Glendale and Ice Arizona Agree on New Lease - City Council Passes It.

Phoenician

Registered User
Jul 3, 2013
213
0
Phoenix

This seems the same as always, you either believe what AL is saying or you don't. If you do, they are staying, if not they are leaving. I agree with some of the other posts there, there doesn't seem to be many REAL places to move to now that expansion has come around anyway. Additionally I think the Las Vegas team actually helps solidify the Coyotes as they work to further establish the SW.

It was disappointing (if the only reason) to hear that Boeds and other Free Agents were missed due to this though. Hopefully at least we can now extend him since we may have lost out on DH and others.

In the end, glad I got my ST and am ready for this to start.
 

CC96

Serious Offender
Nov 6, 2012
18,098
1,029
Mesa, Arizona
Say what you want about the Coyotes only filling their arena 3/4ths full in Glendale for a season average, but when your team draws 15,000 fans in a 48,000-seat stadium, you start to wonder what the hell is wrong with the market in general.

The Marlins are basically the Coyotes of the MLB. Even people in other cities don't go to their games when their in town. D-backs have been averaging 25,000+ this season, so those games are just an anomaly, which doesn't change the fact that Glendale is not a great location for the Coyotes.
 

Jamieh

Registered User
Apr 25, 2012
11,319
6,376
I went to a bunch of games last year, if you call that entertainment my definition is different than yours!!!:sarcasm:
Your wrong, it is entertainment. Whether you chose to drive an hour for such entertainment is you decision. Who said anything about leaving?
 

MNNumbers

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Nov 17, 2011
7,658
2,536
Coming in peace from Minnesota.

I feel for you all. Total emotion overload for a long time. More loyal fans don't exist.

In regard to lease amendments:

Management Fees. Glendale comes out about 2.5M better now than before, plus they can budget with no question marks. IA obviously comes out about the same worse (no need to bore you with the calculations) What IA gets now is the freedom to market entirely according to how they want. No city surcharges messing with drawing small acts, etc. They can charge whatever they want for parking. If IA and Spectra can really do a bullish job, they will come out all right.

Length:
For Year 1: IA is Arena Manager, paid 6.5M plus all the benefits of managing. Team pays 500K rent (this is the same as in the original AMULA).

For Year 2: If IA really kills it on the non-hockey side, Glendale can retain them. This is the best hope for Yotes fans. Should Glendale retain them as Arena Managers, it would seem likely that another good year would lead to a new contract. (It is my belief that Glendale wishes for this. It is a hockey arena after all. It was built to work with Westgate after all.)
However, the sad part is that if Glendale is not satisfied with IA's performance in year 1, they can seek different management. In that case, the Yotes are obligated to stay, and pay 500K in rent. They would receive all monies from tickets, concessions, etc that are associated with hockey games. The new manager can't change the 500K rent fee, either.

Good luck. It seems the hope of the Yotes now rests on the interest of the Valley in hockey and in other events.
 

Matias Maccete

Chopping up defenses
Sep 21, 2014
9,703
3,637
Coming in peace from Minnesota.

I feel for you all. Total emotion overload for a long time. More loyal fans don't exist.

In regard to lease amendments:

Management Fees. Glendale comes out about 2.5M better now than before, plus they can budget with no question marks. IA obviously comes out about the same worse (no need to bore you with the calculations) What IA gets now is the freedom to market entirely according to how they want. No city surcharges messing with drawing small acts, etc. They can charge whatever they want for parking. If IA and Spectra can really do a bullish job, they will come out all right.

Length:
For Year 1: IA is Arena Manager, paid 6.5M plus all the benefits of managing. Team pays 500K rent (this is the same as in the original AMULA).

For Year 2: If IA really kills it on the non-hockey side, Glendale can retain them. This is the best hope for Yotes fans. Should Glendale retain them as Arena Managers, it would seem likely that another good year would lead to a new contract. (It is my belief that Glendale wishes for this. It is a hockey arena after all. It was built to work with Westgate after all.)
However, the sad part is that if Glendale is not satisfied with IA's performance in year 1, they can seek different management. In that case, the Yotes are obligated to stay, and pay 500K in rent. They would receive all monies from tickets, concessions, etc that are associated with hockey games. The new manager can't change the 500K rent fee, either.

Good luck. It seems the hope of the Yotes now rests on the interest of the Valley in hockey and in other events.

Thanks for the breakdown.
 

0point1

Registered User
Sep 14, 2011
5,379
1,479
Arizona
I'm a little confused now..

After year 1 Glendale can opt-out of IceArizona managing the arena, but IceArizona cannot leave until the end of year 2 (2017).

Is this correct?
 

MNNumbers

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Nov 17, 2011
7,658
2,536
I'm a little confused now..

After year 1 Glendale can opt-out of IceArizona managing the arena, but IceArizona cannot leave until the end of year 2 (2017).

Is this correct?


Short answer: Correct

Long answer: There are really 2 pieces of the puzzle, the Arena Manager Organization, and The Hockey Team. Of course, right now, both are owned by the same parent company.


EDIT: The Ice Arizona Organization has no choices now. They cannot decide to leave themselves after one year. City is in control of that.

Year 1: Both are under contract with Glendale.

Year 2: Hockey Team is under contract to Glendale, and MUST play there. However, Glendale can fire the Arena Management Organization for Year 2, if they so choose.
 

The Feckless Puck

Registered Loser
Sponsor
Oct 26, 2006
18,640
11,670
You're cuttin' me with all that edge bro.

The sentiment is not without some validity, though. If IA wants to keep managing the arena they're going to have to do a damn sight better than they did last season in filling the non-hockey dates. 15 years of a $15 million subsidy is a heck of a complacency generator.
 

CC96

Serious Offender
Nov 6, 2012
18,098
1,029
Mesa, Arizona
The sentiment is not without some validity, though. If IA wants to keep managing the arena they're going to have to do a damn sight better than they did last season in filling the non-hockey dates. 15 years of a $15 million subsidy is a heck of a complacency generator.

I realize that, but considering the dude has literally never posted in one of our threads before, I took it as yet another drive-by, holier-than-thou shot at us.
 

XX

Waiting for Ishbia
Dec 10, 2002
54,940
14,677
PHX
Getting the downtown arena built isn't the battle. Working out a share of things that is feasible for the team is.
 

Matias Maccete

Chopping up defenses
Sep 21, 2014
9,703
3,637
Getting the downtown arena built isn't the battle. Working out a share of things that is feasible for the team is.

True, but seeing an arena built in the first place is a big sign that it could happen.
 

Dirty Old Man

So funny I forgot to laugh
Sponsor
Jan 29, 2008
8,011
6,180
Ostrich City
I would be extremely happy at either location.

I wonder about ASU, weren't they considering building a smaller arena? Maybe they could work something out to make it a 17,000 seat hockey arena.

One of the two sites mentioned as replies to that above tweet, the 101-202 intersection, is my dream location. Where the drive-in theatres stand silent currently, across from Oceanside...that's their (Salt River Tribe) land, as is the corridor along the east side of Hayden to the river across from Tempe Marketplace. Nice and in a remote corner of their reservation, 'away' from everything else, but they get all the economic benefits (should there be any).

Plus the residents of North Tempe/South Scottsdale couldn't do a thing about it. :laugh:
 
Last edited:

Jakey53

Registered User
Aug 27, 2011
30,244
9,234
Getting the downtown arena built isn't the battle. Working out a share of things that is feasible for the team is.

Why would that be a problem? Where there is a will there is a way.
 

XX

Waiting for Ishbia
Dec 10, 2002
54,940
14,677
PHX
True, but seeing an arena built in the first place is a big sign that it could happen.

It's not. The Suns are getting a new arena with or without the Coyotes. With the Salt River tribe ready to take the team should Sarver not get what he wants, the city of Phoenix can lean on the Suns to help the Coyotes only so much. There is no reason for Sarver to cut the Coyotes in on the action unless he gets something in return, most likely of which is a reduced or eliminated construction equity cost to him. The present value of this favor would have to exceed the expected value of all the usual revenue streams over the life of the building that he'd lose by welcoming another major tenant*.

the tl;dr is that Phoenix would have to give the Suns one hell of a deal to even open the door for the hockey team.

Given that, there is a much better (but still remote) chance that Sarver shows interest in or is offered the hockey team, or a majority stake, in the interest of streamlining revenue. Most buildings do not have two major tenants that happily coexist unless they are owned and operated by the same entity. Dallas is an exception, and could be the model, but the Coyotes do not have exceptionally wealthy owners, so their ability to pick up construction costs as the Stars did is very limited, if nonexistent.

The NHL, for their part, can ease the debt obligations of the team and make it an attractive purchase to keep it in the valley. Or they could do nothing and turn a profit on the team by allowing it to move. The City of Phoenix can talk about the Coyotes all they want, but it is just talk. They do not have the finances or the political capital with the Suns to make it a slam dunk. Sarver currently has no interest in owning the hockey team and diluting his revenue share. No building is slated to be built in the near future - the future where the Coyotes can definitely exist. A new building is more likely to be five or more years away, not two, requiring even more maneuvering for the transition plan should Glendale kick the Coyotes out.

The Coyotes have to fix or find a solution to all of the above in less than two years.

I guess there exists the possibility the Coyotes do baller business, give Glendale no reason to become arena manager, and negotiate a nice extension. How likely this is in the shadow of relocation and with the likely performance of the team on and off the ice, is up to how much of an optimist you are.

That's very true. But I think it would be much easier if there are two major tenants for the new building, if Phoenix wants it built in the near future.

It's only easier if the Coyotes have construction money to offer. They don't. So they can offer a majority ownership stake as collateral, diluting IA's position, so that the Suns and the Coyotes become one and the same. That really only comes into play if Sarver is interested in what Phoenix will offer in exchange + the team itself.
 

pfp

Registered User
Sep 4, 2007
682
10
This deal is clearly lopsided in favor of COG. I can only assume IA has some plan in the works or their legal case was much worse than was popularly believed. The explanation that this two year deal will remove the cloud of uncertainty doesn't pass the smell test.
 

The Feckless Puck

Registered Loser
Sponsor
Oct 26, 2006
18,640
11,670
How good is Talking Stick for hockey on a temporary basis (2-3 years)? Is that workable in terms of how much ticket revenue that can be generated with the seats that are not obstructed?

It wasn't good in '96 and it certainly hasn't improved with age. And if the Coyotes are there for two or three years then it's going to be a BIG hit on their finances.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad