did, as the obvious upcoming success of Phoenix and other franchises is pure silliness.

What would be better? Increasing terms for one, or double the price for two. Could they get it? I have no idea. Maybe not. But not lets make this deal out to be something it's not. It's the biggest single network deal yes. But only because your comparing a network of 333 mil, to 33 mil. And the real funny thing is, the combined 33 mil, is nearly there anyway, and will break it in a year or two.

It's like saying my dog pooped MORE in this one park, when you take him there 27 TIMES more!|

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Not necessarily.

If you take all aspects of the Glendale/Hulsizer/NHL deal, money in, money out and look at it through the prism of the entire term, including the "put" option for the Arena . . . . . it basically comes down to whether or not you think certain revenue streams from parking will be adequate enough.

I guess you could add in calculations for the present value of money put up front by Glendale versus the final end "put" of the arena at the end of term plus end of term for the bonds and see how that might impact things.

Glendale has one consultant opinion saying those parking revenues would be adequate enough and a second opinion saying they wouldn't be. Fair enough.

Goldwater is trying to argue this agreement violates the gift tax by saying they KNOW that 30 years from now taxpayers would be underwater which, of course, is far from known and a fairly ridiculous assertion of certainty given the length of time we're talking about.

In fact, Glendale could actually come out ahead, since it can move many revenue streams higher through time . . . . or we know there's as much chance of that as there is they might lose given the long time frame.

Goldwater can no more "prove" the deal violates the gift tax than Glendale could "prove" it wouldn't.

There's a pretty big certainty taxpayers are going to get pretty hosed if the team leaves, however.

The uncertainty of ownership creates operating losses all by themselves. Sponsors are reluctant to align themselves with a team that might move and season ticket holders would be wisely reluctant to commit emotionally and financially to such a situation.

Common sense but also tells you losses for the last few years may not reflect any reality if a more permanent solution were to be found in that market with a competent owner.

If the $25 million subsidy is indeed a 10 year committment then it almost looks like an attempt to smoke Goldwater out and force them to commit to a course of litigation, so the argument can be settled and the threat removed.

You should be pretty curious as to why Goldwater is up in arms about the lease but doesn't say a lot about the $25 million per year.

One other thing is sure here . . . . . the NHL does not want to return to Winnipeg.

Certain fans might hope that happens but if it ever does - and its pretty unlikely - it would be pretty much the last option the NHL had left.

Cowperson

The GI isn't just argueing the parking revenue, they hold that the city already owns the parking, therefore can't buy it from itself, they also argue the untendered 'arena management' fee of 100 million over 5 years is bogus and also a subsidy. Personally I tend to agree with the GI, the deal stinks to high heaven.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by valo403

I'll take one writer citing experts in media rights deals over 100 writers throwing out their uneducated opinions.

Uneducated. Yes. All proverbial 100 of them.

And your sure your one writer has no bias?

What is your final statement on the issue? Hockey will succeed in Phoenix? Hockey will stay in Phoenix for __ years? Hockey will never go back to Winnipeg or other Canadian cities? Hockey will eventually make more money in unproven US markets?

Let us know.

[kyuss275]

Not surprised by last nights voting. The city of Glendale was screwed either way. Might as well try and throw another hail-mary pass to find a buyer.

Now as for the hockey team, i can not see them making the playoffs next year. Bryzgalov probably will not re-sign and he was their best player in the regular season. Can't see them getting a better goalie than him. That alone will cost them 5 games and put them out of the playoffs. I also believe that this is Doan's last year of his contract. If they do not find a buyer by the deadline, there is a good chance he will be gone.

[transplant99]

As Canada is 1/9th the pop of the US, that's hardly a groundbreaker. There is a lot of missing equity there. So basically, a group with 1/9th the pop, is a mere 0.125 behind this GREAT BIG DEAL in terms of money. And will equal or better it very soon.

Well if that is your argument...you win. Its not that simple though and I think anyone with a grasp of the debate would admit that.

However, and I will never ever understand this, is why we compare the total populations in this debate.

The demographics of the two countries are so different when looked at in an overall context.

In Canada, you grow up with the game from the minute you are born. You can go outside in winter time and skate on local outdoor rinks in about 95% of the country. You are bombarded by the game and there are fewer (in comparison) options for the elite athletes to consider. Also, hockey is, by far, the most expensive sport to get invloved in.

Now look at the US, particularly below the upper part of the country. they grow up playing basketball, football, baseball etc. The majority of the country cannot go outside on a winters day and find a rink or pond to skate on. They can find open areas to play any of the other sports however. Grab a pair of sneakers and you can go play any of them at most times of the year. Inner city youth, rural youth...all have the same opportunity.

So now that leads to what people will watch on TV. The game(s) they grew up playing or the game they never had an opportunity to. It's plainly obvious which way that question will be answered.

That doesn't mean, though, that hockey cannot succeed to various levels in places it is not native to. This has been proven repeatedly. But if you want to keep comparing it to Canada...well there really is no way it could ever be claimed as being successful other than a few markets.

Growing the game takes time...lots of it. Yes there will be successes and failures along the way, much like life itself. The NFL which is the model of success when it comes to growing their sport IMO, has had over 50 franchises fold since they started playing professionaly I remember reading. MLB was over 15.

So when you put things in context as far as the most recent TV deal the NHL signed to show games in the US....it is a massive coup for them. They have never approched such numbers, that much is a fact. Whether or not it is a good deal over the entire 10 year term, only time will tell. For now though? Cannot be spun as anything but a win for the owners and the players alike.

[Daradon]

^^^ Like I said, as a TV deal, it's a deal, and as proportionately small it is, I like it.

Where this argument divided, and it was before you jumped in, was that others were pointing to the deal as a major win for small southern or troubled franchises in the states.

It's simply not. They money doesn't equal, the share of viewers doesn't equal, and if we have to wait 50 years, it won't matter.

This is not the growing of television and sport. This is the digital age where providers are battling for content, which is why people are questioning the deal. We don't have 40 years to let the sport or the media grow. We've got maybe three before the next big thing comes.

It's a new paradigm, and while it's a positive step, it's like moving an inch closer from drowning in the pool.

This does not help Phoenix or Atlanta at all, and is only moderately interesting for the NHL in general.

[Daradon]

Digitally, NASCAR is worth more than the NHL by far.

People would rather watch people go around in circle to the right than hockey. By a wide WIDE margin.

When the NHL can start to pull at those numbers... not beat, not equal, but just pull at them, I will say it`s a good digital deal.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Uneducated. Yes. All proverbial 100 of them.

And your sure your one writer has no bias?

What is your final statement on the issue? Hockey will succeed in Phoenix? Hockey will stay in Phoenix for __ years? Hockey will never go back to Winnipeg or other Canadian cities? Hockey will eventually make more money in unproven US markets?

Let us know.

My one writer? I'm citing experts in the field, not opinion pieces from columnists. Do you understand the difference?

And what the hell does your second question have to do with any of this? Those are completely unrelated things. For the record my 'final statement' is that the NHL will stay in Phoenix as long as the losses are acceptable, but I have no idea what the threshold is.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by valo403

My one writer? I'm citing experts in the field, not opinion pieces from columnists. Do you understand the difference?

And what the hell does your second question have to do with any of this? Those are completely unrelated things. For the record my 'final statement' is that the NHL will stay in Phoenix as long as the losses are acceptable, but I have no idea what the threshold is.

You quoted one article and writer. You may have quoted many before, but that was pages before you and I started talking.

I was just interested in your stand. Often in discussions like this, and I am guilty of it as well, people get so wrapped up in nitpicking, the forget the larger issue. They get so mad at point or slights, the forget what they are even arguing.

Or worse, they just jumped in to smoke a point.

I believe Winnipeg will have a team this summer or next, and it will come from Atlanta or Phoenix. That is interesting, but it concerns me less than the state of the league and the decision making of the leaders. To me this whole fiasco proves that those in charge don't know where the money is coming from and are willing to take big risks to prove themselves right. To knock it out of the park as I stated. Which has not happened since they started, and will probably not happen in the near future. I hope to god the NBC is the first domino, but it looks like, and history teaches us, it's just the days catch.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Daradon

You quoted one article and writer. You may have quoted many before, but that was pages before you and I started talking.

Dude, I quoted one article that stated the opinions of experts, not paraphrases or references, the exact quotes from industry experts as to the strength of the deal. If you want to talk bias I guess you're arguing that the media industry is biased in favor of the NHL?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Digitally, NASCAR is worth more than the NHL by far.

People would rather watch people go around in circle to the right than hockey. By a wide WIDE margin.

When the NHL can start to pull at those numbers... not beat, not equal, but just pull at them, I will say it`s a good digital deal.

Simple question: Why is NASCAR relevant in this debate?

The NHL is a different sport with a different level of support that targets a different demographic. What one does is not relevant or comparable to what the other does. The only thing that really matters to the NHL is whether it is growing its own business.

It's like criticizing Burger King because of what Microsoft is doing.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Simple question: Why is NASCAR relevant in this debate?

The NHL is a different sport with a different level of support that targets a different demographic. What one does is not relevant or comparable to what the other does. The only thing that really matters to the NHL is whether it is growing its own business.

It's like criticizing Burger King because of what Microsoft is doing.

No, its like criticizing Burger King because of what Subway are doing.

Well actually it would be the other way round as Subway have a history of handing out to many franchises in lousy areas that fail.

[troutman]

Reinsdorf again in Phoenix Coyotes picture
http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/m...x-coyotes.html

Heeeere's Jerry!

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

Congratulations to Phoenix Coyotes and the Phoenix Coyotes family.

Until the GWI files their lawsuit, the deal is clearly seen as illegal, and the city of Glendale won't be able to pay the $25M owed in this agreement. This is far from over. Go GWI!

[valo403]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Until the GWI files their lawsuit, the deal is clearly seen as illegal, and the city of Glendale won't be able to pay the $25M owed in this agreement. This is far from over. Go GWI!

Seen as illegal by whom? GWI of course, and who else? Any courts? Nope. Any outside counsel? Not that I'm aware of.

Until GWI actually steps forward and files suit I will continue to see them as a loud political action committee and nothing else. They're effective, I'll give them that, but I'm not about to start taking their opinion on legal matters seriously when they don't ever take the step of actually filing.