Phoenix CVI: It's good to talk these things out
- Thread starter Major4Boarding
- Start date
- Status
- Oct 26, 2006
- 18,751
- 12,006
For what it's worth (and I'm suspecting it's not worth a lot here):
FYI, Jurecki is with Fox Sports 910AM in the Valley.
FYI, Jurecki is with Fox Sports 910AM in the Valley.
RandR
Registered User
- May 15, 2011
- 1,939
- 486
It's nice to finally get some confirmation of what is going on behind the scenes (assuming that reporter is sufficiently reliable and connected). Sounds promising for Coyotes fans!
- Oct 26, 2006
- 18,751
- 12,006
It's nice to finally get some confirmation of what is going on behind the scenes (assuming that reporter is sufficiently reliable and connected). Sounds promising for Coyotes fans!
I'm personally taking it with a grain of salt. This tweet reminds me a lot of Jude LeCava's tweets a few years ago passing rumors along about developments in negotiations - basically hearsay.
An agreement that "benefit(s) both parties," if true, does fall into the theoretical lowered AMF/increase in retained revenue by IA that has been discussed around here. Should be interesting to see if this is true.
BattleBorn
50% to winning as many division titles as Toronto
How do you see a lease that is beneficial to both parties forming? Reduced lump sum management fee with performance bonuses?
- Oct 26, 2006
- 18,751
- 12,006
To me the only way a lease that benefits both parties can shake out is if IceArizona keeps more direct revenue and Glendale pays a lower AMF. But who knows, lawyers are much more clever than I am...
How can a lease benefit both parties when there is so little money available that both are going broke as it is?
- Oct 26, 2006
- 18,751
- 12,006
"Benefit" obviously is a relative term, referring to moderately reduced losses.
Ok. How can you get a lease that reduces losses for both parties when they are both losing money now?
Does not work.
- Oct 26, 2006
- 18,751
- 12,006
Like I said above, the only thing I can see is if IA cuts the AMF (lower losses for Glendale) and keeps more direct revenue (lower losses for IA). How they'd manage that is beyond my level of financial negotiation knowledge.
Also, this is all based on a tweet that I still regard as sketchy hearsay.
I fail to see how those two things amount to anything other than splitting the pie differently.
Sounds good to me. Timing is right for them to get something done, bring certainty back to the arena situation for at least 15-16 season.
The no Tindall deposition part is sad though
BattleBorn
50% to winning as many division titles as Toronto
Reduction or elimination of ticket fees and parking would likely help the Coyotes, especially if bring the prices up to where they are with the fees, but then not be required to remit the fees to the city.
Glendale could offset that loss with a decreased management fee. IA seems to be a real group of optimists that might think they could increase events and parking if they actually made a real effort to do so versus pocketing the management fees and half heartedly attracting events to GRA.
Glendale says they're no longer interested in "subsidizing" the team, Coyotes say okay pay us less but we want all the revenue currently going to you and we're going to really get this place jumping.
Mutually beneficial. Realistic? I don't know, but mutually beneficial in theory.
TheLegend
"Just say it 3 times..."
Seems to me the AZRepublic already did that and most everyone chooses to ignore it.
So you think it's not okay to point out that non-hockey revenue was up this past year against the previous year? Sure.... let's only focus on the bad stuff.
OthmarAmmann
Omnishambles
Because the Coyotes will throw the COG a bone, making them politically happy. Then most on this forum will talk about how dumb the COG is for agreeing to another bad deal and how hockey will never work in Phoenix
If I ask for 55 million and include mechanisms to get you back to 50 million, your exposure to risk - the mechanisms to get you back to 50 not working - is very high.
If I just take the 5 million and offer nothing back, your effective exposure is much, much lower.
It's an oversimplified example, but I believe Glendale is tired of having to account for shortages and would prefer to just pay a flat rate for the management of the arena. It makes it easier to budget and run a city, even if they are a relatively small part of that budget.
I see where you are going, XX. From Glendale's side, a straight 5M/yr might seem better. However, in reality, that is still a generous contract.
From IA's side, anything that requires them to perform seems like a loser. They have not shown themselves particularly adept at booking.
This is what I mean:
If COG currently pays 15, and IA brings back 8 (really, a close look show they don't, but whatever). That is a 7M net. Some of that 8M that comes back is in the form of parking and surcharges.
Now, let's say that COG pays 7M, straight. In order for IA to get the same, they need to get the same ticket surcharges (really means raising prices without being able to blame the city for the increase) and parking (not sure if they have the right to do that without negotiating it in).
Assuming they can do all that, it's a break even.
The only way this works to benefit both sides is if:
COG negotiates a straight fee closer to 5.5M (that should be close to the going rate, although still a little high). That makes them ahead. And...
IA books way more acts at prices that are the same as the 'after surcharge" prices before.
Otherwise, there is no such thing as a new lease that benefits both.
If IA were capable of booking such acts, WHY ARE THEY NOT DOING SO NOW? It benefits them the same now as it would next year under a different lease. If you say, "The surcharges price them out of the market." Then, the response is, "If the new price is less than last year's price by the amount of the surcharge, then IA loses money on the new lease."
I am sorry. I just can't see a mutually agreeable lease here.
Llama19
Registered User
It's nice to finally get some confirmation of what is going on behind the scenes (assuming that reporter is sufficiently reliable and connected). Sounds promising for Coyotes fans!
Jurecki...a poor man's version of Craig Morgan...
Rink Rage
Registered User
The same source is reporting shorter deal, less of a payment. Don't know how there's a benefit for Ice Arizona, unless it's only one more year of losing $50 million, then move the team to Portland.
JimAnchower
Registered User
- Dec 8, 2012
- 1,465
- 265
They would very likely be close to that $50M lose figure after two years anyway. They lost $34M in the first year, even if it did include some one time payments. Taking out those one time payments, they would have lost about $16-18M. If they matched that $16-18M loss in year two, they would be right at $50M.
How long it is, (I know, a rather personal question), is the key to me. Quotes from the last few days seemed to show that some COG members didn't want IA to manage the arena anymore. If there are more members that agree with that, they may only be looking at a one year deal.
So let me ask again, because I have seen it both ways.
Is the next scheduled court date on July 29? or July 31?
Is the next scheduled court date on July 29? or July 31?
7/31/15 @ 9:30a
I wouldn't get too hung up on that though. There's not much chance the parties will be going to court on July 31 (or ever) on this case.
Oh, I agree that the court date will not result in any court action. However, it seems there will need to be some kind of action ahead of that, right?
I mean, if they have a settlement, then they can tell the judge (who, btw, seems to have done a very admirable job in handling this case), "We have settled the matter. Thank you."
But if they are still arguing (which I think actually means the IA is not giving in to COG demands even though COG holds all the leverage there), then what do they tell the court?
They'd notice the court if the settle, they'd continue the matter to a later date if they don't. Hard to imagine there won't be a resolution by mid-week IMO
- Status
