The Ongoing Coyotes Sale Thread

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

You do realise this isn't 1996, right?

The only variable significantly different in the Winnipeg situation from 1996 through to today is that the dollar is at par.

When the Jets played their last game in 1996, the dollar was about 73.5 cents. Now its about $1.04. That's a large boost on a sport where most significant costs are priced in American dollars.

The Jets received about $20 million in government subsidies in that last year in 1996, which their new arena now might cancel out if you're optimistic. The Jets, through most of their NHL history, played below capacity in a 13,300 seat arena.

Frankly, its inevitable the Jets would leave Winnipeg again, particularly if they're arriving only on the whim of a billionaire and the fan base is counting on him not getting bored.

The NHL has to know this.

Pragmatically, the only reason a backwater like Winnipeg might be considered an alternative to one of the larger television markets in the United States is that the prospective proprietor would be the only one willing to give the NHL its money back on its Coyotes purchase.

But they could probably secure that in Kansas City or even Houston too, particularly with that new TV deal.

If the Captain of Plan B's, Gary Bettman, hasn't other USA alternatives ahead of Winnipeg, I'll be very surprised.

I'll believe it when I see it. A Winnipeg move really makes no long term sense at all within the business model of the NHL. Mostly this looks like a frenzy created in the heads of Canadian media.

Cowperson

[stampsx2]

Anybody know what the deadline is for the new schedule?

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Pragmatically, the only reason a backwater like Winnipeg might be considered an alternative to one of the larger television markets in the United States is that the prospective proprietor would be the only one willing to give the NHL its money back on its Coyotes purchase.

I just don't understand how the size of the television market matters when no one is watching it. The potential is never going to be realized.

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/b...uns-shine.html

The Coyotes grabbed 28,800 Valley households Monday for Fox Sports Arizona’s broadcast of the Game 3 playoff loss to the Detroit Red Wings. That’s far better than what the Coyotes averaged on FSAZ during the regular season.
The Yotes averaged just 9,000 households watching the game on TV this regular season — an 18 percent drop from last year.

9000 household average, it hit 28800 in the playoffs. Does it matter at that point which number the area comes in at market sizes in the US?

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by Bouw N Arrow

The bonds have buyers... at a higher rate. Which has been the entire issue. Glendale is trying to find itself the best deal but may have no choice but to move forward at the higher interest rate.

Sure - that's because its a riskier investment opportunity, so no one is going into this one without a return that is higher than some more stable (like a longterm GIC for example).

However, the bond rate still needs to be paid out. And if those investors believe that the parking fees are going to be able to generate enough revenue to pay out that higher rate, they are kidding themselves. The 'yotes have what >10K season ticket holders?

I am assuming the City itself would be on the hook if the bond went into default, which is hilarious in itself. Imagine selling that to the taxpayers here:

1) we are going give away all the city parking downtown to a private investor.
2) we are going to buy back those parking rights for 100 million dollars
3) that 100 million is based on a city bond, where the interest is paid by the parking fees
4) if we don't get enough fees, then the city will have to cover the losses
5) btw, all that parking? it was the taxpayers to begin with.

laughable.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

The only variable significantly different in the Winnipeg situation from 1996 through to today is that the dollar is at par.

When the Jets played their last game in 1996, the dollar was about 73.5 cents. Now its about $1.04. That's a large boost on a sport where most significant costs are priced in American dollars.

The Jets received about $20 million in government subsidies in that last year in 1996, which their new arena now might cancel out if you're optimistic. The Jets, through most of their NHL history, played below capacity in a 13,300 seat arena.

Frankly, its inevitable the Jets would leave Winnipeg again, particularly if they're arriving only on the whim of a billionaire and the fan base is counting on him not getting bored.

The NHL has to know this.

Pragmatically, the only reason a backwater like Winnipeg might be considered an alternative to one of the larger television markets in the United States is that the prospective proprietor would be the only one willing to give the NHL its money back on its Coyotes purchase.

But they could probably secure that in Kansas City or even Houston too, particularly with that new TV deal.

If the Captain of Plan B's, Gary Bettman, hasn't other USA alternatives ahead of Winnipeg, I'll be very surprised.

I'll believe it when I see it. A Winnipeg move really makes no long term sense at all within the business model of the NHL. Mostly this looks like a frenzy created in the heads of Canadian media.

Cowperson

are you excluding the salary cap as being insignificant?

[flambers]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

The only variable significantly different in the Winnipeg situation from 1996 through to today is that the dollar is at par.

Cowperson

That variable almost cost the Flames, Oilers, Senators their clubs. With the dollar stronger its a massive difference.

Flames were in the same situation as the Jets, Flames were really really lucky they have great owners.

[Resolute 14]

He is, but the salary floor is also higher than virtually every team in the league could afford in 1996. There are, however, a lot of other things that have changed in Winnipeg - new arena with better revenue generating capability, new revenue sharing plans, proliferation of regional sports networks that will see more games broadcast, therefore more broadcast revenue, TV deals in Canada and the US are significantly more valuable...

And yet, the viability of Winnipeg is still very much a question. And for good reason.

That all being said, Bouw and Arrow is certainly locked in a mode of hopeful delusion. I think he's incorrectly predicted this would all be over over 100 times now. The fact that Bettman himself said less than 36 hours ago that the market on the bonds has "collapsed" thanks to Goldwater tells me that Bouw's claim the bonds have buyers is nothing more than wishful thinking.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by flambers

That variable almost cost the Flames, Oilers, Senators their clubs. With the dollar stronger its a massive difference.

Flames were in the same situation as the Jets, Flames were really really lucky they have great owners.

We were also lucky to have corporate support, luxury boxes and 3000 more fans per game than Winnipeg, even in our worst years.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by Bouw N Arrow

It blows my brains out how truly disconnected with the reality of this situation MOST Canadians are.

there are undoubtedly a lot of complexities that aren't understood about the situation.

However, the most basic isn't that incomprehensible:

Phoenix's operating cost < revenues generated.

There is no reason to think that this is going to change under Hulsizer, and even worse, no reason to believe he won't bolt after 3-5 years having Phoenix's taxpayers pay for the operating losses. Either moving or selling the team for a profit paid for by the taxpayers.

Calgary is fortunate that we have an ownership group, whose risks/losses are dispersed amongst their shares, and who see it as a civic venture and not simply a business.

[Jordan!]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

are you excluding the salary cap as being insignificant?

The cap is irrelevant because no high priced talent will want to play in Winnipeg.. Think Chris Pronger but worse

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by Bouw N Arrow

The cap is irrelevant because no high priced talent will want to play in Winnipeg.. Think Chris Pronger but worse

perhaps...at the end of the day, people will play where they can get a contract. Maybe that does mean that some players won't go there, or you'll get players that need a 'second chance' or guys at the end of their careers.

On the other hand, drafting kids from northern Ontario, western Canada, or maybe some might think that playing in the NHL for a couple of million per year in Winnipeg isn't such a bad deal, especially when they can spend 7 months of the year anywhere they feel.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Bouw N Arrow

The cap is irrelevant because no high priced talent will want to play in Winnipeg.. Think Chris Pronger but worse

To be fair that doesn't really matter if the team looks to be a strong contender at the cup. It's not like players wanted to come to Phoenix if they weren't gonna be playing beyond April.

That's not to say that team location wouldn't play a role still, but team quality, roster, and organization quality plays a huge role. Having Iginla on the Flames and the general reputation of the organization helps in luring some free agents that might not care for Calgary much originally.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Bouw N Arrow

The bonds have buyers... at a higher rate. Which has been the entire issue. Glendale is trying to find itself the best deal but may have no choice but to move forward at the higher interest rate.

They have buyers for half. That isn't enough. Furthermore, there are plenty of municipal bonds on the market. If you were managing other people's money, why in god's name would you invest it in something with the threat of litigation attached to it? Nevermind that, would you invest your own money into something that could be completely screwed up?

Originally Posted by Cowperson

The only variable significantly different in the Winnipeg situation from 1996 through to today is that the dollar is at par.

Why does everyone keep forgetting about one of the biggest factors, Winnipeg Enterprises?

[Jordan!]

Originally Posted by Joborule

To be fair that doesn't really matter if the team looks to be a strong contender at the cup. It's not like players wanted to come to Phoenix if they weren't gonna be playing beyond April.

That's not the case though.. the previous owner didn't want to spend on players. But at the time right after he got the team he brought in the friends of gretzky for some decent coin, CUJO, Bret Hull, JR, Nedved, Ricci .. signed Jovanovski for $6 million a year.

This IS a place players love to reside.. but if the previous owner didn't want to spend.. of course FA's wouldn't be on their way. I'm not saying losing didn't hurt.

Get Hulsizer in here along with Don Maloney and Dave Tippet.. Golden

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by Bouw N Arrow

That's not the case though.. the previous owner didn't want to spend on players. But at the time right after he got the team he brought in the friends of gretzky for some decent coin, CUJO, Bret Hull, JR, Nedved, Ricci .. signed Jovanovski for $6 million a year.

This IS a place players love to reside.. but if the previous owner didn't want to spend.. of course FA's wouldn't be on their way. I'm not saying losing didn't hurt.

Get Hulsizer in here along with Don Maloney and Dave Tippet.. Golden

there seems to be lot of faith in this guy...not sure why?

if the team in phx was such a viable venture, he should just buy it outright. Of course, getting some incentives from the city is good business, but there's a difference between, say zero taxes vs a flat out payment.

i think, if this goes through, the city of phoenix is going to regret it in 5 years.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Bouw N Arrow

The cap is irrelevant because no high priced talent will want to play in Winnipeg.. Think Chris Pronger but worse

I can't think of anything worse than Chris Pronger.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Bouw N Arrow

That's not the case though.. the previous owner didn't want to spend on players. But at the time right after he got the team he brought in the friends of gretzky for some decent coin, CUJO, Bret Hull, JR, Nedved, Ricci .. signed Jovanovski for $6 million a year.

This IS a place players love to reside.. but if the previous owner didn't want to spend.. of course FA's wouldn't be on their way. I'm not saying losing didn't hurt.

Get Hulsizer in here along with Don Maloney and Dave Tippet.. Golden

So what your saying is the problem with the team was its cheap assed owner not wanting to spend his own money on the team and the solution is to bring in another cheap assed owner who doesn't want to spend his own money on the team?

Golden indeed!

[Jordan!]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

So what your saying is the problem with the team was its cheap assed owner not wanting to spend his own money on the team and the solution is to bring in another cheap assed owner who doesn't want to spend his own money on the team?

Golden indeed!

He'll spend his money on operations, marketing, player salaries and absorbing losses for a few years. Nice try

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Bouw N Arrow

He'll spend his money on operations, marketing, player salaries and absorbing losses for a few years. Nice try

You hope he will, despite all the evidence that he has shown no inclination to spend his money on the team what so ever.

[Jordan!]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

You hope he will, despite all the evidence that he has shown no inclination to spend his money on the team what so ever.

What are you even trying to argue here??