CXLVII - Is this the 'Final Countdown' in Arizona?

[aqib]

So if the club lost 33 mil in 2021, how much more have they lost since? The total loss could be up over 200 mil.
This sounds bad, but the league has revenue sharing. Do teams like Toronto, who make big profits, send money to the Coyotes to help them out.

Every owner has lost money and finances the losses with debt until they sell. The new owner assumes the debt of the old owner (Although there was a reset when the bankruptcy happened but the NHL borrowed the money to buy the team and IA's purchase was also heavily debt financed)

 

[Yukon Joe]

Fun Fact: When Rick Westhead started covering this he didn't even know where Glendale was.

You know - if I jumped back in time 15 years I would have had no idea where Glendale was either.

After following the story for all this time though I now have detailed knowledge of greater Phoenix geography, politics and laws.

So I'm not quite sure this is really much of a burn for Rick Westhead, who is a really good investigative reporter (perhaps the only one in the world of hockey).

 

[TheLegend]

You know - if I jumped back in time 15 years I would have had no idea where Glendale was either.

After following the story for all this time though I now have detailed knowledge of greater Phoenix geography, politics and laws.

So I'm not quite sure this is really much of a burn for Rick Westhead, who is a really good investigative reporter (perhaps the only one in the world of hockey).

A good investigative reporter wouldn't have made that simple mistake. Nor would have reacted like a petulant child as he did when it was pointed out to him.

 

[Fatass]

A good investigative reporter wouldn't have made that simple mistake. Nor would have reacted like a petulant child as he did when it was pointed out to him.

Not too sure what the problem was with Westhead’s reporting on the matter. If he made a mistake in some way did that mistake detract from the whole article? Was his error so egregious we should “throw the baby out with the bath water”? Or was it a small mistake that detracts somewhat from the reporting, but much of what he wrote still has relevance? Like I mentioned before, maybe the big losses he writes about are covered (mostly) by the leagues’ richer teams’ revenue sharing, so it’s a big nothing anyway?

 

[KevFu]

I agree with this. Neil deMause's whole schtick is railing against any sports deal anywhere and basically saying any deal where anyone gets a subsidy or even infrastructure is bad.

He and I have gotten into it a few times over the fact that he never includes income taxes from team payrolls in his "analysis."

Extremely smart point.

The other thing that drives me nuts is how when a city gives a team a free arena/stadium, they count "tax rebates" as part of the cost to taxpayers. That's only a "cost" if the team STOPS paying what they were paying, and creates a budget shortfall that must be recovered from the taxpayers.

NOT CHARGING for something that isn't an object with a quantity isn't an actual cost. It's just opportunity cost.

My best example is the Mets stadium in New York. $614m in "Taxpayer Money!" But $250 million of that was "forgone property taxes." But the deal for the OLD Stadium had that provision. You're not losing any actual money out of the budget by CONTINUING to not charge property tax. It's the same deal as before, just with a new facility.

Your point on the Jock Tax is excellent. NYC's Jock Tax is 3.78% (to the city, not the state).

The Mets players are paying $6.7 million in Jock Tax THIS SEASON, and their opponents are chipping in another $3m-ish. Probably more because the Yankees play road games at the Mets.

$250m in "foregone property taxes" divided by 30 years of the stadium is $8.33m a year.
Year 14 of the stadium and the Mets bring $9.7 in Jock Tax to NYC.


I'm not saying a city couldn't do more/better things with the other $364 the stadium costs (Which includes even more phantom uncollected dollars that are opportunity costs and not tangible things; like the interest on the bonds that paid for construction costs). I'm just saying that these deals are usually not as bad as they sound.

 

[TheLegend]

Not too sure what the problem was with Westhead’s reporting on the matter. If he made a mistake in some way did that mistake detract from the whole article? Was his error so egregious we should “throw the baby out with the bath water”? Or was it a small mistake that detracts somewhat from the reporting, but much of what he wrote still has relevance? Like I mentioned before, maybe the big losses he writes about are covered (mostly) by the leagues’ richer teams’ revenue sharing, so it’s a big nothing anyway?

I don’t know about you but if I’m writing about a market and where a team plays I’d sure as hell get the location right. Then again I’m just picky about details because so many of them have been ignored over the years.

Likewise…. The advent of social media and the push to “get it out there before someone beats you to it” has made journalists sloppy in their reporting.

Screwing up something as small as that tends to make a reader think that the writer has no real clue and is looking to fulfill a predetermined narrative.

Then again Westhead’s intended readership would be more than willing to let a gaffe like that go as long as they got the healthy dose of red meat they wanted.

 

[Yukon Joe]

I don’t know about you but if I’m writing about a market and where a team plays I’d sure as hell get the location right. Then again I’m just picky about details because so many of them have been ignored over the years.

Likewise…. The advent of social media and the push to “get it out there before someone beats you to it” has made journalists sloppy in their reporting.

Screwing up something as small as that tends to make a reader think that the writer has no real clue and is looking to fulfill a predetermined narrative.

Then again Westhead’s intended readership would be more than willing to let a gaffe like that go as long as they got the healthy dose of red meat they wanted.

So, I don't know just what mistake you're referring to. If you have a link I'd appreciate it.

But people, even reporters, are allowed to make mistakes.

But your whole post really seems like you don't know who Westhead is, or his body or work. He's not some social media muckraker. A lot of his stories have been deep investigative dives into allegations of sexual abuse in NHL clubs, trouble within Canada Soccer, or corruption within minor hockey in Toronto. He's TSN's "senior correspondent". He doesn't post daily, but rather only every couple of weeks.

If he, I dunno, said that Glendale was east of Phoenix, instead of west, I really don't think that detracts from his reporting in the slightest.

 

[Stumbledore]

You know - if I jumped back in time 15 years I would have had no idea where Glendale was either.

After following the story for all this time though I now have detailed knowledge of greater Phoenix geography, politics and laws.

So I'm not quite sure this is really much of a burn for Rick Westhead, who is a really good investigative reporter (perhaps the only one in the world of hockey).

I can sympathize. I didn't know where Goodyear was -- or had even heard of it for that matter -- until I found out that I'd bought property there.

Speaking of which, want to buy a house in Scottsdale? I've offered it free to all three of our girls and none of them or their husbands want to live there. If you're up on the geography, politics and laws, you'd fit right .... naw, who am I kidding?

 

[TheGreenTBer]

I can sympathize. I didn't know where Goodyear was -- or had even heard of it for that matter -- until I found out that I'd bought property there.

Speaking of which, want to buy a house in Scottsdale? I've offered it free to all three of our girls and none of them or their husbands want to live there. If you're up on the geography, politics and laws, you'd fit right .... naw, who am I kidding?

How do you "find out" that you've bought property somewhere? Didn't you have to sign a HUD or something?

 

[TheLegend]

How do you "find out" that you've bought property somewhere? Didn't you have to sign a HUD or something?

Depending on when he bought it (ie when the housing bubble burst and short sales were the thing.... it wouldn't have mattered as long as you stuck to the outlaying areas.)

 

[TheLegend]

So, I don't know just what mistake you're referring to. If you have a link I'd appreciate it.

But people, even reporters, are allowed to make mistakes.

But your whole post really seems like you don't know who Westhead is, or his body or work. He's not some social media muckraker. A lot of his stories have been deep investigative dives into allegations of sexual abuse in NHL clubs, trouble within Canada Soccer, or corruption within minor hockey in Toronto. He's TSN's "senior correspondent". He doesn't post daily, but rather only every couple of weeks.

If he, I dunno, said that Glendale was east of Phoenix, instead of west, I really don't think that detracts from his reporting in the slightest.

I've read his work. Much of it very good.

But I have standards for journalists if I want to take them seriously and the willingness to acknowledge an error (even the slightest one) without being an ass is one of them.

And my criticism of Westhead is no different than when people take shots at Craig Morgan just for the sake of it. rather than address what he wrote.

It goes both ways.

 

[blueandgoldguy]

A good investigative reporter wouldn't have made that simple mistake. Nor would have reacted like a petulant child as he did when it was pointed out to him.

He is a good investigative reporter though. Look at some of the stories he has brought to light which deserve more recognition from the public. I don't think some small mistakes like geographical locations would mean he is suddenly bad at all aspects of his job.

 

[Fatass]

I don’t know about you but if I’m writing about a market and where a team plays I’d sure as hell get the location right. Then again I’m just picky about details because so many of them have been ignored over the years.

Likewise…. The advent of social media and the push to “get it out there before someone beats you to it” has made journalists sloppy in their reporting.

Screwing up something as small as that tends to make a reader think that the writer has no real clue and is looking to fulfill a predetermined narrative.

Then again Westhead’s intended readership would be more than willing to let a gaffe like that go as long as they got the healthy dose of red meat they wanted.

But wouldn’t the vast majority of Westhead’s readership not have enough knowledge (like you) of the area to recognize the mistake? Again, I’m not familiar with the market there. But, from reading replies here, it sounds like his mistake was a small part of the article. So point out the error, but why does that disqualify the rest of the reporting?
Westhead’s is actually one of the very few actual true news reporters who covers sports.

He is a good investigative reporter though. Look at some of the stories he has brought to light which deserve more recognition from the public. I don't think some small mistakes like geographical locations would mean he is suddenly bad at all aspects of his job.

100% agree. This is a quality reporter. He made one small error. But that doesn’t disqualify the vast majority of his reporting.

 

[Fatass]

I've read his work. Much of it very good.

But I have standards for journalists if I want to take them seriously and the willingness to acknowledge an error (even the slightest one) without being an ass is one of them.

And my criticism of Westhead is no different than when people take shots at Craig Morgan just for the sake of it. rather than address what he wrote.

It goes both ways.

That’s your opinion though. And your opinion doesn’t supersede another’s opinion, right? Imo Westhead is a top notch reporter. He’s reported on some very important things, like the Blackhawks’ abuse stuff. Do we throw out his reporting
on that very important stuff because he made a minor error in this article? Of course not. So it makes sense to put aside his error here and accept the rest of the reporting. Imo.

 

[TheLegend]

That’s your opinion though. And your opinion doesn’t supersede another’s opinion, right? Imo Westhead is a top notch reporter. He’s reported on some very important things, like the Blackhawks’ abuse stuff. Do we throw out his reporting
on that very important stuff because he made a minor error in this article? Of course not. So it makes sense to put aside his error here and accept the rest of the reporting. Imo.

Of course it’s my opinion.

Well getting back to the 18 month old (or whatever how long ago it was) tweet thread that sent us down this little tangent…

Westhead cites the opinion of a “sports investment banker”. There are many individuals who could qualify under that term but not all of them is going have direct info on what the Coyotes are actually doing.

The team was originally not up for sale. It’d already been widely reported that Barroway was seeking another investor (up to 49.9%) and ended up with Alex Meruelo buying up 95%.

What the team said about not being up for sale was true. It just ended up differently (my opinion is Meruelo was this only person who had interest and he doesn’t do minority holdings…. and Barroway would have lost everything within six months)

Westhead can play the semantics game with that all he wants and imply the team was lying, but that’s how it went down. And had he reported it that way (or even cited his banker friend as having direct knowledge of the situation) I could have been more inclined to believe him.

 

[Stumbledore]

How do you "find out" that you've bought property somewhere? Didn't you have to sign a HUD or something?

I've got a property manager in Mesa who arranges paperwork for me to sign. Besides, it's just empty lots. And to be completely honest, I was busy back then and not paying much attention.

 

[Stumbledore]

Depending on when he bought it (ie when the housing bubble burst and short sales were the thing.... it wouldn't have mattered as long as you stuck to the outlaying areas.)

These lots are/were all C-3, no housing allowed. And Goodyear was about as outlying as you can get. Sort of like Glendale was, only more shabby.

 

[TheLegend]

These lots are/were all C-3, no housing allowed. And Goodyear was about as outlying as you can get. Sort of like Glendale was, only more shabby.

Goodyear is an old farming town that got its name from the tire company that bought 16,000 acres to produce cotton for aircraft tires during WWII.

As Phoenix metro blew up outward the nearly 2000’s a lot of home builders bought up properties, leapfrogging each other through Avondale, Goodyear and Buckeye, taking out a lot of the farming.

Right now there’s a big push to infill lots that got skipped over during that run.

 

[aqib]

Sorry I had too. This was too funny.

 

[TheLegend]

Sorry I had too. This was too funny.
View attachment 736814

That’s been out a few days… also got a laugh from it.

 

[TheGreenTBer]

Sorry I had too. This was too funny.
View attachment 736814

Love to see Meruelo drive up all gangster and say something like I'M NOT GIVING YOU ONE MORE f***ING CENT TO OPERATE THAT PLAYGROUND

 

[aqib]

Extremely smart point.

The other thing that drives me nuts is how when a city gives a team a free arena/stadium, they count "tax rebates" as part of the cost to taxpayers. That's only a "cost" if the team STOPS paying what they were paying, and creates a budget shortfall that must be recovered from the taxpayers.

NOT CHARGING for something that isn't an object with a quantity isn't an actual cost. It's just opportunity cost.

My best example is the Mets stadium in New York. $614m in "Taxpayer Money!" But $250 million of that was "forgone property taxes." But the deal for the OLD Stadium had that provision. You're not losing any actual money out of the budget by CONTINUING to not charge property tax. It's the same deal as before, just with a new facility.

Your point on the Jock Tax is excellent. NYC's Jock Tax is 3.78% (to the city, not the state).

The Mets players are paying $6.7 million in Jock Tax THIS SEASON, and their opponents are chipping in another $3m-ish. Probably more because the Yankees play road games at the Mets.

$250m in "foregone property taxes" divided by 30 years of the stadium is $8.33m a year.
Year 14 of the stadium and the Mets bring $9.7 in Jock Tax to NYC.


I'm not saying a city couldn't do more/better things with the other $364 the stadium costs (Which includes even more phantom uncollected dollars that are opportunity costs and not tangible things; like the interest on the bonds that paid for construction costs). I'm just saying that these deals are usually not as bad as they sound.

Another thing I go off on him a lot is how small sports subsidies are in relation to the overall spending. Like the Bills Stadium is getting like $850 million from the state to build their new stadium which will last 30 years. The state budget is over $200 billion PER YEAR. Now before we factor in the over $20 million a year they will get back in player salaries alone, the Bills do draw from outside New York State and most of those people wouldn't be visiting Buffalo for other reasons.

 

[MeHateHe]

Are you guys really defending subsidizing pro sports? A plaything of the ultra wealthy who are employing the merely super wealthy

 

[MeHateHe]

Another thing I go off on him a lot is how small sports subsidies are in relation to the overall spending. Like the Bills Stadium is getting like $850 million from the state to build their new stadium which will last 30 years. The state budget is over $200 billion PER YEAR. Now before we factor in the over $20 million a year they will get back in player salaries alone, the Bills do draw from outside New York State and most of those people wouldn't be visiting Buffalo for other reasons.

Study after study after peer-reviewed study shows that there's no economic benefit to putting public money into sports enterprises. Stop with the idea that it generates economic activity. It doesn't: it merely redirects discretionary spending from one area to another. When you consider that the owners of these teams are already outrageously rich, and that the teams, for the most part, are a sideline enterprise, the owners making these demands should probably be ashamed to ask for it.

You can make the argument that there is some public good in supporting ventures that make a city feel good about itself. I'm not sure about what the appropriate cost is there, but I suspect it's a lot less than the dollars being laid out.

The biggest story in Canada right now is affordability: housing, especially, and food prices. The two orders of government used to build massive amounts of public housing, but stopped in the late 80s and that has contributed to the current situation; it's becoming near impossible for renters to find accommodations and for young people to buy. Governments making the choice to give money to rich people - because that is literally what is happening - means less available funds for average people.

Play the other side for a second. If governments were prevented somehow from subsidizing pro sports teams, do you think the industry would vanish? Or would the oil barons like Murray Edwards in Calgary decide to spend their own damn money to make money?

Bottom line is this: if you want to defend the owners' shakedown of the public sector, feel free to do so. But stop trying to claim there's an economic justification for it.

 

[aqib]

Study after study after peer-reviewed study shows that there's no economic benefit to putting public money into sports enterprises. Stop with the idea that it generates economic activity. It doesn't: it merely redirects discretionary spending from one area to another. When you consider that the owners of these teams are already outrageously rich, and that the teams, for the most part, are a sideline enterprise, the owners making these demands should probably be ashamed to ask for it.

You can make the argument that there is some public good in supporting ventures that make a city feel good about itself. I'm not sure about what the appropriate cost is there, but I suspect it's a lot less than the dollars being laid out.

The biggest story in Canada right now is affordability: housing, especially, and food prices. The two orders of government used to build massive amounts of public housing, but stopped in the late 80s and that has contributed to the current situation; it's becoming near impossible for renters to find accommodations and for young people to buy. Governments making the choice to give money to rich people - because that is literally what is happening - means less available funds for average people.

Play the other side for a second. If governments were prevented somehow from subsidizing pro sports teams, do you think the industry would vanish? Or would the oil barons like Murray Edwards in Calgary decide to spend their own damn money to make money?

Bottom line is this: if you want to defend the owners' shakedown of the public sector, feel free to do so. But stop trying to claim there's an economic justification for it.

Ok first of I didn't address every study or the overall economic impact of sports:

1) I specifically addressed Neil deMausse and one specific discussion I had with him about including in the income taxes generated off team payrolls. I am not saying that you could necessarily claim a positive return on investment for a city, but an accurate calculation should factor that in. I haven't read every study so I can't say how accurate they are are not. I was only addressing this one guy. However, I will say its usually the same few guys (Andrew Zimbalist, Roger Noll, etc.) who have carved out this niche for themselves.

2) If you look at subsidies that big business in general gets from cities, sports subsidies are a drop in the bucket. New York was going to give $3 billion to Amazon. A company worth well over $1 trillion. There was no way NY was going to make that back on income taxes from the people working there and NYC was already busting at the seems so there was no need for them to give subsidies to anyone.

3) Sports spending while it grabs headlines is very small relative to government budgets. Oakland doesn't suddenly have great schools and roads now that the Warriors and Raiders are gone. If Cleveland didn't build stadiums for the Browns, Cavs, Guards the city wouldn't be booming all of a sudden.

4) There is an intangible benefit to having major league sports in your city. For many people it improves the quality of life of the city. Sure LA was just fine without the NFL and NY probably would be too Miami could lose all 4 of its teams and not care. But for many other cities its a key amenity. When I was in Cleveland we had within a few months tax renewals for a sin taxes for the stadiums and the arts. The cigarette tax for the stadiums was 4.5 cents per pack and people were saying that was unfair. For the arts it was 30 cents per pack. The very same people screamed bloody murder about the first one and were fully behind the second. Both are entertainment but had different reactions.

5) As far as housing and other expenses in Canada goes, I know. I have literally been working on affordable housing initiatives for the last 2 years. However, if Canada's 9 major league teams (12 if you include MLS) left the country it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference in housing costs.