The Ongoing Coyotes Sale Thread

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by valo403

I really don't see contraction happening, the reprecussions of that could be huge. It's just something that doesn't happen in modern day professional sports in North America, and taking that step would certainly be a massive blow to a number of revenue streams such as television contracts. A league that's contracting teams is not a league that you're going to see broadcasters and advertisers looking to work worth, the red flags are just too scary to risk it.

I'd expect that if it came right down to it the league would either operate the team in Atlanta as they did in Phoenix, or they'd make the move to KC and waive any issues with AEG having interests in two markets.

yes .... Atlanta and Phoenix is driving the massive television contracts if they actually existed. They have just so much potential.

The good TV contracts in Canada, NY, Boston and Philly are 100% focussed on their local markets... This actually improves without Atlanta and Phoenix being broadcast 4 times a year.

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by troutman

There are signs the NHL is looking at Winnipeg. A report by CBC.ca said the league commissioned studies of the Winnipeg market that estimated a team in the MTS Centre, which seats 15,015 people, would bring in around $70-million in a season, which is about double what the Coyotes earn at Jobing.com Arena. However, the report said this would be the lowest revenue of the six current Canadian teams.

Elliot Friedman this morning on the Fan mentioned that this would place them somewhere around Nashville/Columbus in terms of revenue. I assume this would mean Winnipeg could be kind of a break even team, sometimes losses depending on the season. Certainly not the dire straits Phoenix and Atlanta regularly face.

[transplant99]

The owners in Winnipeg are not fools and are making a profit without the NHL.

Good for them. Making money in that arena with an NHL team is a whole different ball of wx though. Not sure what you are trying to imply with that.

The purchase price of Phoenix has to be dropping every day as Atlanta and other owners start to look at getting some money back on their investment by selling their team to Winnipeg.

Except the purchase price in Phoenix just went UP a couple days ago.

Team officials also point to positive signs in ticket sales. But as it stands, the losses have pushed up Hulsizer's purchase price to $210 million. The National Hockey League, owner of the orphan team, intends to lose no money on the team sale.
The NHL tacked on team and arena losses to the $140 million purchase price, which is what the league paid to take the team out of bankruptcy in late 2009. The team lost about $30 million last season

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepu...#ixzz1G1tPtELj

The NHL BOG has to be looking at minimizing their loses and keep 30 franchises even if one sell for a below "Bettman market price". A contraction would knock a considerable amount off the value of their asset. Depending on how it is being financed they may have to actually put in more cash to secure their current loans if their equity drops.

Possibly...or they could just remain where they are until they get things figured out.

Winnipeg is in a buyers market right now.

That doesn't mean that the NHL is going aquiesce to just any sale though.

I really don't see contraction happening, the reprecussions of that could be huge. It's just something that doesn't happen in modern day professional sports in North America, and taking that step would certainly be a massive blow to a number of revenue streams such as television contracts. A league that's contracting teams is not a league that you're going to see broadcasters and advertisers looking to work worth, the red flags are just too scary to risk it.

I'd expect that if it came right down to it the league would either operate the team in Atlanta as they did in Phoenix, or they'd make the move to KC and waive any issues with AEG having interests in two markets.

I agree that contraction is a last resort, but not because of TV deals or anything like that.

I also think that your last paragraph is the most likely though IIRC the NHL would have to change their own charter to make it happen, and Phoenix would have to be staying where they are.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

yes .... Atlanta and Phoenix is driving the massive television contracts if they actually existed. They have just so much potential.

The good TV contracts in Canada, NY, Boston and Philly are 100% focussed on their local markets... This actually improves without Atlanta and Phoenix being broadcast 4 times a year.

There is a national contract coming up for negotiation this year in the US. ESPN wants back in just as an example.

It will dwarf what has been in place the last 6 years...and it would only help that both those cities have teams in the league regardless of current viewership.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Well I took a look at the MTS center website, seeing as it looks increasingly likely to be where they will be playing, I suppose they could be looking at doing a BC Place and take the roof off to go up an extra 50 feet.

No, they really cant. To add seats, you have to go both up and out, and the arena location does not allow for outward expansion. More over, the revenue generated likely would not justify the expense. Raising a roof is not remotely cheap.

Doubly so given you would have to completely close the building for at least a year, maybe longer. That means no NHL team in the near future, but also no AHL team, no concerts, no events and no revenue.

It has been speculated that they could squeeze a few more luxury suites into existing space, but capacity of MTS will never be significantly increased. For better or for worse, it is and will be a 15,000 seat arena.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

The owners in Winnipeg are not fools and are making a profit without the NHL.

The costs of operating an AHL franchise are only a fraction of those for operating an NHL franchise. As with the AHL attendance argument, AHL revenues and expenses have little to no correlation to NHL potential.

Additionally, there are plenty of smart men who made lots of money elsewhere that became less rich attempting to operate a sports team. So really, the "the owner isn't a fool" argument holds no water either.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

Elliot Friedman this morning on the Fan mentioned that this would place them somewhere around Nashville/Columbus in terms of revenue. I assume this would mean Winnipeg could be kind of a break even team, sometimes losses depending on the season. Certainly not the dire straits Phoenix and Atlanta regularly face.

If these numbers are accurate, I really don't see how anyone can support the "NHL won't work in Winnipeg" argument anymore.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

yes .... Atlanta and Phoenix is driving the massive television contracts if they actually existed. They have just so much potential.

The good TV contracts in Canada, NY, Boston and Philly are 100% focussed on their local markets... This actually improves without Atlanta and Phoenix being broadcast 4 times a year.

I like that when i make a post that actually lends support to your position you still feel the need to make a snarky comment that demonstrates a total lack of understanding of the issues. Quit acting like a child.

[troutman]

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/dregerreport/

While nothing groundbreaking is expected to transpire today, sources confirm with The Dreger Report that NHL commissioner Gary Bettman and deputy commissioner Bill Daly will be in Glendale today and have meetings scheduled with the city of Glendale and perhaps the Goldwater Institute.

Negotiations on bond sales to finance Glendale's $100 million commitment to Matt Hulsizer are said to be ongoing, which reportedly is why the city has yet to follow through on threats of a lawsuit against Goldwater for interfering with the sale.

TSN's Dave Naylor will be in Glendale today and will be filing a full report for TSN.ca and Sportscentre

According to one NHL governor who spoke on the condition of anonymity on Thursday, based on the correspondene he's received, both he and the league feel confident the sale will go through and the Coyotes will remain in Arizona.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by valo403

I really don't see contraction happening, the reprecussions of that could be huge. It's just something that doesn't happen in modern day professional sports in North America, and taking that step would certainly be a massive blow to a number of revenue streams such as television contracts. A league that's contracting teams is not a league that you're going to see broadcasters and advertisers looking to work worth, the red flags are just too scary to risk it.

I'd expect that if it came right down to it the league would either operate the team in Atlanta as they did in Phoenix, or they'd make the move to KC and waive any issues with AEG having interests in two markets.

The NBA is is pretty much the same situation as the NHL in a bunch of markets, I could see the 2 leagues agreeing to 'contract' together, so that it becomes a story about how sports economics are changing rather than either league being in trouble. I can see it being easier to sell a NBA/NHL package to save/relocate teams in some markets as well.

[troutman]

NHL’s support of Phoenix defies logic
http://www.winnipegsun.com/sports/co.../17529851.html

Hulsizer dropped a few more chips into the pot, telling the Arizona Republic the Coyotes have lost another $40 million this season, pushing his purchase price to $210 million ($170 million plus this year’s losses).

But since I’ve always preferred the cautionary approach to the frenetic one, I’ll leave you with Daly’s response to one, last question.

I asked him if it’s safe to say Winnipeg remains the league’s only Plan B.

“No. I don’t think that is accurate,” Daly responded. “I wouldn’t limit Plan B options at this point to moving the club to Winnipeg.”

He wouldn’t elaborate.

And I won’t begin to celebrate.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Underdog

If these numbers are accurate, I really don't see how anyone can support the "NHL won't work in Winnipeg" argument anymore.

Easily. The "Winnipeg compares to Nashville/Columbus" argument assumes Winnipeg is selling out every game, where Nashville and Columbus obviously are not. This is actually an argument that has consistently been made from day one: Winnipeg's top end is no better than existing mediocrity.

If Columbus or Nashville got to the point of selling out all their games, their revenues would far exceed Winnipeg's. If Winnipeg hit a downspin, Columbus and Nashville would see their revenues far exceed Winnipeg.

It is worth noting that Nashville was a relocation target not too long ago.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

The NBA is is pretty much the same situation as the NHL in a bunch of markets, I could see the 2 leagues agreeing to 'contract' together, so that it becomes a story about how sports economics are changing rather than either league being in trouble. I can see it being easier to sell a NBA/NHL package to save/relocate teams in some markets as well.

18 of the 30 NBA teams are said to be losing money...I just dont understand how iwth the TV contract they have, but it apparently is bad enough that the league could shutdown over the upcoming CBA battle.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by transplant99

18 of the 30 NBA teams are said to be losing money...I just dont understand how iwth the TV contract they have, but it apparently is bad enough that the league could shutdown over the upcoming CBA battle.

I suppose we could see a situation where some US markets use the NBA to support the NHL (Kansas City) and some Canadian Markets use the NHL to support the NBA (Vancouver).
We may see some kind of formal agreement to make operating twin franchises easier.

Under this scenario Winnipeg is screwed.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by transplant99

18 of the 30 NBA teams are said to be losing money...I just dont understand how iwth the TV contract they have, but it apparently is bad enough that the league could shutdown over the upcoming CBA battle.

The haves and the have nots have a far wider gap than the NHL, I believe. Probably closer to baseball's gap. For instance, the LA Lakers are currently getting $30 million a year on their local rights fees, and beginning 2012-13, could be as much as $150 million per year.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

No, they really cant. To add seats, you have to go both up and out, and the arena location does not allow for outward expansion. More over, the revenue generated likely would not justify the expense. Raising a roof is not remotely cheap.

Doubly so given you would have to completely close the building for at least a year, maybe longer. That means no NHL team in the near future, but also no AHL team, no concerts, no events and no revenue.

It has been speculated that they could squeeze a few more luxury suites into existing space, but capacity of MTS will never be significantly increased. For better or for worse, it is and will be a 15,000 seat arena.

As my builder would say 'you can always add space' it is just a question of how much money you want to pay, is it economic to buy up 4 or 5 blocks around the arena, demolish everything, put in underpasses to allow seating over the roads and then build some kind of a large mall complex around it all to try and recoup some of the investment? probably not!

[Resolute 14]

Heh. Somehow I don't see the city allowing the closure of Portage Avenue to accommodate such a retrofit. Part of the reason why MTS is the size it is is limitations on space at that location.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by transplant99

18 of the 30 NBA teams are said to be losing money...I just dont understand how iwth the TV contract they have, but it apparently is bad enough that the league could shutdown over the upcoming CBA battle.

Yeah, the league is getting shellacked at the gate. In 2006, every team in the NBA had an average home attendence of greater than 15,000. Now, there are 8 teams under that threshold. Four teams under that line are currently in the playoffs.

And honestly, the league has only itself to blame. It went all-in on a big-market, superstar marketing model, which ensures massive TV revenue, since Miami, Boston, and LA (and now, New York) get the vast majority of the national exposure and NBA fans nationwide follow these teams closely. But it would help all teams at the gate if a team like, say, Memphis (currently in the playoffs, but last in road attendance) got enough exposure for people to think that it is worth paying money to see the home team take on the Grizzlies. They are using their media strength to maximize media revenue, when they should be using media strength to maximize gate revenue.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Heh. Somehow I don't see the city allowing the closure of Portage Avenue to accommodate such a retrofit. Part of the reason why MTS is the size it is is limitations on space at that location.

Oh I aint saying it would happen, just that roads and the like are a small problem if someone wants to shovle enough cash at it.

[Northendzone]

i remember the good old days when guys like george gillete bought hockey teams with thier own money and a big public bond offering was not needed......

i think brunt nailed it yesterday when he said that he thought the nhl likely wishes it would have been able to strike a deal with jimmy b who was willing to overpay for the team with cash and provide the COG with a parting gift.......