Ongoing Arizona Coyotes arena saga: Arena land auction June 27

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Calgary14

Would their end goal be to sell to a local buyer/one committed to keeping the team in Phoenix or just whoever is willing to pay?

It's all part of the play book. This is the last gasp where they pretend they tried to find a local buyer before "we had no other choice" to move the team.

[sureLoss]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1776076826055762138

[TheScorpion]

Quote from Coyotes CEO Gutierrez in the Morgan story:

“Again, There is no other place that we can play in Arizona. If there is not a successful or winning bid, then we will have to explore relocation of this franchise.”

So, it comes down to June 27. Nothing else, really.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

Quote from Coyotes CEO Gutierrez in the Morgan story:

“Again, There is no other place that we can play in Arizona. If there is not a successful or winning bid, then we will have to explore relocation of this franchise.”

So, it comes down to June 27. Nothing else, really.

For the league it shouldn't though. It is not fair to the other owners nor the players for the team to continue to play out of Mullet arena for the next 4-5 years it takes to get the new arena built. I think the other owners have had enough and Bettman works for them, just move them already.

[TheScorpion]

If the other owners weren't committed to seeing this plan through (in the event the auction succeeds), why wouldn't they have been forcibly moved immediately after the vote

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

If the other owners weren't committed to seeing this plan through (in the event the auction succeeds), why wouldn't they have been forcibly moved immediately after the vote

I don't even think it will get to the auction. I think the league has already put pressure on Mereulo to sell and that news is starting to leak out. They are handling this very much behind the scenes imo as much as possible. Just because the auction is going ahead does not mean the Coyotes are going to win it or that they are even going to be around to bid on it. It makes zero sense for the NHL to wait on this while the Coyotes bleed money with n owner who hadn't been very reputable when they have another market and arena waiting to go. They can always revisit Arizona when the arena is done.

[TheScorpion]

I don't see any upside in not letting it get to the auction. Again, why wouldn't they have intervened last year? Why would they get to 80% through the process before pulling the plug? Makes no sense.

Coyotes have released a webpage for the arena proposal: https://www.nhl.com/coyotes/new-arena/

Edit: I will add ... I suspect (and this is based on what I've heard from someone very familiar with the process) that the league would be opening itself up to some pretty well-founded litigation if they try to interfere with a public auction process that they have already been a part of, barring a complete deterioration on the part of the Coyotes franchise.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

If the other owners weren't committed to seeing this plan through (in the event the auction succeeds), why wouldn't they have been forcibly moved immediately after the vote

Simplest answer is they didn't have a Plan B that was dramatically superior to another year at the Mullet. They didn't want to rush the process to the point where they may not maximize the asset value, and/or not choose an optimal new market, and/or not sufficiently vet the new owner.

The Tempe vote was May 16. Just not a lot of time if you haven't already done a lot of Plan B groundwork, which it seems they didn't. You don't make a good deal under duress, nevermind the intricacies of a 'forced sale' situation, which can get messy.


The NBA managed to force the Donald Sterling sale in a little over a month, but that didn't involve any relocation, with several prospective owners frothing to buy:


https://www.sbnation.com/nba/2014/5/30/5764162/clippers-sale-timeline-donald-sterling-steve-ballmer

[TheScorpion]

The Donald Sterling situation was also a cut-and-dried case where the NBA was able to cite a clear violation of its charter to force a guy out of the league. As strange as it may seem, the NHL does not have the basis to do the same with the Coyotes because playing in a small arena does not actually violate any part of the league charter, particularly with the NHL-standard facilities the team built as an add-on to Mullett in place.

It's not the same. Now, if they lose the auction? That's when you'll see things demonstrably change. But it is worth noting that the proposed timeline to open the new building has not changed from the Tempe proposal, because that plan required one full year to remediate the land. This one does not.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

Quote from Coyotes CEO Gutierrez in the Morgan story:

“Again, There is no other place that we can play in Arizona. If there is not a successful or winning bid, then we will have to explore relocation of this franchise.”

So, it comes down to June 27. Nothing else, really.

There is a whole lot more to building an arena than winning an auction for some land though.

[TheScorpion]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

There is a whole lot more to building an arena than winning an auction for some land though.

This is correct, but the equation for the players and the league becomes a lot different once that hurdle is crossed. Playing at Mullett is palatable in the short term when there are shovels in the ground and a targeted end date. It is very much not palatable with the current status quo.

[Coach]

Just move the f***in team. Should have been gone years ago. A casino would have more community benefit at this point.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

I don't see any upside in not letting it get to the auction. Again, why wouldn't they have intervened last year? Why would they get to 80% through the process before pulling the plug? Makes no sense.

Coyotes have released a webpage for the arena proposal: https://www.nhl.com/coyotes/new-arena/

Edit: I will add ... I suspect (and this is based on what I've heard from someone very familiar with the process) that the league would be opening itself up to some pretty well-founded litigation if they try to interfere with a public auction process that they have already been a part of, barring a complete deterioration on the part of the Coyotes franchise.

I have no doubt that the Coyotes owner and the NHL wants the team to stay in Arizona. I don't get the sense that they are confident that this latest scheme is going to work though and I believe they are already planning for the worst case scenario and are working out a quick exit strategy to prepare for that.

[TheScorpion]

I would be stunned if both the league and team aren't working on contingency plans for if they don't win the auction. I would imagine that includes having potential buyers on standby.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

The Donald Sterling situation was also a cut-and-dried case where the NBA was able to cite a clear violation of its charter to force a guy out of the league. As strange as it may seem, the NHL does not have the basis to do the same with the Coyotes because playing in a small arena does not actually violate any part of the league charter, particularly with the NHL-standard facilities the team built as an add-on to Mullett in place.

It's not the same. Now, if they lose the auction? That's when you'll see things demonstrably change. But it is worth noting that the proposed timeline to open the new building has not changed from the Tempe proposal, because that plan required one full year to remediate the land. This one does not.

That's my point - Sterling was a relatively simple situation (though he still huffed and puffed and threatened to sue) and it took 5 weeks to resolve (which is actually pretty darn fast). The complications of forcing the Coyotes sale answers your 'why not last year' question...

But now the league has had a year to lay the groundwork, strategize, and build consensus among the other owners (who would be understandably cautious about how they evict a fellow owner). The Mullet was tenable for 3 years with an option for a 4th.

Rogers in Edmonton took 30 months from breaking ground to open. Little Caesars took 35 months. Chase Centre was 33 months. Clippers new arena will be 35-36 months. (all from date of breaking ground)

The Coyotes are not going from winning an auction* to opening doors in 27 months, which is what would be necessary to maintain the worst case scenario from the original timeline.

[TheScorpion]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

That's my point - Sterling was a relatively simple situation (though he still huffed and puffed and threatened to sue) and it took 5 weeks to resolve (which is actually pretty darn fast). The complications of forcing the Coyotes sale answers your 'why not last year' question...

But now the league has had a year to lay the groundwork, strategize, and build consensus among the other owners (who would be understandably cautious about how they evict a fellow owner). The Mullet was tenable for 3 years with an option for a 4th.

Rogers in Edmonton took 30 months from breaking ground to open. Little Caesars took 35 months. Chase Centre was 33 months. Clippers new arena will be 35-36 months.

The Coyotes are not going from winning an auction* to opening doors in 27 months, which is what would be necessary to maintain the worst case scenario from the original timeline.

Sorry, you're correct. The expectation for this current plan is to have doors open summer 2027. That would be 38-39 months from now.

I don't think they're going to get it to the auction and then stop the process, though. They'll go forward and extend for one more year at Mullett. Five instead of four (which already includes the two they've played).

[SuperMatt18]

I still think that's ambitious and my guess is even if this is successful it will be 28-29 season.

They are lucky if they break ground by the time the 24-25 season is over.

The auction is June 27th
Then you need to hire a design firm, architects, etc that takes time.
Then more time for them to actual do that work and get permits, blueprints, etc.
No delays from any public pushback etc.
And then you actually need to build it.

Best case scenario IMO is probably more like 4 years from July 27, and even then you need to actually have money to pay for the whole thing which Meruelo hasn't proven to be very good at either

Honestly stupid NHL even let it get this far.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

This is correct, but the equation for the players and the league becomes a lot different once that hurdle is crossed. Playing at Mullett is palatable in the short term when there are shovels in the ground and a targeted end date. It is very much not palatable with the current status quo.

Now you’re equating winning the auction to “shovels in the ground”.

My personal belief is that it is unlikely that Meruelo is actually going to spend more of his own money in building an arena than any other NHL owner ever has. Remember most arenas that were built with 100% private funds still received significant public assistance. The Denver arena is cited as an example of an arena built with private funds but they still received property tax exemptions and infrastructure spending.

I’m sure the NHL sees the auction as just one step and their confidence level of this project ultimately happening is low.

[TheScorpion]

The permits aspect of it doesn't appear to be an issue ... it's already earmarked for this type of usage. But that could be subject to change.

The one aspect that could take time is extending utility service out there.

What role would the City of Phoenix or even Maricopa County have in approvals after the land is purchased?

Gutierrez: “Nothing for the land or the zoning. It is zoned for the uses and obviously, we’re buying the land. We’re not asking for a development agreement from the city or the county or the state."

...

What specifically does the zoning on this property allow?

Gutierrez: “Everything that the Tempe site allowed and that I mentioned before. And this piece of land has by-right zoning of heights up to 190 feet (about 50 feet more than Tempe allowed). And it has zoning specifically for an indoor hockey arena. The reason for that is because the Legacy Sports Arena project that was going to be built in the northwest part of the I-17 is in the same zoning designation. It’s C-2 zoning and the C-2 zoning designation does also allow hospitality.”

[getbak]

I'm sticking by my prediction that the league "encourages" Meruelo to sell the team to Smith and they move to Utah for next season rather than continuing to play in an undersized building where they will continue to bleed money.

As a carrot, they will promise Meruelo that he'll go to the front of the line for an expansion team when a suitable arena is ready. If that actually happens, great. If not, they wait until someone else builds something suitable in the area.


Realistically, the building won't be done until 2028 at the earliest, which is likely when the next round of expansion happens too.