CXLIV - The Tempe era set to begin as ASU opens Mullett Arena

[Tom ServoMST3K]

What we're getting here, at the end of this 12-15 year saga, looks to likely end up being a rather detailed lesson in how to do all this correctly, after a string of examples of how not to.

The only ones pooh-poohing it at this point are the Usual Suspects, that for whatever little reasons they have, hate Arizona and/or hate southern hockey and/or hate the rich and/or have misguided issues with how the NHL functions as a business.

I am happy to know now that my arguing about bad deals (Glendale era, BTW) wasn't just all rooted in my then-hatred of the Phoenix market, but actual analysis of the deals proposed. I gained a lot of respect for the market over the years. Anyone who was still a fan after the gauntlet the city/then-ownership put them through deserves nothing but praise.

To be clear, I think this Tempe deal was insanely risky given the politics of stadiums, but I suppose the ownership group had enough handshakes from Tempe that they'd work to get it done.

(I was worried that they'd play in the "temporary" arena and then have the deal fall through, which I suppose is still possible, but I think very unlikely at this point.)

And any project like this is going to be built with some kind of municipal dollars/tax break. I suppose you can be against that in principle, but you'd be basically against nearly any project, lol.

How many arenas hosting junior hockey were built using government dollars? We're going through this exact thing in Steinbach (City of around 10K), because of insane construction inflation of the last few years.

Nov 2022: Event Centre cost skyrockets

Steinbach council approved the awarding of the Southeast Event Centre tender on Tuesday even though the price tag is 44 percent higher than anticipated. The decision comes after a last minute scramble...

www.winnipegfreepress.com

This is on a now $61 million development - Basically a small arena, with a hardcourt facility and banquet hall capacity.

"Initially Steinbach council approved $10 million of city funding, of which $7.5 million would be raised from a debt issue and $2.5 million from city reserves.

Council agreed to more than double their contribution which will now total $23.185 million. However, those funds will not come from increased taxes.

Instead $11.4 million will come from the Recreation Reserve Fund and $1.785 million from the General Operating Fund.

Southeast Event Group Inc. has also stepped up to the plate, upping their original commitment of $15 million to $25.5 million.

Despite the promise that the new city contribution would not impact taxes, council also authorized administration to prepare a local improvement plan to create an additional $5 million debenture to fund the project, to be used only if needed."

(Not my story, BTW - I don't have to do council anymore, lol) And if they use the 5 million debenture, there will be a public hearing.

 

[Dirty Old Man]

You think a real estate development subsidy is the same thing as an industrial subsidy? If that's the case I'm not sure it's worth continuing the discussion.

Oh, I think we've been sure of that decision for quite some time.

 

[MNNumbers]

You think a real estate development subsidy is the same thing as an industrial subsidy? If that's the case I'm not sure it's worth continuing the discussion.

We're going to give you a new moniker. I just don't know what it is yet. But if you are going to take the route that NO arena/real estate development deserves any help from the government at all (and as far as I can see, this is the stand that you are taking), then I don't see any point in continuing the discussion either.

Go ahead, live in your fantasy world, where 20% of all corporate profits from the Leafs, Canadians, Rangers, and a few others are placed in an escrow fund, and that is used for future arenas. Go ahead and live there. That's as realistic as living on the moon and eating nothing but candy canes.

 

[mouser]

Okay. I don't like the CFD. That's a quasi-governmental agency with the ability to sell bonds. I don't really call that private financing. Real private financing would be....Meruelo and whoever he can recruit to work with him on the project finance it, and pay for it.

The remediation and infrastructure costs are not really a subsidy in the usual manner. I don't know of any arena that has been built, and the builders also paid to have the roads ungraded. But, I'm coming back to this in a minute.

The other advantage is Years 9-30 of the GPLET. As I mentioned previously, this is probably 200-225 million worth of advantage.

From Tempe's point of view....
Their own estimates suggest, in the end about 6M per year of benefits. (200M divided by 30 years). I don't think that is very much. This takes into account the 200M for infrastructure and remediation.
They also get the land remediated for an amount which is contained within that 6M year of benefits.
So, yes, it's a benefit. Perhaps not a great one, but it's a benefit. They also get their name on everything, which might be more important to them than anything else.

I think I have as good of figures as I could have if I lived there, and I wouldn't know which way I wanted to vote.

One thought I would add is it’s misleading to think of the estimated $200m-$220m CFD bonds as a “subsidy” to Meruelo. The lion‘s share of that money is going to fix the land owned by Tempe, allowing Tempe to sell to land to Meruelo for $53m+. Even items like the $8m to relocate the maintenance yard allows Tempe to avoid spending that $8m themselves and instead assign the cost to the CFD.

Any amount of “subsidy” in that CFD is a small percent. It’s mostly shifting costs Tempe would or should end up paying and moving them off city books into the CFD.

 

[Ernie]

We're going to give you a new moniker. I just don't know what it is yet. But if you are going to take the route that NO arena/real estate development deserves any help from the government at all (and as far as I can see, this is the stand that you are taking), then I don't see any point in continuing the discussion either.

Go ahead, live in your fantasy world, where 20% of all corporate profits from the Leafs, Canadians, Rangers, and a few others are placed in an escrow fund, and that is used for future arenas. Go ahead and live there. That's as realistic as living on the moon and eating nothing but candy canes.

I'm scratching my head at this since more than 20% of all profits are already shared as escrow. Lower payrolls would mean that everyone saves - the big teams would just be distributing those savings to lower revenue teams. That's the current system that was put into place when the salary cap came in and increased with the 2013 negotiation. I can only expect that trend to continue as small market teams are going to need new stadiums in the next 10-15 years and the overall political culture is not nearly as friendly now (for good reason). The City of Calgary has shown that they can basically just say no and nothing happens. The NHL is running out of places that they can threaten teams with relocation, and besides, why not take a juicy $750m expansion fee from those markets instead?

From what I can see you just don't like your ideas being challenged and now you're throwing poop. That's fine.

 

[TheLegend]

I am happy to know now that my arguing about bad deals wasn't just all rooted in my then-hatred of the Phoenix market, but actual analysis of the deals proposed. I gained a lot of respect for the market over the years. Anyone who was still a fan after the gauntlet the city/then-ownership put them through deserves nothing but praise.

To be clear, I think this Tempe deal was insanely risky given the politics of stadiums, but I suppose the ownership group had enough handshakes from Tempe that they'd work to get it done.

(I was worried that they'd play in the "temporary" arena and then have the deal fall through, which I suppose is still possible, but I think very unlikely at this point.)

And any project like this is going to be built with some kind of municipal dollars/tax break. I suppose you can be against that in principle, but you'd be basically against nearly any project, lol.

How many arenas hosting junior hockey were built using government dollars? We're going through this exact thing in Steinbach (City of around 10K), because of insane construction inflation of the last few years.

Nov 2022: Event Centre cost skyrockets

Steinbach council approved the awarding of the Southeast Event Centre tender on Tuesday even though the price tag is 44 percent higher than anticipated. The decision comes after a last minute scramble...

www.winnipegfreepress.com

This is on a now $61 million development - Basically a small arena, with a hardcourt facility and banquet hall capacity.

"Initially Steinbach council approved $10 million of city funding, of which $7.5 million would be raised from a debt issue and $2.5 million from city reserves.

Council agreed to more than double their contribution which will now total $23.185 million. However, those funds will not come from increased taxes.

Instead $11.4 million will come from the Recreation Reserve Fund and $1.785 million from the General Operating Fund.

Southeast Event Group Inc. has also stepped up to the plate, upping their original commitment of $15 million to $25.5 million.

Despite the promise that the new city contribution would not impact taxes, council also authorized administration to prepare a local improvement plan to create an additional $5 million debenture to fund the project, to be used only if needed."

(Not my story, BTW - I don't have to do council anymore, lol) And if they use the 5 million debenture, there will be a public hearing.

Tom…

Honestly you probably would be right about the risk part with the how the original proposal was constructed. They were originally looking at city issuing $200 million in bonds over three phases with no down payment from Meruelo.

By the June 2nd meeting it changed to the $40 million payment up front and creating the CFD.

So it’s evident a lot of work went into removing as much risk to Tempe as possible. Including taking all the litigation costs that might crop up towards the city and even Phoenix Sky Harbor.

 

[Tom ServoMST3K]

Tom…

Honestly you probably would be right about the risk part with the how the original proposal was constructed. They were originally looking at city issuing $200 million in bonds over three phases with no down payment from Meruelo.

By the June 2nd meeting it changed to the $40 million payment up front and creating the CFD.

So it’s evident a lot of work went into removing as much risk to Tempe as possible. Including taking all the litigation costs that might crop up towards the city and even Phoenix Sky Harbor.

Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear - I thought the bones of the Tempe deal (Play in our seat 5,000 arena, and MAYBE we'll figure out an actual NHL arena down the line) was really risky for the Coyotes. Tempe seems to have been doing pretty well balancing their various concerns and minimizing their risk.

EDIT: And that's why I assume this coyotes group had some pretty strong relationships with Tempe. Trust like that isn't just built in a day.

And when I talked about really not liking earlier deals, I was talking about Ice Edge, and other Glendale pie-in-the-sky proposals.

I've spent the last five years covering tiny city/town councils, and these kinds of deals are pretty common (on a much, MUCH smaller scale)

 

[TheLegend]

Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear - I thought the bones of the Tempe deal (Play in our 5,000 arena, and maybe we'll figure out an actual NHL arena down the line) was really risky for the Coyotes. Tempe seems to have been doing pretty well balancing the various concerns.

And when I talked about really not liking earlier deals, I was talking about Ice Edge, and other Glendale pie-in-the-sky proposals.

I've spent the last five years covering tiny city/town councils, and these kinds of deals are pretty common (on a smaller scale)

Ah okay!!

Yeah… the temporary arrangement at ASU was a risk, but a calculated one. ASU is Tempe’s largest employer and economic driver. Having them in your corner is a plus. They had to overcome all the negativity surrounding the franchise from previous owners and some gaffes of their own.

He got over it by doing the one thing no other owner of the franchise ever did. He opened his books to be vetted. Both ASU and Tempe seem fine with it.

 

[MNNumbers]

I'm scratching my head at this since more than 20% of all profits are already shared as escrow. Lower payrolls would mean that everyone saves - the big teams would just be distributing those savings to lower revenue teams. That's the current system that was put into place when the salary cap came in and increased with the 2013 negotiation. I can only expect that trend to continue as small market teams are going to need new stadiums in the next 10-15 years and the overall political culture is not nearly as friendly now (for good reason). The City of Calgary has shown that they can basically just say no and nothing happens. The NHL is running out of places that they can threaten teams with relocation, and besides, why not take a juicy $750m expansion fee from those markets instead?

From what I can see you just don't like your ideas being challenged and now you're throwing poop. That's fine.

No. I understand what you are saying. However, I think that you are looking into a practical world with a very theoretical view. You are somehow assuming that the NHLPA is going to allow a certain % of its wages to be diverted away from them to an escrow for future arenas? Really. That upsets the 50-50 balance quite a bit since arena cash normally doesn't qualify as HRR.

I hate human nature. I really do. I work as a faith-helper for people. I know what selfishness does to people and to lives. I wish it weren't present as well. But I have come to the place where I have had to admit that a system which is supposedly 'good for all' is not going to sustain itself because someone is going to see a way to try to take a little more for themselves, and that will wreck the system, good idea though it may have been.

I happen to agree that Calgary, Minnesota, and several other places are going to be looking for some scraps for arena renos in the future. I happen to support Calgary for not giving the Flames ownership what they want. I think that's a very good thing, and I am very interested to see what happens there.

I am also secrely hoping that this referendum fails, because I really don't think there is a Plan B, and I would love to see Bettman squirm, because he is lawyer, and he talks out of both sides of his mouth and tells the truth as often as Qi Xinping.

Nevertheless, I don't think that this proposal in Tempe is nearly as agregious a handout as you think it is. As I have said before, the infrastructure doesn't count in my opinion, because every development has that. And, only Years 9-30 of the GPLET can really be counted.

 

[jonathan613]

No. I understand what you are saying. However, I think that you are looking into a practical world with a very theoretical view. You are somehow assuming that the NHLPA is going to allow a certain % of its wages to be diverted away from them to an escrow for future arenas? Really. That upsets the 50-50 balance quite a bit since arena cash normally doesn't qualify as HRR.

I hate human nature. I really do. I work as a faith-helper for people. I know what selfishness does to people and to lives. I wish it weren't present as well. But I have come to the place where I have had to admit that a system which is supposedly 'good for all' is not going to sustain itself because someone is going to see a way to try to take a little more for themselves, and that will wreck the system, good idea though it may have been.

I happen to agree that Calgary, Minnesota, and several other places are going to be looking for some scraps for arena renos in the future. I happen to support Calgary for not giving the Flames ownership what they want. I think that's a very good thing, and I am very interested to see what happens there.

I am also secrely hoping that this referendum fails, because I really don't think there is a Plan B, and I would love to see Bettman squirm, because he is lawyer, and he talks out of both sides of his mouth and tells the truth as often as Qi Xinping.

Nevertheless, I don't think that this proposal in Tempe is nearly as agregious a handout as you think it is. As I have said before, the infrastructure doesn't count in my opinion, because every development has that. And, only Years 9-30 of the GPLET can really be counted.

I have been looking at this discussion and there is one thing i find interesting. This is a very high level detail discussion of a i think roughly 400 page proposal that will be sent to a public vote. I find it highly dubious that most people in tempe will be reading the entire proposal before voting. So the actual decision of the voters will likely come down to politics which is emotional and not rational. I do not think except for tempes mayor that the comments on the proposal at the nov 29 meeting from what i could hear were highly enthusiastic from the rest of the council. Politicians risk very little by sending it to a referendum. Nothing should ever be assumed when dealing with a public vote, as 5 months is a very long time. Aside from the san diego padres, i can not think of any instances where a professional arena/stadium was approved via public vote.

To be clear, i would vote for the arena if i lived in tempe. But I think the simple thing would have been for the city to have put to a public vote a year ago the following proposal: A) The city would offer the land to the highest bidder provided the price exceeded a certain threshold. B)The condition of the sale is that the buyer would have to give the 40 million referenced in the proposal to clean up the land. C) If after say 8 months no one was willing to buy the land, then the city council would have an exclusive right to enter into an agreement with a third party D) Such an agreement reference in C above would be allowed to bypass the RFP process.

This proposal could have been voted on then possibly some time ago.

 

[mouser]

To be clear, i would vote for the arena if i lived in tempe. But I think the simple thing would have been for the city to have put to a public vote a year ago the following proposal: A) The city would offer the land to the highest bidder provided the price exceeded a certain threshold. B)The condition of the sale is that the buyer would have to give the 40 million referenced in the proposal to clean up the land. C) If after say 8 months no one was willing to buy the land, then the city council would have an exclusive right to enter into an agreement with a third party D) Such an agreement reference in C above would be allowed to bypass the RFP process.

This proposal could have been voted on then possibly some time ago.

Neither of these would be legal.

The referendum process is basically an opportunity for the citizens of Tempe to “veto” something the city council passes. The city can’t include illegal conditions like C or D to bypass state and city laws.

 

[jonathan613]

Neither of these would be legal.

The referendum process is basically an opportunity for the citizens of Tempe to “veto” something the city council passes. The city can’t include illegal conditions like C or D to bypass state and city laws.

is anything the city passes able to be vetoed? If the council had simply approved, how long would the public of had to get something on the ballot? Eventually, a decision must be reached. My thought is that the city would put my proposal to a public vote so the public would in essence not be waiving their right to a veto, because then they would just be vetoing themselves which does not make sense, but maybe the law does not make sense

I am thinking about when the chargers were drafting their 2016 public initiative that in california, public initiatives can bypass regulations which would be otherwise be incumbent upon the city council such as californias environmentlal regulations. I was thinking a similar public process could bypass an RFP. But I would not be surprised if i was mistaken.

 

[mouser]

is anything the city passes able to be vetoed? If the council had simply approved, how long would the public of had to get something on the ballot? Eventually, a decision must be reached. My thought is that the city would put my proposal to a public vote so the public would in essence not be waiving their right to a veto, because then they would just be vetoing themselves which does not make sense, but maybe the law does not make sense

I am thinking about when the chargers were drafting their 2016 public initiative that in california, public initiatives can bypass regulations which would be otherwise be incumbent upon the city council such as californias environmentlal regulations. I was thinking a similar public process could bypass an RFP. But I would not be surprised if i was mistaken.

Trying to address your questions in order:

1) I believe most items the city of Tempe passes could be “voided” by referendum. There are probably exceptions. The proposed arena development would not be a exception.

2) My understand of Arizona law is the citizens have a deadline of 90 days after the legislature adjourns for the year to submit enough signatures to submit the city agreement for referendum.

3) The Chargers were trying to get a “publicly” initiated Proposition passed to bypass city legislatures. That‘s very different from your idea that the city legislature (Tempe) could use a Referendum to bypass their own laws and statutes. Government entities in Arizona can’t campaign for or against Referendums. I’d hope thats the same in every state.

 

[jonathan613]

Trying to address your questions in order:

1) I believe most items the city of Tempe passes could be “voided” by referendum. There are probably exceptions. The proposed arena development would not be a exception.

2) My understand of Arizona law is the citizens have a deadline of 90 days after the legislature adjourns for the year to submit enough signatures to submit the city agreement for referendum.

3) The Chargers were trying to get a “publicly” initiated Proposition passed to bypass city legislatures. That‘s very different from your idea that the city legislature (Tempe) could use a Referendum to bypass their own laws and statutes. Government entities in Arizona can’t introduce or campaign for or against Propositions or Referendums. I’d hope thats the same in every state.

Thanks for the info.

If the legislature you refer to is the tempe council as this is a city initiative -not a state one- then, assuming adjournment would take place in june of 2023 plus 90 days to get something on the referendum plus 180 more days to give the electorate notice of a vote, that it would be roughly spring of 2024 before we would have known for sure whether this proposal could proceed if the council simply approved, if my calculations are correct. So it sounds like the coyotes are saving potentially 10 months by initiating the referendum.

In my scenario, someone affiliated with the coyotes could have introduced the referendum-not the city council. I wonder whether it hurts or helps the coyotes that this is on a 'special election ballot" and not part of a regular ballot like the november ballot of this year. Do the coyotes want high turnout or low turnout?

 

[TheLegend]

is anything the city passes able to be vetoed? If the council had simply approved, how long would the public of had to get something on the ballot? Eventually, a decision must be reached. My thought is that the city would put my proposal to a public vote so the public would in essence not be waiving their right to a veto, because then they would just be vetoing themselves which does not make sense, but maybe the law does not make sense

This is just my layman’s attempt to define it.

Referendums are the public’s mechanism by which they can change an action by a government entity. Governments can also i initiate one if they want.

In the case of TED… there was already knowledge that one or more groups were going to try initiating a referendum against TED.

Arizona law requires at least 6 months notice to schedule one and there are only two windows they can hold them. For Tempe it’s May and (I believe) August.

Time is an important factor to get this project rolling. So Tempe and the Coyotes agreed they would put TED to a referendum so that they could guarantee they could get this in May rather than August. The special meeting back on November 10 was just for this purpose.

Coyotes took 9 days to collect 6000 signatures and submitted their petitions last Friday. Only 2148 valid signatures are required but you always get more to be sure.

There is at least one other group who is also gathering them at the moment and if they gather enough valid signatures to qualify then both petitions could end up being voted on in the same special election. If a third group gets theirs qualified they’ll be on it too.

(as if this isn’t confusing enough to begin with )

I am thinking about when the chargers were drafting their 2016 public initiative that in california, public initiatives can bypass regulations which would be otherwise be incumbent upon the city council such as californias environmentlal regulations. I was thinking a similar public process could bypass an RFP. But I would not be surprised if i was mistaken.

IIRC… Initiatives have to abide by the current laws in affect at the time. Even if you’re looking to change one of those particular laws.

(edit: mouser’s reply covers it much better)

 

[jonathan613]

This is just my layman’s attempt to define it.

Referendums are the public’s mechanism by which they can change an action by a government entity. Governments can also i initiate one if they want.

In the case of TED… there was already knowledge that one or more groups were going to try initiating a referendum against TED.

Arizona law requires at least 6 months notice to schedule one and there are only two windows they can hold them. For Tempe it’s May and (I believe) August.

Time is an important factor to get this project rolling. So Tempe and the Coyotes agreed they would put TED to a referendum so that they could guarantee they could get this in May rather than August. The special meeting back on November 10 was just for this purpose.

Coyotes took 9 days to collect 6000 signatures and submitted their petitions last Friday. Only 2148 valid signatures are required but you always get more to be sure.

There is at least one other group who is also gathering them at the moment and if they gather enough valid signatures to qualify then both petitions could end up being voted on in the same special election. If a third group gets theirs qualified they’ll be on it too.

(as if this isn’t confusing enough to begin with )





IIRC… Initiatives have to abide by the current laws in affect at the time. Even if you’re looking to change one of those particular laws.

(edit: mouser’s reply covers it much better)

Meaning voters will be voting on the same RFP potentially 3 times? In theory could a group put something on the ballot that rejects the RFP, so voters could see 1 petition on their ballot approving the RFP and one rejecting it? In that case could you have both pass meaning they "offset " each other? Thanks for the info and i guess I will remain confused However, I did know about the Nov 10 meeting and am impressed the coyotes got the signatures so quickly.

 

[mouser]

In my scenario, someone affiliated with the coyotes could have introduced the referendum-not the city council. I wonder whether it hurts or helps the coyotes that this is on a 'special election ballot" and not part of a regular ballot like the november ballot of this year. Do the coyotes want high turnout or low turnout?

The Coyotes are initiating the Referendum, not the Tempe city council. The Coyotes want a quick decision to start construction, hence getting the referendum on the May 2023 ballot.

 

[TheLegend]

Meaning voters will be voting on the same RFP potentially 3 times? In theory could a group put something on the ballot that rejects the RFP, so voters could see 1 petition on their ballot approving the RFP and one rejecting it? In that case could you have both pass meaning they "offset " each other? Thanks for the info and i guess I will remain confused However, I did know about the Nov 10 meeting and am impressed the coyotes got the signatures so quickly.

You can look at it that way. They'd be voting on each petition. Without knowing how each are worded though they could be addressing three separate things.

 

[Ernie]

No. I understand what you are saying. However, I think that you are looking into a practical world with a very theoretical view. You are somehow assuming that the NHLPA is going to allow a certain % of its wages to be diverted away from them to an escrow for future arenas? Really. That upsets the 50-50 balance quite a bit since arena cash normally doesn't qualify as HRR.

Well, just like the NHLPA "allowed" the salary cap to be put in place and then "allowed" the percentage they earned to be lowered to 50% from 57%.

All those small market teams that were added in the 90's are going to be needing new arenas or huge upgrades on the old ones in the next decade or so. I count 21 arenas that were built in an 8 year stretch from 1993 to 2001.

With construction costs having spiraled upwards and local governments not keen to pay the bills any more, where is the money going to come from? My bet is the owners will be looking for the players to contribute.

 

[MNNumbers]

Well, just like the NHLPA "allowed" the salary cap to be put in place and then "allowed" the percentage they earned to be lowered to 50% from 57%.

All those small market teams that were added in the 90's are going to be needing new arenas or huge upgrades on the old ones in the next decade or so. I count 21 arenas that were built in an 8 year stretch from 1993 to 2001.

With construction costs having spiraled upwards and local governments not keen to pay the bills any more, where is the money going to come from? My bet is the owners will be looking for the players to contribute.

So you are looking at a mafia like "squeeze" going on? Hmm. I wouldn't have guessed it, but you never know what these guys might try

 

[awfulwaffle]

Well, just like the NHLPA "allowed" the salary cap to be put in place and then "allowed" the percentage they earned to be lowered to 50% from 57%.

All those small market teams that were added in the 90's are going to be needing new arenas or huge upgrades on the old ones in the next decade or so. I count 21 arenas that were built in an 8 year stretch from 1993 to 2001.

With construction costs having spiraled upwards and local governments not keen to pay the bills any more, where is the money going to come from? My bet is the owners will be looking for the players to contribute.

If the team owns the stadium, then yes they should be required to pay for their own upgrades. But not a lot of teams own the arenas they play in(even in the NFL). This is about to change in Tempe, but you are still against them building their own arena. I just think you don't like sports and want nothing fun in life at this point.

 

[Dirty Old Man]

I am also secrely hoping that this referendum fails, because I really don't think there is a Plan B, and I would love to see Bettman squirm, because he is lawyer, and he talks out of both sides of his mouth and tells the truth as often as Qi Xinping.

Well, your apparent hatred of Bettman notwithstanding (which seems a little weird for an adult), those of us who live here are more inclined to believe there actually is a (or more than 1) plan B. When we would discuss locations for an arena in the east Valley, there were plenty of options. Then the one that actually is being proposed showed up, and our general reaction was "whoa, yeah, that's way better than the places we were thinking of"...

...but there are others.

 

[Tawnos]

What's the evidence that cities, even smaller markets aren't willing to contribute to building arenas? Even that Calgary deal that fell apart had the city paying over $300m towards it and it was the team that pulled out, not the city.

 

[MNNumbers]

Well, your apparent hatred of Bettman notwithstanding (which seems a little weird for an adult), those of us who live here are more inclined to believe there actually is a (or more than 1) plan B. When we would discuss locations for an arena in the east Valley, there were plenty of options. Then the one that actually is being proposed showed up, and our general reaction was "whoa, yeah, that's way better than the places we were thinking of"...

...but there are others.

Hey,
Some of us, you, me, Legend, even Llama, have been up and down this river many times. I would feel bad for the fans losing their team. I really would. I don't think you would doubt me on that.

Bettman: The way he dealt with Glendale was as close to criminal as possible without crossing the line. His ability to tell you absolutely nothing and couch in a tone that says, "Don't question me. I'm the authority here." really bothers me. You can say it's a little weird. I disagree. I think that dishonest people should eventually have to face up to their dishonesty. I know that's a value judgment, but it's how I feel.

One of my favorite shots is of his looking at his blackberry when the news broke that Atlanta had sold to Winnipeg. It was a contortion, and I'm sure it was mostly because he wasn't in control any more.

That's what I want to see more of.

I do agree with him about the playoffs though. No expansion needed.

 

[Ernie]

If the team owns the stadium, then yes they should be required to pay for their own upgrades. But not a lot of teams own the arenas they play in(even in the NFL). This is about to change in Tempe, but you are still against them building their own arena. I just think you don't like sports and want nothing fun in life at this point.

LOL. Dude, they aren't building their own arena, do you actually believe in this fantasy?

Just because a local government built an arena at some point shouldn't mean they are married to the franchise forever. Leases will be ending etc.

So you are looking at a mafia like "squeeze" going on? Hmm. I wouldn't have guessed it, but you never know what these guys might try

I dunno about mafia, but that's how lockouts work.

What's the evidence that cities, even smaller markets aren't willing to contribute to building arenas? Even that Calgary deal that fell apart had the city paying over $300m towards it and it was the team that pulled out, not the city.

The new government came in and added stipulations that crushed the deal, I believe. I mean if you can't even get a new arena built in Alberta..

It'll be interesting to see how the Ottawa situation shakes out.