Phoenix XXXIX: You Never Give Me Your Money

Status
Not open for further replies.

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,217
Non, juste revenge.

I see. Then it was your forefathers who were responsible for burning down the arena in Montreal in 1918 that both the Maroons & Habs played out of, forcing the Habs to relo to Mount Royal after all... fled to Arizona huh?. And now here you are, with your face painted the bleu-blanc-rouge of club Montreal de Canadiens lookin sideways with a pocket full of matches.
 

Scottrocks58*

Guest
trust me, I don't like the potshots at Phoenix (as a city & fanbase) with all the "they took our team! time for us to get it back!" garbage any more than you do. These people need to learn how the real world works.

But an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, does it not ;)

Perhaps OT, but prior to Judiac law it was 2 eyes for an eye. Turning the other cheek, IMO is all well and good, but the result is that you get your cheek slapped all the F-ing time.
 

Whileee

Registered User
May 29, 2010
46,075
33,132

Aye buddy,


I am just reading between the lines of what John Shannon said. It sounded like JR and the NHL have an agreement. The NHL will try and sell the team for the remainder of the year. If they cannot, they will allow JR to step in and take the team for a song.

I could easily be wrong. Heck, I hope I am.

:)

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the NHL sold the team to either JR or Jamison's group this season. If they did without a new lease with Glendale, then either owner could just relocate the team at the end of the year if they can't come to an agreement with Glendale on a lease. My speculation is that the NHL still has a strong interest in keeping the team in the Phoenix market, so they might try to negotiate a deal with a new owner that will compel them to keep the team in Glendale for a specified period of time, as long as Glendale continues to cough up a sizable subsidy.

So, here is a proposed scenario, based purely on speculation (but not implausible). The NHL agrees to sell the team to JR or Jamison (perhaps lowering the purchase price somewhat), but with the proviso that the team stays in Glendale for 3-5 years as long a Glendale continues to pay a $25 million annual subsidy. In other words, as soon as Glendale refuses to pay the subsidy, the team is portable. If at the end of 3-5 years there is no long-term lease in place, the new owners are free to relocate. This would accomplish two things. First, it would put the onus on Glendale to continue with the subsidy or be responsible for the relocation. Second, it would give the new owners powerful leverage with the COG in negotiating a new lease. Third, it would give a few years for the owners to try to rebuild the market.

If this all ends up without a new owner and the fans at least trying to make it work for a few years, then the NHL (and Glendale) have a lot to answer for.
 

OttawaRoughRiderFan*

Guest
If at the end of 3-5 years there is no long-term lease in place, the new owners are free to relocate.

I hope you are right.

However, as much as I would like to see this team in Canada, Quebec City wasted precious time getting an arena built. This team is ripe for the taking but as ScottRocks said "I doubt that the Coyotes will be in play by the time the shovel hits the ground in QC".

He is right. By the time the arena is built this team will most likely be locked into Glendale for a long, long time.
 

Fehr Time*

Guest
So is there any realistic scenario that the team can stay in Glendale without taxpayers subsidizing them to the tune of 25 million per year?
 

Scottrocks58*

Guest
So is there any realistic scenario that the team can stay in Glendale without taxpayers subsidizing them to the tune of 25 million per year?

It seems so, so hypocritical to expect the Coyotes not to take subsidies from Glendale whilst ignoring and even applauding the subsidies given to the Jets by Manitoba and Winnipeg. A subsidy by any other name smells just as rancid.:shakehead
 

Fehr Time*

Guest
It seems so, so hypocritical to expect the Coyotes not to take subsidies from Glendale whilst ignoring and even applauding the subsidies given to the Jets by Manitoba and Winnipeg. A subsidy by any other name smells just as rancid.:shakehead

I am not advocating subsidies for anyone, I am sorry if you thought I was coming off as hypocritcal in that sense. I was just wondering if this whole Glendale subsidy issue was basically going to be etched in stone going forward or not reguardless of who owns the team.

You must admit that is alot of money to pour into a team that may or may not be around in a few years, no?
 

Melrose Munch

Registered User
Mar 18, 2007
23,696
2,136
Since the Oilers make more than 2.5 times the gate revenue of the Coyotes, have one of the largest TV audiences in the league and have a multi-billionaire, relatively young local owner, I'd find your suggestion laughable. The Oilers will get a new arena in the next few years and are in any case in no danger at all of relocating. Anyone that thinks differently just does not understand the situation.

The Coyotes, on the other hand, went bankrupt and have not been able to find a buyer for several years now, even pre-bankruptcy. The only way NHL works in Glendale is if massive subsidies are available to curtail millions in losses due to low demand for NHL hockey in the area.

And despite all of this, the Oilers are losing money because they don't get the revenue other teams get.
 

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,217
So is there any realistic scenario that the team can stay in Glendale without taxpayers subsidizing them to the tune of 25 million per year?

Yes, of course, several. The key's going to be speed; how Reinsdorf or Jamison transitions the franchise and how quickly. Filling the empty dates at the job with concerts & events, re-building the Coyotes brand, getting the corporate & consumer market interested, engaged & spending money, charging for parking, and once Westgates sorted going ahead with the CFD. Beyond this season, I really dont see the COG paying another $25M, more than likely less than half that if not even a quarter the amount. Revenue sharing (provided the Yotes meet the thresholds), the franchises share of broadcasting revenues and a far more modest & realistic arena management fee from Glendale. Optimistic guesstimate would be they get it turned around within 2yrs (including this season), years 3&4 determining whether they stay or go.
 

MAROONSRoad

f/k/a Ghost
Feb 24, 2007
4,067
0
Maroons Rd.
And despite all of this, the Oilers are losing money because they don't get the revenue other teams get.

Says who? Consider the source.

If the Oilers are losing money, 2/3rd of the league's teams are likely also on hockey operations. This is a complicated subject since NHL teams often control arena leases for the buildings they play in and make money off non-hockey events. Some own real estate around the arena. At any rate, the Oilers are not going anywhere which is my main point. I can't say the same for the Coyotes. The team brings in a fraction of the revenues the Oilers do. Has never made a profit in its entire existence by many accounts and loses $10s of millions each year even with millions in revenue sharing. Its TV audience is about 10 - 15% the size of the Oiler's audience and that is after a massive uptick -- yet it is still tiny by pro sports standards indicating the lack of interest in the team in AZ. The team is only viable with massive subsidies or an owner that doesn't mind losing $10s of millions each year -- poor Moyes never gets any credit for absorbing those losses from Coyotes' fans.
 
Last edited:

Fehr Time*

Guest
Yes, of course, several. The key's going to be speed; how Reinsdorf or Jamison transitions the franchise and how quickly. Filling the empty dates at the job with concerts & events, re-building the Coyotes brand, getting the corporate & consumer market interested, engaged & spending money, charging for parking, and once Westgates sorted going ahead with the CFD. Beyond this season, I really dont see the COG paying another $25M, more than likely less than half that if not even a quarter the amount. Revenue sharing (provided the Yotes meet the thresholds), the franchises share of broadcasting revenues and a far more modest & realistic arena management fee from Glendale. Optimistic guesstimate would be they get it turned around within 2yrs (including this season), years 3&4 determining whether they stay or go.

I see, thanks for the info. Well that is good news then. A CBA with more revenue sharing would also be a help no doubt.
 

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,217
I see, thanks for the info. Well that is good news then. A CBA with more revenue sharing would also be a help no doubt.

Perhaps, along with a CBA that lowers the basement & cap ceiling, lowers the players 57% share of revenues to about 51%, gets rid of the escrow, the league willing to expand by at least 4 teams within a decade creating another (app) 100 positions would be a start. Extremely helpful to over 50% of the teams in the NHL including Phoenix, Florida (X2), Nashville, Columbus, Texas, Minny & Long Island, Edmonton, Calgary, Ottawa, Carolina etc...
 

Mungman

It's you not me.
Mar 27, 2011
2,988
0
Outside the Asylum
It seems so, so hypocritical to expect the Coyotes not to take subsidies from Glendale whilst ignoring and even applauding the subsidies given to the Jets by Manitoba and Winnipeg. A subsidy by any other name smells just as rancid.:shakehead

Which level of govt. is writing cheques to TNSE for ongoing operations? I'd sure like to know...
 

cbcwpg

Registered User
May 18, 2010
20,271
20,948
Between the Pipes
It seems so, so hypocritical to expect the Coyotes not to take subsidies from Glendale whilst ignoring and even applauding the subsidies given to the Jets by Manitoba and Winnipeg. A subsidy by any other name smells just as rancid.:shakehead

Not gonna get into the whole "what is a subsidy or what isn't" debate, but regardless as to what you call it, I think the issue is the size. Think about this....

Let's say the CoG agrees to some proposal that keeps them paying $25M per year for the next 10 years. At that point the CoG would have put out $300M to keep the Coyotes. That's almost equal to what the arena and the team combined is worth. So after 12 years the CoG could have built another arena and bought another team. I don't care where you live nor if you love hockey or not, but to put out that kind of money is insane.
 

Kitsune

Registered User
Feb 20, 2003
742
3
Toronto ON CA
www.glidingeagle.com
I suspect the other thread will be merged into this one... however the NHLPA is going after the 25m glendale is giving the NHL to run the 'yotes. It has been dragged into arbitration to settle. If the NHLPA does manage to win... they would get 14m out of the 25m.
 

htpwn

Registered User
Nov 4, 2009
20,556
2,656
Toronto
Taking the leagues statements at face value, yes, no expansion = no team. Taking Gary Bettmans statement at face value that "Atlanta was a one off, dont expect to see that happening again" = no team for QC, and no soup for you...

I forgot about the Atlanta "one off" comment made by Bettman. You are correct then, Quebec City should hope for an expansion if possible.
 

Melrose Munch

Registered User
Mar 18, 2007
23,696
2,136
Says who? Consider the source.

If the Oilers are losing money, 2/3rd of the league's teams are likely also on hockey operations. This is a complicated subject since NHL teams often control arena leases for the buildings they play in and make money off non-hockey events. Some own real estate around the arena. At any rate, the Oilers are not going anywhere which is my main point. I can't say the same for the Coyotes. The team brings in a fraction of the revenues the Oilers do. Has never made a profit in its entire existence by many accounts and loses $10s of millions each year even with millions in revenue sharing. Its TV audience is about 10 - 15% the size of the Oiler's audience and that is after a massive uptick -- yet it is still tiny by pro sports standards indicating the lack of interest in the team in AZ. The team is only viable with massive subsidies or an owner that doesn't mind losing $10s of millions each year -- poor Moyes never gets any credit for absorbing those losses from Coyotes' fans.
That came out of Katz's mouth. Stop pretending like you don't know. The deal still has not be closed yet, about 15 days to go. Katz can move the team or stay, you and I don't really know which.
 

Fugu

Guest
That came out of Katz's mouth. Stop pretending like you don't know. The deal still has not be closed yet, about 15 days to go. Katz can move the team or stay, you and I don't really know which.

He's not denying it's Katz--- that was the point about considering the source.

What I don't get is why people are so willing to believe that Katz is losing a ton of money with a full building, high ticket prices, some TV money... but Moyes was accused of cooking the books and being frivolous when he claimed annual losses of $30-40 million on HRR of ~$56 million.
 

Scottrocks58*

Guest
He's not denying it's Katz--- that was the point about considering the source.

What I don't get is why people are so willing to believe that Katz is losing a ton of money with a full building, high ticket prices, some TV money... but Moyes was accused of cooking the books and being frivolous when he claimed annual losses of $30-40 million on HRR of ~$56 million.

I still think that your avatar is just plain, well, it's just plain wrong for a fish to use a picture of a hunting cat.
 

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,217
I suspect the other thread will be merged into this one... however the NHLPA is going after the 25m glendale is giving the NHL to run the 'yotes. It has been dragged into arbitration to settle. If the NHLPA does manage to win... they would get 14m out of the 25m.

Not exactly Kitsune; the full $25M provided by Glendale will be used by the league to subsidize the running of the team & building. What the NHLPA is claiming is that the $25M = league revenues, therefore, the escrow account should be artificially inflated by $14M in their favor without the $14M actually being placed into the escrow account.

Its small change overall, however, if the NHL agreed to the "phantom credit" it would come at the expense of all of the teams in the league who would receive less in revenue sharing payments etc as the escrow holds ALL of these funds including the players 12.5% in salary deferrals. . I really dont understand the PA's stance on this matter as quite clearly the $25M Arena Mgmnt Fee is covering losses as opposed to being a profit or net gain, however, on a purely technical interpretation it is incoming "league revenues" as the NHL owns the team, the recipients of the payment.

I believe this is a tactical move by the NHLPA, a signal as to whats ahead... it in no way affects Glendale, that its $25M will be used for things other than the running & managing of the job, the sale of the team.
 
Last edited:

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
Not exactly Kitsune; the full $25M provided by Glendale will be used by the league to subsidize the running of the team & building. What the NHLPA is claiming is that the $25M = league revenues, therefore, the escrow account should be artificially inflated by $14M in their favor without the $14M actually being placed into the escrow account.

Its small change overall, however, if the NHL agreed to the "phantom credit" it would come at the expense of all of the teams in the league who would receive less in revenue sharing payments etc as the escrow holds ALL of these funds including the players 12.5% in salary deferrals. . I really dont understand the PA's stance on this matter as quite clearly the $25M Arena Mgmnt Fee is covering losses as opposed to being a profit or net gain, however, on a purely technical interpretation it is incoming "league revenues" as the NHL owns the team, the recipients of the payment.

I believe this is a tactical move by the NHLPA, a signal as to whats ahead... it in no way affects Glendale, that its $25M will be used for things other than the running & managing of the job, the sale of the team.

IBTNRN (In Before The Next Roman Numeral).

C & P from the "NHL & NHLPA havig problems" thread (*):

kdb209 said:
If that's what the two parties agreed to do, then it either comes 'at the expense of' the players or the teams who have to make up the difference.

AIUI, the issue at hand - to be determined by an arbiter - is whether the $25M CoG subsidy is included in HRR.

If it's not - then it does not come at the expense of the Players, since they had no rights to it in the first place.

If it is - then it will come at the expense of those teams who would have received that excess escrow $$$ under the terms of the CBA. It is quite possible that this will come entirely at the expense of the teams which can least afford it - those below midpoint teams receiving the first part of the Final Escrow distribution.

Looking at Article 50 - it seems that the NHLPA may have a valid claim. Subsidies from local gov't are not enumerated in those revenues included in HRR, but they are explicitly not included in revenues excluded from HRR if they are designed to cover operating expenses (as opposed to capital improvements). The illustrations seem to imply that such a subsidy for reimbursing operating expenses should be included in HRR.

CBA Article 50.1(b) said:
(b) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Section 50.1(a) above, HRR
shall not include the following non-exhaustive list of revenues:

...

(xvi) Any thing of value that induced or is intended to induce a Club
either to
locate or to relocate (e.g., amounts paid to enable a Club
to buy-out its lease obligations or enable it to pay any relocation
fee) or remain in a particular geographic location such that it will
enable the Club or its Club Affiliated Entity to enhance categories
or revenue streams constituting HRR, so long as such things of
value or other revenues are not reimbursements for operating
expenses of the Club
;


Illustration #1: A Club leases the arena for its home games from a
public authority. The lease provides that the public authority will
construct or improve luxury suites in the arena. In lieu of making
the physical improvements required by the lease, the public
authority makes specific guaranteed annual payments to the Club.
Such payments would be included in HRR.

Illustration #2: In order to induce a Club to stay in its current
location, a public authority pays the Club a lump sum payment in
the form of a loan (e.g., $20 million), part of which (e.g., $10
million) is to reimburse the Club for improvements to the locker
room, construction of a practice facility and suite improvements,
and part of which (e.g., $10 million) is paid to the Club to induce it
to stay at the location over a stated period of time (e.g., twenty (20)
years). Each year 1/20th of the loan is forgiven by the public
authority so long as the Club remains in the arena and uses the
latter portion of funds loaned for operation of the Club. Should the
team relocate, any unpaid balance of the loan must be repaid to the
public authority. The $10 million portion of the loan devoted to
physical improvements of the arena and for the practice facility is
excluded from HRR. The remaining portion of the loan is included
in HRR (at $500,000 per year) because the funds are used for
operating revenues of the Club.

(*) Which probably should be merged in with this thread, giving Fugu yet another opportunity to beg and plead ask me again to become a mod so I could do it myself.
 

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,217
IBTNRN (In Before The Next Roman Numeral)...C&P from the "NHL & NHLPA havig problems" thread (*):

Great, more anagrams... Thanks for digging that up, highlighting the salient points pursuant to the CBA. Seems pretty clear cut; go away PA... as for the Mod bit, do you have the wardrobe, a Vespa and a steep cliff within range for when it all simply becomes too much? Reign O'er Me will ya kdb?... yepp, good luck with that there. Stay Calm & Carry On.
 

Fugu

Guest
I still think that your avatar is just plain, well, it's just plain wrong for a fish to use a picture of a hunting cat.

I tried to get Killion to come up with a more fitting user name, but all his suggestions were.... well, unimaginative.


IBTNRN (In Before The Next Roman Numeral).

C & P from the "NHL & NHLPA havig problems" thread (*):



(*) Which probably should be merged in with this thread, giving Fugu yet another opportunity to beg and plead ask me again to become a mod so I could do it myself.


I wonder what you would do if you logged in one day and found your name in blue?



So it's a wrap. Should we wait until there's actually something to talk about? If kdb were a mod, he could just go ahead and make these decisions on his own. ;)

Heck, it's still a reasonable hour out in the Pacific time zone. Plenty of time left to shoot the breeze.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad