General Ongoing Coyotes saga thread

[sevenarms]

Originally Posted by PegCityFlamesFan

I think it shows what 20 dollars and a free t shirt gets you for playoff hockey in Phoenix.

A new stable owner after a strong playoff run could be just what the Coyotes need to restart their fanbase.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by The Original FFIV

I think it is time for a poll - will the Coyotes stay or go?

Mid June is when we should know if the budget passes or not. Interesting that outgoing mayor Scruggs opposes the $17M management fee as she thinks it should be $11M. Cue the Mayflower moving vans.

I don't know if they get moved this year, but they don't have long for the city.

[Jordan!]

Hello Arizona Coyotes in 2012-2013 - Final draft of the lease agreement

http://www.glendaleaz.com/documents/...FinalDraft.pdf

I expect a vote on the 12th

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

They are going about it in a strange way in having to pay $17M/yr when they could cut their losses and collect $6M/yr from another outfit willing to run the arena for them.

Those other city's councils have or will have contributed to their NHL team and haven't committed political suicide. They have done it for the supposed benefit to the community and tax payers have mostly gone along with it. Why can't the various councils in Phoenix do the same, if they feel the team is a benefit to the whole area?

Source?

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by valo403

Source?

This should do. You've got a short memory. I hate having to dig up links two or three times, especially when I was directly talking to you. and people wonder why I give up providing links. You don't want to know, you just want to hassle me without putting in any effort.

Originally Posted by valo403
Or it would cost more than $17M to operate the arena on their own, in which case this arrangement saves them money.Quote:

Vulcan
" I've found some information.:


At a council workshop last week, Deputy City Manager Jim Colson said a city-commissioned analysis by TL Hocking & Associates projected Glendale could expect to bring in an average of $15.7 million annually over a 20-year lease with Jamison and $6.5 million without the Coyotes.

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/community/g...#ixzz1uCQYJJQ0

If that's the case, than they are losing 1.3M per year with the Coyotes and would earn $6.5 without. This still doesn't take into account their mortgage payments for the arena or the loss in sales taxes for the area.

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

Originally Posted by Bouw N Arrow

Hello Quebec Nordiques in 2013-2014

Fixed.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Sidney Crosby's Hat

Fixed.

I demand more information or green text.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

This should do. You've got a short memory. I hate having to dig up links two or three times, especially when I was directly talking to you. and people wonder why I give up providing links. You don't want to know, you just want to hassle me without putting in any effort.

Yep, you got me. It's what I live for

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

This should do. You've got a short memory. I hate having to dig up links two or three times, especially when I was directly talking to you. and people wonder why I give up providing links. You don't want to know, you just want to hassle me without putting in any effort.

I think it is more the fact that you have no clue what you are talking about. The story you linked is talking about revenue the city estimates it could collect from events at the arena. i.e.: With the Coyotes, $15.7 million per year, and without, $6.5 million. In short, the Coyotes are worth about $8.8 million per year in revenue to the city in this scenario (and worth 33% more than all other events combined). What you need to understand is that revenue is not the same as profit.

What we are missing here is the expenses. What expenses and risks would Jamison be taking on in exchange for that $17 million (average) fee? If that figure is north of $8.8 million, then the city is likely coming out ahead relative to just letting the team go.

Also unknown is whether that report is talking about arena revenues only, or whether it is including all associated revenue, e.g.: local sales taxes collected from non-Glendale residents coming to their city to attend events related to the arena.

A third unknown is how what attendance level the report estimated the Coyotes to achieve and how many new events the new management can bring in. If average attendance comes in above that estimate, then city revenues from the arena go up. If more events get booked, then city revenues go up. By the same token, if attendance ends up below or fewer other events get booked, revenues go down.

Now, I haven't read much of the proposed lease agreement, but there are some things that stand out:
1. Flat lease fee is rather weak. Jamieson would pay Glendal $500k per year for the first six years, $650k for the following six, then $800k over the remainder.
2. The management fee is $17 million in year one, $20 million in year two, then $18 million for a few years, then $15 million then $10 million.
3. Ticket surcharge collected by the city is $2.75 for all events for the first five or six years, then $3.00 for the remainder.
4. City gets 15% of gross revenue from naming rights agreements.

I haven't read too much of potential expenses yet, but day-to-day stuff (like removing or replacing the ice for other events) is obviously Jamison's expense.

Is this a good deal for Glendale? Probably not. Is it a better deal than just letting the team go? I'm not sure, except to know that it isn't nearly as black and white as you make it out to be.

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

I demand more information or green text.

This whole thing screams Ice Edge to me. Jamison is doing the NHL a favour here. He's setting it up so the City will cover the Coyotes losses for one more year.

It's the same story, every year.

"This group is close to purchasing the team, put $25 million in your budget just in case the deal falls through but don't worry, it won't. You won't have to spend a dime."

I'm hearing that Jamison doesn't even have investors lined up yet! Expect the next few months to be updates from Jamison saying that he's close to finding investors and then all of a sudden it's next February and oh, sorry, for some reason nobody was interested in investing.

Next thing you see is Bettman, Daly and Peladeau shaking hands with GB saying he's sorry it couldn't have worked out but gosh darn they sure tried, didn't they?

EDIT: Oh, and what's in it for Jamison? Do not be surprised to see him resurface as an owner of the new Seattle expansion team.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I think it is more the fact that you have no clue what you are talking about. The story you linked is talking about revenue the city estimates it could collect from events at the arena. i.e.: With the Coyotes, $15.7 million per year, and without, $6.5 million. In short, the Coyotes are worth about $8.8 million per year in revenue to the city in this scenario (and worth 33% more than all other events combined). What you need to understand is that revenue is not the same as profit.

What we are missing here is the expenses. What expenses and risks would Jamison be taking on in exchange for that $17 million (average) fee? If that figure is north of $8.8 million, then the city is likely coming out ahead relative to just letting the team go.

Also unknown is whether that report is talking about arena revenues only, or whether it is including all associated revenue, e.g.: local sales taxes collected from non-Glendale residents coming to their city to attend events related to the arena.

A third unknown is how what attendance level the report estimated the Coyotes to achieve and how many new events the new management can bring in. If average attendance comes in above that estimate, then city revenues from the arena go up. If more events get booked, then city revenues go up. By the same token, if attendance ends up below or fewer other events get booked, revenues go down.

Now, I haven't read much of the proposed lease agreement, but there are some things that stand out:
1. Flat lease fee is rather weak. Jamieson would pay Glendal $500k per year for the first six years, $650k for the following six, then $800k over the remainder.
2. The management fee is $17 million in year one, $20 million in year two, then $18 million for a few years, then $15 million then $10 million.
3. Ticket surcharge collected by the city is $2.75 for all events for the first five or six years, then $3.00 for the remainder.
4. City gets 15% of gross revenue from naming rights agreements.

I haven't read too much of potential expenses yet, but day-to-day stuff (like removing or replacing the ice for other events) is obviously Jamison's expense.

Is this a good deal for Glendale? Probably not. Is it a better deal than just letting the team go? I'm not sure, except to know that it isn't nearly as black and white as you make it out to be.

Oh, I understand better than you think.
This is what I was really looking for, the offer. Again it was linked before in this thread, maybe you guys should try to keep up.

Maybe that's why the former Ice Edge Holdings -- who once tried to position themselves as buyers for the Coyotes -- recently offered to run Jobing.com Arena for between $5-10 million if and when the NHL club does leave.

So my $6M may have been conservative but it is what the operating profit is at the Sprint Center in Kansas City.

This old time councillor believes it's a bad deal and I would think he's got a better handle on the costs than you or I.

"If I had to choose between the Coyotes staying and them leaving, I wish they were leaving," said Lieberman.

Lieberman says he shudders to think what hockey in the desert has cost the city he's lived in, worked in and served for most of his life after returning from the Second World War.
"I figure about $134 million in cold hard cash so far," he said. "Wow is right."
And if this deal goes through it will only mean more of the same. Good money after bad, is the expression.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/2012/...ndale_bettman/

[Northendzone]

Originally Posted by Sidney Crosby's Hat

This whole thing screams Ice Edge to me. Jamison is doing the NHL a favour here. He's setting it up so the City will cover the Coyotes losses for one more year.

It's the same story, every year.

"This group is close to purchasing the team, put $25 million in your budget just in case the deal falls through but don't worry, it won't. You won't have to spend a dime."

I'm hearing that Jamison doesn't even have investors lined up yet! Expect the next few months to be updates from Jamison saying that he's close to finding investors and then all of a sudden it's next February and oh, sorry, for some reason nobody was interested in investing.

Next thing you see is Bettman, Daly and Peladeau shaking hands with GB saying he's sorry it couldn't have worked out but gosh darn they sure tried, didn't they?

EDIT: Oh, and what's in it for Jamison? Do not be surprised to see him resurface as an owner of the new Seattle expansion team.

This.......except that reinsdorf's name will come up a few times before then.

[PeteLFan]

I hope Phoenix has the dream season next year 0-relocation.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Sidney Crosby's Hat

This whole thing screams Ice Edge to me. Jamison is doing the NHL a favour here. He's setting it up so the City will cover the Coyotes losses for one more year.

It's the same story, every year.

"This group is close to purchasing the team, put $25 million in your budget just in case the deal falls through but don't worry, it won't. You won't have to spend a dime."

I'm hearing that Jamison doesn't even have investors lined up yet! Expect the next few months to be updates from Jamison saying that he's close to finding investors and then all of a sudden it's next February and oh, sorry, for some reason nobody was interested in investing.

Next thing you see is Bettman, Daly and Peladeau shaking hands with GB saying he's sorry it couldn't have worked out but gosh darn they sure tried, didn't they?

EDIT: Oh, and what's in it for Jamison? Do not be surprised to see him resurface as an owner of the new Seattle expansion team.

Well that would be something, Bettman fooling them three times.

Why don't they just move them to QC now? Glendale's $25M doesn't cover all the Coyotes loses and apparently QC could be ready by opening day with their old arena.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Why don't they just move them to QC now? Glendale's $25M doesn't cover all the Coyotes loses and apparently QC could be ready by opening day with their old arena.

Don't trust construction schedules in Quebec. Trust me.

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Well that would be something, Bettman fooling them three times.

Why don't they just move them to QC now? Glendale's $25M doesn't cover all the Coyotes loses and apparently QC could be ready by opening day with their old arena.

They won't be ready. It's a pretty extensive upgrade on the Colisee that needs to be done and they haven't started on it yet. And why rush when you know your bills are going to be paid for?

[Vulcan]

Yeah, I remember the Big O.

[Tsawwassen]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/new-coyotes-owner-to-receive-at-least-15-million-a-year-from-glendale/article4230966/

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

So my $6M may have been conservative but it is what the operating profit is at the Sprint Center in Kansas City.

Given the Sprint Center has as many events booked for June alone as Jobing.com has from now until November, I would expect that the KC arena would be making far more money than Glendale. That also makes sense given Sprint is the primary arena in KC (especially since Kemper is scheduled for demolishing) while Glendale is not in metro-Phoenix. You can't just point to KC as being a comparable for Glendale without actually looking at the facts behind each facility.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Bouw N Arrow

Hello Arizona Coyotes in 2012-2013 - Final draft of the lease agreement

http://www.glendaleaz.com/documents/...FinalDraft.pdf

I expect a vote on the 12th

Thanks - it looked like we would not see that until Friday evening.

Some are suggesting Jamison could still collect the AMF if the Coyotes left, as long as there is an "anchor tenant" - ex. an AHL team.