Many posters like yourself don't understand the NHL's motives and desires to keep the team here at almost any cost, 20 years so far, if they were going to move it would have happened already. The NHL is thinking long term and everything doesn't have a shelf life either.
Speculation: Barroway looking to sell 49% stake at $500M valuation
- Thread starter Mosby
- Start date
TheLegend
Megathread Gadfly
During those last 20 years the league has also painted itself into a corner with this market in a variety of ways.
The NHL can’t and won’t continue to support the franchise here forever without an ownership group in place willing to operate it in Arizona. It’s just that simple, and people need to stop deluding themselves into thinking the league will come back in and own it themselves again “just because”. Not when there are currently at least two other markets outside of Seattle with facilities. fans and potential owners waiting.
_Del_
Registered User
- Jul 4, 2003
- 15,426
- 6,738
"At almost any cost" to anyone other than the league itself. I think Bettman would rather publicly walk across hot coals than admit defeat this far in, but I also think as soon as the league runs out of "someone else"-s to absorb the losses, they've already demonstrated they are ready to pull up the ten pegs for this circus.
In business it's called negotiation. The NHL knows how to negotiate much better than the hicks from COG. The NHL used strong arm tactics on the COG and they folded.
TheLegend
Megathread Gadfly
That is leveraged to the hilt in loans and assumed debt and doesn’t have the wealth needed to sustain the losses on top of all that long term.
That is the reality of it, Jakey. You can stick your head in the sand if you want and ignore it. I’m not going to sugar coat it for you.
That's what most of us think is the case, but AB was suppose to not be able to make payroll in January and guess what, nothing more came to light. The NHL will find a minority owner or a new owner for this team. By the way, I have been told to put my head is in the sand for the past ten years. Maybe you should try it.
- Oct 26, 2006
- 18,545
- 11,375
Well, this is certainly a new philosophical tack.
Being on the NHL's side against the City of Glendale - the former practicing pure extortion and the latter simply trying to keep the team in town for the fans.I wouldn't be so quick to call them rubes or hicks, though, considering that as soon as they got a new mayor and a new council, they were able to hoist Anthony LeBlanc and the rest of the IceArizona clowns by their own petard because the ownership group was completely incapable of complying (or unwilling to comply) with the exceedingly generous terms of the arena management agreement.
Lemme ask you a question, Jake - what new group of hicks and rubes is out there in the East Valley, primed for the NHL's strong-arming and ready to mortgage their city's fortunes to build a new hockey arena for poor cash-strapped Andy Barroway?
TheLegend
Megathread Gadfly
Rumors run all the time, Jakey. But guess what... you don’t base a position on them. And just because you never heard anything more doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
Just like “ Oh the league will find a minority owner.” Based on what??
The league’s position has been they will support Barroway and the franchise in Arizona as long as HE is willing to stick it out. What happens if he decides he can’t? If he finds another city willing to host him he can move the Coyotes there and the league has little recourse to stop it (Raiders v NFL II)
The league isn’t going to operate the team without someone footing the bill other than them. Last time they got Glendale to do it, but that bridge is burnt.... pulverized and buried 200 feet under. And you can be assured every other city took note of that.
Barroway doesn't have the money or clout to pay the relo fee and then secure a favorable lease in another city.
TheLegend
Megathread Gadfly
Fertitta buys a 49% stake, 20 home games in Houston, 21 home games in Glendale. Think the league would go for that?
Fertitta buys a 49% stake, 20 home games in Houston, 21 home games in Glendale. Think the league would go for that?
the Houstizona Coyotes does have a ring to it. And Vinny would like it
the Houstizona Coyotes does have a ring to it. And Vinny would like it
I was also tempted to make some comment about how we wouldn't have to worry about where they'd hold the playoff games because there wouldn't be any, but couldn't quite figure out how to make it not sound extremely cynical.
TheLegend
Megathread Gadfly
Barroway didn’t buy a majority up front at first either.... despite the reports he was doing so. That’s how we ended up with Drummond appointing himself as head of hockey ops, remember??
But Barroway also had a buyout clause in his deal. That’s how he was able to send the original IA to the curb. Wouldn’t be that difficult for Fertitta to get in the same way and do exactly what Barroway did.
The only hurdle he needs to get over is to get himself initially approved as a part owner.
Had Balsillie been smart he could have done the same thing but his ego got in the way.
You just got done admitting Barroway is leveraged to the hilt. The league is not interested in broadcasting a lame duck season to the world. Fertitta is not interested in throwing a life raft to Barroway to undercut his own takeover of the team.
The league forced IA out and helped Barroway secure the funding to do it. He will be happy to take any deal that nets him profit if the losses continue with no new money in sight, including one that moves the team. At the end of the day, he doesn't have a lot of say or the right to be picky with how much money he owes. Nobody is going to pay the price he is asking for the 49%. They would have just bought the team outright if they existed.
TheLegend
Megathread Gadfly
Any instance of Fertitta, someone who wants to move the team, buying in to the team while it's still playing and not acquiring a majority share makes any subsequent season or portion of a season a lame duck. That's ultimately completely irrelevant because there's no scenario where he buys a minority share of the team. It's all or nothing. He has no interest in owning the team in Arizona. Full stop.
A majority share that is 'half price' ala Carolina has some novelty to a handful of potential investors who want to own a pro sports team and swing their junk around like Dundon. A minority share in a money losing enterprise that's about to tap out and be available on the cheap has zero appeal. If a person in the asset class required to own and properly operate a hockey team in Arizona existed and had interest in the team at that level, they'd be majority owner already. The league wouldn't have had to go dig up some bit player from the east coast to hold the bag.
The Bob Parsons "love fest" is due to him being really the only plausibly interested party that has the means to actually address the fundamental issues facing the Coyotes on the other side of any transaction.
Things can always change but there's not much reason to hope for a happy outcome here right now. The best thing that can happen is a successful season on the ice.
RemoAZ
Let it burn
I wonder if ownership is ever going to NOT be a hot topic with this team. So freaking tired of this shit.
Fertitta buys a 49% stake, 20 home games in Houston, 21 home games in Glendale. Think the league would go for that?
Reminds me of when Ice Edge wanted to do a couple games in Saskatchewan
- Oct 26, 2006
- 18,545
- 11,375
I'm dulled to it by now. It's been going on as long as my youngest daughter has been alive, and she's about ready to go to high school. It will be a source of irony to me until I die that the Coyotes are the team that turned me into an NHL superfan and, at the same time, sapped me of my enthusiasm for NHL hockey, all in the space of a couple of decades.
Another irony is that I always told myself that if the Coyotes left, I'd still have the D'Backs, but even they are jumping onto the "municipal threats" bandwagon.
Sports!
