Phoenix CXX: High Tempe-rature

[Llama19]

Whatever Glendale screwed up on is not material to the fate of the Coyotes. Glendale did not handle some things very well, to be sure, but that doesn't change the big picture. They were screwed over royally by the NHL, it's partners and proxies. That would have continued if Glendale had not found the balls to stick up for itself.

I think the fact that it is December 2016 and the Coyotes have not made arrangements for a place to play the 2017-18 season speaks volumes about what comes next.

Glendale did not cause that.

I know we were told radio silence was to come, but it still surprises me.

Why, oh why, don't they have a 2 year lease at GRA?

There is no lease extension...LeBlanc is shooting for the brass ring or nothing...

 

[MNNumbers]

I know we were told radio silence was to come, but it still surprises me.

Why, oh why, don't they have a 2 year lease at GRA?

They do. It expires on June 30, 2017.

And, really, I think we all know why they don't have a 2-year lease. A 2-year lease is only of value to them if they can convince the legislature to give them 200M+ for a new arena (and, probably operating subsidies as well). If that doesn't happen, those 2 years mean nothing. At that point, what they need from Glendale is either a long-term lease, or no lease at all.

That's why there is no 2-year renewal. They won't even start talking about one until they have the $$ from State of AZ for the new arena.

Personally, I think there are lots of things happening here.

1- Relationship between IA and Legislature. No one knows what this is really like, but we will find out in the next 4 months.

2- Relationship between IA and Glendale. Strained. That's why AEG is operating between the two.

3- Relationship between IA and AEG. Again, this is a little difficult. Personally, if I were AEG, I would have no time to discuss a 2-year lease with IA if they do get their precious arena funded. Sorry, boys. Look elsewhere.

4- Relationship between IA and NHL. On the surface, this has to look positive. Under the surface, is the BOG upset that IA lost the 15M/yr AMF? How much debt is there, really? What's the chance of paying it off?

etc.

Fascinating times....

 

[mesamonster]

I dont blame Glendale for any of this and think it is utter nonsense for anyone to do so.

They built this franchise an arena - a big, brand new, shiny state-of-the-art arena! - and dumped tens of millions of dollars into propping up a private business that utterly failed to market and sell its own product to an obviously disinterested public.

100% of the blame for this lies at the feet of Bettman, the BoG and the clowns they allowed to babysit. Bettman and Daly flat out lied to Glendale and conned the City out of two $25M extortion payments (just insurance eh Bill? how do you sleep at night, you liar).

And since Glendale grew a pair and sought to create an equal partnership with this organization by cancelling the patently one-sided AMF/lease, rather than buckling down and actually trying to make a legitimate go at things, all we have heard from LeBlanc is how he has been victimized, just like every little con man who gets caught.

And now ... it's beyond stunning that anyone would even entertain his new con for another g(r)ifted arena.

The game is over for the clowns, legislators would have to be blind not to see what has transpired in Glendale. Tony will moan and whine about the unfair treatment they have received, but he is the only one listening. The Glendale bridge may have been the first to be burned by IA and I believe the last.

IA has completely taken their eye off of their primary business (HOCKEY) as their product continues to slide. When was the last time we heard Tony say anything about the hockey team? What is the point of all of this new arena discussion if nobody cares a lick about what they are selling? The organization has become the laughing stock of the NHL, every facet of their existence is in turmoil and demise. But lets build a new arena, what a joke!

 

[Tom ServoMST3K]

They do. It expires on June 30, 2017.

And, really, I think we all know why they don't have a 2-year lease. A 2-year lease is only of value to them if they can convince the legislature to give them 200M+ for a new arena (and, probably operating subsidies as well). If that doesn't happen, those 2 years mean nothing. At that point, what they need from Glendale is either a long-term lease, or no lease at all.

That's why there is no 2-year renewal. They won't even start talking about one until they have the $$ from State of AZ for the new arena.

Personally, I think there are lots of things happening here.

1- Relationship between IA and Legislature. No one knows what this is really like, but we will find out in the next 4 months.

2- Relationship between IA and Glendale. Strained. That's why AEG is operating between the two.

3- Relationship between IA and AEG. Again, this is a little difficult. Personally, if I were AEG, I would have no time to discuss a 2-year lease with IA if they do get their precious arena funded. Sorry, boys. Look elsewhere.

4- Relationship between IA and NHL. On the surface, this has to look positive. Under the surface, is the BOG upset that IA lost the 15M/yr AMF? How much debt is there, really? What's the chance of paying it off?

etc.

Fascinating times....

Their chances of hitting that home run of the new arena are improved if they have a lease at GRA. in a "This shows our commitment to this market." kind of way.

 

[cbcwpg]

Why, oh why, don't they have a 2 year lease at GRA?

Don't need a 2 year extension at GRA unless they have a new home being built for them that will be ready in 2 years. GRA is just temporary housing, but only if they need it. No new arena coming, they won't need it.

JMO, but if they can't swing this new arena deal, this is their last season in Arizona.

 

[MNNumbers]

Their chances of hitting that home run of the new arena are improved if they have a lease at GRA. in a "This shows our commitment to this market." kind of way.

One thing these last 2 threads have shown is that psychology behind the request for a arena can be interpreted in many ways.

Yours is one.

Another would be to say that 'commitment to market' in the context of GRA simply gives more legislators a reason to ask, "Why not play there indefinitely? You don't need another arena?"

And, to add a little thought on the legislature....

One thing that will interesting, if it gets that far, is whether the Leg asks, "Why?", and then asks, "Let's see the books. The history on this franchise suggests that Scottsdale looked at the books 15 years ago and was not satisfied. And, the history suggests that not everything that was promised to Glendale came through. How exactly do you expect your bottom line to improve with this new arena?"

And, the reason that conversation would be interesting is that I don't really think the new arena is what IA wants. I think what they really want is an operational subsidy. And, how they can ask for that, in the way they asked for it 4 years ago in Glendale, remains a mystery to me....

This situation is different from Glendale 2013. In that case, you had several city council members who had been around when GRA was built. It was their own idea and creation in a way. Denying the AMF was akin to giving up on a project they started themselves. There is a human tendency to double down on bad ideas in such a case. Here, however, the state legislature has never had anything to do with the team, and a reasonable argument can be made that the state is no better off with the team in Tempe compared to the team in Glendale. There is no prior emotion. There is no threat of losing a Westgate style development (because Catellus is going to develop that area all the way in time, anyway). The only real pressure that IA can apply is the threat of relocation (which may be a 2-edged sword) coupled with the idea of losing a civic treasure in the hockey team. (And, I don't know how much traction there really is for that - Coyotes as a civic treasure to the state of AZ.)

So, again, it's going to be a hard sell, and I look forward to seeing how the sale goes...

 

[mesamonster]

One thing these last 2 threads have shown is that psychology behind the request for a arena can be interpreted in many ways.

Yours is one.

Another would be to say that 'commitment to market' in the context of GRA simply gives more legislators a reason to ask, "Why not play there indefinitely? You don't need another arena?"

And, to add a little thought on the legislature....

One thing that will interesting, if it gets that far, is whether the Leg asks, "Why?", and then asks, "Let's see the books. The history on this franchise suggests that Scottsdale looked at the books 15 years ago and was not satisfied. And, the history suggests that not everything that was promised to Glendale came through. How exactly do you expect your bottom line to improve with this new arena?"

And, the reason that conversation would be interesting is that I don't really think the new arena is what IA wants. I think what they really want is an operational subsidy. And, how they can ask for that, in the way they asked for it 4 years ago in Glendale, remains a mystery to me....

This situation is different from Glendale 2013. In that case, you had several city council members who had been around when GRA was built. It was their own idea and creation in a way. Denying the AMF was akin to giving up on a project they started themselves. There is a human tendency to double down on bad ideas in such a case. Here, however, the state legislature has never had anything to do with the team, and a reasonable argument can be made that the state is no better off with the team in Tempe compared to the team in Glendale. There is no prior emotion. There is no threat of losing a Westgate style development (because Catellus is going to develop that area all the way in time, anyway). The only real pressure that IA can apply is the threat of relocation (which may be a 2-edged sword) coupled with the idea of losing a civic treasure in the hockey team. (And, I don't know how much traction there really is for that - Coyotes as a civic treasure to the state of AZ.)

So, again, it's going to be a hard sell, and I look forward to seeing how the sale goes...

To your point MNN, if I am a legislator and asked by IA to sponsor their bill and carry their water through the legislative maze, the first thing i want are all of the numbers,and i want them ASAP! IA`s deep dark secrets lie hidden in these documents, and their exposure is an instant credibility issue for the clowns.

 

[TheWestWing]

Hutch, give me one measure in which IA has strengthened the Coyote brand?...

Duh. Coyotes 2.0

 

[mesamonster]

Duh. Coyotes 2.0

Which is?

 

[Llama19]

Which is?

Duh. Coyotes 2.0

More of the brilliant, super-progressed marketing strategy we come to expect from LeBlanc...

 

[Tom ServoMST3K]

Which is?

The open letter they sent out throwing shade at the last 20 years of coyote marketing.

 

[mesamonster]

The open letter they sent out throwing shade at the last 20 years of coyote marketing.

Sorry i missed that propaganda piece! Did tony pen this marketing piece in his latest effort to take everyones eyes off the on -ice product and the flailing going on in the executive suite?

 

[mouser]

One thing these last 2 threads have shown is that psychology behind the request for a arena can be interpreted in many ways.

Yours is one.

Another would be to say that 'commitment to market' in the context of GRA simply gives more legislators a reason to ask, "Why not play there indefinitely? You don't need another arena?"

And, to add a little thought on the legislature....

One thing that will interesting, if it gets that far, is whether the Leg asks, "Why?", and then asks, "Let's see the books. The history on this franchise suggests that Scottsdale looked at the books 15 years ago and was not satisfied. And, the history suggests that not everything that was promised to Glendale came through. How exactly do you expect your bottom line to improve with this new arena?"

And, the reason that conversation would be interesting is that I don't really think the new arena is what IA wants. I think what they really want is an operational subsidy. And, how they can ask for that, in the way they asked for it 4 years ago in Glendale, remains a mystery to me....

This situation is different from Glendale 2013. In that case, you had several city council members who had been around when GRA was built. It was their own idea and creation in a way. Denying the AMF was akin to giving up on a project they started themselves. There is a human tendency to double down on bad ideas in such a case. Here, however, the state legislature has never had anything to do with the team, and a reasonable argument can be made that the state is no better off with the team in Tempe compared to the team in Glendale. There is no prior emotion. There is no threat of losing a Westgate style development (because Catellus is going to develop that area all the way in time, anyway). The only real pressure that IA can apply is the threat of relocation (which may be a 2-edged sword) coupled with the idea of losing a civic treasure in the hockey team. (And, I don't know how much traction there really is for that - Coyotes as a civic treasure to the state of AZ.)

So, again, it's going to be a hard sell, and I look forward to seeing how the sale goes...

According to media reports at the time, Ellman did not open all his books up to Scottsdale. That's not just for the team, but also info on his development company, finances and aspects of the project. Scottsdale may have seen some of that in negotiations or maybe none of it.

Also, it should be pointed out Ellman was still negotiating with Scottsdale when he pulled the plug and announced the deal with Glendale.

 

[Mightygoose]

They do. It expires on June 30, 2017.

Well played!

Just to think, the 2 year lease they do have was 'negotiated' with Glendale firmly in the driver's seat. LeBlanc even stated it was like negotiating with a gun point to their head. Shoe....meet other foot.

With the legislature telling them to come back when they tried to pitch it a year ago, imagine what kind of fun would it have been if current lease was only 1 year!

 

[Killion]

One thing these last 2 threads have shown is that psychology behind the request for a arena can be interpreted in many ways.

Yours is one.

Another would be to say that 'commitment to market' in the context of GRA simply gives more legislators a reason to ask, "Why not play there indefinitely? You don't need another arena?"

And, to add a little thought on the legislature....

One thing that will interesting, if it gets that far, is whether the Leg asks, "Why?", and then asks, "Let's see the books. The history on this franchise suggests that Scottsdale looked at the books 15 years ago and was not satisfied. And, the history suggests that not everything that was promised to Glendale came through. How exactly do you expect your bottom line to improve with this new arena?"

And, the reason that conversation would be interesting is that I don't really think the new arena is what IA wants. I think what they really want is an operational subsidy. And, how they can ask for that, in the way they asked for it 4 years ago in Glendale, remains a mystery to me....

This situation is different from Glendale 2013. In that case, you had several city council members who had been around when GRA was built. It was their own idea and creation in a way. Denying the AMF was akin to giving up on a project they started themselves. There is a human tendency to double down on bad ideas in such a case. Here, however, the state legislature has never had anything to do with the team, and a reasonable argument can be made that the state is no better off with the team in Tempe compared to the team in Glendale. There is no prior emotion. There is no threat of losing a Westgate style development (because Catellus is going to develop that area all the way in time, anyway). The only real pressure that IA can apply is the threat of relocation (which may be a 2-edged sword) coupled with the idea of losing a civic treasure in the hockey team. (And, I don't know how much traction there really is for that - Coyotes as a civic treasure to the state of AZ.)

So, again, it's going to be a hard sell, and I look forward to seeing how the sale goes...

Yeah, only it would appear that this time around & different circumstances that rather than using solely the threat of out of State relocation in wrapping themselves up with ASU & Cattelus their attempting to gain leverage & influence through association more so than threat. That through that association the stains on their armor will be washed clean, Glendale Arena & their track record forgotten, riding the ASU Express who do generally receive whatever it is they want from the Legislature. This was pretty clear from the start. Obvious what they were doing and why....

And yeah, its not just the arena that IA would be after, it beggars belief to not think that within the framework of the proposed TIF we'll find mechanisms that will continue to funnel funds to IA, "management & maintenance fee's" and that they'd be looking for State backing, guarantee's that these funds be forthcoming should receipts from the TIF fail to hit projections... and yes again, wild eyed projections that should be outlined in their prospectus to the State, something we the public should have access to in the not too distant future I should imagine....

As for "vetting" these guys, once again, looks to me like a bit of an end-run by LeBlanc & Co whereby they bring in Bettman to "tour" various sites & locales, and if Gary Bettmans looking at whatever and fully supportive of these plans for a new arena, then again, would or did Cattelus / ASU actually look into & ask for IA Financials before entering into this exclusive agreement & in doing so lend their credibility & stamp of approval to IceArizona without having done any due diligence, asked to see their books, looked into their financing & wherewithal? That if Gary Bettman & the NHL are behind them, should be good enough... right?... were they blinded by the bright lights of big league promises, setup like lambs to the slaughter?... Will the legislature see through it?.... Enquiring Minds Want to Know and tout suite. This nonsense has to end. Madness.

 

[Fugu]

They do. It expires on June 30, 2017.

And, really, I think we all know why they don't have a 2-year lease. A 2-year lease is only of value to them if they can convince the legislature to give them 200M+ for a new arena (and, probably operating subsidies as well). If that doesn't happen, those 2 years mean nothing. At that point, what they need from Glendale is either a long-term lease, or no lease at all.

That's why there is no 2-year renewal. They won't even start talking about one until they have the $$ from State of AZ for the new arena.

Personally, I think there are lots of things happening here.

1- Relationship between IA and Legislature. No one knows what this is really like, but we will find out in the next 4 months.

2- Relationship between IA and Glendale. Strained. That's why AEG is operating between the two.

3- Relationship between IA and AEG. Again, this is a little difficult. Personally, if I were AEG, I would have no time to discuss a 2-year lease with IA if they do get their precious arena funded. Sorry, boys. Look elsewhere.

4- Relationship between IA and NHL. On the surface, this has to look positive. Under the surface, is the BOG upset that IA lost the 15M/yr AMF? How much debt is there, really? What's the chance of paying it off?

etc.

Fascinating times....

I disagree with point 3. AEG simply needs to fill the calendar, and if they have the room and IA needs the arena for an additional two years, why wouldn't they take their money?

 

[CasualFan]

I am trying to imagine a day in the Legislature:

I get what you're trying to say but the presentation seems kind of fantastical. IA retained a lobbying firm. The bulk of the conversations will be between Axiom and Leg staffers. The end game will have little to do with how much sense it makes to build a new arena and very much to do with vote trading for legislation that has nothing to do with arenas or hockey. That's just how the sausage gets made. Last session, IA couldn't quite thread the needle. But hope springs eternal for 2017. The media campaign fired up right on schedule. I recommend keeping a broad view. The variables that ultimately determine the fate of proposed legislation rarely are limited to the instant bill - it generally spans multiple pieces of legislation. Horse trading, if you will.

 

[TheLegend]

They do. It expires on June 30, 2017.

And, really, I think we all know why they don't have a 2-year lease. A 2-year lease is only of value to them if they can convince the legislature to give them 200M+ for a new arena (and, probably operating subsidies as well). If that doesn't happen, those 2 years mean nothing. At that point, what they need from Glendale is either a long-term lease, or no lease at all.

That's why there is no 2-year renewal. They won't even start talking about one until they have the $$ from State of AZ for the new arena.

Personally, I think there are lots of things happening here.

1- Relationship between IA and Legislature. No one knows what this is really like, but we will find out in the next 4 months.

2- Relationship between IA and Glendale. Strained. That's why AEG is operating between the two.

3- Relationship between IA and AEG. Again, this is a little difficult. Personally, if I were AEG, I would have no time to discuss a 2-year lease with IA if they do get their precious arena funded. Sorry, boys. Look elsewhere.

4- Relationship between IA and NHL. On the surface, this has to look positive. Under the surface, is the BOG upset that IA lost the 15M/yr AMF? How much debt is there, really? What's the chance of paying it off?

etc.

Fascinating times....

There's a slight flaw with #3. AEG was specifically selected by Glendale over two other candidates (including SMG) which you liked so much the first time around because they provided a plan without an anchor tenant.

Plus..... AEG is an NHL partner..... and an owner.

AEG also requested (and received) an out clause if they could not lock the Coyotes into a long term lease at GRA.

We have an unsubstantiated rumor that AEG offered a "smokin'" deal for which IA walked away from. Or have they yet??? For all anyone knows that might end up being a back up plan, in case their new area plan does not pan out. For which the optics would become of HF legend.

For AEG I don't think it matters for them if the Coyotes stay or not. They were given a task of trying to keep the Coyotes there, and if they can't then they can walk away from it all without any sort of regret.

 

[Fugu]

...

Another would be to say that 'commitment to market' in the context of GRA simply gives more legislators a reason to ask, "Why not play there indefinitely? You don't need another arena?"
....

And, the reason that conversation would be interesting is that I don't really think the new arena is what IA wants. I think what they really want is an operational subsidy. And, how they can ask for that, in the way they asked for it 4 years ago in Glendale, remains a mystery to me....

They chose to stay in Glendale because COG agreed to pay an exorbitant amount to keep them there, probably enough for them to limp to their 5 yr losses point, while having worked on some other deal.

I still believe most of their fans are in Scottsdale-Mesa-Tempe area.

 

[MNNumbers]

I disagree with point 3. AEG simply needs to fill the calendar, and if they have the room and IA needs the arena for an additional two years, why wouldn't they take their money?

There's a slight flaw with #3. AEG was specifically selected by Glendale over two other candidates (including SMG) which you liked so much the first time around because they provided a plan without an anchor tenant.

Plus..... AEG is an NHL partner..... and an owner.

AEG also requested (and received) an out clause if they could not lock the Coyotes into a long term lease at GRA.

We have an unsubstantiated rumor that AEG offered a "smokin'" deal for which IA walked away from. Or have they yet??? For all anyone knows that might end up being a back up plan, in case their new area plan does not pan out. For which the optics would become of HF legend.

For AEG I don't think it matters for them if the Coyotes stay or not. They were given a task of trying to keep the Coyotes there, and if they can't then they can walk away from it all without any sort of regret.

Fellow posters,

I agree with your business judgment on the part of AEG. (Although I think I disagree slightly, Legend, with the idea that the same arm of AEG is both owner of Kings and manager of GRA, and thus AEG as arena manager is biased in favor of hockey)

There is no question that AEG would not mind having them in the arena. However, what kind of contract are we talking about?

And, you will note that I said, "Personally....." By that I meant my own personal judgment is that I would have nothing to do with IA or NHL as a city. They have proven to be a collection of highly unethical business dealers. I, personally, have a bad taste for them.


And, that is really beyond the point....

The point in regard to any extension with GRA.....

CoG has allowed AEG great leeway in negotiating with the Coyotes. We all know that. However, any subsidies that AEG gives to IA affect not only the bottom line of CoG, but of AEG themselves. For that reason, it does not seem appropriate to think of any thing other than a rental.

And, Legend, point well taken in regard to SMG. I still am of the opinion that, fiscally, COG would be best off having contracted with SMG.

 

[Llama19]

They chose to stay in Glendale because COG agreed to pay an exorbitant amount to keep them there, probably enough for them to limp to their 5 yr losses point, while having worked on some other deal.

I still believe most of their fans are in Scottsdale-Mesa-Tempe area.

And, Canada...

 

[TheLegend]

And, Canada...

[tweet removed to save bandwidth]

And that's a bad thing???

There are still fans in Winnipeg who followed the team to AZ.

 

[Major4Boarding]

I get what you're trying to say but the presentation seems kind of fantastical. IA retained a lobbying firm. The bulk of the conversations will be between Axiom and Leg staffers. The end game will have little to do with how much sense it makes to build a new arena and very much to do with vote trading for legislation that has nothing to do with arenas or hockey. That's just how the sausage gets made. Last session, IA couldn't quite thread the needle. But hope springs eternal for 2017. The media campaign fired up right on schedule. I recommend keeping a broad view. The variables that ultimately determine the fate of proposed legislation rarely are limited to the instant bill - it generally spans multiple pieces of legislation. Horse trading, if you will.

Reminder - CF's retainer needs replenished again, please. Thanks!

 

[MNNumbers]

I get what you're trying to say but the presentation seems kind of fantastical. IA retained a lobbying firm. The bulk of the conversations will be between Axiom and Leg staffers. The end game will have little to do with how much sense it makes to build a new arena and very much to do with vote trading for legislation that has nothing to do with arenas or hockey. That's just how the sausage gets made. Last session, IA couldn't quite thread the needle. But hope springs eternal for 2017. The media campaign fired up right on schedule. I recommend keeping a broad view. The variables that ultimately determine the fate of proposed legislation rarely are limited to the instant bill - it generally spans multiple pieces of legislation. Horse trading, if you will.

Yeah, I know CF.

However, the legislation for the new Vikings stadium here in Minneapolis was a little more 'in-the-open' than that.

So, it remains to be seen just how much pull IA will really have with the Leg.

And, you are right on the media campaign. Although i must admit that it seems what really happened there was that the media interviewed a few people with something to do with the project immediately after the announcement. That is what you would expect, of course. And, it was the reason for the announcement. To get something out in the public and apply some pressure to governor and others. That's how IA works.

 

[Tom ServoMST3K]

I get what you're trying to say but the presentation seems kind of fantastical. IA retained a lobbying firm. The bulk of the conversations will be between Axiom and Leg staffers. The end game will have little to do with how much sense it makes to build a new arena and very much to do with vote trading for legislation that has nothing to do with arenas or hockey. That's just how the sausage gets made. Last session, IA couldn't quite thread the needle. But hope springs eternal for 2017. The media campaign fired up right on schedule. I recommend keeping a broad view. The variables that ultimately determine the fate of proposed legislation rarely are limited to the instant bill - it generally spans multiple pieces of legislation. Horse trading, if you will.

That was my point earlier in the thread, about if it hits the floor.

If lobbying succeeds: then it gets put forward and they know they will have the votes.

If it fails, they won't put it forward, because they know they didn't get it.