General Ongoing Coyotes saga thread

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by transplant99

I understand Winnipeg charges more....but that has nothing to do with what i was saying in regards to attendance.

Would I put my money in Phoenix? Not a chance. Doesn't mean that there aren't others that will though....and in the end, who cares? Its not your money, its not my money and if someone wants to pay to have an NHL team in Arizona...let em. Doesn't impact my life or enjoyment of the game one iota.

and what I'm saying is that their attendance figures mean squat when they are giving away tickets.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

and what I'm saying is that their attendance figures mean squat when they are giving away tickets.

They are giving away tickets?

I thought any "give aways" were not part of official attendance though...as HRR would come into play at that point.

I could be wrong...but i think i remember reading that after the last CBA was ratified.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by transplant99

yet they are virtually identical to the attendance figures in Winnipeg....last year.

Smaller building and the ticket price isn't even close. Not a good comparison.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

When have 11K fans ever actually been in attendance at a Coyotes game, let alone 14K.

Something seems off.

Teams always report tickets distributed, not tickets sold or turnstile count. Taking umbrage with the reported numbers does not change the fact that announced attendance dropped by 3000 (over 20%) following the bankruptcy ploy. Pick whatever figure you think is accurate, the ploy still caused a significant decrease.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by transplant99

They are giving away tickets?

I thought any "give aways" were not part of official attendance though...as HRR would come into play at that point.

I could be wrong...but i think i remember reading that after the last CBA was ratified.

Every team gives tickets away. The numbers for public consumption is tickets distributed.

The accountants determining HRR are most certainly getting the tickets sold numbers.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Teams always report tickets distributed, not tickets sold or turnstile count. Taking umbrage with the reported numbers does not change the fact that announced attendance dropped by 3000 (over 20%) following the bankruptcy ploy. Pick whatever figure you think is accurate, the ploy still caused a significant decrease.

A big reason for the drop in announced attendance was the Coyotes reducing the number of free tickets by ~50,000 a year after the NHL took over (according to their COO). However it is unclear whether this just means that they aren't literally giving tickets away or if they don't count sponsors who buy discounted tickets to then give away for free, as free.

And as the bankruptcy documents showed, the Coyotes consistently reported higher attendances than tickets distributed (and MUCH higher than than the actual turnstile).

[Resolute 14]

That's all well and good, but it doesn't counter my argument.

I think we all agree that the turnstile count in the last three years, plus this, is nowhere near 11,000 per game. The team, post-bankruptcy, is still drawing significantly lower numbers than it was pre.

I am not trying to argue that Coyotes attendance is good, because it is not. I am simply saying that the argument "draw more fans and you have a better chance to find stable ownership" is circular becasue the attendance decline is a result of the instability in ownership rather than a cause of it.

edit: Or, more accurately, you can't expect paid attendance to rise as long as the ownership is unsettled. People aren't going to support that, no matter what the market.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

That's all well and good, but it doesn't counter my argument.

I think we all agree that the turnstile count in the last three years, plus this, is nowhere near 11,000 per game. The team, post-bankruptcy, is still drawing significantly lower numbers than it was pre.

I am not trying to argue that Coyotes attendance is good, because it is not. I am simply saying that the argument "draw more fans and you have a better chance to find stable ownership" is circular becasue the attendance decline is a result of the instability in ownership rather than a cause of it.

edit: Or, more accurately, you can't expect paid attendance to rise as long as the ownership is unsettled. People aren't going to support that, no matter what the market.

Their turnstile count attendance dropped 328 from seemingly stable ownership to knowing they were in financial trouble. That's hardly much of a decline to back your argument.

The Flames and Oilers attendance rose when ownership became questionable. They were on the market to be moved but the fans showed up.

Your whole argument is based on if this happened or that happened, the bottom line is, it isn't happening.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

That's all well and good, but it doesn't counter my argument.

I think we all agree that the turnstile count in the last three years, plus this, is nowhere near 11,000 per game. The team, post-bankruptcy, is still drawing significantly lower numbers than it was pre.

I am not trying to argue that Coyotes attendance is good, because it is not. I am simply saying that the argument "draw more fans and you have a better chance to find stable ownership" is circular becasue the attendance decline is a result of the instability in ownership rather than a cause of it.

You say attendance decline as if the fans they had pre-bankruptcy were appealing enough for ownership. 12,100 tickets sold and 2,500 tickets given away resulting in 12,000 fans showing up to a game is what caused the instability in ownership. So you're right that it is cyclical, just remember where the cycle starts: the lack of fans.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Their turnstile count attendance dropped 328 from seemingly stable ownership to knowing they were in financial trouble. That's hardly much of a decline to back your argument.

Interesting. You do, of course, have a source for your post-bankruptcy turnstile count figures? Specifically, I would like to see 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12.

Of course, the irony of your argument is that if we reversed it, and I was the one saying "they only dropped 328", you would be arguing up and down that I am wrong.

The Flames and Oilers attendance rose when ownership became questionable. They were on the market to be moved but the fans showed up.

Yes and no. The "Save Our Flames" campaign was successful, but it also is not comparable to this situation. The Flames owners said "sell x tickets, and we'll fight through this." That was a promise of stability and of a future that potential Coyotes fans do not have.

Your whole argument is based on if this happened or that happened, the bottom line is, it isn't happening.

Actually, your argument is "if this happens, then that may happen." My argument is "This happened, and the consequence is this." I am not saying that attendance will rise with stable ownership. In fact, I have outright questioned whether the damage Balsillie and Moyes caused can be reversed. What I am saying is that attendance will never rise without stable ownership.

The Phoenix market is a serious gamble, even more-so than before the bankruptcy ploy. That is one of the reasons why potential owners want the city to mitigate their risk.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Smaller building and the ticket price isn't even close. Not a good comparison.

Not to mention an insanely wealthy owner that wants the team in Winnipeg.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Vulcan
Their turnstile count attendance dropped 328 from seemingly stable ownership to knowing they were in financial trouble. That's hardly much of a decline to back your argument.

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Interesting. You do, of course, have a source for your post-bankruptcy turnstile count figures? Specifically, I would like to see 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12.

Of course, the irony of your argument is that if we reversed it, and I was the one saying "they only dropped 328", you would be arguing up and down that I am wrong.



Yes and no. The "Save Our Flames" campaign was successful, but it also is not comparable to this situation. The Flames owners said "sell x tickets, and we'll fight through this." That was a promise of stability and of a future that potential Coyotes fans do not have.



Actually, your argument is "if this happens, then that may happen." My argument is "This happened, and the consequence is this." I am not saying that attendance will rise with stable ownership. In fact, I have outright questioned whether the damage Balsillie and Moyes caused can be reversed. What I am saying is that attendance will never rise without stable ownership.

The Phoenix market is a serious gamble, even more-so than before the bankruptcy ploy. That is one of the reasons why potential owners want the city to mitigate their risk.

Read my post again, the fans knew that the Coyotes were in financial trouble during the 08/09 season.

As for me arguing the other way over a difference of 328 customers, I don't think so as I only go into this thread when someone makes some outlandish argument. I'd rather not argue, I don't enjoy it.

As for 'this happened so the consequence is this', doesn't explain why paid attendance has never been good, even under stable ownership.

[Resolute 14]

Still waiting on your post-bankruptcy turnstile numbers.

[sureLoss]

http://aol.sportingnews.com/nhl/stor...medium=twitter

Former Arizona Attorney General and well-known Phoenix trial attorney Grant Woods is the latest name to pop up in the Phoenix Coyotes ownership drama.



Woods is working with some new and perhaps recycled bidders for the financially challenged and NHL-owned franchise, according to officials familiar with the Coyotes machinations.



An ownership group called Ice Edge Holdings previously tried to buy the Coyotes and was most recently involved in Greg Jamison’s unsuccessful bid to buy team.
Ice Edge could now again be back in the Coyotes three-year ownership soap opera and murky future in Glendale.



Canadian oil executive and Portland Winterhawks minor league hockey team owner Bill Gallacher could also be in the mix to buy the team, according to Fox Sports Arizona.

[troutman]

Glendale OKs new 3-tier approach to Coyotes arena deal


http://www.azcentral.com/community/g...nclick_check=1

In their efforts to assemble something from the wreckage, council members directed interim City Manager Horatio Skeete and city staff to work on three approaches simultaneously:

Negotiate an extension of a management deal with the NHL to run Jobing.com Arena through the end of the NHL season.

Work with Jamison and other potential owners to secure a long-term deal to keep the hockey team at the 17,125-seat arena.

Seek competitive bids from outside management companies to operate the arena with or without professional hockey.

Five of the six members present agreed to continue negotiations, but Alvarez said she felt Jamison and the NHL failed to complete the deal by Jan.31, so the city should move on without hockey.

Councilman Manny Martinez said city officials have an obligation to taxpayers to deal with the aftermath of Jamison’s non-achievement.

“We still have that arena there. It was built for hockey. And if there’s a buyer out there that’s interested and wants to come up with a proposal, I’m willing to listen,” Martinez said. However, he cautioned, his patience is running out.

Sherwood questioned why any potential owner would want to buy the Coyotes knowing that the council is unlikely to offer another deal as lucrative as the deal offered to Jamison. The city should be prepared for a NHL-less future, he said.

“We have a precious three or four months where we have to get this done. Otherwise, we’re going to have to come up with a PlanB with something that doesn’t involve hockey,” he said.

Sherwood said it’s important to solicit bids to ascertain the true cost of running the arena.

Similarly, he said, asking for bids from established management companies could illustrate how much revenue, if any, the arena could generate for the city.

[Daradon]

So Bouw finally caved on the thread title?

Poor guy.

I would say at least we'll have a resolution one way or the other at the end of this year, but I think I said that once or twice before.

[powderjunkie]

I don't deny there is a significance and correlation between ownership stability and buyer behaviour (especially season tickets), but I do think it is being a little over blown here.

Why does anyone buy tickets to a sports event (or really any event for that matter) - #1 for personal enjoyment/entertainment value, whereas supporting a cause is really just a contributing factor. As has been suggested, I would say arena location and convenience has a more significant impact than ownership stability. I appreciate not a lot of people are going to plunk down money for season tickets with uncertainty, but it should have no impact on people coming out to 2-3 games a year. In a market of 4 million, it’s pretty clear that hockey is too low on the totem pole of options, even when the team has been decent and you have a good chance of going home happy.

Have there been any ‘save our coyotes’ campaigns?

[Vulcan]

It's not like season ticket holders will be left holding the bag. What more guarantees do you need?

PHOENIX COYOTES

SEASON TICKET POLICY

7. TEAM RELOCATION. In the event that the Phoenix Coyotes relocate before the 2012-2013 NHL season, the Phoenix Coyotes will guarantee a refund of any monies paid toward your 2012-2013 season tickets.

http://coyotes.nhl.com/club/page.htm?id=79535

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

It's not like season ticket holders will be left holding the bag. What more guarantees do you need?



http://coyotes.nhl.com/club/page.htm?id=79535

What does that have to do with anything? Either you're completely missing the point, or you're intentionally avoiding it. The instability hampers loyalty because people simply aren't going to invest themselves in something that has been on its way out the door for the last few years. Nobody has even remotely suggested that season ticket holders would somehow be on the hook financially, the very idea of that happening is laughable.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

It's not like season ticket holders will be left holding the bag. What more guarantees do you need?

http://coyotes.nhl.com/club/page.htm?id=79535

Yeah, making a poor investment is no big deal because you have a line in a contract stating you'll get your money back. Most people just, y'know, wouldn't bother.