Phoenix XXI: When will then be now?

[WpgJets]

Yes, that puck would be valuable.

Yep, once the Panthers leave for another city :-P

 

[Killion]

Stated from the perspective of margins--- not much cost after the initial investment -- you're probably right. Don't we know the number of spots available and a range of prices that would be charged for parking by Glendale?

I thought it was 5500 spots, however I received some inf. that it was going to rise to 9500. And no, I cant substantiate that claim/rumor at the moment. But I will. Later.... It will be interesting to see how the club & the COG marries its ticket sales to parking spot allocations & costs; whether or not Ellman picks up the outdoor advertising rights contract with his recent acquisition of ClearChannel, and if so, what types & sizes' of displays were talking about. Rates are readily available, easy to speculatively guesstimate what that might bring in.

 

[GSC2k2*]

I thought it was 5500 spots, however I received some inf. that it was going to rise to 9500. And no, I cant substantiate that claim/rumor at the moment. But I will. Later.... It will be interesting to see how the club & the COG marries its ticket sales to parking spot allocations & costs; whether or not Ellman picks up the outdoor advertising rights contract with his recent acquisition of ClearChannel, and if so, what types & sizes' of displays were talking about. Rates are readily available, easy to speculatively guesstimate what that might bring in.

This point appeared to cause some confusion with the CBRE report which reviewed the Walker Report.

The lease provides for not less than 5500 spots (up to some 500 of which are provided to the team, if memory serves). However, there are more available. It simply provides for a minimum commitment (in case Westgate needed some of the other 4000 or was building over them from time to time and/or needed laydown areas for construction, for example).

One would have though that, if they were going to restrict CoG's parkign pricing, they would have so provided in the lease.

They did not so provide.

Given that parking revenues are pledged as security to the bonds, I would be very doubtful that they would limit their pricing capacity (although anything is possible). The topic may be addressed in the Offering Memorandum.

 

[MAROONSRoad]

This point appeared to cause some confusion with the CBRE report which reviewed the Walker Report.

The lease provides for not less than 5500 spots (up to some 500 of which are provided to the team, if memory serves). However, there are more available. It simply provides for a minimum commitment...

I'm not sure what your point is here. The city is "obtaining" the rights to charge and receive revenue from 5,500 parking spots only pursuant to the Agreement of Assignment, Reconveyance, Modification and Abrogation of Rights.

If the city wants to try and charge for parking anywhere else on the planet, they can do that, but it's not part of the agreement.

CBRE Market Valuation Report page 2:

Westgate is located just north of the Arena and is connected by pedestrian friendly elements to encourage multiple uses. In terms of parking, there is some shared use of the parking lots that are nearest to both the Arena and Westgate. However, the number of parking spaces available under the ALMA is limited to 5,500 spaces.

Page 10:

However, as noted in previous sections, the forecasts in the Walker Study did not factor in the maximum availability of only 5,500 City controlled parking spaces (per the Transaction Documents) for any event.

I believe the right to charge for parking under the Agreement is also limited to occasions where an event is taking place at the arena.

GHOST

 

[PitbulI]

Here we are talking about parking reports and it simply doesn't matter anymore. There are people who will buy these bonds and the COG will get the money. They'll pay Hullsizer 100 million. They'll use what's left to help pay the arena management fee and when next years budget come out and they have to cut so much that they won't be able to cover their city obligations just to keep the bonds paid as well as the arena management fee that perhaps then the citizens of Glendale will actually care about the coyotes.

I can see it now, the advertisement from the COG.

You want to save our city? Then go to a Coyote game and pay for parking. It's the only way you'll be able to get simple services is if the Coyotes are successful.

 

[GSC2k2*]

I'm not sure what your point is here. The city is "obtaining" the rights to charge and receive revenue from 5,500 parking spots only pursuant to the Agreement of Assignment, Reconveyance, Modification and Abrogation of Rights.

If the city wants to try and charge for parking anywhere else on the planet, they can do that, but it's not part of the agreement.

CBRE Market Valuation Report page 2:



Page 10:

In my opinion CBRE has incorrectly understood the terms of the agreements. They provide for not less than 5500 spaces, not "limited to" 5500 spaces. I have misplaced my copy of the MUDA and original parking agreement, which (if my memory serves me) are the documents which set out the parking rights originallly given to the arena operator back when everything was owned by Ellman. I seem to recall that this also provided for "not less than" 5500 spots.

"Not less than" is not at all the same as "limited to".

I would not give any credence to any differing legal interpretation of the agreements by CBRE. They are not lawyers. IF anyone wants to dig up the MUDA and original parking agreement, we could put this to bed.

This whole topic seems to have buffaloed GWI as well. In my email interactions with Ms. Sitren, she seems to suggest that there is debate as to who owns parking rights. I doubt that she is correct.

I believe the right to charge for parking under the Agreement is also limited to occasions where an event is taking place at the arena.

GHOST

We agree on that.

 

[GSC2k2*]

Here we are talking about parking reports and it simply doesn't matter anymore. There are people who will buy these bonds and the COG will get the money. They'll pay Hullsizer 100 million. They'll use what's left to help pay the arena management fee and when next years budget come out and they have to cut so much that they won't be able to cover their city obligations just to keep the bonds paid as well as the arena management fee that perhaps then the citizens of Glendale will actually care about the coyotes.

I can see it now, the advertisement from the COG.

You want to save our city? Then go to a Coyote game and pay for parking. It's the only way you'll be able to get simple services is if the Coyotes are successful.

The parking reports topic "doesn't matter any more"??? I missed it? Grrr.

If you are interested in the topic of the Cog budget, you can certainly look in the CoG's online budget documents, where you will find that the CoG annual budget is in the several hundreds of millions of dollars (~$400m or so?), and where you will find that they have significant reserves (as do many cities). If you are suggesting that the amounts in question are crushing for the CoG, their budget documents would suggest otherwise.

Regarding any deficits in debt servicing for the parking, that is what the stabilization fund (the amount they are raising in excess of $100M for the parking tranche) is for.

 

[OthmarAmmann]

Parking is actually an extremely lucrative business. Most good-sized parking operations would generate more operating income than the vast majority of sports (not just hockey) franchises, and with a much lower level of risk. The operating margins are unbelievably attractive.

For sports franchises which have parking operations, the parking operations is going to be the highest-margin portion of the business, by a long shot.

Agreed, but I still thought it was noteworthy that the parking rights are worth almost
50% more than the hockey ops based on the contemplated valuation.

In my opinion CBRE has incorrectly understood the terms of the agreements. They provide for not less than 5500 spaces, not "limited to" 5500 spaces.

Yes, I believe that is correct. Attendance will have to increase substantially however for that to matter.

Either way the Walker base scenario projects NOI that is about $5 million to $7 million less than the debt service in the OM.

 

[MAROONSRoad]

In my opinion CBRE has incorrectly understood the terms of the agreements. They provide for not less than 5500 spaces, not "limited to" 5500 spaces. I have misplaced my copy of the MUDA and original parking agreement, which (if my memory serves me) are the documents which set out the parking rights originallly given to the arena operator back when everything was owned by Ellman. I seem to recall that this also provided for "not less than" 5500 spots.

"Not less than" is not at all the same as "limited to".

I would not give any credence to any differing legal interpretation of the agreements by CBRE. They are not lawyers. IF anyone wants to dig up the MUDA and original parking agreement, we could put this to bed.

This whole topic seems to have buffaloed GWI as well. In my email interactions with Ms. Sitren, she seems to suggest that there is debate as to who owns parking rights. I doubt that she is correct.



We agree on that.

I assume any high school graduate could understand the difference between "not less than" and "limited to" (or "only") 5,500. If they made that mistake, it is a rather large one and does not reflect well on the accuracy of their work. Also, the Offering Memorandum itself mentions only the right to charge for 5,500 parking spots.

In any case, I'd suggest it's not that important because, as you agree, the COG only has the right under the Agreement to charge for parking during arena events. According to the estimates, a fully sold out hockey game at Jobing.com Arena would require no more than 6,000 parking spots anyway. A concert sold out with around 20,000 plus people might require 7,000 parking spots maximum. Given the record of attendance at Jobing.com Arena, 5,500 parking spots should be more than sufficient to fulfill the demand for parking for most events.

GHOST

 

[GSC2k2*]

Agreed, but I still thought it was noteworthy that the parking rights are worth almost
50% more than the hockey ops based on the contemplated valuation.

Yes, it is notwworthy, although it is more a reflection of numbers you can assemble when you slice and dice a business' components.

If, for example, an owner was permitted to sell off its share of NHL Central Revenues (~$9M per year and growing), that portion of the business would be worth much, much more than the parking rights.

Yes, I believe that is correct. Attendance will have to increase substantially however for that to matter.

That is, or should be, understood by all as a prerequisite. The model breaks down if attendance stays at 10k.

Either way the Walker base scenario projects NOI that is about $5 million to $7 million less than the debt service in the OM.

Not annually, but you probably don't mean cumulatively either. PLease explain.

 

[GSC2k2*]

I assume any high school graduate could understand the difference between "not less than" and "limited to" (or "only") 5,500. If they made that mistake, it is a rather large one and does not reflect well on the accuracy of their work. Also, the Offering Memorandum itself mentions only the right to charge for 5,500 parking spots.

In any case, I'd suggest it's not that important because, as you agree, the COG only has the right under the Agreement to charge for parking during arena events. According to the estimates, a fully sold out hockey game at Jobing.com Arena would require no more than 6,000 parking spots anyway. A concert sold out with around 20,000 plus people might require 7,000 parking spots maximum. Given the record of attendance at Jobing.com Arena, 5,500 parking spots should be more than sufficient to fulfill the demand for parking for most events.

GHOST

That is true, although one should note that I do not put a lot of stock in the "actual attendance" numbers that are bandied about as having been produced in the bankruptcy hearings.

Contrary to what many understand, they are not sworn statements. Their source was none other than J. Balsillie.

Given the fact that the revenues are bitten off in $5-17 pieces, the estimates are not all that sensitive. What matters is whether the CoG gets its half a million or so cars a year.

 

[Fugu]

I assume everyone is rusty, so allow me!

Yes, it is notwworthy, although it is more a reflection of numbers you can assemble when you slice and dice a business' components.

If, for example, an owner was permitted to sell off its share of NHL Central Revenues (~$9M per year and growing), that portion of the business would be worth much, much more than the parking rights.

Source?

As for worth, let's consider net worth. How much do teams pay to NHL central for things like-- well, paying Gary et. al., buying the Coyotes (yes, I know it's all coming back, hopefully), funding the NHL revenue transfer program, legal fees, and so forth?

That is, or should be, understood by all as a prerequisite. The model breaks down if attendance stays at 10k.

That is true, although one should note that I do not put a lot of stock in the "actual attendance" numbers that are bandied about as having been produced in the bankruptcy hearings.

Contrary to what many understand, they are not sworn statements. Their source was none other than J. Balsillie.

Given the fact that the revenues are bitten off in $5-17 pieces, the estimates are not all that sensitive. What matters is whether the CoG gets its half a million or so cars a year.

What needs to happen then, and by which point in time? You dismiss the BK attendance numbers (which probably came from the Coyotes because where else would JB get them than Moyes).

I'll dismiss the announced attendance figures. So we're between 10-15K?

Which figure does COG need to have in order to avoid being negative?

Having answered that, what is the probability based on the Coyotes' history, and that of the arena overall, that they'll get to your ~half million cars per year? (Or 90 events at 5500 cars per event, average, paying $_____.)

 

[Killion]

As for worth, let's consider net worth. How much do teams pay to NHL central for things like-- well, paying Gary et. al., buying the Coyotes (yes, I know it's all coming back, hopefully), funding the NHL revenue transfer program, legal fees, and so forth?

Well, if we assume the actual number of parking spots' is likely to increase from the base-line of 5500, include advertising revenues, a conservative & gradual increase in special events & concerts, it just might be possible to service the debt on the bonds without going all Orange County or Vallejo California on the taxpayers & paperhangers no?. I dont know what the clubs' contribute to the RT's & CR's etc; nor does anyone for that matter, nor are we enlightened as to which teams are on the receiving end of such munificence nor how much they do in fact precisely receive & when..... From the leagues vantage point, If we factor in the Moyes' Civil Suit, the TNSE insurance policy if things go North, their in a win-win-win no matter what.... As for the historical references in terms of attendance that came out through BK, please consider who it was that likely supplied the numbers (Moyes) to Rodier, whose canvases' came straight out of the Night Gallery; the man is clearly an expert, forging a copy of the Portrait of Dorian Gray that just got uglier day by day by day..... Having the original in my study, I never believed any of it nor his valuations. The brushstrokes were just too broad, far too much black, burnt ciena & magenta applied...

 

[Fugu]

Well, if we assume the actual number of parking spots' is likely to increase from the base-line of 5500, include advertising revenues, a conservative & gradual increase in special events & concerts, it just might be possible to service the debt on the bonds without going all Orange County or Vallejo California on the taxpayers & paperhangers no?.

That's a whole lot of assumptions there, Killion. I guess if it's not your money, the best case scenario looks pretty good. That's always been the problem with the best case scenarios. A bunch of things have to go really well. I always planned for the worst case scenario to actually be the one that worked, and hoped I'd be wrong. During good economic times, I'd accept the base case.

I dont know what the clubs' contribute to the RT's & CR's etc; nor does anyone for that matter, nor are we enlightened as to which teams are on the receiving end of such munificence nor how much they do in fact precisely receive & when.....

We do, also thanks to the BK disclosures. I believe it was $8m/year from the NHL coffers to teams. The NHL's costs were on the order of $75-ish million (to run the league office), as this is disclosed annually--- also why we know Bettman's salary. We also know the total HRR, and the value of the national TV deals. The unknowns are things like merchandising receipts and sponsorship at the league level.

Escrow is also disclosed each year, which if in the league's favor is used to fund the revenue transfer program--- roughly $95m was paid out in 2008 on HRR of $2.56 billion, iirc (if I got my years right). Of course, a good chunk of that money came directly from the top ten teams.

I'll let someone else correct my numbers. I'd love to be more exact, but time simply won't allow it today.

From the leagues vantage point, If we factor in the Moyes' Civil Suit, the TNSE insurance policy if things go North, their in a win-win-win no matter what.... As for the historical references in terms of attendance that came out through BK, please consider who it was that likely supplied the numbers (Moyes) to Rodier, whose canvases' came straight out of the Night Gallery; the man is clearly an expert, forging a copy of the Portrait of Dorian Gray that just got uglier day by day by day..... Having the original in my study, I never believed any of it nor his valuations. The brushstrokes were just too broad, far too much black, burnt ciena & magenta applied...

What is there to consider? Just because the numbers came from Moyes doesn't mean he fabricated them. It's even possible that the reason he disclosed the actual figures is to point out why he was trying to get out--- or to justify the need for a subsidy from Glendale. Seeing how things have played out with MH, he probably underestimated how much money he'd need.

Even if we use the Moyes attendance numbers as a worst case scenario (and nothing says it cannot get worse), and use the announced figures as the best, are you comfortable that this is a "good" situation?

Like I said above, a whole heck of a lot of things have to go really well to get to the rosy place.

 

[RR]

Stated from the perspective of margins--- not much cost after the initial investment -- you're probably right.

Don't we know the number of spots available and a range of prices that would be charged for parking by Glendale?

I continue to have an issue with this claim the COG will never have >5,500 parking spaces that it can utilize. While the parking reports use those numbers, when you use the estimates of 2.6 -2.8 persons per car, the max attendance for any event is 14,000.

The lease clearly says the COG must provide no <5,500 spaces (5,000 for patrons, 500 for team). The parking reports also indicate there are >9,400 spaces in play.

It appears to me the parking report estimates are extremely conservative.

To accommodate a sold-out hockey game you'd need >6,100 spaces. For a concert, >7,100. Even if the contention is that all events over a year will average 13,000 - 14,000 patrons per event, you'll still >5,000 spaces for hockey games, concerts and, likely, Cardinals games on Sundays.

 

[TrentSteele]

I continue to have an issue with this claim the COG will never have >5,500 parking spaces that it can utilize. While the parking reports use those numbers, when you use the estimates of 2.6 -2.8 persons per car, the max attendance for any event is 14,000.

The lease clearly says the COG must provide no <5,500 spaces (5,000 for patrons, 500 for team). The parking reports also indicate there are >9,400 spaces in play.

It appears to me the parking report estimates are extremely conservative.

To accommodate a sold-out hockey game you'd need >6,100 spaces. For a concert, >7,100. Even if the contention is that all events over a year will average 13,000 - 14,000 patrons per event, you'll still >5,000 spaces for hockey games, concerts and, likely, Cardinals games on Sundays.

Is it wise to make business decisions based solely on best case scenarios?

 

[RR]

I'm not sure what your point is here. The city is "obtaining" the rights to charge and receive revenue from 5,500 parking spots only pursuant to the Agreement of Assignment, Reconveyance, Modification and Abrogation of Rights.
GHOST

You're absolutely incorrect:
From Section 8.1.2 of the ALMA:

The City shall take all actions necessary to provide, manage and operate, for the benefit of the Team and the Arena Manager, not less than 5,500 parking spaces located within a one-half mile radius of the geographic center of the Arena (the “City Parking Areaâ€), as an integral part of the Arena, in accordance with this Agreement. The City Parking Area will be made available to the Arena Manager for all Events at the Arena....

It is the "one-half mile radius of the geographic center of the Arena" that is relevant, not the number of spaces. According to all the parking reports there are more >9,000 spaces within that geographic area. There are also 1,000 spaces the City controls when there is no event at UoP cross Maryland Ave in the UOP parking. It is currently one of the STH parking lots and will generate revenue when paid parking is initiated.

 

[RR]

Is it wise to make business decisions based solely on best case scenarios?

Missed my point. There's been an assumption here that 5,000 spaces are the max the COG can generate revenue from. That is false. There are >9,000 space available. Has nothing to do with best case scenarios, illustrates the reports are based on very conservative numbers.

 

[mouser]

As for worth, let's consider net worth. How much do teams pay to NHL central for things like-- well, paying Gary et. al., buying the Coyotes (yes, I know it's all coming back, hopefully), funding the NHL revenue transfer program, legal fees, and so forth?

Approximately $3m per team per year is paid to fund central operations. That includes everything from Gary's pay to the referees. Not sure if it includes league-wide insurance policies like the long-term disability contract blanket deal or if they teams pay those fees directly to the insurer.

That does not include:
- Revenue sharing payments by the top 10 teams.
- Playoff revenue sharing payments.

 

[y2kcanucks]

Approximately $3m per team per year is paid to fund central operations. That includes everything from Gary's pay to the referees. Not sure if it includes league-wide insurance policies like the long-term disability contract blanket deal or if they teams pay those fees directly to the insurer.

That does not include:
- Revenue sharing payments by the top 10 teams.
- Playoff revenue sharing payments.

Are the Coyotes going to qualify for revenue sharing? Honestly I'd be pretty choked, being a fan of a top 10 revenue producer because my tickets just got jacked up again this year, if my dollars went to support a team who's own fans won't support it. I'm still befuddled as to why something like this makes sense to Bettman and the BoG.

 

[Killion]

We do, also thanks to the BK disclosures. I believe it was $8m/year from the NHL coffers to teams. The NHL's costs were on the order of $75-ish million (to run the league office), as this is disclosed annually--- also why we know Bettman's salary. We also know the total HRR, and the value of the national TV deals. The unknowns are things like merchandising receipts and sponsorship at the league level.

Escrow is also disclosed each year, which if in the league's favor is used to fund the revenue transfer program--- roughly $95m was paid out in 2008 on HRR of $2.56 billion, iirc (if I got my years right). Of course, a good chunk of that money came directly from the top ten teams.

What is there to consider? Just because the numbers came from Moyes doesn't mean he fabricated them. It's even possible that the reason he disclosed the actual figures is to point out why he was trying to get out--- or to justify the need for a subsidy from Glendale. Seeing how things have played out with MH, he probably underestimated how much money he'd need.

Even if we use the Moyes attendance numbers as a worst case scenario (and nothing says it cannot get worse), and use the announced figures as the best, are you comfortable that this is a "good" situation?

Like I said above, a whole heck of a lot of things have to go really well to get to the rosy place.

Yes, my "assumptions" have often been the death of me alright. However, I too take a best-worst case scenario & by nature tend to lean out of the window a little farther than common sense should allow. Yes, we know about the $8M, however, what about advances & "loans"; how many teams are recipients?. Merchandising & sponsorships, video starts & web based rev's etc quoted in %'s and not hard numbers. We just dont know, cant see the whole picture. Myopic...

As for Jerry Moyes' reporting accurate numbers, OK, I'll go along with that, however, like Lex Luthor, Jerry was looking to extort as much as he possibly could from the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen & Gotham City IMO & if it wasnt for the creation of the Guardian Project may've gotten away with it. He was asked, repeatedly, by Beasley, to provide some preliminary paperwork in order to find some relief through a CFD or whatever & failed to do so. I think that amongst many other factors speaks volumes...

Finally, no, Im' not comfortable with this situation nor with this deal. Its' a real Moon Shot, and Ive been around the track for far too long to be believing in miraculous recovery's. That being said, its just possible that the NEXT owner of the Coyotes, because I dont see any sustainability with an inexperienced MH, will in fact be able to make a go of it in 4-7yrs when hopefully the economy's recovered.

To accommodate a sold-out hockey game you'd need >6,100 spaces. For a concert, >7,100. Even if the contention is that all events over a year will average 13,000 - 14,000 patrons per event, you'll still >5,000 spaces for hockey games, concerts and, likely, Cardinals games on Sundays.

Yes, but are they even allowed to charge for Cards' games?. I was under the impression they were only allowed to charge for job specific events & games?. I can easily picture steam blowing out of Bidwells' nostrils over that one...

 

[RR]

Yes, my "assumptions" have often been the death of me alright. However, I too take a best-worst case scenario & by nature tend to lean out of the window a little farther than common sense should allow. Yes, we know about the $8M, however, what about advances & "loans"; how many teams are recipients?. Merchandising & sponsorships, video starts & web based rev's etc quoted in %'s and not hard numbers. We just dont know, cant see the whole picture. Myopic...

As for Jerry Moyes' reporting accurate numbers, OK, I'll go along with that, however, like Lex Luthor, Jerry was looking to extort as much as he possibly could from the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen & Gotham City IMO & if it wasnt for the creation of the Guardian Project may've gotten away with it. He was asked, repeatedly, by Beasley, to provide some preliminary paperwork in order to find some relief through a CFD or whatever & failed to do so. I think that amongst many other factors speaks volumes...

Finally, no, Im' not comfortable with this situation nor with this deal. Its' a real Moon Shot, and Ive been around the track for far too long to be believing in miraculous recovery's. That being said, its just possible that the NEXT owner of the Coyotes, because I dont see any sustainability with an inexperienced MH, will in fact be able to make a go of it in 4-7yrs when hopefully the economy's recovered.

Yes, but are they even allowed to charge for Cards' games?. I was under the impression they were only allowed to charge for job specific events & games?. I can easily picture steam blowing out of Bidwells' nostrils over that one...

The team charges $10 for Cards games now in Lot G, and provides Lot X for Cards STH. Both are within a 1/2 mile of the Job. I'm going to assume the City will continue to provide Lot X so as not explode the heads of the Bidwells (although most Cards fans would welcome that). :

 

[GSC2k2*]

I assume everyone is rusty, so allow me!



Source?

Coyotes bankruptcy pegged it as $8.4M two seasons ago. Based on NHL statements to the effect that central revenue items (merch, licensing, success of Winter Classic, national sponsorships, etc.) have experienced double digit increases, increasing it by 3% per year or so seems quite modest.

As for worth, let's consider net worth. How much do teams pay to NHL central for things like-- well, paying Gary et. al., buying the Coyotes (yes, I know it's all coming back, hopefully), funding the NHL revenue transfer program, legal fees, and so forth?

A couple of years ago, it was approximately $3.5M, but that is missing the point, isn't it? The point is that, if one slices and dices the portions of the business of an NHL franchise, one can come up with all sorts of values for components of an NHL franchise, which if taken alone would seem to constitute huge portions (or, in the case of central revenue cash flow) even MORE than the value of some franchises.

What needs to happen then, and by which point in time? You dismiss the BK attendance numbers (which probably came from the Coyotes because where else would JB get them than Moyes).

The various parkign reports provide a good proxy for what has to happen, and when. Hulsizer needs to turn it around, and relatively quickly (depending on his personal resources and those of his partners, of course).

I'll dismiss the announced attendance figures. So we're between 10-15K?

Which figure does COG need to have in order to avoid being negative?

Those attendance figures are as good as any for these purposes. For the CoG, it is not an issue of being negative on parking. Their transaction is a unified series of transactions, all of which are codependent. What matters to them (both in practical terms and from a gift-clause perspective) is the overall impact of the transaction.

Having answered that, what is the probability based on the Coyotes' history, and that of the arena overall, that they'll get to your ~half million cars per year? (Or 90 events at 5500 cars per event, average, paying $_____.)

If memory serves, all of the reports felty comfortable with those figures. I don't think they attached a probability to it, but they all characterized those car/event/attendance projections as quite conservative. Given that Walker chose a 2.6-2.8 car/attendee ratio (2.5 is the more universally used number), and given that they assume zero playoff appearances in 30 years, they do seem conservative in at least some respects.

 

[GSC2k2*]

Are the Coyotes going to qualify for revenue sharing? Honestly I'd be pretty choked, being a fan of a top 10 revenue producer because my tickets just got jacked up again this year, if my dollars went to support a team who's own fans won't support it. I'm still befuddled as to why something like this makes sense to Bettman and the BoG.

1. If you are asking whether the Coyotes will qualify for FULL revenue sharing, the answer will definitively be "NO". The won't reach the paid attendance threshold.

2. If you are asking whether they will qualify for revenue sharing, then the answer seems likely that YES, they almost surely will. They will most likely be at or near the bottom of the revenue pile, which will qualify for revenue sharing.

3. Your ticket prices have virtually nothing to do with revenue sharing if you are in a strong market. Your ticket prices are a function of what level of profitability your market's owner wants to reap. Nothing more or less.

4. Regarding your befuddlement, one of the principal arguments in favour of revenue sharing as a construct is that the value of a ticket in any market is driven at least in part by two concepts: (a) a team needs another team (or set of teams) to play against; and (b) the value of any team's tickets are driven in part by the fact that the team is part of the best hockey league in the world, and consequently each owner should be compensating the league and his partners for the value brought by the league. That is the theoretical construct, of course. The practical reality on top of that is that revenue sharing is the necessary and vital component of any salary cap system, which your team voted in favour of.

 

[BigBadBread]

Here we are talking about parking reports and it simply doesn't matter anymore. There are people who will buy these bonds and the COG will get the money. They'll pay Hullsizer 100 million. They'll use what's left to help pay the arena management fee and when next years budget come out and they have to cut so much that they won't be able to cover their city obligations just to keep the bonds paid as well as the arena management fee that perhaps then the citizens of Glendale will actually care about the coyotes.

I can see it now, the advertisement from the COG.

You want to save our city? Then go to a Coyote game and pay for parking. It's the only way you'll be able to get simple services is if the Coyotes are successful.

So its basically blackmail (of some kind). We take your tax dollars to give to MH to buy the team. Then you have to shell out more of your own dollars to have basic community necessities (ie police). This could potentially turn into a bigger financial disaster for Glendale than it already is.