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

[CHRDANHUTCH]

Jets had a deal in 1995 to build a new arena. Where it fell apart at the very end is they couldn't figure out how to cover the team's losses until a new arena was built.

So yes - if Jets 1.0 had the kind of support from the league the Yotes had they'd still be in Winnipeg.

The difference between 1995 and 2022 is franchise values.

Back in the early 90s the City of Winnipeg started financing some of the Jets 1.0 losses, but by 1995 when the new arena deal was struck projected losses until the new arena was built was something like $25 mil. The problem being the entire franchise was only worth something like $50 mil, so they couldn't justify those kind of losses compared to the value of the franchise.

Meruelo sunk $40 mil into the team - but it's a team worth something like $500 million, not $50 mil.

and where would the Current Jets be... had the above indeed occurred....

 

[TheLegend]

Jets had a deal in 1995 to build a new arena. Where it fell apart at the very end is they couldn't figure out how to cover the team's losses until a new arena was built.

So yes - if Jets 1.0 had the kind of support from the league the Yotes had they'd still be in Winnipeg.

The difference between 1995 and 2022 is franchise values.

Back in the early 90s the City of Winnipeg started financing some of the Jets 1.0 losses, but by 1995 when the new arena deal was struck projected losses until the new arena was built was something like $25 mil. The problem being the entire franchise was only worth something like $50 mil, so they couldn't justify those kind of losses compared to the value of the franchise.

Meruelo sunk $40 mil into the team - but it's a team worth something like $500 million, not $50 mil.

So what you’re saying is in 1996 he could have spent a lot less.

And to be honest I don’t think the Coyotes are valued that high right now.

 

[aqib]

Procedural question for the Arizonans here. If Council had voted yes on a deal, could the public have forced a referendum by a petition drive or something? I know a few states have that sort of thing but I didn't know if AZ was one of them.

 

[Yukon Joe]

So what you’re saying is in 1996 he could have spent a lot less.

And to be honest I don’t think the Coyotes are valued that high right now.

Well Alex meruelo in 1995 was primarily still in the pizza business and would have been extremely unlikely to buy a Canadian hockey franchise...

FWIW Forbes lists their value as $400 mil.

Arizona Coyotes on the Forbes The Business of Hockey List

Arizona Coyotes #32 on the Forbes The Business of Hockey List

www.forbes.com

Although you could buy the actual franchise for a lot less out of pocket - much of the value is eaten up by the accumulated debt of the franchise.

 

[sh724]

100% they are through lines of credit. If Meruelo is, then he's a horrible businessman and based on what he's done in the past, he at least appears to be relatively competent one but even then who knows.

1) if the NHL is paying for it they would not be putting in on the RLOC as the RLOC is for teams to borrow against not the NHL itself

2)The RLOC has very specific rules on how the funds are used. Each team is only allowed to borrow a limited amount of the total availability

3) Teams are responsible for paying back any funds they draw from the leagues RLOC

4) If the NHL was covering all of the losses then it would fall to the BOG to agree to it as they would be the ones paying for it. Which would mean the majority of the owners are supportive of the team in Arizona.

 

[Llama19]

Procedural question for the Arizonans here. If Council had voted yes on a deal, could the public have forced a referendum by a petition drive or something? I know a few states have that sort of thing but I didn't know if AZ was one of them.

Yes...a petition...or signature drive...could put on the ballot...a referendum to overturn the council vote...

 

[TheLegend]

Procedural question for the Arizonans here. If Council had voted yes on a deal, could the public have forced a referendum by a petition drive or something? I know a few states have that sort of thing but I didn't know if AZ was one of them.

Referendums are allowed.

The process is a bit squirrelly though.

Edit: I will add this looks like the council would be initiating this. Not the public.

For the public to do it it requires X number of legitimate verifiable signatures to be turned in within X number of days and there’s the specter of a challenge even to that. Very messy.

By the council doing this it takes away all of that and streamlines the process.

Gutierrez last night during an intermission said there are three tentative council meetings coming on the 15th, 22nd, and 29th. The one on the 15th was new to me.

These are all going to be public as I understand it so Tempe is pulling all the stops out now for the residents to weigh in on this. They also have two different residential polls with both over 6O% approval to the project. (per Morgan’s article)

So by initiating a referendum (we don’t know if this is even binding or not yet) I’m seeing this as a preventative measure by the council not to let this get dragged out.

 

[LPHabsFan]

1) if the NHL is paying for it they would not be putting in on the RLOC as the RLOC is for teams to borrow against not the NHL itself

2)The RLOC has very specific rules on how the funds are used. Each team is only allowed to borrow a limited amount of the total availability

3) Teams are responsible for paying back any funds they draw from the leagues RLOC

4) If the NHL was covering all of the losses then it would fall to the BOG to agree to it as they would be the ones paying for it. Which would mean the majority of the owners are supportive of the team in Arizona.

1 and 2 - I mean maybe? I'm not intimately familiar with what they do or don't have access to and whatever rules and procedures are in place. I'm going to assume that you don't either unless you work in that department for the NHL or an NHL team or are part of the media who have dug into it. I know technically the NHL is a not for profit but I doubt that stops them from getting access to the funds.

What I will say though is that you're assuming that the rules apply here when we know that all rules have been thrown out the window for this situation.

3 - Agreed. Which is why this whole situation doesn't make sense because the money has to come from somewhere, from what I assume would be any actual sale money.

4 - Do we know that for a fact? Is it the full BOG? the Executive Committee? Even if it's the full BOG, we have no idea how things stand with where the support is because even though a team might say yes, that doesn't mean they support it when there could be repercussions if they say no.

 

[TheLegend]

1 and 2 - I mean maybe? I'm not intimately familiar with what they do or don't have access to and whatever rules and procedures are in place. I'm going to assume that you don't either unless you work in that department for the NHL or an NHL team or are part of the media who have dug into it. I know technically the NHL is a not for profit but I doubt that stops them from getting access to the funds.

What I will say though is that you're assuming that the rules apply here when we know that all rules have been thrown out the window for this situation.

3 - Agreed. Which is why this whole situation doesn't make sense because the money has to come from somewhere, from what I assume would be any actual sale money.

4 - Do we know that for a fact? Is it the full BOG? the Executive Committee? Even if it's the full BOG, we have no idea how things stand with where the support is because even though a team might say yes, that doesn't mean they support it when there could be repercussions if they say no.

If the consensus of the BoG wasn’t supporting it, it wouldn’t have happened.

The BoG is also probably well informed as to what’s going on here. Far more than any of us for sure.

AND….. I think it’s safe to say Meruelo has a specific window to get something done or that support is going to go away.

 

[gstommylee]

If he’s referring to Sky Harbor back when the Cardinals wanted to build their stadium in Tempe farther north of where the Coyotes are currently seeking then he’s not far off.

Sky Harbor created a mock up video showing an aircraft crashing into the stadium. They used the paranoia from the recent 9/11 tragedy to cast a pall over it being there. Even though the site was well above the northern runways.

Bingo that and our Port of Seattle lied to the city of Seattle during the whole sodo arena discussion on how much a non truck route street being removed impacts their operations when opposing sodo arena.

So yea those that oppose stuff will do anything to get stuff to not happen even make stuff up.

 

[mouser]

If he’s referring to Sky Harbor back when the Cardinals wanted to build their stadium in Tempe farther north of where the Coyotes are currently seeking then he’s not far off.

Sky Harbor created a mock up video showing an aircraft crashing into the stadium. They used the paranoia from the recent 9/11 tragedy to cast a pall over it being there. Even though the site was well above the northern runways.

All the more amusing, Superbowl 30 between Dallas and Pittsburgh was played in 1996 at ASU's Sun Devil Stadium--even closer to the airport than the proposed new Cardinals stadium.

 

[JimAnchower]

For the public to do it it requires X number of legitimate verifiable signatures to be turned in within X number of days and there’s the specter of a challenge even to that. Very messy.

What was the name of the guy who sat in front of the Glendale library trying to get signatures to get one of their Coyote bills challenged and on to the ballot?

 

[aqib]

What was the name of the guy who sat in front of the Glendale library trying to get signatures to get one of their Coyote bills challenged and on to the ballot?

Ken Jones. He passed away unfortunately. I would have loved to see him at the Council meetings when they were looking at cancelling the lease agreement.

 

[aqib]

Bingo that and our Port of Seattle lied to the city of Seattle during the whole sodo arena discussion on how much a non truck route street being removed impacts their operations when opposing sodo arena.

So yea those that oppose stuff will do anything to get stuff to not happen even make stuff up.

Has Hansen thrown in the towel on the Sodo Arena or does he still think a 2nd arena in Seattle makes sense?

 

[aqib]

and where would the Current Jets be... had the above indeed occurred....

Either Hamilton (Gagliardi made an offer to move them to Hamilton before Ballsillie made his play for the Coyotes) or QC.

 

[Yukon Joe]

and where would the Current Jets be... had the above indeed occurred....

If the Jets had a new arena built in '95-'96 and they didn't move to Phoenix? Well they'd still be in Winnipeg.

Remember that after the league lost two Canadian teams in two years, and came close to losing Edmonton, the league introduced the Canadian Assistance Program in the late 90s, and kept it until the lockout/salary cap was introduced. Also starting 2002 the Canadian dollar appreciated rapidly against the US dollar. As well... it's hard to remember but Canadian franchises were struggling with attendance in the 90s, but attendance took off in the 2000s and most teams were having complete sellouts.

So yes - the mid-90s Jets were facing two problems in the mid-90s - an ancient arena, and terrible exchange rate. They also lacked any kind of income support from the NHL, either through the CAP or revenue sharing. In 10 years though both those problems were gone, and income support was now in place for any future problems.

To try and bring it back to Arizona though - the question has long been is the issues the Coyotes have short-term problems that can be fixed? Or is it just a long-term market failure?

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

Either Hamilton (Gagliardi made an offer to move them to Hamilton before Ballsillie made his play for the Coyotes) or QC.

neither.....

 

[TheLegend]

If the Jets had a new arena built in '95-'96 and they didn't move to Phoenix? Well they'd still be in Winnipeg.

Remember that after the league lost two Canadian teams in two years, and came close to losing Edmonton, the league introduced the Canadian Assistance Program in the late 90s, and kept it until the lockout/salary cap was introduced. Also starting 2002 the Canadian dollar appreciated rapidly against the US dollar. As well... it's hard to remember but Canadian franchises were struggling with attendance in the 90s, but attendance took off in the 2000s and most teams were having complete sellouts.

So yes - the mid-90s Jets were facing two problems in the mid-90s - an ancient arena, and terrible exchange rate. They also lacked any kind of income support from the NHL, either through the CAP or revenue sharing. In 10 years though both those problems were gone, and income support was now in place for any future problems.

To try and bring it back to Arizona though - the question has long been is the issues the Coyotes have short-term problems that can be fixed? Or is it just a long-term market failure?

The market isn't the problem. The sport is still growing in AZ in spite of the franchise woes.

The problem has always been the various ownership groups who either didn't have the financial clout to develop the market properly. OR were just plain dumb.

 

[KevFu]

When they pour concrete

As an Islanders fan, I felt certain about UBS Arena being real when they dropped the puck for the second period.

The tickets were available during the game, though. But I understand your point.

The tickets available were probably re-sales.

Last season, I was worried I couldn't get to Glendale in time for the Islanders game. This year, I'm worried if I can afford to buy one of 4600 tickets.

Also, @TheLegend I'm assuming the vote is TEMPE ONLY, it's not a Maricopa County vote (because that'd be crazy). Right?

 

[mouser]

As an Islanders fan, I felt certain about UBS Arena being real when they dropped the puck for the second period.




The tickets available were probably re-sales.

Last season, I was worried I couldn't get to Glendale in time for the Islanders game. This year, I'm worried if I can afford to buy one of 4600 tickets.

Also, @TheLegend I'm assuming the vote is TEMPE ONLY, it's not a Maricopa County vote (because that'd be crazy). Right?

Any vote would be Tempe only.

 

[sh724]

1 and 2 - I mean maybe? I'm not intimately familiar with what they do or don't have access to and whatever rules and procedures are in place. I'm going to assume that you don't either unless you work in that department for the NHL or an NHL team or are part of the media who have dug into it. I know technically the NHL is a not for profit but I doubt that stops them from getting access to the funds.

What I will say though is that you're assuming that the rules apply here when we know that all rules have been thrown out the window for this situation.

3 - Agreed. Which is why this whole situation doesn't make sense because the money has to come from somewhere, from what I assume would be any actual sale money.

4 - Do we know that for a fact? Is it the full BOG? the Executive Committee? Even if it's the full BOG, we have no idea how things stand with where the support is because even though a team might say yes, that doesn't mean they support it when there could be repercussions if they say no.

1& 2 have been discussed on these boards when it has been relevant to the discussion. Being a non profit doesnt prevent an organization from having access to the banking system. The NHL has access to funds, but the purpose of the RLOC is not for the NHL itself rather for the teams.

If you agree with 3 than you are disagreeing with the your previous post that i had replied to. You said the NHL is paying for it, i said the teams have to pay for what they use, you agreed....so yes it doesnt make much sense....

Yes, the BOG would have to agree to take out a $1B RLOC against the leagues TV contracts. The BOG is the legal body of the NHL anything legally binding has to go through the BOG.

 

[Anisimovs AK]

So what you’re saying is in 1996 he could have spent a lot less.

And to be honest I don’t think the Coyotes are valued that high right now.

Coyotes valued at $465 million by Sportico (list just came out today)

 

[TheLegend]

Coyotes valued at $465 million by Sportico (list just came out today)

Which is probably still at the bottom of the list, but it's way up from what Forbes had them last year IIRC.


@KevFu Yes.... what mouser said. This would be a Tempe only referendum (re: MariCo..... don't get me started. ).

 

[Skidooboy]

AZ fans... "This is a great hockey market!!!!!!!"
"If the team were in Tempe, they would sell out every night."

Meaning the hockey "fans" in az won't drive 30 mins while the fans in Boston, Detroit, Toronto Montreal drive as far or in lotsa cases a whole lot farther it in -30C on ice and through blowing snow....ok .

Empty seats in a 5000 seat arena opening night?
Visitor fan cheers louder than the 'yotes fans on opening night?? and every night since... already ticket prices are collapsing and attendance falling?

lol ok

this whole thing is a f***ing Joke right?

25 years of hockey in AZ...add it all up? over 3 Billion lost, worst avg attendance, lowest avg revenue, biggest cash losses, lowest TV ratings, weakest corporate support, lowest ticket sales, lowest ticket prices lowest merch sales,,....

How do you get the lowest TV ratings in the USA's 4th biggest broadcast market 25 years in a row?? Becauses it is not has not and will never be a hockey market.

it makes the league look pathetic.

MOVE THE TEAM. Houston KC QC Portland anywhere

kill this dog.

 

[GKJ]

A referendum is a bad sign to me because it kinda says the city leaders aren’t confident that they don’t have more to lose than they stand to gain.

I don’t like gratuitously blaming the fan base for not supporting a poorly run organization. If there was ever smart enough people running it, it would be fine, but the Coyotes were ever that. if they were, they would have better viewership and better community support. Fans are not going to support a team that is continuously bad, it doesn’t matter who they are, and in a world where there are so many more options, they’re inclined to do it less. ‘Not being a hockey market’ isn’t it. No market was a hockey market until they were, and all of them had to be good at some point to sustain.

In previous eras of the NHL, they would’ve moved the team a long time ago, and probably have been back by now, or at least be in a prelude to come back. How many current NHL teams are not the first NHL team in their market? It’s a wide variety of answers depending on what you consider modern NHL history I guess. When you think of hockey markets in the US, it would be stupid to think that both Denver and the Twin Cities would have lost teams, yet it did, and god knows how many less hoops they jumped through for them.

There really seems to be more momentum now behind this college arena thing in terms of how ridiculous a number of owners think this is, it’s been surprising they’ve kept patience this long and bet on Bettman to see through it, even seeing through another round of expansion.

If it’s going to a referendum without a clear end-game, I’ve gotta think that they’re done dealing with constantly pushing the goalposts and would welcome a return to the market once they sort their shit out as it’s something this league already has a history doing.