Confirmed with Link: Glendale picks AEG for Gila River Arena

[XX]

Underlying math = your guess. This is something I will not take as fact like you keep throwing it around. This coming from the same guy that thinks the west valley is all poor people and meth labs.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist (or meth cook?) to run 41 x B x A, where A is your expected average ticket price and B is your expected attendance. A modest bump in both generates more than what could be reasonably expected from a new arena deal with AEG. The terms get worse when you're not in control of the arena, not better. You're welcome to protest this line of thinking all you want, you'd just continue to be wrong.

 

[The Feckless Puck]

It doesn't take a rocket scientist (or meth cook?) to run 41 x B x A, where A is your expected average ticket price and B is your expected attendance. A modest bump in both generates more than what could be reasonably expected from a new arena deal with AEG. The terms get worse when you're not in control of the arena, not better. You're welcome to protest this line of thinking all you want, you'd just continue to be wrong.

The equation won't be that simple, though - other variables will be in play depending on partnerships and division of revenue. We won't know until we have more detail on the various deals and their intricacies.

 

[RemoAZ]

Lucky for me your opinion about the team and it's attendance means as much as your opinion of the west side, both uniformed and biased.

Thanks for reminding me why I need to stop reading these threads.

 

[XX]

The equation won't be that simple, though - other variables will be in play depending on partnerships and division of revenue. We won't know until we have more detail on the various deals and their intricacies.

The Coyotes would be hard pressed to do worse than the current deal in a new arena. There's a significant chance the baseline deal would be better. You don't dispute that a better location would bring a whole host of benefits, all of which result in more revenue. You are simply supposing something that has a very, very small chance of ever occurring as a defense of the team in Glendale.

Lucky for me your opinion about the team and it's attendance means as much as your opinion of the west side, both uniformed and biased.

Thanks for reminding me why I need to stop reading these threads.

Fight the good fight against basic math.

 

[Jakey53]

Horse ****. If the team wins people will come no matter where the arena is. This is about the best deal for the team. Were they talking about moving when they had the sweat heart deal with Glendale? Of course not. You'll see a bump the first couple years when the team moves then it will go right back to where it is now unless the team wins. How's the Suns' attendance looking?

Your right, if the team wins people will come. That is called attendance. Even if the team gets a sweet heart of a deal but it doesn't win, attendance will suffer.

 

[Jakey53]

I wouldn't be surprised if the NHL is wary of the idea of putting a franchise on reservation land. Guess we'll find out in a couple of months.

Why? Because of gambling?

 

[The Feckless Puck]

The Coyotes would be hard pressed to do worse than the current deal in a new arena. There's a significant chance the baseline deal would be better. You don't dispute that a better location would bring a whole host of benefits, all of which result in more revenue. You are simply supposing something that has a very, very small chance of ever occurring as a defense of the team in Glendale.

I am actually not doing anything of the sort. The equation you mentioned above does not take into account the variables of having to share revenue streams with the arena owners and/or co-tenants. Those are costs and expenses that will be inescapable. It is thus disingenuous to present a new deal in the East Valley as pure additional profit.

Why? Because of gambling?

Not so much that as the uncertainty of negotiating with tribal governments. It's uncharted waters.

 

[XX]

I am actually not doing anything of the sort. The equation you mentioned above does not take into account the variables of having to share revenue streams with the arena owners and/or co-tenants. Those are costs and expenses that will be inescapable. It is thus disingenuous to present a new deal in the East Valley as pure additional profit.

What's disingenuous is supposing that a future west valley deal will have an EV higher than literally any east valley deal, especially given recent developments. That's even if there is a west valley deal to be had that the team finds even remotely agreeable or survivable.

You just can't let go.

 

[The Feckless Puck]

What's disingenuous is supposing that a future west valley deal will have an EV higher than literally any east valley deal, especially given recent developments. That's even if there is a west valley deal to be had that the team finds even remotely agreeable or survivable.

You just can't let go.

You just can't stop misrepresenting what I'm saying, either. I haven't said a word about a West Valley deal. I am simply taking issue with the idea that a move to the East Valley will automatically be a better deal solely on the basis of additional ticket revenue, which I have consistently acknowledged will be greater.

I would certainly appreciate it if you would stop pretending that you know what I am thinking or what motivates me. You keep getting it wrong.

 

[XX]

You just can't stop misrepresenting what I'm saying, either. I haven't said a word about a West Valley deal. I am simply taking issue with the idea that a move to the East Valley will automatically be a better deal solely on the basis of additional ticket revenue, which I have consistently acknowledged will be greater.

If the team cannot get a long term option negotiated by the end of this season that they and the league find acceptable, they simply cease to exist by moving to another market. Note that increased attendance is but one benefit of a move. You have to look at the total net package. Considering that IA bought the team initially based on their projections that revolved around the original sweetheart deal - a deal that has been knocked down not once, but twice now with AEG - there is a great deal of urgency to find something that is clearly better than what they have now. What they have now is not sustainable.

They don't find it? We don't have a hockey team anymore.

So all this kvetching about "oh, a new arena might have a slightly worse split of concessions/naming rights/suite revenue, did ya think about that?" is completely meaningless. It's all or nothing. They either find an acceptable home and get a bridge deal to get there or they move. Any acceptable home is a deal that has a survivable EV to the franchise. Increased attendance is part of that equation. Average ticket price is too. Both of those things swing the needle considerably more in the short and long term than petty details in a lease. They also allow more flexibility in projecting revenue. That's important when you don't have a lot of capital to buy your way into a new arena, necessitating some concessions to other parties.

There is no scenario here where the Coyotes take a deal where they get bent over a table in perpetuity. Any long term deal will have to be automatically better on a net basis. The pedantic point you are getting at does not exist.

 

[The Feckless Puck]

There is no scenario here where the Coyotes take a deal where they get bent over a table in perpetuity. Any long term deal will have to be automatically better on a net basis. The pedantic point you are getting at does not exist.

You're still not getting my actual point so I suppose I'll just let this lie.

 

[XX]

You're still not getting my actual point so I suppose I'll just let this lie.

Is this not your point?

The equation you mentioned above does not take into account the variables of having to share revenue streams with the arena owners and/or co-tenants. Those are costs and expenses that will be inescapable. It is thus disingenuous to present a new deal in the East Valley as pure additional profit.

I am simply taking issue with the idea that a move to the East Valley will automatically be a better deal solely on the basis of additional ticket revenue

Your point is completely meaningless in context. It's technically true in abstract the same way saying "A satellite could hit GRA, making this all a moot point" is.

 

[Mosby]

From ASU's hockey reporter:

 

[SniperHF]

I'd think the cost of that wouldn't make it worth it for the meh attendance NCAA hockey will get. Or maybe the Ice AZ folks offered them a cut rate on their way out the door

 

[Mosby]

The same guy reported that the 3 games at GRA this year averaged over 5,000. Not sure how that ranks for college hockey, and there's no telling how that keeps up over a full season either.

 

[LuckyNumber11]

The same guy reported that the 3 games at GRA this year averaged over 5,000. Not sure how that ranks for college hockey, and there's no telling how that keeps up over a full season either.

For some perspective, I think UNO, who is coming off a frozen four year and in a brand new stadium, averages about 6,500 per game. Pretty sure North Dakota leads the nation in attendance around 12,000

GRA would instantly become the biggest house in the NCAA, which is currently held by Ohio State at about 17,500 I think

 

[mouser]

5k if ASU could average it at GRA would be outstanding, and highly improbable at the same time. Especially with the distance from campus making it challenging to draw a student crowd. Less then half of the D1 hockey schools even have 5k+ capacity in their home arenas.

 

[Bonsai Tree]

What does this proposed deal between ASU and GRA mean for the future of the Coyotes?

 

[LuckyNumber11]

Yeah I would be stunned if they were able to maintain a 5K attendance. 3-4K is much more believable

 

[Coyotes2000]

What does this proposed deal between ASU and GRA mean for the future of the Coyotes?

Definitely strengthens it as they move toward moving to Tempe. The Coyotes/ASU partnership is key

 

[Murf]

Here's a link for college hockey attendance stats.

http://www.uscho.com/stats/attendance/division-i-men/2015-2016/

ASU is not the lowest, which is pretty impressive, imo.

 

[The Feckless Puck]

Here's a link for college hockey attendance stats.

http://www.uscho.com/stats/attendance/division-i-men/2015-2016/

ASU is not the lowest, which is pretty impressive, imo.

I hope it improves even after the novelty wears off. It was great for the first game with the ASU boosters bringing big energy to the building.