Ted Hoffman
Done
- Dec 15, 2002
- 29,289
- 8,719
Kind of how the NHL/Denver project worked so well after the Scouts left KC that the Nordiques gritted their teeth when moving in from Quebec City?
and the north stars left minnesota, the oakland seals/ california golden seals left and the colorado rockies left for the swamp in Jersey
Malice430
Registered User
i guess the other question would be "where else could they go?" I for one would like to see a team back in Winnipeg before a return to KC.
Malice430
Registered User
the rockies were a farely popular draw in denver. the reasons they moved was because of ownership issue. 3 owners in 4 years with the last owner from Jersey who wanted to move the team.
According to TSN, Penguins officials are meeting city leaders in Pittsburgh tomorrow. Assuming the press conference isn't a hoax, it most definitely will not contain an announcement of the future of the Pens.
even more than that, there is no way mario and the pens are gonna make a decision on anything the first day they talk to someone. they are starting to explore options outside of pittsburgh (which could very well just be a bluff to put pressure on pittsburgh to build them an arena) but with several options outside of pittsburgh he isn't going to jump at the first offer on the first day. you'll probably see him meet with people in hamilton, winnipeg and some other places before any decisions are made.
Big#D
__________________
- Oct 11, 2005
- 2,779
- 0
Denver was not a bad market for hockey when the Rockies were there. It was a bad business environment.
KC was a bad market for hockey with the Scouts. I'm not sure it will be better option for the Pens. Pittsburgh is a great market and has a good up and coming team. KC would need a few years to build loyal fan support.
Having said that, Atlanta was a bad market before the team moved to Calgary and I didn't think it was a good idea for the NHL to go back there. I'm not sure about the Thrashers attendence but I don't think it is as bad as it could be.
Atlanta wasn't a bad market though when the flames were there, like Denver they had an owner who lost much of his capitol (not from the team, but from him being a ignorant business man).
Jaded-Fan
Registered User
The details of the Pittsburgh and KC offers are becoming more clear. KC seems to come up short:
Officials of Anschutz Entertainment Group say the Penguins would pay no rent and would be given a 50 percent share in AEG's management deal - with no buy-in.
http://kctv5.com/Global/story.asp?S=5885704
vs.
Although the Penguins likely would have to help pay for an Uptown building, the team could make more money from an arena here, too. All of the revenue from a new Pittsburgh arena is available to "help keep the team viable," Onorato said recently.
"We're going to be able to put together a very competitive package because we have that flexibility," Onorato said. "We know there are a lot of revenues that are going to come out of a new building."
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pitt.../s_486775.html
Even with a $60 mil. over 30 years cost (current offer, supposedly to be 'sweetened') how would the loss of 50% of the revenues be a better offer thank 100%? How could even a 'free' arena cover that loss? And even the biggest KC supporters have to admit that KC is a much less sure market than Pittsburgh. A huge question mark. How would this KC offer possibly be enough?
Officials of Anschutz Entertainment Group say the Penguins would pay no rent and would be given a 50 percent share in AEG's management deal - with no buy-in.
http://kctv5.com/Global/story.asp?S=5885704
vs.
Although the Penguins likely would have to help pay for an Uptown building, the team could make more money from an arena here, too. All of the revenue from a new Pittsburgh arena is available to "help keep the team viable," Onorato said recently.
"We're going to be able to put together a very competitive package because we have that flexibility," Onorato said. "We know there are a lot of revenues that are going to come out of a new building."
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pitt.../s_486775.html
Even with a $60 mil. over 30 years cost (current offer, supposedly to be 'sweetened') how would the loss of 50% of the revenues be a better offer thank 100%? How could even a 'free' arena cover that loss? And even the biggest KC supporters have to admit that KC is a much less sure market than Pittsburgh. A huge question mark. How would this KC offer possibly be enough?
HansH
Unwelcome Spectre
While it's a minor point, technically, not all of the revenue is available. The latest Plan B offering requires the team to forgo naming rights revenue as part of their yearly contribution towards the building of the arena -- to the tune of $1.16 million yearly, in addition to the out-of-pocket contributions needed.
Jaded-Fan
Registered User
That is likely part of said 'sweetener.' Ravenstahl and Onerato mentioned a figure similar to what the Pirates pay, specifically mentioned $1.6 mil per year required from them, as the final offer to the Pens. It would be assumed said naming rights are part of that give back.
Jaded-Fan
Registered User
Kansas City offers free rent, Ownership stake
http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=2720130
Huh?? If this is the actual offer the Pens are gone. But why would KC do this? Free rent + 50% ownership stake in management of the arena = the Pens not only paying nothing to play, but actually getting a boatload of cash yearly for free. And KC gets nothing finacially from the Pens being there. I do not get it and it can not be true. Hell, getting indoor soccer in there would be better financially. At least it would generate KC revenues and not end up costing them millions each year. Makes no sense.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=2720130
Huh?? If this is the actual offer the Pens are gone. But why would KC do this? Free rent + 50% ownership stake in management of the arena = the Pens not only paying nothing to play, but actually getting a boatload of cash yearly for free. And KC gets nothing finacially from the Pens being there. I do not get it and it can not be true. Hell, getting indoor soccer in there would be better financially. At least it would generate KC revenues and not end up costing them millions each year. Makes no sense.
HandshakeLine
A real jerk thing
I honestly don't think that's what they mean. They make no mention of which revenue streams the Pens would get a part of-- could AEG be using ownership as a ploy to cover up the fact that they wouldn't get as many as the Pittsburgh plan?
Jaded-Fan
Registered User
Ding, ding, the lightbulb went off. Does this mean that AEG basically gets half ownership of the Pens? 50% of all revenues generated in the arena = 50% of the Pens take too. That makes more sense and makes that offer far less generous halving the Pens' value.
More from TSN...
http://tsn.ca/nhl/news_story/?ID=190841&hubname=
Nevermind.. this is the same article as the ESPN one posted...
http://tsn.ca/nhl/news_story/?ID=190841&hubname=
Nevermind.. this is the same article as the ESPN one posted...
HansH
Unwelcome Spectre
When you say "KC", do you mean the City of Kansas City, or do you mean AEG, the managing entity for the arena?
Kansas City will get money from AEG (I assume) no matter what the tenants are, based on the managing agreement -- at least if it was written well, which I realize might be an overly aggressive assumption.
Now, if you mean AEG, what AEG would get would be an instant cash infusion from the Pens (buying that management stake, not getting it for free). Also, they need to look at the money side of what they'd get WITHOUT the Pens coming to KC.
Without the Pens, AEG gets 100% of an arena without a primary tenant.
With the Pens, AEG gets 50% (under the proposed arrangement) of an arena with an NHL team with 41 regular season games (plus pre- and possible post-season games)... which MAY be projected by AEG to be more money than the 100% of a much less-booked arena.
THAT might be why they would make this offer.
Pepper
Registered User
- Aug 30, 2004
- 14,693
- 269
They are talking about arena management company but nothing about Pens' ownership.
Looks like a very tempting offer to me.
Jaded-Fan
Registered User
AEG would get half of every dime the Pens generate @ the arena in exchange. Now while that is not technically half ownership that is likely to not make Mr. Boots happy, who was promised the ownership of a team coming there. And would make the team dramatically less valuable to own. Also AEG controls the books I would assume. This is not the most attractive of offers and certainly not how I would want to own a team. Though the dollars and cents may come close to Pittsburgh's offer of 100% of revenues. The lack of control of the books and in essence forming a partnership with AEG is something very few of the ownership type would even agree to.
They probably mean arena ownership. Kansas City is going to make a real sweet deal to the Penguins because they are desperate to get a major tenant for the arena. I believe the arena was built with tax money, failure to get a team (Whether it be an NBA team or an NHL team) make the the arena a giant white elephant in the middle of the city. Especially with all the suites being sold. KC pretty much has to put all of it's eggs in one basket and basket is the Penguins moving.
Jaded-Fan
Registered User
I can understand why AEG made the offer. They only put under $60 mil. up and basically get half of all the value of the Pens in return. My question is why the Pens would want this? And how the Pens would have much value as an asset if they take this deal? Can you imagine someone like Bassilli, or even Mr. Boots, accepting a deal where he is in partnership with AEG, and by the way, they control the books and arena determining what income is and how much you get? Yeah, that is a great deal for the Pens, or specifically, their new 'owner.'
HansH
Unwelcome Spectre
Not quite -- because when Mario (or any other eventual owner) sells the team, AEG would reap not one dime from the team's equity value, which is what most owners are in ownership for in the first place (as most teams lose money on the books).
Also, you're ASSUMING AEG would be in control of the books, etc -- those devils would be in the details of the management partnership agreement, which none of us is privvy to at this moment. There are only assumptions to make.
Jaded-Fan
Registered User
That is the point. How much value does half a franchise have? How many owners would want a partnership set up like this deal? Good luck getting even $50 mil for this share. Again, Mr. Boots must be pissed at this offer to start with.
HansH
Unwelcome Spectre
Again, it's not half a franchise. It's a full franchise, with the addition of half of all of other arena revenue. AEG gets not one dime from the ticket revenue (again, my assumption), as the team is not paying rent -- all that goes to the franchise. Half of the signage, half of the concessions, half of the naming rights... for all events, Pens or otherwise.
That's in no way shape or form "Half a franchise".
Boots may be pissed, but that's neither here nor there, is it?
That's in no way shape or form "Half a franchise".
Boots may be pissed, but that's neither here nor there, is it?
