Phoenix CXXXVI - Coyotes up for sale again

Status
Not open for further replies.

StreetHawk

Registered User
Sep 30, 2017
25,607
9,435
do you honestly think that the arena was the problem? i've never thought that.

i believe every owner, since day one, has simply not had a clue how to market this product. and i cannot help but think the nhl has intentionally seen fit to put into place a long series of owners who have no clue. that's been the mystery to me ... why has the league doomed this franchise by allowing poor clown after poor clown to run the show.
Arena has never been an advantage for them however. 4 year old nba only building when they arrive. Thus like 13k unobstructed seats.

No chance of new arena in the same area cause the government funded the current one. So waste of money for them.

So, no ownership group there has ever been able to work out private financing to build one.

Then they move to Glendale. Risk vs reward. NJ moved from meadowlands to Newark. They took a gamble too. That’s why it’s always neat to have the arena around downtown. Easier access since majority of people work downtown. Can go after work.

I think the coyotes play this out until Sarver and Phoenix agree to runs the renovations to the TSRA. Once that deal is done it makes Scottsdale and Phoenix out of reach as it would not make financial sense to have a pair of arenas so close together competing for the same non sport events.
 

TheLegend

Megathread Gadfly
Aug 30, 2009
35,968
27,447
Buzzing BoH
Sure.

Do you think their issues are solely the arena location? I mean take Ottawa or the Islanders (old arena) for example. They had some of the worst locations but still managed to sell tickets and turn a profit, they had crummy management and people still showed up to the games. Look at the Habs, we've had mediocre management forever and a day and until recently, they've been selling out every night. Toronto, Edmonton, etc.. all bad team for long stretches of time, still never lost money like Arizona.

Are there hockey fans in Arizona, sure. The question is, are there enough to sustain a profitable franchise? Will a new arena/better ownership be able to get more people to buy tickets and attend games? Based on what I said above, I doubt that but for the sake of the current passionate fans in Arizona, I hope I'm wrong.

Just happened to catch this and wanted to expand on it a little......

Islanders are averaging 10,484 through 6 home games. (rank 31st)
Coyotes are averaging 13,896 through 7 home games. (rank 28th)

(Just for kicks.... Ottawa is just above the Coyotes with 14,104 though 9 home games.)

The Islanders deal with Barclays gives them a generously flat amount of cash. Regardless of how many tickets they sell. That's why they don't have the losses but..... IIRC that's changing because Barclay's is taking a bath on the deal. Islanders also benefit from a VERY good TV contract.

It isn't all about selling tickets anymore. If not for TV deals and such there'd be quite a few more teams leaking cash.
 

MNNumbers

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Nov 17, 2011
7,627
2,486
Just happened to catch this and wanted to expand on it a little......

Islanders are averaging 10,484 through 6 home games. (rank 31st)
Coyotes are averaging 13,896 through 7 home games. (rank 28th)

(Just for kicks.... Ottawa is just above the Coyotes with 14,104 though 9 home games.)

The Islanders deal with Barclays gives them a generously flat amount of cash. Regardless of how many tickets they sell. That's why they don't have the losses but..... IIRC that's changing because Barclay's is taking a bath on the deal. Islanders also benefit from a VERY good TV contract.

It isn't all about selling tickets anymore. If not for TV deals and such there'd be quite a few more teams leaking cash.

Legend, Isles are worse than that. They are playing some games back at the Coliseum in Nassau because the Barclays thing really wasn't working for anyone.
 

voyageur

Hockey fanatic
Jul 10, 2011
9,467
8,157
Just happened to catch this and wanted to expand on it a little......

Islanders are averaging 10,484 through 6 home games. (rank 31st)
Coyotes are averaging 13,896 through 7 home games. (rank 28th)

(Just for kicks.... Ottawa is just above the Coyotes with 14,104 though 9 home games.)

The Islanders deal with Barclays gives them a generously flat amount of cash. Regardless of how many tickets they sell. That's why they don't have the losses but..... IIRC that's changing because Barclay's is taking a bath on the deal. Islanders also benefit from a VERY good TV contract.

It isn't all about selling tickets anymore. If not for TV deals and such there'd be quite a few more teams leaking cash.

Teams like Winnipeg and Nashville still rely on gate revenues. Isles have the MSG blanket. Sens I believe got a good deal from TSN who needs some hockey, having lost their bidding war to Rogers.

Arizona. Jeez. Every year. The saga continues. I think they are bound for Houston before the next TV deal. Saves realignment when Seattle starts playing. The team has $250 million in debt according to Forbes. The NHL part may be forgiven, but for me it's take a loss, to get a profit, when they sell. I just wonder what the actual value of the Coyotes is, unskewed. It's not $500 million or $650 million, with so much debt. And no attraction financially. Arena included? More tenants?
 

MNNumbers

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Nov 17, 2011
7,627
2,486
Teams like Winnipeg and Nashville still rely on gate revenues. Isles have the MSG blanket. Sens I believe got a good deal from TSN who needs some hockey, having lost their bidding war to Rogers.

Arizona. Jeez. Every year. The saga continues. I think they are bound for Houston before the next TV deal. Saves realignment when Seattle starts playing. The team has $250 million in debt according to Forbes. The NHL part may be forgiven, but for me it's take a loss, to get a profit, when they sell. I just wonder what the actual value of the Coyotes is, unskewed. It's not $500 million or $650 million, with so much debt. And no attraction financially. Arena included? More tenants?

Yotes' value is Team Only. They don't own the arena, and currently, they don't even have the rights to operate it. The only benefits they have there are
80% of Naming Rights
Free office and practice space.
 

zetajerk

Registered User
Jan 1, 2015
738
589
The difference is the Isles play in NY, which I guess is cold enough where they're allowed to have bad attendance and lose money, and it's all ok. If that franchise were in idk, Virginia, the same nut bars would be demanding their relocation too.
 

MNNumbers

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Nov 17, 2011
7,627
2,486
The difference is the Isles play in NY, which I guess is cold enough where they're allowed to have bad attendance and lose money, and it's all ok. If that franchise were in idk, Virginia, the same nut bars would be demanding their relocation too.

And, they play in NY, where their local TV contract makes up for a LOT of empty seats.
 

zetajerk

Registered User
Jan 1, 2015
738
589
And, they play in NY, where their local TV contract makes up for a LOT of empty seats.

You and I both know why no one gets mad that they haven't drawn well since the late 80s. It's not the TV contract. You're giving the nut bars too much credit.
 

MNNumbers

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Nov 17, 2011
7,627
2,486
You and I both know why no one gets mad that they haven't drawn well since the late 80s. It's not the TV contract. You're giving the nut bars too much credit.

Actually, Zeta, I'm of mixed mind about this.

New York really is a different animal. It really is. The TV thing there does make a huge difference.

However, it's also true that they get a LOT of slack because of 4 Stanley Cups.

And, it's also true that, right now, they are working on a HUGE project at Belmont park, of which a new hockey arena is part. If ANY team in a southern climate had such a project going on, or in the planning stages, I think A LOT of people here would give them a lot of slack because it would be deep pocketed owners working with what they have.

As an example of the converse.....
One part of the reason that people were up in arms about Carolina is that Karmanos didn't have that...his personal finances were questionable.
Same in Arizona. The league itself threatened its own host city with a relo unless they paid a 25M ransom. Twice. So, there were extenuating circumstances.

I hear what you are saying, and some posters here fall into that category. But please to accuse all of us of that.
 

Melrose Munch

Registered User
Mar 18, 2007
23,546
2,006
do you honestly think that the arena was the problem? i've never thought that.

i believe every owner, since day one, has simply not had a clue how to market this product. and i cannot help but think the nhl has intentionally seen fit to put into place a long series of owners who have no clue. that's been the mystery to me ... why has the league doomed this franchise by allowing poor clown after poor clown to run the show.
I cant disagree with this. This is a problem with the NHL, all the way back to the old pens owner and the islander fiascos.
 

finkelsteinberg

Registered User
Sponsor
Jul 1, 2016
110
100
Phoenix, AZ
This deal may not be contingent on a new arena but it is coming if there is a new owner. I do think the new arena changes a lot of the things for for the team because the owner will not just be making money on the team but the land development around there while getting half the arena costs covered buy a sales tax increase on the developed land. The most logical site is the 101-202 freeway intersection location which probably doesn't mean a lot to some people commenting here but it is a pretty good site if you are familiar with AZ. The teams demographics are in that area. We have Arizona State University getting a hockey team, we have the lasting effects of Auston Matthews, we have a huge TV market. These are all things that are primed if we can just get a new arena that isn't completely out of the way for most of the fans. When the team was winning and in the same arena as the Suns, attendance was good.
 

StreetHawk

Registered User
Sep 30, 2017
25,607
9,435
This deal may not be contingent on a new arena but it is coming if there is a new owner. I do think the new arena changes a lot of the things for for the team because the owner will not just be making money on the team but the land development around there while getting half the arena costs covered buy a sales tax increase on the developed land. The most logical site is the 101-202 freeway intersection location which probably doesn't mean a lot to some people commenting here but it is a pretty good site if you are familiar with AZ. The teams demographics are in that area. We have Arizona State University getting a hockey team, we have the lasting effects of Auston Matthews, we have a huge TV market. These are all things that are primed if we can just get a new arena that isn't completely out of the way for most of the fans. When the team was winning and in the same arena as the Suns, attendance was good.
That’s great and all, but who is going to pay for that proposed arena? Because if the suns get the Reno done at the TSRA for their cost of between $300-$400 million you have another arena to compete for events. Does that work for either arena?

LA has staples, the old forum, the sports plex where the clippers used to play and the Honda Center 45 minutes away. And now Ballmer wants to build one for the clippers.

NY has msg, Barclays, Nassau, and the isles want to build at Belmont. Plus the prudential center isn’t that far away either.

LA and NY have the population to have that many buildings so close but does Phoenix?

Is it financial viable for 2 buildings to be profitable in that area?
 

DowntownBooster

Registered User
Jun 21, 2011
3,202
2,414
Winnipeg
The franchise is cursed. Never has had good ownership, even in WPG.

I think Barry Shenkarow did a pretty good job in Winnipeg considering the arena was old, had no state of the art luxury boxes at the time and was controlled by Winnipeg Enterprises which limited the revenue the Jets could generate from the facility. Another thing to factor in was that there was no salary cap or meaningful revenue sharing at the time. That's not to say that I'm not happy with True North owning the Jets now but it would have been interesting to see what Shenkarow could have done under optimum conditions (i.e. a new arena, salary cap, etc.). It's quite possible the team would never have needed to depart for Phoenix.

:jets
 
  • Like
Reactions: Katie Connauton

Bookie21

Registered User
Dec 26, 2017
556
293
Just read thru the 5 pages of garbage, and I gotta say.....there isn't one piece of news in all of it. Newsflash, Barroway has been looking for an investor for a year and a half.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tom ServoMST3K

The Feckless Puck

Registered Loser
Sponsor
Oct 26, 2006
18,236
10,488
how many owners have made a go of it in Arizona?

Interesting phrasing.

How many owners have REALLY "made a go of it" in Arizona?

I would venture to say that Andy Barroway is probably the only one out of all of the owners since Ellman and Moyes bought the team who has actually tried to do anything more than station-keeping. But even he is small-money and basically a caretaker for the league at this point.

If you want to know who has "made a go of it" like an actual, real owner who is invested in the team and the market - that animal has never existed since the Jets moved to Arizona.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tom ServoMST3K

KevFu

Registered User
May 22, 2009
9,007
3,239
Phoenix from Rochester via New Orleans
You and I both know why no one gets mad that they haven't drawn well since the late 80s. It's not the TV contract. You're giving the nut bars too much credit.

There's not ONE reason the Islanders haven't drawn well.

In NVMC it was because of the 30-year lease that siphoned off revenues from the Islanders to SMG. Fans knew that the team was in financial prison and their money was going to SMG and not the on-ice product. (You don't see a lot of fans chanting about a lease, but there's the Islanders fans chanting "Set us free, SMG")

We also had Mike Milbury's reign of terror as he traded away an All-Star team (Palffy, Bertuzzi, Luongo, Chara, Spezza/Heatley picks).

The Islanders aren't drawing now for two reasons..
1. They moved from the Island they're named after to the City.
2. There's not any more decent seats in a venue that was built for basketball and not hockey. Every seat in every other NHL arena was build to watch a hockey game. Seats listed in our capacity are angled 45 degrees to see a basketball court and ignoring the 53 feet of ice that's on your left or right if you're sitting in them. Or there's seats being blocked by railings and stuff.

We'll see what the Islanders average in Al Arbour Arena.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Hull and Oates

Tom ServoMST3K

In search of a Steinbach Hero
Nov 2, 2010
27,751
18,484
What's your excuse?
This deal may not be contingent on a new arena but it is coming if there is a new owner. I do think the new arena changes a lot of the things for for the team because the owner will not just be making money on the team but the land development around there while getting half the arena costs covered buy a sales tax increase on the developed land. The most logical site is the 101-202 freeway intersection location which probably doesn't mean a lot to some people commenting here but it is a pretty good site if you are familiar with AZ. The teams demographics are in that area. We have Arizona State University getting a hockey team, we have the lasting effects of Auston Matthews, we have a huge TV market. These are all things that are primed if we can just get a new arena that isn't completely out of the way for most of the fans. When the team was winning and in the same arena as the Suns, attendance was good.

The problem for the yotes is the fact that the Sun's will be building a new arena very soon and are not interested in giving the yotes a home.

Any building would have to fight not only the Sun's new building, but also GRA for other events.
 

zetajerk

Registered User
Jan 1, 2015
738
589
There's not ONE reason the Islanders haven't drawn well.

In NVMC it was because of the 30-year lease that siphoned off revenues from the Islanders to SMG. Fans knew that the team was in financial prison and their money was going to SMG and not the on-ice product. (You don't see a lot of fans chanting about a lease, but there's the Islanders fans chanting "Set us free, SMG")

We also had Mike Milbury's reign of terror as he traded away an All-Star team (Palffy, Bertuzzi, Luongo, Chara, Spezza/Heatley picks).

The Islanders aren't drawing now for two reasons..
1. They moved from the Islander they're named after to the City.
2. There's not any more decent seats in a venue that was built for basketball and not hockey. Every seat in every other NHL arena was build to watch a hockey game. Seats listed in our capacity are angled 45 degrees to see a basketball court and ignoring the 53 feet of ice that's on your left or right if you're sitting in them. Or there's seats being blocked by railings and stuff.

We'll see what the Islanders average in Al Arbour Arena.

That's the whole point. The Isles get a list of reasons to justify the bad numbers. And those reasons are valid. But we don't get that, neither do Coyotes, Panthers, Thrashers fans. There's apparently no excuse for any of those fans not to fill the joint every night and if they aren't, then kick them out of the clubhouse. It's hypocritical and frustrating. And as long as it remains that way, I'll keep pointing it out.

The Isles get a free pass because of the latitude they play at and there's fewer people who remember an NHL without them.
 

MNNumbers

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Nov 17, 2011
7,627
2,486
I think Zeta is correct in the case of SOME of the posters here. Perhaps everyone who joins the conversation here has his/her own reasons for doing so. Perhaps (and I think this is true, really) some of us are fans of particular teams, and therefore have emotional involvement that makes it difficult to see everything from more than one angle....

All of that being said, my own thoughts are thus:
I don't really care who has a team and who doesn't. I would LIKE Quebec City to have a team, but I think that is a quaint, nostalgic feeling more than anything. Or, it could be that a person can make a case that the people of that city are more singularly focused on hockey than any other place in the world. But, in the end, I don't really care.
What IS interesting to me, however, is the way the league runs its business.

And, the thing I HATE more than anything is when the local taxpayer has to subsidize the team's losses. With that in mind, these situations really bother me:
1- Florida, where Broward County is subsidizing the Panthers. Although this is at a lessening rate, it seems that the extortion of an empty arena has had great power in the minds of the County. Too bad.
2- Arizona when the league owned the team, and when IA signed the 15M/yr AMF. That was a swindle, foisted on a small city (250K and they paid the whole thing) by the league and its cronies.

I'm less upset about Winnipeg, where the ORGANIZATION which owns the team gets certain tax breaks on their other entertainment businesses. That's still weird to me, but it's less a problem than the other two.

And, then there are the situations where the taxpayers built the place, but the team gets the profits. And, they are myriad.

Specific situations:
Florida - already described (Not fair to residents - if it takes this to keep the team, I don't mind it moving)
Carolina - wonderfully advantageous lease which makes the entire organization break even (even with empty seats, this seems ok to me)
Arizona - owners and NHL currently on the hook. This is how it should be. I don't care how much they lose, as long as they aren't swindling someone. Any new arena needs to be privately financed, like Seattle.
Nashville - Fine.
Tampa - AFAIK, fine
Isles - have NY media, so that helps. Also, new arena complex, privately financed. Fine.
Vegas - Completely private money. Fine.

etc....
 

NorthCoast

Registered User
May 1, 2017
1,250
1,167
Just happened to catch this and wanted to expand on it a little......

Islanders are averaging 10,484 through 6 home games. (rank 31st)
Coyotes are averaging 13,896 through 7 home games. (rank 28th)

(Just for kicks.... Ottawa is just above the Coyotes with 14,104 though 9 home games.)

The Islanders deal with Barclays gives them a generously flat amount of cash. Regardless of how many tickets they sell. That's why they don't have the losses but..... IIRC that's changing because Barclay's is taking a bath on the deal. Islanders also benefit from a VERY good TV contract.

It isn't all about selling tickets anymore. If not for TV deals and such there'd be quite a few more teams leaking cash.

Ottawa is obviously depressed because a large portion of the fans are boycotting the current ownership, which must come across a bit arrogant to Arizona fans I fully admit. If you take Ottawa's avg. attendance over the past 10-20 years there is clearly enough fans to fill the stadium.

I would make this point on the broader discussion though that looking at attendance numbers is very dangerous. Sure, they provide a quick, easy stat to compare teams/markets against each other. However, I find that they don't tell nearly the story that most people believe they do.

Some things to consider regarding attendance.

- Gate receipts (face value of tickets) accounts for as little as 30% of revenue in many markets. ie: the sens dropping from 18k to 14k seems like a big hit, but that is really only about a 5-10% drop in total revenue. (which they covered by lowering the player budget)

- Teams have vastly different ticket/pricing strategies. Example:

--> Winnipeg has huge season ticket numbers compared to other small markets, but this is because the team actively promotes fans sharing season tickets.

--> Ottawa used to give away many free tickets to fill the stadium. 2-3 years ago the strategy changed and they now try to sell as many tickets as possible without having to give tickets away. This resulted in a significant (1-2k) drop in avg attendance, but gate revenues actually increased.

--> What is the ticket packaging strategy with other arena events. A season ticket package that includes 2-3 concerts does not bring as much revenue back to the team as a season ticket package that doesn't include concert tickets that can then be sold for additional organizational revenue.

--> How much does the team make from parking and concessions. Some teams own everything and make more, giving them more incentive to bring as many fans in as possible. Other teams don't make a lot from parking and concessions, therefore the priority is to maximize gate revenue, even if that means no sell-outs.


Obviously every team needs fans and more fans at the game generally should indicate a stronger fanbase/market. But in terms of team or market viability, you really need to look at revenue. Because as the share of revenue tied to gate receipts continues to diminish, attendance will increasingly become an inaccurate measure of the health of the business.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CHRDANHUTCH

MNNumbers

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Nov 17, 2011
7,627
2,486
Ottawa is obviously depressed because a large portion of the fans are boycotting the current ownership, which must come across a bit arrogant to Arizona fans I fully admit. If you take Ottawa's avg. attendance over the past 10-20 years there is clearly enough fans to fill the stadium.

I would make this point on the broader discussion though that looking at attendance numbers is very dangerous. Sure, they provide a quick, easy stat to compare teams/markets against each other. However, I find that they don't tell nearly the story that most people believe they do.

Some things to consider regarding attendance.

- Gate receipts (face value of tickets) accounts for as little as 30% of revenue in many markets. ie: the sens dropping from 18k to 14k seems like a big hit, but that is really only about a 5-10% drop in total revenue. (which they covered by lowering the player budget)

- Teams have vastly different ticket/pricing strategies. Example:

--> Winnipeg has huge season ticket numbers compared to other small markets, but this is because the team actively promotes fans sharing season tickets.

--> Ottawa used to give away many free tickets to fill the stadium. 2-3 years ago the strategy changed and they now try to sell as many tickets as possible without having to give tickets away. This resulted in a significant (1-2k) drop in avg attendance, but gate revenues actually increased.

--> What is the ticket packaging strategy with other arena events. A season ticket package that includes 2-3 concerts does not bring as much revenue back to the team as a season ticket package that doesn't include concert tickets that can then be sold for additional organizational revenue.

--> How much does the team make from parking and concessions. Some teams own everything and make more, giving them more incentive to bring as many fans in as possible. Other teams don't make a lot from parking and concessions, therefore the priority is to maximize gate revenue, even if that means no sell-outs.


Obviously every team needs fans and more fans at the game generally should indicate a stronger fanbase/market. But in terms of team or market viability, you really need to look at revenue. Because as the share of revenue tied to gate receipts continues to diminish, attendance will increasingly become an inaccurate measure of the health of the business.


From where do you get your 30% number?

I'm not arguing, but, for example, league wide HRR has increased probably 20% over the last 5 years, and the national TV contract hasn't changed. Where is the $$ coming from to increase that league-wide HRR?
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthCoast

StreetHawk

Registered User
Sep 30, 2017
25,607
9,435
The problem for the yotes is the fact that the Sun's will be building a new arena very soon and are not interested in giving the yotes a home.

Any building would have to fight not only the Sun's new building, but also GRA for other events.
The suns won’t get a new arena but a major Reno of the TSRA.

But your point is bang on in that it likely doesn’t make fiscal sense to have 2 arenas in the Phoenix area plus one in Glendale. How are they each going to turn a profit when they are competing for the same events outside of their major tenant.
 

The Feckless Puck

Registered Loser
Sponsor
Oct 26, 2006
18,236
10,488
But your point is bang on in that it likely doesn’t make fiscal sense to have 2 arenas in the Phoenix area plus one in Glendale. How are they each going to turn a profit when they are competing for the same events outside of their major tenant.

The short answer is this: if a new Coyotes arena goes up anywhere in the East Valley, Gila River Arena is doomed. Simple as that. GRA needs to have a sports anchor tenant or it goes bust.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->