General Ongoing Coyotes saga thread

[Resolute 14]

I think there are a lot of reasons why Phoenix is unlikely to be profitable any time soon, if ever. But if those with money want to try, more power to them.

However, the team's current attendance woes are completely a function of the Balsillie/Moyes bankruptcy scam and the long-term fall out:

2006-07: 14,988
2007-08: 14,820
2008-09: 14,875
---Bankruptcy ploy---
2009-10: 11,989
2010-11: 12,188
2011-12: 12,420

Balsille and Moyes critically damaged the market with their antics. The question is whether that damage is permanent, or if it can recover. But the plain reality is, no recovery is possible without stable ownership.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I think there are a lot of reasons why Phoenix is unlikely to be profitable any time soon, if ever. But if those with money want to try, more power to them.

However, the team's current attendance woes are completely a function of the Balsillie/Moyes bankruptcy scam and the long-term fall out:

2006-07: 14,988
2007-08: 14,820
2008-09: 14,875
---Bankruptcy ploy---
2009-10: 11,989
2010-11: 12,188
2011-12: 12,420

Balsille and Moyes critically damaged the market with their antics. The question is whether that damage is permanent, or if it can recover. But the plain reality is, no recovery is possible without stable ownership.

If they were selling out they'd still be losing 22 million a year.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I think there are a lot of reasons why Phoenix is unlikely to be profitable any time soon, if ever. But if those with money want to try, more power to them.

However, the team's current attendance woes are completely a function of the Balsillie/Moyes bankruptcy scam and the long-term fall out:

2006-07: 14,988
2007-08: 14,820
2008-09: 14,875
---Bankruptcy ploy---
2009-10: 11,989
2010-11: 12,188
2011-12: 12,420

Balsille and Moyes critically damaged the market with their antics. The question is whether that damage is permanent, or if it can recover. But the plain reality is, no recovery is possible without stable ownership.

That and a crippling recession that hit at the same point.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by valo403

Would it? Seems like you, and a good number of other people, are quite convinced that a team in phoenix will never work.

Well when you only get 9000 a game following an appearance in the WC finals it certainly lends credence to the fact cannot work in Glendale.

If Phoenix sold out the season tickets - and buy selling out, I mean put down your deposit - I think Jamison might have gotten some financial backers.

There was a point in time the stamps were going to fold, and the fans rallied to save them.... No reason to think that Phoenix fans couldn't do the same... Except there isn't enought fans willing to ante up at the gates. And the NHL is a gate driven business

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I think there are a lot of reasons why Phoenix is unlikely to be profitable any time soon, if ever. But if those with money want to try, more power to them.

However, the team's current attendance woes are completely a function of the Balsillie/Moyes bankruptcy scam and the long-term fall out:

2006-07: 14,988
2007-08: 14,820
2008-09: 14,875
---Bankruptcy ploy---
2009-10: 11,989
2010-11: 12,188
2011-12: 12,420

Balsille and Moyes critically damaged the market with their antics. The question is whether that damage is permanent, or if it can recover. But the plain reality is, no recovery is possible without stable ownership.

It wasn't like their good years were anything great, they've lost money every year they've been in Phoenix. Even with a better attendance, their ticket prices haven't been in line with making a profit.

The bankruptcy wasn't a scam, they were bankrupt as shown by the court. As it happens, the bankruptcy has turned out well for the NHL as now the team can be moved. As it stood the only way for the NHL to rid itself of the problem would have been contracting the franchise.

[Resolute 14]

We're not really disagreeing on that point, Vulcan. Though yes, I do consider the bankruptcy ploy a scam. It was initiated to try and move the team to Hamilton against the NHL's will, not because Moyes could no longer float the team.

The side benefit, however, is that Glendale has gone from threatening to sue everyone if the team left to not caring if the team left. That does give the league and future new owners more options.

Originally Posted by nik-

If they were selling out they'd still be losing 22 million a year.

You can't actually say that. If they sold out at current prices, yes. But if they were selling out, then the higher demand would lead to higher ticket prices.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

We're not really disagreeing on that point, Vulcan. Though yes, I do consider the bankruptcy ploy a scam. It was initiated to try and move the team to Hamilton against the NHL's will, not because Moyes could no longer float the team.

The side benefit, however, is that Glendale has gone from threatening to sue everyone if the team left to not caring if the team left. That does give the league and future new owners more options.



You can't actually say that. If they sold out at current prices, yes. But if they were selling out, then the higher demand would lead to higher ticket prices.

Or higher prices would reduce demand. The market is soft, it's always going to lose money, 10,15,20 ... 30? It's all pretty bad.

[Cheese]

[valo403]

Originally Posted by nik-

Or higher prices would reduce demand. The market is soft, it's always going to lose money, 10,15,20 ... 30? It's all pretty bad.

Which is why you find equilibrium. Assuming that a team that is selling out could only do so at current prices is foolish, and extrapolating that to say revenues wouldn't go up also neglects to account for a number of other revenue streams that would be impacted by those increased numbers.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by valo403

Which is why you find equilibrium. Assuming that a team that is selling out could only do so at current prices is foolish, and extrapolating that to say revenues wouldn't go up also neglects to account for a number of other revenue streams that would be impacted by those increased numbers.

Okay, so you're arguing that a team with some of the lowest ticket prices in the league, that can't sell out it's business could possibly be profitable if they could sell out their areana at a higher ticket price.

There really is no need to extrapolate anything, the hard data says that team cannot be profitable.

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Okay, so you're arguing that a team with some of the lowest ticket prices in the league, that can't sell out it's business could possibly be profitable if they could sell out their areana at a higher ticket price.

There really is no need to extrapolate anything, the hard data says that team cannot be profitable.

The Flames and Oilers used to have the two lowest average ticket prices in the NHL by a wide margin and didn't sell out. We're talking 8 or 9 years ago.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Okay, so you're arguing that a team with some of the lowest ticket prices in the league, that can't sell out it's business could possibly be profitable if they could sell out their areana at a higher ticket price.

There really is no need to extrapolate anything, the hard data says that team cannot be profitable.

Huh? The argument is based on a hypothetical, so I'm not sure what you're taking issue with.

If the arena is sold out at price x it's reasonable to assume that demand has increased, and therefor reasonable to assume that it would be possible to increase prices by a small margin without impacting ticket sales, unless of course the demand at price x is exactly equal to capacity. Increased demand for tickets would also signal an increased demand in a number of other revenue generating areas, from parking to concessions and possibly local TV deals.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

It wasn't like their good years were anything great, they've lost money every year they've been in Phoenix. Even with a better attendance, their ticket prices haven't been in line with making a profit.

The bankruptcy wasn't a scam, they were bankrupt as shown by the court. As it happens, the bankruptcy has turned out well for the NHL as now the team can be moved. As it stood the only way for the NHL to rid itself of the problem would have been contracting the franchise.

yet they are virtually identical to the attendance figures in Winnipeg....last year.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I think there are a lot of reasons why Phoenix is unlikely to be profitable any time soon, if ever. But if those with money want to try, more power to them.

However, the team's current attendance woes are completely a function of the Balsillie/Moyes bankruptcy scam and the long-term fall out:

2006-07: 14,988
2007-08: 14,820
2008-09: 14,875
---Bankruptcy ploy---
2009-10: 11,989
2010-11: 12,188
2011-12: 12,420

Balsille and Moyes critically damaged the market with their antics. The question is whether that damage is permanent, or if it can recover. But the plain reality is, no recovery is possible without stable ownership.

When have 11K fans ever actually been in attendance at a Coyotes game, let alone 14K.

Something seems off.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by transplant99

yet they are virtually identical to the attendance figures in Winnipeg....last year.

Winnipeg had the second highest ticket prices and beer prices in the league last year. The Coyotes have some of the lowest.

Would you people arguing to keep the Coyotes in Phoenix really put your own money into buying the Coyotes or are you arguing for the sake of arguing?

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

When have 11K fans ever actually been in attendance at a Coyotes game, let alone 14K.

Something seems off.

Yes, there is some serious fudging of numbers there.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Sidney Crosby's Hat

The Flames and Oilers used to have the two lowest average ticket prices in the NHL by a wide margin and didn't sell out. We're talking 8 or 9 years ago.

The Flames and Oilers had been profitable in the past and the ticket prices were low because the Canadian dollar was low. When push came to shove the fans in Calgary and Edmonton responded to the ticket drives and bought tickets. In Phoenix they didn't and haven't.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Winnipeg had the second highest ticket prices and beer prices in the league last year. The Coyotes have some of the lowest.

Would you people arguing to keep the Coyotes in Phoenix really put your own money into buying the Coyotes or are you arguing for the sake of arguing?

I understand Winnipeg charges more....but that has nothing to do with what i was saying in regards to attendance.

Would I put my money in Phoenix? Not a chance. Doesn't mean that there aren't others that will though....and in the end, who cares? Its not your money, its not my money and if someone wants to pay to have an NHL team in Arizona...let em. Doesn't impact my life or enjoyment of the game one iota.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Yes, there is some serious fudging of numbers there.

One would think that's the case.....but it makes no sense to do so when you factor in HRR and having to split it with players. Why would the NHL want to share 50% of money they claim to have collected...if they didnt? Thats the one question i cant wrap my head around and come up with any sort of plausible answer.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by transplant99

One would think that's the case.....but it makes no sense to do so when you factor in HRR and having to split it with players. Why would the NHL want to share 50% of money they claim to have collected...if they didnt? Thats the one question i cant wrap my head around and come up with any sort of plausible answer.

Hmm, maybe the seats were sold to businesses who try and give them away to customers? Not sure, all I know is there was no way in hell there were that many people actually in attendance.