General Ongoing Coyotes saga thread

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

i wonder how many of the 9400 folks would be willing to drive the extra miles to whereever the NHL rink is, especially when you combine those miles with an increased ticekt cost?

Given Everett and Kent are on opposite sides of the Seattle Metro, while the new arena would be centrally located, odds are it would be a shorter drive or no change in distance for most. Seattle also has an excellent transit system. Unlike Phoenix, arena location is unlikely to be a real concern.

[Jordan!]

It's going to be a crazy 2 weeks.

Glad Seattle is in the running, and not Quebec. But Glendale has stepped up in the past - we shall see!

[troutman]

Parameters of arena deal reportedly in place

Council to discuss potential deal Tuesday, could come to vote June 25

http://www.glendalestar.com/sports/a...pdDEX4.twitter

A source close to the city said the lease would be for 15-years and would not have an escape clause.

Fox Sports Arizona reported Friday that the two sides had bridged a significant $9 million annual gap in the deal

A source close to the negotiations, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they cannot speak on city deals, said council still has worries about the deal, but also said council is fond of the fact that there is no out clause.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Given Everett and Kent are on opposite sides of the Seattle Metro, while the new arena would be centrally located, odds are it would be a shorter drive or no change in distance for most. Seattle also has an excellent transit system. Unlike Phoenix, arena location is unlikely to be a real concern.

How do figure that? If you live in Everett driving to a game in central Seattle is obviously a huge change, it's 30 miles away. Most people likely live south of Everett, but it's still going to be a much longer trip for a good number and likely with more traffic.

Kent is 20 miles away and there's a sizeable population to the south, people in the Tacoma area would be looking at 30 or so miles to central Seattle.

I'm sure some of those WHL ticket buyers will be NHL ticket buyers, but you can't just count 9000 tickets sold based on those two teams past sales.

[TurnedTheCorner]

This feels different than other scenarios in the past -- it feels like something's going to happen in 2 weeks. That would be sweet, just to have this "resolved". Out of one frying pan and into another with the Seattle arena it seems though.

[Resolute 14]

Valo - I was considering the Seattle metro as a whole, not just the people in the immediate vicinity of Everett and Kent. The point is: getting to a centrally located arena will not present a barrier to attracting fans.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Valo - I was considering the Seattle metro as a whole, not just the people in the immediate vicinity of Everett and Kent. The point is: getting to a centrally located arena will not present a barrier to attracting fans.

Sure, but if you're pointing at fans in Everett and Kent as evidence of current support you need to consider the fact that Everett and Kent are not Seattle, and that those fans aren't really that solid of a case for the market. There are plenty of arguments for Seattle, that's just not one of them.

[Resolute 14]

Heh, I was trying to make a similar argument in reverse. Namely, there are plenty of arguments against Seattle, but that arena location isn't one of them. I wasn't trying to endorse Seattle on the basis of the hypothetical arena's proposed location.

[Flash Walken]

It's not that Seattle is an excellent potential hockey market, it's that Phoenix has demonstrated a complete and utter lack of being viable in it's own right.

Is Seattle Ideal? No.

Is Phoenix going to be an option going forward? Probably not.

If it's between contracting and moving, the NHL will move the team. If it's the difference of buying a 170 million dollar franchise that already exists, or paying a 200 million dollar expansion fee, the NHL will choose the expansion fee.

There is an arena in Phoenix without an owner. There is a potential owner in Seattle without an Arena. There is an arena in Kansas without a potential owner. Out of these three scenarios, the NHL will choose the location with stable ownership. You can build an arena, but apparently, not an ownership group in Arizona.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

It's not that Seattle is an excellent potential hockey market, it's that Phoenix has demonstrated a complete and utter lack of being viable in it's own right.

Is Seattle Ideal? No.

Is Phoenix going to be an option going forward? Probably not.

If it's between contracting and moving, the NHL will move the team. If it's the difference of buying a 170 million dollar franchise that already exists, or paying a 200 million dollar expansion fee, the NHL will choose the expansion fee.

There is an arena in Phoenix without an owner. There is a potential owner in Seattle without an Arena. There is an arena in Kansas without a potential owner. Out of these three scenarios, the NHL will choose the location with stable ownership. You can build an arena, but apparently, not an ownership group in Arizona.

That's fair, relative to Phoenix Seattle seems perfect (assuming the ownership group is real and committed to getting an arena without relying on an NBA team to do it for them). If we're looking at Seattle on it's own there are some big question marks, but you're right to point that it's more about looking at it relative to the other options.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Bouw N Arrow

Glad Seattle is in the running, and not Quebec. But Glendale has stepped up in the past - we shall see!

What difference does it make to you?

[Jordan!]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

What difference does it make to you?

You could ask yourself that same question pal, What difference is it to you if they stay in Phoenix? or move to anywhere else?

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Bouw N Arrow

You could ask yourself that same question pal, What difference is it to you if they stay in Phoenix? or move to anywhere else?

Way to get defensive, but that doesn't answer my question. What difference does it make to you if Seattle or Quebec get the team? Serious question.

I truthfully don't care where they go anymore and am just interested in seeing the outcome - whichever way it goes. This has been going on for four years now, my attention span has its limits.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Bouw N Arrow

You could ask yourself that same question pal, What difference is it to you if they stay in Phoenix? or move to anywhere else?

Well if they were moving to Quebec, then I'd say it matters, because the fans and excitement will be 100X better in Quebec with canadian hockey fans and the revival of an old team, and the renewal of the Quebec/Montreal rivarly. While Phoenix is.........Phoenix.

[Brannigans Law]

I love internet tough guys lol. Bouw maybe you should take a break from this part of the forum until resolution comes. It can't be easy and you're getting kind of edgy and aggressive.

[TorqueDog]

I just want to know why he's okay with Seattle and not Quebec. That's all I was asking.

[pylon]

Originally Posted by Bouw N Arrow

You could ask yourself that same question pal, What difference is it to you if they stay in Phoenix? or move to anywhere else?

It matters to other NHL fans because the Coyotes fan base are a pathetic, embarrassing excuse for fans, and they cheapen the NHL by having a 2/3's empty stadium every night. You and your city do not deserve a team, and it is f'ing pathetic public money is being used to keep them afloat. It makes our great game look pathetic when people tune-in, and there is 2500 people in the building. If I was an uneducated fan, I would flip the channel right past thinking it was some sort of tier 2 farm team or something.

Red Deer could run that team more profitably out of the Centrium with the exact same players and cap hit. The coyotes franchise is currently the biggest embarrassment in professional sports, and have been for the last 4 years. So bad, they have actually brought down the value of every franchise in the NHL.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by pylon

It matters to other NHL fans because the Coyotes fan base are a pathetic, embarrassing excuse for fans, and they cheapen the NHL by having a 2/3's empty stadium every night. You and your city do not deserve a team, and it is f'ing pathetic public money is being used to keep them afloat. It makes our great game look pathetic when people tune-in, and there is 2500 people in the building. If I was an uneducated fan, I would flip the channel right past thinking it was some sort of tier 2 farm team or something.

Red Deer could run that team more profitably out of the Centrium with the exact same players and cap hit. The coyotes franchise is currently the biggest embarrassment in professional sports, and have been for the last 4 years. So bad, they have actually brought down the value of every franchise in the NHL.

Coyotes fans aren't pathetic. The Phoenix market is pathetic, but I'm sure the people that do show up to the games are the definition of die hards.

[pylon]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

Coyotes fans aren't pathetic. The Phoenix market is pathetic, but I'm sure the people that do show up to the games are the definition of die hards.

Yes to an extent you are right. There are the die-hards, but there isn't even enough of them to fill half the lower bowl. If I had to drive to Cochrane to watch the Flames, I would, in the dead of winter, if it meant keeping the franchise afloat. The definition of die-hard fan really needs to be re-examined in the Coyotes case. Because I think some people believe spending 50 bucks 3 times a year for a couple lower bowl seats, a couple beers and dogs, qualifies them as a 'die-hard'. In the reality of the NHL, that just doesn't cut it. If you aren't forking over real world money to be a STH, you aren't a die hard. How many of those die-hards would still be around at Calgary Flames 'real world' prices? My guess would be somewhere around 0% of them.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by pylon

Yes to an extent you are right. There are the die-hards, but there isn't even enough of them to fill half the lower bowl. If I had to drive to Cochrane to watch the Flames, I would, in the dead of winter, if it meant keeping the franchise afloat. The definition of die-hard fan really needs to be re-examined in the Coyotes case. Because I think some people believe spending 50 bucks 3 times a year for a couple lower bowl seats, a couple beers and dogs, qualifies them as a 'die-hard'. In the reality of the NHL, that just doesn't cut it. If you aren't forking over real world money to be a STH, you aren't a die hard. How many of those die-hards would still be around at Calgary Flames 'real world' prices? My guess would be somewhere around 0% of them.

You're probably more right than most will admit. I have a friend with a vacation home in Phoenix who doesn't want them to move because when he goes down once a year he gets a game and an all inclusive experience for forty bucks. To which I say 'then they have to go.'