Discussion in 'Fugu's Business of Hockey Forum' started by Llama19, Aug 21, 2017.
Appears TFP has provided our new thread theme...
^^^ Nicely done Llama!.
... and for context...
.. and a special thanks to TFP...
Not really much info in this but given the lack of news lately...... and it's on topic.
Of note.... he did say Tucson has met their target for STHs already.
.... verrry eenteresting.... and did he say what those numbers were, price points & term?
.... have you yourself attended a Roadrunners game in Tucson?.. how was the experience?....
The question in my mind is was the target met for Coyotes SHT?
With a cleansing of the old guard and some significant upgrades on the roster, a renewed public commitment to AZ (despite no lease extension) plus with seasons as low as 12.50/ticket. This is a dog that should be wagging the tail.
Not in Tucson... went to one of the games at GRA and there was a decent contingent out of Tucson there.
From what I gather they have quite a party-like atmosphere down at the TCC.
As for numbers he didn't say, but I would presume they met what they needed to at least break even for the year.
Radio hosts tried prying arena info out of him a couple of times but Patterson didn't bite. Hosts briefly mentioned the ASU/IA deal and Patterson didn't play it either way other than to complement what ASU is doing in hockey. However the general feeling I got was they're not in a hurry right now. Patterson's really playing it close to the vest.
Indeed, and while I do searches everyday all quiet on that front, pretty much all fronts. Theyve been loathe to release that information, supply hard numbers & I dont expect they will late this month or into October, ever. If they were even remotely respectable then there should have been & should be no problem. Its a barometer, a sort of shot clock that the organization (as many do whether its tickets sales or fund raising in setting goals) and that people can then rally behind. Nothing new about it, common sense. "We need 12,500 Seasons Ticket Holders minimum, shot clock says 6500" or whatever.
The reality I fear is that its in the low 1000's, like less than 3000 so in taking such a tack, would only raise further doubts & scepticism. That it's a peak unattainable. A bridge too far. Spreadsheet warriors going nuts on their keyboards crunching the numbers & realizing just how much red ink they must be dealing with as most other revenue streams, that inf readily available. Whats not clear is how much they received, will receive in uncapped RS proceeds & Commissioner Bettmans Development Fund, how much (if anything) they receive from their local broadcast deal, suite leases, sponsorships. NHL Central & Broadcast Revenues, those things can be guesstimated pretty accurately. We dont know if the Coyotes rec'd what under normal circumstances wouldve been 1/30th of Foleys Expansion Fee so lots of guesswork involved. Costs, payroll, things like that in the public domain however.
Patterson did state that the Roadrunners are looking at being in the Top 10 in attendance this year...
However, that would be a quite a miracle as they were ranked 25 out of the 30 AHL teams, with an average attendance of 4,054 or 59.6% capacity...
Patterson also talked about Glendale's 15-year old arena, but nothing new concerning a new arena location or partner...
I guess he does not have any reference on how to do that in his Funk & Wagnall...
Thats cool. That fans, public in Tucson responding moderately favorably... avg 16/17 att ranking them 25 out of 30 AHL Teams so long row to hoe, nothing to Crow about but ok, at least their tryin. Would make for a neat little road trip if you ever get the chance, go check it out.... And no, no Patterson's got some serious depths of experience in the area of facility development, lobbying etc. I doubt we'll hear much of anything this coming season but when we do hear something its going to be pretty dramatic. Either a Big Reveal or an announcement that despite their best efforts, no deals to be had, moving out of State. Whether that happens this season or next... no idea. No idea how much rope theyve been given by the League, who absorbs the losses as in what split or % between Barroway & the NHL... just a lot of questions & no answers. Just the mission statement as to what their objectives are in building a new home East Valley or Downtown.
... unhuh. F&W as you well know Llama.... reference resource only..... not a guide book to whatever... periodical like the magazines This Old House (issue 47 - the how to's of moving a large building from one site to another by road), New Yankee Workshop (issue 23, Norm talks about & illustrates how to make genuine old tymee bleacher seats) & Popular Mechanics (issue 463 - installing an artificial ice plant in your basement or covered patio, fun for the whole family)... Funk & Wagnalls really only any good for running off, plagiarizing material whole if your in grade school, middle or high school, late with or too lazy/bored to write an essay on whatever. Did it dozens of times. Got me through Grade 4 3X's.
And I dont have time to be listening to that entire interview with Steve Patterson... but did he actually make a point of saying "15 year old arena"?... Like thats a real problem?.... like really?.... oh my.... ya.... big problem Steve-o..... huuuuuuuge..... clearly outdated.... call the wreckers... done..... just unbelievable.... and yes I know I'm just latching on to a few words 2nd hand but I have heard this before from Bettman, LeBlanc of course, Barroway. Now Patterson?... Thats the most lame assed, disingenous load of Bollocks... just stop already.
Yep...Patterson is just blowing in everyone's ear and hoping we'll follow him anywhere...
.... well, repeating that talking point as if its got any validity, to speak or mumble such is obscene.... and now I know who's behind those Coke bottle glasses, under the Homburg, wig, mustache & overcoat.... www.youtube.com/watch?v=4q4_jkprjvY ... and deserving to be beaten with a Carpetbag of which he, Andrew Barroway & Gary Bettman are approximating in making unwanted advances upon the taxpayers of Arizona.
He really didn't say much at all either way about GRA other than it was 15 years old, K.
I'm hoping for more from the new ownership structure than this. Using a line like "15-year-old arena" is just more bull designed to fool people.
Yeah, an arena or stadium built at the tail end of an architectural era of that kind of sports facility is going to be obsolete relatively fast. Think Comisky Park built in 1990, just before the new wave of retro ballparks started when Camden Yards was built in 1992.
But GRA was at the front end, not the tail end, of a wave of new arena designs, often copied since, and yet to improved upon much - wide concourses with plenty of room for revenue-producing food counters, and kiosks, etc. GRA is still just about as modern as it gets in arena design. Yes, the locals here have pointed out it needs an ice plant upgrade, has some leaks - all fixable for a few million $, not the $400 or so million a new venue would cost.
GRA is three years newer than Xcel Energy Center, and when I was there this summer, a staffer mentioned the new arenas are still copying its design, as GRA largely did in 2003. The only thing the new rinks have that Xcel/GRA don't is the area behind glass you see in Pittsburgh and Edmonton where fans paying big bucks can watch the players on their way to entering and exiting the rink from their locker rooms. That's it. Otherwise, the new buildings are more of the same. There's no new generation of arenas yet. 15 years old? Still a baby! Seats get worn out, ice plant get old, roofs leak? Replace 'em! It'll save you $350 million and your arena will be as good as anything built yesterday.
As Goldie Hawn would likely say: I don't see why there should be any question about arena replacement. I think everyone in the arena should be replaced.
15 years old? That's almost as old as Turner Field in Atlanta or Globe Life Park in Arlington. Those heaps were long past their expiration date. It's no wonder Barroway wants a new arena.
The catch is $350M... often teams like someone else to foot the bill. They see the swindle Loria pulled on Miami-Dade and think there's a sucker born every minute and many of them wind up on city & county boards, so why not try, likewise with Cobb County GA (although that scheme was hatched by a member of the county board who then made the Braves an offer they couldn't refuse). They often feel no shame in trying.
GRA's a modern arena with standard issues to be expected, although is certainly before the standard arena replacement age 30 years. The only issue is it's in the 'wrong location' according to some loud segments of the fanbase. There's nothing they can do about that short of excavating the stadium and attaching rockets. The Cavaliers were stuck with Richfield Coliseum for 2 decades (too far out and too difficult to get to when it snows), the Rays are stuck with Tropicana Dome (wrong side of the bay), the Senators are stuck in Canadian Tire Centre (too far out) (although look to be on track to go downtown). Unlike other places of the Sun Belt, Phoenix metro doesn't seem eager to replace venues absurdly early although the Coyotes & Diamondbacks are certainly trying to sell it.
New Comiskey/The Cell/G-Rate Field was inbetween your examples. It was a modern ballpark when built in terms of structual design and revenue-generating elements (luxury suites, concourses, concessions, elevators, etc). Where it was behind the times (actually right before the new era as it was designed in 1988-89) was in its visual design. The owners were presented with a few different plans, one the retro modern design, which they rejected. It was sort of an island unto itself, built as a baseball-only stadium as the cookie cutter stadium era was winding down (SkyDome & Tropicana Dome opened up around the same timeframe) but before the retro modern era of baseball-only stadiums. It's not retro modern, it's not part of the cookie cutter baseball-football stadiums either. That said, over the 2000s, they made many changes in response to complaints (changing the seats from blue to green, modifying the upper deck, adding more Old Comiskey elements, etc) as well as doing a little stadium maintenance each year (the dull standard stuff, renovating the clubhouses, etc) and adding new things (all the statues). They have the revenue-generating features modern era stadiums have (although they didn't get to replace their antiquated scoreboard until 2016).
^^^^^^^ The issue with GRA isn't its age.
Well Barroway took care of that over the summer.
$12.50 tickets? I wish.
I remember when the Toronto Blue Jays sold $2 tickets on Tuesday nights, and one year offered $81/year seasons' tickets on a stand-by basis: you didn't get in if the section sold out. It wasn't that long ago either, and now the Jays have the highest attendance in the American League.
I hope it all works out for the Coyotes too.
The main differences with the Jays and in general the MLB model is they have allot more media revenues therefore a stronger revenue sharing plan.
In addition they donâ€™t have a salary cap which means no floor so teams like Jays can afford to offer low ticket prices to bring the fans back. Plus later they scrapped these practices and went with the price integrity model attendance dropped further but over time it helped grow the season ticket base to until they got competitive again and can justify increases later on.
Since the Coyotes have a floor to spend up to that is subject to annual increases caused by earnings by the bigger revenue clubs, selling 12.50 tickets can only get them so far.
If the Coyotes take the other fork in the road and go with the price integrity model, how would the optics look with a further decrease in attendance? If ownership plans on sticking around then the drop really doesnâ€™t matter as it will help stabilize the base especially with corporate accounts and then it would rise as the team becomes competitive. Will they stick around long enough for this to happen? Unless they remove the year to year on the lease for a while, thereâ€™s nothing convincing that they would.
Yet...Patterson brought it up in his interview...
Barroway has a plan to replace the fans?
Well...I guess he is technically trying to replace West Valley fans for East Valley fans...
So with slow news, been searching the internet for inf.... I saw a graph on another site that actually broke down by %'s the numbers of fans by seating sections, from the glass to the upper bowl at GRA of East Valley or West Valley residents. I couldnt find the actual source for it, believe it was based on Seasons Ticket Holders & buyers of mini-packs, not even sure what year or season, no total numbers given.... and as the numbers weve seen over the years be it from consultants hired by the COG or the Coyotes are of a dubious nature at best I didnt post it here however.... That graph, not surprisingly, the breakdown was indeed East Valley heavy in the lower bowl, split more evenly in the upper bowl & ends between East & West but still with a greater majority of East Valley residents. The graph may have been part of the Coyotes prospectus that was presented to Worsleys' Transpo Committee. Ballparking it overall, about 75% East Valley (and ya, without ever having really marketed in the West Valley, locally in Glendale thats not all that surprising).
This was followed by comments from the public, almost entirely East Valley residents again with the major complaint/obstacle of location. Glendale. Driving time for a mid-week game. Some from places like Gilbert claiming it took them over 90 minutes one way, late for the 7pm puck-drop. "Major hassle with traffic, getting into & out of Westgate". Entirely different situation with the Cards. Mostly Sundays, 1/4 the # of games but a trip none the less. It was further suggested by many that in their opinion even if the arena was located in the East Valley or downtown that if the Coyotes werent actually Stanley Cup threats year in year out that attendance really wouldnt improve all that much as there are just way too many games to be committing to with 41 RS and then Playoffs.
Time & cost prohibitive even with the team on the East Side. Further acknowledgement by those astute enough to fully understand what it would take to make the Coyotes a perennial threat requiring that ownership spend to the CAP ceiling on talent & that they would need to spend uncapped big money on Scouting, Analytics, on their Minor Pro Team ('s), Camps & Clinics & so on & so forth.And even if they did all of that, 41 home dates with an East Valley or Downtown arena just too much of a commitment in time & money "but for sure I'd be there for the Playoffs". Unfortunately these are not the 70's, the Coyotes are not the Dynasty Montreal Canadiens with pretty much a lock on the Stanley Cup for over half a decade. The league doesnt work that way anymore. There are really no more "Dynasty's". Been sacrificed on the alter of "parity & cost certainty" and more than just a few East Valley residents certainly got all of that, understood & as such... prognostication's not good regardless of where in the Valley the Coyotes located.
There was also mutual consensus in what Ive found on my travels throughout the internet amongst East Valley residents that a shared facility with Sarver & the Suns is a total non-starter. Not unless he actually buys the franchise himself & obviously thats not going to happen. Overall, my takeaway on everything I read which only really reconfirmed & validated my existing opinions was that the problem is systemic, runs far deeper than just location from an East Valley residents/fans perspective. It speaks to way too much inventory as in too many RS Games & Scheduling, mid-week. Time commitment with traffic being what it is, just not on & that even if they were on the East Side it wouldnt improve, that really wouldnt change much. Shorter drive ya but still, too many games, too much commitment in time & money. Lack of performance & compete of course, everything weve hashed & rehashed here a 1000 ways from Sunday.
For a variety of reasons we dont really have a wide range of voices from the East Valley (or West for that matter) posting here though we did from 2009~13. I hadnt ever really scoped out the various chatboards, comments sections following reports from the broader community in Arizona on this whole issue so it was certainly edifying, interesting. Nowhere did I read anyone buying into the "magical geographical cure", Silver Bullet hypothesis put forth by ownership & the NHL. Nor was there much of anything echoing the altruistic, the sizzle being pedaled by the NHL & Barroway, about "growing the game" in Arizona. That no cost was or would be too high to realize those lofty goals. They certainly for the whole werent buying that one. There was very little empathy for the COG that I read anywhere from East Valley residents, resentment in fact for having inconvenienced them in building the arena. That Scottsdale made a mistake in not just taking Ellman at face-value, but that even then these exact same sets of problems would exist & that history wouldnt have been much different from the one that unwound.
Anyhoo... just throwing this all out there. Nothing really "new" per se'. I certainly didnt come across very many at all supportive of using taxpayer funds, providing land, sweetheart lease or whatever to this club on the East Side. Quite the opposite in fact and particularly so in light of the situation with the Suns ~ TSRA & the D-Backs. The Coyotes & their objective ranking well down the list of most peoples priorities.
Separate names with a comma.