| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| FutureKesler |
Posted - 05/11/2011 : 07:18:49
The City of Glendale voted 5-2 in favour to pay the NHL 25 million to keep the coyotes in Phoenix for at least another season.
Ryan Kesler is a BEAST! |
| 19 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| FutureKesler |
Posted - 05/12/2011 : 16:37:21
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
And Slozo, you need to brush up on you sarcasm a bit too. Ignorance with a *** disclaimer calling in sarcasm is still ignorance. But thanks for the lesson. I'll be sure to file it exactly where it belongs.
Pleas refrain fron using bad language beans, even if it is in asterisks.
Ryan Kesler is a BEAST! |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 05/12/2011 : 08:22:44
The NHL was able to secure that $2 billion deal while owning this sinking ship. That's totally bush league.
One does need a brain to know that a team in Toronto would make money. Sure. But one also needs a brain to see that bringing a team into Toronto would all but wipe Buffalo off the NHL map. One also needs a brain to see the other 'metropolis' with more that one NHL team has only 1 that is profitable. One also needs a brain to see that two of the NHL's longest running money losing teams are in that 'metropolis' area. One of those teams is due to poor management (NYI) while the other has had a winning franchise and a brand new arena and they still lose money (NJ).
You are right, a brain is needed here.
And Slozo, you need to brush up on you sarcasm a bit too. Ignorance with a *** disclaimer calling in sarcasm is still ignorance. But thanks for the lesson. I'll be sure to file it exactly where it belongs. |
| n/a |
Posted - 05/12/2011 : 07:31:38
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Hey Slozo, just out of curiousity, did the NHL look bush-league when they signed a $2 billion deal with NBC?? Losing money??? Do you have some kind of crystal ball that says Winnipeg will make money??? Negative image to the NHL?? How can that happen when no one is watching Phoenix anyway???
**Please Note: Sarcasm can be participated in by multiple parties**
Did the NHL look bushleague when they signed a $2billion dollar deal with NBC??
No, they started to look legitimate, actually. Phoenix had nothing to do with that, of course . . . not that it really matter for your argument, Mr. Contrary.
Losing Money?
Yes, Phoenix has lost money ever since it started - an amazing and unparallelled record of losing money, in fact, equalled by no other sports franchise (in terms of number of losing money years in a row, and all from inception) in the history of big league sports as I know it.
Do you have some kind of crystal ball that says Winnipeg will make money???
No - why would I need to have a crystal ball? Going by history, even with a record low Canadian dollar, Winnipeg still lost less money (comparitively, money wise) than Phoenix now. And I have not been the biggest proponent of Winnipeg by far - I think what the league needs is a second team in Toronto, where yes, they would make money hand over fist. A third team in Toronto afterward would make more money than any other city that Phoenix could be moved to - for me, that is easy to see and predict.
But I don't need a crystal ball for that - just a brain.
Negative image to the NHL?? How can that happen when no one is watching Phoenix anyway???
Umm . . . no one is watching Phoenix games, and the US in general doesn't care about hockey . . . but the financial mess the Phoenix Coyotes are in has actually made national news many times. Things called newspaper articles, things called news reports on tv. That gives a very negative and bushleague image to the NHL.
And Beans . . . you need to brush up on your sarcasm a bit - asking things in question form doesn't really make it sarcastic.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 05/12/2011 : 05:52:39
Hey Slozo, just out of curiousity, did the NHL look bush-league when they signed a $2 billion deal with NBC?? Losing money??? Do you have some kind of crystal ball that says Winnipeg will make money??? Negative image to the NHL?? How can that happen when no one is watching Phoenix anyway???
**Please Note: Sarcasm can be participated in by multiple parties** |
| n/a |
Posted - 05/11/2011 : 20:54:30
What do the Yotes have to lose by staying in Phoenix?
Just a lot of money - that's all.
Well, unless you count the negative exposure to the NHL/league image . . . and the huge negative backlash from the Canadian fans . . . and making the NHL look bushleague when vying for future tv deals, advertising contracts, etc.
Yeah, except for all that . . . it's a winning situation in the desert.
Totally.
* please note: sarcasm is a viable and esteemed form of humour 
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 05/11/2011 : 20:47:48
quote:
To understand what's now taking place, the other 29 NHL teams are only on the hook for whatever amount Phoenix loses over $25 million this upcoming season - right?
right
quote:
And if Pittsburgh, Atlanta or Columbus, etc. lose money, their respective owners cover those losses, and not the other NHL teams. Do I understand this correctly?
right again.
And even worse for the owners of ATL, CBJ, etc - they not only cover their own losses for their own teams, but they ALSO chip in towards supporting PHX. They're supporting 2 losing franchises. |
| Guest8149 |
Posted - 05/11/2011 : 18:29:06
Here's an excerpt of a comment I made in another thread, and before I knew about the City of Phoenix's plans to cover $25 million of the Coyotes losses this season:
"The NHL will continue to do its utmost to keep a team in Phoenix (or any other faltering US franchise) only because 24 out of 30 teams are domiciled in the US, and one really knows that these 24 US teams would rather spend a million dollars per year propping up Phoenix rather than dealing with the lost revenues when a team from an unknown location in the Great White North comes to town. And that's the real reason why the NHL is in no big hurry to grant new franchises to Winnipeg, Quebec City, Hamilton, etc. (or relocate franchises there), despite the fact that over 50% of the hockey talent comes from Canada!"
To understand what's now taking place, the other 29 NHL teams are only on the hook for whatever amount Phoenix loses over $25 million this upcoming season - right?
And if Pittsburgh, Atlanta or Columbus, etc. lose money, their respective owners cover those losses, and not the other NHL teams. Do I understand this correctly?
|
| nuxfan |
Posted - 05/11/2011 : 17:57:41
Revenue sharing is just another form of revenue. If total losses are greater than total revenues (revenues+leaguewide profit sharing), then they lose. Several teams are still losing money every year, even after they get their share of revenue sharing. That loss is borne by the owner of the team, alone.
The NHL was essentially forced into purchasing the Coyotes after Moyes declared bankruptcy and Balsillie's fight to purchase was defeated, and then no other owner could be found in time - it was either that, or shut down the organization. I agree that the owners voted to assume ownership of the NHL at that time, but it was the lesser of two evils - if there was no way the NHL was going to let PHX fold, then that was the only remaining option.
Hockey teams are owned for a variety of reasons - vanity, rich people's boyhood dreams of owning their own team, a losing division to offset taxes for a winning division in a larger enterprise, as well as to be actual profitable businesses. Some owners don't mind losing money on their hockey team, or have enough money to absorb the loss while still making more money elsewhere. If ATL loses 12M a year, 29 other owners might be concerned or interested, but ultimately if the owner doesn't care, I don't think they care either. However, when PHX loses 12M, that 12M shortfall comes out of the pockets of 29 other owners, whether they like it or not. I'm sure they care about that.
I can only imagine that the owners are still on board with this limbo because they've been sold on the idea that the NHL as a whole is stronger with the Coyotes intact (either in PHX or elsewhere), and that is probably true. But having the league own a team collectively can't go on for too long.
|
| Beans15 |
Posted - 05/11/2011 : 16:44:05
But Nuxfan, individual owners are not on the hook for their total loss. As part of the NHL, they are including in revenue sharing. They may not recover all of their loss, but they receive the benefit of being part of the NHL.
Secondly, the NHL is the BOG. The NHL is the owners. If they bought Phoenix, they did so knowing the risks. They assume those risks and therefore assume those losses. No one was 'forced' to do anything. They all have a vote and they voted unanimously to buy the team. I think a few teams didn't vote, but the vast majority did vote.
Precisely my point is that if Phoenix losing $12 million is an issue with the owners, every team losing money is an issue with the owners. |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 05/11/2011 : 15:37:25
Guest4178 - this is precisely my point. Individual owners that wish to incur losses (or choose to accept them as part of doing business) are within their rights to do so. However in the case of Phoenix, the "owner" is the NHL and collectively the owners of all 29 other teams. Being forced to run a team that is losing money is something that I'm sure no owner likes. Not to mention the other issues and potential conflicts that Guest5052 brought up.
The reason that the league (the rest of the owners) is covering the costs of PHX is because they effectively own them - the league is operating the team. They are doing what any owner of a losing business has to do - cover the losses. They don't do this for other teams because they don't own the other teams. |
| Guest4178 |
Posted - 05/11/2011 : 14:07:56
I agree with most of Beans points, but I have a question on one point.
It appears that the league is accepting exposure in keeping Phoenix Coyotes afloat, and if the City of Phoenix wants to pledge $25 million against any losses incurred, then the BOG needs to make a decision (which they have) that they are prepared to cover any losses over and above the $25 million commitment.
But here's my question. What does that have to do with the suggested "$80 million dollars in losses" which are reportedly being incurred by other money-losing teams. I don't believe the league has agreed to cover the losses for any other teams losing money? So is this relevant to the Phoenix situation?
If an owner wants to incur losses in running a team, and they are within the terms of their franchise agreement, there's not much the league can do.
However, I don't think it's a healthy practice for the league to step in and guarantee the losses (especially continuously) for a losing franchise, especially if they have better options. But it's obviously their prerogative to do so, and if the BOG supports this effort (as it appears they do with Phoenix), then it is what it is.
I would love to see a team in Winnipeg (or a few other choice Canadian cities), but the league does not appear to be a hurry to pull the plug on Phoenix, or any other faltering franchises to allow this to happen.
|
| Guest5052 |
Posted - 05/11/2011 : 13:15:34
I do find it interesting from a hockey, business and legal sense (I should admit to being nerdy).
I dont think the winnipeg group pulled out of any running... i think Ice Edge did, which was 'committed' to keeping a profitable team in PHx but with the relocation option. They also considered playing some games in sask.
It is an important distinction that this isnt just a bleeding franchise, but one owned by the league. that has a host of problems in and of itself. It restricts the free agency of that franchise, can they really enter into a bidding war for a free agent against a team that funds them (as one example). To my mind it really questions the integrity of the league.
And no I dont think I would expect this from Ottawa or Edmonton. That they would make strong diligent efforts to keep them there, sure I think the league would and should do so. But not necessarily run the team for a year or two.
I admit Im biased and would like to see a team in Winnipeg, but concurrently I am not sure I see the viability of Phx.
It also isnt clear to me why Winnipeg wasnt allowed to negotiate with Atl. concurrently. (if that was indeed the case as reported).
I actually believe that placing a franchise in Southern Ont is an underlying consideration here and believe the NHL will want to do so in the next 2-4 years. Its a hunch I know.
|
| Beans15 |
Posted - 05/11/2011 : 12:53:00
The Winnipeg group is out of the Phoenix sale. They announced that yesterday prior to the City of Glendale's vote on the issue. They were the 'miniority' offer, taking the 2nd seat to that other dude, basically saying if that deals falls through they are next in line. However, that group (like the rest of us) have grown sick if the time it has taken for a decision and backed out. I can only assume this is because they are more interested in and more likely to get their hands on ATL.
Don't get me wrong guys, I am sick of this saga as much as the next guy. All I was saying is that Gary B is not gloating about things anymore and if the City of Glendale is willing to pony up $25 million a year to support the losses, it is not a horrible decision to keep looking for local ownership.
Would you not expect the same if this was Ottawa or Edmonton in trouble???
|
| nuxfan |
Posted - 05/11/2011 : 11:11:16
I believe the NHL owners were resigned to the fact that they'd have to keep the team running for a year while the sale details were worked out - that was supposed to be in January of this year, but it did not happen due to unforseen events. The Coyotes will now operate in PHX for another year due to an agreement worked out with the NHL, but you can bet that the BOG will be pushing very hard for Bettman to work out a deal with someone, somewhere, before the 2012/13 season starts.
There is a difference between the league profit sharing and the league collectively owning a losing asset. With profit sharing, rich teams give up some of their profits to poor teams, but that does not guarantee that poor teams do not still lose money. The fact that teams like FLA and ATL continue to lose money, after all their own revenues AND profit sharing, is really the problem for the individual owner to work out for themselves.
In the case of PHX, the entire NHL and BOG *is* the individual owner that is losing money. And similar to the owners of ATL, I cannot see a situation where the BOG wants to continue pouring money into a losing asset - especially when there appears to be a buyer waiting in the wings that is willing to take on the costs.
As for the cost of the move, I don't know what it is - however, I'll bet that IceDog does, and it sounds like they're prepared to cover it. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 05/11/2011 : 10:36:12
The BOG has met on more than one occasion since this fiasco started. If they were sick of it, do you not think they would force the issue?? Not only that, more than 1/2 of the teams in the NHL do not make money on a consistent basis. That's part of doing business in the sporting world. The $12 million loss in Phoenix is only part of the total NHL loss that needs to be covered by the money making teams. It's tough as the 2011 numbers will not be out until the fall, however the 2010 numbers show that Phoenix lost $20 million. If the NHL recovered $25 million from the City, that makes Phoenix profitable (for that year). What about the other money losing teams in the NHL accounting for more than $80 million in loses?? Think about teams like Pittsburgh who lost money in 2010. Should something be done about them too?? They are not that far removed from nearly losing their team and they have one of the most marketable stars in the game. How are they losing money???
Furthermore, what are the costs associated with a move?? Is there a penalty for breaking the lease for Jobing.com Arena?? What about any other costs (administrative or otherwise) with moving a franchise?? Who's to say that Winnipeg would be profitable year one??? There are teams that have solid corporate sponsors as well as bigger stadiums with a better gate who do not make money.
Moving the team to Winnipeg would mean better Canadian presents and a better fan base, which are both good things. However, there is no promise that Winnipeg will make money immediately or long term. |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 05/11/2011 : 09:48:05
quote:
As the leader of the NHL, if Phoenix is going to pony up the cash to cover the loss for another year, why not?? What is the NHL losing at this point??? Nothing.
As guest pointed out, the Coyotes lost 37M last year, so the league is on the hook for the 12M shortfall between the city kickin and total losses. I don't see that 12M shortfall going away this year either...
It can't continue like this for much longer, I would imagine that most owners are steamed about having to continually prop up a league-owned team. |
| Guest5052 |
Posted - 05/11/2011 : 09:40:28
Well, what the NHL i slosing remians to be seen, but surely there are likely anticipated losses:
Operating losses from PHX were reported at $37 mil last year so there's a potential $12m loss there. Not sure who would be on the hook for same, but guess its the league.
There is also an opportunity loss that if the team were to make money in winnipeg... its an if, but seems likely it would have.
If Atlanta does relocate and no owner in Phx arises then we have signficiant potential losses for years to come (might say that we'd have those same losses for Atl, but at the moment Atl losses arent the NHL's losses).
this is not to say that its necessarily a bad decision for the NHL to stay one more year, but it doesnt seem so patently obvious to me. I was a little surpised that there wasnt so much discussion/debate by the NHL about what if Glendale wanted to pay for one more year. The league is not in the business of running teams, and had said themselves they would only do so for one more year.
I do get that Phx is a massive US market and the NHL has a signifciant interest in trying to make it work there, but there is clearly signifciant risk in that venture and thus far has proved to be in the red. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 05/11/2011 : 09:29:54
I agree with points 1, 3, and 4. Point #2, maybe 2 years ago, but not any more. I have not heard Bettman gloat about anything in Phoenix. What I have heard is the need for local ownership and if that can not be found, the team will move. The City of Phoenix stepping in and putting up another $25 million (making a total of $50 million) means the City wants the team to stay.
As the leader of the NHL, if Phoenix is going to pony up the cash to cover the loss for another year, why not?? What is the NHL losing at this point??? Nothing.
It would be a completely different story if the City did not put up the money and Bettman said the team will stay in Phoenix, but that is not the case.
Drop the baggage Slozo. |
| n/a |
Posted - 05/11/2011 : 08:38:51
I was waiting for someone to post this topic!
It stays the hunt for a new owner for yet another year . . . which means we get:
1) Another year of Coyote ownership stories. 
2) Another year of Bettman gloating about the grand success of Phoenix, and him making weird faces while answering, "No no no! There isn't any financial trouble at all in Phoenix, where'd you hear that?!?" 
3) Another year of articles about legal wrangling, hearing shady stories about business owners and city council voting and financing and owing money etc etc etc 
4) Another year for a hockey team in the desert playing in front of an average of 7 or 8 thousand a night, when they could be playing in front of a sold out, raucous, hockey-knowledgeable crowd in Canada every night. 
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
