General Ongoing Coyotes saga thread

[valo403]

Yeah the Dallas situation doesn't reflect negatively on the league at all, it reflects an owner that simply ran himself into the ground. The bankruptcy route simply provided a medium for a sale that wouldn't result in subsequent owners taking on mass liabilities. The fact that the sale out of bankruptcy has so far been an incredibly smooth process reflects on how strong that market actually is.

[flambers]

Originally Posted by valo403

Yeah the Dallas situation doesn't reflect negatively on the league at all, it reflects an owner that simply ran himself into the ground. The bankruptcy route simply provided a medium for a sale that wouldn't result in subsequent owners taking on mass liabilities. The fact that the sale out of bankruptcy has so far been an incredibly smooth process reflects on how strong that market actually is.

Dallas situation is very similiar to Buffalo or Ottawa. Where it has been a location where NHL worked really well.

Simply requires a new ownership group.

Coyotes are another story.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by flambers

Dallas situation is very similiar to Buffalo or Ottawa. Where it has been a location where NHL worked really well.

Simply requires a new ownership group.

Coyotes are another story.

Yeah, the Phoenix situation has a whole host of issues that don't exist elsewhere. I don't think it's even so much of it not being a market that can work, it's just a market that can't work with all of the baggage that is currently attached. A fresh start there could succeed, but that's not going to happen.

[Daradon]

^^^ I agree that you can't lump them all together, and that's why in my response to you I admitted it may just be the optics of it all, it may not be as bad as it seems. Both Dallas and St. Louis aren't going anywhere, even if they do hit bankruptcy with their current owners (which they probably will). And they can probably be turned around very quickly.

Still, with everything that is going on, with so many unanswered questions, and so little room for error, I don't know if I'd say the league is the healthiest it's ever been, or the management group is doing the best they could be doing. As I said, I see the league on a wire of sorts right now. It isn't a crisis, but it's nothing to get excited about either.

[Resolute 14]

"Healthiest it has ever been" is a dramatically relative argument.

The NHL contracted from 10 teams to 6 between 1930 and 1944.
The "golden era" was great for the six markets, but the league, and the sport itself stagnated badly, leading to European dominance internationally.
The Expansion era was dominated by relocation and contraction.
The 80s were a second period of stagnation, which was why the second expansion phase was hatched.
The 90s and 2000s saw great financial instability on a wide scale, even as revenues ballooned.

Is the league as healthy now as it has ever been? One could make an argument.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Daradon

^^^ I agree that you can't lump them all together, and that's why in my response to you I admitted it may just be the optics of it all, it may not be as bad as it seems. Both Dallas and St. Louis aren't going anywhere, even if they do hit bankruptcy with their current owners (which they probably will). And they can probably be turned around very quickly.

Still, with everything that is going on, with so many unanswered questions, and so little room for error, I don't know if I'd say the league is the healthiest it's ever been, or the management group is doing the best they could be doing. As I said, I see the league on a wire of sorts right now. It isn't a crisis, but it's nothing to get excited about either.

Every league, with the exception of the NFL, is on a wire of sorts now. A crippled US economy will do that to an entity dependent upon discretionary spending. Heck, there are very few corporations period that aren't a wire of sorts now, let alone sports leagues. And yet despite that uncertainty in the general marketplace revenues are up, a TV deal heralded by media experts as great for the league was signed, and the CBA situation is relatively stable for the foreseeable future. In what areas would you argue that management is not doing the best that they could be doing? I'm certain that there are differing views on particular decisions, but that doesn't mean that the choice taken is necessarily incorrect or poor and I'm generally going to defer to the people who have the ability to know the true reality of the situation over those who are relying on fractions of information found online.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by valo403

Every league, with the exception of the NFL, is on a wire of sorts now. A crippled US economy will do that to an entity dependent upon discretionary spending. Heck, there are very few corporations period that aren't a wire of sorts now, let alone sports leagues. And yet despite that uncertainty in the general marketplace revenues are up, a TV deal heralded by media experts as great for the league was signed, and the CBA situation is relatively stable for the foreseeable future. In what areas would you argue that management is not doing the best that they could be doing? I'm certain that there are differing views on particular decisions, but that doesn't mean that the choice taken is necessarily incorrect or poor and I'm generally going to defer to the people who have the ability to know the true reality of the situation over those who are relying on fractions of information found online.

A few comments on your response here:

First of all, this is an internet discussion forum. If we all just defered to people 'in the know' there wouldn't be much to discuss. If we all just believed the press conferences and interviews, there wouldn't be anything to talk about. It would be: Feaster said this is his final cut and it is the best solution for the team. Ok, well he would know. End thread. Bettman says this TV is the absolute best he could get and is a major step for the league. Ok, well he would know. End thread. Discussion, has to come from what we as observers are able to observe and research. Do I work for the NHL? No, but am I (and many of the others who feel similarly) doing the best with what I see, experience, and read about? Sure am.

Secondly, you can't take everything you hear in life at face value anyway. We all know that. If we did, we'd believe every politician, get suckered by every commercial, and fall to every business' said press release. Simply because someone closer to the situation says something is true, or their viewpoint is correct, doesn't make it so. In fact often it's the opposite as they are trying to save whatever interest they have in the situation, be it a job, a reputation, or even just an opinion. We all learn from an early age to sense when things are a little off, and we all need to learn to read between the lines.

Lastly, I didn't mean any different opinions aren't correct or valid, in fact many times I softened my arguments by saying the situation could appear worse than it actually is. However, I was only replying to your challenge to give reasons on why the league may not be the healthiest it's ever been (a phrase you used) and why I felt there might be bigger issues bubbling below the surface that might be linked to how the league has been managed. Now I believe I did the first. The second is more of an opinion that one can choose to adopt or not based on the arguments everyone has contributed for or against in this thread.

Now, I never did get to the reasons on why I felt it was mismanaged because there were many points to make just to show that there were indeed problems. I actually wouldn't use the term mismanaged. Perhaps just not managed well, or getting along with the bare minimums. It's kinda like when your kid comes home with a C. Did they get the job done? Sure. Is it anything to be proud of? No. And is it going to set them up for the future? 50/50. Would another kid have done better? Well, odds are just as likely that 1 kid would do better, and 1 kid would do worse.

When we talk about how the league has been managed, there is a TON to look at and it goes back quite a way when trying to diagnose our current problems. However, I imagine, you would probably only want to talk about the current commissioner and/or people involved. In which case I'd have to look up a few things first and then properly frame my argument. In truth, I'd really only want to talk about the current people too, (and am prepared to) but I still have to go back and get my dates right. As with many arguments, we often work off our base of knowledge to form our opinions, though where we got that base from or what exactly it is may be forgotten. That's not to say it's always untrue though, that's just the way our brains work. However, even without going back I would still say that purely from a situational point of view, if you have EIGHT teams (plus one just moved) in a thirty team league in serious financial trouble, one could argue the league hasn't been managed in the best possible manner.

Now how could you do it better? Well, that's the million dollar question isn't it? But see that's why I don't have the fancy degrees and am not getting paid the millions of dollars. It's not my job. But it doesn't mean I can't understand enough to add something to the discussion or have a valid opinion. Even if that opinion is that the people in charge aren't doing a good job. We've all come across people who have been trained or hired to do something we never have, or couldn't do, that have royally fataed it up. If my surgeon caused me to bleed internally while performing a routine surgery and it caused me problems I would have every valid right to tell him he screwed up.

You also compared the NHL to the NBA and MLB. (Basically the other leagues beside the NFL) Well, NBA is going through their lockout right now, so that's a strike against them. I will be honest and say I don't really know enough about MLB to argue for them being in a better or worse position, or being managed in a better or worse way. However, I'm not sure either are looking at 30% of their teams being in trouble.

To be fair, the NHL has a bigger problem than the other two leagues. They aren't as popular as the other leagues and are operating from a worse position. At least when it comes to additional revenues like those earned from TV. So in a way, managing this league would be harder. But does that mean we shouldn't ask for a certain level of success? Does that mean they get a free pass when it comes to making mistakes? Does that mean we shouldn't, as paying fans, shouldn't be disappointed or scared when we continue to hear about franchises in trouble? Does that mean we're not allowed to shake our heads when locales we knew would never work simply aren't working and are weakening the league?

As I said, I think I passed the first challenge. The second, is of course an opinion one can choose to take or not, nothing more. And while I do take it, I don't discount or feel strongly against those who don't. Both are valid. And probably neither can be known right now (if ever). If you do want me to clarify where I felt the mistakes were made to further strengthen that opinion, I'll be glad to do so but it will take me some time to get my dates and numbers accurate. But as I said, I don't think one can look at the situation we have now and say there weren't mistakes or other course of action would probably have worked better.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Daradon

A few comments on your response here:

First of all, this is an internet discussion forum. If we all just defered to people 'in the know' there wouldn't be much to discuss. If we all just believed the press conferences and interviews, there wouldn't be anything to talk about. It would be: Feaster said this is his final cut and it is the best solution for the team. Ok, well he would know. End thread. Bettman says this TV is the absolute best he could get and is a major step for the league. Ok, well he would know. End thread. Discussion, has to come from what we as observers are able to observe and research. Do I work for the NHL? No, but am I (and many of the others who feel similarly) doing the best with what I see, experience, and read about? Sure am.

Secondly, you can't take everything you hear in life at face value anyway. We all know that. If we did, we'd believe every politician, get suckered by every commercial, and fall to every business' said press release. Simply because someone closer to the situation says something is true, or their viewpoint is correct, doesn't make it so. In fact often it's the opposite as they are trying to save whatever interest they have in the situation, be it a job, a reputation, or even just an opinion. We all learn from an early age to sense when things are a little off, and we all need to learn to read between the lines.

Lastly, I didn't mean any different opinions aren't correct or valid, in fact many times I softened my arguments by saying the situation could appear worse than it actually is. However, I was only replying to your challenge to give reasons on why the league may not be the healthiest it's ever been (a phrase you used) and why I felt there might be bigger issues bubbling below the surface that might be linked to how the league has been managed. Now I believe I did the first. The second is more of an opinion that one can choose to adopt or not based on the arguments everyone has contributed for or against in this thread.

Now how could you do it better? Well, that's the million dollar question isn't it? But see that's why I don't have the fancy degrees and am not getting paid the millions of dollars. It's not my job. But it doesn't mean I can't understand enough to add something to the discussion or have a valid opinion. Even if that opinion is that the people in charge aren't doing a good job. We've all come across people who have been trained or hired to do something we never have, or couldn't do, that have royally fataed it up. If my surgeon caused me to bleed internally while performing a routine surgery and it caused me problems I would have every valid right to tell him he screwed up.

You also compared the NHL to the NBA and MLB. (Basically the other leagues beside the NFL) Well, NBA is going through their lockout right now, so that's a strike against them. I will be honest and say I don't really know enough about MLB to argue for them being in a better or worse position, or being managed in a better or worse way. However, I'm not sure either are looking at 30% of their teams being in trouble.

To be fair, the NHL has a bigger problem than the other two leagues. They aren't as popular as the other leagues and are operating from a worse position. At least when it comes to additional revenues like those earned from TV. So in a way, managing this league would be harder. But does that mean we shouldn't ask for a certain level of success? Does that mean they get a free pass when it comes to making mistakes? Does that mean we shouldn't, as paying fans, shouldn't be disappointed or scared when we continue to hear about franchises in trouble? Does that mean we're not allowed to shake our heads when locales we knew would never work simply aren't working and are weakening the league?

As I said, I think I passed the first challenge. The second, is of course an opinion one can choose to take or not, nothing more. And while I do take it, I don't discount or feel strongly against those who don't. Both are valid. And probably neither can be known right now (if ever). If you do want me to clarify where I felt the mistakes were made to further strengthen that opinion, I'll be glad to do so but it will take me some time to get my dates and numbers accurate. But as I said, I don't think one can look at the situation we have now and say there weren't mistakes or other course of action would probably have worked better.

I don't know how to multiquote, and that's quite essay there so forgive me if I wind up jumping around.

As to your first point, I didn't say you have to accept press releases or the statements of management as gospel. As to the TV deal I referred to an industry report that considered an extremely good deal for the NHL (I'm trying to find the link, I believe I posted it before. It was from a media industry analyst basically saying that the deal was at the top end of what the NHL could have hoped to have gotten. I found a couple of more opinion based articles saying as much, but this was more of an analysis than an opinion. I'll try to dig it up.)

I think we're on the same page with your second and third points. I don't think that there's no room for questioning, but I will defer to an educated opinion based on a complete body of information over a 'they should have done x instead' opinion based on virtually nothing. If a rationale is provided, and actual arguments are put forth, there's plenty of room for discussion around a number of issues. We may still be speculating on much of the information, but at least there's some attempt to operate in reality. I have no time for the 'Bettman sucks' style of criticism that we see all the time hear from certain posters that lacks anything even remotely resembling a solid argument.When it comes to critiquing a decision where a, b, and c all have plausible arguments backing them and the people with complete information pick a I'm not going to sit here and say they made a stupid choice. If I can make an argument with half information why would a decision made with full information not be legitimate? I hope that clarifies what I meant with the whole deferring comment.

As for the rest, I think your characterization of 8 teams in trouble is inflated. Dallas isn't in trouble, Hicks is. St. Louis is a similar situation. Considering the economic climate in the US it's no surprise that businesses relying upon the spending of discretionary income are living with tight margins. this isn't limited to sports teams, this is an economy wide issue, there's no reason to think that the NHL would be exempt from the issue. There's also the factor that in some markets the NHL is essentially still in a stage of investment. Franchises in non-traditional markets should not be judged strictly upon their current financial statements as there is a need to utilize long term strategies for growth and development of market share and revenues, it's not about immediate gratification. Actually no sports franchises should be judged upon their financial statements, or approximations thereof, these are entities that are typically part of a much larger structure that sees owners benefit through related companies. If you ever get to see the organizational tree for a professional sports team you'll likely be surprised at the number of different entities and the maze of relationships between them. Now some moves are obviously going to work, and some are obviously going to fail, an expectation of perfection would be unreasonable. Atlanta was clearly a failure. Phoenix I'm not so sure, the market itself has potential but I don't know that it can overcome the mess that it has become. Dallas has been a massive success, Nashville appears to be building a solid base, San Jose is a success to the point that it's easy to forget it's part of the whole sun belt expansion.

You also hit on an important point in that the NHL faces a more difficult job, it is the only league that's pushing into places where it really had no traditional presence. Every other major sport has the benefit of being relatively known in virtually every major market, there are very few large large markets where an NBA team wouldn't survive given the proper building etc. The same can't be said for the NHL, so many major markets have no familiarity with the game and no local base into which the NHL can tap. From day one the NHL has been fighting an uphill battle in many markets. The argument that the NHL should simply leave these markets for places where the game is established misses out on the concept of growing your market share. Appealing exclusively to existing fans is all well and good when the goal is to maintain your current position in the marketplace, it's completely incompatible with the goal of growth. If the NHL chose to stand pat in it's traditional markets it would find itself as a dying league in the near future. Not only are other leagues making efforts to grow, but the demographics of the US are changing. A focus on the northeast leaves you in an area of the country that has been relatively stagnant, or in some areas shrinking, in terms of population. People are moving into southern markets, and while not all of them are going to become hockey markets a presence in the area is important to the longterm health of the league.

I guess my overall point is that people take a far too narrow view when looking at the decisions made by most businesses, especially when they have an emotional investment like a lot of sports fans do.

[troutman]

Groundhog Day

Group in talks with Glendale to purchase Phoenix Coyotes
Ex-lawmaker, sports magnate trying again

http://www.azcentral.com/community/g...-purchase.html

Former Arizona lawmaker John Kaites and Chicago sports magnate Jerry Reinsdorf are again looking to purchase the Phoenix Coyotes

The city and the NHL are working with a second group of potential buyers, as well. That investment group emerged last month, led by Greg Jamison, a former chief executive of the San Jose Sharks.

Neither group has publicly discussed the structure of their bids.

A Glendale spokeswoman has said the city would not need to sell bonds to finance either deal.

[Jordan!]

Mother effing YAWN

[BACKCHECK!!!]

I'm telling you guys, an NHL fan group should buy the team and run it on-line.

Similar to these guys.

http://www.myfootballclub.co.uk/

Basically have a CP-style forum, where the board proposes moves, and we use polls to vote on those proposals.

"Trade Phaneuf for spare parts from 2nd worst team in league, Y/N?"

You'd have to make everybody who buys in promise not to tell other teams what they're doing though. Maybe some kind of on-line pinkie swearing system.

It's just as feasible as any of the plans the billionaires have come up with.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by BACKCHECK!!!

I'm telling you guys, an NHL fan group should buy the team and run it on-line.

Similar to these guys.

http://www.myfootballclub.co.uk/

Basically have a CP-style forum, where the board proposes moves, and we use polls to vote on those proposals.

"Trade Phaneuf for spare parts from 2nd worst team in league, Y/N?"

You'd have to make everybody who buys in promise not to tell other teams what they're doing though. Maybe some kind of on-line pinkie swearing system.

It's just as feasible as any of the plans the billionaires have come up with.

All of the CFL teams were once community owned but it eventually didn't work. Is Saskatchewan the last hold out?

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by troutman

Groundhog Day

Group in talks with Glendale to purchase Phoenix Coyotes
Ex-lawmaker, sports magnate trying again

This is seriously never going to end.

[PegCityFlamesFan]

All of the CFL teams were once community owned but it eventually didn't work. Is Saskatchewan the last hold out?

Winnipeg.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

All of the CFL teams were once community owned but it eventually didn't work. Is Saskatchewan the last hold out?

The Winnipeg Blue Bombers are community-owned as well.

[flamesaresmokin]

Originally Posted by BACKCHECK!!!

I'm telling you guys, an NHL fan group should buy the team and run it on-line.

Similar to these guys.

http://www.myfootballclub.co.uk/

Basically have a CP-style forum, where the board proposes moves, and we use polls to vote on those proposals.

"Trade Phaneuf for spare parts from 2nd worst team in league, Y/N?"

You'd have to make everybody who buys in promise not to tell other teams what they're doing though. Maybe some kind of on-line pinkie swearing system.

It's just as feasible as any of the plans the billionaires have come up with.

That would work out well...some of the ideas thrown out around here are not what we'd call well thought out.

Teams like the packers still sell shares of the team and that would be one of the smartest ways for a group to have ownership. Basically anyone could buy into the team if they live within a certain area. Management stays the same with the only changes being that they now answer to shareholders instead of a handful of owners.

At least this way we wouldn't have a fascicle situation with people voting on moves and such.

[Envitro]

Yes, exactly. That's the only way to do it.

You can even set up ownership committees or advisory boards but that's about as far as I'd go. The executive officers would have final say on moves, etc., with guidance from the board.

[flamesaresmokin]

Originally Posted by Envitro

Yes, exactly. That's the only way to do it.

You can even set up ownership committees or advisory boards but that's about as far as I'd go. The executive officers would have final say on moves, etc., with guidance from the board.

I'm sure that would also mean all shareholders would be eligible for stanley cup rings since they played a part in the front office

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Yeah the Phoenix-Glendale area was hit hard by the recession in the U.S.

As much as people like to get on PHX for not being a traditional hockey market the economic conditions in the US have not given them much of a chance to survive.

When the Football, Baseball, and Basketball teams are all struggling at times to make money, you know that the hockey team is going to be in tough times.

Arizona's economy was also hit pretty hard by boycotts and such due to its recent anti-immigrant legislation. This on top of the general economic crappery down here really hurt the state I've read.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by troutman

A Glendale spokeswoman has said the city would not need to sell bonds to finance either deal.

No, but it does need to back off of some of its demands.