Bettman meeting with Ryan Smith, owner of Utah Jazz and Real Salt Lake (upd: Smith asks NHL to open expansion process)

[Tawnos]

It's a sticky wicket because...

...the argument for the arts (and *especially* for libraries) is often "that which enriches us but doesn't command high dollar." Someone critical of funding for arenas but less critical of funding for the rest might say: "Some services that enrich a society are loss leaders. Sports shouldn't be: people pay high dollar for it. If more than 10,000 people are willing to pay $80 to go to a single game that lasts three hours, you'd figure there oughta be a way to make that pay for itself." Especially if a private owner is the one who gets to eventually sell the franchise a great profit while the city keeps paying for the upkeep.

It's tempting to say "paying for a library enriches a culture and so does a major league sports team so they're ethically even," but last I checked the Fortune 500 list wasn't crammed with companies who buy libraries, insist the city upgrade all of the tech, then get all the money when "the library team" is sold.

Libraries aren't the best comparison here. Museums would be better.

Just for example, the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NYC is owned by a private corporation occupying a publicly owned building. The Met pays about $6m per year in rent. The City of New York contributes over $20m in taxpayer funds to the operation of the museum and the museum is exempt from taxes, while other revenue sources equal out to $300m.

This is where we get into the thing I mentioned earlier about how cities need to negotiate better deals with sports team owners. The arena and museum model are fairly similar. Not apples-to-apples, but more like red apples-to-green apples. The optics are different, but it's really more of a question of degree rather than structure. If cities negotiated better deals with sports team owners, they'd get more direct benefit from said sports teams.

 

[aqib]

Libraries aren't the best comparison here. Museums would be better.

Just for example, the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NYC is owned by a private corporation occupying a publicly owned building. MoMA pays about $6m per year in rent. The City of New York contributes over $20m in taxpayer funds to the operation of the museum and the museum is exempt from taxes, while other revenue sources equal out to $300m.

This is where we get into the thing I mentioned earlier about how cities need to negotiate better deals with sports team owners. The arena and museum model are fairly similar. Not apples-to-apples, but more like red apples-to-green apples. The optics are different, but it's really more of a question of degree rather than structure. If cities negotiated better deals with sports team owners, they'd get more direct benefit from said sports teams.

When I was in Cleveland we had a ballot issue to renew the "Sin Tax" that cost 4.5 center per pack of cigarettes to maintain the sports stadiums (the same tax went to build them in the first place). Some people screamed bloody murder that it was unfair and regressive.

A few months later there was a ballot issue to renew a 30 cent per pack tax for the Arts. The same people came out saying that was important to pass.

 

[Tawnos]

When I was in Cleveland we had a ballot issue to renew the "Sin Tax" that cost 4.5 center per pack of cigarettes to maintain the sports stadiums (the same tax went to build them in the first place). Some people screamed bloody murder that it was unfair and regressive.

A few months later there was a ballot issue to renew a 30 cent per pack tax for the Arts. The same people came out saying that was important to pass.

Yep, there's definitely a divide in perception. I do get it, given the placement of sports ownership in the business world that @BMN mentioned.

My thing generally comes down to this... should owners approach cities hat-in-hand looking for help building arenas? No, probably not. I find the cries of poverty to be somewhat disgusting, and I've felt that way since the 04-05 lockout, at the latest. That said, should cities have some skin in the game for arenas for teams that are such a major part of the city identity? Yes, I believe they should.

 

[KevFu]

The whole "Shouldn't use taxpayer dollars to build stadium" things is an argument that can't be argued. It's like saying the solution for peace in the Middle East is "Just stop killing each other." It's both 100% realistic, but also 100% guaranteed to not be adhered to.

The thing is that franchise valuations are like a house of cards. Ever since Ballmer overpaid for the Clippers, there's been a major inflation across all leagues.

The NHL has set their expected bottom line for a franchise value at $650 million as of the Seattle expansion. Their ownership is going to be none-too-happy if a team can be bought for a lot less than that amount, nor does it help the league's hopes to get $750m to $1B per future expansion.

Low and high sales set the market. When you see a neighbor sell their similar house for a big profit, good news for your valuation. When a neighbor sells for a big discount, they might as well have just left a flaming bag on your front doorstep.

Eh, I don't think it's a house of cards and comparable to the housing market or any other bubble. Because the supply of franchises is insanely low compared to the supply of houses.

Franchises aren't selling for huge prices because all the billionaires are trying to get rich like the tech stock bubble. It's the STABILITY of the investment that makes them attractive. Sports is part of our culture as human beings and that won't go away, whereas tech can be rendered irrelevant overnight.


Yes, the value of teams could collapse when there's no one to see teams to. But how society works with a combination of both new billionaires from new tech, and the fact that some owners hold on to franchises for generations, and the fact that the extremely high costs of franchises getting more expensive really doesn't price many people out because the rich are essentially getting richer at an even faster rate.... there's really nothing to suggest it's a bubble that will burst.

The rate of increase in value could slow down, that's likely as leagues expand and there's fewer billionaires NOT owning teams; less leverage to move a franchise because markets without teams are just smaller/worse than where most teams are located; and as investors switch their sports dollars to dirt cheap women's franchises.

But I think the comparison to a bubble isn't really accurate.

 

[TheLegend]

Yep, there's definitely a divide in perception. I do get it, given the placement of sports ownership in the business world that @BMN mentioned.

My thing generally comes down to this... should owners approach cities hat-in-hand looking for help building arenas? No, probably not. I find the cries of poverty to be somewhat disgusting, and I've felt that way since the 04-05 lockout, at the latest. That said, should cities have some skin in the game for arenas for teams that are such a major part of the city identity? Yes, I believe they should.

The Coyotes didn't take that approach with TED. They tried to promote it as a reclamation project that would rid the city of Tempe of a pending problem (landfill) and add more to the cultural lifestyle in the city. And do it without bringing any risk or additional costs to the residents.

But they made two huge mistakes.... they underestimated the reach of the local NIMBYs and they oversold that lifestyle concept as being too elitist.

 

[AtlantaWhaler]

Libraries aren't the best comparison here. Museums would be better.

Just for example, the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NYC is owned by a private corporation occupying a publicly owned building. MoMA pays about $6m per year in rent. The City of New York contributes over $20m in taxpayer funds to the operation of the museum and the museum is exempt from taxes, while other revenue sources equal out to $300m.

This is where we get into the thing I mentioned earlier about how cities need to negotiate better deals with sports team owners. The arena and museum model are fairly similar. Not apples-to-apples, but more like red apples-to-green apples. The optics are different, but it's really more of a question of degree rather than structure. If cities negotiated better deals with sports team owners, they'd get more direct benefit from said sports teams.

When I was in Cleveland we had a ballot issue to renew the "Sin Tax" that cost 4.5 center per pack of cigarettes to maintain the sports stadiums (the same tax went to build them in the first place). Some people screamed bloody murder that it was unfair and regressive.

A few months later there was a ballot issue to renew a 30 cent per pack tax for the Arts. The same people came out saying that was important to pass.

Totally agree with this. Who's to say that a museum or symphony is better for the community than a sports stadium? And, while I understand the "making a billionaire richer" argument, you can't tell me that certain rich folks are banking on those arts incentives each year as well.

 

[aqib]

The Coyotes didn't take that approach with TED. They tried to promote it as a reclamation project that would rid the city of Tempe of a pending problem (landfill) and add more to the cultural lifestyle in the city. And do it without bringing any risk or additional costs to the residents.

But they made two huge mistakes.... they underestimated the reach of the local NIMBYs and they oversold that lifestyle concept as being too elitist.

One interesting aspect to the NIMBYism this time was that they didn't want the higher end housing that this development was going to bring. Normally, NIMBYs are the opposite, they don't want affordable housing.

 

[Shwan]

Normally, NIMBYs are the opposite, they don't want affordable housing.

That should be your hint that he's once again lying or still doesn't understand the situation, 9 months after the fact.

One of the many effective talking points for the opposition was that the Coyotes were going to do bare minimum for Tempe's initiative to allow these developers to donate to a affordable housing fund instead of requiring developers to make X amount of units low-cost, in order to receive tax benefits. You know, "because the financials wouldn't work out" if they did that.

Kuby pointed out that developers in the $1.8 billion Pier 202 project are putting over $10 million into the city’s Affordable Housing Fund. The Coyotes project would only contribute $2 million, an amount Kuby called “very small.”

Like you said, wanting affordable housing isn't a NIMBY trait.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

The whole "Shouldn't use taxpayer dollars to build stadium" things is an argument that can't be argued. It's like saying the solution for peace in the Middle East is "Just stop killing each other." It's both 100% realistic, but also 100% guaranteed to not be adhered to.




Eh, I don't think it's a house of cards and comparable to the housing market or any other bubble. Because the supply of franchises is insanely low compared to the supply of houses.

Franchises aren't selling for huge prices because all the billionaires are trying to get rich like the tech stock bubble. It's the STABILITY of the investment that makes them attractive. Sports is part of our culture as human beings and that won't go away, whereas tech can be rendered irrelevant overnight.


Yes, the value of teams could collapse when there's no one to see teams to. But how society works with a combination of both new billionaires from new tech, and the fact that some owners hold on to franchises for generations, and the fact that the extremely high costs of franchises getting more expensive really doesn't price many people out because the rich are essentially getting richer at an even faster rate.... there's really nothing to suggest it's a bubble that will burst.

The rate of increase in value could slow down, that's likely as leagues expand and there's fewer billionaires NOT owning teams; less leverage to move a franchise because markets without teams are just smaller/worse than where most teams are located; and as investors switch their sports dollars to dirt cheap women's franchises.

But I think the comparison to a bubble isn't really accurate.

Scarcity is a valid point, but keeping up franchise values is the primary concern of most owners, as selling the team down the road is where most of their profits lie, lifers interested in keeping their teams forever notwithstanding.

If there's ever a step back in perceived values of a team, then that's going to be the first ownership broadside against Bettman. Team values going up is the unifying factor across the league.

 

[TheLegend]

That should be your hint that he's once again lying or still doesn't understand the situation, 9 months after the fact.

One of the many effective talking points for the opposition was that the Coyotes were going to do bare minimum for Tempe's initiative to allow these developers to donate to a affordable housing fund instead of requiring developers to make X amount of units low-cost, in order to receive tax benefits. You know, "because the financials wouldn't work out" if they did that.



Like you said, wanting affordable housing isn't a NIMBY trait.

Since when is an opinion "lying?"

I can quote Dawn Thacher-Pench post the election saying the Coyotes over sold it. I can quote Toni Cani who was a political advisor to multiple Phoenix politicians (I even had a direct chat with him over the airport) who said post election you can't underestimate Gayle Banks influence within the community.

Two exit poll interviews with voters who voted against it both said it wasn't something they were interested in and were afraid it was going to saddle them with debt. Which it wasn't (and it's all clearly laid out in the city documents).

Now you cherry pick a publication article on the affordable housing angle. The affordable housing angle was horseshit to the real issue. You know it.... anyone else with a lick of sense knows it.


But do continue to keep calling me a liar around here and find out what the consequences are.

 

[Tawnos]

The whole "Shouldn't use taxpayer dollars to build stadium" things is an argument that can't be argued. It's like saying the solution for peace in the Middle East is "Just stop killing each other." It's both 100% realistic, but also 100% guaranteed to not be adhered to.

I think it’s a valuable conversation in the sense that people should be aware of the fact that the majority of voters either approve of using money that way, don’t care or don’t care enough to know about it (the last two amounting to the same thing).

 

[Tawnos]

The Coyotes didn't take that approach with TED. They tried to promote it as a reclamation project that would rid the city of Tempe of a pending problem (landfill) and add more to the cultural lifestyle in the city. And do it without bringing any risk or additional costs to the residents.

But they made two huge mistakes.... they underestimated the reach of the local NIMBYs and they oversold that lifestyle concept as being too elitist.

You’re right that they didn’t take the hat in hand approach, but there was a tax benefit in there. No funds were going directly from taxpayers to the arena construction, but there was public financial skin in the game beyond the site cleanup (which I believe is appropriate and justified, as I’ve made clear). I was mostly thinking about the Flames when I wrote that.

 

[KevFu]

Yeah, massive mistype in that post. It's 100% accurate and 0% realistic.

Governments waste money. That's what they do. Losing a sports team is political suicide. Giving billions away to billionaires is not politically great either, because you'll get hammered with it in your next campaign... but the fan base of the team is probably not going to side against you if you do, so it's less damaging.

This is also why every arena deal is a "last minute" effort to save the team. Look at the Tampa Bay Rays. They've needed a new stadium for so long because it opened in 1990 and already antiquated when the Rays moved in. Everyone knows it, no one disputes it. No one says the stadium is "fine."

But no politician has any reason for movement on a stadium when the remaining years on the team's lease is longer than their term in office.

The team WON'T be moved on their watch, so THEY can't lose the team;
But they CAN be hit with "billions for billionaires" campaign ads if they make a deal now.

So everyone waits until their options are "You lost the team" or "You gave billions to billionaires" and pick the better option: giving away billions to keep a team.


SLC isn't in that position of a team to lose. But they ARE in a position of spending billions either way, and "you get a new team for 30+ years" is waaaaaay better than "Olympics are only 14 days"

 

[TheLegend]

You’re right that they didn’t take the hat in hand approach, but there was a tax benefit in there. No funds were going directly from taxpayers to the arena construction, but there was public financial skin in the game beyond the site cleanup (which I believe is appropriate and justified, as I’ve made clear). I was mostly thinking about the Flames when I wrote that.

Yet it was crafted that the cleanup would not fall on Tempe taxpayer. Only those who lived or visited the district paid into that.

Since the voted, Tempe has hired a consultant to look into how they can clean the landfill up (because it’s inevitable and the clock is ticking). And the cleanup costs this time will fall on those taxpayers.

As far as a tax “aid” goes it’s semantics. The land generates nothing now. It actually costs the city to have it on a low level.

If you’re giving a tax deferment you’re not generating anything but you aren’t taking anything away either. But once those deferments end you have that new revenue.

So you’re left to gamble with the prospect that someone would eventually come along in the next 5-10 and develop on it. But every other city in Arizona has the same taxation toolbox to work from and they do use it. (cough…. Via Resort in Glendale…. cough)

 

[GordonGraham]

Isnt this the Salt Lake thread why do we so many Tempe/Phoenix post here

 

[TheLegend]

Isnt this the Salt Lake thread why do we so many Tempe/Phoenix post here

Ask the guy from the Phoenix thread who came in and dropped the first innuendo about SLC being the new relocation spot for the Coyotes.

 

[Shwan]

Since when is an opinion "lying?"

I can quote Dawn Thacher-Pench post the election saying the Coyotes over sold it. I can quote Toni Cani who was a political advisor to multiple Phoenix politicians (I even had a direct chat with him over the airport) who said post election you can't underestimate Gayle Banks influence within the community.

Yet here you are, not quoting those things. I would love to see an actual argument, after 9 months, as to why middle/lower income voters not happy with tax abatements for a Billionaire or living next to a luxury community they wouldn't be able to afford is NIMBYism.

Clearly it's not worth reading the rest of your post if you can't get basic information like names right. it's Dawn Penich-Thacker, Tony Cani, and Gayle Shanks.

 

[Tom ServoMST3K]

I've always maintained the opinion that arenas are okay public investments for municipalities, but stadiums are really dumb to put money behind.

A good, solid arena with 2,500 seating is worth it for a smaller city, and a 15,000-20,000 seater is a nice thing to have for a ~1 million municipality, and even without a primary sports tenant, you could probably make the case for at least a quality 10,000-seater.

 

[Shwan]

I've always maintained the opinion that arenas are okay public investments for municipalities, but stadiums are really dumb to put money behind.

A good, solid arena with 2,500 seating is worth it for a smaller city, and a 15,000-20,000 seater is a nice thing to have for a ~1 million municipality, and even without a primary sports tenant, you could probably make the case for at least a quality 10,000-seater.

This is a good take. Honestly I could see the Coyotes doing well with a 10,000-12,000 arena. For the most part they are doing well now (at least better) ticket wise by presenting scarcity with Mullett. Their problem is they're not getting all the other revenue streams from having expanded operating rights at an arena like they did at Gila River.

I think this is what SLC is envisioning with a slightly smaller NBA/NHL arena.

I know that's just the environment the Valley is moving to. Chase Field, if the Dbacks stay there, will very likely try to find a way to safely cut out 10-20,000 seats to offer more amenities in the ball park. Gone are the days of expecting any circumstances short of the World Series to fill that stadium.

Desert Diamond is doing something similar to their arena for concerts, instead of stacking the middle deck with suites they want to make a club environment.

and Footprint has done a phenomenal job refreshing their arena making going to a Suns game an experience.

People in the valley will happily pay large premiums for expanded experiences. So if you built a smaller capacity arena with great amenities it easily would draw people who are lukewarm about watching hockey for 3 hours. Additionally I don't think the BoG would have problems with Arizona having a 10,000 arena with a 100% sell out season-after-season either given what they've gotten for the last 20 years, especially if the Coyotes are able to dial the ticket costs up depending on how well the team eventually performs on the ice.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

NHLers (FINALLY) returning to Olympic hockey.



C'mon, IOC... award the 2030 games to Salt Lake City...

 

[LadyStanley]

C'mon, IOC... award the 2030 games to Salt Lake City...

already announced slc as preferred site for 2030.

 

[Headshot77]

Isnt this the Salt Lake thread why do we so many Tempe/Phoenix post here

Because Alex Smith said that he would take an expansion team or an immediate relocation. Everyone knows that's in reference to the Coyotes even though it wasn't explicitly said.

 

[aqib]

That should be your hint that he's once again lying or still doesn't understand the situation, 9 months after the fact.

One of the many effective talking points for the opposition was that the Coyotes were going to do bare minimum for Tempe's initiative to allow these developers to donate to a affordable housing fund instead of requiring developers to make X amount of units low-cost, in order to receive tax benefits. You know, "because the financials wouldn't work out" if they did that.



Like you said, wanting affordable housing isn't a NIMBY trait.

OK my point maybe wasn't clear. In the past there were cases where there were upper class/upper middle class neighborhoods didn't like the idea of housing that was lower cost than the existing housing stock.
In this case people (and by "people" I mean the few clips I saw of protests against the arena) were against the idea of higher end housing in their neighborhood. I just find it interesting from an overall societal trends perspective not just on this issue.

 

[GKJ]

NHLers (FINALLY) returning to Olympic hockey.



C'mon, IOC... award the 2030 games to Salt Lake City...

already announced slc as preferred site for 2030.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

Yeah, saw that. Disappointing news.