Phoenix XL - Rich Man's World

[Killion]

Yes. The Glendale arena was built for them. If the NHL leaves, who is going to build them an arena again? It was rumored the Bettman called paul allen as a last act before giving the team to chipman.

Remeber this story: http://atlanta.sbnation.com/atlanta...hers-sale-winnipeg-gary-bettman-interview-nhl

That's because Bettman was still buzzing other markets.

I couldnt find any reference to that rumor in the link MM. Im not saying it doesnt exist, but considering the source Id be skeptical & most certainly shocked if it were true. I simply cant imagine Gary Bettman "buzzing" (in an Ultra-Light no-less) other markets at the last minute when for months TN had been patiently & magnanimously providing the league with a failsafe; an insurance policy...

A collection of castoffs would be a few years in the wilderness before getting into the playoffs.

Of course they would, along with complicating everyones lives to no end. Fugu suggested Contraction as a possible option that should be considered if PKP & QC arent ready to handle a team. Based on what Ive read in the press & from contributions here by posters in Quebec, it would appear that the Colisee could in fact easily serve as a temporary home with a minimum of up-grades that could be completed over the summer.

Failure in one market =/= overlap in other... but that won't have an effect on any number of other cities that want an NHL team.

I agree. Talk of fallout over the issue of arena/stadium construction should the Coyotes depart is IMO a non-issue. Its not going to stop or even put the brakes on any given municipalities/states/provinces decisions to forge ahead should the NHL/NBA/MLB/NFL and or even minor leagues/teams come calling. Sure, I suppose Glendale could be trotted out & used as an example of what "can go wrong" by those opposing such public expenditures however, the publics' appetites & the proponents in favor of funding developments of that nature far outweigh the negatives.

 

[davemac1313]

Do you know that Bettman still was rumored to have called Portland first before Winnipeg despite Thompson and Chipman? .

LINK???

What nonsense.....I heard from a buddy at the tackle shop, that Bettman called someone on Lake of the Woods.....once upon a time Kenora won the Stanley Cup..... and Bettman said he felt that Kenora was a more traditional market than Winnipeg and deserved a team first.......maybe it was Goldie and Kurt...or was it Faith Hill and Tim McGraw (obvious huge NHL fans...seen em at the predators games...slam dunk as owners). THIS has more credence than your Portland statement. and it has none at all....

 

[No Fun Shogun]

Not saying Markham (or Southern Ontario) is out of the way but surely not on top of the list: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ww3md8DvoTY (6:40)

Oh yeah, I'm not saying that they'll get a team. In fact, due to Leaf opposition, I'd say that the odds of the GTA getting a team any time soon is approximately zilch, available arena or not.

But that's not the point I was addressing. I was merely pointing out that even if the Glendale situation falls apart, other municipalities would be interested in building new arenas with the hopes of attracting an NHL team (and/or an NBA team).

 

[Fugu]

Chipman first approached Bettman at the Salt Lake Olympics. After the lockout there were further discussions. TNSE was invited to make a presentation on returning the NHL to Winnipeg to the BOGs in NYC in January 2007 -- about 5 years ago. Apparently they made a very good impression.

Of course he did, but at that time Balsillie and Boots had both already put in bids for the Penguins. KC was even used as a way to extort money out of Pennsylvania. Lieweke was flying governors out to visit KC as well. I think it was around 2007 (perhaps 2006) that the Wings braintrust was interviewed by the Detroit News. It was a fantastic article that touched on many things, but most notably it was revealed that KC was on the radar, with some hesitation from BOG members; and that Las Vegas was the next expansion target. At that time, Devellano said without any reservation that Vegas was going to happen within 4 yrs.

The economic collapse and resurgence of the CAD changed all that, not to mention Phoenix being placed into bankruptcy protection and Boots getting carted off to jail. (Don't forget the travails in Tampa, Florida and Dallas). You see, all of a sudden the league was turned on its head where any idea of expansion had to be tabled due to too many faltering franchises.

THAT is why Winnipeg got another look. All the potential US destinations vaporized, with several current US markets threatened with collapse.

Why not both? It is ridiculous that there aren't more teams in southern Ontario which has a population of over 13 million people and one NHL team. The area has the largest concentration of NHL fans in the world by far. Basically, that means there are many people that will never get the opportunity to attend an NHL game in their home market. This is at the same time that NHL franchises in some 'non-traditional' markets can't give away tickets. That's the bizarro world of the NHL.

Because they need to be viewed as separate items, not some catch-all "but they're in Canada" argument. Jasper is in Canada. That doesn't mean you're going to put an NHL team there, right?

You once presented a Pro forma from Chipman's group about what it would take to make a go of it in Winnipeg. The numbers were conservative, but realistic. Revenue sharing helps even things out if needed. Is QC in as strong a position as Winnipeg?

If the southern Ontario market was in the USA, the BOG would have forced additional teams into the area long ago in order to improve US TV ratings. Instead, since it's a Canadian market they go along with the Leafs and Sabres in protecting the Leafs' monopoly.

All we need is one more Thrashers situation, and there can be no more excuses. Either that, or contraction.

Actually there is some noise -- mainly rumours -- coming out of Quebec, mostly in French language obviously. It reminds me of what occurred wrt Winnipeg, where the potential ownership group and the NHL said next to nothing. But the much larger point: you think they are building a $400 million arena for the Remparts and the Shrine Circus?

I think QC is definitely in the future plans, assuming the numbers can make sense (that Pro forma again); my suggestion is that it may not be feasible for NEXT year. I don't know, just throwing it out there, but if the owner has to absorb losses of $25 million per year until the new arena is ready, that's $75 million he will have to spend on top of any purchase price.

If the Jets were purchased for $160 million, why would the Coyotes be valuated more highly? Then, add in the $75 million the owner has to subsidize on the operating side, and all of sudden he has paid $250-300 million for a team that is worth something comparable to the Jets. I'm just worrying about cash--- flowing in and out.

Lemmee see. Potential buyer in Quebec (PKP) has 2 choices...

• For $170 million buy a team (Phoenix, complete with GM+coaching+scouting staff) that's made the playoffs at least 2 and possibly 3, out of the last 3 seasons.
• For $200 million go running around like crazy trying to hire everybody else's reject GM+coaches+scouts who then prepare for an expansion draft, where you get to choose from amongst everybody else's rejects, 3rd-string goalies, and 4th-liners

Heck, even the Thrashers/Jets have a shot at the playoffs this year, being 3 points out of 8th spot, 1/3rd of the way through the season. A collection of castoffs would be a few years in the wilderness before getting into the playoffs.

The difference is that the Jets are making enough money right now to cover their costs. Would a QC team playing out of the Colisee (sp) be able to do the same? I KNOW once the new arena is up and running, they'll have a better shot, but how much needs to be subsidized by an owner until the arena is ready (which is in 3 yrs from today, iirc).

 

[Fugu]

Just to add to that is franchise value potential in GTA vs QC. An owner starting a team up in the GTA would know that after say 3 yrs the team's value would be equal to or greater than the purchase price and costs during the start-up years. It's worth the investment. If you take a team like the Coyotes, sell them for the Thrasher's price and have to subsidize operating expenses for three years, you're not going to get that return or massive ramp up in franchise value.

 

[Fidel Astro]

The difference is that the Jets are making enough money right now to cover their costs. Would a QC team playing out of the Colisee (sp) be able to do the same? I KNOW once the new arena is up and running, they'll have a better shot, but how much needs to be subsidized by an owner until the arena is ready (which is in 3 yrs from today, iirc).

I don't see how a team in QC, even if it was playing out of some guy's backyard rink, wouldn't instantly make money. Remember the Marche Bleue a year or two ago? That was, what, 50,000 people in Nordiques gear gathering to show the NHL they want a team again?

I think Nordiques 2.0 would be an instant ticket-sales success, just like Winnipeg, regardless of where they play out of. Merch sales would be through the roof as well. All of that stuff might even be more successful in QC simply because QC is located much closer to other cities. We're pretty isolated here in Winnipeg.

 

[Chief Ten Bears*]

I don't see how a team in QC, even if it was playing out of some guy's backyard rink, wouldn't instantly make money. Remember the Marche Bleue a year or two ago? That was, what, 50,000 people in Nordiques gear gathering to show the NHL they want a team again?

I think Nordiques 2.0 would be an instant ticket-sales success, just like Winnipeg, regardless of where they play out of. Merch sales would be through the roof as well. All of that stuff might even be more successful in QC simply because QC is located much closer to other cities. We're pretty isolated here in Winnipeg.

QC will be an instant success, Winnipeg proved that. Nordiques fans flocked in droves to an NYI game. Thats in a different country. People won't drive to the other side of the city to watch the Coyotes.

 

[Nordskull]

I will go a lot further Fugu.

The Nords will play soldout for the next 15 years, is it at the Colisée 16000 seats or the Videotron center (I suppose it will be its name) 18500 seats.

There is few corporative suites in the current arena (Colisée) but the Videotron center will have many many more. Opposed to 1995, there is lots of new prosper entreprises in Qc city, is it software, environmental expertise etc...

Now, let me ask you a question: Are the Toronto Blue Jays make their expenses?

I don't have figures and dont really need them. The MLB have no cap, exponential growing salaries, the stadium is not filled up. There are not covering expenses IMHO.

Why do Roger keeps em?

Because its their content to TV sports which is profitable.

Don't get me wrong. I don't believe the 2.0 Nordiques will cover their expenses one day, just like I am dead sure the Blue Jays don't either. But the Nords presence doubled with Videotron's high tech TV broadcasting, would it be by cable TV, or portable cell type devices, will give Videotron a solid grow of revenues.

In other words, the league would not send a team to Qc city if the corporation buying it would not be able to maintain it on place.

Now, at the same time, the league will have presence on a whole TV network where it's not at the moment. Everyone wins into this.

Finally, Roustan may want a team in Toronto, does the hockey fans in Toronto wants this? What will the people of southern Ontario think of the NHL? Better be sure Gary ;-)

 

[MAROONSRoad]

Fugu:

- if QC can sell tickets at the same price that Winnipeg does, they shouldn't lose the kind of money you are talking about.
- the Colisee holds just over 15K, contrary to the 16K figure people are mentioning, which is outdated.
- at Jets average season ticket price of $82, QC could bring in about $55 million on ticket sales alone selling 15K tickets to 45 games (pre and regular season)
- NHL central revenues for each team are at over $10 million per year.
- that's $65 million before corporate sponsors, advertising, signage, local TV or radio, merchandise, concessions, revenue sharing if needed up to $15 million (bottom 15 teams are eligible to share the revenue sharing pool), etc.
- I don't see how QC would be losing $25 million a year under the circumstances, but even if it did, why can't QC lose money like many other NHL teams do and have done for years? Quebecor is not exactly poor. They can handle the risk. This is a long term investment. Dallas has been losing $30 million per year for the last 3 years but found someone to purchase the team. Why are Canadian markets like Winnipeg or QC always held to ridiculous standards when many NHL markets are in much worse situations?
- My guess is QC playing out of the Colisee would be a middling NHL team revenue wise playing out of the Colisee...

 

[Killion]

...Devellano said without any reservation that Vegas was going to happen within 4 yrs....

Is QC in as strong a position as Winnipeg?..The difference is that the Jets are making enough money right now to cover their costs. Would a QC team playing out of the Colisee (sp) be able to do the same? I KNOW once the new arena is up and running, they'll have a better shot, but how much needs to be subsidized by an owner until the arena is ready (which is in 3 yrs from today, iirc).

Gotta like Jimmy D'....

I wouldnt say QC is in an as good a position as Winnipeg was with respect to the arena situation. As we know, the MTS was ready to go as the Jets permanent home as opposed to a temporary one. They were truly able to hit the ground running at full speed with a full compliment of suites, media facilities, an existing (albeit AHL) ST base, corporate contacts & sponsors, most of the buildings staff, sales & marketing personnel etc all set & primed for launch.

If were to believe Garys' statement from yesterday, that "no talk of relocation is being discussed with anyone anywhere" (or words to that affect), then God help QC if in May/June the NHL does come calling and theyve got what, 3.5mnths to upgrade the Colisee', line-up sponsors, hire bi-lingual front office, sales & marketing staff, somehow work things out with CBC & HNIC along with the 7 Canadian franchises etc etc etc?. Im not saying it cant be done, however, its pushing things. They wont have the same orderly transition that Winnipeg had, and even they were pushed with a head start all done on the QT.

I dont think PKP would be taking a hit of $25M in losses until the new building opens, Im more than confident they'll do well even out of the old barn, but the timing, the logistics?. Man, thats a lot to ask & accomplish in so short a time-frame. Sure, the elation & enthusiasm in seeing the return of the NHL to QC will likely win the day, but no one likes being jammed, rushed, working 24-7 because the NHL decides at the last possible minute to invite you to the party and only out of desperation & not choice?. I mean c'mon here NHL, show Phoenix and QC some respect...

 

[matCH penalty]

I think I want to retract my $5.

 

[epo]

the NHL has stated numerous times already that the GTA is a league oppurtunity. so a relocation there is not ever gonna happen. expansion is the only way the GTA gets a team.

What's the difference, especially when the league owns the team?

 

[MAROONSRoad]

What's the difference, especially when the league owns the team?

There is no difference. This has become a strange mantra ever since the 'issue' of a 'league opportunity' in southern Ontario came up in the Balsillie/Coyotes bankruptcy debacle. Simply put it make absolutely no difference to the NHL is they allow a transfer of a team via relocation or grant an expansion franchise -- yet people keep mentioning the point.

Example 1:

Owner of failed market wants to sell team for relocation. NHL determines reasonable value of team in failed market and value of team in relocation market. League subtracts the difference which they pocket.

Example 2:

League owns team in failed market and wants $170 million for it there. League decides to sell team to relocation market. League determines team is worth $250 million in new market. League charges $250 million and nets $80 million above $170 million asking price in failed market.

Example 3:

League can't sell team for $170 million in failed market. League folds team and sells expansion team to relocation market for $250 million. League nets $80 million.

There is no real difference. The NHL just charges whatever price they think a market will bear. It's called a 'relocation fee' if it's a transferred team and the overall price should be the same for either a relocation or expansion team. If anything, an expansion team should be worth less than a relocated team due to poorer roster, draft pool, etc.

 

[cbcwpg]

There is no difference. This has become a strange mantra ever since the 'issue' of a 'league opportunity' in southern Ontario came up in the Balsillie/Coyotes bankruptcy debacle. Simply put it make absolutely no difference to the NHL is they allow a transfer of a team via relocation or grant an expansion franchise -- yet people keep mentioning the point.

Example 1:

Owner of failed market wants to sell team for relocation. NHL determines reasonable value of team in failed market and value of team in relocation market. League subtracts the difference which they pocket.

Example 2:

League owns team in failed market and wants $170 million for it there. League decides to sell team to relocation market. League determines team is worth $250 million in new market. League charges $250 million and nets $80 million above $170 million asking price in failed market.

Example 3:

League can't sell team for $170 million in failed market. League folds team and sells expansion team to relocation market for $250 million. League nets $80 million.

There is no real difference. The NHL just charges whatever price they think a market will bear. It's called a 'relocation fee' if it's a transferred team and the overall price should be the same for either a relocation or expansion team. If anything, an expansion team should be worth less than a relocated team due to poorer roster, draft pool, etc.

There is one difference between relocating to Southern Ontario VS expansion to Southern Ontario... the position of control and power ( big deals to Bettman and the NHL).

With expansion to SO, the NHL can ask for whatever they want ( say $500 million ), and sit back and wait for an interested party. If nobody bites, the NHL isn't out anything and the market isn't going anywhere, nor is the value getting less. The NHL is in the driver seat and they can wait.

In the case of relocation to SO, most certainly with the Coyotes, the NHL is out $140 million plus to start, and if they ask for too high of a relocation fee, nobody is going to bite. Why should they? They aren't out $140 mill, the NHL is. Anyone willing to buy the Coyotes with the plan of moving them to SO, will just wait until the NHL has a more reasonable relocation fee, then buy the team. Just like any potential buyer of the Coyotes looking at keeping the team in Glendale, the buyer is in the driver seat. The pressure is on the NHL to sell, not for someone to buy.

The NHL has the Golden Goose in SO and there is only one Golden Goose. The NHL is not going let a team plop down in SO without maximizing the money they can get, and IMO they will get more via expansion than relocation.

Example: I offer the NHL $170 million for the Coyotes as long as I can move them to SO. The NHL comes back and says fine, but we also want a $200 million relocation fee ( $370 million total ). When I get off the floor from laughing, I say let me know when the relocation fee is $60 million, until then have fun running the Coyotes. Didn't cost me a dime to do this. The NHL? They are getting sweaty, so they sell the team to say Quebec for $200 million ( including the relocation fee ). A few years later I want an NHL team in SO, so now the NHL can ask me for $500 million.

 

[MAROONSRoad]

There is one difference between relocating to Southern Ontario VS expansion to Southern Ontario... the position of control and power ( big deals to Bettman and the NHL).

With expansion to SO, the NHL can ask for whatever they want ( say $500 million ), and sit back and wait for an interested party. If nobody bites, the NHL isn't out anything and the market isn't going anywhere, nor is the value getting less. The NHL is in the driver seat and they can wait.

Perhaps, but really selling NHL franchises is not like putting something on EBay. The NHL knows the very limited people that are interested. Talk goes on behind the scenes despite what is revealed in public. Confidentiality agreements are signed, etc.

In the case of relocation to SO, most certainly with the Coyotes, the NHL is out $140 million plus to start, and if they ask for too high of a relocation fee, nobody is going to bite. Why should they? They aren't out $140 mill, the NHL is. Anyone willing to buy the Coyotes with the plan of moving them to SO, will just wait until the NHL has a more reasonable relocation fee, then buy the team. Just like any potential buyer of the Coyotes looking at keeping the team in Glendale, the buyer is in the driver seat. The pressure is on the NHL to sell, not for someone to buy.

No, this is the point I was trying to correct. The NHL is out $140 regardless. How does it get out of the hole it has dug? Either the NHL sells new expansion franchises or not. That is a separate issue. But whether they sell an expansion franchise or relocated franchise to southern Ontario doesn't make any difference. Time, $$ and other pressures also exist when several different cities are bidding against each other for a limited supply of expansion franchises.

Issue 1:

Does the NHL sell an expansion franchise or not? If yes, they can sell to the highest bidder and make money from that decision. If no, they don't make any money from that decision.

Example:

NHL decides to sell expansion franchise. NHL decides to relocate 1 NHL franchise. 2 cities are deemed worthy: QC and GTA. The Coyotes have cost the NHL $140 million to purchase and $60 to run: NHL is out $200 million.

- NHL sells Coyotes to GTA for $400 million -- $200 purchase price plus $200 million relocation fee (makes a $200 million profit over its cost to buy and run Coyotes).

- NHL sells expansion franchise to QC for $200 million.

Result: NHL nets $400 million from both transactions.

OR

- NHL sells Coyotes to QC for $200 million (makes no profit)

- NHL sells expansion franchise to GTA for $400 million.

Result: NHL nets $400 million from both transactions

 

[kdb209]

There is one difference between relocating to Southern Ontario VS expansion to Southern Ontario... the position of control and power ( big deals to Bettman and the NHL).

With expansion to SO, the NHL can ask for whatever they want ( say $500 million ), and sit back and wait for an interested party. If nobody bites, the NHL isn't out anything and the market isn't going anywhere, nor is the value getting less. The NHL is in the driver seat and they can wait.

In the case of relocation to SO, most certainly with the Coyotes, the NHL is out $140 million plus to start, and if they ask for too high of a relocation fee, nobody is going to bite. Why should they? They aren't out $140 mill, the NHL is. Anyone willing to buy the Coyotes with the plan of moving them to SO, will just wait until the NHL has a more reasonable relocation fee, then buy the team. Just like any potential buyer of the Coyotes looking at keeping the team in Glendale, the buyer is in the driver seat. The pressure is on the NHL to sell, not for someone to buy.

The NHL has the Golden Goose in SO and there is only one Golden Goose. The NHL is not going let a team plop down in SO without maximizing the money they can get, and IMO they will get more via expansion than relocation.

Example: I offer the NHL $170 million for the Coyotes as long as I can move them to SO. The NHL comes back and says fine, but we also want a $200 million relocation fee ( $370 million total ). When I get off the floor from laughing, I say let me know when the relocation fee is $60 million, until then have fun running the Coyotes. Didn't cost me a dime to do this. The NHL? They are getting sweaty.

There is another difference between relocation to or expansion to SO - By-Law 36 and the single team veto.

The League's position - as stated in the Phoenix courtroom - is that the simple majority vote of By-Law 36 applies only to relocation, not expansion. The Leafs would still have a single team veto over an expansion team to SO.

 

[MAROONSRoad]

There is another difference between relocation to or expansion to SO - By-Law 36 and the single team veto.

The League's position - as stated in the Phoenix courtroom - is that the simple majority vote of By-Law 36 applies only to relocation, not expansion. The Leafs would still have a single team veto over an expansion team to SO.

This is an entirely separate issue, but, if the League's position has merit, that a reason in favour of placing a relocated rather than expansion franchise in southern Ontario.

 

[Killion]

There is no difference...

Oh for the love of...

... of course theres a "difference", a huge difference. Winnipeg buys a distressed asset for $110M with 100% of the proceeds going to ASG. The NHL decides Winnipeg is "worth" $170M as if it were awarding an expansion & tacks on a $60M relo fee. Therefore, the league is out $110M large. If hypothetically PKP buys the Coyotes for $170M, that money goes to pay off the NHL's LOC and doesnt find its way into the other 29 clubs pockets.

If the "average" NHL franchise is worth app. $200-$240M according to Forbes, then how much is an Expansion Franchise worth in Winnipeg, QC, Toronto or wherever?. Past expansions, a fee was set & regardless of where you were bidding from, be it Tampa, Columbus or wherever, the price was the same. $50M, $80M etc. 100% of those fee's go to the member clubs. So lets look at whats happened here & what might happen in Phoenix;

A) Winnipeg; instead of awarding an Expansion Franchise to Chipman/Thomson and charging $150M-$200M+ the league received a mere $60M for a very valuable albeit smaller market.

B) Quebec; app. the same size as Winnipeg, you cant be tacking on a relo fee over and above the $170M minimum the league wants for the Coyotes. Your net gain for QC will therefore be exactly zero.

So. When the NHL airlifted the Thrashers out of Atlanta they lost $110M in transit. Minimum. If they sell the Coyotes to PKP for $170M, which they couldve received via an Expansion Fee, their net is going to be exactly zero. Thats two markets, happily with hockey teams, not so happily for the other 28 clubs who combined gave up close to $400M, money that would have been free & clear.

And finally, the only "League Opportunity" awaiting the NHL if their ever stupid enough to try & force another team on the Leafs & MLSE in Toronto is the Mother of All Self Destructive Legal Battles. Civil War. The destruction of the NHL as we now know it. A rival league. Good luck with that "opportunity"...

 

[MAROONSRoad]

Oh for the love of...

... of course theres a "difference", a huge difference. Winnipeg buys a distressed asset for $110M with 100% of the proceeds going to ASG. The NHL decides Winnipeg is "worth" $170M as if it were awarding an expansion & tacks on a $60M relo fee. Therefore, the league is out $110M large. If hypothetically PKP buys the Coyotes for $170M, that money goes to pay off the NHL's LOC and doesnt find its way into the other 29 clubs pockets.

Sigh... Do you understand the point that I am addressing?

I really have to spell this out don't I? Don't have time at the moment, so suffice it so say -- of course, if the NHL sells new franchises to expand the league by more teams they will make more money than by allowing the sale of an existing franchise and tacking on a relocation fee! Duh!

However, how they fill any particular market: with an expansion franchise or not does make a difference in itself -- assuming they have to relocate a team anyway. The NHL will just tack on a relocation fee to make whatever they deem is the fair price for the market in question -- i.e., to make of the difference between what they would charge for an expansion franchise in the market and what they charge for the relocated team (that's the "relocation fee"). Please read my examples again. That's all that I'm getting at. To expand or not is a separate issue.

 

[Killion]

Sigh... Do you understand the point that I am addressing?

I really have to spell this out don't I? Don't have time at the moment, so suffice it so say -- of course, if the NHL sells new franchises to expand the league by more teams they will make more money than by allowing the sale of an existing franchise and tacking on a relocation fee! Duh!

However, how they fill any particular market: with an expansion franchise or not does make a difference in itself -- assuming they have to relocate a team anyway. The NHL will just tack on a relocation fee to make whatever they deem is the fair price for the market in question -- i.e., to make of the difference between what they would charge for an expansion franchise in the market and what they charge for the relocated team (that's the "relocation fee"). Please read my examples again. That's all that I'm getting at. To expand or not is a separate issue.

Double sigh... you have failed to address the fundamental question. The league receives 100% of an Expansion fee, disbursed equally amongst its members. It may or may not receive a relocation fee if a team is sold & moved depending on what the sale price is in comparison to whatever "value" they seemingly almost arbitrarily apply to the new location. Expansion is preferable to relocation. If relo is absolutely required then fine, but please dont suggest that there isnt "any difference" because there is. A huge difference.

Was it just "coincidental" that TNSE was prepared to pay the league its asking price of $170M for the Coyotes and instead got the Thrashers for the bargain basement price of $110M yet wound up dropping the full $170M anyway with the leagues "relo fee"?. Winnipegs worth exactly what the distressed Coyotes asking price was?. No. The league insisted that having tabled an offer of $170M thats what TNSE was going to pay. Is Winnipeg or Quebec worth $170M based on measurements of Expansion alone?. Starting from scratch?. I believe so, probably even more. Maybe $225M+. That money, all of it, couldve gone straight to the other clubs with expansion instead of relocations.

Maybe Fugu's suggestions on the mark; simply Contract the teams that are failing, hold a dispersal draft, look at expansion & simply pocket the full pop through those substantial fee's rather than messing around at all?.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

Double sigh... you have failed to address the fundamental question. The league receives 100% of an Expansion fee, disbursed equally amongst its members. It may or may not receive a relocation fee if a team is sold & moved depending on what the sale price is in comparison to whatever "value" they seemingly almost arbitrarily apply to the new location. Expansion is preferable to relocation. If relo is absolutely required then fine, but please dont suggest that there isnt "any difference" because there is. A huge difference.

Was it just "coincidental" that TNSE was prepared to pay the league its asking price of $170M for the Coyotes and instead got the Thrashers for the bargain basement price of $110M yet wound up dropping the full $170M anyway with the leagues "relo fee"?. Winnipegs worth exactly what the distressed Coyotes asking price was?. No. The league insisted that having tabled an offer of $170M thats what TNSE was going to pay. Is Winnipeg or Quebec worth $170M based on measurements of Expansion alone?. Starting from scratch?. I believe so, probably even more. Maybe $225M+. That money, all of it, couldve gone straight to the other clubs with expansion instead of relocations.

Maybe Fugu's suggestions on the mark; simply Contract the teams that are failing, hold a dispersal draft, look at expansion & simply pocket the full pop through those substantial fee's rather than messing around at all?.

try again, Killion, if you contract the Coyotes, you also contract Portland, Maine and a few other hockey franchises in lower leagues since AHL Bylaws prohibit AHL teams from being independent because not all Coyotes prospects are playing in Phoenix at a given time.....

 

[Matrix78]

Perhaps, but really selling NHL franchises is not like putting something on EBay. The NHL knows the very limited people that are interested. Talk goes on behind the scenes despite what is revealed in public. Confidentiality agreements are signed, etc.



No, this is the point I was trying to correct. The NHL is out $140 regardless. How does it get out of the hole it has dug? Either the NHL sells new expansion franchises or not. That is a separate issue. But whether they sell an expansion franchise or relocated franchise to southern Ontario doesn't make any difference. Time, $$ and other pressures also exist when several different cities are bidding against each other for a limited supply of expansion franchises.

Issue 1:

Does the NHL sell an expansion franchise or not? If yes, they can sell to the highest bidder and make money from that decision. If no, they don't make any money from that decision.

Example:

NHL decides to sell expansion franchise. NHL decides to relocate 1 NHL franchise. 2 cities are deemed worthy: QC and GTA. The Coyotes have cost the NHL $140 million to purchase and $60 to run: NHL is out $200 million.

- NHL sells Coyotes to GTA for $400 million -- $200 purchase price plus $200 million relocation fee (makes a $200 million profit over its cost to buy and run Coyotes).

- NHL sells expansion franchise to QC for $200 million.

Result: NHL nets $400 million from both transactions.

OR

- NHL sells Coyotes to QC for $200 million (makes no profit)

- NHL sells expansion franchise to GTA for $400 million.

Result: NHL nets $400 million from both transactions

I expect it would cost 200 millions extra just for the Leafs,
You can't go in this market without paying some penality to the other team...

 

[MAROONSRoad]

Double sigh... you have failed to address the fundamental question. The league receives 100% of an Expansion fee, disbursed equally amongst its members.

Triple sigh...Let me state the exact question I am addressing. It is probably my fault for not making this clear. A lot of people have made the following type of comment: "the NHL will not want to relocate ANY current franchise to southern Ontario because they are saving that market for expansion so that they can make a lot more money. So, I am responding to that idea. I am pointing out that that particular consideration is not really significant, because the NHL can equally realize the value of the southern Ontario market via relocation or expansion. In the case of relocation, they will just tack on a relocation fee equal to the extra value of that market.

Let's say the NHL plans to expand to 32 teams within 10 years. They can do it in any number of ways, but saving southern Ontario for expansion -- rather than relocation -- isn't really going to net them any more money other things being equal.

 

[cbcwpg]

Triple sigh...Let me state the exact question I am addressing. It is probably my fault for not making this clear. A lot of people have made the following type of comment: "the NHL will not want to relocate ANY current franchise to southern Ontario because they are saving that market for expansion so that they can make a lot more money. So, I am responding to that idea. I am pointing out that that particular consideration is not really significant, because the NHL can equally realize the value of the southern Ontario market via relocation or expansion. In the case of relocation, they will just tack on a relocation fee equal to the extra value of that market.

Let's say the NHL plans to expand to 32 teams within 10 years. They can do it in any number of ways, but saving southern Ontario for expansion -- rather than relocation -- isn't really going to net them any more money other things being equal.

Yes the NHL will tack on a relocation fee equal to the extra value of that market... But my point is, try as they might, they won't get it in the case of Southern Ontario. If the Coyotes are worth $134M and the Leafs are worth $512M, then another team in the Toronto area is going to be worth ~$400M to start. Which means the NHL will want a relocation fee of $250M? Nobody will pay that. By definition any team being relocated is a distressed asset, and the buyer knows that, and they will be looking for a deal or at least what other teams have been relocated for dollar wise which is in the $170M range.

Now if you were Bettman would you let a team relocate to the one market that is worth more than any other, when the best offer you get is $170M? Not a chance. That and the legal challenge the NHL will face from the Leafs ( right or wrong ) , is why IF the Coyotes have to move, it will not be to the Toronto area.

 

[cbcwpg]

http://sports.nationalpost.com/2011/12/06/nhl-wants-coyotes-to-stay-in-phoenix/

Nothing new.... Just the " not too distant future " instead of imminent or 2 weeks.