Speculation: Ownership Saga: Coyote's Renaissance (Read Post #1)

Status
Not open for further replies.

zz

Registered User
Nov 1, 2006
6,170
353
Can you tell me anyone who is interested in 5 years of bad hockey, terrible ownership and a guaranteed financial meltdown?! I don't think you can because of course no one wants that. The difference is that you're assuming that's exactly what is going to occur but in reality it's 1 of several scenarios that could play out.

I do believe that some fans here will take anything at any cost in order to keep hockey for a little longer in AZ. And while I don't feel that way, I completely understand their desire.

As far as as terrible ownership, budget and product quality, I just don't have any faith whatsoever in the Ice Edge clowns. None. There's absolutely nothing I've seen over 4 years following those two idiots that makes me believe they could make it work.
 

Dirty Old Man

So funny I forgot to laugh
Sponsor
Jan 29, 2008
7,986
6,133
Ostrich City
I do believe that some fans here will take anything at any cost in order to keep hockey for a little longer in AZ. And while I don't feel that way, I completely understand their desire.

5 years with crappy ownership = very slight chance of deep playoff run in AZ + slight chance of team staying longer

...but...

team relocates = 0% chance of deep playoff run in AZ + end of NHL hockey in AZ in my lifetime. And (as at least 1 other person here has implied) I don't give a rat's patootie about Glendale taxpayers. No offense intended - if you are one, you can always move.

You're right - pretty simple for some of us.
 

XX

Waiting for Ishbia
Dec 10, 2002
54,935
14,661
PHX
I don't give a rat's patootie about Glendale taxpayers. No offense intended - if you are one, you can always move.

Glad that's out in the open. "I want my subsidized hockey, no one else matters."

Especially funny when you consider that the health of Glendale (and its taxpayers) is and may always be intertwined with the health of the team. Not a whole lot of thought put into that statement, eh? Being that callous towards others isn't a luxury we can afford if we, as fans, want the team to do well and stay.
 

Summer Rose

Red Like Roses
Sponsor
May 3, 2012
91,510
22,456
Gainesville, Florida
I care in a sense about Glendale taxpayers. I would never wish financial implosion on a city. I can't say I really have an informed opinion on whether Glendale is better off with the Coyotes or whether they'd be be better off with them leaving, though my potentially-biased gut feeling is that they'd be better off with the team staying. It all depends on numbers but I'm not a finance expert by any means. Especially with how weird and convoluted things like pro sports franchises are.
 

Jakey53

Registered User
Aug 27, 2011
30,150
9,189
Glad that's out in the open. "I want my subsidized hockey, no one else matters."

Especially funny when you consider that the health of Glendale (and its taxpayers) is and may always be intertwined with the health of the team. Not a whole lot of thought put into that statement, eh? Being that callous towards others isn't a luxury we can afford if we, as fans, want the team to do well and stay.

So, you are assuming that the COG needs the Coyotes for financial health?
 

NHLfan4life

Who is PKP???
Nov 22, 2010
688
0
Glendale
Hypthetical here: What happens if things DO turn around? These guys, DM And Tippett, have worked magic with what they have now. Limited everything as far as a budget. Will this deal give them less to work with? Or will people showing up and paying for tickets, merchandise, etc. give them the wiggle room it takes to break out of this mess?

I know that is a lot of 'what ifs', but being optimistic can be fun yet humbling.

Maybe stability will win this race?
 

Summer Rose

Red Like Roses
Sponsor
May 3, 2012
91,510
22,456
Gainesville, Florida
Hypthetical here: What happens if things DO turn around? These guys, DM And Tippett, have worked magic with what they have now. Limited everything as far as a budget. Will this deal give them less to work with? Or will people showing up and paying for tickets, merchandise, etc. give them the wiggle room it takes to break out of this mess?

I know that is a lot of 'what ifs', but being optimistic can be fun yet humbling.

Maybe stability will win this race?

It would take a while. Our payroll budget is the salary floor for the foreseeable future, even if we start to stabilize, since it would be unwise to go out and start spending a lot of money at the slightest hint of things turning around.
 

RemoAZ

Let it burn
Mar 30, 2010
11,154
7,496
Glendale, Arizona
It would take a while. Our payroll budget is the salary floor for the foreseeable future, even if we start to stabilize, since it would be unwise to go out and start spending a lot of money at the slightest hint of things turning around.

I don't believe we should be at the cap floor if this deal goes through. The ownership group will be in with a sweetheart deal so there's no reason they shouldn't be able to up the budget considerably. With the deal we assume they will get, the new CBA and the potential for the arena with management that actually gives a damn, there's money to be made here. Plus, I also don't believe these guys will just tank for 5 years to move the team. They will want to win right off. I'm not saying we will be a max cap team but DM will have more cash and flexibility to work with imo.
 

Chootoi

Registered User
Jan 7, 2005
3,745
143
Hypthetical here: What happens if things DO turn around? These guys, DM And Tippett, have worked magic with what they have now. Limited everything as far as a budget. Will this deal give them less to work with? Or will people showing up and paying for tickets, merchandise, etc. give them the wiggle room it takes to break out of this mess?

I know that is a lot of 'what ifs', but being optimistic can be fun yet humbling.

Maybe stability will win this race?

How DARE you Swiffer this house of doom with your forward thinking.
 

NHLfan4life

Who is PKP???
Nov 22, 2010
688
0
Glendale
It would take a while. Our payroll budget is the salary floor for the foreseeable future, even if we start to stabilize, since it would be unwise to go out and start spending a lot of money at the slightest hint of things turning around.

I understand what you're saying. I'm just hoping that IF the team stays, the fans will back it up by showing up to games. I know attendance and ST have risen, it would be great to ride that wave.

Maybe that is just fantasy but it seems so possible with consistent stability in the franchise.
 

kihekah19*

Registered User
Oct 25, 2010
6,016
2
Phoenix, Arizona
I don't believe we should be at the cap floor if this deal goes through. The ownership group will be in with a sweetheart deal so there's no reason they shouldn't be able to up the budget considerably. With the deal we assume they will get, the new CBA and the potential for the arena with management that actually gives a damn, there's money to be made here. Plus, I also don't believe these guys will just tank for 5 years to move the team. They will want to win right off. I'm not saying we will be a max cap team but DM will have more cash and flexibility to work with imo.

Only trouble is - These guys have no money. How they gonna raise payroll when they're begging & borrowing to get the team in the first place?

I guess the question becomes: Is the "sweetheart deal" a tactic, or necessity?
 

ClassLessCoyote

Staying classy
Jun 10, 2009
30,112
277
Ya, and it would appear that RSE & the COG may be in a sort of Mexican Standoff. RSE requires app $15M per annum guaranteed by the COG in order to satisfy Fortress that they can service the $120M loan. No guarantee, no $$$, no sale, and no idea what new revenue streams they along with Sherwood & Bowers have identified that will bridge the gap. Talk of a CFD, increased ticket surcharge, paid parking & naming rights to the building bridging the chasm, however, Glendale asking RSE that those projections be guaranteed, so you have to ask yourself: surely in their business plans & prospectus in securing Fortresses loan, they would have included those items, parking, a CFD, naming rights etc, and if it wasnt good enough for Fortress, why should Glendale accept their promises on face value?

Then theres the whole issue of equity to financing. Normally, the NHL requires minimum 50% in cash, 50% in secured credit facilities, and 50% of the total sale price in either cash or further credit facilities in order to cover costs moving forward. Here, the leagues apparently willing to provide an $85M loan, but if you read between the lines, its not really a loan, its RSE servicing $85M in debt shaved from the NHL's line of credit with Citibank that they setup & used to buy & operate the team. Additionally, though unconfirmed, reports that Gary Bettman has promised RSE maximum Revenue Sharing proceeds along with further financial support from the newly created Development Fund. In light of all of this, I frankly have a very hard time believing the NHL Board of Governors are going to have an easy time swallowing this deal, as effectively theyd be selling the team to Fortress, and those guys play rough when payments are late or missed.

Here in BC, weve had plenty of experience in dealing with them, as they financed the Contractors who were building the 2010 Olympic Athletes Village (liens applied months before the games shutting down construction) and theyd bought Intrawest, owners of Blackcomb-Whistler Mountain (along with a dozen other ski resorts throughout North America) where all of the Alpine & Nordic events were staged, again, serious problems Fall 2009 whereby they themselves, Fortress had over-extended themselves, their creditors threatening to lockdown the entire resort, no games, forced bankruptcy; legal nightmare. And it was a close shave. The City of Vancouver in Executive Session had to borrow over $300M to pay off Fortress in order to get them to withdraw the Lien on Athletes Village, and God only knows what the Province had to do to get Fortresses creditors off their backs to insure the Winter Games even took place, and just months away.

I think its far too late to be moving the Coyotes anywhere at this stage, dont see RSE closing, but what I can see happening is the NHL staying parked for another season, either renewing the AMUL and receiving the $6M budgeted for Management of the arena, justifiable as the City receives 41 guaranteed event dates that neither SMG nor Colangelo's group can guarantee, give this thing more time, and if by the end of February still nothing, no serious buyer, then thats it thats all. Sell for Relocation. For whatever reasons, if Quebec was an option at this time, obviously some obstacle there, youd think for the sake of expediency the league wouldve pulled the trigger already. Seattle, same thing. Key Arena or Bust. Monied interest apparently however, whats the dealeo with the new building, Hansen, the NBA? All kinds of loose ends and there just isnt enough time, absolutely no way in Hell to tie them up between now & next week.

Anyhoo. Thats all I got. Im hoping the NHL stays put, also hoping RSE craters, and further hoping that someone, some real group steps up to the plate and gets it done in Glendale, as this is absolutely last call, one more round and then thats it, bars closed. So keep the faith my friends, it aint over yet, of that Im certain.

Thank you for the excellent response as always Killion. :yo: :handclap:

you guys are ****ing nuts if you think RSE is not a legit ownership group. Guys have been at it since almost day one to get the team and make it work here. Go study up.



I remember when the blind faith was there with Steve Ellman and Jerry Moyes at the very beginning of preventing this team from going to Portland. How did it work out with those 2 again or is this a hit and run?

5 years with crappy ownership = very slight chance of deep playoff run in AZ + slight chance of team staying longer

...but...

team relocates = 0% chance of deep playoff run in AZ + end of NHL hockey in AZ in my lifetime. And (as at least 1 other person here has implied) I don't give a rat's patootie about Glendale taxpayers. No offense intended - if you are one, you can always move.

You're right - pretty simple for some of us.

1st off, what is bolded there is just more stuff being said that are giving all Coyotes Fans a bad name. Like it or not, the Taxpayers and voters of Glendale will say and do what they feel is right regardless of what outsiders think, especially by other Coyotes fans. Granted, not all Coyotes Fans in Glendale are on the same page on the ownership issue, but again, at the end of the day, what those outside of Glendale think doesn't matter.

2nd, here is some better "forward thinking" here: What is more ideal?

Have a team stay under a better business model not at the expence of the taxpayer and run by guys who have experence in running a major league franchise?

or

Deal with the team relocating and get another team in the future under a better business model to where the market never even so much as going through another possibility of relocating a hockey team?

Take a look at how the business model of the LA Kings works and you will see why they are a team that can win and don't have to worry about getting relocated. Not a chance in hell the Kings would be where they are now if the business model is the same as the Coyotes have had in the past along with what is trying to get accomplished by a joke known as RSE.

How DARE you Swiffer this house of doom with your forward thinking.

I care more about accuracy of the infomation than anything else. I don't say what others want to hear even if it means that the truth and facts contiunes to fall of deaf ears.
 
Last edited:

ClassLessCoyote

Staying classy
Jun 10, 2009
30,112
277
Glad that's out in the open. "I want my subsidized hockey, no one else matters."

Especially funny when you consider that the health of Glendale (and its taxpayers) is and may always be intertwined with the health of the team. Not a whole lot of thought put into that statement, eh? Being that callous towards others isn't a luxury we can afford if we, as fans, want the team to do well and stay.

But even then is no consistency by those who say "I want my subsidized hockey, no one else matters.". Let's say if the NHL had a change of heart and decided to try and workout a deal with the City of Phoenix to bring the Coyotes back to Downtown Phoenix when a deal with Glendale couldn't be reached. The NHL manages to get a better deal from Phoenix than Glendale and the team moves back to US Airways Center; what will we hear instead? We will hear this crap:

"What is the NHL thinking moving the team back to Downtown Phoenix?" "Are they nuts?" "Do they not see that arena is bad for hockey?" "Do they not see the team failed to be profitable at the old AWA?" All of this even though the Coyotes have failed overall in Glendale under the illusion of greener pastures.
 
Last edited:

doaner

Registered User
Aug 21, 2008
5,397
359
SURPRISE!
I remember when the blind faith was there with Steve Ellman and Jerry Moyes at the very beginning of preventing this team from going to Portland. How did it work out with those 2 again or is this a hit and run?

You can't tell me that you were in on ellman's, moyes' and gretzky's "shinadigans" from the beginning. Thats just foolish if you say otherwise! I'm sure you were just excited to have the team stay.

People here need to chilax! Nobody has any idea of what is going on in these meeting. Stop pretending like you do!
 

ClassLessCoyote

Staying classy
Jun 10, 2009
30,112
277
You can't tell me that you were in on ellman's, moyes' and gretzky's "shinadigans" from the beginning. Thats just foolish if you say otherwise! I'm sure you were just excited to have the team stay.

People here need to chilax! Nobody has any idea of what is going on in these meeting.

Others actually do in the meeting(s) that has gone on for years with other so called prospective owners and can back up what they can say and a deep and complex matter.

Actually, I was just as critical of those people you have mentioned even back then as I am with RSE and anyone not named Jerry Reinsdorf for one reason, none of them had any experence in running a major league franchise. It was easy to see in the beginning that the purpose of them getting the Coyotes was nothing more than a pawn in trying to land a huge real estate in Scottsdale but with piss poor preplainning in place and such.

At the end of the day, the right deal with the right person was there before than bankruptcy took place and that deal failed under the hands of the NHL.
 

doaner

Registered User
Aug 21, 2008
5,397
359
SURPRISE!
Others actually do in the meeting(s) that has gone on for years with other so called prospective owners and can back up what they can say and a deep and complex matter.

Actually, I was just as critical of those people you have mentioned even back then as I am with RSE and anyone not named Jerry Reinsdorf for one reason, none of them had any experence in running a major league franchise. It was easy to see in the beginning that the purpose of them getting the Coyotes was nothing more than a pawn in trying to land a huge real estate in Scottsdale but with piss poor preplainning in place and such.

At the end of the day, the right deal with the right person was there before than bankruptcy took place and that deal failed under the hands of the NHL.

Then you're ahead of the game! Kudos!!
 

knowsthegame

Registered User
Mar 18, 2008
865
0
Tale of 2 NHL cities
I just don't have any faith whatsoever in the Ice Edge clowns. None. There's absolutely nothing I've seen over 4 years following those two idiots that makes me believe they could make it work.

Clowns? Why, because they DARE mention playing 5 games in Saskatoon 3 years ago.
I am not suggesting i am in favour of that but it is not much different from the NHL playing home games in Europe for extra cash.

RSE shareholdser are each investing 10 million of their own money , which to some posters is nothing - why?, because they want some billionaire to come along and buy the team for a hobby. That makes RSE imposters and clowns - go figure.

In the end it will still be Don Maloney and Dave Tippet running things and an actual owner instead of the NHL.

Sometimes in life when you have to work hard, be resourceful and tenacious, take a risk, is when you put forth the most effort to succeed.

There IS an upside to RSE. Calling them clowns?

I bough my first house at 20 years of age. I had no experience owning a home and had very little to put down, but I wanted it and got it done. I guess I was a clown.
 

Dirty Old Man

So funny I forgot to laugh
Sponsor
Jan 29, 2008
7,986
6,133
Ostrich City
Glad that's out in the open. "I want my subsidized hockey, no one else matters."

Well, not really, you (somewhat predictably) twisted the statement. A more accurate way of saying it is "I want my hockey, and whether it is subsidized by Glendale or not does not factor into the equation.". If the solution was to move elsewhere - in Maricopa County - for Glendale taxpayers to not feel 2% less safe due to all this, fine, peachy. (I mean really, does anyone here care about, say, Chandler taxpayers? Titusville, Florida taxpayers? Grand Forks, North Dakota taxpayers? unless municipal government efficiency is just one of 'your things' you've decided to take up as one of your battles?)

and I think it's rt who I agreed with
 

ClassLessCoyote

Staying classy
Jun 10, 2009
30,112
277
Clowns? Why, because they DARE mention playing 5 games in Saskatoon 3 years ago.
I am not suggesting i am in favour of that but it is not much different from the NHL playing home games in Europe for extra cash.

RSE shareholdser are each investing 10 million of their own money , which to some posters is nothing - why?, because they want some billionaire to come along and buy the team for a hobby. That makes RSE imposters and clowns - go figure.

They're called clowns because they think they are going to get a sports franchise at a fraction of what the team is really worth while expecting the taxpayer to cover the rest.

Take a look around at how other sports franchises are purchased; how many of them are purchased in the same fashion as that of what MH, GJ, IE tried to do in the past? If there are any outhere it is rare since other franchises are either paid in fill by the owner with their own money or they get a loan where the owner and not government is responsible for the loan.

In the end it will still be Don Maloney and Dave Tippet running things and an actual owner instead of the NHL.

Anyone below the owners will run things based what the owners want so it is not like GMDM and Tippett are going to be independent in their own decisions as someone else is paying their salary, only difference is it would someone other than the NHL dictating things.


I bough my first house at 20 years of age. I had no experience owning a home and had very little to put down, but I wanted it and got it done. I guess I was a clown.

Owning a house is not the same as owning a franchise, especially since franchises are more expensive to own and to operate than any house on Earth.
 
Last edited:

knowsthegame

Registered User
Mar 18, 2008
865
0
Tale of 2 NHL cities
They're called clowns because they think they are going to get a sports franchise at a fraction of what the team is really worth while expecting the taxpayer to cover the rest.

Take a look around at how other sports franchises are purchased; how many of them are purchased in the same fashion as that of what MH, GJ, IE tried to do in the past? If there are any outhere it is rare since other franchises are either paid in fill by the owner with their own money or they get a loan where the owner and not government is responsible for the loan.



Anyone below the owners will run things based what the owners want so it is not like GMDM and Tippett are going to be independent in their own decisions as someone else is paying their salary, only difference is it would someone other than the NHL dictating things.

Owning a house is not the same as owning a franchise, especially since franchises are more expensive to own and to operate than any house on Earth.

There is no carved in stone way to purchase a sports franchise, every franchise and situation is different. Government subsidies/arena management fees are not that unusual when a city owns an arena and we know there will be an arena management fee either way. So again, why are they clowns?

RSE have already stated they wanted DM and Tipp to run the on ice part, which is what I was eluding to. Again, that part will not change which is huge.

Yes, owning a house and a sports franchise are poles apart. You completely missed the point of my analogy.
Let me explain. Even though RSE are putting a smaller amount of their own money in and may not have experience at owning a sports franchise, they have been very resourceful in raising the funds to buy the team. That to me means they are committed to buying the team and have been tenacious to that end. They could end up being excellent owners because they want to be successful and BELIEVE they can be.
 

kihekah19*

Registered User
Oct 25, 2010
6,016
2
Phoenix, Arizona
Clowns? Why, because they DARE mention playing 5 games in Saskatoon 3 years ago.
I am not suggesting i am in favour of that but it is not much different from the NHL playing home games in Europe for extra cash.

RSE shareholdser are each investing 10 million of their own money , which to some posters is nothing - why?, because they want some billionaire to come along and buy the team for a hobby. That makes RSE imposters and clowns - go figure.

In the end it will still be Don Maloney and Dave Tippet running things and an actual owner instead of the NHL.

Sometimes in life when you have to work hard, be resourceful and tenacious, take a risk, is when you put forth the most effort to succeed.

There IS an upside to RSE. Calling them clowns?

I bough my first house at 20 years of age. I had no experience owning a home and had very little to put down, but I wanted it and got it done. I guess I was a clown.


I would wager that the NHL games in Europe are not quite the money makers you seem to think they are, but rather a way to grow the brand.... similar to the Yotes.

As for the home buying analogy, I'd say those that purchased with zero down, with a lopsided ARM (think recent history) were clowns.

For my part I think these guys are clowns in the first degree.... clowns with no capital, who haven't been able to make a go of this thing yet.
 

knowsthegame

Registered User
Mar 18, 2008
865
0
Tale of 2 NHL cities
I would wager that the NHL games in Europe are not quite the money makers you seem to think they are, but rather a way to grow the brand.... similar to the Yotes.

As for the home buying analogy, I'd say those that purchased with zero down, with a lopsided ARM (think recent history) were clowns.

For my part I think these guys are clowns in the first degree.... clowns with no capital, who haven't been able to make a go of this thing yet.

There are a lot of nice people out there (in recent history) that you have just insulted and called clowns.
The analogy I referred to was in 1970 and I turned a $1000 investment into $22,000 in 2 years.
What will you call RSE if they end up owning the team, still clowns?
Is it even remotely possible that they can turn things around (like the economy has)?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad