The Ongoing Coyotes Sale Thread

[troutman]

REPLAY: Glendale gives Coyotes one more year
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/bre...121514474.html

More than 15,000 took part in a Winnipeg Free Press live blog and tuned in to the council session’s live video feed. If only NHL commissioner Gary Bettman could have collected pay-per-view receipts.

Goldwater lawyer Nick Dranias spoke at the meeting telling council it was violating the state’s constitutional gift clause which prohibits government from subsidizing business.

It’s unknown if Hulsizer is still interested in purchasing the Coyotes due to conflicting reports regarding his status. The council chamber was filled with Coyotes fans in jerseys and the mood ran hot with one speaker telling council another attendee spit on him as a result of differing views.

[troutman]

Glendale pledges $25-million to keep Coyotes another year
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...rticle2017818/

“We’re much closer to the finish line,” Daly said. “I think we are getting there whether it is with Mr. Hulsizer or another potential buyer.”

Mayor Elaine Scruggs emphasized that “this is a payment for a service. This is not a subsidy.”

“We are keeping our community arena open for business,” she said. “We are keeping that arena generating revenue.”

Nick Dranias, director for constitutional government at the Goldwater Institute, told the council that the $25-million could violate the state constitution because it may include money to fund operation of the hockey team and not just the city’s Jobing.com Arena.

Scruggs called Dranias’ comment “a new idea that’s pretty shocking.”

Dranias called it “a disgrace” that Glendale was even considering such a deal.

Council member Norma Alvarez voted against the proposal.

“We cannot use taxpayer’s money to subsidize the team,” she said, “and neglect our community.”

Earlier Tuesday, Ice Edge Holdings withdrew its minority interest in the proposed purchase of the Coyotes.

[troutman]

NHL's return to Winnipeg
may have to wait
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...rticle2016987/

It's looking like a fairly safe bet there won't be NHL hockey in Winnipeg next fall.

[Gerry]

What a gong show. Move it to Winnipeg already.

[Scrollbar]

Does James Mirtle know anything of this situation? Jets supporters were hoping for this vote so that Atlanta could finally be given the green light to move to Winnipeg. Lazy journalism.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by MacGruber

everyone against the deal is providing data, numbers, and demonstrating how bad the deal is.

everyone in favour is making appeals to emotion.

Comically, this exact statement has defined the Winnipeg debate as well. Skeptics argue numbers, supporters argue emotion.

Originally Posted by Daradon

Is that gate or total revs? IE television and merch?

Because I gotta believe the combined revenues from CBC, TSN, and Sportsnet are way higher than the US deals, even with this new deal. (Which a lot of people on both sides of the border have panned as too small for the next ten years given the new media and broadcasting wars.)

I've been trying to look up some numbers here, but haven't found much yet.

They aren't. NBC/Versus is $200 million. CBC is $100, TSN is $60 and RDS is $15. Sportsnet is regional, and if you want to compare six regional deals against 24, I doubt very much "Canada" wins there either.

The whole "1/3 of revenue comes from Canada" is also a misleading stat, as it is being used incorrectly, and out of context. The Toronto Star report was specifically referring to ticket revenue, not overall revenue, and the data is now over three years old. There is very little doubt that the six Canadian teams do average out to higher ticket revenues than their American counterparts, however. But the figures will have changed for all teams, and wildly so for some (i.e.: Pittsburgh and New Jersey have opened new rinks since this report)

The chart, for those that wish to see it: http://www.rodneyfort.com/PHSportsEc...com5-30-08.pdf

[Resolute 14]

One thing that would really help this debate is a good hard look at what costs the Glendale taxpayers more:

Covering the outstanding debt on an empty arena with no tenant and few dates in use

vs.

The cost of the bond offering, but having a team there generating revenue

Figure out which number is lower, and you have an idea of what Glendale really should be doing. I doubt very much the answer to that question is something Bouw and Arrow would want to hear.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

They aren't. NBC/Versus is $200 million. CBC is $100, TSN is $60 and RDS is $15.
The chart, for those that wish to see it: http://www.rodneyfort.com/PHSportsEc...com5-30-08.pdf

So the new deal of 200, vs old deals some of which are coming up on renewal of 175...

Still pretty close. For, as we said, 1/5 the teams.

And bigger gates per capita, etc.

I agree, the money is not bigger up here, but it's 1/3 or more for 1/5 the teams and 1/10 the population.

You don't have to be a stats genius to see the failing of logic.

15 years of failing, going on 16. Way to be Phoenix. Way to be NHL. You'll get that contract yet!

[Reggie Dunlop]

Congratulations to Phoenix Coyotes and the Phoenix Coyotes family.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

They aren't. NBC/Versus is $200 million. CBC is $100, TSN is $60 and RDS is $15. Sportsnet is regional, and if you want to compare six regional deals against 24, I doubt very much "Canada" wins there either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NHL_on_NBC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_night_in_canada

[transplant99]

From what I understand, and this may be subject to scrutiny, is that this 25 Million is not a one time deal...they have agreed to do this for the next 10 years.

Found the clause...

The money for the first pledge came from a long-term utilities account. Glendale officials said they had not yet decided where they would pull the second $25 million from but that the city has budgeted for it.

One difference in the current agreement: the NHL obtains the right to renew the agreement yearly for 10 years.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepu...#ixzz1M3or2Pwi

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by troutman

IIRC, the NBC deal is over 10 years, and the CBC pays $100 M every year (they were paying $65 M per year)?

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/stor...in-canada.html

Correct...200 million per year for 10 years. 2 Billion total.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

Congratulations to Phoenix Coyotes and the Phoenix Coyotes family.

I agree. The got what they bought.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Correct...200 million per year for 10 years. 2 Billion total.

No I get that, I assumed he was quoting comparable numbers. Othwerwise there would have been lots more decimals and explanations.

Also, as has been mentioned on Sportsnet the Fan, the Canadian contracts are quickly coming up for renewal, and will obviously not go cheaper, based on the recent media mergers and battles.

The NBC deal, though biggest ever, was widely regarded on both sides of the border as too long and too cheap. Look at The Fan, Doh Boy, Francis, TSN, and even Jason Smith in LA, if you want any verification of this.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Daradon

No I get that, I assumed he was quoting comparable numbers. Othwerwise there would have been lots more decimals and explanations.

Also, as has been mentioned on Sportsnet the Fan, the Canadian contracts are quickly coming up for renewal, and will obviously not go cheaper, based on the recent media mergers and battles.

The NBC deal, though biggest ever, was widely regarded on both sides of the border as too long and too cheap. Look at The Fan, Doh Boy, Francis, TSN, and even Jason Smith in LA, if you want any verification of this.

Ah yes, a list of pullitzer winners right there. Here are the opinions of some professionals in the field:

Derek Baine, a senior analyst covering television networks for the research firm SNL Kagan, said this was a good deal for the NHL. "This shows sports continue to remain very popular," he said. "And maybe the NHL was helped because of looming strikes in other areas."
AJ Maestas, president of Navigate Marketing, a Chicago-based firm specializing in sports and entertainment marketing, called the new contract "excellent" for the NHL and echoed Ebersol — that it's not always best to be a small fish in a big pond.
"The smart money is on NBC and Comcast to offer a network with more sports programming using the cable higher-subscriber fees. Everything can't be on ESPN," Maestas said.
According to the NHL, its ratings have risen 84% over the last four years.
"That's not just luck," Maestas said. "And the demographic is attractive — young males. While being on ESPN might mean your sport is covered more on 'SportsCenter,' you also might just get one 'game of the week' or be relegated to times that aren't attractive. I really do believe this is a good deal for hockey. It's a pretty big win."

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr...l-nbc-20110420

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Daradon

No I get that, I assumed he was quoting comparable numbers. Othwerwise there would have been lots more decimals and explanations.

Also, as has been mentioned on Sportsnet the Fan, the Canadian contracts are quickly coming up for renewal, and will obviously not go cheaper, based on the recent media mergers and battles.

The NBC deal, though biggest ever, was widely regarded on both sides of the border as too long and too cheap. Look at The Fan, Doh Boy, Francis, TSN, and even Jason Smith in LA, if you want any verification of this.

i was only verifying trout's numbers.

no idea what the rest of it has to do with anything.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by transplant99

i was only verifying trout's numbers.

no idea what the rest of it has to do with anything.

Wasn't coming down on you, just explaining my position. As I mentioned I was using others numbers as well.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by valo403

Ah yes, a list of pullitzer winners right there. Here are the opinions of some professionals in the field:



http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr...l-nbc-20110420

So you quote one person, vs 5 outlets of mine? And question their cred?

Weird. Not saying mine are big winners. But I've got 2 writers and three orgs vs your one writer.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by valo403

According to the NHL, its ratings have risen 84% over the last four years.
"That's not just luck," Maestas said. "And the demographic is attractive — young males. While being on ESPN might mean your sport is covered more on 'SportsCenter,' you also might just get one 'game of the week' or be relegated to times that aren't attractive. I really do believe this is a good deal for hockey. It's a pretty big win.[http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr...l-nbc-20110420

The single biggest key of the whole topic...not just how many eyeballs are on your product, but who they belong too. The biggest target of most advertisers are 18-39 YO males.


I still can't believe that people are arguing that the deal from NBC isn't a good one.

Best ever? Doesnt matter...could of been better. Its a strange way to look at things IMO.

I have no qualms about agreeing that later in the deal it may be a bargain for NBC, but the early years are likely over-paying from them as well, and think it suggests that overall, its more than a fair deal for both sides. Thats how good business works...two sides coming together to the benefit of each other.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by transplant99

The single biggest key of the whole topic...not just how many eyeballs are on your product, but who they belong too. The biggest target of most advertisers are 18-39 YO males.


I still can't believe that people are arguing that the deal from NBC isn't a good one.

Best ever? Doesnt matter...could of been better. Its a strange way to look at things IMO.

I have no qualms about agreeing that later in the deal it may be a bargain for NBC, but the early years are likely over-paying from them as well, and think it suggests that overall, its more than a fair deal for both sides. Thats how good business works...two sides coming together to the benefit of each other.

When you win the first 2 years of the deal, but lose the next 8, it's a bad deal. That's how it's being looked at.

As we know, from hockey cap, paying up front doesn't always work. And the reverse is true here. It has to work both ways. Money and market share is assumed to grow.

And to that point, the Canadian contracts will be up for negotiation and renewal too. Not only will the easy money up here probably exceed that in a year or two, but its a bargain for anyone who wants to sign up south of the border later.

It's a deal. But that's all it is. It's better than nothing. It's hardly a feather in the cap or anything that can be argued upon for success or popularity of franchises like Phoenix.