Phoenix CXXXVII - and the band plays on

[MNNumbers]

It's very educational (not to mention wonderful for schadenfreude) to go back and read the threads here of that night. Not so much for the content of what actually happened, after all it was just a city council vote, but to discover who reacted here and how. The best part for me was always the flash flood of crocodile tears for the citizen taxpayers of the City of Glendale - hmmm, I wonder if they survived?

It's page 73 now, I looked it up so you won't have to.

DOM -
Considering that IA gave COG a reason to cancel that AMF after 2 years, just what do you mean by....."if they survived?" If you refer to the citizens of Glendale, I suppose they never had to suffer the complete consequences of their city council's actions.

Please comment....

 

[Ted Hoffman]

I think the part about Balsillie "poisoning the well" is apt, although not towards inducing the Coyotes fanbase into a zombie-like fatalistic state towards their team. I think it poisoned the well towards any new owner-based relocation of the Coyotes. Balsillie was trying to do a hostile takeover, to buy the team and do what he wanted with it ignoring league rules & procedures, treating it as a pure commodity with no strings attached or processes to follow. It seemed like, even if there was an owner who played ball, did everything by the NHL book, it would be more difficult to sell/relocate the Coyotes that way than for another team because of Balsillie's interference. The only say on relocation will be the NHL for the Coyotes and they have been, are, and seemingly will be keeping the Coyotes in Arizona until they choose not to. No outsider is going to come in and influence this.

I'll partially counter on this, though I think we're sort of on the same page.

The Thrashers were bought and relocated to Winnipeg, so I don't think the idea of buy-and-relocate is dead at all. Of course, the Thrashers were sold and relocated without any invoking of the mentioned 7-year no move clause, which tells me such a scenario is conditional on whether (A) someone is willing to keep the team in its current location, and (B) whether the arena in the current location is available and its owners willing to allow the team to play there. Both A and B were clearly missing in Atlanta, and B was never going to get permitted - which is why the Thrashers were doomed to relocation as you and others point out. A may or may not be present, but B certainly is; Glendale's offer to subsidize losses in part or in whole for some period was additional incentive to keep a team there and see how things worked out.

So, the question is whether there's scenarios for the Coyotes to be bought and relocated. It breaks down to something like this:

-- No, there's no willing buyers. [Not likely.]
-- Yes, there's willing buyers and they'll keep the team in the Phoenix area. [Maybe, maybe not. Hold your thought here.]
-- Yes, there's willing buyers who'd keep the team in the Phoenix area, but not at the price desired by current ownership. [IMO, if the above statement is true, this statement is probably what's killing anything from happening. However, that's idle speculation until we hear a concrete offer and that it was rejected for being too low, and I'm not aware of any such event happening.]
-- Yes, there's willing buyers but they want to relocate. [Possible? Yeah, but there's only a handful of realistic locations for a team to go and I don't know that anyone who might be interested in buying has both an available location and the ability to pass the NHL checklist and gain approval of the other owners. Parts, yes; all, no. But, who knows - could happen, we just don't know about anything yet.]
-- Yes, there's willing buyers but they want to relocate, but they don't want to pay the price desired by current ownership. [Similar to the "will keep them in the PMA" scenario, I can see this being an obstacle.]

Or, maybe current ownership really just doesn't want to sell - they just want some path to have a chance to break even and make things work in Phoenix/Glendale. And that's OK, that's their right as owners, as long as they don't put the team in financial distress [i.e., miss payroll for the players, miss paying bills, do anything else to put the finances of the team into question to the point that the NHL has to step in or feels like it has to step in], it's their team to run as they see fit.

I don't think the NHL is anti-relocation. I do think they see it as a last resort, which is exactly where the Thrashers ended up. The NHL was not about to get into the business of finding a new home for the Coyotes and coordinating all of that while searching for a buyer for the team; that's someone else's risk to take on and figure out. It especially wasn't doing it while losses were getting paid back in full. But I think that at some point soon, fans need to show up and quit worrying about what they think might happen or it really will happen - and I don't know what the magic switch is that gets them to drop their worries and buy into the here and now.

 

[TheLegend]

DOM -
Considering that IA gave COG a reason to cancel that AMF after 2 years, just what do you mean by....."if they survived?" If you refer to the citizens of Glendale, I suppose they never had to suffer the complete consequences of their city council's actions.

Please comment....

I would submit Glendale was not going to fall into the pit of bankruptcy despair as so many people here prognosticated had IA not given Glendale the out they did and lived out the original lease.

 

[Dirty Old Man]

I would submit Glendale was not going to fall into the pit of bankruptcy despair as so many people here prognosticated had IA not given Glendale the out they did and lived out the original lease.

^bingo. (And while I know a minority of you fancy yourselves genuine taxpayer defender heroes!.... it's a small minority)

 

[Mightygoose]

It's very educational (not to mention wonderful for schadenfreude) to go back and read the threads here of that night. Not so much for the content of what actually happened, after all it was just a city council vote, but to discover who reacted here and how. The best part for me was always the flash flood of crocodile tears for the citizen taxpayers of the City of Glendale - hmmm, I wonder if they survived?

It's page 73 now, I looked it up so you won't have to.

Very true. The more facinating part was the reaction of those on either side of the issue during the vote 2 years later to cancel (later amend) the lease. Those who were 'concerned' for the taxpayers waived pom poms and those who applauded the city's actions in 2013 now curse the city....it's in part 100 'the Farce Awakens'...IIRC.

Very few on either side of this actually live there but the council has given us so much. When this saga is done one way or the other....HF needs to lobby UNESCO to designatele Glendale City Hall a World Heritage Site....some might even consider it a place of worship...

 

[The Feckless Puck]

There are many legitimate reasons for the Arizona Coyotes' business case to be discussed around here.

Pity that none of the threads devoted to it can stay on topic for very long.

 

[Tom ServoMST3K]

There are many legitimate reasons for the Arizona Coyotes' business case to be discussed around here.

Pity that none of the threads devoted to it can stay on topic for very long.

Just ignore the drive bys. I know I do.

 

[The Feckless Puck]

Just ignore the drive bys. I know I do.

The drive-bys I can ignore. It's the endless leavening of good discourse with the same tired biases that gets under my skin. It just cheapens the quality of discussion so much, it's dispiriting.

 

[Tom ServoMST3K]

The drive-bys I can ignore. It's the endless leavening of good discourse with the same tired biases that gets under my skin. It just cheapens the quality of discussion so much, it's dispiriting.

the problem is when threads like this pop up pretending something has changed.

 

[Dirty Old Man]

the problem is when threads like this pop up pretending something has changed.

I know, right? Who keeps *doing*that, anyway?

 

[TheLegend]

I know, right? Who keeps *doing*that, anyway?

David Pagnotta and his The Fourth Period blogsite at the moment.

 

[WingsFan95]

The team is at 103% in debt to value ratio for the latest figures.

Isles are at 45 and Panthers are 39. The Panthers are worse in operating income.

I'd like to know how much of a margin there is on the tv market income that Bettman has held onto for.

 

[aqib]

Just curious, does anyone know how much debt is still outstanding on the arena? I know the city bought the arena for $180 million and the bonds were for 30 years so that would probably leave about $130 million right now just curious if its been refinanced or anything

 

[TheLegend]

Just curious, does anyone know how much debt is still outstanding on the arena? I know the city bought the arena for $180 million and the bonds were for 30 years so that would probably leave about $130 million right now just curious if its been refinanced or anything

IIRC.... They did some refinancing around 2014-15.

Council approves refinancing plan


Whether or not the arena bonds were included in it I don't know, but they got a better bond rating because of it.

Glendale receives solid ratings on bonds

 

[aqib]

IIRC.... They did some refinancing around 2014-15.

Council approves refinancing plan


Whether or not the arena bonds were included in it I don't know, but they got a better bond rating because of it.

Glendale receives solid ratings on bonds

Yeah so I guess that the arena debt has been rolled in with other bonds that were outstanding at the time. So it will be hard to say there are still $X outstanding on the arena

 

[TheLegend]

Yeah so I guess that the arena debt has been rolled in with other bonds that were outstanding at the time. So it will be hard to say there are still $X outstanding on the arena

It would be safe to say the payoff schedule is the same as before. Difference would be in the final cost.

Had some time to do a little googling and game up with the following document from 2018 that includes payment schedules and such.....

https://www.glendaleaz.com/finance/documents/Item18-OfficialStatement.pdf

Also have this arena specific announcement from a few months earlier that mentioned the payments on the bonds for the arena will average $13M per year through 2033.

https://www.glendaleaz.com/pressroom/documents/CityofGlendaleandCoyotesFactSheet.pdf

 

[aqib]

It would be safe to say the payoff schedule is the same as before. Difference would be in the final cost.

Had some time to do a little googling and game up with the following document from 2018 that includes payment schedules and such.....

https://www.glendaleaz.com/finance/documents/Item18-OfficialStatement.pdf

Also have this arena specific announcement from a few months earlier that mentioned the payments on the bonds for the arena will average $13M per year through 2033.

https://www.glendaleaz.com/pressroom/documents/CityofGlendaleandCoyotesFactSheet.pdf

That $13 million figure would be principal and interest, so if we assume there is someting arounf $120-130 million outstanding at some point the debt will drop low enough that the city could sell the arena and payoff whatever is outstanding on it. So where would that point be? $100 million maybe?

 

[Tom ServoMST3K]

I would submit Glendale was not going to fall into the pit of bankruptcy despair as so many people here prognosticated had IA not given Glendale the out they did and lived out the original lease.

you're right.

Remember the lease payments would wind down over the years.

But-cancelling the lease did save them a bunch of money.

 

[Brodie]

I really just can't get over the part where it's been a decade and this is still ongoing.

I'm not a fan of screwing over fans, I've always been mildly pro-Yotes in all of this. But good god if there were ever a case for contraction, it's the one where nobody wants to own a team and the league could get $700 million for an expansion team to replace it.

 

[TheLegend]

you're right.

Remember the lease payments would wind down over the years.

But-cancelling the lease did save them a bunch of money.

Oh no doubt it did short term. The question then becomes if the Coyotes leave what does it do to them long term?? I have a feeling that Glendale doesn't think they'll actually leave.

Side note to this is within one of the documents linked there, the original IA lease was costing them a net $8.5 million per year. Camelback Ranch (Dodgers/White Sox spring training facility) is costing them $11 million.

 

[aqib]

It would be safe to say the payoff schedule is the same as before. Difference would be in the final cost.

Had some time to do a little googling and game up with the following document from 2018 that includes payment schedules and such.....

https://www.glendaleaz.com/finance/documents/Item18-OfficialStatement.pdf

Also have this arena specific announcement from a few months earlier that mentioned the payments on the bonds for the arena will average $13M per year through 2033.

https://www.glendaleaz.com/pressroom/documents/CityofGlendaleandCoyotesFactSheet.pdf

I wonder at what point the arena could be sold and the debt paid off. Maybe when the debt dips below $100 million?

 

[Tom ServoMST3K]

Oh no doubt it did short term. The question then becomes if the Coyotes leave what does it do to them long term?? I have a feeling that Glendale doesn't think they'll actually leave.

Side note to this is within one of the documents linked there, the original IA lease was costing them a net $8.5 million per year. Camelback Ranch (Dodgers/White Sox spring training facility) is costing them $11 million.

yup baseball was a way worse bet than hockey.

When would that original lease have expired?

it was a 10 year deal IIRC.

we'd be over halfway through that lease.

 

[MNNumbers]

yup baseball was a way worse bet than hockey.

When would that original lease have expired?

it was a 10 year deal IIRC.

we'd be over halfway through that lease.

The IA lease was 15 years. There was a 5-year opt out clause for the team only. It went like this:
Up front payment from COG to IA: 15M/yr
Avg return from various fees from IA to COG: 5M/yr

Assumed willingness of COG to pay IA: 6M/year.

Early Termination Clause:
Possible time of Early termination: Only following year 5
Requirement of losses by team: 50M in the 5 years
Requirement of team to COG in case of early termination: Repayment such that the return to the city from the various fees mentioned above would total 45M in the 5 years.

This means:
The team could have terminated the lease following last year, and only following last year.
Since the city was averaging 5M/yr in return monies, the team would have been required to pay them a flat 20M to exit the lease.

 

[BKIslandersFan]

Any “hate” toward the Coyotes is largely due to the fact that the league has bent over backwards to keep them in the league when they’ve done nothing but lose money. If the league wants to keep bailing out the team that’s fine (I guess) but they should be doing it for everyone. Teams like the original Jets and the Thrashers didn’t have nearly the support from the league that the Coyotes have had.

Bettman needs to admit it’s a failed experiment and move the team already.

You are falsely assuming all these teams in trouble were in similar situations.

 

[Agalloch]