Part XV: Phoenix - the battle of evermore (UPD #443ff 14-Dec agenda/lease links)

  • PLEASE check any bookmark on all devices. IF you see a link pointing to mandatory.com DELETE it Please use this URL https://forums.hfboards.com/
Status
Not open for further replies.

OthmarAmmann

Omnishambles
Jul 7, 2010
2,761
0
NYC
Winnipeg is not a priority for the NHL nor is Quebec. Winnipeg is a stop gap... a case of last resort. If team a fails and we need a quick exit, enter TNSE.

There is zero priority in this market for the NHL. These desperate small Canadian markets are great for this situation. You can pander to them with the 'Oh of course 15,000 is big enough for the NHL'... "ooooh we need to correct a mistake we made in the past'. It gets everyone all warm and fuzzy, but it just keeps the palate wet in case they need to move a team. Otherwise there no intent on returning to this market.

If it weren't for the WHA, there never would have been NHL teams in Quebec City or Winnipeg. Likely wouldn't be one in Edmonton for that matter. Deserve or demand pays no matter in today's NHL. Large market presence is the priority. Note I never mentioned large hockey market presence, because most of the hockey market is un-served.

It was the reality in 96 and is the reality today. The NHL owes Winnipeg nothing. The only part that the NHL cares about Winnipeg is that Jonathan Toews was conceived here. Its time to face facts my friend. Winnipeg may get a team back... it may even be the Phoenix franchise... but only as half measures.

I'll agree with this. You can question the business sense, but the NHL would certainly rather have a franchise in Phoenix losing $20 - $25 mm per year than a franchise in Winnipeg that earns a profit. I think the only reason Winnipeg was even considered was because it was the League's own money that was being lost at the time. I'd guess that if Atlanta were to have to move, it would not end up in Winnipeg. Probably Birmingham before Winnipeg. It's just part of the high-risk, low-reward strategy.
 

dkehler

Registered User
Dec 1, 2009
865
0
Winnipeg
@lockstock

Listen, it was a question that required only a one, two, or three digit answer. All I wanted was a general feeling of what folks down in Az felt about how long it would take to "right the ship".

Why?, because over the past five or six threads (or more?) on this issue, that's been one of the prevailing themes AND seeing as though it's looking like the team is going to stay put, I posed the question.

Don't you think Phx fans are capable of making a reasonable assertion as to how long that would take?, I do.

Now, on to the question?

I think you also have to pin down what constitutes a "good owner", so we can ensure that the goalposts don't get moved if/when the crowds don't start regularly showing up.
 

gollybass

Registered User
May 28, 2010
558
0
@lockstock

Listen, it was a question that required only a one, two, or three digit answer. All I wanted was a general feeling of what folks down in Az felt about how long it would take to "right the ship".

Why?, because over the past five or six threads (or more?) on this issue, that's been one of the prevailing themes AND seeing as though it's looking like the team is going to stay put, I posed the question.

Don't you think Phx fans are capable of making a reasonable assertion as to how long that would take?, I do.

Now, on to the question?

personally I think if they have stable ownership, a real marketing budget and a team that makes the playoffs maybe... 4 of the 6 next years and it still isnt working then take them, we dont deserve a team.
 

lockstock

Registered User
Dec 16, 2007
871
0
Kauai
@lockstock

Listen, it was a question that required only a one, two, or three digit answer. All I wanted was a general feeling of what folks down in Az felt about how long it would take to "right the ship".

Why?, because over the past five or six threads (or more?) on this issue, that's been one of the prevailing themes AND seeing as though it's looking like the team is going to stay put, I posed the question.

Don't you think Phx fans are capable of making a reasonable assertion as to how long that would take?, I do.

Now, on to the question?
We don't know what's in the lease agreement yet, but assuming MH gets a good deal and he is a good owner, it shouldn't take long. There's a good team and a good coach in place. I would hope for a lot better numbers within the next 2-3 years. I'm not saying they'll be selling out the building on a regular basis, but having a competitive owner and team with a good building would go a long way in building a loyal fanbase large enough to put more than 12000 people in the building if the team has an off year. If they keep making the playoffs, I'd expect to see 14,000+ for most games later this season and the next couple of years, with a lot higher numbers in the 2nd half of the season.

Never underestimate the size of the bandwagon in AZ.
 

RECCE

The Dog House
Apr 29, 2010
3,203
0
Margaritaville
I think you also have to pin down what constitutes a "good owner", so we can ensure that the goalposts don't get moved if/when the crowds don't start regularly showing up.

I agree but, then everything else will come into play as well, marketing etc... (as already stated). That's why the straight up question, I'm already assuming that the answers will have taken all of that into account, maybe I shouldn't ASS-U-ME?
 

Dado

Guest
(or more precisely that 25 years from now this will seem like a smart investment, meaning of course that the Coyotes will still be in Phoenix at that point.)

There is no "of course" about it, thereby answering your question.
 

RECCE

The Dog House
Apr 29, 2010
3,203
0
Margaritaville
Thank you, gb AND ls, a little more than what was required but I can understand the fact that maybe some will feel the need to express more than "just" a number.
 

mouser

Business of Hockey
Jul 13, 2006
29,528
13,027
South Mountain
See: Whalers, Hartford.

Karmanos bought them, the NHL would like us to believe that he signed the 7-year clause just like everyone else, but he publicly committed to keeping the team there for 5 years. Even though all the conditions that Hartford had to meet to avoid relo were met, the team was in North Carolina 4 years later, even though the closest "NHL" arena at the time was in Greensboro, 70 miles away.

From this, we learn the following:

- The 7-year clause is essentially meaningless as the NHL only enforces it when it's convenient for their agenda
- The "certain term" commitment that Bettman was referring to can be defined as, until Hulsy has had enough of the money losing in Glendale and can get out of his lease reasonably easy.

I'd have to go back and go through the court documents, but I think the 7-year mandatory clause may have been introduced post-Karmanos.

Either way I agree the NHL probably wouldn't have enforced it as they wanted pressure on Hartford to come up with a new arena. I imagine the NHL would feel differently about cities with newer/adequate arenas.
 

Alberta Yote

Owns the Yotes
Dec 31, 2004
14,436
1,212
In your kitchen
Are you intentionally being dense, are you completely missing the subtext?
I was going to ask you the exact same question.

Hulsizer has said nothing about 7 years, that is the league. Hulsizer has however made a comment about a 25 year investment. Everything he has said, so far at least, clearly indicate he wants to try to make it work long term.

Does that change when details of the actual lease leak out? Could be, but at this point there has been nothing to indicate thats the case.
 

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,224
I'd have to go back and go through the court documents, but I think the 7-year mandatory clause may have been introduced post-Karmanos.Either way I agree the NHL probably wouldn't have enforced it as they wanted pressure on Hartford to come up with a new arena. I imagine the NHL would feel differently about cities with newer/adequate arenas.

Pre or post institution of the "7 Year Itch" clause mouser, theirs one set of rules for insiders like Karmano's & another set of rules for everyone else that the league dresses up & trots out for public consumption, like their Beacons' of Integrity, Fair Practice & Magnanimity..... God Bless the Queen.
:laugh:
 

bleed_oil

Registered User
Aug 16, 2005
3,898
40
Bingo!. I bolded it all because you nailed it. First of all, very few wealthy art patrons buy canvases or sculptures, antiques or rarities because "they love them". No, they do it for the "investment". It is neither an act of emotion nor benevolence (not always, but 99.9% of the time its strictly business). They may detest the subject or style; store it in a secured facility, left to appreciate in value. Hulsizer has stated that he looks at this like "collecting art". OK then. So its cold, emotionless, strictly an investment that will appreciate. Couple of twists however;

It can be acquired using (OPM) other peoples money (yes, he has partners & bankers so just how much of his own capital gets invested is highly questionable), losses are covered through the CFD & or the COG up to a point, the balance retrieved when the "asset" becomes "portable" through relocation himself or sale for relocation, provided of course their isnt a huge turnaround at the gate in Phoenix over the next few years (which is possible IMO). This is all very similar to Reinsdorfs offer, whereby JR was financing the bulk of his $103M investment, partners & the COG required to pay the balance on the then $170M sticker price (with Glendale also covering losses through years 1-5).

So ya, it would appear that the plan here is to use OPM, have Glendale somehow or other back the CFD in order to cover losses years 1-5 with portability thereafter. This shocks?. :naughty::laugh:

Completely agreed.
My read on the deal.
Guy spends X capital to buy Coyotes.
He essentially holds a put option (via COG funds) guaranteeing him very low losses and perhaps even some degree of profitability for the duration of the agreed no-movement period.
At the end of said period (I would suspect somewhere between 5-7 years) he holds an asset that is worth 2X if not more in any number of locations, if you can safely assume that by that time there aren't other teams in Southern Ontario, Houston, Quebec City, Winnipeg or wherever else economics are favorable to a hockey team. Certainly at least 1 of these locations will still be vacant.

Its actually a fantastic investment, think of it like buying a stock near bankruptcy TCK in March '09 but you have the government underwriting a put for you guaranteeing you dont lose money and all you have to do is hold and bide your time waiting for capital appreciation.

I solute you Mr Hulsizer, I should email this guy and see if he's looking for investors.
 

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,224
I solute you Mr Hulsizer, I should email this guy and see if he's looking for investors.

He's simply following a well worn path. A word of caution though, you lie down with dogs dont be surprised if you wake up with fleas. Hedge Funder's, Derivative Traders' & "Investment Club Guru's" are in large part responsible for the mess were in today. Also; see Michael Heisley's move of the Grizzlies from Vancouver..... Hulsizers late to the party, his $25M entry fee collecting interest, & we have yet to see a stitch of paperwork. The Jury grows restless....
 
Last edited:

cbcwpg

Registered User
May 18, 2010
20,486
21,552
Between the Pipes
I'll agree with this. You can question the business sense, but the NHL would certainly rather have a franchise in Phoenix losing $20 - $25 mm per year than a franchise in Winnipeg that earns a profit.

You must have gone to the GBBS. ( Gary Bettman Business School )

Of course, it makes perfect sence to keep a team in a city where it never has made money and most likely never will ( Hulsizer's good intentions aside ) over putting it in a place (Southern Ontario) where they will have to hire a fleet of Brinks trucks to pick up the money after every game. :sarcasm:

That's what the NHL needs, more money losing franchises... what a plan!
 

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,224
That's what the NHL needs, more money losing franchises... what a plan!

Well why not?. Are you suggesting a bunch of lawyers just leave hundreds of millions in billable hours just sitting on the table?. :sarcasm:
 

dandeneau44

Registered User
Nov 22, 2010
48
0
Manitoba
Alright so suppose the 14th comes and it turns out they tried as hard as they could but the lease can't be voted on then. I understand that they can call a meeting within 24 hours but it's been stated that the hopes are for it to be voted on during the Dec 14th meeting. It's not long until Gary probably pulls the Winnipeg relocation card again which I think will either have Glendale fold like a cheap acordian and give in to the demands or they will finally have enough of it and say no to the lease in which case the deal is essentially dead is it not? Once again all speculation and it depends on what Hulsizer wants and he said himself maybe they're afraid to lose money or maybe he is. It's like the immovable object against the unstoppable force. The only question being how's it all going to end?
 

Alberta Yote

Owns the Yotes
Dec 31, 2004
14,436
1,212
In your kitchen
Alright so suppose the 14th comes and it turns out they tried as hard as they could but the lease can't be voted on then. I understand that they can call a meeting within 24 hours but it's been stated that the hopes are for it to be voted on during the Dec 14th meeting. It's not long until Gary probably pulls the Winnipeg relocation card again which I think will either have Glendale fold like a cheap acordian and give in to the demands or they will finally have enough of it and say no to the lease in which case the deal is essentially dead is it not? Once again all speculation and it depends on what Hulsizer wants and he said himself maybe they're afraid to lose money or maybe he is. It's like the immovable object against the unstoppable force. The only question being how's it all going to end?
At which time Bettman will sell to Thomson group only to have them announce they will play in Winnipeg for the next 3 years after which they will move it to their new arena in Southern Ontario.
 

OthmarAmmann

Omnishambles
Jul 7, 2010
2,761
0
NYC
Alright so suppose the 14th comes and it turns out they tried as hard as they could but the lease can't be voted on then. I understand that they can call a meeting within 24 hours but it's been stated that the hopes are for it to be voted on during the Dec 14th meeting. It's not long until Gary probably pulls the Winnipeg relocation card again which I think will either have Glendale fold like a cheap acordian and give in to the demands or they will finally have enough of it and say no to the lease in which case the deal is essentially dead is it not? Once again all speculation and it depends on what Hulsizer wants and he said himself maybe they're afraid to lose money or maybe he is. It's like the immovable object against the unstoppable force. The only question being how's it all going to end?

You know, now that MH is on the record saying something to the effect of expecting to lose money, you'd think COG would jump all over that and push back in negotiations.
 

cbcwpg

Registered User
May 18, 2010
20,486
21,552
Between the Pipes
Those Ontario business men don't like to be too far from home.

Hey, if everyone else can have a conspiracy theory, so can I.

OK. So here is the conspiracy...

Hulsizer buys the team as majority owner, publicly says he is committed to the next 25 years ( or until his wife cuts off his money ) , hires an "A" grade person to run the team ( Wayne Gretzky anyone ? ), and starts advertising. Soon after, in a fit of anger, he buys out the minority IEH partners because they won't shutup about Saskatoon. Hulsizer manages to turn the team around and makes a decent go of it.

Mark Chipman buys the Atlanta Thrashers in 2011 and moves them to Winnipeg to play in the TNSE owned building of which he is a partner. As a reward for being "used" to put pressure on the CoG, Thomson ( other partner of TNSE) will be awarded the franchise from Columbus for Southern Ontario in 2013 and builds a new building. End result... Chipman owns team in Winnipeg, Thomson owns team in S.O., and TNSE runs both buildings ( no rule in the NHL bylaws against that)

After building the new arena in Quebec City, Quebec is awarded the franchise formally know as the NYI in 2015.

Everyone is happy. :naughty:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad