Phoenix XXXIII: Sound of Silence

[RAgIn]

And once it does, both the NHL and those on Glendale city council who voted for the $197 million deal with Hulsizer will have a convenient scapegoat to blame for the demise of the pact - the Goldwater Institute. The public watchdog has vowed to file a lawsuit to block the sale of municipal bonds to finance the purchase of the Coyotes. The Goldwater Institute has been steadfast in its insistence the deal between Hulsizer and the city of Glendale, which includes an upfront payment of $100 million to Hulsizer, violates Arizona law with respect to public subsidies.

NHL commissioner Gary Bettman and those on Glendale council who held their nose and voted to approve the lease at Jobing.com Arena to keep the Coyotes in Phoenix will be off the hook and will simply be able to blame the Goldwater Institute and its incessant meddling as the reason why the deal could not work.

Campbell is absolutely right. Nice exit for the NHL, Hulsizer and the COG.

 

[XX]

So why is the NHL willing to sell for 140 mil to TNSE but not Hulsizer?

 

[blueandgoldguy]

So why is the NHL willing to sell for 140 mil to TNSE but not Hulsizer?

It's just a story from the hockey news. It hasn't been verified yet.

 

[XX]

It's just a story from the hockey news. It hasn't been verified yet.

Nothing will be 'verified' until the ink is dry on the closing documents.

 

[MAROONSRoad]

Nothing will be 'verified' until the ink is dry on the closing documents.

100% agreed on that.

GHOST

 

[danishh]

So why is the NHL willing to sell for 140 mil to TNSE but not Hulsizer?

my guess is that it's actually 145M, or 170- the 25M they get from glendale.




[posts this part was referring to have been removed]

 

[kdb209]

sale of season tickets pre re-location based on dispositions in Dewey Ranch court case may be required under previously unseen NHL By-Laws

http://communities.canada.com/edmon.../2010/12/06/how-to-move-an-nhl-franchise.aspx

These are not "previously unseen NHL By-Laws".

NHL By-Law 36, governing the relocation of a franchise, has been quite public since the first court filings in Phoenix - and note that article does not quote the By-Law, it just paraphrases the considerations under By-Law 36.5.

Note that the factors under 36.5(a)-(x) are just considerations for member clubs to use as guidance in voting to accept/reject a relocation request - they are not specific requirements.

Nothing there could be read as to require a certain pre-sale of season tickets. At best, a season ticket drive would just fall under the "any other relevant facts" term of 36.5(l).

36.5 In determining whether to consent to the transfer of a Member Club's franchise to a different city or borough pursuant to Section 4.2 of the Constitution, each Member Club shall be guided by the following considerations:

...

(l) The extent to which it appears likely, based on population, demographics, and interest in hockey in the area of the proposed new location, or based on any other relevant facts, that support for a franchise there will be sufficient to make the franchise financially viable in the proposed new location on a continuing basis.
​

 

[RR]

my guess is that it's actually 145M, or 170- the 25M they get from glendale...

Doesn't add up, unless you're suggesting the league is now willing to take a loss on this deal. The sales price out of BK plus the widely reported losses of ~$70M over the last 2 years would require $210M to make the league whole. I can buy $185M as the sales price ($210M - $25M from COG), but not $145M.

 

[htpwn]

Doesn't add up, unless you're suggesting the league is now willing to take a loss on this deal. The sales price out of BK plus the widely reported losses of ~$70M over the last 2 years would require $210M to make the league whole. I can buy $185M as the sales price ($210M - $25M from COG), but not $145M.

Shot in the dark, but $140 million + relocation fee is a possibility is it not?

 

[XX]

Shot in the dark, but $140 million + relocation fee is a possibility is it not?

Plus cost of renovations? Starts to get pricy, even for a Canadian market.

 

[htpwn]

Plus cost of renovations? Starts to get pricy, even for a Canadian market.

Yes it does, but it appears that if they want the team, that's the price they will have to pay. Selling the team for $140 million in relocation when you won't budge on the $170 million 'local' price is a big double standard and the media will no doubt pick it up, ushering in more negative press for the NHL.

 

[RR]

Shot in the dark, but $140 million + relocation fee is a possibility is it not?

IIRC, a relocation fee was specifically referenced as a "profit" in the sales agreement and would flow to the bankrupt estate of Moyes.

Something is just not right with this THN report. The number may be $200M, but I don't see how that would include the league "paying" $60M to renovate an Arena. What a floodgate that would open. The BK has opened enough of those already, why create a new one?

 

[Jeffrey93]

Slam Sports Article

Article basically sums up what others have already reported....interesting quote though...

“That’ll be a very interesting exercise to go through,†Chipman told me, way back in early ’05. “If everything else lined up ... you could probably put it to the community and find out pretty quick whether or not that would fly.â€

Seems some fans are more confident in this 'flying' than Chipman was/is.

 

[Whileee]

These are not "previously unseen NHL By-Laws".

NHL By-Law 36, governing the relocation of a franchise, has been quite public since the first court filings in Phoenix - and note that article does not quote the By-Law, it just paraphrases the considerations under By-Law 36.5.

Note that the factors under 36.5(a)-(x) are just considerations for member clubs to use as guidance in voting to accept/reject a relocation request - they are not specific requirements.

Nothing there could be read as to require a certain pre-sale of season tickets. At best, a season ticket drive would just fall under the "any other relevant facts" term of 36.5(l).

If true, this "demand" from the NHL to have a high number of season tickets pre-sold will set a very high bar if the NHL has any subsequent plans for expansion and/or relocation to markets such as KC or Houston or Portland.

 

[Jeffrey93]

If true, this "demand" from the NHL to have a high number of season tickets pre-sold will set a very high bar if the NHL has any subsequent plans for expansion and/or relocation to markets such as KC or Houston or Portland.

I think this demand...if true or not...shows that there are quite a few people that aren't so sure about Winnipeg being able to support a team.

 

[Whileee]

These are not "previously unseen NHL By-Laws".

NHL By-Law 36, governing the relocation of a franchise, has been quite public since the first court filings in Phoenix - and note that article does not quote the By-Law, it just paraphrases the considerations under By-Law 36.5.

Note that the factors under 36.5(a)-(x) are just considerations for member clubs to use as guidance in voting to accept/reject a relocation request - they are not specific requirements.

Nothing there could be read as to require a certain pre-sale of season tickets. At best, a season ticket drive would just fall under the "any other relevant facts" term of 36.5(l).

If true, this "demand" from the NHL to have a high number of season tickets pre-sold will set a very high bar if the NHL has any subsequent plans for expansion and/or relocation to markets such as KC or Houston or Portland.

 

[Whileee]

I think this demand...if true or not...shows that there are quite a few people that aren't so sure about Winnipeg being able to support a team.

I think most Winnipeg fans are okay with that. If they can't show the fan support, they shouldn't have the NHL return. I don't know very many Winnipeggers who aren't confident that the seats will sell very quickly and enthusiastically, if for no other reason than to show doubters (such as yourself) that Winnipeg does indeed deserve a return of an NHL franchise.

The point is that if Winnipeg needs to prove this a priori, will the NHL now require that for all subsequent relocation / expansion teams. For example, could two of your proposed relocation sites (KC and Portland) sell commitments for 3 years of season tickets in advance? I think that might be a stretch, certainly moreso than in Winnipeg.

 

[OthmarAmmann]

I think most Winnipeg fans are okay with that. If they can't show the fan support, they shouldn't have the NHL return. I don't know very many Winnipeggers who aren't confident that the seats will sell very quickly and enthusiastically, if for no other reason than to show doubters (such as yourself) that Winnipeg does indeed deserve a return of an NHL franchise.

The point is that if Winnipeg needs to prove this a priori, will the NHL now require that for all subsequent relocation / expansion teams. For example, could two of your proposed relocation sites (KC and Portland) sell commitments for 3 years of season tickets in advance? I think that might be a stretch, certainly moreso than in Winnipeg.

It would be a stretch even for some current markets

 

[Jeffrey93]

I think most Winnipeg fans are okay with that. If they can't show the fan support, they shouldn't have the NHL return. I don't know very many Winnipeggers who aren't confident that the seats will sell very quickly and enthusiastically, if for no other reason than to show doubters (such as yourself) that Winnipeg does indeed deserve a return of an NHL franchise.

The point is that if Winnipeg needs to prove this a priori, will the NHL now require that for all subsequent relocation / expansion teams. For example, could two of your proposed relocation sites (KC and Portland) sell commitments for 3 years of season tickets in advance? I think that might be a stretch, certainly moreso than in Winnipeg.

Isn't there a minimum requirement for STH's for expansion teams? I can't remember what the number is....it's not like this has never been done before and Winnipeg is the first ever place to have to prove demand.

It does make me wonder though....what was done to prove the demand in Phoenix? What did Karmanos provide the BoG to show Carolina was a hockey hotbed?

 

[htpwn]

Winnipeg radio station reporting that John McCain has thrown in the towel.

Senator John McCain is the latest to throw in the towel on efforts to save the Coyotes. McCain says it's over. More with Bob Irving at 7:35.

http://twitter.com/Power97/status/58854660013965312

 

[Acesolid]

Winnipeg radio station reporting that John McCain has thrown in the towel.



http://twitter.com/Power97/status/58854660013965312

Man, when John McCain throws in the towel, you know it's finished. The man was involved in this issue for months and looked very passionate about it!

I'm certain of it now, the Coyotes are 100% finished once the Wings knocks them out .

 

[Hank Chinaski]

Isn't there a minimum requirement for STH's for expansion teams? I can't remember what the number is....it's not like this has never been done before and Winnipeg is the first ever place to have to prove demand.

It does make me wonder though....what was done to prove the demand in Phoenix? What did Karmanos provide the BoG to show Carolina was a hockey hotbed?

It's understandable that expansion teams would have to do this. A relocated team? I'm fairly sure this is unprecedented. The Avalanche, Hurricanes and Coyotes did not have to do this. I'm not sure about other relocated teams, mind you.

 

[metalfoot]

Maybe this finally *is* the end of the imminence.

Wow. Exciting times for the Peg, scary times to be a Yotes fan. I am starting to think Dado is right, that the Yotes were really off the table a long time ago and that CoG refused to sell the bonds but made it look like they were so they have a plausible scapegoat. Covering one's hind parts and whatnot.

 

[Jeffrey93]

It's understandable that expansion teams would have to do this. A relocated team? I'm fairly sure this is unprecedented. The Avalanche, Hurricanes and Coyotes did not have to do this. I'm not sure about other relocated teams, mind you.

Why should a potential owner of an expansion team have to prove the market is capable and a potential owner of a relocation team shouldn't?

 

[Hank Chinaski]

Why should a potential owner of an expansion team have to prove the market is capable and a potential owner of a relocation team shouldn't?

Good question.

Why didn't PHX, CAR and COL have to?