General Ongoing Coyotes saga thread

[landshark]

Originally Posted by Bouw N Arrow

I just have always liked Seattle as a city, it's beautiful there (Unlike Winnipeg) - and the league needs a pacific/western presence if the Yotes do move, Seattle would fill the gap. Plus as trout said, sooooooo many Canadian hockey fans have been trollish and just outright brutal the past 4 years.

That's my point of view.

Not just your POV. And trollish is putting it kindly. There have been MANY fans north of the border that have been downright mean spirited and care nothing at all for the feelings of fans that are about to have their team ripped away from them.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by seattleflamer

There were questions about increased price support in the Seattle market for the NHL product and an assumption that NHL pricing will be similiar to PHO. Using the same comparables, here's a look at next year's season ticket prices for premium seating for the Seattle teams and Calgary which obviously have other major pro sports to compete for your entertainment dollar:

Thunderbirds--$975.00
Silvertips--$895.00
Hitmen--$590.00

My question is why do Seattle hockey fans pay considerably more for the exact product than in Calgary if there is limited interest? Why is the attendance higher than Calgary for teams that are in the Glendale of Seattle?

1) You're not comparing apples to apples here. The Hitmen are the second tier offering in Calgary, in the Seattle area the T-Birds and Silvertips are the best on offer. You're also not citing the proper prices for the Hitmen, the price you cite is for second tier seats as the club seats are (I believe) only available via Flames season tickets (they certainly aren't available for $590). Comparable seats to those cited for Hitmen games for the T-birds are $414-738 (Hitmen seats are non reserved, whereas seats on the glass are reserved and more expensive for the T-Birds). For the Silvertips comparable seats are $495-660 (again a premium for seats on the glass.

2) Attendance is only higher if you combine the attendance of 2 teams from opposite ends of a metro area with a population 3.5x that of Calgary.

[troutman]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calgary_Hitmen

The Hitmen were heavily marketed by the Flames during the National Hockey League's 2004–05 lockout. As a result, the Hitmen averaged 10,062 fans per game and set a new league attendance record. The season total of 362,227 fans smashed the old record by over 45,000.[35] The Hitmen became the first Canadian Hockey League team to average over 10,000 fans per game, having the highest average attendance of any hockey team—junior or professional—in North America that year.[36]

[Muta]

Originally Posted by landshark

Not just your POV. And trollish is putting it kindly. There have been MANY fans north of the border that have been downright mean spirited and care nothing at all for the feelings of fans that are about to have their team ripped away from them.

Agreed, there has been hostility.

But there are cities that are STARVING for a team and will support it mercilessly (ie. Quebec City), and will do whatever it takes off the ice to make it happen. Then there are teams like Phoenix that have a limited fan base, have not supported their team well for many years, and have had a laughing stock of an ownership situation for the last four years - and they're still getting chances, over and over and over.

Honestly, I agree with you landshark... but it's just frustrating to see that a franchise like that isn't being moved to a city that salivates for it.

[seattleflamer]

Originally Posted by valo403

1) You're not comparing apples to apples here. The Hitmen are the second tier offering in Calgary, in the Seattle area the T-Birds and Silvertips are the best on offer. You're also not citing the proper prices for the Hitmen, the price you cite is for second tier seats as the club seats are (I believe) only available via Flames season tickets (they certainly aren't available for $590). Comparable seats to those cited for Hitmen games for the T-birds are $414-738 (Hitmen seats are non reserved, whereas seats on the glass are reserved and more expensive for the T-Birds). For the Silvertips comparable seats are $495-660 (again a premium for seats on the glass.

2) Attendance is only higher if you combine the attendance of 2 teams from opposite ends of a metro area with a population 3.5x that of Calgary.

Of course it's comparable--as a hockey consumer, I'm not going to differentiate pricing b/w the Red Deer Rebels and the Calgary Hitman because the Hitman are not tier 1 in Calgary. I'm comparing prices and attendance in the same league just like players and stats.

Also, I'm not going to get granular with seat pricing other than what their websites say about it. Though, that does ring true about the Hitmen tix connection to Flames season ticket holders.

Finally, I'm glad to see that you recognize that there is a hockey market here---tier 2 of course, but a hockey market nonetheless with fans that pay similar prices to other WHL teams in Canada.

It bodes well for the NHL in Seattle going foward assuming we get decent ownership and a new building.

[troutman]

http://www.foxsportsarizona.com/nhl/...39&feedID=9050

Tippett feels comfortable with what is happening on the ownership front, is willing to sign a new deal and talks have gone well with GM Don Maloney.

Seattle has been rumored as a possible Plan B. Tippett’s oldest daughter, Nicole, lives there and has two sons. That would make Seattle a very attractive option for Tippett and his wife, Wendy.

[Resolute 14]

seattleflamer - Your price comparison is fair, but it does have one problem that you could not have anticipated not being here in Calgary. The highest priced seats for the Hitmen actually can't be bought as season tickets, except by people who own club seats. The Club seats (purple on the Saddledome map) go for $36 per game.

You're making solid arguments, but I really don't think WHL attendance compared between the Seattle and Calgary metros is all that valid. Most importantly, and as has been noted, Calgary massively outdraws either the Silvertips or the Thunderbirds despite having a quarter the population. They also do so despite having an NHL team competing for hockey dollars. (To a far, far lesser extent, they also compete against three Junior A teams, a university team and two college teams).

At the same time though, both Everett and Seattle/Kent do draw well for the WHL.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by seattleflamer

Of course it's comparable--as a hockey consumer, I'm not going to differentiate pricing b/w the Red Deer Rebels and the Calgary Hitman because the Hitman are not tier 1 in Calgary. I'm comparing prices and attendance in the same league just like players and stats.

Also, I'm not going to get granular with seat pricing other than what their websites say about it. Though, that does ring true about the Hitmen tix connection to Flames season ticket holders.

Finally, I'm glad to see that you recognize that there is a hockey market here---tier 2 of course, but a hockey market nonetheless with fans that pay similar prices to other WHL teams in Canada.

It bodes well for the NHL in Seattle going foward assuming we get decent ownership and a new building.

No, it's really not, unless of course you're talking comparable in the same sense that apples and oranges are comparable. Your example of Calgary and Red Deer is also not comparable, as those cities have incredibly different circumstances. Calgary has a clear number 1 in the hockey market, the Hitmen fill a different niche. The Seattle area teams are the only hockey product on offer, and while there are other sports entertainment dollar options they are largely in central Seattle. My point is really that while the attendance figures of the T-Birds and Silvertips are a good thing and indicate an existing hockey market, they aren't as definitive as they seem to be being made out to be.

As for the tickets, you shouldn't be citing prices of club seats for the 2 Seattle teams as some sort of 'pro' argument if you're going to line those prices up against non-club seats for the Hitmen. That's an incredibly misleading, whether intentional or not.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Muta

Agreed, there has been hostility.

But there are cities that are STARVING for a team and will support it mercilessly (ie. Quebec City), and will do whatever it takes off the ice to make it happen. Then there are teams like Phoenix that have a limited fan base, have not supported their team well for many years, and have had a laughing stock of an ownership situation for the last four years - and they're still getting chances, over and over and over.

Honestly, I agree with you landshark... but it's just frustrating to see that a franchise like that isn't being moved to a city that salivates for it.

Thing is those in QC should understand that it's not a matter of if, but when they're going to get a team now. May not be via relocation due to semantics, but they should be icing a hockey club within the next several years.

[Plett25]

Originally Posted by landshark

Not just your POV. And trollish is putting it kindly. There have been MANY fans north of the border that have been downright mean spirited and care nothing at all for the feelings of fans that are about to have their team ripped away from them.

IMO Winnipeg and Quebec City know exactly how it feels to have their team ripped away from them.

[Vulcan]

I can easily understand why Jordan would prefer a move to Seattle but I'm having a hard time understanding why Bettman prefers Seattle over Quebec City. You could say it's because of the re-alignment but Bettman knew the situation before he did this. As mentioned earlier it could be because of the US television contract but it seems the easiest and safest move would be to Q.C. It would be interesting to know what his private thinking is concerning expansion and franchise moves.

[landshark]

Originally Posted by Plett25

IMO Winnipeg and Quebec City know exactly how it feels to have their team ripped away from them.

...and that gives them the right to be absolute jerks about it? Is that your point? You'd think that it might make them more understanding, more sympathetic not less...

[getbak]

Originally Posted by muta

agreed, there has been hostility.

But there are cities that are starving for a team and will support it mercilessly (ie. Quebec city), and will do whatever it takes off the ice to make it happen. Then there are teams like phoenix that have a limited fan base, have not supported their team well for many years, and have had a laughing stock of an ownership situation for the last four years - and they're still getting chances, over and over and over.

Honestly, i agree with you landshark... But it's just frustrating to see that a franchise like that isn't being moved to a city that salivates for it.

Prior to Game 1 of the Finals, Bettman and Daly held a press conference, and answered many questions about the Phoenix/Glendale situation...



Near the end of the video, at about the 27 minute mark, they're asked this very question, if they are getting phone calls from other markets that want an NHL team, why are they fighting so hard to keep the Coyotes in Glendale?

This is part of his response...

Originally Posted by Gary Bettman

We try to avoid franchise relocation. We try to do everything possible. We don't think it's fair to fans, and we don't think it's fair -- unless you have to move -- to do it to communities that build you buildings.

This confirms what I've been saying for years when this question comes up. Glendale played the game the way the NHL and all pro sports leagues want cities to play the game. They spent hundreds of millions of dollars to build the Jobing.com Arena, and gave the Coyotes a favorable lease deal to play there.

The majority of NHL teams play in arenas that were at least partially publicly funded. They really don't want to give their own cities reasons to start questioning the value of providing funding to arenas.

[Muta]

Yes, but when is enough enough? At some point you have to forego loyalty in order to increase profit, which is what that franchise could do in another city. To quote MacTipsy, it's been a 'debacle' of monumental propotions' in Phoenix the last four years.

[dash_pinched]

Originally Posted by landshark

...and that gives them the right to be absolute jerks about it? Is that your point? You'd think that it might make them more understanding, more sympathetic not less...

Just my opinion, but I think it stems mostly from the belief (not necessarily my belief, but one that is definitely prevalent in Canada) that Bettman ripped teams away from Winnipeg and Quebec City without really trying to save those teams in those Canadian cities while bending over backwards for Glendale for the past 4+ years.

I will add though that I didn't agree with the added stipulation that one of the conditions of the Winnipeg relocation was that they had to sell 13,000 season tickets for the first five years. If the Coyotes remain in Glendale, I doubt we will see a similar kind of stipulation.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Muta

Yes, but when is enough enough? At some point you have to forego loyalty in order to increase profit, which is what that franchise could do in another city. To quote MacTipsy, it's been a 'debacle' of monumental propotions' in Phoenix the last four years.

It's not so much loyalty as it is big picture thinking. By fighting as long as possible to keep a team in Phoenix it sends the message to other markets that if you build us an arena we'll do the same for you. If the NHL took off at the first opportunity it may discourage other cities from making an investment, for fear of winding up with an empty building that they still have to pay for.

I'd also argue that there hasn't really been a great alternative over the past 4 years. Quebec seems to have their act together now, but that situation was hardly solid a couple of years ago. Seattle wasn't even on the horizon until relatively recently due to the arena situation. I don't think anyone has heard a peep about an interested owner in Kansas City. There's also the fact that the NHL was getting a big chunk of the losses suffered by the Coyotes covered, which makes it even more difficult to make the case for a move to a market that could otherwise bring in expansion revenue should things turn around in Phoenix.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by dash_pinched

Just my opinion, but I think it stems mostly from the belief (not necessarily my belief, but one that is definitely prevalent in Canada) that Bettman ripped teams away from Winnipeg and Quebec City without really trying to save those teams in those Canadian cities while bending over backwards for Glendale for the past 4+ years.

I will add though that I didn't agree with the added stipulation that one of the conditions of the Winnipeg relocation was that they had to sell 13,000 season tickets for the first five years. If the Coyotes remain in Glendale, I doubt we will see a similar kind of stipulation.

I wonder if that wasn't a product of clever thinking on the part of Jets ownership. Get the league to set a target that you're confident you can reach, that just so happens to create a great excuse for you to sell future season tickets in an unprecedented manner.

[seattleflamer]

Originally Posted by valo403

No, it's really not, unless of course you're talking comparable in the same sense that apples and oranges are comparable. Your example of Calgary and Red Deer is also not comparable, as those cities have incredibly different circumstances. Calgary has a clear number 1 in the hockey market, the Hitmen fill a different niche. The Seattle area teams are the only hockey product on offer, and while there are other sports entertainment dollar options they are largely in central Seattle. My point is really that while the attendance figures of the T-Birds and Silvertips are a good thing and indicate an existing hockey market, they aren't as definitive as they seem to be being made out to be.

As for the tickets, you shouldn't be citing prices of club seats for the 2 Seattle teams as some sort of 'pro' argument if you're going to line those prices up against non-club seats for the Hitmen. That's an incredibly misleading, whether intentional or not.

Sure, I agree with your point and I'm not arguing that this is proof positive that the NHL can work in Seattle or it is a better market than Calgary but rather, support of the WHL is one indicator to gauge potential success in this market.

The bottom line for me is all indicators point to the NHL choosing Seattle, warts and all, to the "slam dunk" that is QC if Glendale votes no which just makes everyone's head spin up there.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by getbak

Prior to Game 1 of the Finals, Bettman and Daly held a press conference, and answered many questions about the Phoenix/Glendale situation...



Near the end of the video, at about the 27 minute mark, they're asked this very question, if they are getting phone calls from other markets that want an NHL team, why are they fighting so hard to keep the Coyotes in Glendale?

This is part of his response...


This confirms what I've been saying for years when this question comes up. Glendale played the game the way the NHL and all pro sports leagues want cities to play the game. They spent hundreds of millions of dollars to build the Jobing.com Arena, and gave the Coyotes a favorable lease deal to play there.

The majority of NHL teams play in arenas that were at least partially publicly funded. They really don't want to give their own cities reasons to start questioning the value of providing funding to arenas.

That all sounds lovey dovey and showing loyalty but on the other side it looks like the NHL has the CoG over a barrel and is making them pay. As soon as they stop paying the team is gone.

[troutman]

Paul Giblin ‏@PaulGiblinAriz
The #Glendale council is moving toward the #Coyotes issue and other important matters, so they'll go into closed session soon.

Paul Giblin ‏@PaulGiblinAriz
Before the #Glendale council meeting started, Mayor Weiers and Councilman Ian Hugh told me they hadn't seen the #Coyotes deal points.