CXLIX - FINAL thoughts on the Arizona Coyotes

[Skidooboy]

My reason for Winnipeg not moving is the ownership group of the team stating they have never lost money, have no intention of moving the team, and will not move the team.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/winnipeg-jets-hockey-operations-profits-1.7171250#:~:text=True%20North%20has%20lost%20money,money%20in%20our%20NHL%20years.

the Yotes? " filed for bankruptcy in 2009 after incurring several hundred million dollars of losses since their move to Phoenix, Arizona from Winnipeg, Manitoba"

Phoenix Coyotes bankruptcy and sale - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

the 57 years of money losses and failure in AZ is NOTHING LIKE ANY OF THE MARKETS YOU MENTIONED.

The fact you have to pointless repeat your fact free take on the history of the Yotes for the last 25 years is an indication of your mistaken ideas not anyone else's....

The problem with your non-sense is that the same facts exist for Winnipeg moving, Minnesota moving, Quebec moving, etc, but you don't apply your facts the same way you do to anywhere in the south.

I'm not shifting goal posts on Phoenix - my stance is pretty clear: Saying a market is bad is just stupid because it's not the market, it's circumstance. And I've been saying the same thing consistently for about 25 years now on this site, wherever the non-sense relocation chatter rears its ugly head.

I said the same thing when there was a thread about Winnipeg's attendance. You know, the thread where you said "Attendance is meaningless" but now in this one you're intent on pointing out a low amount of fans in attendance or TV means the market isn't a viable market.

In Winnipeg, it's just the situation, the circumstance, you can see evidence of Fans everywhere. (Which is why I was on Winnipeg's side in that thread).

For all your talk of facts (which you're posting facts and then making an asinine conclusion that's just opinion from those facts), I'm asking you for something really, really, really simple:

What's the line of a "market can't work" vs "market can work, they're just gonna be near the bottom of the league" ?

Tell me what it is. X revenue? X percentage of revenue compared to everyone else? X TV viewers compared to everyone else?

Let's see the facts on X dollars isn't enough for a team to survive, or X viewers means no one is interested and the team isn't viable.

Oh yeah...notice how after the local ownership dried up NOT ONE SINGLE AZ ownership group stepped up to own the team?
Not one.

It was the NHL and a chain of liars conmen and scheisters and relocation hopefuls, All from everywhere BUT the Valley. And also NOT ONE of those mythical "Hockey Mad Scottsdale Billionaires" That all supposedly were just aching to buy hockey tickets stepped up to own the team..... or evebn provide much in the way of corporate support.

And that's all it takes...The team has to make money or have an invested owner willing to take the loss. AZ has had neither situation actually. so the team left...and here you are...still coming up wirth a myriad of answers that ignore 57 years of financial loss and failure.

and blaming the commute...like people from Boston don't have a worse one.

And that was my argument against the fear mongering pointed at Winnipeg.

So what you're saying is that things can look bad, but a good owner with a suitable venue can be committed to making it work, and that team will survive as long as that's the case. I fully agree.

But when the arena is old and needs replacement and the owner doesn't want to keep fighting, the team may relocate. And that has nothing to do with the market, that's just the circumstances Winnipeg was in. I agree with that, too.

I just apply that logic to everywhere, and you only apply it where you want to.

except for the y'know...making money part....which HOCKEY NEVER HAS IN AZ. PERIOD! in multiple leagues, locations, and situations.... NEVER ONCE HAS AN AZ TEAM MADE MONEY.

so quit blowing smoke out your butt and accept that single fact...and we can agree on a reality that comports with FACTS.

 

[awfulwaffle]

and blaming the commute...like people from Boston don't have a worse one.

Are you really comparing Boston to Phoenix and commutes? You do realize Phoenix has a limited light rail system, compared to the 4th busiest transit system in the country in Boston, which takes you to TD Garden? There was no rail that took you to Glendale's arena. Not really a fair comparison.

 

[KevFu]

Oh yeah...notice how after the local ownership dried up NOT ONE SINGLE AZ ownership group stepped up to own the team?
Not one.

Which happened in Winnipeg when the team was sold to Gluckstern and Milstein and relocated. But again, that's circumstance and not a "fact" proving a market sucks because it's Winnipeg, but "proof" Phoenix could never work.

And that's all it takes...The team has to make money or have an invested owner willing to take the loss. AZ has had neither situation actually. so the team left...and here you are...still coming up wirth a myriad of answers that ignore 67 years of financial loss and failure.

and blaming the commute...like people from Boston don't have a worse one.

What's funny is that your statement "all it takes...The team has to make money or have an invested owner willing to take the loss. AZ has had neither situation actually. so the team left..." is exactly what I said about Phoenix and Winnipeg, and the Islanders and everywhere else. And is 100% logically correct! You're RIGHT THERE!

You're saying NOT having that equals failure... But only in Phoenix (and Atlanta) but not Winnipeg!


With the Islanders it was THIRTY YEARS where they had neither. But when they had an owner who covered the losses they were fine, and now they're all good with their own arena that makes them money. That's circumstance, not the market, right?

So if it's true in Winnipeg and New York, why isn't it true everyone else who's population is somewhere in between?


Also, this 67 years stuff? You really think minor league teams moving means something when the only two currently still existing for over the last 67 years straight would be the Rochester Americans and Hershey Bears? (Am I missing someone? I don't think so). Using that as evidence that Phoenix sucks wouldn't bode well for Hamilton, or Quebec or anywhere else for that matter. Also the fact that the converse wouldn't be true: No one in their right mind would say Rochester and Hershey should be NHL cities and I'm from one of them.

 

[Skidooboy]

Which happened in Winnipeg when the team was sold to Gluckstern and Milstein and relocated. But again, that's circumstance and not a "fact" proving a market sucks because it's Winnipeg, but "proof" Phoenix could never work.



What's funny is that your statement "all it takes...The team has to make money or have an invested owner willing to take the loss. AZ has had neither situation actually. so the team left..." is exactly what I said about Phoenix and Winnipeg, and the Islanders and everywhere else. And is 100% logically correct! You're RIGHT THERE!

You're saying NOT having that equals failure... But only in Phoenix (and Atlanta) but not Winnipeg!


With the Islanders it was THIRTY YEARS where they had neither. But when they had an owner who covered the losses they were fine, and now they're all good with their own arena that makes them money. That's circumstance, not the market, right?

So if it's true in Winnipeg and New York, why isn't it true everyone else who's population is somewhere in between?


Also, this 67 years stuff? You really think minor league teams moving means something when the only two currently still existing for over the last 67 years straight would be the Rochester Americans and Hershey Bears? (Am I missing someone? I don't think so). Using that as evidence that Phoenix sucks wouldn't bode well for Hamilton, or Quebec or anywhere else for that matter. Also the fact that the converse wouldn't be true: No one in their right mind would say Rochester and Hershey should be NHL cities and I'm from one of them.

ok your ignorance is showing. after you once again started to spout ignorant lies. i quit reading.

1. Chipman and a winnipeg group tried to buy the Jets in 95/96 and was told NO by the BOG and Bettman.
it’ll take me days to find the interview but you could look it up if you go back through articles back to 1996 where he was openly in the press announcing intent to buy…. and one in 2012/13 i think where he talked about it., but he was part of a group that 100% tried to buy the jets and was told “single owner with arena deal already in place”
and a bunch of other caveats that basically said USA or nothing.

then he enacted a 15 year long plan to bring the NHL back…..


2 yes i consider 57 years of pro teams failing and lacking major local corporate support as evidence that the fan base and market is not strong enough to maintain an NHL franchise.

and VERY MUCH SO count the last 27 years the Yotes… who again…never once posted a profit, and Nobody wanted to pay for failed to succeed in two arenas under a myriad of owners regardless of on ice success or failure…. AND THE LITERAL NHL ITSELF DESPERATELY TRYING TO KEEP THE TEAM THERE AND FAIING.

since you can’t even admit that with out some ignorance fuelled bs about other markets and how AZ is a special snowflake ? I’m moving on.

enjoy the echo box of denialis here.

 

[Skidooboy]

Are you really comparing Boston to Phoenix and commutes? You do realize Phoenix has a limited light rail system, compared to the 4th busiest transit system in the country in Boston, which takes you to TD Garden? There was no rail that took you to Glendale's arena. Not really a fair comparison.

are you really comparing N AZ commute… sunshine breezes and blacktop. to
Boston TO Mtl NYC Detrot Edmonton
frozen streets in winter darkness, blizzards and potholes, and freezing rain? salt and mud sprayed windshields.

fans from all over boston and the other Northen cities with thier surrounding suburbs who drive as far or farther than people in AZ and you know it.

hell the west valley has grown steadily since the move to Glendale and is bigger all by itself than Winnipeg … if the riotous hokey mad AZ market is there? Glendale and the west valley should have been plenty enough for the yotes to make money.

 

[GrumpyKoala]

are you really comparing N AZ commute… sunshine breezes and blacktop. to
Boston TO Mtl NYC Detrot Edmonton
frozen streets in winter darkness, blizzards and potholes, and freezing rain? salt and mud sprayed windshields.

fans from all over boston and the other Northen cities with thier surrounding suburbs who drive as far or farther than people in AZ and you know it.

hell the west valley has grown steadily since the move to Glendale and is bigger all by itself than Winnipeg … if the riotous hokey mad AZ market is there? Glendale and the west valley should have been plenty enough for the yotes to make money.

Happens that people who live in pot hole ridden perma mud rain freeze winter of darkness love theirs hockey.

 

[BMN]

Random thoughts...

--- Bringing up the success/failure of minor league hockey to tout the viability of a NHL franchise isn't pointless...but damn near close to it.

--- I know we live in the digital age, but a little bit of punctuation and grammar goes a long way.

--- It is kind of hard to prove that any major metro area in North America can't ever work for the NHL. We can acknowledge steeper rock cliffs after repeated failures, for sure. But who knows what can catch on in the right zeitgeist? The Florida Panthers had a two decade sample size that wasn't promising. Looking pretty good now.

--- It's not "foul play" to raise an eyebrow at bad TV numbers in a "non traditional" market when "MARKETTZZZZZ" (inside joke for the NCAAF folk on this board.....) is generally one of the two most frequent reasons given (along with "growing the game") for touting said market. If you dip the stick, ya gotta pay for the oil, as they say.

--- Local *and* hockey-dedicated ownership...the Coyotes never had both (some times one or the other but never both). That's neither to defend nor critique it as a market...just saying it sure as hell does help.

--- The nature of how Jerry Moyes and the NHL handled the Coyotes' situation in the late 2000s/early 2010s will forever stain this argument (in both directions), IMO. Everything that happened after that was so bizarre, it defies pure comparisons...even if I've made dozens of posts myself trying to make them!

 

[Skidooboy]

Random thoughts...

--- Bringing up the success/failure of minor league hockey to tout the viability of a NHL franchise isn't pointless...but damn near close to it.

--- I know we live in the digital age, but a little bit of punctuation and grammar goes a long way.

--- It is kind of hard to prove that any major metro area in North America can't ever work for the NHL. We can acknowledge steeper rock cliffs after repeated failures, for sure. But who knows what can catch on in the right zeitgeist? The Florida Panthers had a two decade sample size that wasn't promising. Looking pretty good now.

--- It's not "foul play" to raise an eyebrow at bad TV numbers in a "non traditional" market when "MARKETTZZZZZ" (inside joke for the NCAAF folk on this board.....) is generally one of the two most frequent reasons given (along with "growing the game") for touting said market. If you dip the stick, ya gotta pay for the oil, as they say.

--- Local *and* hockey-dedicated ownership...the Coyotes never had both (some times one or the other but never both). That's neither to defend nor critique it as a market...just saying it sure as hell does help.

--- The nature of how Jerry Moyes and the NHL handled the Coyotes' situation in the late 2000s/early 2010s will forever stain this argument (in both directions), IMO. Everything that happened after that was so bizarre, it defies pure comparisons...even if I've made dozens of posts myself trying to make them!

Denying the relevance of the utter and continued failure of the historical HOCKEY MARKET when discussing a location for an NHL franchise isn't relevant? ok... pretty obvious you have NEVER put a business proposal together have you. that is BASIC business 101 type stuff.

NO MARKET HAS FAILED LIKE AZ. IN HOCKEY HISTORY. Remember this is the 10th largest metro area in the USA. with almost 5 million people.... Glendale and the West valley? 1.5 million. within a 20 minute commute of the Glendale arena there are almost 2 million people...
Winnipeg is 835K for comparison.

Phoenix HAd local dedicated ownership...and a big enough population base.....the fans paid bargain basement prices complained about the commute and stayed away in Droves.

Every team and market has it's ups and downs....BUT it was abundantly clear as early as 2000 4 short years after the move, that the 'yotes were a losing enterprise in a market that never really cared about them. by 2009 they had already lost "Hundreds of Millions of dollars" that's operating losses of at least 15.4 million per year from 96 to 09.(if you take the minimum definition of "Hundreds of millions" and count 200 million in losses, it was probably quite a bit higher) and those are 90/2000's dollars.... when a million was a fortune , not a bungalow....

The remaining 23 years of money loss, sketchy weird ownership groups, government bailouts, and empty stands seem relevant indicator of a dead market to me.

 

[BMN]

Feel free to continue to unpunctuate (paraphrasing Sideshow Bob, "I'm aware of the irony of using a non-existent verb to decry poor communication, so don't bother pointing that out...").

What's particularly telling is that I offered something that was fairly critical to all sides of the argument (my own included) and yet you were the only one that chose to rant about it.

That said,

Denying the relevance of the utter and continued failure of the historical HOCKEY MARKET when discussing a location for an NHL franchise isn't relevant? ok... pretty obvious you have NEVER put a business proposal together have you. that is BASIC business 101 type stuff.

I never said to ignore the past, in fact I quite explicitly stated "We can acknowledge steeper rock cliffs after repeated failures, for sure. But who knows what can catch on in the right zeitgeist?" I only critique the "absolutes" you're proposing. But is it relevant? Absolutely.

I'd go one step further in agreeing with you, actually, in that the NHL isn't likely to look at Phoenix any time soon if they're thinking straight. Although I don't think the biggest necessarily lies in "look at a market at Winnipeg where people care about hockey!!!" It's simply that Houston is right there and has always been right there, and almost everything people could argue for in favour of Phoenix exists in greater abundance there. As usual, it comes down to money and the NHL has simply never been willing to come down in price or terms (Tillman, Les or anyone else) for a Houston buyer. I'll leave that to a separate debate as to whether that has been the wisest approach from the league.

I'll even go two steps further in agreeing with you when you said that no market has failed like Arizona in hockey history. It's a unique case. I said as much at the end of my post. Even its most fervent defenders would actually agree with that in sentiment and only quibble with the language semantics. (Generally speaking, when using the phrase "the market failed," it's often interpreted as an absolution of owners' role in the process...that's not entirely how I interpret it but I certainly understand why others would).

So yes, I'd say the market is a unique failure. Others probably take the implication "there's no way this market ever could have worked because the market and the market only is the problem" from your statement. Which is a tad bit of hubris especially when you look at the motley crue the league let walk through the door in Phoenix. I have no idea if Reinsdorf could have made it work. I usually make the argument it would have been in the market's best interest for the Yotes to either never have arrived when they did or to have left much earlier to allow a "re-set." But we're all genuises in hindsight.

Myself, if every single prospective owner from every prospective market came to me with a cheque for the same amount USD?......I wouldn't rank an Arizona buyer highly. I'm looking at SO many markets both big and small, traditional and non-traditional, before I look in that direction. But does that = "I would never listen?" No, I think that would be foolhardy. And let's face it: All prospective owners wouldn't come to me with the same cheque.

Phoenix had local dedicated ownership...and a big enough population base.....the fans paid bargain -basement prices complained about the commute and stayed away in droves.

Which local dedicated ownership are you referring to?

Every team and market has its ups and downs....but it was abundantly clear as early as 2000, four short years after the move, that the 'yotes were a losing enterprise in a market that never really cared about them.

The Washington Capitals and Pittsburgh Penguins would have equally resembled this remark four years in. The Pittsburgh Penguins got Mario Lemieux in 1984 and Sidney Crosby in 2005. The Arizona Coyotes received no such luxuries. And that's not me dogging on Pittsburgh as a market but rather saying, "it's pretty peculiar to say that the die was cast four years in."

If the Coyotes moved in 2009, no matter where they moved to, we might well be talking about several well-heeled entrepreneurs fighting for the right spot in the valley to capitalise on Thrash.....er, Yotes nostalgia.

I don't think any major metro area (definition: Top 25) is ever truly "dead" in NHL terms because I have more faith in hockey's potential than that, but did Phoenix fail? Sure it did. But I'd also argue many people failed it in equal measure. They got favours no other market has ever received but many of those favours were curses in disguise, particularly in the form of shoddy management. I put it this way: If given a choice between opening a Waffle House in a small southern town or Toronto, I'm probably choosing the small southern town. But if I didn't at least break even in Toronto.....there's absolutely no way it was all Toronto's fault.

 

[Shwan]

The Washington Capitals and Pittsburgh Penguins would have equally resembled this remark four years in. The Pittsburgh Penguins got Mario Lemieux in 1984 and Sidney Crosby in 2005. The Arizona Coyotes received no such luxuries. And that's not me dogging on Pittsburgh as a market but rather saying, "it's pretty peculiar to say that the die was cast four years in."

Just wanted to highlight this point as it is a common refrain from Coyotes defenders.

Even if the Coyotes had this luck they have never had an owner who could afford it. Just like Coyotes fans are salty that the team was finally coming together and then they move all you have to do is ask them if they really believe Meruelo would allowed a Guenther $57M/8 year deal.

This was a common problem with the team throughout it's tenure. If you can't be good then you better damn keep the likeable players around and Coyotes would continuously let character guys walk like Fischer, Domi, Garland, Stone and they even cut Shane Doan because they didn't want to pay him in the end.

It's one thing when guys like Vermette did want a shot at the cup and left but by in large these guys were trying to be very accommodating to the team and they still wouldn't cut the check to keep them.

 

[Skidooboy]

Feel free to continue to unpunctuate (paraphrasing Sideshow Bob, "I'm aware of the irony of using a non-existent verb to decry poor communication, so don't bother pointing that out...").

What's particularly telling is that I offered something that was fairly critical to all sides of the argument (my own included) and yet you were the only one that chose to rant about it.

That said,

I never said to ignore the past, in fact I quite explicitly stated "We can acknowledge steeper rock cliffs after repeated failures, for sure. But who knows what can catch on in the right zeitgeist?" I only critique the "absolutes" you're proposing. But is it relevant? Absolutely.

I'd go one step further in agreeing with you, actually, in that the NHL isn't likely to look at Phoenix any time soon if they're thinking straight. Although I don't think the biggest necessarily lies in "look at a market at Winnipeg where people care about hockey!!!" It's simply that Houston is right there and has always been right there, and almost everything people could argue for in favour of Phoenix exists in greater abundance there. As usual, it comes down to money and the NHL has simply never been willing to come down in price or terms (Tillman, Les or anyone else) for a Houston buyer. I'll leave that to a separate debate as to whether that has been the wisest approach from the league.

I'll even go two steps further in agreeing with you when you said that no market has failed like Arizona in hockey history. It's a unique case. I said as much at the end of my post. Even its most fervent defenders would actually agree with that in sentiment and only quibble with the language semantics. (Generally speaking, when using the phrase "the market failed," it's often interpreted as an absolution of owners' role in the process...that's not entirely how I interpret it but I certainly understand why others would).

So yes, I'd say the market is a unique failure. Others probably take the implication "there's no way this market ever could have worked because the market and the market only is the problem" from your statement. Which is a tad bit of hubris especially when you look at the motley crue the league let walk through the door in Phoenix. I have no idea if Reinsdorf could have made it work. I usually make the argument it would have been in the market's best interest for the Yotes to either never have arrived when they did or to have left much earlier to allow a "re-set." But we're all genuises in hindsight.

Myself, if every single prospective owner from every prospective market came to me with a cheque for the same amount USD?......I wouldn't rank an Arizona buyer highly. I'm looking at SO many markets both big and small, traditional and non-traditional, before I look in that direction. But does that = "I would never listen?" No, I think that would be foolhardy. And let's face it: All prospective owners wouldn't come to me with the same cheque.

Which local dedicated ownership are you referring to?

The Washington Capitals and Pittsburgh Penguins would have equally resembled this remark four years in. The Pittsburgh Penguins got Mario Lemieux in 1984 and Sidney Crosby in 2005. The Arizona Coyotes received no such luxuries. And that's not me dogging on Pittsburgh as a market but rather saying, "it's pretty peculiar to say that the die was cast four years in."

If the Coyotes moved in 2009, no matter where they moved to, we might well be talking about several well-heeled entrepreneurs fighting for the right spot in the valley to capitalise on Thrash.....er, Yotes nostalgia.

I don't think any major metro area (definition: Top 25) is ever truly "dead" in NHL terms because I have more faith in hockey's potential than that, but did Phoenix fail? Sure it did. But I'd also argue many people failed it in equal measure. They got favours no other market has ever received but many of those favours were curses in disguise, particularly in the form of shoddy management. I put it this way: If given a choice between opening a Waffle House in a small southern town or Toronto, I'm probably choosing the small southern town. But if I didn't at least break even in Toronto.....there's absolutely no way it was all Toronto's fault.

Umm Steve Ellman...was a local invested owner... he lost money from day 1 in BOTH locations.

I'm not going to bother discussing the MYRIAD of special effort that was made to keep the coyotes in AZ that no other franchise in history before or since has enjoyed... or compare point for point why AZ is different or similar to market X or Y.... because every situation is different.... and it's irrelevant.that isn't discussing Az and how and why it failed. it;'s like asking why my parents stayed together and my Aunt and Uncle didn't...different houses different relationships, different people, different situations, different challenges and finances....

Yes shoddy management because the only reason to buy the team was to move it, or, use it as a tax write-off. which is why NOBODY but liars conmen and crooks wanted the team. NOONE competent and financially stable enough to run the team wanted to own it...Not in AZ anyway.v and so the gong show of clowns and hucksters continued...right on up to Murello who was only buying it as a shortcut to a sportsbook and Casino.

if they had moved on that fateful day in 2009 the jets would still be in Winnipeg, Glendale wouldn't be in hock up to thier eyeballs on a white elephant arena and bonds they sold to float the coyotes, , and Nobody in AZ would care any more about hockey than they did when what 40 people showed up to the save the yotes rally in 2009.

it's not fault.. it's the reality of the market. this is the "Business of Hockey " thread right?
That's how business works. Your waffle house in TO wasn't in a suitable market for a waffle house...and putting one there is a bad business model destined to go broke. noones fault. Sure some people in TO love waffles...but not enough to make it a good market for your business. and if you selll waffles at a loss to "grow the market"? that's your idea...You pay for it. your business model is bad and will most likely fail..Fine by me. that's business.... that's what they say over and over about the league right? it's a business?

Hockey in AZ has been a bad business model....there is not enough hockey fans to support the team, the market didn't grow enough, and the population has not come around....after almost 30 years.....
They just voted against the development that would have kept the team there afterall....

I mean is it possible that in the future AZ will get a team? sure...but the owner better be ready to blow a stack of cash on a looooong looong ROI timeline...because again...history has repeatedly shown there isn't enough fans or demand to float a profitable pro team there and despite 57 years of pro hockey the market hasn't seemed to grow enough to change that. .

 

[BMN]

We agree on more than you're realizing but your idea of dedicated and my idea differ vastly.

 

[Shwan]

Wonder if Nathan comes to BoH

https://x.com/i/web/status/1849546549845729439

 

[stealth1]

I know a lot went wrong for Phoenix and it's big reason why they moved. Having an owner with money would have gone a long way to keeping the team there.

One thing that really did stand out to me is how much the NHL needs to make any team work long term, especially when you compare it to other major leagues.

Having an owner with deep pockets isn't enough. For the NHL to work, they team needs to be in a good location in the city they are in, they need to be competitive most seasons and they need people that actually like hockey.

For Pheonix they didn't have many of those which ended up making them move. It's also why the two newest expansion teams have gotten the better expansion draft rules. It's to make them competitive at the start.

My point is that no other major league needs all of that to be successful.

 

[Fatass]

Are you really comparing Boston to Phoenix and commutes? You do realize Phoenix has a limited light rail system, compared to the 4th busiest transit system in the country in Boston, which takes you to TD Garden? There was no rail that took you to Glendale's arena. Not really a fair comparison.

Are there winter days where Coyote fans had to drive to games in snow, ice, etc?
No driving to game excuses down south. Other than Vancouver the rest of us up here drive in crap most of the winter. Yet fans get to games even at the junior levels.
The issue in Arizona wasn’t the location of the rink. It was there just aren’t enough rabid hockey fans. If there were enough crazy fanatics (like us on HF) then the club would still be there.

 

[Grinner]

Are there winter days where Coyote fans had to drive to games in snow, ice, etc?
No driving to game excuses down south. Other than Vancouver the rest of us up here drive in crap most of the winter. Yet fans get to games even at the junior levels.
The issue in Arizona wasn’t the location of the rink. It was there just aren’t enough rabid hockey fans. If there were enough crazy fanatics (like us on HF) then the club would still be there.

To listen to Yote fans.Traffic issues played a large part in attendance numbers

 

[Fatass]

To listen to Yote fans.Traffic issues played a large part in attendance numbers

Do rabid fans get to games regardless? Yes they will complain about the drive and the rink’s location but they still get to the games and watch on TV when they don’t have tickets or their club is on the road. There just weren’t enough hockey fans there to support an nhl club.

 

[Grinner]

Do rabid fans get to games regardless? Yes they will complain about the drive and the rink’s location but they still get to the games and watch on TV when they don’t have tickets or their club is on the road. There just weren’t enough hockey fans there to support an nhl club.

I read it could take hours to get across Phoenix during rush hour from the more affluent burbs.

 

[Fatass]

I read it could take hours to get across Phoenix during rush hour from the more affluent burbs.

Did the fans sell out the 4000 seat college rink for Coyote games? It was in a better spot.

 

[Grinner]

Did the fans sell out the 4000 seat college rink for Coyote games? It was in a better spot.

Ask a Yotes fan.

 

[Fatass]

Ask a Yotes fan.

The club doesn’t exist anymore. And why is that?

 

[Shwan]

To listen to Yote fans.Traffic issues played a large part in attendance numbers

To listen to yotes fans, there's always issues with everything.

I read it could take hours to get across Phoenix during rush hour from the more affluent burbs.

Most of those affluent fans worked in Phoenix offices so the after-work drive wasn't that bad.

Fact will always remain that the best way to have mitigated the location issue would have been to spend money to not have a dog water team for 10+ years, which didn't happen.

Therefore the whole "arena was too far away" argument will forever be a spurious one.

 

[Grinner]

The club doesn’t exist anymore. And why is that?

Poor ownership
Years of stadium issues
The same reasons why the Raiders and then the A's moved to Vegas
Teams are moved for a variety of reasons
Ask some old Houston Oilers fans

To listen to yotes fans, there's always issues with everything.



Most of those affluent fans worked in Phoenix offices so the after-work drive wasn't that bad.

Fact will always remain that the best way to have mitigated the location issue would have been to spend money to not have a dog water team for 10+ years, which didn't happen.

Therefore the whole "arena was too far away" argument will forever be a

While they lived with their families in Mesa and Gilbert

 

[Fatass]

Poor ownership
Years of stadium issues
The same reasons why the Raiders and then the A's moved to Vegas
Teams are moved for a variety of reasons
Ask some old Houston Oilers fans


While they lived with their families in Mesa and Gilbert

The clubs you listed had lots of fans. The Coyotes didn’t have enough. If they did, the club would still be there. They had a 4000 seat rink in the choice area and couldn’t fill that.

 

[Shwan]

While they lived with their families in Mesa and Gilbert

It's ~45 minutes from Mesa/Gilbert to Westgate on the weekend yet attendence remained low on Saturday/Sunday games.

Edit: I'm on the way to Disneyland right now and with flow of traffic it took just a tad over 30 minutes to go from Power/60 to 10/101 junction so add about 10 more minutes to get up the 101 to State Farm/Desert Diamond.