General Ongoing Coyotes saga thread

[Badgers Nose]

Bettman is a good lawyer.

But he is an even better sales person. How did he fleece so many people to sink money into an ice hockey team in the desert? The city, former owners, etc.

[$ven27]

Originally Posted by Sidney Crosby's Hat

99% next 5 years.

For next season, 100%.

6 years or further, 1%.

why?

[Jordan!]

Originally Posted by Badgers Nose

Bettman is a good lawyer.

But he is an even better sales person. How did he fleece so many people to sink money into an ice hockey team in the desert? The city, former owners, etc.

It's an attractive place to be.. why do you think so many Canadians end up here?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by $ven27

why?

Because SCH believes it is already too late to move the team for the upcoming season, because he thinks the city will cave and agree to the deal, and because he thinks the team will never do anything but lose tons of money, therefore the owner will exercise his out clause and terminate the lease after five years.

And Jay - I'm not necessarily arguing that your position is wrong. I am saying there is an argument to be made that from an arena management standpoint, losing the Coyotes could be the worst case scenario for the city. If it is, I doubt the alternatives are much better.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Badgers Nose

Bettman is a good lawyer.

But he is an even better sales person. How did he fleece so many people to sink money into an ice hockey team in the desert? The city, former owners, etc.

Steve Ellman did most of the actual fleecing.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Bouw N Arrow

It's an attractive place to be.. why do you think so many Canadians end up here?

"A half million Canadians live here, and now I know why they left Canada. They hate hockey." ~Jack Kent Cooke

[kyuss275]

Originally Posted by Bouw N Arrow

50/50

Really thats it?

My friend was just down there for 2 weeks of sun and golf. He tried to talk hockey with anybody that would listen. He said even the people that don't want the Coyotes to remain think its a slam dunk that they are there for the next 5 years. Something about 4 council members that will never change their vote from yes. I have not followed this as much as i did when it first started way back when.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Jay - I'm not necessarily arguing that your position is wrong. I am saying there is an argument to be made that from an arena management standpoint, losing the Coyotes could be the worst case scenario for the city. If it is, I doubt the alternatives are much better.

Fair enough.

The bottom line, as I see it, is that the City of Glendale approved (and partly paid for) the whole Westgate City Center project based on not much more than 'If you build it, they will come.' That must have seemed like a good idea ten years ago, but ever since the 2008 crash, 'they' have not been coming, and they haven't been doing any more building either. They have built themselves a gigantic white elephant. One day that whole development may pay off, but in the meanwhile, Glendale is bound to go through a world of hurt.

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

Originally Posted by kyuss275

Really thats it?

My friend was just down there for 2 weeks of sun and golf. He tried to talk hockey with anybody that would listen. He said even the people that don't want the Coyotes to remain think its a slam dunk that they are there for the next 5 years. Something about 4 council members that will never change their vote from yes. I have not followed this as much as i did when it first started way back when.

It is a new council so it wouldn't be a slam dunk but it is, because of the NHL's $25 million "poison pill" (team leaves and you have to pay us right away).

Also, the fact that the NHL is bluffing and they have nowhere to move them right now.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Again, what matters is not the gross for those 41 dates, but the net. By bringing in those 41 dates, you also bring in a group of players who absolutely must be paid $44 million in salaries. If those 41 dates cause you to lose money because of the added expenses, you're better off without them.



Frankly, when the team is losing $20 million a year, I have to be highly suspicious of any economic study that comes to such a conclusion.

Gah, Glendale would not be paying those salaries. Why do you keep working off some model of city ownership?

As for the study, it's about the impact to Glendale of the team leaving, not to team ownership.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Which is, let's face it, a minuscule percentage of the money those people are spending in Glendale. The city sales tax is 2.9% (after a big 'temporary' hike last year). Even if you add in the extra property and business taxes collected from the arena district, it seems hugely unlikely that there would be enough to pay for the city's subsidy to the arena and the team.

Note that the city would still collect property and business taxes from the arena district, no matter what happened with the hockey team. You can only include the difference in the amount collected.

Remember, the city is now collecting those extra taxes, and still in such dire straits that it has to talk about mortgaging City Hall. Keeping the Coyotes will, at most, keep them in the terrible financial mess they're in now, with no escape for the foreseeable future. What they really need is to be off the hook for the team's operating losses — which means they have to find a real owner willing to pay his own bills, or else let the team move. Fish or cut bait.

I have nothing against Phoenix or Glendale or the Coyotes' fans, but after the length of time this has dragged on, it's beginning to look like time to cut bait.

A study commissioned to look into this, and not just speculate from afar, found otherwise.

[troutman]

Paul Giblin ‏@PaulGiblinAriz
Wow. Martinez said he can vote for the counter offer, but not the prospective owners' draft. I'll get clarification after the meeting.

@PaulGiblinAriz: What proposal will be voted on Tuesday? The prospective owners' latest draft or the city's latest counter offer? #Coyotes

@PaulGiblinAriz: #Glendale Councilman Hugh says other bidders offered $6 million with projections to cut the fee in half. Other company promised 100 events.

@PaulGiblinAriz: #Glendale city attorney says team and city traded contract proposals this morning. #Coyotes

[troutman]

RSE Proposal and GF Impacts - COG

http://www.glendaleaz.com/clerk/agen...ndArenaMgt.pdf

[Resolute 14]

100 events is wildly optimistic without an anchor tenant in a market with multiple arenas competing for said events.

[troutman]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozan...wn-arena-deal/

Leaked NHLPA memo:

The memo continues: “If RSE does not secure the financing, or if the City Council does not vote to approve the proposed lease, our understanding is that the League would immediately pursue one of several back-up alternatives which likely would entail a prompt relocation of the franchise. While there are several potential cities to which the team might be relocated, it appears that Seattle is the most likely.”

[troutman]

@cmorganfoxaz: COG will post notice of July 2 vote tonight even though RSE will not agree to the proposal they're posting. You can't make this stuff up...

@cmorganfoxaz: @Chris_MHJ Maybe. Jerry Weiers called July 2 an artificial deadline in post-meeting quotes. My belief: It's unwise to call Bettman's bluff.

@cmorganfoxaz: Renaissance spokesperson David Leibowitz: "The city’s proposal for an out clause is a non-starter.”

@cmorganfoxaz: The council will not vote on the prior agreement. On that, they are unified 100 percent. All 7 of them.

[troutman]

Mayor Jerry Weiers on the city's counter proposal: “What we worked on this morning extensively and what we’re proposing to them is some red lines that they took out that we put back in; some things that they put in that we took back out. (We’re) trying to make certain that the city is left as whole as possible because right now the city is carrying all the burdens; has all the liabilities and that’s not a good place for the city to be.”

http://tl.gd/n_1rl322r

[troutman]

COGs counter-proposal:

http://www.glendaleaz.com/documents/...ment062813.pdf

[Vulcan]

I think the COG will agree to do the deal.

In the deal, Glendale would pay RSE, the prospective Phoenix Coyotes ownership group headed by George Gosbee and Anthony LeBlanc, $15 million a year over 15 years to manage Jobing.com Arena, while the proposed owners would reimburse the city $6.7 million through surcharges on tickets and parking, naming rights and other sources. Glendale already has $6 million budgeted to manage the arena.

Without the Coyotes the City will be paying in the range of $6M to have someone operate the arena. With the Coyotes it will cost them $8.3M, so a difference of $2.3M. I don't see the deal falling through for that amount which may even out in the lost taxes for other business in the area. The NHL has the COG over the barrel but I think right now they are bargaining for the best deal they can get with a bit of brinkmanship.

http://www.foxsportsarizona.com/nhl/...lockID=915721&

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by valo403

Gah, Glendale would not be paying those salaries. Why do you keep working off some model of city ownership?

I don't. The fact is, the city will be paying a direct subsidy to the team's owners every year, and from my understanding, if the team loses money, the subsidy will be increased to help cover their losses. The fact that the subsidy is being labelled an arena management fee doesn't change what it is.

It is my contention that it would be cheaper to operate the arena without an anchor tenant than to keep paying a subsidy to cover the NHL team's losses.

As for the study, it's about the impact to Glendale of the team leaving, not to team ownership.

I've seen studies like that before. They usually add up all the money that is spent on the team, plus some multiplier for the money being re-spent locally, and then pretend that none of that money would have been spent at all if the team were not in town. Studies of that kind are not worth the paper they're printed on.

What matters, or should matter, to the City of Glendale is the measurable effect on its own finances. If the city spends $50 million in cash to generate $100 million in economic activity, that may sound like a good deal; but if the city only recoups $5 million in taxes on that activity, then it stinks. The other $45 million has to be recovered by increasing taxes on those who do not benefit from the new activity.

Those specific numbers are not the ones in play in Glendale; I offer them as an example to make the principle clear.