| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 02/21/2012 : 14:39:58
Just read this, haven't followed it much really but assumed they were as good as gone?
http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/report-phoenix-coyotes-sale-nearly-complete-greg-jamison-143756163.html;_ylt=Ah73Kz8HgoMB71J0SgJ7lg4JfwM6 |
| 5 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 02/26/2012 : 08:56:54
quote:
Originally posted by Shepsky
well Sahis, since the "fascist realignment" as you call it, has already been turned down, I highly doubt it will go through, as that's what being turned down means. However, I think no matter who owns this team, even though he did great things in San Jose, I still don't think there will be enough fan base in Phoenix to support the team. Why Can't Bettman admit that he made a mistake, instead of making the citizens of Arizona pay for a hockey team they don't want. (if the majority of the citizens wanted a hockey team, they wouldn't have problems selling tickets)
I don't think it's entirely fair to make a statement like this last statement. I looked no further than the Oilers and their battle for a new arena. Edmonton is and always has been a blue collar hockey town. The Oilers are one of the most financial successful teams in the NHL (profits, profit% based on revenue) in the past 10-15 years and achieved this with one of the smallest and oldest venues in the NHL? A new arena is as a close a thing there is a to a sure financial success. Yet, it has takes nearly 4 years and an unbelievable rift in the city to make that happen.
You can't say that it's the people of the city at fault. In the case of Phoenix, it's not about hockey, it's about having a tenant in a very new, very expensive, fully publically funded arena. Now, I agree that it is high time that the NHL sell the team and after 2+ years, it should have been moved already. However, if the City of Glendale want to compensate for the current losses to retain their tenant, why the rush to move the team??? Quebec's not ready for a team yet as Southern Ontario will not see another team for some time. Seattle is not ready either.
|
| Guest7961 |
Posted - 02/26/2012 : 03:01:25
Most roadrunners and coyotes roam in search of food and safety. |
| Shepsky |
Posted - 02/22/2012 : 04:17:05
well Sahis, since the "fascist realignment" as you call it, has already been turned down, I highly doubt it will go through, as that's what being turned down means. However, I think no matter who owns this team, even though he did great things in San Jose, I still don't think there will be enough fan base in Phoenix to support the team. Why Can't Bettman admit that he made a mistake, instead of making the citizens of Arizona pay for a hockey team they don't want. (if the majority of the citizens wanted a hockey team, they wouldn't have problems selling tickets) |
| sahis34 |
Posted - 02/21/2012 : 16:08:12
Im sure their fan will be very happy. Awful news for those who will be in the 8 conference division with them; if that fascist realignment goes down that is. |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 02/21/2012 : 16:00:05
we'll see. From the article:
quote:
The key to any deal getting done in Phoenix is the amount of give-backs the City of Glendale is prepared to offer up when arranging a new lease for Jobing.com Arena, which was built with taxpayer money.
Daly said the city remains up-front about making concessions but there have been hurdles, including the threat of a lawsuit from the public interest group the Goldwater Institute, that have soured attempts by a number of groups to purchase the team.
There has also been consistent infighting within city council and among city managers that has blunted efforts to find a new owner. "They know they're a critical player in this equation, and I think they're prepared certainly to work with the league and with a potential new owner in helping a franchise transaction happen," Daly said
This is not a hockey question, but rather a political question. Any deal to keep the team in Glendale is going to involve the city covering losses (because there will be losses), and the city will have to go to voters to decide if they want to do this or not. What voter is going to approve the city to use funds to cover the losses of a hockey team that only a small minority cares about?
As I recall, having the city take on debt obligations was the reason the last deal fell through - the city could not get approval to sell bonds to cover losses.
As long as a deal hinges on the city covering losses, I don't think any deal will happen.
|
|
|
