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

[Spring in Fialta]

If AM is willing to eat the losses, what's the issue exactly?

It hurts the league cap and costs players league-wide money.

 

[Boris Zubov]

Cool, see you at midseason and when that announcement comes.

I'm not certain it won't come, but staking my reputation on that?!? We should all assume you had a 3 martini lunch with this post.

 

[PainForShane]

Marty Walsh clearly disagrees. And it should be obvious to even you that the Coyotes playing in Arizona after this season is very very questionable.

I'm sorry man. "It should be obvious to even you" that we're 100% guaranteed to continue playing in Arizona after this season. Our lease with Mullett expires at the end of 2024-2025 season with an option to pick up another year -- which means we'll be in Mullett at least another 1 and likely 2 years depending on whatever site ends up getting proposed / arena timeline.

Not really surprised you don't know basic things like the length of the Mullett lease considering the amount of nonsense / hate you've continued to spew. Maybe learn about the situation, most reasonable ppl would put our chance of staying somewhere in the Valley long term at least around 70-80% and likely much higher than that, this percentage of course has no regard to the years of hate you and your hater friends have been spewing on this random message board.

That said, please continue, all your posts are funny to read and will most likely be even funnier in hindsight. Thx

 

[Ernie]

I'm sorry man. "It should be obvious to even you" that we're 100% guaranteed to stay in Arizona after this season. Our lease with Mullett expires at the end of 2024-2025 season with an option to pick up another year -- which means we'll be in Mullett at least another 1 and likely 2 years depending on whatever site ends up getting proposed / arena timeline.

Not really surprised you don't know basic things like the length of the Mullett lease considering the amount of nonsense / hate you've continued to spew. Maybe learn about the situation, most reasonable ppl would put our chance of staying somewhere in the Valley long term at least around 70-80% and likely much higher than that, this percentage has no regard to the years of hate you and your hater friends have been spewing on this random message board.

That said, please continue, all your posts are funny to read and will most likely be even funnier in hindsight. Thx

Do you actually think that playing in a 5000 seat arena is in any way sustainable? It was only allowed because the Coyotes were supposed to have a new arena built. And they can't even sell out those 5000 seats, which leads me to believe that fans are seeing the writing on the well too.

Sorry you feel so hurt by my comments.

 

[PainForShane]

Do you actually think that playing in a 5000 seat arena is in any way sustainable? It was only allowed because the Coyotes were supposed to have a new arena built.

Sorry you feel so hurt by my comments.

That's not even close to what I said or implied. Thx

 

[mouser]

Yes, and from what Walsh is saying, there needs to be advanced negotiations, not just a "we'd like to have an arena here" kind of announcement.

The deadline always seemed like a bit of a gimmick given that is not really enough time to get a project to an advanced stage, and after the Tempe referendum loss no city council is going to be sticking their necks out for the Coyotes.

It‘s not up to Walsh or the NHLPA, they have zero rights or leverage to influence how the Coyotes arena situation proceeds. So long as the ASU arena meets the locker room and other CBA mandated player facilities requirements the PA can’t do anything other than wait for the next CBA negotiation in 2026 to fight for more rights over team arenas.

Also, the article suggestion that the PA would “oppose” any NHL expansion teams until Arizona is resolved is laughable. The PA would rather have as many new teams as possible to expand the union membership and let Arizona get sorted out later.

 

[Shwan]

I'm sorry man. "It should be obvious to even you" that we're 100% guaranteed to continue playing in Arizona after this season. Our lease with Mullett expires at the end of 2024-2025 season with an option to pick up another year -- which means we'll be in Mullett at least another 1 and likely 2 years depending on whatever site ends up getting proposed / arena timeline.

Not really surprised you don't know basic things like the length of the Mullett lease considering the amount of nonsense / hate you've continued to spew. Maybe learn about the situation, most reasonable ppl would put our chance of staying somewhere in the Valley long term at least around 70-80% and likely much higher than that, this percentage of course has no regard to the years of hate you and your hater friends have been spewing on this random message board.

That said, please continue, all your posts are funny to read and will most likely be even funnier in hindsight. Thx

This is a funny post considering the Coyotes paid for the lease 100% up front and can leave whenever they want.

Craig Morgan of PHNX Sports reports the Coyotes will pay all associated costs for the annex, as well as the full cost of the term of their lease at the arena, up front. Arizona State University will assume no risk.

But I guess that's what happens when you don't know basic things about the contract.

 

[PainForShane]

This is a funny post considering the Coyotes paid for the lease 100% up front and can leave whenever they want.



But I guess that's what happens when you don't know basic things about the contract.

Not sure how anything you said is related to my statement that the Yotes will be in Mullett for at least another year or two, or anything else in the post you quoted.

But I guess that's what happens when you don't know basic things about the post / argument you decided to go out of your way to reply to.

 

[Shwan]

Not sure how anything you said is related to my statement that the Yotes will be in Mullett for at least another year or two, or anything else in the post you quoted.

But I guess that's what happens when you don't know basic things about the post / argument you decided to go out of your way to reply to.

The lease has nothing to do with whether the Coyotes stay or not, it's paid for and a sunk cost.

 

[PainForShane]

The lease has nothing to do with whether the Coyotes stay or not, it's paid for and a sunk cost.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with anything. UNLESS you are looking to argue that it's likely the Yotes break the lease, ie either Meruelo will voluntarily move the team to a different geographic market (very unlikely) or that the NHL will somehow force an ownership change, this year, and the new owner will then move the team sometime during this season or the upcoming offseason (even more unlikely).

Are you really looking to argue either one of those things? Good luck with that

 

[Shwan]

Which has absolutely nothing to do with anything.

Our lease with Mullett expires at the end of 2024-2025 season with an option to pick up another year -- which means we'll be in Mullett at least another 1 and likely 2 years depending on whatever site ends up getting proposed / arena timeline.

Okay bro.

 

[Tawnos]

Which has absolutely nothing to do with anything. UNLESS you are looking to argue that it's likely the Yotes break the lease, ie either Meruelo will voluntarily move the team to a different geographic market (very unlikely) or that the NHL will somehow force an ownership change, this year, and the new owner will then move the team sometime during this season or the upcoming offseason (even more unlikely).

Are you really looking to argue either one of those things? Good luck with that

I think what you’re missing from the argument is the fact of the lease existing really has no bearing on what happens next. If the situation comes up where the Coyotes leave, the lease at Mullett isn’t going to stand in the way of that in any way.

The only thing the lease does is give us an idea of what the timeline for a new arena would look like if they stay in AZ.

 

[AtlantaWhaler]

Our lease with Mullett expires at the end of 2024-2025 season with an option to pick up another year -- which means we'll be in Mullett at least another 1 and likely 2 years depending on whatever site ends up getting proposed / arena timeline.

This is where I'm really interested in how this all plays out. At this point, there isn't even a definite site picked out. Once one is picked, then negotiations for sale along with all the pre-sale activities (appraisal, environmental, site prep, plans, etc...). That alone can easily take a year or two. Then the actual construction process and finally opening a new arena (probably along with some sort of retail play around the arena). I'm really thinking this is at least 5 years out.

 

[PainForShane]

I think what you’re missing from the argument is the fact of the lease existing really has no bearing on what happens next. If the situation comes up where the Coyotes leave, the lease at Mullett isn’t going to stand in the way of that in any way.

The only thing the lease does is give us an idea of what the timeline for a new arena would look like if they stay in AZ.

No, I didn't miss anything. Even though what you just said above is largely correct, imo you didn't completely think your argument through.

Specifically, what situation could possibly come up where the Coyotes choose to leave? As we all know there's no other readily available local arena, and we also know current ownership is committed to the market. So like I said to Shwan, unless you want to argue that Coyotes ownership will voluntarily leave the market, or that the NHL (or PA I suppose) will force a sale this year and the new owner will relocate in time to play the 2024-2025 season season somewhere else -- either of which is extremely unlikely, by the way -- then the Yotes will be playing in Arizona (specifically in Mullett) at least through 2024-2025 and likely the year after as well.

That's literally all I'm saying here. I'm not saying / implying anything about staying in Mullett indefinitely, I'm talking only about the next season or two. For full context, the reason I am even saying something so obvious is that there was some guy throwing insults at a different Yotes fan while saying "it should be obvious to even you that the Coyotes playing in Arizona after this season is very very questionable," his statement is 100% complete nonsense, he couldn't be more wrong.

***

Anyway, if you honestly think it's likely the Yotes will choose to break the lease in time for 2024-2025 games to be played in a different market, please continue. Otherwise it's pretty apparent we'll be in Mullett beyond this season which again, is all that I'm saying here -- like you said, this arena stuff will take time. In the meantime, most likely we'll be able to find at least one workable local long term solution, the valley's a big place with a decent amount of currently undeveloped real estate, we should be able to find at least one workable site

 

[eojsmada]

It‘s not up to Walsh or the NHLPA, they have zero rights or leverage to influence how the Coyotes arena situation proceeds. So long as the ASU arena meets the locker room and other CBA mandated player facilities requirements the PA can’t do anything other than wait for the next CBA negotiation in 2026 to fight for more rights over team arenas.

Also, the article suggestion that the PA would “oppose” any NHL expansion teams until Arizona is resolved is laughable. The PA would rather have as many new teams as possible to expand the union membership and let Arizona get sorted out later.

The NHLPA can actually have a tremendous amount of leverage in terms of the NHL acting in a way to not stifle a market and hindering the ability of the players to make a more competitive wage. The players could actually walk off the job if they learn that the NHL has, in any way, manipulated the situation that can harm the ability of the players to have as much access to the potential revenue stream of a full-fledged arena/ticket sales/media presence as the rest of the teams. By being 50/50 partners in the sharing of the revenue already carries with it the "good faith" trust that the NHL will do everything in its power to not only increase revenues, but also not stifle revenues.

The only reason they have been as lenient as they have been is mostly because Donald Fehr was a joke of an executive director and the league had to deal with the Covid situation. There are lots of little negotiations that go on throughout a season that require NHLPA approval and the PA can just decide not to take part in them and hold up any part of the process until the NHL resolves the situation. And you can see that Walsh is basically bringing that leverage to bear with his various press conferences/talks that he's given. That he's even saying anything in public is already a big deal, because the NHL hates having any potential negotiations brought into the public eye.

 

[doublejman]

All though nothing official it sounds like Scripps is moving coyote games to KASW full time and the CW is moving to 15.2. Scripps is claiming ratings for coyote games are up 900% from last year.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Doesn't the arena fit 4600? Everywhere I've seen shows theyve sold out every game there, Funny though last season their ECHL affiliate had a higher average attendance by a couple hundred fans.

I may be mistaken but I think there are 5100 seats. 4600 left for sale after some are withheld for the team/league purposes, or something like that.

Jets played in Ari Nov 4. There were a lot of MT seats. Camera never panned the stands but it looked like about 1/3 MT in the background.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

The less people that know about something, the less likely chance of something to be leaked. The PA does not need to know any future plans of a possible site until it's concrete and set in stone, it's that simple. I don't know why this is so hard to understand. They are still playing in Mullet for next year, and probably the 4th year per the lease. Suck it up and get over it at this point.



Again, why would they need to report the news to people?

"We are in talks with X people, it's looking to be about $Y dollars, but we need Z to be done before it happens". There's no point in the team putting that out there, especially if they are in multiple negotiations for places to build their entertainment district.

The PA is not just Joe Public. They are a stakeholder affected by the Coyotes situation. They get paid a % of league revenue. Coyotes are not holding up their end.

 

[Tawnos]

No, I didn't miss anything. Even though what you just said above is largely correct, imo you didn't completely think your argument through.

Specifically, what situation could possibly come up where the Coyotes choose to leave? As we all know there's no other readily available local arena, and we also know current ownership is committed to the market. So like I said to Shwan, unless you want to argue that Coyotes ownership will voluntarily leave the market, or that the NHL (or PA I suppose) will force a sale this year and the new owner will relocate in time to play the 2024-2025 season season somewhere else -- either of which is extremely unlikely, by the way -- then the Yotes will be playing in Arizona (specifically in Mullett) at least through 2024-2025 and likely the year after as well.

That's literally all I'm saying here. I'm not saying / implying anything about staying in Mullett indefinitely, I'm talking only about the next season or two. For full context, the reason I am even saying something so obvious is that there was some guy throwing insults at a different Yotes fan while saying "it should be obvious to even you that the Coyotes playing in Arizona after this season is very very questionable," his statement is 100% complete nonsense, he couldn't be more wrong.

***

Anyway, if you honestly think it's likely the Yotes will choose to break the lease in time for 2024-2025 games to be played in a different market, please continue. Otherwise it's pretty apparent we'll be in Mullett beyond this season which again, is all that I'm saying here -- like you said, this arena stuff will take time. In the meantime, most likely we'll be able to find at least one workable local long term solution, the valley's a big place with a decent amount of currently undeveloped real estate, we should be able to find at least one workable site

Everything you described about the situation is true, it's just that the lease is really a non-factor in the whole thing. It's been that way since they paid for it up front.

It won't happen, but if the Suns said "we're going to renovate for hockey and it'll be ready next year, want in?" They'd break the lease.

 

[mouser]

The NHLPA can actually have a tremendous amount of leverage in terms of the NHL acting in a way to not stifle a market and hindering the ability of the players to make a more competitive wage. The players could actually walk off the job if they learn that the NHL has, in any way, manipulated the situation that can harm the ability of the players to have as much access to the potential revenue stream of a full-fledged arena/ticket sales/media presence as the rest of the teams. By being 50/50 partners in the sharing of the revenue already carries with it the "good faith" trust that the NHL will do everything in its power to not only increase revenues, but also not stifle revenues.

The only reason they have been as lenient as they have been is mostly because Donald Fehr was a joke of an executive director and the league had to deal with the Covid situation. There are lots of little negotiations that go on throughout a season that require NHLPA approval and the PA can just decide not to take part in them and hold up any part of the process until the NHL resolves the situation. And you can see that Walsh is basically bringing that leverage to bear with his various press conferences/talks that he's given. That he's even saying anything in public is already a big deal, because the NHL hates having any potential negotiations brought into the public eye.

- The CBA includes a No-Strike clause. If the Union chose to ignore that they're no longer covered under National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and could be opening the union up to punitive lawsuit damages.
- There is no covenant or representation in the CBA that the NHL will "do everything in its power to increase revenues". Naturally the league will want to increase revenue like any business, but it's not a CBA enshrined good faith right the union can grieve if they feel the NHL isn't increasing revenue fast enough.
- The PA can certainly decline to participate in any side agreements, but doing so would be to the PA's disadvantage as these agreements are not one-sided and frequently benefit the PA as well as the NHL. That's why the idea that the PA would block expansion until Arizona is settled is unreasonable. The PA would be better off with an expansion to 34 teams and Arizona still unsettled then it would with today's status quo or an expansion to 33 teams and Arizona moved in lieu of an expansion team.

 

[Boris Zubov]

- The CBA includes a No-Strike clause. If the Union chose to ignore that they're no longer covered under National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and could be opening the union up to punitive lawsuit damages.
- There is no covenant or representation in the CBA that the NHL will "do everything in its power to increase revenues". Naturally the league will want to increase revenue like any business, but it's not a CBA enshrined good faith right the union can grieve if they feel the NHL isn't increasing revenue fast enough.
- The PA can certainly decline to participate in any side agreements, but doing so would be to the PA's disadvantage as these agreements are not one-sided and frequently benefit the PA as well as the NHL. That's why the idea that the PA would block expansion until Arizona is settled is unreasonable. The PA would be better off with an expansion to 34 teams and Arizona still unsettled then it would with today's status quo or an expansion to 33 teams and Arizona moved in lieu of an expansion team.

Is there a No-Lockout clause as well? I can't imagine the players would agree to that without a similar concession from the owners.

 

[mouser]

Is there a No-Lockout clause as well? I can't imagine the players would agree to that without a similar concession from the owners.

Yes, there is also a No-Lockout clause.

The NHL lockouts have all occurred after the existing CBA expired.

 

[eojsmada]

- The CBA includes a No-Strike clause. If the Union chose to ignore that they're no longer covered under National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and could be opening the union up to punitive lawsuit damages.
- There is no covenant or representation in the CBA that the NHL will "do everything in its power to increase revenues". Naturally the league will want to increase revenue like any business, but it's not a CBA enshrined good faith right the union can grieve if they feel the NHL isn't increasing revenue fast enough.
- The PA can certainly decline to participate in any side agreements, but doing so would be to the PA's disadvantage as these agreements are not one-sided and frequently benefit the PA as well as the NHL. That's why the idea that the PA would block expansion until Arizona is settled is unreasonable. The PA would be better off with an expansion to 34 teams and Arizona still unsettled then it would with today's status quo or an expansion to 33 teams and Arizona moved in lieu of an expansion team.

Sure...but if the NHL (or the PA) is acting in bad faith, than any no strike (or no lockout) agreement can be nullified. Just because it's agreed to, there has to be good faith on both sides to hold up their end of the agreement or else it can negate said agreement.

And as to the "side agreements" portion. There are some things that are worth not taking side deals for, if it continues to push off necessary changes to the overall structure. The NHL rarely ever takes on expansion until it is in a place of labor certainty. So if the PA makes things tenuous on that front, then they do exert a level of influence over whether the NHL goes ahead with any expansion or not.

That Walsh is saying these things publicly is not without merit. Nor is it falling on deaf ears, I would imagine. With the CBA set to expire in just over two years, I wouldn't be shocked if this is Walsh trying to signal the most pressing "needs" in any preliminary discussions leading up to that. I'm sure the NHL would love to ratify either a new CBA or extend the current one (with modifications) at the earliest possible time.

 

[Shwan]

Long term programming continues to point to the Coyotes getting their own OTA channel like the Golden Knights (repurposed CW61 to Arizona61) so that's a decent W for the team.

This should give DirecTV and Dish subscribers access to games as well as YoutubeTV/Hulu etc. although that might be short lived depending on if Scripps tries to increase carriage rates as YouTubeTV recently dropped 3TV due to Gray trying to raise rates due to the Suns.

 

[PredsHead]

I wonder if this could be in response to Walsh's comments about the Coyotes not selling out?

Arizona Coyotes offering 'Build Your Own Flex Plan' with discounts to team store, more

The Arizona Coyotes have announced a new "Build Your Own Flex Plan" deal that offers discounts when purchasing tickets to multiple games at Mullett Arena.

Purchasing three or more games gives fans discounted ticket rates for the 2023-2024 season; the more games you buy, the better the deal.