Phoenix XXXIV: Project Mayhem

[Dado]

A 3rd party transcript can "accidentally" omit whatever it is told to omit.

I am confident GWI will record their own trqnscrip and release it.

 

[Cornwall OHL]

Why don't they just flip a coin. Head = Winnipeg, tails = Phoenix. Best two out of three wins.

 

[MayDay]

No, they don't. NBC and VS pretty much show these teams:

Rangers, Flyers, Penguins, Caps, Hawks, Wings. Rinse and repeat. VERY RARELY will VS. actually change it up a bit but NBC... no chance. Same teams week in, week out. Get's rather boring if you ask me.

To interject some facts here. Here's the number of times each team appeared on Versus this past season.

Boston Bruins: 11
Chicago Blackhawks: 11
Detroit Red Wings: 11
New York Rangers: 11
Pittsburgh Penguins: 11
Washington Capitals: 11
Buffalo Sabres: 9
Minnesota Wild: 9
Philadelphia Flyers: 9
San Jose Sharks: 8
Montreal Canadiens: 6
Tampa Bay Lightning: 6
Colorado Avalanche: 5
Los Angeles Kings: 5
New Jersey Devils: 5
Phoenix Coyotes: 5
St. Louis Blues: 5
Carolina Hurricanes: 4
Columbus Blue Jackets: 3
Dallas Stars: 3
New York Islanders: 2
Anaheim Ducks: 1
Atlanta Thrashers: 1
Calgary Flames: 1 - Heritage Classic
Nashville Predators: 1
Toronto Maple Leafs: 1
Vancouver Canucks: 1
Edmonton Oilers: Zero
Florida Panthers: Zero
Ottawa Senators: Zero

(source)

27 out of 30 NHL teams appeared on Versus this season (including 23 of the 24 American teams).

Obviously it's slanted towards Boston, Chicago, Detroit, NY Rangers, Pittsburgh, and Washington.

But look at it this way. 17 different teams had at least 5 national games. I think that's pretty good.

 

[RR]

Did he also mention that he 'believes' Hulsizer will be at the game tonight? I can't listen, but that is being reported on various twitter accounts...if that means anything!

He's here. Told Dan Bickley, an Arizona Republic sports columnist and talk show host on XTRA 910 Sports, "I feel very good that there will be a future" for the Phoenix Coyotes.

Sounds like an almost done deal. Unless he meant that future was in Winnipeg.

With at least one & possibly more reporter's present. Dont worry about it. You'll find out in real time whats being said/discussed. Honestly, I think people are putting far too much import on this tete-a-tete. Without League & Hulsizer participation ABSENT reporters little more than posturing is going to come of it, and we already know what both positions are on the matter.

No reporters, Killion. It is closed to the public. A court transcriber hired by GWI will record the meeting and then release the written transcript.

And Hulsizer is telling fans on the Plaza that he will be present at the meeting tomorrow.

 

[Killion]

A court transcriber hired by GWI will record the meeting.....

Thanks for the clarification on logistics, and a positive Hulsizer will attend. Now, if we can get the NHL in the same room........

 

[Fugu]

To interject some facts here. Here's the number of times each team appeared on Versus this past season.

Boston Bruins: 11
Chicago Blackhawks: 11
Detroit Red Wings: 11
New York Rangers: 11
Pittsburgh Penguins: 11
Washington Capitals: 11
Buffalo Sabres: 9
Minnesota Wild: 9
Philadelphia Flyers: 9
San Jose Sharks: 8
Montreal Canadiens: 6
Tampa Bay Lightning: 6
Colorado Avalanche: 5
Los Angeles Kings: 5
New Jersey Devils: 5
Phoenix Coyotes: 5
St. Louis Blues: 5
Carolina Hurricanes: 4
Columbus Blue Jackets: 3
Dallas Stars: 3
New York Islanders: 2
Anaheim Ducks: 1
Atlanta Thrashers: 1
Calgary Flames: 1 - Heritage Classic
Nashville Predators: 1
Toronto Maple Leafs: 1
Vancouver Canucks: 1
Edmonton Oilers: Zero
Florida Panthers: Zero
Ottawa Senators: Zero

(source)

27 out of 30 NHL teams appeared on Versus this season (including 23 of the 24 American teams).

Obviously it's slanted towards Boston, Chicago, Detroit, NY Rangers, Pittsburgh, and Washington.

But look at it this way. 17 different teams had at least 5 national games. I think that's pretty good.

Now try excluding the time those other teams appeared without one of the six above. I was asking in the TV contract thread what the max number games would be that VS could claim for a single team. I think that number is 11.

At this point Brain Damage or Comfortably Numb seem more apropos.

Also - in honor of the pending CoG / GWI sit down:

Several Species of Small Furry Animals Gathered Together in a Cave and Grooving with a Pict

If this is still going on in one month, we've gotta go with Comfortably Numb. I like the small furry animals imagery though. Must figure out how to work that in somewhere.

 

[Roughneck]

Why don't they just flip a coin. Head = Winnipeg, tails = Phoenix. Best two out of three wins.

Surely best of 7 would be more appropriate.




As for the news, who knows what to think anymore. If GWI keeps standing their ground (why wouldn't they at this point?) then we know the only thing that will make them happy, if the city doesn't then the people of Glendale need to replace their council because they are idiots.

Let's for the hell of it assume that they aren't complete idiots and that some sort of tweaks have been made to the deal, what could they be? And why would it matter if Goldwater gives it the okay or not? The issue was that they couldn't sell bonds, if a new deal involves bonds then Goldwater is probably going to still be against it. If they don't need to sell bonds to get the money, then why not just go through with it if they're so convinced it's legal?

I don't underestimate the lengths to which the NHL will go to keep the team in Phoenix, but if the past few months are anything to go on then tomorrow will probably be closer to the 'game over' letter than it will be to a triumphant saving of the Coyotes in Glendale. But who knows, a saga as drawn out as this one deserves a spectacular finish, no?

 

[kdb209]

At this point Brain Damage or Comfortably Numb seem more apropos.

Also - in honor of the pending CoG / GWI sit down:

Several Species of Small Furry Animals Gathered Together in a Cave and Grooving with a Pict

If this is still going on in one month, we've gotta go with Comfortably Numb. I like the small furry animals imagery though. Must figure out how to work that in somewhere.

If this is still going on in a month, I'll likely be well into Careful With That Ax, Eugene or One of These Days (I'll Cut You Into Little Pieces) territory.

 

[smokes]

Now that Bettman has his crown-jeweled US Television contract, I'm curious to see what is stance is going to be on teams like Phoenix and Atlanta.

Plus, a move to Winnipeg (and potentially Quebec) would likely mean more money from CBC, TSN, Rogers in the future.

The 2 billion number of the new TV deal sounds impressive, and is only when compared to what they currently have: 200 million per year compared to about 70 million per year from Versus and zero from NBC.

The current Canadian rights are about the same as the new U.S. deal, and are up for bid soon. The new number will be higher. 1/3 of the teams and 1/10 the population and more money. Where will that number be in year seven of the new U.S. TV deal?

I understand the notion of market potential in the U.S. for TV. It made sense 15 years ago. But if this new deal, locked in for the next 10 years and rumoured to also include rights to the NHL network, is the result of the expanded footprint in the U.S., I'm not sure this is something to get too excited about.

It's like telling your 45 year old son who still lives in your basement that he still has the potential to be anything he wants to be if only he would apply himself. That meant something when he was 8. At the age of 45, he leaves the basement to get a part time job at Home Depot and you celebrate because compared to the darkness of your cellar, he is now in the penthouse.

Canada may be near saturation for hockey. Phoenix, Atlanta, and many other large U.S. markets certainly do have huge potential. Unfortunately, they had that same unrealized potential 15 years ago. Over time, markets determine their own capacity for a product or service. I respectfully submit that perhaps the market has spoken.

 

[wpgallday1960]

The 2 billion number of the new TV deal sounds impressive, and is only when compared to what they currently have: 200 million per year compared to about 70 million per year from Versus and zero from NBC.

The current Canadian rights are about the same as the new U.S. deal, and are up for bid soon. The new number will be higher. 1/3 of the teams and 1/10 the population and more money. Where will that number be in year seven of the new U.S. TV deal?

I understand the notion of market potential in the U.S. for TV. It made sense 15 years ago. But if this new deal, locked in for the next 10 years and rumoured to also include rights to the NHL network, is the result of the expanded footprint in the U.S., I'm not sure this is something to get too excited about.

It's like telling your 45 year old son who still lives in your basement that he still has the potential to be anything he wants to be if only he would apply himself. That meant something when he was 8. At the age of 45, he leaves the basement to get a part time job at Home Depot and you celebrate because compared to the darkness of your cellar, he is now in the penthouse.

Canada may be near saturation for hockey. Phoenix, Atlanta, and many other large U.S. markets certainly do have huge potential. Unfortunately, they had that same unrealized potential 15 years ago. Over time, markets determine their own capacity for a product or service. I respectfully submit that perhaps the market has spoken.

Couldn't agree more. Hockey can make a go of it in some non-traditional markets, and in some it can't. The point I will concede to fans in markets like Phoenix & Atlanta is that they do deserve a chance with decent ownership and a respectable on-ice product. I still think hockey won't work in the long run in those markets, but that's just my opinion.

 

[Moobles]

I think marginal costs for growth have to be realized. Teams like Atlanta and Phoenix will take initial heavy losses in the first one or two generations of fans (aprox. 15-20 years- till they start having kids). This is how places like Vancouver and Pittsburgh started: they lost money in the first 10-15 years of their existence (roughly) or broke even but fielded very poor teams. In the next generation however we saw much more interest, especially as the draft made some teams more competitive and restricted number of teams in the league meant they had a better chance at making the playoffs. In places where 'hockey culture' is less embedded I think it might take longer, but the benefits for the future are huge if you can capture the market. The problem is: are you willing to suffer those initial losses?

Now I don't think it'll be a generation before somewhere like Carolina turns a profit. I just mean within two generations, if a team's been there for awhile, you'll get a lot of cultural memory accumulated with the franchise (so long as they're not forgettable and have competed at some time, or made headlines) and if kids grow up playing hockey because the NHL invests in it well, you'd be in good shape. In Canada, you already have kids playing hockey, the national interest in it is high and arguably the media price for adding a second team barring it's not in Quebec, Southern Ontario or Toronto would be marginally small. You'd get some gains- essentially the local markets following teams closely over the season rather than scattered fans following various teams at their leisure, but these places don't have huge populations. The $ the league makes is less, the TV deals will only go up a bit. On the otherhand, these franchises are probably more likely to turn a profit, don't have to worry as much about 'reaching out' to fans because of the high initial interest and growth is easy because hockey is the #1 thang.

But long-term they're probably not going to get more profitable, like the U.S., and apart from maybe Southern Ontario you're not going to see them contribute a ton to the league. They'd be autonomous, stable franchises- more than we'd have now (barring a dollar collapse) but they're not going to bump up revenues.

/tangent /reiterate my point a thousand times in every thread I can find (I apologize to those who catch me all the time, I must get redundant). It's what I think though.

Canada may be near saturation for hockey. Phoenix, Atlanta, and many other large U.S. markets certainly do have huge potential. Unfortunately, they had that same unrealized potential 15 years ago. Over time, markets determine their own capacity for a product or service. I respectfully submit that perhaps the market has spoken.

 

[Ludwig Fell Down]

http://www.kpho.com/valleynews/27616488/detail.html



Julie baby- if you don't know GWI's answer to that, then it's really over.

In the words of Randy Moss: "Straight cash, homey."

 

[Donky]

From the way Hulsizer is making a spectacle of himself showing up at the game in Coyotes jersey....I get the feeling he believes this deal is going to get done one way or the other.

If it does not he is going to look very foolish.

 

[RAgIn]

http://www.kpho.com/valleynews/27616488/detail.html



Julie baby- if you don't know GWI's answer to that, then it's really over.

That interview should be short and sweet. GWI: the only way for this transaction to be legal is if Hulsizer buys the Coyotes outright. COG: sighs: (leaves the room)

 

[RAgIn]

Ettman Believes Coyotes Still May Stay In Phoenix

From TSN 1050 today:

Key points & quotes:

"It's not days and it's not years. Obviously, we have to have this resolved before we release next year's schedule," said Bettman, who was a guest on this afternoon's James Cybulski and friends show on TSN 1050.

So i guess the end of May?

"We had it done at one point, but the Goldwater Institute blew it up. We're seeing what we can do. We still have time. I'm not going to tell you when time runs out, but obviously, the more time that elapses, the closer we get to the end, but we're still hopeful we can make it work."

When asked if the league was prepared to operate as owner of the team next season if a new owner couldn't be found, Bettman said it would be unlikely, unless the city of Glendale would take care of the financial losses.

"That's not the plan. I know this gets misreported also: they talk about 'oh, the owners must be so upset because of the money we're losing'. People tend to forget the city of Glendale is paying this year's losses, not the NHL, not the clubs," Bettman said. "So ultimately, for that to happen, Glendale would have to be willing to do that again. But I think at some point, if this doesn't come together, everybody is going to conclude that everything possible was done and it didn't work. We're hoping not to get to that point. And I still think there's a significant chance that we won't get to that point."

I thought of this scenario today, I guess it's possible, but it looks like if they can't get a deal done, all will agree that it will be over. I can't see the COG agreeing to take the loses yet again and the NHL to let this scenario play out for a another season.

Good read.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=363052

TSN Radio interview via You Tube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcvCDOYEJCw&feature=player_embedded

 

[HarrySPlinkett]

This might be a stupid question, but is the COG allowed to buy the team itself? Like, would it really be illegal for the team to be owned by the municipality? That way, the city can reap the forecasted benefits directly as well as saving the Westgate development. And they can also continue to look for an owner if they so desire. Unless of course they know their projections for coyotes revenue are way off.

If this is impossible I'd understand, but I'm just curious.

 

[KuralySnipes]

It looks like the last seconds have tickes away on the Coyotes in Arizona (maybe)

 

[Moo]

So in short, can someone give me a cliff's notes version of what is going on right now? There is sooooo much to sift through and I'm admittedly having a hard time grasping onto what the latest is.

 

[AugustBurnsRed*]

If they do end up moving.. those last 2 goals in Coyotes history are.. sad.

 

[Coach]

So in short, can someone give me a cliff's notes version of what is going on right now? There is sooooo much to sift through and I'm admittedly having a hard time grasping onto what the latest is.

Lots of speculation by both sides, but nothing concrete either way. Coyotes are now officially eliminated from the playoffs.

 

[Dado]

Obviously, we have to have this resolved before we release next year's schedule.

Well there you have it, the official deadline from the official Head Cheese himself.

Back out 4 weeks to actually close the transaction to get the latest possible announcement date.

 

[Roughneck]

So in short, can someone give me a cliff's notes version of what is going on right now? There is sooooo much to sift through and I'm admittedly having a hard time grasping onto what the latest is.

They might move, they might not, we probably wont know for weeks. Things seem closer to the former but you never know what the NHL could come up with.


If they do move Coyote fans deserved a better ending to a season than the Coyotes gave them.

 

[SkullSplitter]

I think marginal costs for growth have to be realized. Teams like Atlanta and Phoenix will take initial heavy losses in the first one or two generations of fans (aprox. 15-20 years- till they start having kids). This is how places like Vancouver and Pittsburgh started: they lost money in the first 10-15 years of their existence (roughly) or broke even but fielded very poor teams. In the next generation however we saw much more interest, especially as the draft made some teams more competitive and restricted number of teams in the league meant they had a better chance at making the playoffs. In places where 'hockey culture' is less embedded I think it might take longer, but the benefits for the future are huge if you can capture the market. The problem is: are you willing to suffer those initial losses?

Now I don't think it'll be a generation before somewhere like Carolina turns a profit. I just mean within two generations, if a team's been there for awhile, you'll get a lot of cultural memory accumulated with the franchise (so long as they're not forgettable and have competed at some time, or made headlines) and if kids grow up playing hockey because the NHL invests in it well, you'd be in good shape. In Canada, you already have kids playing hockey, the national interest in it is high and arguably the media price for adding a second team barring it's not in Quebec, Southern Ontario or Toronto would be marginally small. You'd get some gains- essentially the local markets following teams closely over the season rather than scattered fans following various teams at their leisure, but these places don't have huge populations. The $ the league makes is less, the TV deals will only go up a bit. On the otherhand, these franchises are probably more likely to turn a profit, don't have to worry as much about 'reaching out' to fans because of the high initial interest and growth is easy because hockey is the #1 thang.

But long-term they're probably not going to get more profitable, like the U.S., and apart from maybe Southern Ontario you're not going to see them contribute a ton to the league. They'd be autonomous, stable franchises- more than we'd have now (barring a dollar collapse) but they're not going to bump up revenues.

/tangent /reiterate my point a thousand times in every thread I can find (I apologize to those who catch me all the time, I must get redundant). It's what I think though.

Very well put. Most hockey fans won't listen to you though, and scream "I wanna watch Canadian & Northern US teams and none of this southern US BS"

 

[RAgIn]

That scene seemed eerily similar to Winnipeg back in 1996. Bad way to end the franchise, if indeed relocation does occur. Doan's face during the CBC interview said it all. What's next? Miracle.

 

[Jeffrey93]

They just got eliminated and the microphone didn't lower from the ceiling to an awaiting Gary Bettman to make an announcement.

What gives?!?!