Phoenix CXXXVI - Coyotes up for sale again

Status
Not open for further replies.

MNNumbers

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Nov 17, 2011
7,627
2,486
The short answer is this: if a new Coyotes arena goes up anywhere in the East Valley, Gila River Arena is doomed. Simple as that. GRA needs to have a sports anchor tenant or it goes bust.

And, this is PRECISELY why AEG negotiated the clause in their management contract that the contract can be re-negotiated if the Coyotes no longer play there. It's in case of a new arena or a move by the team WITHIN the market.
 

TheTotalPackage

Registered User
Sep 14, 2006
7,303
5,450
I continually struggle with the notion that anyone would be willing to invest in the Arizona team when it is all but a guarantee that they will never make any money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Llama19

Tom ServoMST3K

In search of a Steinbach Hero
Nov 2, 2010
27,751
18,484
What's your excuse?
The short answer is this: if a new Coyotes arena goes up anywhere in the East Valley, Gila River Arena is doomed. Simple as that. GRA needs to have a sports anchor tenant or it goes bust.

Oh, GRA will be in trouble, but it's still something NHL ownership will have to deal with if they build a new arena.

It's why the ASU plan was so hyped by me (in principle). Seemed to solve the "too many arenas" problem.
 

Llama19

Registered User
Jan 19, 2013
7,202
1,007
Outside GZ
Oh, GRA will be in trouble, but it's still something NHL ownership will have to deal with if they build a new arena.

It's why the ASU plan was so hyped by me (in principle). Seemed to solve the "too many arenas" problem.

Speaking of ASU...

Groundbreaking for ASU arena projects could be in fall 2019

To quote:

"Groundbreaking for the renovation of Arizona State's Wells Fargo Arena and construction of an adjacent hockey/multi-purpose arena could be in the third quarter of 2019.

ASU Vice President of Athletics Ray Anderson said the capital projects, to be done simultaneously, would then be completed in fall 2021.

He reaffirmed that men's and women's basketball and others teams currently using Wells Fargo Arena will not be displaced during renovation of the 14,000-seat arena, built in 1974.

The hockey arena, to be built on the east side of Wells Fargo Arena, will seat approximately 5,000 and also be home for gymnastics and wrestling."

Source: www.azcentral.com/story/sports/college/asu/2018/11/07/groundbreaking-asu-arena-projects-could-fall-2019/1924161002/
 

TheLegend

Megathread Gadfly
Aug 30, 2009
35,963
27,441
Buzzing BoH
Speaking of ASU...

Groundbreaking for ASU arena projects could be in fall 2019

To quote:

"Groundbreaking for the renovation of Arizona State's Wells Fargo Arena and construction of an adjacent hockey/multi-purpose arena could be in the third quarter of 2019.

ASU Vice President of Athletics Ray Anderson said the capital projects, to be done simultaneously, would then be completed in fall 2021.

He reaffirmed that men's and women's basketball and others teams currently using Wells Fargo Arena will not be displaced during renovation of the 14,000-seat arena, built in 1974.

The hockey arena, to be built on the east side of Wells Fargo Arena, will seat approximately 5,000 and also be home for gymnastics and wrestling."

Source: www.azcentral.com/story/sports/college/asu/2018/11/07/groundbreaking-asu-arena-projects-could-fall-2019/1924161002/


Which means absolutely nothing in regards to this Fourth Period article about Barroway selling most, if not all, of the Coyotes, but whatever.... :rolleyes:


And, this is PRECISELY why AEG negotiated the clause in their management contract that the contract can be re-negotiated if the Coyotes no longer play there. It's in case of a new arena or a move by the team WITHIN the market.


Part of that clause involves AEG backing away as the arena manager. Then what???

It takes roughly the same amount of money to operate GRA with or without a hockey team as an anchor in spite of the less usage of the A/C and ice making equipment. All that gear has to be maintained year round or it would fall apart rapidly. Glendale will lose ~500k worth of visitors to Westgate per year (on top of the $500k rent the franchise provides). Less visitors.... less sales.... less sales tax revenues. Which goes to pay the bonds Glendale took out.

A new arena in an area where you have a cash loaded entity involved (Salt River tribe)... who's not going to be above doing everything to pack the place with non-hockey events.

There's a potential cascade effect in play here.
 

MNNumbers

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Nov 17, 2011
7,627
2,486
Which means absolutely nothing in regards to this Fourth Period article about Barroway selling most, if not all, of the Coyotes, but whatever.... :rolleyes:





Part of that clause involves AEG backing away as the arena manager. Then what???

It takes roughly the same amount of money to operate GRA with or without a hockey team as an anchor in spite of the less usage of the A/C and ice making equipment. All that gear has to be maintained year round or it would fall apart rapidly. Glendale will lose ~500k worth of visitors to Westgate per year (on top of the $500k rent the franchise provides). Less visitors.... less sales.... less sales tax revenues. Which goes to pay the bonds Glendale took out.

A new arena in an area where you have a cash loaded entity involved (Salt River tribe)... who's not going to be above doing everything to pack the place with non-hockey events.

There's a potential cascade effect in play here.

That's exactly my point, Legend. In the event of another arena in the Valley, AEG obviously wants much better terms from Glendale because the selling point of the arena is gone.

GRA is not going to be able to compete with 2 arenas in the Valley. Just simply not. And, there isn't anything that can really be done about that.

To me, there are really 2 different situations here.

1- Team relocates out of market: Highly theoretical at present. There is NO evidence that any such thing might occur soon. But, if it does, then GRA is only competing with 1 other arena. And, we had this discussion/argument ad nauseum a few years ago. There are differing perspectives about it. My recollection is that SMG felt they could manage the arena quite well without an NHL team at that point. Whether the market for filling dates has changed in 5 years, I'm not prepared to say. But, it's my opinion any way that Westgate would not suffer terribly in this situation.

2- Team relocates to a new arena on tribal land. This is very bad for Glendale and Westgate. Very bad. There is no way to compete for acts at that point. So, basically, at that point, you have this: Glendale was initially promised 30 years of hockey. That lease was dissolved by the BK (in my opinion that was a poor ruling, but that's just my opinion). Since a new arena will take some time to be negotiated as well as built, in this case Glendale might get 20 years out of it. That bad, but it could have been worse. Future for the area, though, would be much darker. As you said.
 

Cor

I am a bot
Jun 24, 2012
69,648
35,246
AEF
I continually struggle with the notion that anyone would be willing to invest in the Arizona team when it is all but a guarantee that they will never make any money.

Pretty much need a super rich hockey fan who is willing to accept losing some money in order to own a franchise.
 

StreetHawk

Registered User
Sep 30, 2017
25,607
9,435
The short answer is this: if a new Coyotes arena goes up anywhere in the East Valley, Gila River Arena is doomed. Simple as that. GRA needs to have a sports anchor tenant or it goes bust.
GRA likely can’t compete unless they charge the concert performers less.

The Canucks old arena is about a 15-20 minute drive (no highway) from Rogers arena depending on traffic. There are the occasional concerts there but these are not by the likes of Drake, JT, etc.

But I would not hazard to guess how Rogers arena would do if another arena opened up on the opposite end of downtown to it.

Does it truly make fiscal sense for a private entity to build a new arena if the suns get the tsra renovated? Is there enough money to be made?
 

cbcwpg

Registered User
May 18, 2010
20,100
20,376
Between the Pipes
I continually struggle with the notion that anyone would be willing to invest in the Arizona team when it is all but a guarantee that they will never make any money.

The only reason I see for owning this hockey franchise is you want to be the owner when the NHL ( Bettman ) finally gives up the ghost and lets you move it to greener pastures. NOTE: I would include an new arena somewhere else in Phoenix in this move... potentially.
 

KevFu

Registered User
May 22, 2009
9,007
3,239
Phoenix from Rochester via New Orleans
That's the whole point. The Isles get a list of reasons to justify the bad numbers. And those reasons are valid. But we don't get that, neither do Coyotes, Panthers, Thrashers fans. There's apparently no excuse for any of those fans not to fill the joint every night and if they aren't, then kick them out of the clubhouse. It's hypocritical and frustrating. And as long as it remains that way, I'll keep pointing it out.

The Isles get a free pass because of the latitude they play at and there's fewer people who remember an NHL without them.

Oh, I agree with you. 100%. Any franchise South of the Mason Dixon Line with a dip in attendance or financial issues is instantly earmarked for relocation by people who desperately want a team in locations the NHL has ignored for various reasons.

There's a little bit with the Islanders - the "there shouldn't be three times in NY Metro" crew who just want the Nordiques back. (And I GET THAT) - But nothing compared to teams who have that happen in the South, are newer franchises and haven't won a Cup.


There DOES come a point where you're simply not going to find an owner capable of winning back all the potential fans who've been burned by decades of bad ownership though. I worry that there's a salting of the earth potential.
 

justafan22

Registered User
Jun 22, 2014
11,629
6,249
Imagine if the Coyotes were sold to him and moved to Hamilton, and currently making profit.... that would be just terrible.

We need to grow the game, but showing that no one wants to own this Arizona team for more than a couple of years.

:sarcasm:

Matthews was already a fan at the time, but imagine if they moved, does he still keep up with hockey? This is a tangent, but interesting to think about
 

BattleBorn

50% to winning as many division titles as Toronto
Feb 6, 2015
12,069
6,017
Bellevue, WA
Jim bals----
oh.

Imagine if the Coyotes were sold to him and moved to Hamilton, and currently making profit.... that would be just terrible.

We need to grow the game, but showing that no one wants to own this Arizona team for more than a couple of years.

:sarcasm:

I'm not sure that gentleman qualifies for the super rich hockey fan thing anymore. I'm sure he's still a hockey fan, though.

Regardless of what people think about how that all went down when it went down, having a "broke" owner in an old arena making profit (if he didn't have to sell already) likely isn't much better for anyone except the 5,000 extra people per home game that would see the team.
 

justafan22

Registered User
Jun 22, 2014
11,629
6,249
I'm not sure that gentleman qualifies for the super rich hockey fan thing anymore. I'm sure he's still a hockey fan, though.

Regardless of what people think about how that all went down when it went down, having a "broke" owner in an old arena making profit (if he didn't have to sell already) likely isn't much better for anyone except the 5,000 extra people per home game that would see the team.

Since that arena has gone to the dumps since the last decade it would just be a worse problem
 

The Feckless Puck

Registered Loser
Sponsor
Oct 26, 2006
18,236
10,488
I continually struggle with the notion that anyone would be willing to invest in the Arizona team when it is all but a guarantee that they will never make any money.

Because anyone who examines the history of this team will realize that if someone actually competent were to own it and "make a go of it" as a poster so eloquently put it above, it could actually turn a profit at some point.

The Coyotes are a distressed asset, but many, many NHL teams have been distressed assets at one point or another and have yet survived. Ask around Chicago how much money the Blackhawks made - and how full their arena was - during the "Dollar" Bill Wirtz years. Or recall how the Hamilton Penguins almost became a reality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tom ServoMST3K

MNNumbers

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Nov 17, 2011
7,627
2,486
Because anyone who examines the history of this team will realize that if someone actually competent were to own it and "make a go of it" as a poster so eloquently put it above, it could actually turn a profit at some point.

The Coyotes are a distressed asset, but many, many NHL teams have been distressed assets at one point or another and have yet survived. Ask around Chicago how much money the Blackhawks made - and how full their arena was - during the "Dollar" Bill Wirtz years. Or recall how the Hamilton Penguins almost became a reality.

TFP - This will sound insulting, but I don't mean it that way....
The Blackhawks had a latent fanbase, because they HAD been relevant in Chicago prior to that awful period of which you speak.
The Penguins had a latent fanbase, because they had won when Mario was there.
I think that makes a difference.

Arizona has been a distressed franchise since it arrived. League growth in other places has left it more distressed. The hill to climb to become profitable is much higher than either the Hawks' hill or the Pens' hill. I think we would agree on that.

The height of the hill, and its steepness makes it less appealing for the deep-pocketed potential saviour to decide to get in. I believe you would agree with that as well, right? Not to say it's impossible, but that it's a rare find that you are seeking.

That being said, the rumor which began this discussion was of a local consortium. LOCAL being the key word. That, perhaps, gives it a better chance of sticking, because I don't think you have ever had local ownership, have you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fairview

The Feckless Puck

Registered Loser
Sponsor
Oct 26, 2006
18,236
10,488
TFP - This will sound insulting, but I don't mean it that way....
The Blackhawks had a latent fanbase, because they HAD been relevant in Chicago prior to that awful period of which you speak.
The Penguins had a latent fanbase, because they had won when Mario was there.
I think that makes a difference.

It does make a difference, but still - until Mario swooped in, the Pens were basically goners. Now they're one of the league's most successful franchises, and all it took was drafting the greatest hockey player of our generation and winning a couple of Stanley Cups... :sarcasm:

Don't get me wrong - it's a nightmarishly steep hill to climb. But it's not an impossibility to save the Coyotes, and the people who say the market will never work are simply wrong, no matter how often they say it.

That being said, the rumor which began this discussion was of a local consortium. LOCAL being the key word. That, perhaps, gives it a better chance of sticking, because I don't think you have ever had local ownership, have you?

Well, we have - but the local ownership was in it for real estate and tax breaks, not to run a sports franchise. Neither Ellman nor Moyes wanted to be hockey owners, and they treated the team accordingly. Ellman got out as soon as he broke ground at Westgate - Moyes hung on as long as he could milk the team for his paperwork and office space.

The "local consortium" that has been theorized would have to be of the same caliber that turned the Predators from a perennial relocation target and fish-out-of-water story in-market to one of the league's most unique success stories. Not impossible, but thus far I haven't heard any details that point to it going this way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tom ServoMST3K

MNNumbers

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Nov 17, 2011
7,627
2,486
It does make a difference, but still - until Mario swooped in, the Pens were basically goners. Now they're one of the league's most successful franchises, and all it took was drafting the greatest hockey player of our generation and winning a couple of Stanley Cups... :sarcasm:

Don't get me wrong - it's a nightmarishly steep hill to climb. But it's not an impossibility to save the Coyotes, and the people who say the market will never work are simply wrong, no matter how often they say it.



Well, we have - but the local ownership was in it for real estate and tax breaks, not to run a sports franchise. Neither Ellman nor Moyes wanted to be hockey owners, and they treated the team accordingly. Ellman got out as soon as he broke ground at Westgate - Moyes hung on as long as he could milk the team for his paperwork and office space.

The "local consortium" that has been theorized would have to be of the same caliber that turned the Predators from a perennial relocation target and fish-out-of-water story in-market to one of the league's most unique success stories. Not impossible, but thus far I haven't heard any details that point to it going this way.

Continuing this discussion, wasn't it you and I who tried to analyze how many new STHs and how much higher ticket prices would have to be to make this work?
 

StreetHawk

Registered User
Sep 30, 2017
25,607
9,435
It does make a difference, but still - until Mario swooped in, the Pens were basically goners. Now they're one of the league's most successful franchises, and all it took was drafting the greatest hockey player of our generation and winning a couple of Stanley Cups... :sarcasm:

Don't get me wrong - it's a nightmarishly steep hill to climb. But it's not an impossibility to save the Coyotes, and the people who say the market will never work are simply wrong, no matter how often they say it.



Well, we have - but the local ownership was in it for real estate and tax breaks, not to run a sports franchise. Neither Ellman nor Moyes wanted to be hockey owners, and they treated the team accordingly. Ellman got out as soon as he broke ground at Westgate - Moyes hung on as long as he could milk the team for his paperwork and office space.

The "local consortium" that has been theorized would have to be of the same caliber that turned the Predators from a perennial relocation target and fish-out-of-water story in-market to one of the league's most unique success stories. Not impossible, but thus far I haven't heard any details that point to it going this way.
But those situations they were not dealing with an arena that they didn’t like the location of.

Nashville - Bridgestone is downtown
Chicago - United Center is downtown
Pitt - Mellon needed to be replaced.

In AZ, the suns owner wants to kee the coyotes out of the Phoenix area. Makes business sense for the suns. The blues were ranked around the 5-6th lowest valued team in the final 2-3 years when the rams were still in Stl. They moved up about 7 spots in the Forbes rankings into the high teens rather than mid 20’s in value. So, completely understandable business from the suns POV. Sucks for the fans in Phoenix who want the 2 teams to share a new arena.

But unless there is a change of heart by the suns owner or someone comes in and buys both teams I don’t see them sharing an arena.

And I don’t see two arenas in that area both being profitable. You’re looking st a combined $800 plus million if the suns get their Reno and the coyotes get a new arena. Whoever comes up with that will want to make their money back.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Llama19

TheLegend

Megathread Gadfly
Aug 30, 2009
35,963
27,441
Buzzing BoH
Well it’s good to see this thread get relegated into a bunch of “what if’s??” or stomping over old ground again. With an occasional drive by thrown in... :sarcasm:

Been a few days since Pagnotta dropped his little “bombshell” and not one person usually associated with news like this has touched it.

Makes you wonder.
 

Fairview

Registered User
Jan 30, 2016
1,427
683
Well it’s good to see this thread get relegated into a bunch of “what if’s??” or stomping over old ground again. With an occasional drive by thrown in... :sarcasm:

Been a few days since Pagnotta dropped his little “bombshell” and not one person usually associated with news like this has touched it.

Makes you wonder.
Could it be that's because this is essentially old news? The rumour gets recirculated every few months. The only thing that seems to change is the date that things are supposed to close.
The phrase "due diligence" being key here. That type of phrasing goes back to TL, and just about every story leaked about the team in the last 5 years at least.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Llama19

Mightygoose

Registered User
Nov 5, 2012
5,586
1,382
Ajax, ON
Well it’s good to see this thread get relegated into a bunch of “what if’s??” or stomping over old ground again. With an occasional drive by thrown in... :sarcasm:

Been a few days since Pagnotta dropped his little “bombshell” and not one person usually associated with news like this has touched it.

Makes you wonder.

That's crossed my mind as well especially after his column on the Ottawa offer, it was jumped all over the media and addressed by both the league and the Sens.

Then again with Carolina, Dundon was only mentioned by RDS a week before last year's BoG winter meetings and the sale agreement was mentioned for the first time that day. No leaks.

Perhaps, the league is trying to control the message and doesn't want any hopes getting up until things get more advanced should it does.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->