The Ongoing Coyotes Sale Thread

[Jordan!]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

Come on. Don't be naive here - Hulsizer wants to pick up an asset using other people's money. He hopes he can flip it and make a profit, most likely by relocating it

Are you serious???

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

Come on. Don't be naive here - Hulsizer wants to pick up an asset using other people's money. He hopes he can flip it and make a profit, most likely by relocating it. He's not an idiot (I assume) - he knows he can't make money staying in Glendale. The team lost $36M with a patchwork discount roster and very good results. Do you think he will spend another $10M on salaries? If you want to know what it will be like, watch the first Major League movie.

He can't move the franchise within the context of this agreement.

If the deal passes, Glendale has pretty firm control of the location through 23 years, essentially locking up cash flow to sustain their long term committment to repaying debt on the arena.

The past, while probably interesting for learning from the mistakes of others, isn't too relevant as to future potential when you're sitting in the middle of five million people.

Potential upside in Phoenix is certainly far greater than it would be in Winnipeg which is being looked at through the prism of the nearly perfect but likely unsustainable conditions of the moment.

But . . . . . you can die on the vine waiting for P-O-T-E-N-T-I-A-L if you're not doing anything to exploit it, which is really the problem in Phoenix. Its a 10 to 20 year project, shifting culture to your side. Dallas has done it. San Jose has done it. Anyone can do it if they're patient and committed and willing to put the time into it . . . while surrounded by five million people.

The chaos of the last two years has contributed heavily to the near-term losses there. Removing uncertainty alone would help their bottom line immensely.

If Winnipeg is the only place the NHL can recoup its purchase price on the Phoenix franchise then maybe I get why the team might end up there. Otherwise, it makes no sense at all from a long term, league-wide business perspective. And it will end badly for the league when the team has to leave again, which is virtually inevitable. I can see why they're fighting so hard to avoid the choice.

Cowperson

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Bouw N Arrow

Are you serious???

If he wasn't trying to get the CoG to essentially buy him the team, he would own the Coyotes already.

Originally Posted by Cowperson

If Winnipeg is the only place the NHL can recoup its purchase price on the Phoenix franchise then maybe I get why the team might end up there. Otherwise, it makes no sense at all from a long term, league-wide business perspective. And it will end badly for the league when the team has to leave again, which is virtually inevitable.

This is the most ridiculous sentiment in this entire discussion.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

... good thoughts...

All very good points, but I simply question if THIS guy is the kind of guy that is going to invest time and money (a lot of money) in Phoenix hockey. He just strikes me as carpet-bagger who is not willing to risk his own money.

[troutman]

Have Dallas and San Jose really done it? Sure they can fill an arena, but how many serious hockey fans live in each city? 50,000? TV ratings and media coverage suggest hockey is a marginal sport in many US cities. Will they continue to fill the arena upon missing the playoffs for a few years?

Regional TV Ratings in 2009-10 (households):

Dallas - FS SW = 19,000

San Jose - CSN = 28,000

http://www.mowatcentre.ca/pdfs/mowatResearch/31.pdf

Average Audience 2009-10:

http://www.sportshoopla.com/forums/n...nhl-teams.html

Dallas Stars FSN Southwest / KDFI My27 42,400 (metro pop 6.4 million)

San Jose Sharks CSN California 63,200 (metro pop = 7.4 million)

Phoenix Coyotes FSN Arizona 26,500 (metro pop = 4.2 million)

Calgary Flames Rogers Sportsnet West 221,300 (metro pop 1.2 million)

Edmonton Oilers Rogers Sportsnet West 181,400 (metro pop 1.2 million)

Ottawa Senators Rogers Sportsnet Ontario 153,400(metro pop 1.5 million)

[tjinaz]

Have Dallas and San Jose really done it? Sure they can fill an arena, but how many serious hockey fans live in each city? 50,000? TV ratings and media coverage suggest hockey is a marginal sport in many US cities. Will they continue to fill the arena upon missing the playoffs for a few years?

Calgary could not fill the arena after being out of the playoffs in the late 90s and early 2000s. Why would any market other than the Leafs be any different? What is that an indicator of?

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by troutman

Have Dallas and San Jose really done it? Sure they can fill an arena, but how many serious hockey fans live in each city? 50,000? TV ratings and media coverage suggest hockey is a marginal sport in many US cities. Will they continue to fill the arena upon missing the playoffs for a few years?

Regional TV Ratings in 2009-10 (households):

Dallas - FS SW = 19,000

San Jose - CSN = 28,000

http://www.mowatcentre.ca/pdfs/mowatResearch/31.pdf

Average Audience 2009-10:

http://www.sportshoopla.com/forums/n...nhl-teams.html

Dallas Stars FSN Southwest / KDFI My27 42,400 (metro pop 6.4 million)

San Jose Sharks CSN California 63,200 (metro pop = 7.4 million)

Phoenix Coyotes FSN Arizona 26,500 (metro pop = 4.2 million)

Calgary Flames Rogers Sportsnet West 221,300

Edmonton Oilers Rogers Sportsnet West 181,400

Ottawa Senators Rogers Sportsnet Ontario 153,400

If I had a 10 year time horizon, I would far, far, far, rather be looking to make a buck on an NHL franchise in Phoenix, Dallas and San Jose than in Winnipeg.

There's significant long-term risk in Winnipeg.

My ego would assume I would know how to make the buck - just like every other billionaire scmuck who tries this - and whether or not I was successful would be up to me.

Winnipeg is such a limiting opportunity. In fact, it not even really an opportunity. It's a charitable favour to the community.

Cowperson

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

If I had a 10 year time horizon, I would far, far, far, rather be looking to make a buck on an NHL franchise in Phoenix, Dallas and San Jose than in Winnipeg.

There's significant long-term risk in Winnipeg.

My ego would assume I would know how to make the buck - just like every other billionaire scmuck who tries this - and whether or not I was successful would be up to me.

Winnipeg is such a limiting opportunity. In fact, it not even really an opportunity. It's a charitable favour to the community.

Cowperson

I take your point if the only measure of success is making bucks. I don't think that is why the Flames owners are involved.

[flambers]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

If I had a 10 year time horizon, I would far, far, far, rather be looking to make a buck on an NHL franchise in Phoenix, Dallas and San Jose than in Winnipeg.

There's significant long-term risk in Winnipeg.

My ego would assume I would know how to make the buck - just like every other billionaire scmuck who tries this - and whether or not I was successful would be up to me.

Winnipeg is such a limiting opportunity. In fact, it not even really an opportunity. It's a charitable favour to the community.

Cowperson

I guess the question is, how could an "NHL Owner" make a "buck" in Phoenix?

Remember, Phoenix has had a really good team for the last several years. They made the playoffs and still lost ~ $37M

Not saying Winnipeg is the answer....

[PegCityFlamesFan]

If you build it they will come?

[landshark]

What' very valid in Cowperson's argument is that the untapped potential in south US markets is HUGE. It takes longterm planning and commitment. I think Troutman's list supports Cowperson's arguement - those canadian markts are 100% mature - upside is almost nothing.

But see what SJ has done while only tapping into 20% of it's potential (number pulled outta my butt) and what Phoenix has done with only 10% of it's potential.

Keep in mind - every game played in these area creates new fans. Over the very long term, it's a no brainer.

CowP is suggesting that Peg's full 100% potential is probably just enough to make it work - until things go sour (again)

[valo403]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

This is the most ridiculous sentiment in this entire discussion.

And yet a gain you offer a thorough and well thought out argument to counter a point. Good work.

[automaton 3]

The problem being to find someone that is willing to invest their own cash and contiune to eat the losses until the market begins to reach its potential.

How many years is Hulsizer willing (or able) dump $35M down a black hole? I'd bet not very long.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Also, to Resolute who can't seem to have a discussion without resorting to petty name calling and over-the-top condescension, 29 owners don't have to agree with Bettman actions and his own ridiculous self-interest and egomaniacal decisions- the NHL owns the Coyotes, so they get to call the shots with the franchise. No? I don't think the owner of St.Louis is calling the owner of Anaheim and telling him what he can and can't do with the franchise he owns, despite the revenue sharing scheme they've constructed. So yeah, Bettman probably does have some kind of bizarre agenda and as Vulcan has pointed out, there have been several examples of this throughout his tenure as commissioner.

No, at least not in the warped 'the NHL = Bettman doing whatever he feels like' scenario you've created for yourself. Keep on pretending you know what you're talking about though.

[Scrollbar]

the anti winnipeg trolls and us southern market people are really working overtime here. the coyotes have lost AT least a quarter billion dollars in their time in arizona, and THIS is where people think big bucks will be made?

no real further retort is required. how ignorant can people be of the simple fact that americans, especially in the south, have spoken with their wallets a LONG time ago.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by troutman

Calgary Flames Rogers Sportsnet West 221,300 (metro pop 1.2 million)

Edmonton Oilers Rogers Sportsnet West 181,400 (metro pop 1.2 million)

Ottawa Senators Rogers Sportsnet Ontario 153,400(metro pop 1.5 million)

That is rather misleading, as Sportsnet does not air only in the local metro. The Flames and Oilers numbers are out of a coverage area of 5.5 million.

Not that that disproves the argument, as likewise, the American regional stations extend beyond just the local metro in most cases.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

That is rather misleading, as Sportsnet does not air only in the local metro. The Flames and Oilers numbers are out of a coverage area of 5.5 million.

Not that that disproves the argument, as likewise, the American regional stations extend beyond just the local metro in most cases.

Agreed - that occurred to me later. I don't know how far the US regional stations extend. For example, are DAL games broadcast throughout Texas?

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

Fox Sports Southwest (stylized as FS SOUTHWEST) is a regional sports network that operates in all or parts of Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Arkansas.

I don't know how many households in that area would have FS SW. I don't know if Stars games would be available in all those markets.

What % of Flames viewers would be in metro Calgary?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Scrollbar

the anti winnipeg trolls and us southern market people are really working overtime here. the coyotes have lost AT least a quarter billion dollars in their time in arizona, and THIS is where people think big bucks will be made?

Don't be so foolish as to assume that not being convinced Winnipeg would be successful automatically means the same people are convinced Phoenix would.

no real further retort is required. how ignorant can people be of the simple fact that americans, especially in the south, have spoken with their wallets a LONG time ago.

Not sure how that is relevant to the real questions over Winnipeg's viability.

[afc wimbledon]

You would think LA would have an NFL team if potential was just defined by population.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by valo403

And yet a gain you offer a thorough and well thought out argument to counter a point. Good work.

Yeah, 'cause it hasn't already been said enough that this is not 1996.

Saying the team leaving again is virtually inevitable based on the fact that it didn't work fifteen years ago in completely different economic conditions is *clears throat* utterly moronic.

Hilarious that B&A thanks your post when the franchise has proven, for the past fifteen years, that is it not viable in the Arizona market on either side of the economic spectrum.