CXLVI - Future of Coyotes up in air after Tempe rejects arena deal - will remain at Mullet Arena for 2023-24, looking at Fiesta Mall site in Mesa

[Ernie]

There have been reports of underhanded vote trading which led to the 4-3 vote to approve the IceArizona AMF.

Some would say that, having done so, it was a bit underhanded 2 years later to cancel the contract on a legal loophole. (I don't personally agree with this idea, but some say it is the case.)

Wait, so the underhanded behaviour was in the Coyotes favour, and then it was underhanded to undo this underhanded behaviour?

Despite all the whining and complaining from Coyotes fans about the AMF being cancelled, it was extremely unethical for the Coyotes to hire Craig Tindall after he had negotiated the AMF for the city, and the so called "legal loophole" is an Arizona statute meant to address exactly this type of corruption!

Once again, Coyotes fans want to point the finger at Glendale, despite the fact that the blame was 100% on the skeezy Coyotes organization.

 

[MNNumbers]

Wait, so the underhanded behaviour was in the Coyotes favour, and then it was underhanded to undo this underhanded behaviour?

Despite all the whining and complaining from Coyotes fans about the AMF being cancelled, it was extremely unethical for the Coyotes to hire Craig Tindall after he had negotiated the AMF for the city, and the so called "legal loophole" is an Arizona statute meant to address exactly this type of corruption!

Once again, Coyotes fans want to point the finger at Glendale, despite the fact that the blame was 100% on the skeezy Coyotes organization.

If you are suggesting that I am Coyotes fan, then please look more closely at my posting history.

My comments were meant to point out that, in general, the Glendale City Council was an unprofessional group in the years in which the BK took place, and the years after. When the city council just likes the attention of being on the council, and isn't trying to do their jobs correctly, one cannot totally blame the Coyotes for what happened.

However, I will generally say, as I have said often here, that the real problem was that there wasn't enough money in the market, if the games were in Glendale, for both the city and the team to be happy with a lease. (Some of this is probably due to the recession in 06-09, which killed the early development of Westgate.) This is probably the reason that Meruelo wanted a large-scale development along with the TED.

Further, to all of the speculation about Ishbia perhaps buying the team, let's look at that for a minute:

It is well known and accepted here that the team cannot be solvent if all that they receive is game night revenues. Now, put them in Footprint Center. What happens? Sure, 41 more nights are filled. But the Coyotes are going to use up all of the revenues from those 41 nights. There may be some economy of scale involved with one owner owning both teams, but I don't think that is enough to offset the present weakness of Coyote tickets and marketing sales.

In short, it is my opinion that Ishbia is not going to be very interested, since it doesn't seem as if there is a way to make more money off of the presence of the NHL in his arena.

 

[aqib]

So the Coyotes were a political thing? Was the vote one of those left wing v right wing things we read about up here? If so that’s just so sad. The area could have had a new rink and a club to cheer for. Now, they’re left with a garbage dump and ?

Historically local government (especially in suburban areas) tends not to be Republican vs Democrat as much as state and city politics. However, a right win "think tank" called Goldwater Institute did hop in and derail one of the earlier deals.

I can't find what Chavira got in exchange but he had campaigned against the deal and then at the last minute changed his mind while Sherwood voted for something that Chavira wanted. That happens a lot in politics but it usually doesn't get this much attention since the Coyotes thing was covered extensively in 2 countries.

 

[Ernie]

If you are suggesting that I am Coyotes fan, then please look more closely at my posting history.

My comments were meant to point out that, in general, the Glendale City Council was an unprofessional group in the years in which the BK took place, and the years after. When the city council just likes the attention of being on the council, and isn't trying to do their jobs correctly, one cannot totally blame the Coyotes for what happened.

Well yes, Glendale shouldn't have given the Coyotes anything. Shouldn't have built them an arena, shouldn't have given them $80m. The truth is that a team in many markets doesn't really work without a free or nearly free arena, at least under the current economic structure the NHL runs with. However, that structure is showing more and more signs of coming to an end, and I think the NHL is going to have to shell out real cash to build and upgrade its facilities as cities are more and more just saying no.

 

[aqib]

If you are suggesting that I am Coyotes fan, then please look more closely at my posting history.

My comments were meant to point out that, in general, the Glendale City Council was an unprofessional group in the years in which the BK took place, and the years after. When the city council just likes the attention of being on the council, and isn't trying to do their jobs correctly, one cannot totally blame the Coyotes for what happened.

However, I will generally say, as I have said often here, that the real problem was that there wasn't enough money in the market, if the games were in Glendale, for both the city and the team to be happy with a lease. (Some of this is probably due to the recession in 06-09, which killed the early development of Westgate.) This is probably the reason that Meruelo wanted a large-scale development along with the TED.

Further, to all of the speculation about Ishbia perhaps buying the team, let's look at that for a minute:

It is well known and accepted here that the team cannot be solvent if all that they receive is game night revenues. Now, put them in Footprint Center. What happens? Sure, 41 more nights are filled. But the Coyotes are going to use up all of the revenues from those 41 nights. There may be some economy of scale involved with one owner owning both teams, but I don't think that is enough to offset the present weakness of Coyote tickets and marketing sales.

In short, it is my opinion that Ishbia is not going to be very interested, since it doesn't seem as if there is a way to make more money off of the presence of the NHL in his arena.

Honestly I don't see think that Council really liked the attention. They hated being on blogs and being discussed here. Joyce Clark actually took to blocking Canadians on Twitter. You'd hear residents at Council meetings talking about how Glendale was being referred to as "Gongdale" online.

As far as moving to the Footprint Center goes, my guess is the thought is that they could charge more for suites and sponsorships if there are 2 teams in the arena and it would block a 3rd arena getting built in the area. That being said I don't see it. There is nothing to suggest he is interested in hockey at all. Its beyond time to pull the plug on this. IF Phoenix was potentially fertile ground for hockey its been so poisoned that it needs more cleanup than the landfill.

 

[Fatass]

Historically local government (especially in suburban areas) tends not to be Republican vs Democrat as much as state and city politics. However, a right win "think tank" called Goldwater Institute did hop in and derail one of the earlier deals.

I can't find what Chavira got in exchange but he had campaigned against the deal and then at the last minute changed his mind while Sherwood voted for something that Chavira wanted. That happens a lot in politics but it usually doesn't get this much attention since the Coyotes thing was covered extensively in 2 countries.

So, as a result of this, the region loses their club. What do they do with their garbage dump now? Makes no sense.

 

[Slashers98]

What is going to happen when their talented RFAs like Maccelli, Fischer and McBain decide not to re-sign with them? The situation is going to get dire sooner rather than later.

 

[JimAnchower]

Further, to all of the speculation about Ishbia perhaps buying the team, let's look at that for a minute:

It is well known and accepted here that the team cannot be solvent if all that they receive is game night revenues. Now, put them in Footprint Center. What happens? Sure, 41 more nights are filled. But the Coyotes are going to use up all of the revenues from those 41 nights. There may be some economy of scale involved with one owner owning both teams, but I don't think that is enough to offset the present weakness of Coyote tickets and marketing sales.

In short, it is my opinion that Ishbia is not going to be very interested, since it doesn't seem as if there is a way to make more money off of the presence of the NHL in his arena.

What he could gain: Potentially more revenue from sponsorships, luxury suites, streamlined marketing, accounting, etc. departments, more tax deductions

What he could have to pay/lose: Buying the Coyotes, refurbishing Footprint again (and Phoenix may not have much appetite), lost revenue from more lucrative events on Coyote game nights.

I think the costs here greatly outweigh the benefits, unless he can get the Coyotes for cheap. As you said, there isn't any evidence that he wants to own a NHL team. He's got his NBA team, so he's happy.

The Suns lease goes until 2037, so Ishbia could conceivably start negotiating with Scottsdale/Tempe/Salt River/Phoenix in about 10 years for a new arena. If Phoenix helps pay for refurbishing Footprint so soon after completing one, I imagine that five year option to 2042 will have to be exercised.

 

[Ernie]

I think the costs here greatly outweigh the benefits, unless he can get the Coyotes for cheap.

This is basically what it comes down to. How low is Bettman willing to go on price in order to keep the team in the market?

Alex Meruelo is basically a dead man walking when it comes to the future of the Coyotes in the Phoenix area. Everything about the organization is toxic and needs a hard reset.

 

[KevFu]

What he could gain: Potentially more revenue from sponsorships, luxury suites, streamlined marketing, accounting, etc. departments, more tax deductions

What he could have to pay/lose: Buying the Coyotes, refurbishing Footprint again (and Phoenix may not have much appetite), lost revenue from more lucrative events on Coyote game nights.

I think the costs here greatly outweigh the benefits, unless he can get the Coyotes for cheap. As you said, there isn't any evidence that he wants to own a NHL team. He's got his NBA team, so he's happy.

The Suns lease goes until 2037, so Ishbia could conceivably start negotiating with Scottsdale/Tempe/Salt River/Phoenix in about 10 years for a new arena. If Phoenix helps pay for refurbishing Footprint so soon after completing one, I imagine that five year option to 2042 will have to be exercised.

If the city were to agree to build a new arena for the Suns/Coyotes if Ishbia bought the hockey team, then breaking the lease on Footprint isn't a problem at all: because both parties would want to break it.


The main issue with cohabitation with the NBA is that when one owner controls the arena, they don't GAIN as much from adding a second team. Sure, there's 41 more game dates, but that's just part of the revenue streams; and they're paying full price for a second franchise, but not DOUBLING their revenue, because large chunks of revenues are 365-based revenues, not team-based revenues.

Take Nashville and Atlanta.
Nashville builds a brand new arena and sells suites and in-arena sponsorships and ads. And 100% of that is new revenue; and it applies to all events in Bridgestone Arena (which is also a new big check to name it Bridgestone).

But Time Warner in Atlanta has already sold suites, already sold in-arena sponsorships and ads, and already was getting a check from Phillips to call it Phillips Arena. Those sales were Hawks-based, but apply to all events in the arena.

So Nashville is going 0% to 100% in terms of arena revenue by getting ONE team when they had zero.
Bu Atlanta isn't going from 100% NBA to 200% NBA/NHL. They can charge MORE for sponsorships and suites going forward, but 41 more events in the building isn't a 100% increase, it's a probably a 25% increase.

 

[StreetHawk]

If the city were to agree to build a new arena for the Suns/Coyotes if Ishbia bought the hockey team, then breaking the lease on Footprint isn't a problem at all: because both parties would want to break it.

City just paid $210 million not even like 5 years ago to reno the building while at the time offering to put in more if both the Coyotes and Suns would share it. And as you outlined above, those were the reasons why Sarver had no interest in buying the coyotes, in addition to not having the non NBA net worth to buy them. Don't imagine the city would be interested in spending more to retrofit it to the NHL standards.

Always a timing thing with AZ. Sarver gets ousted after the renovation is agreed to and done, not before. On the odd chance that Ishbia would buy the Coyotes as well, then they would go ahead with the tear down and rebuild of the Footprint Arena to accommodate the NHL standards.

 

[MeHateHe]

What I'm struck by is the remarkable level of message discipline shown by the remaining NHL governors. You have to think that some, if not many, of them are concerned about extending a process of securing an arena by the Coyotes beyond the promised term the club was supposed to be at the Mullett. Not only is it a bad look for the club to be playing its home games in a college rink, this long process diminished the league's bargaining power in a whole host of situations, not the least of which is potential expansion partners. So the longer this drags out, the more potential money it's costing the existing team owners.

And yet, they say nothing, not even a 'don't quote me on that' quote.

To me, this means one of three things.

1) there has been enough information shared with league governors about a potential offramp (in Phoenix or outside of Phoenix) that they know this will have a potential solution soon enough or
2) the league owners have been successfully cowed by the league's gag order or
3) the league has told them that more information is coming and they should wait for that information.

I suspect it's 1, but if it's 3, a BOG meeting will need to be called soon. At some point, some owner is going to realize that uncertainty has a cost and start getting all yelly.

 

[Llama19]

Why it's time for NHL to move on from the Arizona Coyotes soap opera

Source: www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/article/why-its-time-for-nhl-to-move-on-from-the-arizona-coyotes-soap-opera/

 

[Stumbledore]

What I'm struck by is the remarkable level of message discipline shown by the remaining NHL governors... they say nothing, not even a 'don't quote me on that' quote.

To me, this means one of three things.

1) there has been enough information shared with league governors about a potential offramp (in Phoenix or outside of Phoenix) that they know this will have a potential solution soon enough or
2) the league owners have been successfully cowed by the league's gag order or
3) the league has told them that more information is coming and they should wait for that information.

I suspect it's 1, but if it's 3, a BOG meeting will need to be called soon. At some point, some owner is going to realize that uncertainty has a cost and start getting all yelly.

I think it's number 2. There's various fines and administrative penalties for any team that violates the Count's gag orders and the little bastard has enough Old Guard to make it difficult for anyone who crosses him.

 

[mouser]

What I'm struck by is the remarkable level of message discipline shown by the remaining NHL governors. You have to think that some, if not many, of them are concerned about extending a process of securing an arena by the Coyotes beyond the promised term the club was supposed to be at the Mullett. Not only is it a bad look for the club to be playing its home games in a college rink, this long process diminished the league's bargaining power in a whole host of situations, not the least of which is potential expansion partners. So the longer this drags out, the more potential money it's costing the existing team owners.

And yet, they say nothing, not even a 'don't quote me on that' quote.

To me, this means one of three things.

1) there has been enough information shared with league governors about a potential offramp (in Phoenix or outside of Phoenix) that they know this will have a potential solution soon enough or
2) the league owners have been successfully cowed by the league's gag order or
3) the league has told them that more information is coming and they should wait for that information.

I suspect it's 1, but if it's 3, a BOG meeting will need to be called soon. At some point, some owner is going to realize that uncertainty has a cost and start getting all yelly.

Most likely reason:

Owners and BoG governors don’t publicly talk about other Owners, Teams, or Governors, irrespective of whether or not a specific gag order exists.

 

[aqib]

Most likely reason:

Owners and BoG governors don’t publicly talk about other Owners, Teams, or Governors, irrespective of whether or not a specific gag order exists.

Only 4 ownership groups pre-date Bettman. It was the same way with David Stern in the NBA. His power over the owners comes from the fact he controlled who got in in the first place. Roger Goodell doesn't have that sway only 6 (out of 32) owners came in under his run.

 

[KevFu]

On the odd chance that Ishbia would buy the Coyotes as well, then they would go ahead with the tear down and rebuild of the Footprint Arena to accommodate the NHL standards.

I don't think people are talking about Chase Field enough.

When the Coyotes were looking at Mullet, I thought "They should pick a few weeks and play 10-12 games in Chase -- hopefully against Chicago, Minnesota, New York -- and sell enough tickets that they can average 10,000 in a 5000 seat arena."

But beyond Chase as a TEMPORARY site...

The Diamondbacks are looking at a new stadium sooner rather than later, their lease expires after 2027. If they get a new stadium deal... Chase Field presents a massive opportunity.

A). You could make a mini entertainment district with arena INSIDE the Chase Field structure; which already has the entrances, parking, an outer concourse on street level and AC. If it was an empty lot, you'd dig it out and put the lower bowl underground. That's already done! There's room inside Chase for a full arena in the big OF space, and then you remodel the rest into the entertainment district mall kinda stuff after.

B). Just tear down Chase and build a new NBA/NHL joint arena there in the empty pit, leaving nothing from Chase.

 

[BMN]

Wait, so the underhanded behaviour was in the Coyotes favour, and then it was underhanded to undo this underhanded behaviour? Despite all the whining and complaining from Coyotes fans about the AMF being cancelled, it was extremely unethical for the Coyotes to hire Craig Tindall after he had negotiated the AMF for the city, and the so called "legal loophole" is an Arizona statute meant to address exactly this type of corruption! Once again, Coyotes fans want to point the finger at Glendale, despite the fact that the blame was 100% on the skeezy Coyotes organization.

I need the veterans of the situation like @TheLegend or others to clear something up for me because there's one very underdiscussed element of the whole Glendale-NHL relationship to me. Keeping in mind, I only know enough to be dangerous and not nearly enough to know what I'm actually talking about...

I seem to recall the fight between the NHL/Glendale and the Goldwater Institute in the late 2000s/early 2010s boiled down to:

Goldwater: "Hey, Glendale: You're giving the NHL $25 million in one year? That's a gift. We have a gift clause in this state, you're breaking that law!"
Glendale: "No we're not. We're paying the NHL to run the arena. They can charge us whatever they like to run it and we can pay whatever we choose for them to do that."
NHL: "Yup, that's right."

Now, what I'm about to ask isn't a legal question. Legally, what happened happened. But a good friend of mine used to say regarding government grants: "I can give you a grant to blow your nose.....are you gonna blow your nose?"

The way it seems from the outside (and again, I'm posing this as a general question because it's how it looks, I could be totally misinformed) was that the presence of the Coyotes really helped the development of hockey in Arizona. But in terms of adding events to the arena schedule besides the Coyotes themselves, they didn't really do so much. So in that regard, the NHL did this great thing but if I give you a grant to blow your nose and you cough instead...should you have even gotten the grant? How well did the NHL actually manage the arena for the city of Glendale per what was supposed to make the agreement both legal and in Glendale's best interests in first place?

Because-- again totally from the outside-- this is where I found myself very sympathetic to Glendale. I could imagine myself as the Mayor (not Weiers individually but any random person holding that job): "I paid you a handsome amount of money to do something and you didn't do it (or at least didn't dedicate an adequate amount of attention to doing it)."

 

[StreetHawk]

I don't think people are talking about Chase Field enough.

Where are the Diamondbacks eyeing for a new ballpark location? That's a lot of land that is needed to house an MLB stadium. And with the number of games, it needs to be in a convenient location and covered from the heat.

Honestly, unless the Suns owner buys into the Coyotes, there is no reason for him to ever want to share an arena with the coyotes, even a new one. If the DBacks left Chase, would it even make sense for the city to sell the land to the coyotes and let them privately finance the building themselves? Is having hockey that important for the city that they'd use that land for another indoor arena?

 

[Yukon Joe]

The way it seems from the outside (and again, I'm posing this as a general question because it's how it looks, I could be totally misinformed) was that the presence of the Coyotes really helped the development of hockey in Arizona. But in terms of adding events to the arena schedule besides the Coyotes themselves, they didn't really do so much. So in that regard, the NHL did this great thing but if I give you a grant to blow your nose and you cough instead...should you have even gotten the grant? How well did the NHL actually manage the arena for the city of Glendale per what was supposed to make the agreement both legal and in Glendale's best interests in first place?

OK usual disclaimer: although I am a lawyer, I'm not licensed to practice law in Arizona, this is not legal advice.

So as for Glendale's best interests... the issue was if the Coytes were kicked out then someone still has to manage the arena. The argument was that managing an arena was outside the skillset of a medium-sized city, and thus by getting the Coyotes to run it for Glendale they were helping Glendale out.

I mean - I think that management fee was always a thinly disguised subsidy for the Coyotes, but I believe that's how they justified it.

In the end - you mentioned the Goldwater Institute, but they were kind of a paper tiger and never actually filed a lawsuit. Because sending threatening letters is cheap (and maybe something you can fundraise off of), but actual litigation is expensive. So in the end the legality of the arena-management fee was never challenged in court.

 

[Major4Boarding]

I don't think people are talking about Chase Field enough.

When the Coyotes were looking at Mullet, I thought "They should pick a few weeks and play 10-12 games in Chase -- hopefully against Chicago, Minnesota, New York -- and sell enough tickets that they can average 10,000 in a 5000 seat arena."

But beyond Chase as a TEMPORARY site...

The Diamondbacks are looking at a new stadium sooner rather than later, their lease expires after 2027. If they get a new stadium deal... Chase Field presents a massive opportunity.

A). You could make a mini entertainment district with arena INSIDE the Chase Field structure; which already has the entrances, parking, an outer concourse on street level and AC. If it was an empty lot, you'd dig it out and put the lower bowl underground. That's already done! There's room inside Chase for a full arena in the big OF space, and then you remodel the rest into the entertainment district mall kinda stuff after.

B). Just tear down Chase and build a new NBA/NHL joint arena there in the empty pit, leaving nothing from Chase.

Honestly, KF, I don't think anybody's talking about it because this organization can't wait until (feasibly) 2029 for a hockey arena to be built on top of it

 

[KevFu]

What I'm struck by is the remarkable level of message discipline shown by the remaining NHL governors. You have to think that some, if not many, of them are concerned about extending a process of securing an arena by the Coyotes beyond the promised term the club was supposed to be at the Mullett. Not only is it a bad look for the club to be playing its home games in a college rink, this long process diminished the league's bargaining power in a whole host of situations, not the least of which is potential expansion partners. So the longer this drags out, the more potential money it's costing the existing team owners.

And yet, they say nothing, not even a 'don't quote me on that' quote.

To me, this means one of three things.

1) there has been enough information shared with league governors about a potential offramp (in Phoenix or outside of Phoenix) that they know this will have a potential solution soon enough or
2) the league owners have been successfully cowed by the league's gag order or
3) the league has told them that more information is coming and they should wait for that information.

I suspect it's 1, but if it's 3, a BOG meeting will need to be called soon. At some point, some owner is going to realize that uncertainty has a cost and start getting all yelly.

It's more likely that fans simply don't grasp that the CBA is NOT set up for a rising tide to lift all boats. The entire concept of LOCAL FINANCES being "Good for the League" is a complete myth at best, and probably the exact opposite.

If the Coyotes made $64 million MORE in revenue, they'd be about league average... not paying into or collecting revenue sharing.

The top revenue teams -- no matter who it is or how much money they make -- are paying the bottom revenue teams -- again no matter who or how little. It's not any less or more if the Coyotes have $64 million more, because the Coyotes making league-average money RAISES THE AVERAGE, which raises payroll for every team in the league.

The Coyotes being DMFL in revenue isn't hurting anyone but the "opportunity cost" of the Coyotes owner from profitting.

There's only a very tiny number of owners who'd see any change what so ever; and COULD possibly say that the "Coyotes are costing us like $2 million". But they'd have to give that to the players instead of the Coyotes if they "fix" the Coyotes problem.

The CBA is designed to be a giant whack-a-mole game. The more problems you "fix" the more problems you're going to create.

Winnipeg voiced concerns... the year after a team that had been in the bottom five in revenues for decades open their brand new arena and increased their revenues $108 million. (Obviously that figure is COVID effected, it's more like $75m).

The Panthers making the SCF and getting a revenue bump from that.... gonna push Buffalo further from the midpoint and with their arena about to hit 30, they're probably going to be "the next NHL problem."

 

[ponder719]

The Panthers making the SCF and getting a revenue bump from that.... gonna push Buffalo further from the midpoint and with their arena about to hit 30, they're probably going to be "the next NHL problem."

*penny drops* Oh, hells bells, we're about to spend two years hearing about the Sabres potentially moving to Hamilton before they get their new arena, aren't we?

 

[MeHateHe]

It's more likely that fans simply don't grasp that the CBA is NOT set up for a rising tide to lift all boats. The entire concept of LOCAL FINANCES being "Good for the League" is a complete myth at best, and probably the exact opposite.

Fair enough, but I'm not really talking about local finances (from the standpoint of local revenue) so much as how it looks to have a major league franchise playing in what is not a major league facility for an extended (indefinite maybe?) period time. If random billionaire X, who owns the NHL franchise in city Y, is discussing his team with random billionaire Z, who might be considering buying into a franchise or applying for an expansion franchise, seeing the team playing in front of 20,000 rabid fans will make random billionaire Z a lot more interested - and hence, willing to pay a higher price - than seeing the same spectacle in front of 5,000 people. If one franchise's worth rises, they all rise to some extent.

Moreover, a club's value is dependent on exclusivity. The league wants to be able to dictate terms to teams. They also want to be able to dictate terms to corporate partners, to the extent possible. So when the corporate sector sees that the NHL can't even keep a franchise in an arena in a key market, it weakens their negotiation ability with corporate partners. This situation wounds the league, and its franchises, and that's part of where I was going.

So it was bad enough that the Coyotes got booted out of their arena in Glendale and had to stick it out for what they said was three or four seasons in the Mullett. It's worse now that another community has rejected the club and the uncertainty about a permanent home will continue.

 

[KevFu]

Honestly, KF, I don't think anybody's talking about because this organization can't wait until (feasibly) 2029 for a hockey arena to be built on top of it

Imagine if instead of Murelo, the DBacks owner had bought the Coyotes. And when evicted from Glendale, they started playing in Chase Field during the winter (sounds crazy, but Tampa did it).

Then the DBacks announce their new stadium and that the Chase site will have a permanent, state of the art NHL arena there after their departure. But while that construction is going, the Coyotes would have to play in Mullett. I don't think anyone would have a problem with the Coyotes in Mullet like they have now.