General Ongoing Coyotes saga thread

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by timbit

Hearing that a very strong investor group from KC is very much in the running to get the Phoenix franchise and move it to KC. That have the venue.

Neal Patterson?

[Tsawwassen]

Kevin Allen of the USA Today says that the NHL should stay the course with Phoenix.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nhl/columnist/allen/2013/02/01/nhl-phoenix-coyotes-column/1885133/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaig n=Feed%3A+UsatodaycomNhl-TopStories+%28Sports+-+NHL+-+Top+Stories%29

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Tsawwassen

Kevin Allen of the USA Today says that the NHL should stay the course with Phoenix.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nhl/columnist/allen/2013/02/01/nhl-phoenix-coyotes-column/1885133/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaig n=Feed%3A+UsatodaycomNhl-TopStories+%28Sports+-+NHL+-+Top+Stories%29

That is easy for Kevin Allen to say, it isn't like it is his money going down the drain. If he was billion dollar businessman he would be singing a totally different song.

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

If the NHL really wanted hockey to stay in Phoenix, why wouldn't they lower the asking price ahead of the deadline? There's three possible answers to that question (multiple answers may even apply):

(1) Jamison had indeed collected a big fat $0 so lowering the purchase price wouldn't have made a difference.
(2) The NHL thinks Mayor Weiers is bluffing and they feel the same deal will be on the table again.
(3) They're more interested in recouping the owners' money than staying in the market.

[Vulcan]

Another consideration for potential owners wanting to move to Portland or Kansas City etc., there will be a relocation fee above the purchase price. The Jets paid $60M and if there are more than one bidders, it could go up.

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Another consideration for potential owners wanting to move to Portland or Kansas City etc., there will be a relocation fee above the purchase price. The Jets paid $60M and if there are more than one bidders, it could go up.

Although the relocation fee isn't an arbitrary number. The market value of a particular location is assessed and then the purchase value is "topped off" to reach it. The Winnipeg market was valued at $170 million and True North paid $110 million for the Thrashers hence the relocation fee.

Another thing to consider is that the NHL itself is getting 100% of the purchase price here. I don't think a team in Quebec (or Seattle) will be valued at $230 million. Maybe $200.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Sidney Crosby's Hat

If the NHL really wanted hockey to stay in Phoenix, why wouldn't they lower the asking price ahead of the deadline? There's three possible answers to that question (multiple answers may even apply):

(1) Jamison had indeed collected a big fat $0 so lowering the purchase price wouldn't have made a difference.
(2) The NHL thinks Mayor Weiers is bluffing and they feel the same deal will be on the table again.
(3) They're more interested in recouping the owners' money than staying in the market.

The NHL certainly doesn't look like a motivated seller. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, the price tag has been rising throughout this saga.

If the price tag was half what it is now, this would probably get done.

Cowperson

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

The NHL certainly doesn't look like a motivated seller. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, the price tag has been rising throughout this saga.

If the price tag was half what it is now, this would probably get done.

Cowperson

Not convinced the NHL wants it done.

I think what valo was saying earlier, somewhere, is that this is likely not very public without the court case, and the team is probably already in Kansas or Seattle or, back to Winnipeg (which is what I think the league was angling for).

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Not convinced the NHL wants it done.

I think what valo was saying earlier, somewhere, is that this is likely not very public without the court case, and the team is probably already in Kansas or Seattle or, back to Winnipeg (which is what I think the league was angling for).

Yeah there were a few egos stepped on when the situation went public but Gary should be able to put this aside and do what's best for the league and the franchise instead of trying to prove Phoenix is a viable site.

I believe they want to sell it and keep it in Phoenix, just not to a guy who doesn't have the funds to cover the loses, never mind not having the price of the franchise. That would just be a carryover of the current soap opera.

[troutman]

12,151 for a Saturday game vs Dallas. The fan base has to be discouraged.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

The NHL certainly doesn't look like a motivated seller. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, the price tag has been rising throughout this saga.

If the price tag was half what it is now, this would probably get done.

Cowperson

They clearly aren't motivated! It was only a couple of years ago that there was a buyer, with cash I might add, willing to pay $220M. Now they're dug in at $170M and selling a depreciating asset under its current incarnation.

[Northendzone]

^ makes you wonder how the story would have worked out if jumbo had been willing to play by the rules......of course it is even more interesting given that jimbo's not worth has likely taken a pretty good hit.....

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Slava

They clearly aren't motivated! It was only a couple of years ago that there was a buyer, with cash I might add, willing to pay $220M. Now they're dug in at $170M and selling a depreciating asset under its current incarnation.

It should be pointed out that the $220M Jimbo was paying included $50M to the City of Glendale.

But rather than taking that $50M and putting it right into construction debt or using part of it to pay for a good arena manager to fill the place with concerts and events, they're stuck with both the construction debt and $50M less in their general fund. A $100M swing.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Slava

They clearly aren't motivated! It was only a couple of years ago that there was a buyer, with cash I might add, willing to pay $220M. Now they're dug in at $170M and selling a depreciating asset under its current incarnation.

The fight with Jim Balsillie was about who controlled the right to move a franchise and was FAR more important economically than the cash he had at the time. All the other major pro sports filed briefs supporting the NHL's position, indicating how important the principle was to them as well.

Secondly, Balsillie was trying to give himself a great deal because he had no intention of keeping the team there.

The NHL also realizes it can sell the team for $175 million into another location, which might explain its reticence to lower the price. They can just as easily do the same thing Balsillie was doing.

But the team is not worth that purchase price in that location at the moment, hence the tough time closing a deal.

The NHL simply doesn't look motivated. You can always get rid of something if you really want to. At some point, if you keep discounting, the price is right.

Cowperson

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Slava

They clearly aren't motivated! It was only a couple of years ago that there was a buyer, with cash I might add, willing to pay $220M. Now they're dug in at $170M and selling a depreciating asset under its current incarnation.

It's all Wildrose's fault.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Yes, I can say "the choice for the Glendale council has always been" becaue electing a new council does not change the fact that the city is still on the hook for debt and management of the arena. They can certainly refuse to subsidize the team, but that will result in them subsidizing an empty arena. They're screwed either way.

You can, but you'd be ignoring that this is a new council. Therefore it doesn't matter what the old council did. We have no historical precedent to go on as to how this new council will approach this issue, hence why this becomes more interesting. That's my point.

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

The old council was betting that Jamison could bring back enough revenue to make the subsidy worth it. You obviously don't think so, and I was skeptical myself. But don't delude yourself in thinking that all of Glendale's problems magically go away if they simply refuse to play ball.

Show me where I even hinted at that.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

The fight with Jim Balsillie was about who controlled the right to move a franchise and was FAR more important economically than the cash he had at the time. All the other major pro sports filed briefs supporting the NHL's position, indicating how important the principle was to them as well.

Secondly, Balsillie was trying to give himself a great deal because he had no intention of keeping the team there.

The NHL also realizes it can sell the team for $175 million into another location, which might explain its reticence to lower the price. They can just as easily do the same thing Balsillie was doing.

But the team is not worth that purchase price in that location at the moment, hence the tough time closing a deal.

The NHL simply doesn't look motivated. You can always get rid of something if you really want to. At some point, if you keep discounting, the price is right.

Cowperson

I think they can get a lot more than $175M. With the new agreement of players getting 50%, the Sacramento Kings were bought in 98 for $156M and now sold for $525M and LeBron is angry.

”So the Kings getting sold for 525M!! And the owners ain’t making no money huh? What the hell we have a lookout (lockout) for.

s

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozan...gs-sale-price/

Their revenue total doesn't look that different from the Flames or any well run NHL franchise.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/32/...gs_327146.html

I don't see Seattle paying $500M for the Coyotes but I could see them paying $300M and who knows how much if they open it up for bidding with York and QC also involved.

Going by history though we'll probably see the Coyotes limp along in the desert for years to come while they collect their revenue sharing.

[Tsawwassen]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Going by history though we'll probably see the Coyotes limp along in the desert for years to come while they collect their revenue sharing.

That means many more Mondays to come and pass.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

You can, but you'd be ignoring that this is a new council. Therefore it doesn't matter what the old council did. We have no historical precedent to go on as to how this new council will approach this issue, hence why this becomes more interesting. That's my point.

I'm not ignoring the fact that it is a new council. But you are ignoring the fact that even if the council says "no hockey team on our dime", they are still left with paying for an empty arena. Old council or new, there are no simple choices here. That, my friend, is my point.

Show me where I even hinted at that.

Oh, I dunno, nearly every post you've made in this thread? Comments like "I wish I could short sell the City of Glendale in my portfolio"?

Or are you going to sit here and say I am wrong, and that you actually think the deal the last council made wasgood for the city and would have made it more money than otherwise?

[Northendzone]

Originally Posted by Tsawwassen

That means many more Mondays to come and pass.

and here i was thinking that today was going to be the monday we have all be waiting for......