Phoenix XIXth: Nervous Breakdown

Status
Not open for further replies.

smokes

Registered User
May 26, 2009
206
0
Agreed somewhat on Shannon and Dreger, but if the deal would indeed fall through, im sure they would be informed before it actually hit the press.

Also, I just don't see the COG saying tomorrow that the deal is dead.

Well, never say never, but I'd highly doubt that. It's not an item on the agenda :)

Even if the deal is dead (I don't think it is), the COG won't say that tomorrow. At best, cracks might appear in the hull of the good ship COG. Publicly, they will say that they are investigating other options/sources of revenue, etc. Having said that, if the deal is dead, then the NHL will be aware, and will be obliged to let TNSE publicly start the next chapter in the franchise's history sooner than later.
 

MAROONSRoad

f/k/a Ghost
Feb 24, 2007
4,067
0
Maroons Rd.
Even if the deal is dead (I don't think it is), the COG won't say that tomorrow. At best, cracks might appear in the hull of the good ship COG. Publicly, they will say that they are investigating other options/sources of revenue, etc. Having said that, if the deal is dead, then the NHL will be aware, and will be obliged to let TNSE publicly start the next chapter in the franchise's history sooner than later.

It could be the NHL that pulls the plug, rather than the COG admitting defeat, since the COG appears to be in denial. This could occur if the NHL believes there are too many obstacles for a speedy resolution to this matter. I'm thinking primarily of legal and financial risks as well as opportunity costs. When or if the NHL pulls the plug is anyone's guess, but the clock is slowly ticking down to decision time.

GHOST
 

RAgIn

Registered User
Oct 21, 2010
900
0
Sudbury, Ont
Even if the deal is dead (I don't think it is), the COG won't say that tomorrow. At best, cracks might appear in the hull of the good ship COG. Publicly, they will say that they are investigating other options/sources of revenue, etc. Having said that, if the deal is dead, then the NHL will be aware, and will be obliged to let TNSE publicly start the next chapter in the franchise's history sooner than later.

True. You'd have to expect something to be finalized (deal or no deal) before the end of February. I really can't see the NHL prolonging this situation any further. For their sake, this bizaro deal must end as soon as possible. The joke is over.
 
Last edited:

DeathToAllButMetal

Let it all burn.
May 13, 2010
1,361
0
Scruggs and/or Beasley must have a good pal in the Republic's front office. Those puffball pieces are just disgraceful. They're so misleading that they amount to nothing more than a willful attempt to deceive the public. It's like the paper has signed up to be Glendale's PR firm.
 

DeathToAllButMetal

Let it all burn.
May 13, 2010
1,361
0
True. You'd have to expect something to be finalized (deal or no deal) before the end of February. I really can't see the NHL prolonging this situation any further. For their sake, this bizaro deal must end as soon as possible. The joke is over.

I'd like to see some digging in Winnipeg to see if TNSE would leak something about their drop-dead date. That's really where the story is right now, not in Glendale, as that's the timetable that matters to the NHL. No way will even the Count and Fester take this beyond that date, because if the league ends up stuck with this disaster in the desert for another season, the BoG will incur massive losses that could well get a fair number of members to try and oust the current leadership.
 

Hammer79

Registered User
Jan 9, 2009
7,324
1,160
Kelowna
ECHL teams fold just about every other week. Does it even matter where they go? Victoria could easily support an AHL team, with its newish 7,500 seat arena, metro pop. of 365,000, and now it's more than possible with a team in Abbotsford -- makes sense from a travel standpoint.

GHOST

In theory Victoria can support AHL hockey, the market is certainly here, but from a league geography standpoint it doesn't make much sense right now.

IIRC, Abbotsford pays a subsidy for the team's travel, although I'm not totally clear on what their situation is. Other than Abbotsford, the next closest AHL team is either Winnipeg or in Texas. The majority of teams are in North East with a couple in Ontario and Texas. The ECHL has teams in Alaska, Idaho, Nevada, California, Utah. I kind of wish they would just merge leagues...
 

Hawker14

Registered User
Oct 27, 2004
3,084
0
I'm just disappointed that the Republic didn't provide any of the lease changes that they claimed (in their last editorial) the CoG and Hulsizer undertook to appease Goldwater's concerns.

Yet, Goldwater asserts there have been no changes to the lease.


Someone's lying ...

:shakehead
 

AllByDesign

Who's this ABD guy??
Mar 17, 2010
2,317
0
Location, Location!
That was very..... soupy. The Ilitch comparison is pretty bad too. Ilitch bought the team with his own money, and from the previous owner. The franchise had a decades long history and home-grown boy was buying his hometown team. One thing Ilitch knew was the community and what would work with the other hometown folk.

I realize this is an editorial piece but it's a bit misleading to state that the financial picture is worse without the Coyotes than with them. That actually is a point that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Beasley has thrown out a figure of $500m+ revenues against a $197m cost.
That's just wrong.

I agree... I couldn't see a more opposite comparison to utilize. This quote amused me the most...
The other deals with potential team owners demanded opt-out arrangements or included schemes to play games in other cities. All the deals denied the franchise what it needs most after good players: a long-term commitment to the Valley of the Sun.

Yeah thooooose guys.. what a bunch of nuts. Who'd want them as part of your coveted team. Oooopsies. Umm they are part of the team... ole partners with deputy Hulsizer. :laugh:


we had a plan B, well we do! Here's what's gonna happen. Bear with me now. We're going to sell the movie rights to this whole fiasco!

Scruggs would be too late. TL and I have already claimed all the rights to this fiasco and we won't sell em cheep. We know how they do business in Glendale.
 

smokes

Registered User
May 26, 2009
206
0
It could be the NHL that pulls the plug, rather than the COG admitting defeat, since the COG appears to be in denial. This could occur if the NHL believes there are too many obstacles for a speedy resolution to this matter. I'm thinking primarily of legal and financial risks as well as opportunity costs. When or if the NHL pulls the plug is anyone's guess, but the clock is slowly ticking down to decision time.

GHOST

As much as the NHL has been patient with Phoenix ad nauseam, there is likely a point very soon where even they will need to pull the plug to avoid even the remote prospect of owing the team for another year, especially without the ever patient and quiet TNSE group waiting in the wings (once they move on to Thrashing about in another relocatable market). TNSE, with a partnership group consisting of one of the richest men in the world and another who has run a highly profitable and successful AHL franchise, are likely beyond permanent back up plan status.

Even the threat of a delay in the transition from NHL to MH ownership may be enough to trigger a severing of the relationship between the NHL and Glendale. If this is the case, the Phoenix faithful will be assuaged with the promise that the NHL will consider a return once the economic and ownership situations have stabilized.

If in fact the end is near, all posturing must be considered as a game of hot potato. Who will be left holding the spud of blame??
 

MAROONSRoad

f/k/a Ghost
Feb 24, 2007
4,067
0
Maroons Rd.
In theory Victoria can support AHL hockey, the market is certainly here, but from a league geography standpoint it doesn't make much sense right now.

IIRC, Abbotsford pays a subsidy for the team's travel, although I'm not totally clear on what their situation is. Other than Abbotsford, the next closest AHL team is either Winnipeg or in Texas. The majority of teams are in North East with a couple in Ontario and Texas. The ECHL has teams in Alaska, Idaho, Nevada, California, Utah. I kind of wish they would just merge leagues...

I don't want to get too far off topic, but placing the team in Victoria is very much about the Vancouver Canucks, not just Victoria. There are advantages to having your minor league affiliate next door in terms of managing players and the cap, etc. Second, the geographic issue is addressed in part because there is now an AHL team in Abbotsford. Teams that play there could now hop on a bus and take the ferry to Victoria. The next logical step after adding Victoria would be for one of the pacific coast USA NHL teams to put an AHL affiliate in the pacific northwest and you have a situation similar to Texas, where there are 3 AHL teams in relative close proximity. As far as the locations of the ECHL teams you mention, those are hardly close to Victoria anyway.

GHOST
 

davemac1313

Registered User
Jan 20, 2011
524
0
Keewatin, Ontario
Smokes...you know the speech....heard it from Gary 15 years ago....the NHL can't have any confidence in the "Glendale Show" The city's lawyers basically pooh poohed any possibility of a GW issue at the council meeting...now look at it. Gary will make the "all we could do, all the city could do speech" and say they must protect the other teams, owners and integrity and move the team......
 

RAgIn

Registered User
Oct 21, 2010
900
0
Sudbury, Ont
I'm just disappointed that the Republic didn't provide any of the lease changes that they claimed (in their last editorial) the CoG and Hulsizer undertook to appease Goldwater's concerns.

Yet, Goldwater asserts there have been no changes to the lease.


Someone's lying ...

:shakehead

I wonder who's lying?! :sarcasm:

*cough* Glendale
 

TheLegend

Megathread Gadfly
Aug 30, 2009
36,783
28,868
Buzzing BoH
The comments...well those will most likely be very interesting. I can picture it now, twenty some odd pages of people saying "Loserpeg had their chance you suck and it is cold out there" followed by some facts about the deal happening in Glendale and then we'll get more "you're stupid you don't know that the NHL has never wanted wpg back you're stupid go away" It's absolute insanity on those comment boards it's quite comical at times :laugh:

I would hope you'd also picture the additional 20 some odd pages worth of people telling Coyotes fans to enjoy their last 20 games in the desert. :shakehead

Moving on......
 

LadyStanley

Registered User
Sep 22, 2004
106,461
19,499
Sin City
I thought the IEH boys were in some form of talks in bringing an ECHL team to Thunder Bay.

There's a group from the Maritimes talking to the ECHL BOG this week about a possible expansion. I haven't heard anything about the IEH guys talking to the BOG.

Totally incorrect. Victoria will accept AHL upgrade in a heartbeat. Victoria is currently part of the Canucks organization as ECHL affiliate to the Moose and Canucks. My point was when Victoria gets a chance to take on the Moose, or rather the Canucks' AHL affiliate if it's not the Moose, what happens to the ECHL team is not important. I don't know if you are familiar with Victoria but it is easily large enough to host an AHL team, has an almost new arena and the city is a major source of fans for the Canucks. The original plan was to place a WHL team in the new arena and ECHL was something of consolation prize. Now that there is already an AHL team in the general area, I expect the Canucks to move their AHL team to Victoria in the near future.

Link? I've seen nothing about Victoria ownership interested in upgrade, nor anything about fans.

I don't want to get too far off topic, but placing the team in Victoria is very much about the Vancouver Canucks, not just Victoria. There are advantages to having your minor league affiliate next door in terms of managing players and the cap, etc. Second, the geographic issue is addressed in part because there is now an AHL team in Abbotsford. Teams that play there could now hop on a bus and take the ferry to Victoria. The next logical step after adding Victoria would be for one of the pacific coast USA NHL teams to put an AHL affiliate in the pacific northwest and you have a situation similar to Texas, where there are 3 AHL teams in relative close proximity. As far as the locations of the ECHL teams you mention, those are hardly close to Victoria anyway.

There's also an ECHL team in Alaska. :sarcasm:

WRT moving team to Oregon/Washington (or heck, even Idaho), what ownership? What arena?

The way the Sharks have been talking about their future plans for their AHL franchise (this week), they have no desire to relocate their franchise from five others (within "afternoon" driving distance). They're willing to pay for the "Worcester Shuttle" cross country travel as there's less disruption for the rest of the team with "easy" travel to the majority of games, and more time for practice.

WRT Texas teams, it's a good half day of travel to/from Houston, and an afternoon of travel between Austin and San Antonio.


Per Google Maps, it's a four hour trip from Abbotsford to Victoria. Now, if a team was in/near Seattle, yes, it might be a similar travel arrangement to the Texas teams. But where's the ownership? Arena?
 

Metzen

Registered User
Sep 9, 2005
471
0
First would be a BOG's meeting to approve the move & TNSE; the AHL, the Moose & Canucks need time to sort things out; TNSE will need time to finish off its ongoing improvements to the MTS & start selling corporate sponsorships, broadcasting, seasons tickets etc; the NHL's scheduling for 2011-12 finalized, the CBC & Rogers or TSN brought up to speed etc, fair amount of work.

You don't think those wheels are in motion already?

It always amazes me when I work with business people that they've already assumed whatever they're proposing is a given and have lined up deals under those assumption(s).

Myself, I would have a hard time being a successful business man because I wouldn't want to move forward without such agreements, but real business men have no such problem making such commitments.

It wouldn't surprise me if TNSE has all of the above "99% done" contingent on one signature -- the NHL's.
 

Metzen

Registered User
Sep 9, 2005
471
0
Wow. Bettman's ideal has obviously changed. No fans equals no team. Well, I can point to a few markets where that ideal truly exists today. Amazing. :rant:

Coach: Great find btw.

Edit: Someone should forward this video to GB. :)

I watched the video again and I don't see where he states the bolded above. If there is one thing you can say about Bettman, he's been nothing but consistent on his stance in these ~14 years.

No Arena + No local support (in form of gov't or +++fanbase) == "probably" no NHL team in that city.
 

MAROONSRoad

f/k/a Ghost
Feb 24, 2007
4,067
0
Maroons Rd.
Link? I've seen nothing about Victoria ownership interested in upgrade, nor anything about fans.

No link. However, a lot of this is just common sense if you think about it. Assuming Winnipeg is no longer available, the Canucks will have to relocate their AHL team to a new city. The city of Victoria has no deep attachment to the ECHL and in terms of costs, the Canucks would pick up a large percentage of the tab for player's salaries, coaching staff, travel costs, etc. In fact, an AHL team might be cheaper to run than an ECHL team given the above. On the other hand, having the direct minor league affiliate of the Canucks in the second largest city in British Columbia (which is Canucks' territory) would only increase the profile of the Victoria team, which has been doing worse at the box office recently.

There's also an ECHL team in Alaska. :sarcasm:

So? My point was that in terms of Victoria, the ECHL teams are really not all that much better in terms of geographical proximity to that city than the AHL teams. In fact, since Abottsford in now in the AHL, a trip to Victoria is more convenient for AHL teams than for ECHL teams.

WRT moving team to Oregon/Washington (or heck, even Idaho), what ownership? What arena?

I think if Victoria joined the AHL, a team in one of those areas would be more likely. That part was all just speculation. The Key Arena in Seattle comes to mind, however, as it no longer has a WHL or NBA tenant.

WRT Texas teams, it's a good half day of travel to/from Houston, and an afternoon of travel between Austin and San Antonio.

Per Google Maps, it's a four hour trip from Abbotsford to Victoria. Now, if a team was in/near Seattle, yes, it might be a similar travel arrangement to the Texas teams. But where's the ownership? Arena?

In regards to both the above points, it is my understanding that AHL teams that are located far away from Texas will fly into, say Houston, and then take a bus to all three AHL cities in Texas. They will spend maybe a week or more in the state playing many games once or twice a year depending on the conference of the visiting teams.

This is the model I was suggesting in relation to Abbotsford and Victoria and perhaps at some point a third AHL team in the area which helps cut travel costs. Visiting teams fly into a main airport in the area (say Vancouver) and then bus it around to the two or three AHL franchises in the area, play many games over a period of a week to 10 days, and then fly out.

As far as Google maps go, I always subtract a good 20 - 30% of the estimated travel time if I am not traveling through rush hour or some unusual circumstances. I have found them to be very conservative in their estimations of your driving speed, road conditions, etc. ;)

GHOST
 

Whileee

Registered User
May 29, 2010
46,075
33,132
That was very..... soupy. The Ilitch comparison is pretty bad too. Ilitch bought the team with his own money, and from the previous owner. The franchise had a decades long history and home-grown boy was buying his hometown team. One thing Ilitch knew was the community and what would work with the other hometown folk.

I realize this is an editorial piece but it's a bit misleading to state that the financial picture is worse without the Coyotes than with them. That actually is a point that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Beasley has thrown out a figure of $500m+ revenues against a $197m cost.

That's just wrong.

Yup. They might as well just keep posting the COG's "Fact Sheet" on a weekly basis and call it their Editorial. It would save them the time and effort, and avoid the maudlin prose.

Besides, why bother with this sort of piece. Hulsizer and the NHL have informed us that the deal is progressing and should be done any day now.

If the Arizona Republic has indeed sniffed out substantial barriers to the deal, then I think it is their role to report on that directly, rather than sending out these cryptic and somewhat strange editorials.
 

danishh

Registered User
Dec 9, 2006
33,018
53
YOW
vote tonight, right? I'm expecting another 'continuation vote'. It seems COG is doing whatever possible to lengthen this process until they have a solution.



also, i'm certainly not a regular enough in these phoenix threads to suggest a title, but that dos equis theme towards the end of the last thread got me thinking. "I dont always subsidize private businesses, but when I do, I prefer it to cost $200M. Stay broke my taxpayers.
 
Last edited:

OthmarAmmann

Omnishambles
Jul 7, 2010
2,761
0
NYC
If the Arizona Republic has indeed sniffed out substantial barriers to the deal, then I think it is their role to report on that directly, rather than sending out these cryptic and somewhat strange editorials.

My guess is that council is receiving a lot of flak from taxpayers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad