The Ongoing Coyotes Sale Thread

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

My guess, if they can block the transfer, the NHL sues and wins easily, the cities legal insurance then pays the 25 mill plus costs.

Yeah that's what I was thinking... that whomever insures Glendale against legal liability ends up eating the 25 mil and Glendales premiem goes up.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by flambers

Yet the NHL is looking to move a franchise back to Winnipeg go figure.......

Given the state of the Coyotes and Thrashers at present, moving one of those teams to Winnipeg does make sense in the short term. The real concern, in my view, is the long term viability of the market.

[flambers]

Originally Posted by cznTiburon

Im not talking viability, im just commenting people dismissing some of the facts because they are presented by people on the internet. I am not claiming to be in the know about anything here, but i do like to read what people have to say and see both sides, which is what people should do when discussing this.

Its not as clear cut as some would make it out to be

Challenge is there is no way a person (not in the involved with the process) would have a clue if Winnipeg was truely viable.....

There would have to be a detailed business plan which was reviewed by the NHL types.

Personally I believe NHL has way to much invested in Phoenix to let them move. When they stay, how will the new Owner deal with the year over year massive losses?

I agree, nothing is clear cut.

[cznTiburon]

Originally Posted by flambers

Challenge is there is no way a person (not in the involved with the process) would have a clue if Winnipeg was truely viable.....

There would have to be a detailed business plan which was reviewed by the NHL types.

Personally I believe NHL has way to much invested in Phoenix to let them move. When they stay, how will the new Owner deal with the year over year massive losses?

I agree, nothing is clear cut.

Which sort of makes you wonder that if there was, why is there such a hold up? If there was a great plan you would expect the NHL to jump at it rather than losing money.. maybe not quite as viable as others would believe, or is it just that the NHL is too stubborn to admit that they probably should have given up on phoenix a year or 2 ago

[troutman]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

My guess, if they can block the transfer, the NHL sues and wins easily, the cities legal insurance then pays the 25 mill plus costs.

I don't think insurers are in the business of covering debts.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by troutman

I don't think insurers are in the business of covering debts.

No, they're not but they are in the business of covering legal damages.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Parallex

No, they're not but they are in the business of covering legal damages.

How would this be legal damages? It's a debt owed by the city, not a damage award.

[flambers]

Originally Posted by cznTiburon

Which sort of makes you wonder that if there was, why is there such a hold up? If there was a great plan you would expect the NHL to jump at it rather than losing money.. maybe not quite as viable as others would believe, or is it just that the NHL is too stubborn to admit that they probably should have given up on phoenix a year or 2 ago

For the reason, NHL is dedicated to keep the NHL teams in their current cities and they are trying to look at every possible option.

Whether or not Winnipeg is viable... have no clue but the NHL has made it clear they are an option. That should tell you something.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by valo403

How would this be legal damages? It's a debt owed by the city, not a damage award.

I would imagine a smart enough lawyer can find something to push it into litigation, the city will no doubt argue the league didn't do a good enough job of finding a buyer (well at least one that was prepared to spend their own money) or something like that.

[puckluck]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I would imagine a smart enough lawyer can find something to push it into litigation, the city will no doubt argue the league didn't do a good enough job of finding a buyer (well at least one that was prepared to spend their own money) or something like that.

That would be a weak argument, and a lot of owners don't spend their own money.

Dallas Cowboys owner comes to mind right away.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by cznTiburon

Which sort of makes you wonder that if there was, why is there such a hold up? If there was a great plan you would expect the NHL to jump at it rather than losing money.. maybe not quite as viable as others would believe, or is it just that the NHL is too stubborn to admit that they probably should have given up on phoenix a year or 2 ago

There are enough lawyers floating around here that I won't even attempt to pretend I know anything of the law, but my understanding is that when Glendale agreed to build the arena for the Coyotes, they required them to sign a pretty iron-clad 30 year lease, with significant penalties for breaching it early.

As a result, a lot of the posturing we've seen from the League that people interpret as stubbornness is just the League ensuring that they've adequately covered their ass so they don't get sued by the city for the Coyotes breaching their contract.

If the rumors about the Thrashers are true, we see the contrast there. The Thrashers are owned by the owner of the Philips Arena and don't have any contracts or obligations that would make franchise re-location a lot more difficult. As a result, if they do decide to sell and move the team, the League will do a lot less to stand in their way.


Although this has dragged on for 2 years, there has always been a "potential" interest for an ownership solution to keep the team in the Jobing.com Arena. The viability of those potential owners is certainly debatable, but the interest has been there.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by puckluck

That would be a weak argument, and a lot of owners don't spend their own money.

Dallas Cowboys owner comes to mind right away.

Well to be fair I didn't say I thought they would win the law suit, it would just be good political optics and enable the city to pay the NHL via insurance without breaching their own law, in the end the city pays through higher premiums so everybody is happy, sort of.

[Northendzone]

that letter was kind of interesting, i was tempted to try calling bill daly.....i was also curious as to why they just did not put together a table outling the losses for each month - ranther than having several versions of what appeared to be the same latter for various months.......i guess if the law talking guys are getting paid by the piece of paper.

anywyas, is it just me or has this thread turned into a few pages of dicussion on something that happened then a few pages questioning the viability of wpg as a market, then a few pages of discussion, then a few pages of the viability of wpg as a market and here we are - 93 pages later.....

[Bluzman]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

that letter was kind of interesting, i was tempted to try calling bill daly.....i was also curious as to why they just did not put together a table outling the losses for each month - ranther than having several versions of what appeared to be the same latter for various months.......i guess if the law talking guys are getting paid by the piece of paper.

anywyas, is it just me or has this thread turned into a few pages of dicussion on something that happened then a few pages questioning the viability of wpg as a market, then a few pages of discussion, then a few pages of the viability of wpg as a market and here we are - 93 pages later.....

I hear ya. This whole episode is becoming a real yawner. Wake me up when it's over.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I would imagine a smart enough lawyer can find something to push it into litigation, the city will no doubt argue the league didn't do a good enough job of finding a buyer (well at least one that was prepared to spend their own money) or something like that.

Ya, umm, no. It's a debt owed, period. You can't get insurance to cover a debt owed simply because there's litigation over the matter.

[PackersFan]

Originally Posted by troutman

Here is the NHL's actual invoice:

http://www.azcentral.com/ic/communit...es-invoice.pdf

Losses of about $5 - $6 Million per month.

Umm yeah, hockey works in Phoenix Gary! I thought cats had 9 lives, not Coyotes. Put a bullet in this thing already.

[PackersFan]

1) The City of Glendale should just let them go. Take that 25 Mil they are going to lose next season and pump it into your local economy. Arizona is one of the hardest hit states by the economic down turn.

2)This thread has focused a lot on viability. Any business man can see that Winnipeg would be a more viable option than Phoenix. You still may lose money (after a few years), but not near as much as you would in Phoenix.

3)I think the Bettman issue is 2 fold a) He doesn't want to admit he was wrong about hockey in Phoenix, and b) The owners must be telling him to put up the best possible shot to keep the team there. If any one of the 29 other owners wanted the coyotes to move, don't you think it one of them would have said something in an interview?

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

Originally Posted by PackersFan

2)This thread has focused a lot on viability. Any business man can see that Winnipeg would be a more viable option than Phoenix. You still may lose money (after a few years), but not near as much as you would in Phoenix.

No question Winnipeg would be more viable than Phoenix, even long term. The Coyotes lost $37 million this past season with an attendance average of 12,000. If they sold the remaining 5,000 seats at $75 apiece over 45 games that would give them $17 million extra. They would still lose $20 million per season.

[PackersFan]

The NHL should really (but they wont) look into just folding Phoenix and Atlanta. Then they wouldn't have to use revenue sharing for those 2 franchises, you could get rid of players like Ben Smith, Eric Bougaard, and that clown from the Islanders. 28-30 less forwards and 16 less D men in the league, would raise the level of play.

Yes the NHLPA wouldn't want to lose those jobs, but on the flip side, there would be more money to go around to the other players.

[MacGruber]

Originally Posted by PackersFan

The NHL should really (but they wont) look into just folding Phoenix and Atlanta. Then they wouldn't have to use revenue sharing for those 2 franchises, you could get rid of players like Ben Smith, Eric Bougaard, and that clown from the Islanders. 28-30 less forwards and 16 less D men in the league, would raise the level of play.

Yes the NHLPA wouldn't want to lose those jobs, but on the flip side, there would be more money to go around to the other players.

this is as likely to happen as Bettman becoming a player and captaining the Flames to a Stanley Cup next season