I'm really pulling for JB here and I want the Coyotes in Hamilton but I just can't see it happening.
and I think this will be JBs last attempt.
and I think this will be JBs last attempt.
Balsillie/Phoenix part IV
- Thread starter mouser
- Start date
- Status
much less than the other bid that wassking for 15 million a year to stay in phx?
let it go to an auction ,basillie dont mind
he said today it wont be ,if he fails in phx he coming back
==========
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5gvZAKsqjlcdNSQi8ZhIFE9SnbvQA
Last edited by a moderator:
Rob
Registered User
kombayn
Registered User
- May 6, 2009
- 223
- 6
What happens if the auction goes down? And then we have no bids? The Club will be doomed, I mean just take Balsillie's offer. The Board of Governors have to be foolish right now not to. Balsillie filled out the relocation application, he wants this team badly and are we really going to cry over the loss of the Phoenix Coyotes? Realignment doesn't have to be difficult either. There are many scenarios that can work.
Why move the yotes, so the kings can have a better record? Get lost, read a little bit more next time.
Clearly what Bettman said is how he feels, not the judge. When the 9th come, we can talk, all the speculating argue, back and fourth on this matter is redundant.
As for my opinion, the team isnt going anywhere, so most if not all the canadians claiming "make it seven" save it, because it wont be the Yotes.
Rob
Registered User
MAROONSRoad
f/k/a Ghost
Numbers
These are the figures I would highlight:
1) Actual fans in attendance per game on average at Coyotes game this season: 10,943
2) TV households per game on average in Arizona this season: 7,000 HH
3) Total estimate of cumulative losses since the franchise moved to Phoenix: -$316 million
4) Gate recepts per game ranking 07-08: 30th out of 30
Links:
http://beta.images.theglobeandmail.com/static/sports/relocation.pdf
http://www3.thestar.com/static/PDF/080530_nhl_tickets_revenue.pdf
GHOST
These are the figures I would highlight:
1) Actual fans in attendance per game on average at Coyotes game this season: 10,943
2) TV households per game on average in Arizona this season: 7,000 HH
3) Total estimate of cumulative losses since the franchise moved to Phoenix: -$316 million
4) Gate recepts per game ranking 07-08: 30th out of 30
Links:
http://beta.images.theglobeandmail.com/static/sports/relocation.pdf
http://www3.thestar.com/static/PDF/080530_nhl_tickets_revenue.pdf
GHOST
Bitterman
Registered User
- Dec 12, 2007
- 438
- 0
Their stated average attendance is 14,875 and not 10,943 so does that mean each night 3,932 ticket buyers don't bother to show up? A 26% no show rate? Or was Phoenix buying up huge amounts of tickets to qualify for revenue sharing? Has anyone heard Moyes or anyone else try to explain the massive difference in the publicly declared attendance?
MAROONSRoad
f/k/a Ghost
There are four "attendance" figures to consider:
Announced attendance: 14,875 (this is a totally made-up and bogus figure in the 'new' NHL)
Actual turnstile attendance: 10,942 (people that actually showed up to watch the games)
Actual tickets distributed: 13,854 (tickets sold and/or given away for free)
Actual paid for tickets: 13,075 (which includes no-shows and likely tickets bought by Moyes and associates in an attempt to qualify for more revenue sharing dollars)
Does that clear things up?
Link:
http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k42/Jhendrix70_/Jets/tickets.jpg
GHOST
berklon
Registered User
- Dec 24, 2008
- 1,547
- 361
The Yotes may not "make it seven", but their days are numbered in Phoenix. It's obvious Bettman knows the writing is on the wall, he's just trying to stop it from moving to Balsillie/Hamilton. He's going to try and keep it in Phoenix for at least one more year and then turn around and move it to Las Vegas or KC.
So far there has been no indication that Phoenix (or any other team) had actually bought tickets in order to qualify for revenue sharing and any such claims are currently nothing more than groundless allegations.
Still, I have to admit that having a bit over 2.000 sold tickets without people showing up is probably unsually high number and some explanation would be needed.
However, even such a difference do not require malicious intent by the owner or any other party. Here are few issues that could possibly explain the difference and require no actual dishonesty on the part of the owneror team:
1.) Ticket packages.
Method widely used in WC tournaments and plausible to be used by Phoenix (someone can confirm or deny this). Provided that there are some match-ups that can generate interest, team can pacakge tickets to those games together with the tickets for less interesting match-ups and that way generate large number of paid tickets that remain unused. If ticket packages are available this theory could be easily verified or rejected based on game-by-game numbers, provided such could be had
2.) Scalpers
Lets face it, I doubt Phoenix has sufficiet sell-outs to actually create viable second hand market for hockey tickets. Still, especially most interesting match-ups (Detroit, Canadian teams?) could be considered lucrative enough to lure some scalpers.
3.) Actual no shows
Low interest and low prices in combination can create situation, where people could by tickets and still not actually bother to show up if something more interesting would come up for the evening. I would not seriously consider this to be significant factor, but some of the difference can well be explained by "natural" factors.
In general, I have to admit that reasonable explanations for the large difference between the paid and actually attendance would require that there are some match-ups that actually generate interest and people are willing to pay for. Any insight on game-to-game interest would be very helpful in order to determine whether this has been the case or not.
You should do some research before you shoot your mouth off.
No complaints about subsidies by tax payers is because the tax payers OWN Copps.
Don't you think it's in the tax payers best interest to secure a anchor tenant like a NHL team or would you rather have another arena built that is going to compete against you?
Bitterman
Registered User
- Dec 12, 2007
- 438
- 0
Didn't teams need to sell 14,000 tickets this season to qualify for revenue sharing, up from 13,000 the year before?
"Many scenarios"? No, I'm sorry, but there just aren't many scenarios that can work if the Coyotes get moved to Hamilton.
If Hamilton were to get Coyotes on short notice for the League, then possibly putting the team in the Northwest Division would be a temporary solution for the first Season (a 4-Time Zone Division can't be justified to any of the teams that will be in it), but after that then there appears to really only be one practical option:
PACIFIC: Vancouver, San Jose, Los Angeles, Anaheim, Colorado
CENTRAL: Dallas, Nashville, Columbus, Detroit, Hamilton/Atlanta
NORTHWEST: Edmonton, Calgary, Minnesota, Chicago, St. Louis
- Vancouver won't like it, but then how can the League keep putting Central Time Zone teams in with the California teams when Vancouver is right there in the Pacific Time Zone.
- Chicago and St. Louis won't like it, but at least they'll have each other, and with Vancouver out of the Division then it'll only be 2 Time Zones.
- And as for Hamilton and Atlanta, that'll be whatever the League decides.
Moobles
Registered User
- Mar 15, 2009
- 2,555
- 0
That's some division massacre. I think it would take something special to pry Vancouver out of the Northwest and move Chicago and St. Louis in.
At the moment, Balsille's filing suggests Colorado moves to the Pacific Division and Hamilton moves to replace Colorado in the Northwest Division. After that who knows; we have to get through the hurdle of whether Balsille is actually going to own the team or not and if then, will the team get to play in the NHL.
At the moment, Balsille's filing suggests Colorado moves to the Pacific Division and Hamilton moves to replace Colorado in the Northwest Division. After that who knows; we have to get through the hurdle of whether Balsille is actually going to own the team or not and if then, will the team get to play in the NHL.
Egil
Registered User
Something fishy has to be going on here as these numbers are pretty insane. I mean they are having a 21% no-show rate on the distributed tickets, which is extraordinarily high. I wonder how many of these tickets are the ones people got with their vodka or other promotions like that? I would have to think that the turnstile attendance gives a better indication of their real revenue generating ticket sales over even the paid for. It is one thing to not go with what is essentially a free ticket, but if you are paying $50-$100 bucks for your ticket, you arn't going to miss 1 out of 5 games.
You should do some research before you shoot your mouth off.
No complaints about subsidies by tax payers is because the tax payers OWN Copps.
Don't you think it's in the tax payers best interest to secure a anchor tenant like a NHL team or would you rather have another arena built that is going to compete against you?
Just a bit of a double standard here regarding taxpayer subsidies isn't it? A large number of people on these boards have complained about the taxpayer subsidies given to the Predators and proposed for the Coyotes, yet you say it is okay for the taxpayers of Hamilton to do the same thing.
The taxpayers in Nashville and Glendale also own the arenas. Isn't it in their best interest, too, to secure an anchor tennant like an NHL team?
Bitterman
Registered User
- Dec 12, 2007
- 438
- 0
It's very common in the US for local governments to issue bonds to help raise money to build stadiums for their local pro teams whereas it's always been a tender spot in Canada. Hamilton isn't doing anything unusual.
I'm not saying that Hamilton is doing anything unusual. Just wondering where the usual outcry against taypayer funded subsidies that always spring up on these boards are this time. Several posters that are usually quite vocal about taxpayer subsidies are being unusually quiet.
You should do some research before you shoot your mouth off.
No complaints about subsidies by tax payers is because the tax payers OWN Copps.
Don't you think it's in the tax payers best interest to secure a anchor tenant like a NHL team or would you rather have another arena built that is going to compete against you?
While Gnash doesn't need my help, please follow your own advice.
There are some posters here that have been quite vocal against any public assistance to sports franchises. GHOST passionately voices that opinion (which I respect regardless of whether I agree).
Those individuals were particularly vociferous about the issue when it was discussed during the Nashville sale- regarding an arena owned by the City of Nashville.
Sound familiar?
GHOST, do you have any substance to that accusation or was this just thrown out there for many posters to reference as truth later (forum-style)?
Bitterman
Registered User
- Dec 12, 2007
- 438
- 0
Oh I'm sure there will be at some point since it's still way early to know the outcome. That said, Copps is an old dump hosting an AHL team so a major facelift would raise the taxes charged on the building.
- Status
