Phoenix CXIX: We're Just Not Executing

[Whileee]

I love what the Coyotes are doing with their cap.

use every available option, especially when you're a small budget team.

It might work to create a good team a few years down the road, if they ever have the budget to maintain a good roster. Then again, it might be hard to develop young players appropriately in an environment where they aren't competitive and lack good veteran structure. Is Tippet a good coach to develop a very young team?

More importantly from a business perspective, what will another few down years do to the fanbase and market? LeBlanc indicated that tge Coyotes needed to be a competitive team in order to turn their financial fortunes around within the five years after they bought the team. I guess they've moved on to a new strategy - move to a new arena in a new location and don't worry about hockey results in the short term.

 

[Fairview]

I always find it interesting when people bring out Forbes numbers. When the number fits what they want it to be Forbes is gosphel. But when it doesn't.... well......



It isn't what I think.....

I've always held the notion that the value of something is what people are willing to pay for it. So if the value of the franchise was set (by megathread consensus, the NHL) at $305M and Barroway was still willing to buy in..... it really doesn't matter what WE think.

Well, Forbes might work for some, but I tend to value something more on what someone would actually pay for the item. For 3 years before the sham sale to IA, no one anywhere, anyhow would be willing to pay even half of the bogus $305 million..6 months after IA are put in charge of the team the value is $305 million, like magic.
If they could not sell the team for years at half their current value, and that was with the likelihood of Glendale pitching in $10-15 million per year...just imagine what the team is worth currently, now that Tony has destroyed the team's relationship with Glendale. Chances of a subsidy ...remote, at best.

 

[TheLegend]

I agree with that, but don't agree that Barroway put 305 of his own money into the team.

Let's try this again........

Team is valued at $305M.

Barroway has a 54% share of IA.

Therefore..... Barroway's theoretical investment in IA is $305M x .54 = $164.7M

Now the debate is what part of that $164.7 was in cash, equity or loans of his own. He purchased a $7M home in Scottsdale last year and paid cash for it out of a family trust. I doubt he paid the full amount in buying into IA like everyone else, but he's obviously got some walking around money.

I don't think anyone has done any research into just how wealthy the man is, or where his assets are and/or their value. Maybe that is where we need to look rather than making spurious statements about how much the man has??

 

[MNNumbers]

Let's try this again........

Team is valued at $305M.

Barroway has a 54% share of IA.

Therefore..... Barroway's theoretical investment in IA is $305M x .54 = $164.7M

Now the debate is what part of that $164.7 was in cash, equity or loans of his own. He purchased a $7M home in Scottsdale last year and paid cash for it out of a family trust. I doubt he paid the full amount in buying into IA like everyone else, but he's obviously got some walking around money.

I don't think anyone has done any research into just how wealthy the man is, or where his assets are and/or their value. Maybe that is where we need to look rather than making spurious statements about how much the man has??

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeoza...s-54-percent-of-arizona-coyotes/#aa6107076322

http://www.foxsports.com/arizona/story/barroway-to-relinquish-role-as-coyotes-majority-owner-061515

Given the above 2 articles, and many like them, it seems as if perhaps the prudent course is to say that "No one outside the ownership group really knows what's happening."

There is a 'source' of Ozanian's saying that Barroway was in for 85M, plus his 51% share of the 138M of debt (as of Dec 2014). This 'source' said that Barroway was not putting in his share of costs for capital calls, and the team was losing money, and this his share was, at that time (mid-2015), down to 27%.

Then, there is a sort of consensus published later that Barroway had paid all the cash calls and his share was back up to 51%.

In the midst of that, you have LeBlanc backing Barroway with words, anyway, saying that Barroway put in "tens and tens of millions" of dollars. That expression is telling to me. It surely shows that Barroway is NOT in for 150M+ of cash, because if he were, LeBlanc would have said something like "over 100M" rather than "tens of tens of millions."

Associated with the ownership questions, Ozanian's 'source' has interesting numbers. If the 85M + share of debt is accurate, then the team was carrying 138M of debt, on a 167 evaluation. Quick calculation of about 45%.

Forbes' latest says 57%. I can believe that, because they surely have had more losses in the last 2 years.

Of course, Forbes is the source for all of that, so do with it what you want....

 

[Llama19]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeoza...s-54-percent-of-arizona-coyotes/#aa6107076322

http://www.foxsports.com/arizona/story/barroway-to-relinquish-role-as-coyotes-majority-owner-061515

Given the above 2 articles, and many like them, it seems as if perhaps the prudent course is to say that "No one outside the ownership group really knows what's happening."

There is a 'source' of Ozanian's saying that Barroway was in for 85M, plus his 51% share of the 138M of debt (as of Dec 2014). This 'source' said that Barroway was not putting in his share of costs for capital calls, and the team was losing money, and this his share was, at that time (mid-2015), down to 27%.

Then, there is a sort of consensus published later that Barroway had paid all the cash calls and his share was back up to 51%.

In the midst of that, you have LeBlanc backing Barroway with words, anyway, saying that Barroway put in "tens and tens of millions" of dollars. That expression is telling to me. It surely shows that Barroway is NOT in for 150M+ of cash, because if he were, LeBlanc would have said something like "over 100M" rather than "tens of tens of millions."

Associated with the ownership questions, Ozanian's 'source' has interesting numbers. If the 85M + share of debt is accurate, then the team was carrying 138M of debt, on a 167 evaluation. Quick calculation of about 45%.

Forbes' latest says 57%. I can believe that, because they surely have had more losses in the last 2 years.

Of course, Forbes is the source for all of that, so do with it what you want....

Very nice number crunching there MNNumbers...

The 'debt' leveraging that is their $200M+ 'special tax district' plan that they will be presenting before the State Legislator will be interesting to follow...

 

[TheLegend]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeoza...s-54-percent-of-arizona-coyotes/#aa6107076322

http://www.foxsports.com/arizona/story/barroway-to-relinquish-role-as-coyotes-majority-owner-061515

Given the above 2 articles, and many like them, it seems as if perhaps the prudent course is to say that "No one outside the ownership group really knows what's happening."

There is a 'source' of Ozanian's saying that Barroway was in for 85M, plus his 51% share of the 138M of debt (as of Dec 2014). This 'source' said that Barroway was not putting in his share of costs for capital calls, and the team was losing money, and this his share was, at that time (mid-2015), down to 27%.

Then, there is a sort of consensus published later that Barroway had paid all the cash calls and his share was back up to 51%.

In the midst of that, you have LeBlanc backing Barroway with words, anyway, saying that Barroway put in "tens and tens of millions" of dollars. That expression is telling to me. It surely shows that Barroway is NOT in for 150M+ of cash, because if he were, LeBlanc would have said something like "over 100M" rather than "tens of tens of millions."

Associated with the ownership questions, Ozanian's 'source' has interesting numbers. If the 85M + share of debt is accurate, then the team was carrying 138M of debt, on a 167 evaluation. Quick calculation of about 45%.

Forbes' latest says 57%. I can believe that, because they surely have had more losses in the last 2 years.

Of course, Forbes is the source for all of that, so do with it what you want....

Thanks MNN.....

But that just addresses what he has into IA. At this point, I'm wondering more about the assets he has behind that.

 

[MNNumbers]

Thanks MNN.....

But that just addresses what he has into IA. At this point, I'm wondering more about the assets he has behind that.

You mean his overall wealth? Not associated with the team at all, but just how much he has otherwise?

Yeah, I'd be interested in that, too.

I just posted the above for the sake of having the ownership information at hand in this thread, and to point out that there are so many reports, that really, none are reliable, and we don't have a clear picture of what IA's individual ownership structure is doing.

 

[GuelphStormer]

all of this creative and mysterious accounting suggests that anyone considering getting into a new arena deal with IA should be willing and able to take on 100% of the risk of paying for the entire arena. that said, though, I'd love to see Tempe or ASU force thru an arena agreement that put the league itself on the hook for payment, not just the franchise. if jacobs really wants to keep a team in phoenix, then make him and all of the owners financially responsible for the fallout if IA defaults, skips town and leaves ASU/Tempe holding the bag.

just as Glendale held all the leverage when the GRA-IA lease/arena management deal fell apart, so too do ASU and Tempe now. order Bettman in, have him testify, make him squirm. fun.

 

[mesamonster]

So where does Drummond fit into this financial picture? My guess is that Barroway is in for less than we all think and that Drummond picked up some minority stake when he came on board a few years ago. Somewhere in there Barroway relinquished control to Drummond and in the process also gave up equity.

What is interesting is if in fact this team is capitalized at $240-305MM then all of the equity owners have likely taken a haircut. If they were responsible for capital calls their losses are even higher. Nobody believes this franchise is worth anything close to the Forbes valuation if it remains in Arizona. For this ownership group to ever capitalize on their investment the franchise needs to be sold either through relocation or to another owner willing to pay the artificially inflated valuation the league would like us all to believe it is worth.

For this group to remain in AZ and to continue to accumulate losses, they cement their inability to ever profit from this investment!

 

[Mightygoose]

When is the next BoG meeting? There generally is one mid December so in the coming weeks.

What will the tone be towards this situation regardless who is really owning the franchise? Surely behind closed doors there will need to be a contingency plan as there needs to be some sense of control.

As LeBlanc said earlier, it's 100% in the hands of legislature so a plan B, if the state doesn't go along with it would need be disused then. When would they know the state passes up on it? Guessing sometime between February and April. With the bridge burnt in Glendale, no leverage there......that doesn't give allot of time to work it out.

Surely the league isn't just going to nod their heads, assume the state approves and work of a plan after they don't...would they?

 

[Dirty Old Man]

Edit: Oh, and check back with us in April or May to see which narrative played out, IA's or mine.

Oh, we will, we will.

As this is another of the same "mark my words!" warnings some of you have been issuing for years. None of which ever come to pass.

 

[Killion]

When is the next BoG meeting? There generally is one mid December so in the coming weeks.

What will the tone be towards this situation regardless who is really owning the franchise? Surely behind closed doors there will need to be a contingency plan as there needs to be some sense of control.

As LeBlanc said earlier, it's 100% in the hands of legislature so a plan B, if the state doesn't go along with it would need be disused then. When would they know the state passes up on it? Guessing sometime between February and April. With the bridge burnt in Glendale, no leverage there......that doesn't give allot of time to work it out.

Surely the league isn't just going to nod their heads, assume the state approves and work of a plan after they don't...would they?

Who knows, those are questions weve all been asking ourselves for years now. Almost the same story just change Glendale for the State and with a few differences, same script as 2013's action packed episodes... which were similar to Season 4 -2012... Season 3 - 2011, Season 2 -2010 & Season 1 back in 2009.... which btw is now available in a collectible boxed set of DVD's, A Decade of Disaster...... just in time for Christmas Mightygoose.... Order NOW, get the Prequel (2008).

 

[madhi19]

For this group to remain in AZ and to continue to accumulate losses, they cement their inability to ever profit from this investment!

This is the years the clowns will get the jitters. No more Glendale gravy train. A flimsy arena plan that depend on the wim of state politician. One less possible way out with Foley getting his expansion team... To top it all off their debts with the NHL is coming due soon...

 

[mesamonster]

Oh, we will, we will.

As this is another of the same "mark my words!" warnings some of you have been issuing for years. None of which ever come to pass.

I think Tony and the boys are running low on time and options. We know they are low on funds and we know the legislature is not going to be giving hand outs just for asking. Regardless of what occurs at the legislature this team will need a home for the next 2-3 years. Tony, having burned the Glendale bridge with his bonehead contract negotiation move and threatening lawsuit, gave away the gravy train. He subsequently let it be known that under the current circumstances the team will NEVER be profitable in Glendale. So, once again, to those who believe that the team will remain in the Valley indefinitely, please show me how they intend to stay afloat when they have never made a red cent? I don`t care what type of business you own, if you continue to lose money each and every year your business will not survive.

 

[TheLegend]

I think Tony and the boys are running low on time and options. We know they are low on funds and we know the legislature is not going to be giving hand outs just for asking. Regardless of what occurs at the legislature this team will need a home for the next 2-3 years. Tony, having burned the Glendale bridge with his bonehead contract negotiation move and threatening lawsuit, gave away the gravy train. He subsequently let it be known that under the current circumstances the team will NEVER be profitable in Glendale. So, once again, to those who believe that the team will remain in the Valley indefinitely, please show me how they intend to stay afloat when they have never made a red cent? I don`t care what type of business you own, if you continue to lose money each and every year your business will not survive.

Actually we know very little about what they have in funds (hence my ? to MNN), and even less on what the AZLeg will do. A couple of politicians playing media lip service aside.

And BTW.... Glendale burned that bridge..... not IA. Even though IA supplied did supply the match.

 

[The Feckless Puck]

I don`t care what type of business you own, if you continue to lose money each and every year your business will not survive.

Not to get too political, but our new president-elect has made a career out of profiting off of money-losing enterprises.

Are the Coyotes the Trump Steaks of the NHL? Perhaps.

 

[mesamonster]

Actually we know very little about what they have in funds (hence my ? to MNN), and even less on what the AZLeg will do. A couple of politicians playing media lip service aside.

And BTW.... Glendale burned that bridge..... not IA. Even though IA supplied did supply the match.

Sure Glendale was the one to terminate the agreement, but IA, by virtue of hiring the Glendale City attorney to negotiate on their behalf broke the law. Yes, Tony thought he could get away with that one, but not so. Then he made matters worse by threatening lawsuits against Glendale, that hardly helped his cause. Technically, Glendale terminated the lease, but they had every right to.

AS for funds, if they have the money why are they choosing to ice a team whose on-ice cap numbers are the lowest in the league? By low balling their product they have essentially told their fan base that winning is secondary to their desire to come out of this financially intact. BTW, the young roster diversion is only good if your young players show some promise, case in point, Anthony Duclair has been a second year bust!

 

[Roadrage]

Let's try this again........

Team is valued at $305M.

Barroway has a 54% share of IA.

Therefore..... Barroway's theoretical investment in IA is $305M x .54 = $164.7M

Now the debate is what part of that $164.7 was in cash, equity or loans of his own. He purchased a $7M home in Scottsdale last year and paid cash for it out of a family trust. I doubt he paid the full amount in buying into IA like everyone else, but he's obviously got some walking around money.

I don't think anyone has done any research into just how wealthy the man is, or where his assets are and/or their value. Maybe that is where we need to look rather than making spurious statements about how much the man has??

So theoretically, Barroway could have put in the same amount as what he did with IA 1 year earlier and probably still got the whole team himself at the original $170M.

 

[Whileee]

Oh, we will, we will.

As this is another of the same "mark my words!" warnings some of you have been issuing for years. None of which ever come to pass.

You know what else we've waiting for that hasn't come to pass? LeBlanc's new arena ("shovels in the ground by December", tee hee).

 

[Dirty Old Man]

You know what else we've waiting for that hasn't come to pass? LeBlanc's new arena ("shovels in the ground by December", tee hee).

weeks vs. 8 years and counting...

 

[Tom ServoMST3K]

Thanks MNN.....

But that just addresses what he has into IA. At this point, I'm wondering more about the assets he has behind that.

Yeah, I think we got our wires crossed. I have no doubt hes a very weathly guy, but What did he pay to get controlling interest?

 

[Killion]

Yeah, I think we got our wires crossed. I have no doubt hes a very weathly guy, but What did he pay to get controlling interest?

Barroway?.... Its all on paper.... He made a play for the NBA 76'rs - Philly; made a play for the NHL's Devils... made a play for the Islanders... he's.... "a player"... a "pretender"... cant close because he doesnt have the coin. FAKE. FRAUD. Not REAL. Anyone paying attention would have seen that when he was introduced to the people of Phoenix & Glendale..... which he wasnt... in order to avoid... uncomfortable questions... He's a Worm... A Nightcrawler.... Shine a light?... Weasels away looking for cover.

 

[KevFu]

I like to think of each owner standing at an NHL vending machine, and he has to put in a stack of a few hundred million crisp dollar bills to get the franchise deed.


It's fun to picture John Spano pumping it full of nickels, borrowing a coat hanger from CitiCorp, jamming it up there and knocking the the Islanders deed off the coil.

 

[TheLegend]

So theoretically, Barroway could have put in the same amount as what he did with IA 1 year earlier and probably still got the whole team himself at the original $170M.

Pretty much.... except he was trying to buy the Islanders back then.

Sure Glendale was the one to terminate the agreement, but IA, by virtue of hiring the Glendale City attorney to negotiate on their behalf broke the law. Yes, Tony thought he could get away with that one, but not so. Then he made matters worse by threatening lawsuits against Glendale, that hardly helped his cause. Technically, Glendale terminated the lease, but they had every right to.

AS for funds, if they have the money why are they choosing to ice a team whose on-ice cap numbers are the lowest in the league? By low balling their product they have essentially told their fan base that winning is secondary to their desire to come out of this financially intact. BTW, the young roster diversion is only good if your young players show some promise, case in point, Anthony Duclair has been a second year bust!

Glendale terminated the lease because they thought they could hold IA over a barrel. Weiers and Hugh never liked the agreement, got a couple new faces on the council that leaned their direction and suddenly saw themselves as big time negotiators. Well..... how's that working out now? They've gone into full defense mode playing the whole thing off. And tossing money at the Cardinals on top of it because of their short sided thinking on situations that needed long term answers.

And Duclair being a bust?? Hardly. Plenty of sophomore jinxes to go around over the years. That's just another poor excuse to slag the franchise.

 

[Whileee]

weeks vs. 8 years and counting...

Wait and see... LeBlanc is going to break some hearts.