1460 replies to this topic

[chrisdetroit]

Bettman not budging on moving the Coyotes and anticipates Hulsizer will get a unanimous vote from the BOG. Link.

Bettman is a moron. No businessman wants to buy a team that will continue to lose money. Move the team to Winnepeg or shut the team down. Let's get on with it.

[eva unit zero]

Bettman is a moron. No businessman wants to buy a team that will continue to lose money. Move the team to Winnepeg or shut the team down. Let's get on with it.

Because W-i-n-n-i-p-e-g was such a success last time? They might have even had a couple of years where they didn't lose money! And before you say "Well, Phoenix is losing money every year, too!" think about something; ticket prices have gone up at a far slower rate than player salaries. Do you really think Winnipeg will survive for very long if they couldn't before? An unsuccessful Phoenix team has shown better attendance history than a more successful Winnipeg team, despite the "wonderful loyal Canadian fans" who support their team so well. I am all for Winnipeg having pro hockey, but the argument that Phoenix just failed and Winnipeg was robbed, which you likely subscribe to, is a joke.

[F.Michael]

Because W-i-n-n-i-p-e-g was such a success last time? They might have even had a couple of years where they didn't lose money! And before you say "Well, Phoenix is losing money every year, too!" think about something; ticket prices have gone up at a far slower rate than player salaries. Do you really think Winnipeg will survive for very long if they couldn't before? An unsuccessful Phoenix team has shown better attendance history than a more successful Winnipeg team, despite the "wonderful loyal Canadian fans" who support their team so well. I am all for Winnipeg having pro hockey, but the argument that Phoenix just failed and Winnipeg was robbed, which you likely subscribe to, is a joke.

Phoenix probably loses more $$$ in 1 year than Winnipeg has since it merged into the NHL.

Winnipeg 15 plus years ago isn't the same Winnipeg of 2010; much has changed, and it appears that they are fully capable of breaking even - if not making a profit which has eluded the franchise since it moved to the desert.

Gotta stop living in the Winnipeg of past, and look what it has to offer today which IMHO is a far cry better than what can be said of the greater Phoenix area.

[tjinaz]

Phoenix probably loses more $$$ in 1 year than Winnipeg has since it merged into the NHL.

Winnipeg 15 plus years ago isn't the same Winnipeg of 2010; much has changed, and it appears that they are fully capable of breaking even - if not making a profit which has eluded the franchise since it moved to the desert.

Gotta stop living in the Winnipeg of past, and look what it has to offer today which IMHO is a far cry better than what can be said of the greater Phoenix area.

Yea... well... here is a link that explains it differently... well a couple of them.

here is a little slice.

Proponents of teams in Quebec City and Winnipeg like to point to the cost-certainty of the salary cap as prescribed by the CBA, an agreement signed after both the Nordiques and Jets left for good. But even though salaries are now capped, they've still grown at a staggering rate. In 1996, the average NHL salary was $984,000. In 2009, the average NHL salary was $2,283,000. That's growth of 132 percent. If salaries tracked to inflation, the average player salary would have been $1,331,000. For a comparison, Winnipeg's GDP has grown 53 percent since 1996. In other words, player salaries are outpacing GDP growth in a market that couldn't afford player salaries in the first place.

why no more teams to Canada...

ESPN agrees.

Its nice to get all nostalgic and weepy about the teams coming back and all but...... Ol Yeller still dies at the end.

Edited by tjinaz, 08 December 2010 - 11:09 PM.

[F.Michael]

Yea... well... here is a link that explains it differently... well a couple of them.

here is a little slice.



why no more teams to Canada...

ESPN agrees.

Its nice to get all nostalgic and weepy about the teams coming back and all but...... Ol Yeller still dies at the end.

Outta curiosity where is this guy getting his stats from?

Anywho - the league has given other cities here in the states a 2nd chance (Atlanta, and San Fran Bay area) - why not give Winnipeg, and Quebec City a 2nd chance?

Seriously - how much worse off could they do? It's not like Phoenix/Atlanta are gonna all of a sudden start drawing 17,000 plus on a nightly basis, and turn a profit...Where are they gonna go - KC, or Cleveland? Been there - done that, and they failed there as well.

Ok then - if not Winnipeg, or QC then why not then give Balsillie his team (lets say Phoenix), and watch it flourish in Hamilton, but no - too many in the "old boys club" don't like him anymore.

This league has opportunities to turn some of their dead weight franchises around, but outta pride, stubborness, and ignorance the league will continue to screw itself.

EDIT - From the CANADIAN perspective which I happen to agree with 100%.

Edited by F.Michael, 09 December 2010 - 12:01 AM.

[CaliWingsNut]

Outta curiosity where is this guy getting his stats from?

Anywho - the league has given other cities here in the states a 2nd chance (Atlanta, and San Fran Bay area) - why not give Winnipeg, and Quebec City a 2nd chance?

Seriously - how much worse off could they do? It's not like Phoenix/Atlanta are gonna all of a sudden start drawing 17,000 plus on a nightly basis, and turn a profit...Where are they gonna go - KC, or Cleveland? Been there - done that, and they failed there as well.

Ok then - if not Winnipeg, or QC then why not then give Balsillie his team (lets say Phoenix), and watch it flourish in Hamilton, but no - too many in the "old boys club" don't like him anymore.

This league has opportunities to turn some of their dead weight franchises around, but outta pride, stubborness, and ignorance the league will continue to screw itself.

EDIT - From the CANADIAN perspective which I happen to agree with 100%.

I love how you try to put his population stats into question, while not providing anything to counter them.
I've quoted figures close to his on several occasions in this thread. They are freely available on the web. I have asked people to provide conflicting values (with source) for the populations of those markets, none has done so.

As to your "Canadian" perspective... I watched that series. Very little was said to prove their point. It was more of a... wouldn't it be cool? with some person's random point scale that wasn't well described. The cities do not have the population to handle a team, regardless of the condition of any current organization.

[tjinaz]

I love how you try to put his population stats into question, while not providing anything to counter them.
I've quoted figures close to his on several occasions in this thread. They are freely available on the web. I have asked people to provide conflicting values (with source) for the populations of those markets, none has done so.

As to your "Canadian" perspective... I watched that series. Very little was said to prove their point. It was more of a... wouldn't it be cool? with some person's random point scale that wasn't well described. The cities do not have the population to handle a team, regardless of the condition of any current organization.

The part that i thought told the tale was this.

Not only would either city immediately become the smallest market in the league, it would be by an enormous margin. Quebec City is 60 percent and Winnipeg only 53 percent of the size of Ottawa, the current smallest market in the NHL. On a per capita basis, Quebec would be the fifth-poorest market and Winnipeg would be the poorest market in the league.

It is easier to get more fans in a big market than make more people live in Winnipeg. The team wins (look at Dallas and San Jose) and you get more fans and the number of prospective fans is huge. You put a team in Winnipeg or QC and you have a very limited growth potential and pray that those that are there don't lose interest, because that is all you have. Also what is the average income of the limited number of residents? If you try to raise prices, no matter how die hard they are they will still have to live and may not be able to afford tickets. I believe one of the articles says Hamilton is a viable location due to the proximity of other metro areas but QC and Winnipeg are doomed.

[F.Michael]

I love how you try to put his population stats into question, while not providing anything to counter them.
I've quoted figures close to his on several occasions in this thread. They are freely available on the web. I have asked people to provide conflicting values (with source) for the populations of those markets, none has done so.

As to your "Canadian" perspective... I watched that series. Very little was said to prove their point. It was more of a... wouldn't it be cool? with some person's random point scale that wasn't well described. The cities do not have the population to handle a team, regardless of the condition of any current organization.

Stats not just relating to any specific area of population, but other stats such as per capita $$$...Where's his #'s coming from?

These figures he's posted don't really mean alot if there aren't many fans showing up for the games...This notion that a large city in the middle of the desert is gonna support a NHL franchise was nothing more than a pipe dream; the past 15 has pretty much proved it.

I think you've greatly underestimated the potential for success for another franchise, or 2 to re-locate to Canada; they're already pulling approx 1/3 of the league revenue, and that's just 6 teams.

The part that i thought told the tale was this.



It is easier to get more fans in a big market than make more people live in Winnipeg. The team wins (look at Dallas and San Jose) and you get more fans and the number of prospective fans is huge. You put a team in Winnipeg or QC and you have a very limited growth potential and pray that those that are there don't lose interest, because that is all you have. Also what is the average income of the limited number of residents? If you try to raise prices, no matter how die hard they are they will still have to live and may not be able to afford tickets. I believe one of the articles says Hamilton is a viable location due to the proximity of other metro areas but QC and Winnipeg are doomed.

And then there's the Green Bay Packers...


EDIT - I don't think any of us here who favor the move outta Phoenix/Atlanta are under any illusion that a franchise in Winnipeg/Quebec City are going to be in the top 5 for earnings - however with the current financial mess these teams are in - I don't feel they could do any worse (and it would get me, and millions of others to finally stfu about this ongoing dilemma ).

Edited by F.Michael, 09 December 2010 - 02:03 AM.

[cusimano_brothers]

After the League is finished patting themselves on their collective backs for "solving" this ownership mess, they can look at the attendance problems in Columbus, Atlanta and with the Islanders.

[_Kabrok_]

why no more teams to Canada...

ESPN agrees.

Its nice to get all nostalgic and weepy about the teams coming back and all but...... Ol Yeller still dies at the end.

Funny that a few months ago there were ESPN articles saying the Coyotes were all but doomed.

Mainstream media flip-flopping to conform to recent trends?! WELL I NEVER

. The cities do not have the population to handle a team, regardless of the condition of any current organization.

Green Bay is something like three times smaller than the next smallest NFL market. Let's scrap the Packers too!

There's already concrete precedent out there for sports markets that can overcome population barriers. But you've been parroting the raw population issue without even bothering to glance at any other factors this entire thread, so if the factual evidence isn't going to get through to you I guess you're welcome to continue coming off as a shortsighted moron.

Edited by _Kabrok_, 09 December 2010 - 08:56 AM.

[_Kabrok_]

Because W-i-n-n-i-p-e-g was such a success last time? They might have even had a couple of years where they didn't lose money! And before you say "Well, Phoenix is losing money every year, too!" think about something; ticket prices have gone up at a far slower rate than player salaries. Do you really think Winnipeg will survive for very long if they couldn't before? An unsuccessful Phoenix team has shown better attendance history than a more successful Winnipeg team, despite the "wonderful loyal Canadian fans" who support their team so well. I am all for Winnipeg having pro hockey, but the argument that Phoenix just failed and Winnipeg was robbed, which you likely subscribe to, is a joke.

You fail to realize that you don't make and maintain the kind of money David Thomson makes by being an idiot and not thinking through the business sense of things. If he seriously had the slightest belief that a team in Winnipeg wouldn't work he wouldn't have even shown any initial interest in getting it done, much less stick with it as long as he has. Sorry, frankly I trust the judgment of somebody actually *in* Winnipeg who's worth 20 billion dollars over someone on the internet living god-knows-where trying to play e-League Commissioner.

You're comparing oranges and apples, in any case. Raw attendance is a misleading statistic that gets thrown around cheaply and with little to no consideration as to what those numbers actually mean. What actually matters is attendance percentage and subsequently the cost per ticket sold, which are exactly the kind of numbers that make Winnipeg viable (so I suppose to be fair ignoring that fact is a matter of convenience for you). Phoenix is pulling better attendance numbers than a team that hasn't played in 15 years when 20000+ arenas were uncommon and the Canadian dollar was in freefall? Even at face value that's like saying Jason Statham can beat a five-year-old at arm wrestling (even though aaaaaaaaaaaaaay back then Winnipeg was selling a far higher percentage of seats than Phoenix does today), but what's REALLY sad about it are the amount of practically-free tickets and other giveaways that have had to be made in order to get even those low numbers. Attendance means jack s*** if you're bleeding money even on sellout games. This is to say nothing of the implication made by comparing a current team's numbers to those of one a decade and a half old that Winnipeg has experienced no growth whatsoever in that period.

[F.Michael]

After the League is finished patting themselves on their collective backs for "solving" this ownership mess, they can look at the attendance problems in Columbus, Atlanta and with the Islanders.

Hey - the way I see it these extra franchises in dire straits will give us 10 more pages worth of how we can do better at running the league

[tjinaz]

You fail to realize that you don't make and maintain the kind of money David Thomson makes by being an idiot and not thinking through the business sense of things. If he seriously had the slightest belief that a team in Winnipeg wouldn't work he wouldn't have even shown any initial interest in getting it done, much less stick with it as long as he has. Sorry, frankly I trust the judgment of somebody actually *in* Winnipeg who's worth 20 billion dollars over someone on the internet living god-knows-where trying to play e-League Commissioner.

You're comparing oranges and apples, in any case. Raw attendance is a misleading statistic that gets thrown around cheaply and with little to no consideration as to what those numbers actually mean. What actually matters is attendance percentage and subsequently the cost per ticket sold, which are exactly the kind of numbers that make Winnipeg viable (so I suppose to be fair ignoring that fact is a matter of convenience for you). Phoenix is pulling better attendance numbers than a team that hasn't played in 15 years when 20000+ arenas were uncommon and the Canadian dollar was in freefall? Even at face value that's like saying Jason Statham can beat a five-year-old at arm wrestling (even though aaaaaaaaaaaaaay back then Winnipeg was selling a far higher percentage of seats than Phoenix does today), but what's REALLY sad about it are the amount of practically-free tickets and other giveaways that have had to be made in order to get even those low numbers. Attendance means jack s*** if you're bleeding money even on sellout games. This is to say nothing of the implication made by comparing a current team's numbers to those of one a decade and a half old that Winnipeg has experienced no growth whatsoever in that period.

So kinda like the reason the Jets left in the first place? You don't think the Jets were giving away or heavily discounting tickets by the truckload towards the end of their stay? Their attendance records were worse than Phoenix's are now. That and even in the best case senario selling out every single game at MTS they are guaranteed to be in the bottom 7 in the league. The Arena can only hold 15k so that means what? Their tickets prices will be near the highest in the league and judging from the demographics not a whole lot of people in that town will be able to afford them long term. If you think Thomson lives day to day in Winnipeg and not Toronto you are mistaken and if you don't think he would pull the plug on Winnipeg and move to greener pastures in the GTA where his other businesses are .... i think you should guess again.
Oh and the logic you use on Thomson... doesn't it apply to the new Coyotes owner? Hulsizer actually made his own money and did not inherit as Thomson and his father before him did. Paris Hilton inherited a lot of money too... does that make her a business genius? Also if you look at Thomson's Bio... Residence is listed as Toronto.

And then talking about Apples and oranges... the Winnipeg Jets and the Green Bay packers. One is a legendary football team with many championship banners and the other.... a footnote. Sure there is a precident in a different sport, with a completely different ownership structure with a completely different level of commitment....actually i don't even think you can call it that. I think the precident is actually QC and Winnipeg losing their teams in the first place.

Edited by tjinaz, 09 December 2010 - 11:40 PM.

[puffy]

Just give the team to Jim Balls Silly already!

Edited by puffy, 10 December 2010 - 10:58 PM.

[McAwesome]

Green Bay is something like three times smaller than the next smallest NFL market. Let's scrap the Packers too!

Nothing would make me happier!

[WizardOfOz30]

Looks like the deal is going to go through.

My link

The Glendale City Council voted to approve a lease agreement with the prospective new owner of the Phoenix Coyotes Tuesday night after nearly five hours of debate and discussion.

Under the terms of the deal, Glendale will pay the ownership group led by Matthew Huslizer $97 million in arena management fees over the next 5 1/2 years and will also pay $100 million for the team’s parking rights, which the city will use as a revenue source to help pay the management fees. The agreement will keep the Coyotes at the Jobing.com Arena for at least the next 30 years.

“It’s been a really long night,” Scruggs said.

While she was referring to Tuesday night’s four-hour marathon meeting, that sentiment could just as easily be applied to the past two years. Nearly two years ago, Coyotes ownership filed for bankruptcy, leaving an uncertain future for the centerpiece of the city’s Westgate development. Councilwoman Joyce Clark expressed the same sentiment.

“It’s been a long night and a long two years,” she said. “It’s been a long two weeks working on this deal. I spent that two weeks not knowing how I was going to vote. I tried to keep an open mind throughout the process.”

In the end, even those on the council who supported the lease agreement were sober in their analysis of the deal.

“I believe most parties involved feel they did not get everything they wanted,” said Councilman Manny Martinez. “But I believe (city staff members) have come up with the best possible agreement for the city.”

Councilwoman Yvonne Knaack concurred.

“The agreement is not perfect but it is the best agreement we can come to at this point,” she said. “The alternative would be devastating.”

While members of the council tempered their enthusiasm, members of the audience did not. Council chambers were filled to capacity for Tuesday’s meeting, with the majority of those in attendance sporting Coyotes sweaters. After Hulsizer addressed the council, the audience gave him a lengthy and loud standing ovation.

“We’re making a significant financial commitment to this city and this state,” he said. “People have asked me, ‘Why are you doing this?’ I believe in this city. I believe in this state. I believe in this team. We’re prepared to be here for a very, very, very long time.”

Gary Bettman, commissioner of the National Hockey League, was also in attendance. Bettman thanked the council and staff for their hard work and restated his league’s commitment to the city.

“It’s been a long and winding road,” he said. “From a league perspective where we are is in Glendale with the Coyotes and that is where we want to be. Mr. Hulsizer believes this will work. We believe this will work. We hope the Coyotes have a long future here.”

Good for those hockey fans in Arizona.

[cusimano_brothers]

Owner Bettman was there; nice touch. Way back when, Glendale refused to do a restructured lease agreement, no matter who was interested in the team. Outside pressure, perhaps? When are the fans going to show up, playoff time again?

[F.Michael]

I sure as hell wouldn't want to be living in Glendale knowing a good portion of my tax $$$ are going for a lost cause.

[_Kabrok_]

What I really don't get is how with this Tea Party business apparently being so popular there are apparently next to no taxpayers in Glendale that are up in arms about this.

[cusimano_brothers]

Winnipeg Free Press.