Phoenix XXXVII - The Heat is On

[Killion]

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?

That all depends on how much latitude Gary Bettman has with respect to TNSE's Relocation Fee & the pending Moyes Settlement. If he's permitted to apply the proceeds from both to paying down the Coyotes Line of Credit which was used to buy & operate the club (along with the COG's $25M X 2yrs) then the price tag for the franchise drop's considerably, whether sold locally or for relocation. If sold for relo, the NHL would actually stand to make a tidy profit under those circumstances.

No matter how you cut it, the Commissioner has actually done a fairly masterful job in minimizing losses with a pretty decent upside. I dont like what happened in Atlanta one little bit, but as I said, if he can play with the found money visa-vie the Relo Fee/Moyes to expedite a local sale then the league breaks even & or could make a profit. If sold for relocation to QC, KC or wherever else, the price still reasonable with yet another cash influx with yet another relocation fee charged to Quebecor or whomever else.

Current Price = $202M
Relocation Feel 60M (TNSE)
Moyes Settlmnt; 60M
COG Guarantee; 25M (2011-12)

Speculating, $80-100M for the team, the new owner (Hulsizer, Reinsdorf or ?) receives the Arena Mgmnt Contract from the COG, retains the parking rights & starts charging for it themselves, a CFD established, a 5-7yr out clause included should they fail to make significant strides in turning the franchise & the building around. Frankly, I cant see the BOG's having a problem with any of this, it seems practicable & sensible (to me at least), logical.

 

[Killion]

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

Rhetorical question, but I feel it should be expanded upon in order to clear the air. Ive' certainly had time to reflect upon the matter, read copiously, put the search engines into over-drive. The simple-stupid answer is that the league (namely GB & BD) realized early on they had a problem on their hands with ASG & legally couldnt do a damn thing about it. Media & anecdotal reports speak of no love lost between NHL brass, member clubs & ASG. Things went from bad to worse to dire & the NHL had no choice, pulling a reverse Eddie Livingstone in shunting the litigious brats over the starboard gunwales. A Hell of a price to pay in losing such a vital market, however, for the sake expediency & as it may or may not relate to my earlier speculation pursuant to the Coyotes, a viable & practicable short term solution. Hopefully with economic recovery & eventually ASG's complete departure from the sports & arena scene in Atlanta, the market can once again be home to an NHL franchise under better circumstances & ownership, and sooner rather than later.

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.

ASG was about to refuse to cover anymore losses. What then?. Contraction?.

They remain in the desert................for at least one more year.

I dont believe the op is disputing the fact that the NHL had an early backup plan with TNSE, Thats common knowledge. But it was just that, an Insurance Policy with no promises made that it'd happen until every possible avenue had been exhausted in Glendale. The league had no other option in Atlanta, in Glendale they have a few. As the path from Arizona to Manitoba had been clear twice, last June & last month, had the league wanted to pull the trigger & do a deal they could have. The Thrasher sale saved the Coyotes, TNSE's Relo Fee if applied to the NHL's LOC iused to buy & operate the team could go a long way towards enabling a local sale.

 

[LeftCoast]

I wouldn't be surprised at all if the NHL sought out another (willing) stalking horse to put pressure on Glendale to consummate a deal. There is no way the City puts up $25M without a real threat of relocation.

Kansas City is the next likely location with a viable stadium.

 

[LadyStanley]

@killion, I thought the LOC used was one established by the league for league-wide use, not the league (specifically).

IIRC, it was established in February of 2009, months before the bankruptcy (and later purchase out of bankruptcy court by the league).

 

[PitbulI]

So now that the Winnipegs news has happened and us Winnipeggers can be happy we finally have a team back, I still want to know what's going to happen in Glendale.

Since Winnipeg started talking with ASG, there has been almost no news about Glendale. Is it because Glendale is going to take a rest for a while before searching for a new owner or is it simply because since Winnipeg isn't in the picture, not really anyone cares about the Coyotes news once again?

Has anything happened with MH? Is he still trying to get a deal done?

Or, is this all waiting for the BOG vote on June 21st to approve TNSE new owners so the 60 million can be applied to the Coyotes deal?

 

[CasualFan]

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.

This post seems to ignore the most basic fact of all: The NHL Owners had no intention of funding Phoenix Coyotes losses for the 2010-2011 season. The phrase "oh so close" is subjective. Whether or not you feel a non-Glendale sale was "oh so close" is not a matter of fact but rather a matter of opinion. However, now that we have additional information regarding the spring/summer of 2010, we can look back with more clarity. Here was my offering at the time:

03-03-2010, 04:49 PM #775 CasualFan posted

I think the NHL's intention will be governed by their options. I don't think you can close the door entirely on the league attempting to sign another temporary lease agreement with Glendale. However, from a business standpoint it would be among the least desirable options. Absent a last minute public funding approval, the Glendale market is untenable. Hard to imagine the NHL Owners wanted to lose another bundle of money next year.

I think it's reasonable to assume that the NHL knows what is possible in Hamilton after the events in this case. I also would not be surprised to learn that the league is already in possession of terms from AEG for how a Sprint Center lease would look.

The NHL's desire to move the Coyotes will continue to be governed by their options. The fact of the matter is that the NHL did have at least one contingency plan to relocate the franchise if the only other option was to maintain the Coyotes in Glendale and absorb the losses. (I speculated that they may have had an agreement in principal with Kansas City. As it turns out, they constructed one with Winnipeg.)

I find any post claiming that the NHL "would have sold to TSNE if they wanted to" to be dishonest in nature, either by ignorance or intent. The incentive to sell to TSNE was dictated by financial impact. When Glendale voted in favor of alleviating the burden of losses, the incentive to relocate the team was quelled. If one elects to interpret that as being "oh so close", that is a valid opinion. It is not an opinion that ignores any of the facts, especially when you consider that absent that public funding, the league had secured terms for a non-Glendale sale.

 

[Confucius]

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.

Well since KC and LV are so much larger than the little ole town of Winnipeg. I'd be very surprised and disappointed if the league didn't charge over 200 million.

 

[Killion]

@killion, I thought the LOC used was one established by the league for league-wide use, not the league (specifically).
IIRC, it was established in February of 2009, months before the bankruptcy (and later purchase out of bankruptcy court by the league).

As I re-call, the NHL increased its LOC from app. $100M to $250M at the time (possibly in April instead of February") you mention, oddly, just a few short months or weeks prior to Moyes declaring BK. It is my understanding that these funds were used to buy the Coyotes & subsequently accessed to pay for operations, thus the claim that the members clubs' wont be asked to contribute nor cost them a dime. If I follow your question correctly, that the league may also use these funds to (for example) advance monies on revenue sharing, pay legal bills or whatever, I would assume so. I also seem to remember reading somewhere that the $250M was increased (to what I cant re-call) sometime over the past 12mnths.

 

[Killion]

Is it because Glendale is going to take a rest for a while before searching for a new owner or is it simply because since Winnipeg isn't in the picture, not really anyone cares about the Coyotes news once again?

According to GSC through Becky Sanders of AzCentral Hulsizer is still in the mix. Nothing has been reported publicly to substantiate the rumors that Jerry Reinsdorf is back at the table. In other words, little to no news short of the NHL being included in Glendales 2011-12 Budget with the "$25M Arena Mgmnt" fee. At the moment, its impossible to fathom precisely what is going on, everyone running silent, running deep.

Your speculation on the June BOG's meeting with respect to YN & the dispensation of the $60M may be accurate, though Id be willing to bet Gary Bettmans' already received clearance to apply the Relocation Fee to the Coyotes in paying down its LOC & discounting the price, though that too is purely my own speculation. If indeed nothing is happening behind the scenes at the moment, I would expect things to heet up pretty quickly, because if it doesnt, and this just drags on & on & on again, well, I dont even want to think about it quite frankly. Not after all we've gone through over the past 2yrs.

 

[Mungman]

According to GSC through Becky Sanders of AzCentral Hulsizer is still in the mix. Nothing has been reported publicly to substantiate the rumors that Jerry Reinsdorf is back at the table. In other words, little to no news short of the NHL being included in Glendales 2011-12 Budget with the "$25M Arena Mgmnt" fee. At the moment, its impossible to fathom precisely what is going on, everyone running silent, running deep.

Your speculation on the June BOG's meeting with respect to YN & the dispensation of the $60M may be accurate, though Id be willing to bet Gary Bettmans' already received clearance to apply the Relocation Fee to the Coyotes in paying down its LOC & discounting the price, though that too is purely my own speculation. If indeed nothing is happening behind the scenes at the moment, I would expect things to heet up pretty quickly, because if it doesnt, and this just drags on & on & on again, well, I dont even want to think about it quite frankly. Not after all we've gone through over the past 2yrs.

I could see the league turning up the heat after the draft, they don't like manufacturing distractions during their events (see TNSE and ASG being told to get it done Tuesday or else).

I HOPE for their sakes Scruggs and Co. aren't being passive this year and are out beating the bushes, but I'm not hopeful on that I think a saw a quote recently where she said that the league hadn't sent anyone their way recently. Useless...

 

[Killion]

I could see the league turning up the heat after the draft, they don't like manufacturing distractions during their events (see TNSE and ASG being told to get it done Tuesday or else).

I HOPE for their sakes Scruggs and Co. aren't being passive this year and are out beating the bushes, but I'm not hopeful on that I think a saw a quote recently where she said that the league hadn't sent anyone their way recently. Useless...

Thats for sure, I wouldnt expect to hear boo while the SCF's are underway. Frankly, I dont think the COG can do much more than they already have in terms providing subsidies etc, everyone well aware of the Gift Clause issues, the non-starter with Bonding & so forth. If indeed TNSE's Relo Fee is earmarked for the Coyotes (as per previous post) it could well be that a deal is in place in principal that will be offered to Glendale "imminently", upon conclusion of the finals, pre-draft, or, perhaps thereafter, maybe pre-season, around Halloween?.

 

[MaskedSonja]

Thats for sure, I wouldnt expect to hear boo while the SCF's are underway. Frankly, I dont think the COG can do much more than they already have in terms providing subsidies etc, everyone well aware of the Gift Clause issues, the non-starter with Bonding & so forth. If indeed TNSE's Relo Fee is earmarked for the Coyotes (as per previous post) it could well be that a deal is in place in principal that will be offered to Glendale "imminently", upon conclusion of the finals, pre-draft, or, perhaps thereafter, maybe pre-season, around Halloween?.

I agree with this post.

I also still think JR is going to come in the picture again, and it will be interesting to see what the terms and agreements are.

 

[CasualFan]

I could see the league turning up the heat after the draft, they don't like manufacturing distractions during their events (see TNSE and ASG being told to get it done Tuesday or else).

I HOPE for their sakes Scruggs and Co. aren't being passive this year and are out beating the bushes, but I'm not hopeful on that I think a saw a quote recently where she said that the league hadn't sent anyone their way recently. Useless...

I believe that more important date is August 1, 2011 and the more important place is Nassau County, New York. Should the voters elect not to subsidize a new arena for Mr. Wang and the Islanders, that franchise would more than likely vault past Phoenix to the top of the distressed assets list for the NHL. If it becomes clear that there is no public will to fund a successor venue on Long Island, the league will likely need to utilize its most readily available relocation option for the Islanders as their situation will be significantly more dire than that of Glendale, where the league enjoys an unprecedented level of cooperation with public funding.
(NOTE: I do not believe moving the Isles to the Barclays Center in Brooklyn is a financially viable option as the building revenues are already assigned to Prokhorov and the retail/commercial/residential development is already owned by Forest City Ratner.)

Of course this is predicated on my opinion that Scruggs and Associates will persist the $25MM annual payment whenever needed. I do not see any amount of public outcry mattering to the politicians nor do I anticipate that Goldwater would file a legal challenge against the payment.

 

[Retail1LO*]

I just think the whole thing in Phoenix has set a horrible precedent. And what happens if they discount the **** out of this pig, and the market just never takes? You're going to have some new owner looking to dump the team. And at that point do you think ANYONE IN THE WORLD will want to be a part of hockey in Arizona? I could be so very wrong, but I just do NOT see anything good coming of this situation. Now...or ever. When it's all said and done, they'll look at all the taxpayer money the CoG frittered away on this gig, and wonder how in the world anyone let it happen. I guarantee you that every city with an NHL team has an eye on this...and the chances of it happening again in the future have got to be pretty remote. Just as remote as the NHL approving an ownership group that doesn't own the building they play in, or an ownership group where the decisions don't come down to one person.

 

[Retail1LO*]

I believe that more important date is August 1, 2011 and the more important place is Nassau County, New York. Should the voters elect not to subsidize a new arena for Mr. Wang and the Islanders, that franchise would more than likely vault past Phoenix to the top of the distressed assets list for the NHL. If it becomes clear that there is no public will to fund a successor venue on Long Island, the league will likely need to utilize its most readily available relocation option for the Islanders as their situation will be significantly more dire than that of Glendale, where the league enjoys an unprecedented level of cooperation with public funding.
(NOTE: I do not believe moving the Isles to the Barclays Center in Brooklyn is a financially viable option as the building revenues are already assigned to Prokhorov and the retail/commercial/residential development is already owned by Forest City Ratner.)

Of course this is predicated on my opinion that Scruggs and Associates will persist the $25MM annual payment whenever needed. I do not see any amount of public outcry mattering to the politicians nor do I anticipate that Goldwater would file a legal challenge against the payment.

Where the league enjoys an unprecedented level of cooperation with public funding. LOL I'm sure if the "public" got to say it's piece, there wouldn't be nearly as much cooperation as there is with a city council that just, tosses the taxpayer money around like it's Monopoly money.

The fact that any amount of public outcry could impact the way elected officials spend the taxpayers money, is infuriating. I also can't imagine how GWI would fight so hard to block a bond purchase, because of the impact it could have on taxpayers, then turn around and NOT fight to protect 25M a year worth of tax payer money as it gets spent on this joke of an operation.

 

[Killion]

I believe that more important date is August 1, 2011 and the more important place is Nassau County, New York. Should the voters elect not to subsidize a new arena for Mr. Wang and the Islanders, that franchise would more than likely vault past Phoenix to the top of the distressed assets list for the NHL.

Thats interesting. So Brooklyn's not really an option IYO?. Thats a game changer. I assumed that'd be where Wang'd end up as he's got a fairly lucrative local TV contract & if he leaves the area...... So assuming the arena funding gets voted down, Brooklyns out, he's got several choices at present.

Find a local buyer
Move to KC (or sell)
Move to Hamilton (or sell)
Move to Houston (or sell)
Move to Portland (or sell)
Sell to Quebecor

and things could change over the course of the season..... I would hope the NHL is capable of multi-tasking to the point that both the Isles & Yotes share equally high orders of priority but I see your point. What then to make of Gary Bettmans "this was a one-off relocation folks, not happening again" spiel over the Thrasher debacle & how does that jibe with not only the Isles but so too with Phoenix?. I realize theyve got the $25M in loss guarantees however, it wont be nearly enough to cover the shortfalls if the Coyotes ownership situation isnt settled quickly. People are just emotionally spent in Phoenix over this thing & wont be rushing back in numbers.....

 

[CasualFan]

Thats interesting. So Brooklyn's not really an option IYO?. Thats a game changer. I assumed that'd be where Wang'd end up as he's got a fairly lucrative local TV contract & if he leaves the area...... So assuming the arena funding gets voted down, Brooklyns out, he's got several choices at present.

Find a local buyer
Move to KC
Move to Hamilton
Move to Houston
Move to Portland
Sell to Quebecor

and things could change over the course of the season..... I would hope the NHL is capable of multi-tasking the point that both the Isles & Yotes share equally high orders of priority but I see your point. What then to make of Gary Bettmans "this was a one-off relocation folks, not happening again" spiel over the Thrasher debacle & how does that jibe with not only the Isles but so too with Phoenix?. I realize theyve got the $25M in loss guarantees however, it wont be nearly enough to the shortfalls if the Coyotes ownership situation isnt settled quickly. People are just emotionally spent in Phoenix over this thing & wont be rushing back in numbers unless its resolved.

I don't want to violate HF Boards protocol and go Off Topic, but since I believe this ties directly to the Glendale situation, I have posted it. I apologize in advance if my judgment was incorrect. To fully understand the Brooklyn situation, a lengthy review of the Barclays Arena POS is required. I'm sure you would have loved to dive into all 772 pages, so forgive me for these spoilers:

- The forecast of $28,087,795 in premium seating/suite revenue for the first full year of operations is already allocated. ($5,028,035 to the Nets; $23,059,760 to ArenaCo, the arena developer and operator.)

- The pad is only large enough for approx. 14,000 for ice hockey.

So for Wang to make a go of it in Brooklyn he'd have to profit despite an extremely small seating capacity and no premium/suite revenue to speak of. I would submit that it simply is not viable unless Prokhorov decided to purchase the team.

I respectfully disagree that the NHL would feel a great sense of urgency to resolve ownership in Phoenix as long as the $25MM plan is in place; especially if there is a more pressing concern on Long Island. I understand that owning the Coyotes is a less than optimal position but as long as losses are being primarily funded by Glendale, it is a tenable situation. Further, I believe that attendance will be more influenced by on-ice performance than the ownership search. In fact, with the imminent threat of relocation to Winnipeg now removed, they might even see a nice little uptick.

 

[GuelphMadHatter]

I don't want to violate HF Boards protocol and go Off Topic, but since I believe this ties directly to the Glendale situation, I have posted it. I apologize in advance if my judgment was incorrect. To fully understand the Brooklyn situation, a lengthy review of the Barclays Arena POS is required. I'm sure you would have loved to dive into all 772 pages, so forgive me for these spoilers:

- The forecast of $28,087,795 in premium seating/suite revenue for the first full year of operations is already allocated. ($5,028,035 to the Nets; $23,059,760 to ArenaCo, the arena developer and operator.)

- The pad is only large enough for approx. 14,000 for ice hockey.

So for Wang to make a go of it in Brooklyn he'd have to profit despite an extremely small seating capacity and no premium/suite revenue to speak of. I would submit that it simply is not viable unless Prokhorov decided to purchase the team.

I respectfully disagree that the NHL would feel a great sense of urgency to resolve ownership in Phoenix as long as the $25MM plan is in place; especially if there is a more pressing concern on Long Island.

Is 2012 an election year for the local government of Glendale? Does the general voting public in this locale actually support this subsidization considering how hard that area has been hit economically? Would the NHL really considering going into a 4th year, even if COG was willing to cover it again? Gary Bettman probably will have the toughest season ahead of of his career as commissioner. Phoenix, and by the sounds of it the Islanders.... Columbus troubles, Dallas and St. Louis unable to locate ownership.

 

[Killion]

Further, I believe that attendance will be more influenced by on-ice performance than the ownership search. In fact, with the imminent threat of relocation to Winnipeg now removed, they might even see a nice little uptick.

I agree that though slightly OT the situation in LI is germane to the Coyotes as it relates to the leagues priorities, possible sites for relocation, buyers etc, much as Winnipeg formerly did (and thank God they got their team, maybe now we can get some peace & quiet around here)...... just kiddin. Maybe. I had no idea about that dilemma in Brooklyn (14,000 seating, nothing substantive from suites etc, not good)...

Thats an interesting take on things in Phoenix. Hopefully neither one of us will be proven right or wrong & the situations resolved by the time the puck drops to start the 2011-12 season. In fact, well before then. Thanks also for the synopsis on that link. No time right now to read through all 700+ pages. In the midst of making a 365' Rosary out of tinfoil. & ping pong balls.

 

[Confucius]

I don't want to violate HF Boards protocol and go Off Topic, but since I believe this ties directly to the Glendale situation, I have posted it. I apologize in advance if my judgment was incorrect. To fully understand the Brooklyn situation, a lengthy review of the Barclays Arena POS is required. I'm sure you would have loved to dive into all 772 pages, so forgive me for these spoilers:

- The forecast of $28,087,795 in premium seating/suite revenue for the first full year of operations is already allocated. ($5,028,035 to the Nets; $23,059,760 to ArenaCo, the arena developer and operator.)

- The pad is only large enough for approx. 14,000 for ice hockey.

So for Wang to make a go of it in Brooklyn he'd have to profit despite an extremely small seating capacity and no premium/suite revenue to speak of. I would submit that it simply is not viable unless Prokhorov decided to purchase the team.

I respectfully disagree that the NHL would feel a great sense of urgency to resolve ownership in Phoenix as long as the $25MM plan is in place; especially if there is a more pressing concern on Long Island. I understand that owning the Coyotes is a less than optimal position but as long as losses are being primarily funded by Glendale, it is a tenable situation. Further, I believe that attendance will be more influenced by on-ice performance than the ownership search. In fact, with the imminent threat of relocation to Winnipeg now removed, they might even see a nice little uptick.

Come to the Darkside..
I agree, the heat is definitely off as long as the city is paying 25 million per year.

 

[kdb209]

I believe that more important date is August 1, 2011 and the more important place is Nassau County, New York. Should the voters elect not to subsidize a new arena for Mr. Wang and the Islanders, that franchise would more than likely vault past Phoenix to the top of the distressed assets list for the NHL. If it becomes clear that there is no public will to fund a successor venue on Long Island, the league will likely need to utilize its most readily available relocation option for the Islanders as their situation will be significantly more dire than that of Glendale, where the league enjoys an unprecedented level of cooperation with public funding.
(NOTE: I do not believe moving the Isles to the Barclays Center in Brooklyn is a financially viable option as the building revenues are already assigned to Prokhorov and the retail/commercial/residential development is already owned by Forest City Ratner.)

Of course this is predicated on my opinion that Scruggs and Associates will persist the $25MM annual payment whenever needed. I do not see any amount of public outcry mattering to the politicians nor do I anticipate that Goldwater would file a legal challenge against the payment.

Although, even if the plan is voted down, Wang and the Isles are still tied to the Coliseum until 2015 - unless he tries to go all Rodier on the lease (and mandatory use covenant, upheld by the courts in 1998, which requires home games be played at the NVMC).

It is quite likley that the Phoenix soap opera will require some resolution long before 2015.

 

[goyotes]

I'm surprised this thread is still going given there is no information on the current situation beyond the fact that the CoG has agreed to cover loses for another year. I think any new owner would feel pressure to close a sale before free agency so he or she can maintain certain assets. I strongly doubt such will occur. If this team sells locally, the NHL is going to have to lower the purchase price or some form of subsidy is going to have to occur with (or without) the GWI's approval.

Simply stated, it's a log jam and I don't see it busting lose any time soon. I'll check back in this Fall unless some real news is released.

For my friends in Winnipeg, I am truly happy that you are getting the NHL back. Hope the team has much success on and off the ice. Come down to Phoenix for a Coyotes/Jets game. Thaw out for a week. We will treat you right I promise.

 

[Motown Beatdown]

I'm surprised this thread is still going given there is no information on the current situation beyond the fact that the CoG has agreed to cover loses for another year. I think any new owner would feel pressure to close a sale before free agency so he or she can maintain certain assets. I strongly doubt such will occur. If this team sells locally, the NHL is going to have to lower the purchase price or some form of subsidy is going to have to occur with (or without) the GWI's approval.

Simply stated, it's a log jam and I don't see it busting lose any time soon. I'll check back in this Fall unless some real news is released.

For my friends in Winnipeg, I am truly happy that you are getting the NHL back. Hope the team has much success on and off the ice. Come down to Phoenix for a Coyotes/Jets game. Thaw out for a week. We will treat you right I promise.

Part of the loses should and when the loses go over 25 million. IMO the NHL should force them to cover all the loses.

 

[Confucius]

Part of the loses should and when the loses go over 25 million. IMO the NHL should force them to cover all the loses.

So if the league decides to take 15 million from the gross revenue the team takes in next year and applies it to paydown the LOC they used to buy the team. Would that be alright?
How about if they used 50 million?

Edit: What I'm wondering is, did the league form a new subsiduary company to own the Yotes? Did the league lend the new company the 140 million? If they did, the team has to pay it back to the league. If the CofG didn't have a cap on losses, what would stop the league from just funneling revenue to pay off the purchase price?
Creating large debt each season. There probably are tax benefits as well if the team is in the red. We really don't know where the money went, do we? We do know the city would never agree to just pickup the amount on a bottom line that is considered a loss.

 

[Potrzebie]

For my friends in Winnipeg, I am truly happy that you are getting the NHL back. Hope the team has much success on and off the ice. Come down to Phoenix for a Coyotes/Jets game. Thaw out for a week. We will treat you right I promise.

This is the best post of the day.