Phoenix XXVI: Pain in the AZ

[Jet]

The only two scenarios in which the Coyotes stay

1.) The bonds are sold. Not likely unless someone steps up and assumes an inordinate amount of risk for some strange reason.

2.) GWI backs down, either through concession or Glendale modifying the deal to their taste. Not likely, but more likely than #1.​

Anything else, barring a miracle, and it's so long Yotes.

Personally, I think that option 1 is more likely. I don't see Goldwater backing down. It seems personal to them, and they probably see it as a giant feather in their cap if they manage to torpedo the deal.

 

[Noldo]

I find no arrogance in your question; quite the opposite actually.

In answer to your question, when Mayor Scruggs was asked about this topic a few months ago she stated the city had not contemplated any Plan B for the use of the arena should the Coyotes leave. On the contrary, we have all heard how the arena will basically have to be "mothballed" if the NHL team leaves. I believe that with the right arena management company and the right mix of other tenants, visiting acts and other events the attendance and traffic of Coyotes fans could be largely replaced at a fraction of the amount the city is planning on spending on the Hulsizer deal. Perhaps Glendale needs to use their imagination a bit more.

GHOST

Of course at this point everything is part of the trial in the court of public opinion. Had Mayor Scruggs admitted that the city has viable alternative in case Coyotes move, the need to get the current deal done would seem far less pressing, practically adding ammunition to GWI's clip.

If the push comes to shove Glendale could well settle for an AHL for time being, ready in line for the expansion time once the league decides the time is ready for one more round. But I would say that while locked in the current battle for prestige, talking about such a solution is definitely out of question.

 

[themish]

You'd think that there was a chance an AHL team could be brought into Glendale, so based on it's success maybe down the road if there's ever an expansion, based on the support of this "new" AHL team, Glendale could be in a better position in a few years.

In Winnipeg, after the Jets left, we were given the Manitoba Moose. Not sure if it's been mentioned but now at the MTS Centre the Moose play to roughly 8,000 fans each game. Half of the arena is blocked off, but they draw fairly well.

I cant see why Glendale couldn't do the same. Sure, it's not as attractive as the NHL, but it's good to see the top prospects play.

 

[Crazy_Ike]

How do they let Bettman maintain that it's "personal" on the part of Goldwater Institute and that's why they're behaving as they do?

Actually, I think the question Bettman asked is a lot more relevant - why is GWI allowed to do this when they appear to answer to absolutely no one?

Do you think, given the economic situation, that it is appropriate for Glendale to underwrite the team with taxpayer money?

That's not the league's call. As part of the support league management gives to every one of its teams, it backs whatever deals they try to negotiate. COG and MH agreed to this deal, so the league backs it, however they can.

Again with the assumption of far more responsibility than the league actually has.

Get ONE decent reporter in that news conference, and Bettman would be torn to shreds. Why should the public be subsidizing a league where the millionaires are employed by billionaire owners?

Given I answered that with ease, and that no reporter in history has ever "torn Bettman to shreds", I doubt your 'what if' conclusion quite strongly.

Whether you like them or not, Goldwater IS providing a public service. I'm FAR from a right winger, but I wish we had the equivalent here in BC.

Really? You want a private group, backed by private money, to have carte blanche to stop any agreement it decides is "unlawful"?

How about one that squelched abortion clinics?

Or one that decided unions shouldn't be allowed?

Or one that attempted to outlaw immigration?

Or the teaching of evolution? (or anything other than Christian-based schools, for that matter)

And they could do any of this, without you having any say at all, until they are backed down in court?

You really want that, eh?

Don't even try to claim I am exaggerating, either - every one of those is either in the process of being enacted in various states, or the fight is on to do so. Arizona is one of the most screwed up places in North America and people like the GWI are a big part of why.

 

[Crazy_Ike]

End of the road for Bettman.

You know what I find the saddest part of posts like this - the ONLY reason Winnipeg is being considered at all is because of Bettman. There is absolutely nothing to recommend the city to the rest of the owners of the NHL. It does absolutely nothing for the rest of the league. Its presence only weakens the league's push for a good TV deal payday and in the short term will probably cause the salary cap and floor to go UP (though short term only). And its entire future existence hangs on whether or not the Canadian dollar can stay strong.

But, Bettman wants Winnipeg to have a team so should Glendale fail to come through, it will. It is just sad that he won't get any credit for it. We'll see how many people give credit where it is due when the time comes, but the behavior here, this attitude that because Bettman tries to help a currently existing franchise, it means he hates Canada or other BS, it doesn't bode well for that.

Be that as it may. Post this "end of the road Bettman" hate as you will, he'll still be there as long as he wants to be.

 

[Metzen]

You know what I find the saddest part of posts like this - the ONLY reason Winnipeg is being considered at all is because of Bettman. There is absolutely nothing to recommend the city to the rest of the owners of the NHL. It does absolutely nothing for the rest of the league. Its presence only weakens the league's push for a good TV deal payday and in the short term will probably cause the salary cap and floor to go UP (though short term only). And its entire future existence hangs on whether or not the Canadian dollar can stay strong.

But, Bettman wants Winnipeg to have a team so should Glendale fail to come through, it will. It is just sad that he won't get any credit for it. We'll see how many people give credit where it is due when the time comes, but the behavior here, this attitude that because Bettman tries to help a currently existing franchise, it means he hates Canada or other BS, it doesn't bode well for that.

Be that as it may. Post this "end of the road Bettman" hate as you will, he'll still be there as long as he wants to be.

Your whole post is based on a good TV deal payday being the only reason a team should exist in Phoenix.

Do you think a viewership in the single to double digit thousands is going to impress whomever wants the next TV deal?

The next TV deal will be to, essentially, guarantee the same rights to the games NBC gets to play today. Namely:
Pitts vs. Wash
Philly vs. NYR
Boston vs. Chicago

You think the TV deal will be to show Phoenix vs. Florida that draws ~8,000 TV viewers?

I think you're overvaluing the influence Phoenix would have on such a deal.

 

[Crazy_Ike]

Your whole post is based on a good TV deal payday being the only reason a team should exist in Phoenix.

Do you think a viewership in the single to double digit thousands is going to impress whomever wants the next TV deal?

I don't really need to think it. The league was explicitly told to widen its national footprint twenty years ago to get greater returns on any TV deal it signed. It did, and then proceeded to get the best TV deal by far it had ever received.

Governors themselves have recently mentioned that Phoenix is important for its TV market whether the local numbers are *currently* there or not.

"Only reason"? The "only reason" the Coyotes should exist in Phoenix is because they already DO exist in Phoenix and the league owes its support only to actual current members, not potential future members. The TV market was a reason to move there in the first place, though.

The #12 TV market in the US is not something to be brushed off when you are negotiating on a national scale.

 

[CorbeauNoir]

Really? You want a private group, backed by private money, to have carte blanche to stop any agreement it decides is "unlawful"?

How about one that squelched abortion clinics?

Or one that decided unions shouldn't be allowed?

Or one that attempted to outlaw immigration?

Or the teaching of evolution? (or anything other than Christian-based schools, for that matter)

And they could do any of this, without you having any say at all, until they are backed down in court?

You really want that, eh?

Don't even try to claim I am exaggerating, either - every one of those is either in the process of being enacted in various states, or the fight is on to do so. Arizona is one of the most screwed up places in North America and people like the GWI are a big part of why.

The Arizona Constitution decided it's unlawful, not GWI. Unlike every example you brought up the objective hasn't been to bring in new legislation to make the gift clause illegal, they're acting upon what has already been established by state law. If for whatever reason that's problematic, why whine and ***** about an enforcing body and not the documentation that justifies that enforcement to begin with?

So granted, it's not exaggerating so much as a faulty attempt at fearmongering.

 

[MAROONSRoad]

You know what I find the saddest part of posts like this - the ONLY reason Winnipeg is being considered at all is because of Bettman. There is absolutely nothing to recommend the city to the rest of the owners of the NHL. It does absolutely nothing for the rest of the league. Its presence only weakens the league's push for a good TV deal payday and in the short term will probably cause the salary cap and floor to go UP (though short term only). And its entire future existence hangs on whether or not the Canadian dollar can stay strong.

But, Bettman wants Winnipeg to have a team so should Glendale fail to come through, it will. It is just sad that he won't get any credit for it. We'll see how many people give credit where it is due when the time comes, but the behavior here, this attitude that because Bettman tries to help a currently existing franchise, it means he hates Canada or other BS, it doesn't bode well for that.

Be that as it may. Post this "end of the road Bettman" hate as you will, he'll still be there as long as he wants to be.

Your pro-Bettman posts are getting more and more ridiculous. And just to make clear -- I am not a knee jerk hate everything about Bettman person.

Now, "the ONLY reason Winnipeg is being considered at all is because of Bettman?" What a silly comment. It has nothing to do with the market? Nothing to do with Mark Chipman? Nothing to do with David Thomson? Nothing to do with their being able to pay $170MM or whatever for a franchise? Nothing to do with the fact that there are a lot of hockey fans in Winnipeg that make TNSE willing to invest in a franchise in that city? Nothing to do with the new arena? Nothing to do with the fact that Winnipeg used to have an NHL team? Nothing to do with other BOGs that are okay with a Winnipeg franchise in the NHL again? Etc., etc. No it's only because of one man: Gary Bettman. What a distorted perspective you have.

GHOST

 

[Crazy_Ike]

The Arizona Constitution decided it's unlawful, not GWI.

Wrong. It hasn't been decided in court. All it took was the THREAT, from a private group that answers to absolutely nobody, to raise the percentage on the bonds too high for the city.

I can't believe anyone who actually wants democracy anywhere could think that any group should have that power. Sue in court to stop it if you have to, but this ability to kill it without ever going there while not having to justify one's actions to anyone is despicable.

 

[Metzen]

Really? You want a private group, backed by private money, to have carte blanche to stop any agreement it decides is "unlawful"?

How about one that squelched abortion clinics?

Or one that decided unions shouldn't be allowed?

Or one that attempted to outlaw immigration?

Or the teaching of evolution? (or anything other than Christian-based schools, for that matter)

And they could do any of this, without you having any say at all, until they are backed down in court?

You really want that, eh?

Don't even try to claim I am exaggerating, either - every one of those is either in the process of being enacted in various states, or the fight is on to do so. Arizona is one of the most screwed up places in North America and people like the GWI are a big part of why.

As opposed to...? Cities/States officials being allowed to enact anything/everything that crosses their whim? Whose to say your ethics are more important than someone else's?

States/Cities themselves are stupid in their own way:
Outlaws Gay marriage
Polygamy being legal
Removing toys from happy meals
Verdicts without representation

Frankly, I don't agree with their causes or beliefs on a lot of issues (all of yours listed anyways) but I do recognize that, sometimes, they have *good* ideas that should be evaluated and considered; not dismissed because you disagree with other non-applicable issues.

 

[Metzen]

Wrong. It hasn't been decided in court. All it took was the THREAT, from a private group that answers to absolutely nobody, to raise the percentage on the bonds too high for the city.

I can't believe anyone who actually wants democracy anywhere could think that any group should have that power. Sue in court to stop it if you have to, but this ability to kill it without ever going there while not having to justify one's actions to anyone is despicable.

The reason why the rate was raised is because the company issuing the bonds thought the threat was justified. If they didn't I doubt they'd care. It's not like GWI was going to sue them.

 

[Crazy_Ike]

Now, "the ONLY reason Winnipeg is being considered at all is because of Bettman?" What a silly comment. It has nothing to do with the market?

What does "the market" do for the other 29 owners?

Nothing to do with Mark Chipman? Nothing to do with David Thomson.

What do either of those guys do for the other 29 owners?

Nothing to do with their being able to pay $170MM or whatever for a franchise?

How certain are you that the league could not get 170m for a franchise in other places? Or more?

I believe there's a guy in Hamilton who would pay twice that.

Nothing to do with the fact that there are a lot of hockey fans in Winnipeg that make TNSE willing to invest in a franchise in that city?

And what do those fans do for the other 29 teams?

I think you're starting to get the point now. It appears once again I must remind people that membership in the NHL is not a god-given right, not for a city or any of the fans in said city. For the league's members, Winnipeg doesn't do squat. It's too small a market to significantly impact CBC deals, will do nothing but reduce US TV deals, its short term bump will raise costs for everyone else, and the fact it already failed once makes it a leery chance in the future should the CAD crash again and stands a very good chance of being a welfare recipient long before that point.

Your arguments are all based on the idea that fan support is somehow the most important factor. It is... to THAT team, but certainly not to anyone else. Fans in Winnipeg don't contribute to a good TV deal in the US, and are unlikely to change much from the CBC who already has just fine ratings there. The league's decisions are based on the value to the 30 member owners, not the cities or fans who think they deserve a team, and if there is no benefit to them, then you better be able to talk fast to get them to agree.

But, despite this, despite a very hostile outlook among most the US owners in the league to going back to Winnipeg, they are the frontrunner. Why? Because Bettman believes that they should be given first crack at the team, to correct something he never wanted to have happen in the first place. There's no suggestion of offering the Coyotes to Quebec City, even though they are just as capable of bidding on it as Winnipeg. Nor places like Kansas City who have a much better arena and corporate market and groups patiently waiting for their shot. It has all but been handed to Thomson solely because league management (Bettman) thinks its the right thing to do.

Don't kid yourself. If Bettman didn't want the team in Winnipeg, it wouldn't be going to Winnipeg no matter what.

 

[themish]

No Ike, our arena is state of the art, we have a good fan base, and we have a lot of corporate support. I'm sick of everyone saying we don't deserve a team...

You know what's sad? Tampa Bay in 2004 were giving away free tickets during the Stanley Cup. That's sad, sure it's off topic, but there's about 4 or 5 teams in the sun belt that have been quite frankly embarrassing for this league. More and more each day, people with a sensible mind, are thinking that it's time the Coyotes move. There's nothing positive going on in Glendale, I'm sorry, but it's the truth.

 

[Crazy_Ike]

As opposed to...? Cities/States officials being allowed to enact anything/everything that crosses their whim?

If you elected them, you get to live with the consequences.

Who elected GWI?

I do recognize that, sometimes, they have *good* ideas that should be evaluated and considered; not dismissed because you disagree with other non-applicable issues.

Evaluated, considered... implemented by fiat whether anyone else wants it or not? Implemented because a financial backer wants to pay back a favor to a lobbyist? Implemented on ideological grounds by people it would never have affected either way?

I don't evaluate a shadow group having absolute power simply because I might agree with some of their decisions. Accountability is necessary regardless. GWI is accountable to no one except the people paying them.

The reason why the rate was raised is because the company issuing the bonds thought the threat was justified. If they didn't I doubt they'd care. It's not like GWI was going to sue them.

The rate was raised because going to court is never a sure thing and the threat was enough to raise the risk, which is all the percentage really is. It's not the same as being sued. Slant it how you like, the fact is an unelected unaccountable group (basically a lobby group for a certain political leaning) killed (probably) the deal BEFORE it was ever deemed "illegal" (if it ever is) simply by threatening the city and no one can do anything about it.

 

[Fugu]

Can't blame Gary for anything, but give him credit for everything.

 

[Jeffrey93]

Wrong. It hasn't been decided in court. All it took was the THREAT, from a private group that answers to absolutely nobody, to raise the percentage on the bonds too high for the city.

I can't believe anyone who actually wants democracy anywhere could think that any group should have that power. Sue in court to stop it if you have to, but this ability to kill it without ever going there while not having to justify one's actions to anyone is despicable.

Find out when a municipality near you is going to issue bonds for whatever reason. Announce that you are going to sue them over it. Note the reaction.

You won't get a reaction because it will be a completely baseless claim with no reason for it. It's pretty obvious that Goldwater has a pretty decent case...if they didn't...their "threats" would have had zero impact on the sale of the bonds. Bettman tried to spin it that if it weren't for Goldwater's letter these bonds would be snatched up quickly. He's full of it. Even prior to Goldwater's letter being sent out even newspaper writers were hinting that the group will likely have a problem with this deal. That is because Goldwater and the general public in Glendale/Arizona SHOULD have an issue with this. Even a Glendale City Councillor suggested he might sue the city over it.

Nothing is preventing Glendale from selling the bonds at a higher rate, or at least trying to. Nothing is preventing the bonds from being purchased.

Democracy doesn't mean that the few elected officials can make decisions to do things that go against the State's constitution. Just because this was democratically voted on doesn't make it legal.

 

[Jeffrey93]

If you elected them, you get to live with the consequences.

Who elected GWI?

Get a bunch of buddies together and try to sway a vote...or file a lawsuit against your local government.
It's no different. In this case the 'buddies' are specifically looking for a certain clause in the Arizona Constitution to be violated.
Citizens have the right to sue the government.....do you think they shouldn't have that right?

The rate was raised because going to court is never a sure thing and the threat was enough to raise the risk, which is all the percentage really is. It's not the same as being sued. Slant it how you like, the fact is an unelected unaccountable group (basically a lobby group for a certain political leaning) killed (probably) the deal BEFORE it was ever deemed "illegal" (if it ever is) simply by threatening the city and no one can do anything about it.

Nobody knows why the rate went up....could be because of Goldwater...could be because it's a flimsy deal to start with.
A group of citizens held the City of Glendale accountable. If they didn't....that would mean the City of Glendale is accountable to nobody.

Glendale could sue Goldwater....so yes...someone can do something about it, they just aren't. Makes you wonder why...doesn't it?

 

[william_adams]

A couple of things:

-GB maintained his talking points in the interviews today (well my today, but most of your last night's) but he did lean much more heavily on the GWI. This is likely to be able to place blame if the team has to move.

-Why does everybody assume that this is a binary option between Glendale and Winnipeg? GB (IMO rightly) said something like the 'natural' place to relocate would be to Winnipeg, but why wouldn't he keep his options open. A buyer in Kansas or Las Vegas or Quebec or Waterloo (at varying relocation fees) could easily buy the team from the NHL but keep them in Phoenix until their city of choice's arena was ready.

-Would also like to point out that there is a ton of time left for the team to stay in Phoenix even if MH backs away. Reinsdorf could possibly be enticed again, especially if he was given an exemption to the out clause in the lease. Not saying it's likely but i'm not sure why everybody is jumping on the 'something has to give SOON bandwagon'. Sure we'd love to hear more but no guarantees...

-The economy is doing more to torpedo this deal than i think everybody is recognizing. The longer it drags on, the greater the chances the economy can gather some steam. Pockets become deeper, tax revenues become more stable...

 

[Metzen]

I think you're starting to get the point now. It appears once again I must remind people that membership in the NHL is not a god-given right, not for a city or any of the fans in said city. For the league's members, Winnipeg doesn't do squat. It's too small a market to significantly impact CBC deals, will do nothing but reduce US TV deals, its short term bump will raise costs for everyone else, and the fact it already failed once makes it a leery chance in the future should the CAD crash again and stands a very good chance of being a welfare recipient long before that point.

Phoenix is failing now. If it moves I presume you would assume that it should never get a second crack? Has Minnesota taught us nothing?

Your arguments are all based on the idea that fan support is somehow the most important factor. It is... to THAT team, but certainly not to anyone else.

Healthy teams == healthy league. More revenue in the NHL pool helps all teams.

Fans in Winnipeg don't contribute to a good TV deal in the US, and are unlikely to change much from the CBC who already has just fine ratings there. The league's decisions are based on the value to the 30 member owners, not the cities or fans who think they deserve a team, and if there is no benefit to them, then you better be able to talk fast to get them to agree.

The BoG has been unable to find someone to purchase the Coyotes for "full market value" without a city giving out a huge subsidy. And this is causing a huge problem. I suspect they'll see the errors of their ways soon enough once the cash call comes. And from reports, they do NOT like cash calls.

But, despite this, despite a very hostile outlook among most the US owners in the league to going back to Winnipeg, they are the frontrunner.

Can you back that up? I've heard only glowing reports of the dealings with Chipman/Thompson. Melynk recently stated he thought Winnipeg could support a team.

Why? Because Bettman believes that they should be given first crack at the team, to correct something he never wanted to have happen in the first place. There's no suggestion of offering the Coyotes to Quebec City, even though they are just as capable of bidding on it as Winnipeg. Nor places like Kansas City who have a much better arena and corporate market and groups patiently waiting for their shot. It has all but been handed to Thomson solely because league management (Bettman) thinks its the right thing to do.

Don't kid yourself. If Bettman didn't want the team in Winnipeg, it wouldn't be going to Winnipeg no matter what.

Don't kid yourself. There are less buyers out there than you think. Just look at them lineup at Phoenix even with the huge subsidies offered!

I think you need to remind yourself that this is a gate-driven league. And Phoenix is not driving the gate enough to make it worth while for the NHL. Frankly, I think the #12 TV market is *too small* a hockey market to make a huge difference in a US hockey TV deal. Maybe in 20 years it will get to the point where it will be self sustaining, but the costs to a group or individual to tough it out till then would be enormous. More than the owner of the Phoenix Coyotes will be able to bare, even with an increased national TV revenue stream.

If the NHL isn't interested in hockey in Winnipeg as opposed to the "giant" TV markets in the US it should pull Edmonton, Calgary and Ottawa out and through them somewhere in the US (Houston, Las Vegas, Seattle?). Something tells me this would hurt the NHL more than help it... Even with a "big" TV deal...

http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=27330343&postcount=873

 

[Jeffrey93]

-Why does everybody assume that this is a binary option between Glendale and Winnipeg? GB (IMO rightly) said something like the 'natural' place to relocate would be to Winnipeg, but why wouldn't he keep his options open. A buyer in Kansas or Las Vegas or Quebec or Waterloo (at varying relocation fees) could easily buy the team from the NHL but keep them in Phoenix until their city of choice's arena was ready.

I don't get it either.

Bettman did say 'We have lots of options', then said they are aware of the interest in Winnipeg. And that was it. It seemed to me when I was watching it like he recognized the reporter and knew what he was driving at.

Nowhere has it been said by anyone other than sports writers that if the team moves it is going to Winnipeg. By this point the NHL should have a contingency plan for the Coyotes moving to a Western Conference location and an Eastern Conference location. I'm sure the NHL has many options, as Bettman said, if 29 rich guys don't like the deal in Winnipeg...it won't happen. No matter how 'right' it might seem to people. Then again...if most of them are fine with it (or simply don't care)...it will happen.

Regardless of how you feel about this entire situation...Brunt said it best today in the Globe & Mail. This doesn't feel very 'big league'. First the whole Bankruptcy issue....now a group of people making noise about a gift clause might scuttle the whole deal....then the team could move back to where it came from 15 years ago and into the smallest arena in the league.

Kinda stinks of bush league all around...no matter which side of the fence you are on.

 

[Jeffrey93]

Don't kid yourself. There are less buyers out there than you think. Just look at them lineup at Phoenix even with the huge subsidies offered!

You're right...there aren't many buyers out there to purchase an NHL franchise in the market of Phoenix/Glendale Arizona. There are likely MANY buyers out there that are willing to purchase an NHL franchise if they get to pick their location. Whatever that location might be.....

A portable franchise is always more sought after than a failing one that is staying put.

 

[Metzen]

If you elected them, you get to live with the consequences.

I hope all your elected officials are as infallible as it seemed they were when you elected them.

Who elected GWI?

Irrelevant.

Evaluated, considered... implemented by fiat whether anyone else wants it or not?

Proof?

Implemented because a financial backer wants to pay back a favor to a lobbyist? Implemented on ideological grounds by people it would never have affected either way?

If you elected them, you get to live with the consequences.

You know laws are bought all the time by lobbyists paying/bribing elected officials?

I don't evaluate a shadow group having absolute power simply because I might agree with some of their decisions. Accountability is necessary regardless. GWI is accountable to no one except the people paying them.

CoG can make them accountable by suing them. Easy. Done. If they're held accountable and go bankrupt because of it, then CoG wins in spectacular fashion.

The rate was raised because going to court is never a sure thing and the threat was enough to raise the risk, which is all the percentage really is. It's not the same as being sued. Slant it how you like, the fact is an unelected unaccountable group (basically a lobby group for a certain political leaning) killed (probably) the deal BEFORE it was ever deemed "illegal" (if it ever is) simply by threatening the city and no one can do anything about it.

Matt Hulsizer or someone else can step up and pay for the team in full, or assume the risks of the bonds. Deal is done.

There are lots of ways of making this deal work... It's sad Matt Hulsizer isn't willing to work with the city to determine an amicable solution. He is steadfast in ensuring it goes down his way and his way only. Unfortunately, the CoG cannot accommodate him.

 

[bbud]

You know what I find the saddest part of posts like this - the ONLY reason Winnipeg is being considered at all is because of Bettman. There is absolutely nothing to recommend the city to the rest of the owners of the NHL. It does absolutely nothing for the rest of the league. Its presence only weakens the league's push for a good TV deal payday and in the short term will probably cause the salary cap and floor to go UP (though short term only). And its entire future existence hangs on whether or not the Canadian dollar can stay strong.

But, Bettman wants Winnipeg to have a team so should Glendale fail to come through, it will. It is just sad that he won't get any credit for it. We'll see how many people give credit where it is due when the time comes, but the behavior here, this attitude that because Bettman tries to help a currently existing franchise, it means he hates Canada or other BS, it doesn't bode well for that.

Be that as it may. Post this "end of the road Bettman" hate as you will, he'll still be there as long as he wants to be.

Hes a plain liar who is losing more respect among fans by the day Phoenix fans might love an explanation about who the prospective owners lined up around the street were ?
since then its been a GB dog and pony show with no results while fully knowing what GI was about and his supporters called him a smart leader it appears the im bos syndrome is worn out he has lost and lied to fans and he uses Canada has no respect for us thats all it is about take our TV money because hes not getting close to enough from his US markets .

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

I am pretty sure at this point there will be hockey in Arizona next season and so on. The NHL just doesn't look to be bailing on this market. It's part of their grand strategy and pulling out of AZ could create negative momentum for other Southern markets too.