Phoenix XXXVII - The Heat is On

Status
Not open for further replies.

Retail1LO*

Guest
I agree. Quebecor is an extremely attractive partner for the league in terms of its french media outlets & the revenues that'll bring in; QC is sustainable (like Wpg) with careful ownership. The arena etc. In addition to Phoenix however, Id bet there are at least 2-3 other franchises that may have no choice but to relocate within the next 12-24mnths.



Their losses through 2010-11 were reportedly $40M'ish. Its really quite untenable. If this drags on through the Draft & summer, losses through 2011-12 could be staggering, and of course the longer the ownerships unresolved the price just keeps going up & up & up as the losses escalate. $25M provided by the COG is great, however, what about the rest?. Not good.

Not to go too OT, but what other teams do you feel face relocation, and are their enough viable markets with arena and ownership to take them on?

Also, it still astonishes me that the league thinks it can take a team that's losing a slough of money, that's already garnering little interest from anyone looking to keep the team in the desert, and keep heaping their losses on top of the sale price. It's already a scary proposition owning a team in the desert where it's had little success, has lost so much money, and has drawn so meager an audience both in house and on TV. But to ask the price tag they NHL is looking for, even without a relocation fee, is just nuts. Some city is going to sit there and tell the NHL "Look, you can either drown alongside that peach of a team you've got down there, or sell it to us. And oh, you can shove that relocation fee up your arse, we're doing you a favor, buddy." The situation in Phoenix has the potential to become something beyond an embarrassment. If this season gets into the 2012 portion of the schedule without resolution one way or another, it's going to get sooooooo ugly.
 

Confucius

There is no try, Just do
Feb 8, 2009
22,504
7,335
Toronto
I dont know what the split is, and of course I was speculating.



Quite true. The relo fee could be split amongst the other 29 teams. I really dont know. I was simply speculating as it appears Gary Bettmans been given a very long leash through the entire Phoenix & Atlanta ordeals. He may be permitted to apply the relo fee to Phoenix (along with the Moyes settlement) in order to expedite a sale in Glendale. Just guessing.



I agree. Quebecor is an extremely attractive partner for the league in terms of its french media outlets & the revenues that'll bring in; QC is sustainable (like Wpg) with careful ownership. The arena etc. In addition to Phoenix however, Id bet there are at least 2-3 other franchises that may have no choice but to relocate within the next 12-24mnths.



Their losses through 2010-11 were reportedly $40M'ish. Its really quite untenable. If this drags on through the Draft & summer, losses through 2011-12 could be staggering, and of course the longer the ownerships unresolved the price just keeps going up & up & up as the losses escalate. $25M provided by the COG is great, however, what about the rest?. Not good.
Do you believe the BlackHawks lost money in their cup winning year. Beware of bottom lines, who knows where the 40 million went? Maybe to paydown the 140 million the team cost them?
 

Retail1LO*

Guest
My guess Bettman would have forced them to stay for now. Unless ASG just threw them the keys, in which case they'd probably be temporarily run by the league in KC.

I doubt ASG would walk away from 110 million, Bettman would have arm twisted them into another season,

They league can't "force" them to stay. ASG owns the building, and the team. If no one local stepped up to purchase the team, and they had a willing buyer elsewhere, I don't see anyway possible to block a sale and force ASG to eat another season of losses. Second, the league would be unable to run two teams simultaneously in the Coyotes and the Thrashers. Talk about a conflict of interest.

And again, I don't think Bettman had any leverage whatsoever to determine what the Thrashers fate was for next season..
 

Confucius

There is no try, Just do
Feb 8, 2009
22,504
7,335
Toronto
They league can't "force" them to stay. ASG owns the building, and the team. If no one local stepped up to purchase the team, and they had a willing buyer elsewhere, I don't see anyway possible to block a sale and force ASG to eat another season of losses. Second, the league would be unable to run two teams simultaneously in the Coyotes and the Thrashers. Talk about a conflict of interest.

And again, I don't think Bettman had any leverage whatsoever to determine what the Thrashers fate was for next season..
What about the old, you own a franchise for Atlanta argument? If you don't run the team you'll have to fold it and get nothing.
 

MaskedSonja

Registered User
Feb 3, 2007
6,548
89
Formerly Tinalera
I think I've mentioned this idea before, but assuming everything goes fine with the season ticket for Winnipeg, and BoG approves, does this not become something that Bettman/NHL can hold over CoG's head, perhaps to show them that "You don't want to call our bluff"? He could just point to Winnipeg and say "Atlanta lost their franchise-we may not like it, but we will NOT hesitate to move the Yotes as well unless you get a move on" and maybe as an FYI "Quebec City is in process of going to build an NHL arena, due to be completed in 3 years" (Now the debate how much we wants to keep Phoenix there, but if I were Scruggs and Co, I'd be extremely cautious about trying to call the NHL's bluff here, after this announcement today.
 

Retail1LO*

Guest
What about the old, you own a franchise for Atlanta argument? If you don't run the team you'll have to fold it and get nothing.

Crap argument. One that would have had to have been made when they considered putting a team back in Atlanta. With that over their head, I doubt hockey ever returns there to begin with. Who's going to put in that kind of money with zero margin for error and a potential to lose everything?

Fewer than were looking to buy this team to keep it there.
 

LadyStanley

Registered User
Sep 22, 2004
107,138
20,006
Sin City
Mod note: We've had dozens of threads talking about potential sites for relocated/expansion NHL teams.

Let's keep this thread focused not on the potential or hypothetical, but actual news of ownership (candidates), operation.
 

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,219
Not to go too OT, but what other teams do you feel face relocation, and are their enough viable markets with arena and ownership to take them on?

As LadyStanley points out, there are other threads discussing those possibilities including but not limited to the Islanders, Panthers & Jackets, League brass has been running around the continent doing damage control for quite some time as we all know. Obviously the NHL decided between the lesser of two evils in moving the Thrashers, receiving the $25M loss guarantee's from Glendale renewable annually for as long as a decade if need be, The only options in Atlanta would've cost a fortune & precipitated protracted litigation with ASG; the team thrown into stasis while it got sorted out. In Phoenix they can bide there time a bit, but not by much, because as you state, this thing runs on unresolved for much more time; beyond ugly.

Do you believe the BlackHawks lost money in their cup winning year?. Beware of bottom lines, who knows where the 40 million went? Maybe to paydown the 140 million the team cost them?

Its possible, Dale Tallon did some funny stuff with contracts, its possible the team lost money however overall, that organization does very well so its really quite relative. Hicks in Dallas also bemoaned same, having won etc the Stars still losing money. Pretty typical palather. My favorite was Wirtz Sr. Old School parsimony. Learned the craft of accountancy on the knee of Meyer Lansky & "Big" Jim Norris Sr.. Ballard, McNall, Moyes..... pretty long list. :naughty:

And ya, Im thinking the $40M may well wind up paying down the Coyotes LOC. Im fine with that. You?.
 

Confucius

There is no try, Just do
Feb 8, 2009
22,504
7,335
Toronto
:laugh: Yep.....

As CasualFan posted earlier, after being exhausted over the past year with the COG's, Hulsizers', IEH's & the GWI's shenanigans this is just STARTING to get really interesting. :naughty:
Did you hear Bettman's answer to a question about the Yotes. As I recall and it may not be word for word he said. Obviously the city of Glendale feels they are close to completing a deal, otherwise why would they commit another 25 million? I'm thinking Mayor Scruggs and all are thinking, WTF?
 

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,219
I'm thinking Mayor Scruggs and all are thinking, WTF?

No kidding. Who, exactly, is selling the franchise?. Clearly its not the NHL. They seem perfectly happy collecting pogey & letting Glendale don the sales duds, prospect & pitch. :laugh:
 

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,219
Do we know yet if Hulsizer has pulled back his $25M escrow?

Thats a very good question. Follow the money. I would assume because he's a private individual there is no need for disclosure if he's done so. If this situations taught me anything in terms of its permutations & meanderings, best not to assume anything, including whether or not he's done or still in the mix.
 

knorthern knight

Registered User
Mar 18, 2011
4,120
0
GTA
The NHL's idea of throwing accumulated losses on top of the base price for Phoenix is so wrong, it's ridiculous. Let's say you're building a bunch of houses at $200,000 each in a subdivision. One of the houses is found to have a flaw part way through the process. So it's torn down and rebuilt, to the same specs as the other houses. Due to the extra work, the builder spends an extra $100,000 on that particular house.

The whole subdivision has a couple of dozen *IDENTICAL* houses. 23 are for sale at $200,000 and one for $300,000. Does this make sense?
 

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,219
23 are for sale at $200,000 and one for $300,000. Does this make sense?

No. But if Im the developer, I spread the losses out. What I eat in protracted losses means you, my customer, pay a higher price. If no one is willing to pay for the house where it sits, I move it to a location where my costs with profits are enthusiastically paid. See; Atlanta-Winnipeg. possibly Phoenix-Hamilton or QC. Maybe Sunrise to..... its all a game to most of the BOG's. .

Monopoly 101.
 

CGG

Registered User
Jan 6, 2005
4,136
55
416
What happens if they need to move Phoenix after next season? The NHL seems to insist they won't lose a dime on this, and the offer from True North ($170 million) would have got the NHL out whole (or close to it). I don't see another owner in another location willing to put up that type of money for a team, especially if Quebec and Hamilton aren't allowed to be considered. Would anyone in KC pay $170 million for a franchise right now when a whole bunch of teams are changing hands for considerably less?
 

GSC2k2*

Guest
Thats a very good question. Follow the money. I would assume because he's a private individual there is no need for disclosure if he's done so. If this situations taught me anything in terms of its permutations & meanderings, best not to assume anything, including whether or not he's done or still in the mix.
Rebekah Sanders has said he (Hulsizer) is still there.
 

Koss

Registered User
What happens if they need to move Phoenix after next season? The NHL seems to insist they won't lose a dime on this, and the offer from True North ($170 million) would have got the NHL out whole (or close to it). I don't see another owner in another location willing to put up that type of money for a team, especially if Quebec and Hamilton aren't allowed to be considered. Would anyone in KC pay $170 million for a franchise right now when a whole bunch of teams are changing hands for considerably less?

Not too worry, the $170M was for True North only. If Bettman was going to consider a team in Winnipeg he was damn well going to get as much for them as he could. If they move to LV or KC the final price will be negotiable.
 

Koss

Registered User

GSC2k2*

Guest
Interesting article on how True North came oh so close to getting the Coyotes, twice.

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL/Winnipeg/2011/06/02/18226526.html?cid=rsssportsslam! hockey
I read that too, including other readers' description of it being "oh so close".

It is kind of silly, really. The simple fact of the matter is this:

If the NHL wanted to sell the Phoenix Coyotes franchise to TNSE, it was perfectly able to do so, and would have done so. To talk about someone being "oh so close" to having a transaction that the NHL could have easily made happen at either the second half or end of last season or this season - IF it WANTED to - well, you have to ignore that basic fact.
 

GSC2k2*

Guest
First of all I'm happy that Winnipeg got a team. But after reading this, it just confirms in my mind that that the NHL threw Atlanta under the bus as a reward to TNSE for their patience and for helping them in Glendale.
It's not really an issue of throwing a CITY under a bus. Keep in mind that owners own teams; cities don't own teams.

It is, though, an indication IMO of how badly the NHL wanted to be rid of the ownership group in ATL. I wonder why.
 

Koss

Registered User
It's not really an issue of throwing a CITY under a bus. Keep in mind that owners own teams; cities don't own teams.

It is, though, an indication IMO of how badly the NHL wanted to be rid of the ownership group in ATL. I wonder why.

I meant Atlanta the Franchise. But even considering ownership, you would have to think that even a dysfunctional ownership group would be preferable in the pecking order of problems to fix than a situation where the league is the owner of a zombie franchise.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad