Jeremy Jacobs sends a strong signal Houston is next but relocation is unlikely

[BattleBorn]

Helping the city in replacing a scoreboard wasn't a requirement to them staying. That's a sunk cost they will be walking away from if they leave.

For a franchise that everyone keeps droning on about having no money (cash calls, etc etc......), you have to start asking yourself when does one stop buying into narratives and begin to really look at what's going on??

That's my point.

I don't think the Coyotes are moving anytime soon, but a scoreboard that can obviously be moved (since it was moved once) probably isn't a huge sunk cost.

 

[TheLegend]

And that's the reason that I'm starting to think that the league itself is actually paying the freight there,, regardless of Barroway, and, because they want to stay in the Phoenix market, they are willing to pay the losses.

I'm less sure of a relocation in there case now than I thought I was 3 years ago, because of how nothing has transpired since.

I agree with you on the league part.

In a little over two months from now we should at least know what the 2019-2020 season looks like.

 

[gstommylee]

I don't think the Coyotes are moving anytime soon, but a scoreboard that can obviously be moved (since it was moved once) probably isn't a huge sunk cost.

and they can't keep playing where they are at permanently. Either they get a new arena or move. There is no lets do nothing cause nothing will not improve the situation for the franchise.

 

[Fenway]

Not my list. Melnyk can't move them himself, and if he sells, there is another group who want to take over the project at LeBreton.

Melnyk owns 100% of the team, what is going to stop him?

 

[BattleBorn]

and they can't keep playing where they are at permanently. Either they get a new arena or move. There is no lets do nothing cause nothing will not improve the situation for the franchise.

Eh. I disagree.

The only thing potentially forcing a move is the ownership group’s inability to absorb operating losses in the face of franchise appreciation. Hockey teams in general don’t make great amounts of money for their owners from operations, so their situation is only unique in the scope of the amount of losses, and if they were as bad as we guess they are, they have plenty of outs they’ve passed up to this point.

I won’t say something as silly as them being profitable in Glendale annually, but I don’t think the losses are outpacing their ability to absorb them.

 

[gstommylee]

Eh. I disagree.

The only thing potentially forcing a move is the ownership group’s inability to absorb operating losses in the face of franchise appreciation. Hockey teams in general don’t make great amounts of money for their owners from operations, so their situation is only unique in the scope of the amount of losses, and if they were as bad as we guess they are, they have plenty of outs they’ve passed up to this point.

I won’t say something as silly as them being profitable in Glendale annually, but I don’t think the losses are outpacing their ability to absorb them.

So have a permanent unhealthy franchise that will always remain in the red as long as that team exist in Glendale and of course lets expand for the sake of expanding and do nothing to address that problem with the coyotes.

This is what you call over expanding. Over expanding is a bad thing. Stop at 32 and deal with the problem franchises. No more expanding.

 

[BattleBorn]

So have a permanent unhealthy franchise that will always remain in the red as long as that team exist in Glendale and of course lets expand for the sake of expanding and do nothing to address that problem with the coyotes.

This is what you call over expanding. Over expanding is a bad thing. Stop at 32 and deal with the problem franchises. No more expanding.

The system is set up to always have weak teams. Eliminating a team in Arizona doesn’t eliminate a revenue sharing recipient or reduce revenue sharing contributions from a stronger team, it just moves a middle of the road team to the recipient role.

The only thing that matters is the weak team’s ownership’s ability to absorb losses.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

That's a nice sentiment, but honest question for you.... when was the last time that the NHL expanded when there weren't troubled franchises that already existed and needing fixing? You really have to go back to 1967 for the last time that the NHL added teams with all their already-existing teams are all on solid foundations, every expansion since then has been done during a time when at least one other franchise was upside down financially.

I don't think that the NHL would treat this any differently, especially if they still view a potential emergency landing spot still available in Quebec City if push really came to shove. The last thing they want to do is for an opportune market to present itself and then lose interest while they wait, as happened in Houston after Alexander dropped interest when his bid for the Oilers was foiled.

If Houston or Kansas City or Portland or another major American market made a significant bid for a team tomorrow, I guarantee you that the NHL would be halfway to approving a 33rd franchise the day after.

 

[gstommylee]

The system is set up to always have weak teams. Eliminating a team in Arizona doesn’t eliminate a revenue sharing recipient or reduce revenue sharing contributions from a stronger team, it just moves a middle of the road team to the recipient role.

The only thing that matters is the weak team’s ownership’s ability to absorb losses.

If NHL is going to allow coyotes to remain in that arena indefinitely then they should allow the flames to stay in their arena indefinitely and every single franchise from year on out. No new arenas ever. That's basically that is NHL is implying with the coyotes. That they don't care if their clubs play in arenas that is no longer financially feasible and out dated.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

If NHL is going to allow coyotes to remain in that arena indefinitely then they should allow the flames to stay in their arena indefinitely and every single franchise from year on out. No new arenas ever. That's basically that is NHL is implying with the coyotes. That they don't care if their clubs play in arenas that is no longer financially feasible and out dated.

That's not really a logical argument, though. The reason why the Coyotes still exist is because first they were able to sucker Glendale into giving them money to operate the team for years on end, and then after that there were willing new owners that (seemingly) want to keep the team there. The situation is entirely different in Calgary, if the current owners want to sell or move and no other local ownership group steps up or if no municipal funds go there way (for better or worse).

 

[BattleBorn]

If NHL is going to allow coyotes to remain in that arena indefinitely then they should allow the flames to stay in their arena indefinitely and every single franchise from year on out. No new arenas ever. That's basically that is NHL is implying with the coyotes. That they don't care if their clubs play in arenas that is no longer financially feasible and out dated.

The NHL doesn't allow or disallow anything. The NHL doesn't really exist as an entity as most people think it does. When the league awards Seattle a franchise, it's not "the league" doing it, it's the owners of the league getting together and opening a 32nd spot that will be filled by Seattle.

The owners/governors of the NHL aren't going to do anything an owner of a team doesn't want to do unless it benefits all the other owners, since the owners ARE the NHL. Moving the Coyotes to Houston doesn't do anything for the owners of the Maple Leafs or any other team with the exception of potentially raising league-wide HRR, and even then it's not a huge difference on a per-team basis and only really matters for salary cap calculations.

"The NHL" talks about the situations in Calgary and Arizona because the owners of Calgary and Arizona want new arenas and it helps to have the full force of the league behind the effort. It's ultimately up to the owners of Calgary and Arizona to decide what to do, and even then, they've got to get the approval of the other owners to move their franchise rights to another market. If the owners of the Flames want to play in the Saddledome until the end of time, they're fine as long as it's a suitable facility that can fulfill the obligations the league has to play games there, namely ice plants, climate control, and x number of seats. The lack of luxury suites isn't a reason to move a team from a league standpoint any more than the inability of a team to sell suites they have is.

 

[MNNumbers]

Melnyk owns 100% of the team, what is going to stop him?

He would have to pay rent on Quebec, so it won't benefit him.

 

[Roadrage]

As for the Yotes not caring about GRA? They do more than you would think. Otherwise, they wouldn't have invested what little capital the consensus mind of HF claims they have with Glendale to upgrade a scoreboard.

How much capital did the team actually contribute to the new scoreboard upgrade though? COG and AEG were the partners so was it even 1/3 cost split or were they just partners in name? All I could find was that it cost $10 million total. I can't see the team wanting to pay $3.3 million for something that is an arena they don't want to be in.

 

[Dirty Old Man]

So have a permanent unhealthy franchise that will always remain in the red as long as that team exist in Glendale and of course lets expand for the sake of expanding and do nothing to address that problem with the coyotes.

Again, the sky is falling mentality of people on here is truly breathtaking.

This is what you call over expanding. Over expanding is a bad thing. Stop at 32 and deal with the problem franchises. No more expanding.

Oh, sure, now that you're in the club ... 5-6 years ago I got interviewed by a Seattle radio station (in GRA) when those particular rumors of relocation were running around. I'm sure they're happy now the league decided not to stop at 30, eh? Not to mention yourself?

 

[TheLegend]

How much capital did the team actually contribute to the new scoreboard upgrade though? COG and AEG were the partners so was it even 1/3 cost split or were they just partners in name? All I could find was that it cost $10 million total. I can't see the team wanting to pay $3.3 million for something that is an arena they don't want to be in.

AEG is the manager paid by Glendale to run the arena. Therefore I doubt they fronted much, if any, funds for the purchase itself but they certainly provided the contacts and such and submitted the bid (the board was part of an auction in liquidating items from The Palace at Auburn Hills).

So that more than likely leaves the Coyotes and the city as your main purchasers. How much Glendale put into it might be difficult to pin down, but they do have to generally show where they spend their monies on things.

 

[BattleBorn]

AEG is the manager paid by Glendale to run the arena. Therefore I doubt they fronted much, if any, funds for the purchase itself but they certainly provided the contacts and such and submitted the bid (the board was part of an auction in liquidating items from The Palace at Auburn Hills).

So that more than likely leaves the Coyotes and the city as your main purchasers. How much Glendale put into it might be difficult to pin down, but they do have to generally show where they spend their monies on things.

I don't even think it matters that much, I'll assume the Coyotes put all the money into the scoreboard. That being said, since it was removed from another arena and placed in Gila River Arena, I don't think it's a major sign that the Coyotes are in GRA long term. I don't think it matters as all.

What does matter is that the scoreboard is a decent investment that, I'm sure, will increase in-arena revenues since they can sell more space on the board for ads now. Instead of a static ad for Frys or Toyota on the corner of the board, they can rotate ads on the board with more available space. It's like the new digital billboards along the side of highways, their available ad inventory to sell is multiple times larger now and should increase in-arena ad revenue. All while also providing a better in-game fan experience to make the tickets more attractive.

 

[Mightygoose]

Did the megathread manifested itself in this thread?

In terms of Houston as a possible relocation destination. Only Arizona and Calgary are the candidates in that order.

Ottawa and the Islanders are only moveable if LeBreton and Belmont respectively fall apart. In Ottawa's case, if Melnyk can't make it a go, there are people that want to purchase the team.

Calgary: Talks have restarted between the team and the city. We should know in about a month if Calgary is bidding for the Olympics (with more public funds available).

Arizona, nothing on the radar but not convinced that's good news. Agreed, 2 months or so from now should she'd some light.

Unless Mr. Feritta wants to pony up enough for the league to consider expanding to 33, they're watching on the sidelines.

 

[Fenway]

I don't even think it matters that much, I'll assume the Coyotes put all the money into the scoreboard. That being said, since it was removed from another arena and placed in Gila River Arena, I don't think it's a major sign that the Coyotes are in GRA long term. I don't think it matters as all.

What does matter is that the scoreboard is a decent investment that, I'm sure, will increase in-arena revenues since they can sell more space on the board for ads now. Instead of a static ad for Frys or Toyota on the corner of the board, they can rotate ads on the board with more available space. It's like the new digital billboards along the side of highways, their available ad inventory to sell is multiple times larger now and should increase in-arena ad revenue. All while also providing a better in-game fan experience to make the tickets more attractive.

This company had the original lease of the scoreboard in Auburn Hills

Detroit Pistons, The Palace of Auburn Hills – Anthony James Partners

 

[Dirty Old Man]

Unless Mr. Feritta wants to pony up enough for the league to consider expanding to 33, they're watching on the sidelines.

bingo.

 

[Llama19]

Did the megathread manifested itself in this thread?

**SNIP**

Fenway...are these enough for starting another Phoenix thread?

Thank you...

 

[Jumptheshark]

Jacobs did an interview on Bruins radio on Monday. Seems to think there will be no relocation......so



Bruins Owner Jeremy Jacobs Interview


While recent expansion talk has centered on the success of the Vegas Golden Knightsand the pending entry of a Seattle-based team, at least one member of the NHL's executive committee sees unearthed value in bringing a team to Houston.

"I look at where we can make the greatest impressions and have the most effectiveness," Boston Bruins owner and NHL executive committee chairman Jeremy Jacobs told 98.5 The Sports Hub. "Clearly the one area that is missing is Houston because that's such a great city."

Jacobs did not indicate whether he thinks the NHL should enter Houston through expansion or relocation, but added, "We don't have any really poor cities anymore. They're continuing to flourish."

not sure how he can say both the Panthers and Hurricanes are flourishing. I know it is early--but I have my concerns about their attendance

 

[DowntownBooster]

The only thing that matters is the weak team’s ownership’s ability to absorb losses.

That's it in a nutshell. As long as the owner of a team is willing to sustain any losses on an ongoing basis, there really is no threat of relocation. The league isn't going to force that owner to sell the team or make him move it to another market. As long as the owner is okay with it and the players are being paid, the league is okay with it. The only way it becomes an issue at all is when the owner of the team losing money becomes disgruntled and wants out.

 

[member 157595]

not sure how he can say both the Panthers and Hurricanes are flourishing. I know it is early--but I have my concerns about their attendance

I certainly don't want to defend Jacobs because I completely despise him, but he doesn't have much choice but to say that publicly regardless of how the teams are doing monetarily (which I don't know the answers to anyways.)

 

[gstommylee]

I certainly don't want to defend Jacobs because I completely despise him, but he doesn't have much choice but to say that publicly regardless of how the teams are doing monetarily (which I don't know the answers to anyways.)

He also speaks for himself and not all 31 owners. If 16 owners want relocation to houston instead of expansion for example. Nothing he can do about it.

 

[member 157595]

He also speaks for himself and not all 31 owners. If 16 owners want relocation to houston instead of expansion for example. Nothing he can do about it.

By no means do all 31 owners have equal say. Jeremy Jacobs and a few others run this league, for better or worse.