despite leblanc's fantasy unicorn arena tour, it's clear this franchise cannot survive in the area without massive external subsidies. over the past few years, IA has shown little to zero capacity to even begin to stop the bleeding, let alone turn a corner or frankly, even begin to understand the issues here. dollar-wise, the only practical salvation is to sell the franchise to someone willing to pay enough to cover the various liabilities and perpetual losses and clear the books - ie., relocation
i do wonder when bettman last asked to see the IA books. further, what sort of losses is/was Bettman prepared to cover before pulling the plug - the five-year out-clause seems to have been designed to allow for easy exit, arguably to portland or seattle, but IA posturing screwed that up. and at what point does resentment among the various other struggling franchise owners oblige bettman to simply get rid of the problem. recall the exec has changed with the old guard pushed out and actual, successful businessman now taking a seat. no doubt, attitudes and preferences within the Exec and the whole BoG have likely shifted since bettman insistent on letting the clowns babysit.
I don't think any of us would argue that IA has done a good job, business-wise, in the last 4 years (well, almost 4 years).
However, as the discussion went earlier in the thread, let's look at what has actually taken place since the NHL bought the team:
Purchase price: 140M. In 2009, correct?
Now, we need to estimate losses.
I am going to leave 2009-10 and 10-11 for a minute.
11-12 and 12-13 were the years in which Glendale paid 25M for the privilege of having the team play in GRA. I would assume that 25M was the estimate of losses which the NHL itself had in mind. At worst, the losses would have been 5M more. Therefore:
11-12: 5M
12-13: 5M
In summer '13 IA bought the team. Let's assume that all ownership stake in the team, from LeBlanc to Barroway will be returned to the investors, so they that they lose nothing for their rentals.
13-14: The losses were 35M (nearest), but there was a contract buyout included in that, so it's a hard 35M for that year, but the baseline is closer to 20M.
14-15: About the same attendance, and about the same AMF, so let's say 20M.
15-16: At this point, the AMF changed, with a resultant loss of 8.5M, but some of that could have come back in the form of surcharges, etc, so it works out to about a 6M loss. Thus, 25M in losses for last year.
16-17: Same, maybe a little more.But there is a 15M expansion check in here, too. So, only 10M.
Now, let's go back to the missing years. 25M for each year seems reasonable, given that NHL asked that much. I could actually argue the losses were less, but let's leave it at that.
Total NHL has in the franchise IF THEY MAKE IA WHOLE AND CARRY ALL LOSSES THEMSELVES:
140 + 25 + 25 + 5 + 5 + 35 + 20 + 25 + 10. That's only about 300M altogether. Now, if you want to say there is some debt service which has undoubtedly been paid, I can go for that. Add 30M more if you want.
In any case, we are in the ball park of 350M of NHL money invested to keep the team in Arizona.
Considering that, if sold out of market, the price is likely to approach 500M, this doesn't seem too bad. Which is why I don't think that the owners will vilify Bettman for how he has handled this situation. He bought enough time to see if Seattle would come on line. If so, great, let's go there. If not, let's go to Quebec, for example.
Or, stay in Glendale, and actually try to market.
