Phoenix LXXI: Daydream Belever
- Thread starter kdb209
- Start date
- Status
The Barons are the last team in the 4 major sports to cease operations. I don't think the NHL wants that distinction again. Also, I can't see the union sitting idly by as 25 jobs get eliminated, even if technically the union has no say in contraction, they do in realignment and anything else the NHL wants to do. Especially when there are 3 markets that can take a team now. It will make the NHL look bush league all over the country. The optics of moving the team out of a market that many had doubts about to begin with aren't as bad as shutting a team down. Also, a team folding will hurt the values of all teams. That will effect the ability to get teams financed.
I can't say with any certainty what will happen but folding will not happen.
I can't say with any certainty what will happen but folding will not happen.
Killion
Registered User
- Feb 19, 2010
- 36,763
- 3,224
Yes, well put there aqib. I cant think of one positive but I can think of several negative ramifications to folding or otherwise suspending & shuttering a franchise. The optics, the logistics etc.... dreadful. Now they could conceivably pull a St.Louis Shuffle behind closed doors with the buyer, Contract the team and then sell him an Expansion Franchise with the players, coaching & management staffs contracts etc, though why they'd bother I know not. Just sell it as is and get it over with. Why complicate matters?
Yes I know. I live in Cleveland and have been a browns fan since 1985. Different scenario. The team moved but had to leave the name, colors, records, history etc in Cleveland. Yes technically a franchise had been deactivated while a new one was simultaneuosly created. Had a team moved to Cleveland they would have assumed the Browns identity. We wound up with an expansion team (a garbage one at that). However, the net effect was the league staying at 30 teams and then going to 31 (eventually 32) there was not a reduced number of teams for any period of time.
ajmidd12
Know-It-All
Except when the team was placed into Bankruptcy any such lease became null and void. If the CoG was to sue anyone it would be Moyes and Ellman for their "vision" and hefty roll in causing this.
The CoG can't sue the NHL while immoral to some the NHL hasn't done anything wrong, they can't be expected to take losses because some townfolk don't want to see their team disappear.
Yeah I don't see this cash camel folding.
You fold a franchise when truly no one wants it, realistically in this scenario no one wants it in Glendale, AZ. There are other markets that are very much in the hunt for a team.
The BoG members aren't dumb, they would rather take one last single couple million dollar hit than be left holding the ball year after year for the Coyotes losses. Which leads me to believe that should relocation occur the price won't exceed $260M.
Govment Cheese
Groooovy
- Jul 8, 2010
- 511
- 11
Just wondering if the NHL works out shorter say five year AMF with the COG that allows for relocation if things aren't working out. That would bring more interest in owning the team in Glendale as a portable asset. Investors may be more will to take a chance thinking they will be able to cash in with the relocation sale. NHL gets the Yotes off their books and can still collect expansion and relocation fees at a later date. Say a two or three years after a sale if it happens the NHL could grant expansion franchises to QC and Markham to extract the highest fees they can. Leaving only Seattle for relocation if/when Glendale doesn't turn it around.
Last edited:
GKJ
Global Moderator
- Feb 27, 2002
- 193,024
- 43,523
I don't think folding the team would bring about a black mark and unfavorable distinction. The league lost a whole season and just lost half of another one. They'll never look worse than they do right now. In fact, they might be lauded since more people (especially mainstream) think there's too many teams and they should be contracting.
There are not too many teams. There are just teams in the wrong places. QC, Markham, Hamilton, and Seattle are all markets that could support an NHL team. If you have 4 teams that need to be moved you have 4 spots to put them in. Right now you only have 1 that needs to be moved, the Coyotes. Even if Florida, Tampa, Carolina, and Nashville are losing money they all have owners who for whatever reason (Florida because of arena profits, Nashville because of pride in city, Carolina and Tampa because they still believe in the long term future of the market).
I don't think that the NHL will do that and why would Glendale do five years, what do they get out it, after five years the teams just moves and Glendale would just be throwing good money after bad.
GKJ
Global Moderator
- Feb 27, 2002
- 193,024
- 43,523
"Reports of New Suitor for Coyotes"
http://www.foxsportsarizona.com/02/...or-Coyote/landing_coyotes.html?blockID=857661
Is this real?
http://www.foxsportsarizona.com/02/...or-Coyote/landing_coyotes.html?blockID=857661
Is this real?
Undertakerqc
Registered User
- Dec 24, 2011
- 3,282
- 1
GKJ
Global Moderator
- Feb 27, 2002
- 193,024
- 43,523
This is an amusing exchange on Twitter:
Daryl Jones @HedgeyeDJ
Colorado 4 Flames 3 #Shames
Expand
31 Jan jonah jonah @yyzsportsmedia
@HedgeyeDJ shouldn't you be delivering cash to Jamison????
Expand
31 Jan Daryl Jones Daryl Jones @HedgeyeDJ
@yyzsportsmedia Who ?
Hide conversation
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
More
11:35 PM - 31 Jan 13 · Details
Daryl Jones @HedgeyeDJ
Colorado 4 Flames 3 #Shames
Expand
31 Jan jonah jonah @yyzsportsmedia
@HedgeyeDJ shouldn't you be delivering cash to Jamison????
Expand
31 Jan Daryl Jones Daryl Jones @HedgeyeDJ
@yyzsportsmedia Who ?
Hide conversation
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
More
11:35 PM - 31 Jan 13 · Details
Killion
Registered User
- Feb 19, 2010
- 36,763
- 3,224
Well then the talking heads at CBC are mistaken. Glendale signed away its rights during the Moyes BK when they backed the NHL's acquisition of the team; J.Baum asking in a somewhat admonishing tone "do you know what your doing"? or words to that affect. Secondly, the City signed a 10yr one way street of an agreement with the NHL (AMUL), year-year Lease renewable at the NHL's discretion, and again, no penalties, no lawsuit, no nothing attached if they amscray....
Slashers98
Registered User
There was only 12,151 fans for the $1 beer night tonight at the game between the Coyotes vs the Stars. What can we expect Monday vs the Wild?
Slashers98
Registered User
He told me he is referring to Ice Edge failed purchase attempt a while ago... He is not interested in buying the Coyotes now.
RECCE
The Dog House
In American bankruptcy leases can be rejected in Chapter 11. So the bankruptcy plan didn't include the original lease.
Blues10 said:
I think if you track the agreements involved, you'll arrive at a different conclusion:
Nov 2001: Arena Management, Use, and Lease Agreement (AMULA)
Nov 2009: Partial Lease Assignment Agreement (PLAA)
May 2010: Arena Management and Operations Agreement. (AMOA)
June 2010: Agreement of Management, Use, and Lease (AMUL)
In 2009, the NHL bought the team out of BK. The NHL Asset Purchase Agreement did not accept the terms of the Moyes AMULA. Instead, the NHL and Moyes entered into the PLAA where the league accepted some of the terms but not the Team Use Covenant. The Coyotes played 2009-2010 season under the PLAA.
In May 2010, the NHL and Glendale signed the AMOA. In that agreement, Glendale gave the NHL a fee of up to $25MM to keep the team at Jobing.com for the 2010-2011 Season. Section 5.3(b) stated that if Moyes rejected the AMULA in BK, then the NHL and Glendale would have to enter into a lease agreement because you can't partially assign a rejected contract, so the PLAA would lose its usefulness.
The debtors rejected the AMULA in BK (Separate topic: estimating and capping claims in BK, Glendale's claim in BK, Loss Event, etc).
In June 2010, the NHL and Glendale entered into the AMUL. The AMUL excludes elements of the AMULA that would require the NHL to keep the team in Glendale for the remaining portion of the AMULA 30-year term.
In May 2011, the NHL and Glendale agreed to extend the AMOA and AMUL to play the 2011-2012 season at Jobing.com. As consideration for extending the AMOA, the NHL received a second payment of up to $25MM. As consideration for extending the AMUL, the NHL received the sole right to extend the AMUL a period of up to 10 years.
You can find some of the agreements here: http://www.azcentral.com/ic/pdf/0509draft.pdf
The order they are presented is: AMOA Amendment; AMOA; AMUL; AMUL Amendment.
The NHL and Glendale seem to have been tolling the agreements since June 2012. When they extended there was usually a sentence about it included in larger stories about the team, like this and this. I don’t think that means the NHL exercised the Extension Period from the AMUL. But, the extensions from June 2012 to present were not published and I haven't seen them, so I don’t know that to a certainty. I imagine the NHL could use the AMUL Extension Period if Glendale attempted to throw them out of the arena. I do not believe Glendale would actually do that.
Fugu said:
There are references to the NHL’s right and ability to relocate the franchise throughout the AMOA and AMUL, so it would seem strange for Glendale to sue the league after the city signed those agreements... and then extended them. It does not seem like Glendale has any valid claim against the league. In several recitals, the city even lists the NHL not relocating the team as bargained for consideration and justification for the $25MM fee cap. It would be bizarre for the city to now believe they could successfully claim the league is not entitled to move the team. I don't see how that case could be built but I defer to the reporters if they say it's a concern.
Right. I wasn't saying it was still valid, but asking if the talking heads might not be thinking that was the case. I'm not sure what else there is that could involve a lawsuit-- unless there's fine print somewhere about some thing. Would the NHL have to give COG any money back?
Does anyone remember when Atlanta was moved to Winnipeg, to everyone's surprise, and the HNIC guys referenced that there were some legal wranglings [aka lawsuit] the league could face if they moved Phoenix? The other thing that was mentioned was the bit about the NBC deal potentially get slightly changed if a US market was lost.
Baum never actually negated the lease, iirc. He warned Glendale they would need to get in line with everyone else to whom Moyes' entities owed money. He subsequently came to some agreement between the NHL and COG (Feb 2011, or around the time of the CFD talk). Since the CFD failed, the resolution of who owned the parking rights in the first place never had to be addressed.
I don't think the suit the NHL filed against Moyes has been resolved yet. Maybe the NHL's position about damages would be weakened if they relocated the team.
- Status
