Phoenix LXXI: Daydream Belever

[dronald]

Contrary to what some of the folks on this board seem to be assuming, I also agree that QC is the most viable and available of the markets. I just don't believe that being the most viable translates to being the inevitable choice.

Ah, but it does my friend.

Even when the NHL went to Phoenix it was their belief that it would eventually generate more cash (eventually) than anywhere else. Now it comes down to where the money is, and the money is in QC.

 

[ajmidd12]

We don't know what kind of ideological stand Weiers is going to make yet. It could be that he goes full politician, slashes $50 million and calls it a win. Or he could go full Pejorative Slur, not give a dime and thus seal the fate of the Coyotes. Too early to call. He seems awfully confident for a guy who just potentially passed a death sentence to a local sports team. Declarations that he is comfortable with a new bidder and thinks the team can stay are the last thing I'd expect out of him, but here we are.

Why is him not wanting to give anything to an owner make him Pejorative Slured?

Wouldn't that make him smart? Basically saying "screw you, you pay for it out of your pocket if you want to own it"?

That sounds more intelligent than say Joyce "hey lets give Jamison $320M / 20 years because hes a good guy and will keep the team around though I have been to one game in my life and we have no means to pay for it" Clark.

 

[Evil Doctor]

Dowbiggin, the John Shannon of print media.

There was a time when he was a major sports televison personality. There's a reason he isn't now...

Want to retract that post?

You haven't had the pleasure of watching this man's once promising career go down in flames...

 

[CasualFan]

Oh... and Craig Morgan, you may wanna ease back a wee bit on the copy and pasting when doing your write ups.

Great observation on the copy/paste. That is hysterical.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

I still think that, however this goes, it says a lot about how the NHL looks at future expansion potential.

If they go with Quebec City now, then they're definitely not interested in picking up a 9th Canadian team via expansion whenever that happens.

If they go with Seattle, then they're open to it.

Reason? They know they can charge a lot more from a Canadian market versus an American market for an expansion team. No way they expand simultaneously into Quebec City and Houston and then somehow charge the QC more, after all.

So, while the NHL may very well be able to get more out of Quebec City through expansion than relocation, that's only really a factor if they expand alongside another Canadian team, too. Relocate into Quebec City and then expand by two American markets, however? Maximize the purchase/relocation (especially with a competing bid) while being able to ask the same expansion fees from two American teams.

 

[broinwhyteridge]

Perhaps the billion dollar Canadian was not entertained as option number one over Jamison because he will only accept a lease agreement of five years, rather than the twenty?

I really don't buy it, but just for arguments sake. Maybe now the nhl and cog are in "we will take what we can get" mode? They'd prefer five year for less than 10m per in AMF to 20years with 15m+ per?

Again, I'm sure it's just a smokescreen. I'm just curious.

Well, I'm no Coyotes fan, so my response is meaningless, apparently, but... I would suggest that they have been in "we will take what we can get" for a while now.

From the business side it makes sense (just looking at trying to minimize losses) to keep up something that gives people hope until the season is over... kind of what happened in Atlanta I believe.

 

[Undertakerqc]

Not intended to be condescending...just trying to inject some humor. I'll be sure to use next time.



I admit I'm skeptical as to how much weight "writing wrongs" really has in this business. It makes for a good narrative, but it ultimately comes down to $$$.

Exactly, it will come down to a bidding war within Québec and Seattle. The one that pays the most will probably get the Coyotes.

 

[Undertakerqc]

The Coyotes are like an expansion team, cause the leagues owns them.

 

[PaPaDee]

For over four years I've been lurking on these boards, content to watch the antics of Killion et al. from the shadows (and what deep dark shadows they are).

With the resolution of this saga appearing to be upon us (perhaps in weeks not months ) I find myself compelled to speak.

Specifically, I want to weigh in on the Seattle vs. Quebec debate that has erupted on this board since it became apparent that the Coyotes have most likely reached the end or their long desert road. While I admit I haven't had a chance to read over the backlog of posts from the past 8 hours in detail (what with sleeping and all), the overall debate seems to boil down to "No, I am the prettiest girl at the dance!"

I realize I can get in really big trouble for trying to be sensible on the internet, but lets approach this pragmatically shall we?

Contrary to partisans on both sides of the debate, I believe both markets are strong...or at the very least represent a substantial improvement over Phoenix (granted we are talking about a very low bar). Both cities have new facilities planned and both have a history of supporting hockey going back almost a century. I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that both cities will have NHL teams by the end of this decade. But as far as the "Coyotes Sweepstake" is concerned all signs seem to point to one location...Seattle.

Even as I type this I can feel the hackles rising on my Quebecois cousins. Allow me to preempt your anger. Quebec City is an excellent market. You have the better temporary facility, you have an ownership group that is ready and waiting, and you have a new arena that is already under construction. Unlike Seattle you also have a history with the NHL and a demonstrated record of support and no one (with the exception of howlinghockey...who seems to be fond of "wall candy") doubts the ability for a returned Nordiques to have success equal to that of Jets 2.0.

But in spite of all these things I still consider Seattle the front runner. It ultimately boils down to two things: money and vanity. While the "national" in the NHL originally referred to the nation of Canada, the present day NHL is an American league with a large Canadian presence. To reinforce this point we need only look at where the league has chosen to hang its proverbial hat (I'll give you a hint...its not Toronto). By being based in NYC (in midtown Manhattan no less) the NHL places itself (geographically if not financially) in the same echelon as the NFL, NBA, and MLB. This is key to understanding all other actions on the part of the league.

Simply put, the NHL is the awkward kid desperately seeking the acceptance of the popular crowd. You need only look at the lucrative sponsorships and TV contracts held by the NFL to see what the NHL is aspiring to. Who wouldn't want to be a secular religion with a license to print money? Sure the NHL is arguably the NFL of Canada (i.e. the league playing the most popular sport in the land at its highest level), but as far as American media, corporations, and consumers are concerned the NHL is the smallest of the "big four" and marginally higher profile than soccer. While I'm sure the NHL values its Canadian sponsorships and TV contracts they pale in comparison to money changing hands amongst their "peers". After all, would you rather have 80% of $100 or 25% of $1000?

Some years ago there was a great article that talked about how the NHL is the RC Cola of professional sports. I think its just as true now as it was then. Ultimately the NHL is the smallest player in a highly competitive market selling a product that, while immensely popular in some circles, is ultimately an after thought to most consumers. The problem the NHL is facing is that rather than accepting its status and building off of that identify, the league has instead spent the past 20+ years trying to be the next the NFL.

Which brings us to Seattle. Consider for a moment the situation. You are GB. You are small. You are funny looking. You are the head of a league that could be seen as equally small and funny looking. In the last two years you have had a labor dispute, lost half a season, and seen a team move from a major American media hub to a midwestern Canadian city with a fraction of the (American) corporate and media exposure. Its the pro sports equivalent of having to move back in with your parents. Now imagine having to do it again. Giving up on yet another high profile market (even if the team in question doesn't have a particularly high profile in that market) and returning to another "fringe" market. Sure its a great arrangement, and it makes a lot of financial sense…but its not going to impress anyone (and it certainly won't get you in bed with that hot national TV contract).

So Seattle allows the NHL to get out of an ugly situation while still saving some face in the eyes of the broader corporate/sports community. True, its not as solid a market as Quebec City, it lacks an established ownership group and the new arena is still in the planning stages, but the market has supported hockey for close to a century (which is more than can be said for Phoenix) and its home to some very high profile corporations (Amazon, Microsoft, Starbucks, etc.). There's absolutely more uncertainty with Seattle, and its entirely possible that the NHL will have no choice but to go with Quebec City, but if we could shoot up GB with a few mg of phenobarbotal I suspect he'd admit to Seattle being the NHL's first choice.

IMO, Quebec is a better candidate for the next relocation/expansion just because they already have a temporary facility that can be used to play hockey in until their arena construction is complete.

I'm not aware of Seattle being in a similar situation, but perhaps somebody can clarify?

 

[madhi19]

One final thought, this can't last for too long either, because if/when the franchise moves, the new owner needs to organize a million things before the next season.

In the case of QC it means finishing the final touch to make the Colisee NHL ready (a lot was made in the last years). Seatle it's even worst from what I heard as, the NHL doesn't know yet if the city is gonna land the NBA, they don't have a buyer yet (afaik) and from what I read, their venue is totally not NHL ready.

You can't organize all that in a couple weeks. Winnipeg was definately game ready and still needed a few months.

The comedy can't last for long because they need to have the next owner ready and that do takes some time.

You can keep a lot of these preparation on the down low especially in Quebec city where everything needed but the ice maker upgrade is already done. Considering the size of Quebecor I would not get it pass PKP to have some empty office space ready to roll somewhere and a list of peoples under NDA to call to fill it when Garry tell him to get the ball rolling.

 

[Puckschmuck*]

The Coyotes are like an expansion team, cause the leagues owns them.

Expansion is the birth of every single team in the league at the beginning of their existance, wherever they started out.

It's like their birthday

 

[Gotaf7]

Didn't this drama also play out near the very end of the Thrashers fiasco?I would assume that if it's a repeat performance that this time the preparation might be better; though this is Coyotes related, so nothing ordinary should be expected.



Not at all. This could prime Seattle even more, but for the expansion option that it more likely is.

This is exactly how the "Thrasher fiasco" played out!

 

[SchultzSquared*]

Expansion is the birth of every single team in the league at the beginning of their existance, wherever they started out.

It's like their birthday

I can think of a couple of teams that are exception to that...

 

[Whileee]

This is exactly how the "Thrasher fiasco" played out!

One thing I think we do need to recognize - the Coyotes are (or have been) a much more attractive option for a potential investor than the Thrashers were in Atlanta (given their arena situation, etc.). I think that's why the NHL threw in the towel so abruptly in Atlanta, and have kept the optimism about the Coyotes in Phoenix for so long.

 

[JetFan4Ever]

I think the best thing that the COG could hope for now is to try and find a potential owner willing to give them 5 years. COG would likely still have to provide an AMF but it would be at a much more realistic price. If the new owner couldn't make it work after 5 years they would be free to move the team.

IMO it's really only one of the last realistic options they have,

 

[Major4Boarding]

Great observation on the copy/paste. That is hysterical.

Holy flurking schmitt I just lost the contents of my bladder I'm laughing so hard!

Tim Greene‏@AvsCoyotes12

@gfallar @SineRuairi Craig is THE most reliable source in the meda. He doesn't say things for clicks but is just interesting in facts. Rare


Tim Greene‏@AvsCoyotes12

@BenShroyer @gfallar @SineRuairi Yep. He doesn't just copy & paste from other "sources" he does actual research & goes right to the source.

Desert people, how I will forever love thee

 

[No Fun Shogun]

One thing I think we do need to recognize - the Coyotes are (or have been) a much more attractive option for a potential investor than the Thrashers were in Atlanta (given their arena situation, etc.). I think that's why the NHL threw in the towel so abruptly in Atlanta, and have kept the optimism about the Coyotes in Phoenix for so long.

The reason why the NHL has been working to keep the Yotes and did nothing for the Thrashers is simple, really.

The Yotes are in a town whose municipal government was ready, willing, and able to go overboard with financial assistance to keep the team.

The Thrashers were in a town whose municipal government barely made a peep to try to keep them.

Go back in time and reverse the municipal responses and overall aftermath, and we'd be talking about why the league's spending so much time trying to keep a team in Dixie while they did so little to keep a team in the desert.

 

[madhi19]

I can think of a couple of teams that are exception to that...

The Habs for starter since they literally outlived the old NHA, the Oilers, Nordiques, Whalers and Jets since they outlived the old WHA...

 

[Frank the Tank]

For over four years I've been lurking on these boards, content to watch the antics of Killion et al. from the shadows (and what deep dark shadows they are).

With the resolution of this saga appearing to be upon us (perhaps in weeks not months ) I find myself compelled to speak.

Specifically, I want to weigh in on the Seattle vs. Quebec debate that has erupted on this board since it became apparent that the Coyotes have most likely reached the end or their long desert road. While I admit I haven't had a chance to read over the backlog of posts from the past 8 hours in detail (what with sleeping and all), the overall debate seems to boil down to "No, I am the prettiest girl at the dance!"

I realize I can get in really big trouble for trying to be sensible on the internet, but lets approach this pragmatically shall we?

Contrary to partisans on both sides of the debate, I believe both markets are strong...or at the very least represent a substantial improvement over Phoenix (granted we are talking about a very low bar). Both cities have new facilities planned and both have a history of supporting hockey going back almost a century. I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that both cities will have NHL teams by the end of this decade. But as far as the "Coyotes Sweepstake" is concerned all signs seem to point to one location...Seattle.

Even as I type this I can feel the hackles rising on my Quebecois cousins. Allow me to preempt your anger. Quebec City is an excellent market. You have the better temporary facility, you have an ownership group that is ready and waiting, and you have a new arena that is already under construction. Unlike Seattle you also have a history with the NHL and a demonstrated record of support and no one (with the exception of howlinghockey...who seems to be fond of "wall candy") doubts the ability for a returned Nordiques to have success equal to that of Jets 2.0.

But in spite of all these things I still consider Seattle the front runner. It ultimately boils down to two things: money and vanity. While the "national" in the NHL originally referred to the nation of Canada, the present day NHL is an American league with a large Canadian presence. To reinforce this point we need only look at where the league has chosen to hang its proverbial hat (I'll give you a hint...its not Toronto). By being based in NYC (in midtown Manhattan no less) the NHL places itself (geographically if not financially) in the same echelon as the NFL, NBA, and MLB. This is key to understanding all other actions on the part of the league.

Simply put, the NHL is the awkward kid desperately seeking the acceptance of the popular crowd. You need only look at the lucrative sponsorships and TV contracts held by the NFL to see what the NHL is aspiring to. Who wouldn't want to be a secular religion with a license to print money? Sure the NHL is arguably the NFL of Canada (i.e. the league playing the most popular sport in the land at its highest level), but as far as American media, corporations, and consumers are concerned the NHL is the smallest of the "big four" and marginally higher profile than soccer. While I'm sure the NHL values its Canadian sponsorships and TV contracts they pale in comparison to money changing hands amongst their "peers". After all, would you rather have 80% of $100 or 25% of $1000?

Some years ago there was a great article that talked about how the NHL is the RC Cola of professional sports. I think its just as true now as it was then. Ultimately the NHL is the smallest player in a highly competitive market selling a product that, while immensely popular in some circles, is ultimately an after thought to most consumers. The problem the NHL is facing is that rather than accepting its status and building off of that identify, the league has instead spent the past 20+ years trying to be the next the NFL.

Which brings us to Seattle. Consider for a moment the situation. You are GB. You are small. You are funny looking. You are the head of a league that could be seen as equally small and funny looking. In the last two years you have had a labor dispute, lost half a season, and seen a team move from a major American media hub to a midwestern Canadian city with a fraction of the (American) corporate and media exposure. Its the pro sports equivalent of having to move back in with your parents. Now imagine having to do it again. Giving up on yet another high profile market (even if the team in question doesn't have a particularly high profile in that market) and returning to another "fringe" market. Sure its a great arrangement, and it makes a lot of financial sense…but its not going to impress anyone (and it certainly won't get you in bed with that hot national TV contract).

So Seattle allows the NHL to get out of an ugly situation while still saving some face in the eyes of the broader corporate/sports community. True, its not as solid a market as Quebec City, it lacks an established ownership group and the new arena is still in the planning stages, but the market has supported hockey for close to a century (which is more than can be said for Phoenix) and its home to some very high profile corporations (Amazon, Microsoft, Starbucks, etc.). There's absolutely more uncertainty with Seattle, and its entirely possible that the NHL will have no choice but to go with Quebec City, but if we could shoot up GB with a few mg of phenobarbotal I suspect he'd admit to Seattle being the NHL's first choice.

Hmm... Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

A very well thought out post/novel.

 

[CasualFan]

Holy flurking schmitt I just lost the contents of my bladder I'm laughing so hard!

BeavisTweet with another high wattage effort.

 

[Mightygoose]

I think the best thing that the COG could hope for now is to try and find a potential owner willing to give them 5 years. COG would likely still have to provide an AMF but it would be at a much more realistic price. If the new owner couldn't make it work after 5 years they would be free to move the team.

IMO it's really only one of the last realistic options they have,

Completely agree. Giving a shorter term would be the only I think COG could sell a lease to anyone at the price-point they're willing to pay out.

A concept that should have been tried a long time ago.

 

[powerstuck]

Not at all. This could prime Seattle even more, but for the expansion option that it more likely is.

I don't know if I can agree or not on that point. Every one is talking about how Toronto2/Hamilton/Markham is impossible right now, but Portland now and Seattle in a few years might be a bit of saturation of the market on short-term (0-5 years).

 

[PhxCoyoteFan]

IMO, Quebec is a better candidate for the next relocation/expansion just because they already have a temporary facility that can be used to play hockey in until their arena construction is complete.

I'm not aware of Seattle being in a similar situation, but perhaps somebody can clarify?

Did they tear down the building the Sonics played in??

 

[superdeluxe]

Seattle has to close its NBA deal before it can close an NHL deal. It's not a slam dunk.

Technically that is not true, the mou actually calls for a anchor tenant being sold to Seattle first. The assumption was that it would nba first

 

[superdeluxe]

IMO, Quebec is a better candidate for the next relocation/expansion just because they already have a temporary facility that can be used to play hockey in until their arena construction is complete.

I'm not aware of Seattle being in a similar situation, but perhaps somebody can clarify?

Seattle has a temp facility, sure no where near as good as QC.