General Ongoing Coyotes saga thread

[Notorious Honey Badger]

Originally Posted by valo403

What exactly is the NHL forcing anyone to do? The city of Glendale is under no obligation to do anything they do not think is in their best interests. The idea that the NHL should turn into a charity simply because the decisions that Glendale has made may not have been the greatest is laughable.

It's nothing about legal forcing anyone or holding a gun. It's an ethical thing. Is it wrong for a casino to allow a junky gambler to blow his entire savings and family's wealth on blackjack? Maybe. Maybe not. It's certainly legal though. I think it's a fair question of him to ask: should NHL really should be allowing a city to bankrupt itself trying to keep hockey around in a place where people could really do without it just as well. Or maybe should the NHL move on to where hockey is not only wanted but where the money for it exists.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Notorious Honey Badger

It's nothing about legal forcing anyone or holding a gun. It's an ethical thing. Is it wrong for a casino to allow a junky gambler to blow his entire savings and family's wealth on blackjack? Maybe. Maybe not. It's certainly legal though. I think it's a fair question of him to ask: should NHL really should be allowing a city to bankrupt itself trying to keep hockey around in a place where people could really do without it just as well. Or maybe should the NHL move on to where hockey is not only wanted but where the money for it exists.

Oh no, it's worse than that, Scrugs feels she has been led down the garden path, misleading them even lied to, by the NHL.

http://www.usatoday.com/video/glenda.../1547932482001

[Jordan!]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Oh no, it's worse than that, Scrugs feels she has been led down the garden path, misleading them even lied to, by the NHL.

http://www.usatoday.com/video/glenda.../1547932482001

This is weeks old. Votes are still 4-3 for a deal without her vote

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Notorious Honey Badger

It's nothing about legal forcing anyone or holding a gun. It's an ethical thing. Is it wrong for a casino to allow a junky gambler to blow his entire savings and family's wealth on blackjack? Maybe. Maybe not. It's certainly legal though. I think it's a fair question of him to ask: should NHL really should be allowing a city to bankrupt itself trying to keep hockey around in a place where people could really do without it just as well. Or maybe should the NHL move on to where hockey is not only wanted but where the money for it exists.

So your argument is that the NHL, not the city council, should be deciding what is in the best interests of the city of Glendale?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Oh no, it's worse than that, Scrugs feels she has been led down the garden path, misleading them even lied to, by the NHL.

http://www.usatoday.com/video/glenda.../1547932482001

If that's the case she can feel free, actually she would likely be obligated, to take legal action. I suspect the reality is that hindsight is 20/20 and she's now trying to restore some of her political reputation.

[Notorious Honey Badger]

Originally Posted by valo403

So your argument is that the NHL, not the city council, should be deciding what is in the best interests of the city of Glendale?

My question, not argument, is when is it morally and ethically right for the NHL to stop taking millions from the city? Hell, hundreds of millions. And from a business sense, why would you want to have a break even situation (at best) when you can move it to Canada and make millions each year instead?

[afc wimbledon]

where the NHL is being unethical imho is by suggesting to the city that a buyer is constantly just around the corner and they will keep the team in Glendale, what the league should do, although to be frank the city aught to be aware of this independantly of the league, is that there is no chance anyone will keep the team in Glendale, that at best the league might be able to extract a promise to keep it there fro a few years and then move it.
The city needs to make plans for what they will do when the team inevitably moves, whether this is next year or in a few years, once they confront this as reality their decision around what to do this year may change.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Notorious Honey Badger

My question, not argument, is when is it morally and ethically right for the NHL to stop taking millions from the city? Hell, hundreds of millions. And from a business sense, why would you want to have a break even situation (at best) when you can move it to Canada and make millions each year instead?

a) There's no moral issue here. The city of Glendale is making the decisions that it deems are best for its citizens, the NHL has no role in that process.

b) I'm not privy to NHL board meetings, but I suspect that a board made up of highly decorated businessmen who have made themselves, and their shareholders, hundreds of billions of dollars collectively are capable of evaluating what the best business decision is. Perhaps the situation isn't as simple as you've attempted to make it out to be?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

where the NHL is being unethical imho is by suggesting to the city that a buyer is constantly just around the corner and they will keep the team in Glendale, what the league should do, although to be frank the city aught to be aware of this independantly of the league, is that there is no chance anyone will keep the team in Glendale, that at best the league might be able to extract a promise to keep it there fro a few years and then move it.
The city needs to make plans for what they will do when the team inevitably moves, whether this is next year or in a few years, once they confront this as reality their decision around what to do this year may change.

Every single proposed deal I have seen to date included terms regarding a commitment to stay in Glendale for a certain period of time, 10 years seems to be the typical time period.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by valo403

If that's the case she can feel free, actually she would likely be obligated, to take legal action. I suspect the reality is that hindsight is 20/20 and she's now trying to restore some of her political reputation.

She didn't sound interested in taking legal action. How could you prove that the NHL wasn't being up front? What the NHL has done may be legal but that doesn't mean it isn't sleazy. She is just offering her opinion that the NHL has been misleading her by saying a new owner is just around the corner and they will never have to pay the $25M.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by valo403

Every single proposed deal I have seen to date included terms regarding a commitment to stay in Glendale for a certain period of time, 10 years seems to be the typical time period.

Granted but it is fairly obvious by now that hockey is not profitable at Glendale, and baring a rich local hockey nut stepping foward who is prepared to lose millions a year for the indefinate future, it is clear that the team isn't going to last, I would hazard a guess that even in the unlikely event of the league finding a buyer who is prepared to sign a 10 year commitment there will be ways to slide out after 3 or 4, selling the team to a shell company with no commitment etc, a penalty payment (along with a tacit deal to move the team etc).

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

She didn't sound interested in taking legal action. How could you prove that the NHL wasn't being up front? What the NHL has done may be legal but that doesn't mean it isn't sleazy. She is just offering her opinion that the NHL has been misleading her by saying a new owner is just around the corner and they will never have to pay the $25M.

The same way that every single case like this does it, through discovery. This isn't a small dollar figure, if there was any credibility to that claim the possibility of legal action would be very much out there. The fact that it isn't speaks volumes.

[Notorious Honey Badger]

Originally Posted by valo403

a) There's no moral issue here. The city of Glendale is making the decisions that it deems are best for its citizens, the NHL has no role in that process.

b) I'm not privy to NHL board meetings, but I suspect that a board made up of highly decorated businessmen who have made themselves, and their shareholders, hundreds of billions of dollars collectively are capable of evaluating what the best business decision is. Perhaps the situation isn't as simple as you've attempted to make it out to be?

a) There certainly is a moral and ethical issue. Corrupt politicians bilking their citizens with backdoor shenanigans is hardly a conspiracy theory, as it's happened before and likely will again.

b) I was providing a reason why it matters in a business sense in case you want to pretend there is no moral issue or downplay it. Who knows why the NHL wants to stay in Phoenix, but you'd be hard pressed to present me with an argument that makes it seem logical that more money is to be had in Phoenix for the NHL rather than Quebec City.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Granted but it is fairly obvious by now that hockey is not profitable at Glendale, and baring a rich local hockey nut stepping foward who is prepared to lose millions a year for the indefinate future, it is clear that the team isn't going to last, I would hazard a guess that even in the unlikely event of the league finding a buyer who is prepared to sign a 10 year commitment there will be ways to slide out after 3 or 4, selling the team to a shell company with no commitment etc, a penalty payment (along with a tacit deal to move the team etc).

Yeah no, that's why you structure a deal that closes those loopholes.

Btw, it's not at all obvious that hockey is not going to be profitable in Glendale in the future.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Notorious Honey Badger

a) There certainly is a moral and ethical issue. Corrupt politicians bilking their citizens with backdoor shenanigans is hardly a conspiracy theory, as it's happened before and likely will again.

b) I was providing a reason why it matters in a business sense in case you want to pretend there is no moral issue or downplay it. Who knows why the NHL wants to stay in Phoenix, but you'd be hard pressed to present me with an argument that makes it seem logical that more money is to be had in Phoenix for the NHL rather than Quebec City.

I think it is unfair to assume corruption in this case, this is a small city council made up of local business people, real estate sales people or car dealers etc, they are just totally out of their depth and always have been in this case.



The NHL sold them a monorail, they keep hoping it will work out with a bit more money.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by valo403

Yeah no, that's why you structure a deal that closes those loopholes.

Btw, it's not at all obvious that hockey is not going to be profitable in Glendale in the future.

No one will touch the team without an out.

I cannot see what would change to make hockey work there that hasn't been tried or happened over the last decade, after all a business needs to be profitable, at least to some degree regardless of the success of the team etc.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by valo403

The same way that every single case like this does it, through discovery. This isn't a small dollar figure, if there was any credibility to that claim the possibility of legal action would be very much out there. The fact that it isn't speaks volumes.

It doesn't seem that there is enough evidence to prove intent but that doesn't stop the Mayor from thinking that she has been conned with NHL promises.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Notorious Honey Badger

a) There certainly is a moral and ethical issue. Corrupt politicians bilking their citizens with backdoor shenanigans is hardly a conspiracy theory, as it's happened before and likely will again.

b) I was providing a reason why it matters in a business sense in case you want to pretend there is no moral issue or downplay it. Who knows why the NHL wants to stay in Phoenix, but you'd be hard pressed to present me with an argument that makes it seem logical that more money is to be had in Phoenix for the NHL rather than Quebec City.

a) You're arguing two different things. Political corruption is yet another example of something that isn't the NHL's responsibility. They're supposed to be the watchdogs for every municipality in which they do business now? The NHL doesn't, and shouldn't, have an obligation, moral or otherwise, to police the inner-workings of municipal politics.

These are elected officials, if there decision making is not in the best interests of the local citizens they should be removed from office through political means. Until then their decisions should be assumed to be made in the best interests of the municipality, expecting anyone, corporation or individual, to substitute their judgment in that case is ridiculous.

b) When did Quebec City become a viable alternative? I think you'd be hard pressed that it ever entered that territory prior to the last few months, meaning that any opportunity for a move to even be explored didn't present itself until then. You've already jumped the gun in your argument, for all we know Quebec is a very real player to get a team this off season. If that doesn't happen I'll give you a logical argument for the NHL not wanting to move Phoenix to Quebec City in two words: Expansion Fee.

[woob]

Originally Posted by valo403

You've already jumped the gun in your argument, for all we know Quebec is a very real player to get a team this off season. If that doesn't happen I'll give you a logical argument for the NHL not wanting to move Phoenix to Quebec City in two words: Expansion Fee.

Expansion Fee? In what regards?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by woob

Expansion Fee? In what regards?

I'm not sure I understand your question. If the Coyotes stay in Phoenix, and no other markets fail, the only way Quebec gets in is via expansion. Hence the expansion fee.