General Ongoing Coyotes saga thread

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by JerryUnderscore

You know, I guess I would understand more if people just said, "I hate the idea of hockey anywhere South of the 36th parallel."

If people hated LA, Dallas, Florida, Tampa Bay, Nashville and Carolina just as much as they have a hate on for the Coyotes... I guess I could understand but this seems to be a very singular anger. That just baffles me.

When you're sitting in the middle of five million people, the odds are in your favour that you can regularly draw 18,000.

Even the Flames probably have only about 3,500 to 4,000 season ticket accounts.

Dallas has been a great model of how to do things. They spent 20 years building communitty rinks, advancing minor hockey programs and generally ingratiating a hockey culture into a place where it really didn't exist before. And now the first high quality NHL draft picks are starting to come out of places like Texas and California. If the culture exists, you can survive the inevitable poor years and prosper when times are good.

A problem in Phoenix is they haven't spent their time there as wisely as Dallas did. Its been an incompetently managed franchise on the business side for a long time. They can still get that right in the future but they have to put the time, effort and resources into community development and stop relying on calls to my office in Calgary looking to sell playoff tickets.

I was down to Phoenix for a game last November and the location of the arena is a problem. Nice place but I seem to remember a roughly 115 block drive down Camelback!!!

Cowperson

[Jordan!]

Lieberman waving the white flag?

http://www.lapresse.ca/le-soleil/spo...lierberman.php

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Dallas has been a great model of how to do things. They spent 20 years building communitty rinks, advancing minor hockey programs and generally ingratiating a hockey culture into a place where it really didn't exist before. And now the first high quality NHL draft picks are starting to come out of places like Texas and California. If the culture exists, you can survive the inevitable poor years and prosper when times are good.

Dallas is struggling to sell tickets now, and tickets are cheap. Hockey is always going to be low on the totem-pole in many US cities. Will cult followings be enough?

28th in attendance:

http://espn.go.com/nhl/attendance

Dallas only has 13, 000 households watching regional TV games (Flames do 300,000+ viewers, and the Canucks do up to 600,000 viewers):

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/J.../NHL-RSNs.aspx

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Bouw N Arrow

Lieberman waving the white flag?

http://www.lapresse.ca/le-soleil/spo...lierberman.php

Translated:

http://translate.google.com/translat...lierberman.php

[Jordan!]

Key point from Leiberman

"In two weeks, the board must decide. Bettman must also submit the agreement to the Board of Governors of the League, "he says.

"Four members of the Board will approve this, you can count on it," says he.

As for the possibility that the Goldwater Institute could derail the case as he has done in the past, Phil Lieberman doubt that to happen again.

[troutman]

He said the league will bypass the problem posed by the Gift Clause, which prohibits a public administration to make donations to a private company. It will have to establish that the landlord provides a service to the municipality, he says. "If we agree that the team provides a service to the City by managing its arena for $ 17 million per year, while the Goldwater Institute can not rely on the Gift Clause," Mr. Lieberman ahead.

GWI would have to argue that the $17 Million management fee is a farce - it is far above market value for this service, and truly a subsidy (Scruggs called it a subsidy at one point). I think that is the truth of it, but I doubt GWI will risk it.

AEG paid $50 million to Kansas City for the right to manage The Sprint Center (which was opened in 2007) through 2033

[valo403]

Originally Posted by troutman

He said the league will bypass the problem posed by the Gift Clause, which prohibits a public administration to make donations to a private company. It will have to establish that the landlord provides a service to the municipality, he says. "If we agree that the team provides a service to the City by managing its arena for $ 17 million per year, while the Goldwater Institute can not rely on the Gift Clause," Mr. Lieberman ahead.

GWI would have to argue that the $17 Million management fee is a farce - it is far above market value for this service, and truly a subsidy (Scruggs called it a subsidy at one point). I think that is the truth of it, but I doubt GWI will risk it.

AEG paid $50 million to Kansas City for the right to manage The Sprint Center (which was opened in 2007) through 2033

You can't just look at the surface of the deal and make a comparison, there are way too many possible underlying aspects to do so accurately.

[Resolute 14]

FWIW in comparison, when the Flames took over management of the Saddledome in 1994, they agreed to pay the city a flat fee ($1 million per year, iirc), and in return received pretty much all building revenue and had to pay for building maintenance. In the long run, the city would have made more money off the old deal (presuming the Flames did not relocate), so one could argue that Calgary paid the Flames to take over the Dome, albeit indirectly.

So the question for both Phoenix and Kansas City is, what are they paying for and what are they giving up?

[troutman]

Goldwater has made no direct comment so far, but posted this May 8th - Do sports teams really drive economic growth?:

http://goldwaterinstitute.org/blog/d...conomic-growth

As an extensive 2008 review of the peer-reviewed economic studies published over the past 20 years concludes: "No matter what cities or geographical areas are examined, no matter what estimators are used, no matter what model specifications are used, and no matter what variables are used, articles published in peer reviewed economic journals contain almost no evidence that professional sports franchises and facilities have a measurable economic impact on the economy."

One of the main reasons sports teams and the facilities in which they play are not drivers of economic growth is because they don't create new economic activity. Instead, they displace other forms of economic activity.

Econ Journal Watch: Do Economists Reach a Conclusion on Subsidies for Sports Franchises, Stadiums, and Mega-Events?

We have seen that economists in general, as represented by Whaples’s survey
(2006), oppose sports subsidies. Economists reach the nearly unanimous conclusion
that “tangible” economic benefits generated by professional sports facilities
and franchises are very small; clearly far smaller than stadium advocates suggest
and smaller than the size of the subsidies. The fact that sports subsidies continue
to be granted, despite the overwhelming preponderance of evidence that no tangible
economic benefits are generated by these heavily subsidized professional
sports facilities, remains a puzzle.


From April 16th:

http://goldwaterinstitute.org/articl...x-coyotes-sale

Goldwater’s scrutiny of a new Coyotes sale will likely center around what kind of arena management fee the city might pay a Jamison group or another owner and whether some portion of a sale is aimed at helping a new owner absorb some of the hockey teams’s $20 million in annual losses.

“A subsidy is a subsidy,” said Sitren.

The watchdog group previously sued the city of Phoenix over a $97 million tax break given to the original developer of the CityNorth commercial complex next to Desert Ridge Marketplace. The Arizona Supreme Court ruled the future government subsidies to businesses need to have some public purpose and make sense to financially to economic benefits.

The Goldwater group has not challenged two $25 million payments approved by the city of Glendale for the NHL to run city-owned Jobing.com Arena. The NHL has owned the Coyotes since 2009 and the franchise loses $20 million to $25 million. Skeptics say Glendale payments are to help the NHL deal with the Coyotes financial losses as well as to run the arena.

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

Originally Posted by troutman

Goldwater has made no direct comment so far, but posted this May 8th - Do sports teams really drive economic growth?:

http://goldwaterinstitute.org/blog/d...conomic-growth

As an extensive 2008 review of the peer-reviewed economic studies published over the past 20 years concludes: "No matter what cities or geographical areas are examined, no matter what estimators are used, no matter what model specifications are used, and no matter what variables are used, articles published in peer reviewed economic journals contain almost no evidence that professional sports franchises and facilities have a measurable economic impact on the economy."

One of the main reasons sports teams and the facilities in which they play are not drivers of economic growth is because they don't create new economic activity. Instead, they displace other forms of economic activity.

I don't know if I believe that, though. Plenty of people will visit a city to attend a sporting event where they might otherwise spend that money elsewhere on a different trip, etc.

Every summer I do a baseball trip where I hit up 4-5 different cities. If cities like Kansas City, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Baltimore, etc. didn't have MLB teams I would not be visiting them.

Similarly, I'm sure any number of people on these message boards (including myself) who live outside Calgary can talk about times they visited the city to watch a Flames game. I'll drive three hours to see the Flames play on a Saturday night. If there are no Flames, I'm staying in Edmonton and doing something else.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by troutman

Goldwater has made no direct comment so far, but posted this May 8th - Do sports teams really drive economic growth?:

http://goldwaterinstitute.org/blog/d...conomic-growth


One of the main reasons sports teams and the facilities in which they play are not drivers of economic growth is because they don't create new economic activity. Instead, they displace other forms of economic activity.

In this case in may provide economic growth for Glendale. If more of the economic activity of the Greater Phoenix area occurs in Glendale it will provide increased tax revenue for the city as a whole.

However the region would remain roughly tax neutral.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by troutman

[/I]From April 16th:

http://goldwaterinstitute.org/articl...x-coyotes-sale

Goldwater’s scrutiny of a new Coyotes sale will likely center around what kind of arena management fee the city might pay a Jamison group or another owner and whether some portion of a sale is aimed at helping a new owner absorb some of the hockey teams’s $20 million in annual losses.

“A subsidy is a subsidy,” said Sitren.

The watchdog group previously sued the city of Phoenix over a $97 million tax break given to the original developer of the CityNorth commercial complex next to Desert Ridge Marketplace. The Arizona Supreme Court ruled the future government subsidies to businesses need to have some public purpose and make sense to financially to economic benefits.

The Goldwater group has not challenged two $25 million payments approved by the city of Glendale for the NHL to run city-owned Jobing.com Arena. The NHL has owned the Coyotes since 2009 and the franchise loses $20 million to $25 million. Skeptics say Glendale payments are to help the NHL deal with the Coyotes financial losses as well as to run the arena.

I don't disagree with the lack of economic benefits, but that's really not an issue that's at play here.

The bolded line really sums up why GWI doesn't seem like a credible threat to this deal in two ways. First, they aren't competent enough to draft a document that actually states what the AZ Supreme Court has ruled. I mean c'mon guys if you can't be bothered to proof your own press releases why should we take you seriously?

Second, if I deciphered the sentence correctly I don't see how GWI can successfully argue that the standard has not been met (and it seems to be a deferential standard) absent some sort of smoking gun document.

[TorqueDog]

Off topic for a second, but the sale to Tom Stillman in St. Louis was approved by the BoG today.

So what happened with the Hulsizer bid? First, he can't agree with the CoG on the Jobing.com arena lease, so he goes to St. Louis to buy a team without all the strings attached and fails again? Is this guy just a pretender? All we hear is the purchase agreement was terminated by the NHL.

[Flashpoint]

Originally Posted by troutman

Dallas is struggling to sell tickets now, and tickets are cheap. Hockey is always going to be low on the totem-pole in many US cities. Will cult followings be enough?

28th in attendance:

http://espn.go.com/nhl/attendance

Dallas only has 13, 000 households watching regional TV games (Flames do 300,000+ viewers, and the Canucks do up to 600,000 viewers):

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/J.../NHL-RSNs.aspx

Calgary was a ghost town after 7 years out of the playoffs. Not hard to suggest a similar thing would occur in Dallas after just 3. The ownership was in flux for two years, and there are a lot of sports options in this town (with the Mavs winning a championship and the Rangers going to the finals 2 years running there is a lot of competition for your sports dollar).

It seems an oversimplification to say it's the result of a non traditional market. A Plano kid just went in the first round. The kids on my team have grown up playing, and are now at an age where they can buy their own seasons tickets.

IMO the bottom line is winning. You win, your team is successful at the gate.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

Calgary was a ghost town after 7 years out of the playoffs. Not hard to suggest a similar thing would occur in Dallas after just 3. The ownership was in flux for two years, and there are a lot of sports options in this town (with the Mavs winning a championship and the Rangers going to the finals 2 years running there is a lot of competition for your sports dollar).

It seems an oversimplification to say it's the result of a non traditional market. A Plano kid just went in the first round. The kids on my team have grown up playing, and are now at an age where they can buy their own seasons tickets.

IMO the bottom line is winning. You win, your team is successful at the gate.

This bolded part is key. Whether kids end up in the NHL or not, those who were exposed to hockey as kids are more likely to go to games as adults, take their kids, etc.

That'll improve as the kids who've grown up playing move into their middle age (higher income) years as well.

[Jordan!]

Radio interview with Greg Jamison

http://azsportstalk.com/2012/05/tues...e-fan-am-1060/

[valo403]

Originally Posted by troutman

Dallas is struggling to sell tickets now, and tickets are cheap. Hockey is always going to be low on the totem-pole in many US cities. Will cult followings be enough?

28th in attendance:

http://espn.go.com/nhl/attendance

Dallas only has 13, 000 households watching regional TV games (Flames do 300,000+ viewers, and the Canucks do up to 600,000 viewers):

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/J.../NHL-RSNs.aspx

Interestingly enough Dallas is also just starting to come out of a situation where previous ownership had poisoned a lot of the goodwill generated in the early years.

http://www.defendingbigd.com/2012/5/...key-a-priority

The common thread in all of the struggling markets seems to be incompetent ownership.

[SuperMatt18]

Any team that has ownership struggles (U.S. or Canada) is going to struggle to draw fans, and it doesn't matter what sport.

In Dallas alone we have seen the Texas Rangers have a lot of issues before Nolan Ryan came in and stabalized ownership in that city, the Mavericks were a team that looked like it could move until Mark Cuban came in and purchased them, and the Stars also took a huge dive when Ownership question rose up.

Ownership questions lead to issues drawing fans, issues drawing fans leads to nobody wanting to step up and buy the team, its a vicious circle.

[JerryUnderscore]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

When you're sitting in the middle of five million people, the odds are in your favour that you can regularly draw 18,000.

Even the Flames probably have only about 3,500 to 4,000 season ticket accounts.

Dallas has been a great model of how to do things. They spent 20 years building communitty rinks, advancing minor hockey programs and generally ingratiating a hockey culture into a place where it really didn't exist before. And now the first high quality NHL draft picks are starting to come out of places like Texas and California. If the culture exists, you can survive the inevitable poor years and prosper when times are good.

A problem in Phoenix is they haven't spent their time there as wisely as Dallas did. Its been an incompetently managed franchise on the business side for a long time. They can still get that right in the future but they have to put the time, effort and resources into community development and stop relying on calls to my office in Calgary looking to sell playoff tickets.

I was down to Phoenix for a game last November and the location of the arena is a problem. Nice place but I seem to remember a roughly 115 block drive down Camelback!!!

Cowperson

I agree that the Coyotes have not been managed properly in the past. I think some past owners wrongly assumed they could set up a team in Phoenix and turn a quick buck. Instead, you really need to continue to push for a hockey culture in the area.

That means supporting local hockey initiatives, getting as many Coyotes games in TV as possible, etc. And, the most important thing they can do is deliver a winning product.

Of course, I also suspect that having a stable ownership group again will seriously improve things. Why would anyone in Phoenix that doesn't know hockey want to invest in the team, buy jerseys, learn about players, etc. just for the team to potentially pack up and leave next year?

Also... 115 blocks down Camelback? I'm assuming you started in Scottsdale. Why not just take the 101 around? That's got to be much quicker.

[Jordan!]

When your previous owner thinks that the mere presence of Wayne Gretzky is going to win you games and be the only point of marketing.

You've got serious issues.

Cow, did you seriously drive down Camelback to the game?? You're doing it wrong. lol...

Why the hell didn't you take the I-10 or hell, even the entire loop 101?