Phoenix CXXXIV: 3 Sheets To The Wind

[The Feckless Puck]

I know for a fact that was the line in WPG when the Jets left. Even after when people were lobbying for a return of the NHL in the early 2000's they were made fun of.

Circumstances change. This all goes away once you find a committed owner who has a building.

There's are several big differences between Winnipeg and Arizona.

• Winnipeg is a Canadian city, where hockey is part of the birthright. Also, they have naturally-occurring snow and ice.
• The Jets made it through the WHA without folding and had their Avco Cup wins to bolster them (the Phoenix Roadrunners were not so lucky).
• Winnipeg had nostalgia on their side when they were lobbying for another NHL team.
• Winnipeg had Mark Chipman and TNSE to create a business model that would keep the smallest (currently) market in the NHL solvent.

Arizona has none of this. All we have here is a legacy of abject failure at every step. When we had fan support, we had no arena control and were second-class tenants. When we got a new arena in Glendale, the recession hit and our trucking company owner let Wayne Gretzky and Friends crater the team. And then we have the past decade plus of ugly intrigue.

Nobody is going to feel nostalgia for Arizona hockey when the team leaves, except for those of us who have stuck out this roller-coaster-in-a-giant-latrine foolishness over the years. When the team leaves, 80% of the hockey world will consider it a wrong righted. Is it any wonder that those of us who are left as fans are so desperate to hold onto the team while we still have it?

 

[StreetHawk]

There's are several big differences between Winnipeg and Arizona.

• Winnipeg is a Canadian city, where hockey is part of the birthright. Also, they have naturally-occurring snow and ice.
• The Jets made it through the WHA without folding and had their Avco Cup wins to bolster them (the Phoenix Roadrunners were not so lucky).
• Winnipeg had nostalgia on their side when they were lobbying for another NHL team.
• Winnipeg had Mark Chipman and TNSE to create a business model that would keep the smallest (currently) market in the NHL solvent.

Arizona has none of this. All we have here is a legacy of abject failure at every step. When we had fan support, we had no arena control and were second-class tenants. When we got a new arena in Glendale, the recession hit and our trucking company owner let Wayne Gretzky and Friends crater the team. And then we have the past decade plus of ugly intrigue.

Nobody is going to feel nostalgia for Arizona hockey when the team leaves, except for those of us who have stuck out this roller-coaster-in-a-giant-latrine foolishness over the years. When the team leaves, 80% of the hockey world will consider it a wrong righted. Is it any wonder that those of us who are left as fans are so desperate to hold onto the team while we still have it?

Coyotes fans in AZ were screwed from day 1. There has never been an ownership group that was capable of paying for an arena. TSRA was 4 years old when he coyotes arrived. No chance the city was going to pay for another arena so soon after.

The owners needed to be the ones to foot most of the bill. The other teams that moved all got arenas in Col, Dal, and Car. aZ got one took but took it in the wrong location. Failing business 101. Location location location.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

I am not real sure what position you are taking here Hutch, if the issue isn't GRA/location than what is it?

YOU BOUGHT INTO THE NARRATIVE, LITERALLY, that GRA shouldn't exist , and are trying to prove that point based off what, jhaf....

bottom line, and this hasn't changed..... the NHL won the right to determine where a member club elects to play, whether that's TSRA or GRA, it's up to the ownership of said club, not Daly or Bettman.... the point of that is this: it's gotten to the point now, that Arizona perpetually is a topic at any BOG meeting.... there are 30 other franchise member clubs, two of which survived BK, and multiple transfers of ownership (PIT/BUF)

the Ghost of Jerry Moyes continues to perpetually exist in this megathread

 

[Acesolid]

Hum, I believed the "charade" of the Coyotes getting more and more into heavy debt to pay for their yearly gigantic losses could carry on for a few more years before Barroway'd have to start selling shares in order to raise capital to throw into the black hole that is the Coyotes yearly budget....

And maybe that is still the case, maybe he believes he can go on for a few more years, and that it'll take around that time to find a sucker... I mean a buyer of a few shares of the Coyotes that will allow the team to continue defying the laws of ecomomic gravity by losing tens of millions of dollars every year while raising in value.


But let me simply tell you this: it doesn't matter if he finds a buyer or not. Because when the next recession hits (maybe in two years, maybe in five years, maybe later). The bull turns into a bear. And credit stops being so easy to get (especially for a bad business)... and sports teams value stop exploding upwards regardless of their profits (or losses in the case of the Coyotes)...

Well the team will be in a world of pain.

You cannot lose many tens of millions of dollars a year forever. Simply using credit, a falsely increasing value, and idiot investors to ignore reality. Eventually it'll catch up to you when a bear market arrives. Just ask the guys at Enron!

 

[zetajerk]

Hum, I believed the "charade" of the Coyotes getting more and more into heavy debt to pay for their yearly gigantic losses could carry on for a few more years before Barroway'd have to start selling shares in order to raise capital to throw into the black hole that is the Coyotes yearly budget....

And maybe that is still the case, maybe he believes he can go on for a few more years, and that it'll take around that time to find a sucker... I mean a buyer of a few shares of the Coyotes that will allow the team to continue defying the laws of ecomomic reality by losing tens of millions of dollars every year while raising in value.


But let me simply tell you this: it doesn't matter if he finds a buyer or not. Because when the next recession hits (maybe in two years, maybe in five years, maybe later). The bull turns into a bear. And credit stops being so easy to get (especially for a bad business)... and sports teams value stop exploding upwards regardless of their profits (or losses in the case of the Coyotes)...

Well the team will be in a world of pain.

You cannot lose many tens of millions of dollars a year forever. Simply using credit, a falsely increasing value, and idiot investors to ignore reality. Eventually it'll catch up to you when a bear market arrives. Just ask the guys at Enron!

They aren't moving to Quebec no matter how much you wish. Idk what's in it for people like you to see the Coyotes leave, besides general mean spiritedness.

 

[MNNumbers]

In regard to Coyotes, Bettman, Phoenix, and Glendale......

First, the city of Phoenix has had NOTHING to do with the team at all. When they first moved and played at TSRA, the Suns basically sub-let the place to them. There was no agreement with the city at all. Suns controlled the money, and the Coyotes paid rent. (As an aside, the team moved there our of desperation because their Minnesota idea fell through when Minneapolis wouldn't subsidize them. Desperation is not a good place to begin anything....)

The first Glendale lease was good for Glendale - basically what is happening now, except that the Yotes managed the place for a 0$ AMF. That was obviously agreeable to both, but also fair.

Only after BK did that change.

Bettman's comments about Glendale not being viable as a place to play were, to me, exactly as Feckless describes. And, I would like to add that I think he was subsidy-hunting, but NOT in Glendale. By the time he made those comments, the COG CC had already been through the IA subsidy, which they found a way to negate, and through many threats against them from the NHL and the Yotes ownership. At that point, there was NO reason to threaten Glendale, because the city understood full well that: The Yotes need a subsidy, and they also need a place to play. We are the only game in town, so as long as they stay, we're happy for it - but we have learned that we can't afford the subsidy they need.

Also, the world who was watching has also been through the ASU fiasco with IA jumping the gun on their press conference, and they sort of hinted the subsidy they need. And, it's huge (24M was in there somewhere).

So, I don't think Bettman was speaking to Glendale. He was looking for a new victim/sucker whatever you want to call it.

That they are still in GRA is a testament to lack of interest in other municipalities in the Phoenix market, and I don't blame them one bit.

Where this is headed, I still don't know. What we do know is this:
1- The Yotes would love the promise of a new arena, which would come with a subsidy. Were there such a promise, they might some $$ to contribute to it, provided the promise of a subsidy was strong and un-breakable.

2- There won't be such a subsidy from Glendale ever again.

3- In the absence of a new arena, what happens??????

That's the big question.

 

[Acesolid]

They aren't moving to Quebec no matter how much you wish. Idk what's in it for people like you to see the Coyotes leave, besides general mean spiritedness.

But I do not think they are moving to Québec!

But can you deny my argument that a team cant sustain losing 25 million $ a year (as was said in court and to Glendale) forever?

Also, I dont want to see the Coyotes leave. I've been following the soap opera of stupidity and insanity that is their finances for like 8 years on this forum.

If they ever left it'd be like one of my favorite TV show was cancelled.

 

[Fairview]

Except if the Coyotes leave, there will never be another NHL team in Arizona.

First, I think the likelihood of the team leaving is remote at best. The chance of an NHL team returning to the Arizona market in the future if this team leaves would be almost a certainty within 10 years. The NHL values area population combined with location more than anything else. There would not be a team in Arizona if the league valued anything else, they would have fought for Winnipeg they way they are fighting for Arizona. They didn't. Atlanta had 2 chances and will certainly get another before the next decade is out.The merit for that is location and population.
It is nothing short of a miracle that Winnipeg got the Jets back, just look at the Vegas over Quebec City decision to realize for the NHL BOG, it is US market over Canada , raw population numbers over confirmed hockey fans, location over tradition. There is no doubt in my mind, that even in the remote chance that the Coyotes leave, the NHL would return to that market in the future. Maybe the new team could be a retirement gift from the league to GB?

 

[Stumbledore]

There would not be a team in Arizona if the league valued anything else, they would have fought for Winnipeg they way they are fighting for Arizona. They didn't.

The NHL didn't fight to keep the Jets in Winnipeg because nobody in Winnipeg wanted to own a team. With the Winnipeg Enterprises owning the arena and refusing to give the Jets a penny (back when Canada still used pennies), there was no chance to make a profit just on ticket sales and merch, with no salary cap on the horizon.

The NHL fights to keep the Coyotes in Arizona because there's been a succession of people willing to step up and become owners. Clueless, inept, idiotic owners perhaps, but still owners.

 

[Fairview]

The NHL didn't fight to keep the Jets in Winnipeg because nobody in Winnipeg wanted to own a team. With the Winnipeg Enterprises owning the arena and refusing to give the Jets a penny (back when Canada still used pennies), there was no chance to make a profit just on ticket sales and merch, with no salary cap on the horizon.

The NHL fights to keep the Coyotes in Arizona because there's been a succession of people willing to step up and become owners. Clueless, inept, idiotic owners perhaps, but still owners.

IIRC, at the end, there was a group put together that raised enough cash to purchase the team and keep it in Winnipeg. The league,then, added a condition that there could not be a group ownership because there had to be an individual with enough cash to back the team. In Arizona, not only did they allow group ownership without a true major investor but the league set it up that the league itself would be the backer via their LOC. That says a lot about the league's desire to remain in Arizona and also their disinterest in Winnipeg at the time.

 

[Glacial]

There's are several big differences between Winnipeg and Arizona.

• Winnipeg is a Canadian city, where hockey is part of the birthright. Also, they have naturally-occurring snow and ice.
• The Jets made it through the WHA without folding and had their Avco Cup wins to bolster them (the Phoenix Roadrunners were not so lucky).
• Winnipeg had nostalgia on their side when they were lobbying for another NHL team.
• Winnipeg had Mark Chipman and TNSE to create a business model that would keep the smallest (currently) market in the NHL solvent.

Arizona has none of this. All we have here is a legacy of abject failure at every step. When we had fan support, we had no arena control and were second-class tenants. When we got a new arena in Glendale, the recession hit and our trucking company owner let Wayne Gretzky and Friends crater the team. And then we have the past decade plus of ugly intrigue.

Nobody is going to feel nostalgia for Arizona hockey when the team leaves, except for those of us who have stuck out this roller-coaster-in-a-giant-latrine foolishness over the years. When the team leaves, 80% of the hockey world will consider it a wrong righted. Is it any wonder that those of us who are left as fans are so desperate to hold onto the team while we still have it?

A series of good points, although a few minor details to check-
"When" GRA opened in Glendale, the recession didn't hit. It was just under 5 years between GRA's opening and the economic crash. GRA's earliest years coincided with the strongest years economically of the 2000s. The "when" event was the lockout. Coyotes had only half a season in their new arena before the lockout consumed an entire year.

AFAIK, with natural snow & ice, don't Arizona's mountains get it in the wintertime? Likewise the Grand Canyon end up snow-covered sometimes? Flagstaff seems somewhat known for it. Otherwise, point understood (Phoenix metro doesn't see snow consistently).

Winnipeg is the smallest market and IIRC, if Quebec City gets a team, Winnipeg would still be the smallest metro.


I wouldn't consider it a 'wrong righted' (of course, I'm American). The storm of Canadian currency valuation and decrepit arenas meant teams like the Nordiques and Jets were going to go somewhere southward, Larger markets could hold out through the storm, but not without getting rocked. The Nordiques had a stable landing spot, the Jets needed someplace to touch down after they couldn't land in the Twin Cities. The only open spot available then was Phoenix. It's been a strange journey for the Coyotes since then, with the biggest problems from the people running the team, some from circumstance (issues with their Phoenix arena, GRA's geographic issues because no other better-positioned city would build it). It would be hard for any sport not named football to build a fanbase and maintain it in those conditions. Heck, we see what atrocious ownership does in other sports (such as the Marlins) especially when it seems like they have no serious intent to honestly build a team to at least try and contend. A wrong would be the team ripped away from Canada with the intent to put it in new American markets because of a rigid ideological stance. The Jets/Coyotes have just been a series of unfortunate events. Intent didn't seem to enter the equation until the bankruptcy and the Coyotes staying put while building a growing Mount Trashmore of debt.

 

[StreetHawk]

The Nordiques had a stable landing spot, the Jets needed someplace to touch down after they couldn't land in the Twin Cities. The only open spot available then was Phoenix.

The Avalanche arrived in Colorado in 1995. Pepsi Centre opened in 1999.
Hurricanes left Hartford in 1997, and the PPC Arena opened in 1999. They played 2 years in Greensboro.
Stars landed in Dallas in 1993. American Airlines Centre opened in 2001.

Coyotes arrived in 1996, and the GRA opened in late 2003.

So, all of the relocations of the 90's got a new arena. Main issue is the location it seems for the Coyotes. Their preferred location wasn't ever likely to happen due to the age of the TSRA which opened in 1992, so too new to build a new one for the city. Doesn't add anything for the city. Not losing any concert dates or anything.

Basic business is location for any brick and mortar business. 41 home games plus pre-season and post season. More than half will occur between Monday to Thursday. So, convenience to get there has to be a factor. People need to work the next morning.

 

[MNNumbers]

The Avalanche arrived in Colorado in 1995. Pepsi Centre opened in 1999.
Hurricanes left Hartford in 1997, and the PPC Arena opened in 1999. They played 2 years in Greensboro.
Stars landed in Dallas in 1993. American Airlines Centre opened in 2001.

Coyotes arrived in 1996, and the GRA opened in late 2003.

So, all of the relocations of the 90's got a new arena. Main issue is the location it seems for the Coyotes. Their preferred location wasn't ever likely to happen due to the age of the TSRA which opened in 1992, so too new to build a new one for the city. Doesn't add anything for the city. Not losing any concert dates or anything.

Basic business is location for any brick and mortar business. 41 home games plus pre-season and post season. More than half will occur between Monday to Thursday. So, convenience to get there has to be a factor. People need to work the next morning.

With respect to all that has happened in the Phoenix market...

Yes, that's part of it..

 

[aqib]

Maybe Manchester United's owners want to get into the hockey business?

ManU's owners are the Glazers who own the Buccaneers so they wouldn't be allowed to own the Coyotes

 

[TheLegend]

ManU's owners are the Glazers who own the Buccaneers so they wouldn't be allowed to own the Coyotes

I’d bet Tom was referring to an old joke..... which was very well played on his part.

 

[Dirty Old Man]

ManU's owners are the Glazers who own the Buccaneers so they wouldn't be allowed to own the Coyotes

Besides if they moved the Coyotes to the UK it would have to be London, not Manchester, right aqib? Only market big enough, but not as big as Mexico City?

 

[aqib]

Besides if they moved the Coyotes to the UK it would have to be London, not Manchester, right aqib? Only market big enough, but not as big as Mexico City?

Manchester has about 2.8 million people which would make it about as big as St Louis, so yeah it would have to be London. London also has an arena managed by AEG so...

 

[StreetHawk]

First, I think the likelihood of the team leaving is remote at best. The chance of an NHL team returning to the Arizona market in the future if this team leaves would be almost a certainty within 10 years. The NHL values area population combined with location more than anything else. There would not be a team in Arizona if the league valued anything else, they would have fought for Winnipeg they way they are fighting for Arizona. They didn't. Atlanta had 2 chances and will certainly get another before the next decade is out.The merit for that is location and population.
It is nothing short of a miracle that Winnipeg got the Jets back, just look at the Vegas over Quebec City decision to realize for the NHL BOG, it is US market over Canada , raw population numbers over confirmed hockey fans, location over tradition. There is no doubt in my mind, that even in the remote chance that the Coyotes leave, the NHL would return to that market in the future. Maybe the new team could be a retirement gift from the league to GB?

Nhl does value population. However, if you as a franchise are not part of the negotiations of a new arena, then the suns are going to control the revenue streams of either a new arena or a remodeled TSRA.

Thus, nhl only returns to AZ if the suns owner wants it. And we have seen Portland not be interested and les Alexander of Houston not interested since the Toyota Center opened in 2003.

Seems to me the suns want to just wait out the coyotes to get full control of the arena.

 

[MNNumbers]

Nhl does value population. However, if you as a franchise are not part of the negotiations of a new arena, then the suns are going to control the revenue streams of either a new arena or a remodeled TSRA.

Thus, nhl only returns to AZ if the suns owner wants it. And we have seen Portland not be interested and les Alexander of Houston not interested since the Toyota Center opened in 2003.

Seems to me the suns want to just wait out the coyotes to get full control of the arena.

Which they already do control. And, which was the problem in the beginning. And, for those who continue to wonder, the reason the Coyotes play in Glendale is that Glendale was the only place willing to build them one. They didn't choose Glendale, Glendale chose them. The team paid 0, yes ZERO, toward the arena. That's why they went there.

To Fairview, the odds of NHL returning to this market if they leave are small, imo, because no one there will build them an arena, and that is what it would take to get them there. Phoenix is having enough trouble finding cash to keep the D'Backs. Never mind hockey. This isn't Seattle.

 

[Fairview]

Which they already do control. And, which was the problem in the beginning. And, for those who continue to wonder, the reason the Coyotes play in Glendale is that Glendale was the only place willing to build them one. They didn't choose Glendale, Glendale chose them. The team paid 0, yes ZERO, toward the arena. That's why they went there.

To Fairview, the odds of NHL returning to this market if they leave are small, imo, because no one there will build them an arena, and that is what it would take to get them there. Phoenix is having enough trouble finding cash to keep the D'Backs. Never mind hockey. This isn't Seattle.

I agree that with the present situation in Arizona, the team would not have an arena to return to. In the future, who knows? It depends on political will. When the NHL left Winnipeg, it was very similar to the present situation in Arizona. No arena, no deep pocketed owner and no political will to assist in any way. Winnipeg does not have the population base, and is not located in an area of North America that interests the league. In spite of that, enough pieces came together for the return of the Jets. Arizona doesn't face population or location issues. The NHL will always select a market like Arizona over a market like Winnipeg. Just look at what happened with Quebec City vs Vegas. And to add insult to Quebec, it now seems that they are behind Seattle and likely Houston, in spite of Quebec having a building with revenue streams and a much more capable ownership than Arizona has with BorrowAway.
I agree with your comments about Glendale. I would like to add, that it amuses me to see Coyote fans crap all over Glendale for taking the subsidy away. Where do they think the team would be without GRA ? The big noises coming out of the ownership about location and that someone needs to build them an arena in a more suitable location. They bought ( theoretically) the team which has GRA as it's home. They signed off on that location when they made that purchase.

 

[Llama19]

 

[Stumbledore]

Does anyone know when Killion will be released from the penalty box and can get back on the ice?

He was one of the most fun things about this board.

 

[Llama19]

Does anyone know when Killion will be released from the penalty box and can get back on the ice?

He was one of the most fun things about this board.

I doubt you will see any postings from Killion in the near future...

But..you never know when he might pop-up/in again...

 

[CBJ goalie]

Does anyone know when Killion will be released from the penalty box and can get back on the ice?

He was one of the most fun things about this board.

Him and CasualFan.

 

[The Feckless Puck]

And, for those who continue to wonder, the reason the Coyotes play in Glendale is that Glendale was the only place willing to build them one.

Well, technically, Scottsdale wanted to build them an arena (the voters did, anyway), but the city fathers nixed it because they didn't want to pay for a potential albatross around their necks. They seem pretty prescient now, given what happened with the recession and the way the team's ownership imploded. Glendale was the only place willing to build the team an arena almost completely on the city's dime (as @mouser states below, the team did put in a relatively small contribution). Not a huge distinction, but an important one - particularly now that the team's asking for a handout again.

I would like to add, that it amuses me to see Coyote fans crap all over Glendale for taking the subsidy away. Where do they think the team would be without GRA ?

It infuriates me, because people are letting their fandom wipe out their objectivity. The fact is that the vote to approve IceArizona almost didn't go the NHL's way, and only did so because of an extremely suspect vote from Sammy Chavira based on his stated admiration for the huckster LeBlanc. The league put the city over a barrel with two years' worth of $25M ransom payments, and then did it again with the threat of an imminent relocation if the vote didn't pass that night. Not that the city council then in power would have been capable of true due diligence on the deal, but they weren't afforded the luxury at any rate.

The truly hilarious part is that Coyote fans crapping on Glendale for canceling the subsidy deal completely either ignore or are totally unaware of the fact that the only reason it was possible in the first place is because IceArizona was provably non-compliant on their end of the contract. LeBlanc and his cronies, by being either insolvent or lazy (or both), pissed away a completely ludicrous subsidy that makes the term "sweetheart deal" seem like too big of an understatement. It's no wonder that Bettman and the BoG asked Barroway to take over after that. A titanically-leveraged placeholder like Andy Barroway is still better than a bunch of small-timers who followed up the squandering of millions of dollars per year in essentially free money by ineptly torpedoing what might have been the best possible East Valley hockey alliance with ASU.

I mean, really - at some point people have got to do a study on the level of masochism it requires to be a Coyotes fan in the first place.