How Much Longer For The Coyotes in Phoenix?

SeawaySensFan wrote:

davetherave wrote:

shabbs wrote:

davetherave wrote:IMHO the 'second team' in Toronto/Southern Ontario will be the transplanted Coyotes.

Not under Bettman's watch. We'll need a new Commissioner before that happens. Bettman's primary, and what seems to be only, directive is to get new NHL fans in non-hockey markets.

The NHL's Bill Daly and the NHLPA's Paul Kelly have already had meetings in Toronto on the subject and have come out in favour of the idea of a 2nd team there.

So not sure where you get the idea Bettman is against this...

The impression I got from Paul Kelly in an interview on the Fan 590 was that the NHLPA is more in favour of adding a team to the GTA and/or relocating struggling franchises because it would raise the cap.

Maybe the league executive/owners are reluctant to grow revenues for that very reason?

I don't understand what you mean by that.

The owners are ALL about growing revenue.

That's why they own hockey teams.

It's fashionable to bash Bettman, and he's an easy target for the Mainstream Media Mutts, but the fact is that the NHL's in the best financial shape it has EVER been.

And this is not to defend GB. Just stating the facts.

Most people don't remember John Ziegler and Clarence Campbell.

Most people don't want to talk about how the players are finally getting salaries that are commensurate with the talent they have and the risks they take.

And when presented with the facts, such as outlined in a number of articles by prominent and respected financial journals, some people simply choose to ignore them.

Since Bettman took the job in 1993, replacing Gil Stein, the NHL's revenues have grown steadily, from $400 million when he was hired to over $2.2 billion (as of the 2007 season).

Phoenix has long been a problematic franchise from a financial perspective, even when it was the Winnipeg Jets. The NHL faced the choice of folding the Jets (because local investors could not meet the obligations) or moving them to Phoenix when investors from that area stepped up.

As Phoenix had a long history of successful minor league franchises, notably the WHL Roadrunners, the due diligence may have indicated the move was logical.

When a franchise goes bad, it's a long and complex process involving a labyrinth of legal issues.

As for speculation that Jerry Bruckheimer might want to take this over, I did offer the hypothesis on these boards some time ago. However, Bruckheimer has since recused himself from the discussion, and I expect given his business acumen, is waiting for an opportunity with less baggage.

This one looks tailor made for Balsillie or the Vaughn Group of investors in the GTA.

I think Phoenix will drup the puck in Glendale for this season and this season only; after that, their 'new' destination could be anywhere, although with Bettman at the helm, it's not likely to be in Canada.

Bettman must stop trying to live up to the management skills of his more astute half-brother, Jeffrey Pollack, the current commissioner of the World Series of Poker. Now that fella knows to run a league, of sorts.

davetherave wrote:

SeawaySensFan wrote:

davetherave wrote:

shabbs wrote:

davetherave wrote:IMHO the 'second team' in Toronto/Southern Ontario will be the transplanted Coyotes.

Not under Bettman's watch. We'll need a new Commissioner before that happens. Bettman's primary, and what seems to be only, directive is to get new NHL fans in non-hockey markets.

The NHL's Bill Daly and the NHLPA's Paul Kelly have already had meetings in Toronto on the subject and have come out in favour of the idea of a 2nd team there.

So not sure where you get the idea Bettman is against this...

The impression I got from Paul Kelly in an interview on the Fan 590 was that the NHLPA is more in favour of adding a team to the GTA and/or relocating struggling franchises because it would raise the cap.

Maybe the league executive/owners are reluctant to grow revenues for that very reason?

I don't understand what you mean by that.

The owners are ALL about growing revenue.

That's why they own hockey teams.

What I mean is having a few weak sisters keeps league revenue down. The lower the revenue, the lower the cap.

I was just thinking if the cap/salaries are lower the margins are better. But what do I know?

SeawaySensFan wrote:[

I don't understand what you mean by that.

The owners are ALL about growing revenue.

That's why they own hockey teams.

What I mean is having a few weak sisters keeps league revenue down. The lower the revenue, the lower the cap.

I was just thinking if the cap/salaries are lower the margins are better. But what do I know? [/quote]

SSF, I hope you know I wasn't trying to be adamant or dismissive...I really didn't understand what you meant.

I simply don't know how the margins/profits are affected by the cap.

Having 'weak sisters' on the other hand, can be surmised as dragging down the profitability because it negatively impacts revenue performance much in the same way as, for example, a weak division drags down a larger company.

The NHL is a little unusual as a business entity because while each franchise is its own business, the owners agree to revenue sharing and other co-operative business processes.

From what I have researched and read on the subject, the relationships among these owners are arcane to say the least.

What we are told by the Mainstream Hockey Media is but a superficial picture.

Exactly, what we need is Stevie Cameron to do an expose on Bettman and the inner-workings of the NHL front office...
What a FUN read that would be.

All I know is that there are an awful lot of no-brainer scenarios the NHL seems to ignore. It has to be done purposely, IMO.

The cap does as much to control salaries as it does to save owners from themselves. And it essentially forces owners to be on the same page. The NHL is a collective now which tells me that league-wide revenues are of more consequence than those of individual teams.

I also believe, for example, that inflating revenues could increase advertising demand and TV contract costs. That's why I think it's just as likely that they want to control league-wide revenues in order to keep the cap down.

They play with numbers to suit their needs is what I'm saying in a nutshell.

SeawaySensFan wrote:All I know is that there are an awful lot of no-brainer scenarios the NHL seems to ignore. It has to be done purposely, IMO.

The cap does as much to control salaries as it does to save owners from themselves. And it essentially forces owners to be on the same page. The NHL is a collective now which tells me that league-wide revenues are of more consequence than those of individual teams.

I also believe, for example, that inflating revenues could increase advertising demand and TV contract costs. That's why I think it's just as likely that they want to control league-wide revenues in order to keep the cap down.

They play with numbers to suit their needs is what I'm saying in a nutshell.

Playing with numbers is what megabusiness is all about...but that's not a hockey discussion.

Suffice to say that the management of franchises is a subject far beyond our scope because we will never have access to the information that reflects the true nature of this environment.

I do recommend though, a few books on the subject if you are interested...they will probably shock you.

"Net Worth" by David Cruise & Alison Griffiths is a good place to start. It gives the background of the NHL leading up to the formation of the NHLPA. It also delves into the Machiavellian world of NHL ownership.

davetherave wrote:"Net Worth" by David Cruise & Alison Griffiths is a good place to start. It gives the background of the NHL leading up to the formation of the NHLPA. It also delves into the Machiavellian world of NHL ownership.

I have the movie version on my PVR. I'll check it out for some quick skoolin'.

Who could forget the late Billy Van as "Les the Trainer"? Masterful.

SeawaySensFan wrote:

davetherave wrote:"Net Worth" by David Cruise & Alison Griffiths is a good place to start. It gives the background of the NHL leading up to the formation of the NHLPA. It also delves into the Machiavellian world of NHL ownership.

I have the movie version on my PVR. I'll check it out for some quick skoolin'.

Who could forget the late Billy Van as "Les the Trainer"? Masterful.

Well, my dear and wise SSF, then you'll remember the scene where Punch Imlach says to Carl Brewer when asked if he wants to meet Alan Eagleson, "Can he f*cking play hockey?"

cool)

davetherave wrote:

SeawaySensFan wrote:

davetherave wrote:"Net Worth" by David Cruise & Alison Griffiths is a good place to start. It gives the background of the NHL leading up to the formation of the NHLPA. It also delves into the Machiavellian world of NHL ownership.

I have the movie version on my PVR. I'll check it out for some quick skoolin'.

Who could forget the late Billy Van as "Les the Trainer"? Masterful.

Well, my dear and wise SSF, then you'll remember the scene where Punch Imlach says to Carl Brewer when asked if he wants to meet Alan Eagleson, "Can he f*cking play hockey?"

cool)

To be honest, I was too hung up on Billy Van being in the movie. Furrowing my brow throughout and thinking "Is that Billy Van?".

I think he was a genius performer. Too bad he got typecast as a public television instructional television host thanks to TVO's "Bits and Bytes".

Getting hung up on Billy Van can be hazardous to your mental well being LOL...

davetherave wrote:

shabbs wrote:

davetherave wrote:IMHO the 'second team' in Toronto/Southern Ontario will be the transplanted Coyotes.

Not under Bettman's watch. We'll need a new Commissioner before that happens. Bettman's primary, and what seems to be only, directive is to get new NHL fans in non-hockey markets.

The NHL's Bill Daly and the NHLPA's Paul Kelly have already had meetings in Toronto on the subject and have come out in favour of the idea of a 2nd team there.

So not sure where you get the idea Bettman is against this...

I've just always felt that Bettman doesn't see Canada as a worthy area to expand into due to it's size and "lower market" value as compared to the US. Bettman wants the big US TV contract and in order to do so, he needs to expand into non-hockey markets and get as many new NHL fans as possible.

Expanding in Canada won't create new fans, we're ALL fans already, it will create revenue though if placed appropriately. And it certainly won't help with a US TV contract, they could care less about our viewership.

Whether he's doing it on purpose or is totally oblivious in his quest to expand in the US... I dunno.

As for the meetings with Daly and Kelly... the only thing I got from them was to hear them say "the GTA could certainly support another team" but I never heard them say the want to add a team here, or are prepared to pursue adding a team or even moving a team. In fact, Kelly went as far to say that the NHLPA has no real authority to pressure Bettman into moving a failing franchise to the GTA.

shabbs wrote:

davetherave wrote:So not sure where you get the idea Bettman is against this...

I've just always felt that Bettman doesn't see Canada as a worthy area to expand into due to it's size and "lower market" value as compared to the US. Bettman wants the big US TV contract and in order to do so, he needs to expand into non-hockey markets and get as many new NHL fans as possible.

Expanding in Canada won't create new fans, we're ALL fans already, it will create revenue though if placed appropriately. And it certainly won't help with a US TV contract, they could care less about our viewership.

Whether he's doing it on purpose or is totally oblivious in his quest to expand in the US... I dunno.

As for the meetings with Daly and Kelly... the only thing I got from them was to hear them say "the GTA could certainly support another team" but I never heard them say the want to add a team here, or are prepared to pursue adding a team or even moving a team. In fact, Kelly went as far to say that the NHLPA has no real authority to pressure Bettman into moving a failing franchise to the GTA.

True enough.

But if both Daly AND Kelly are taking the time to have these meetings, and leaking news to the press about it, it's because there IS something going on that suggests a real possibility of it happening.

The NHL, like any major corporate entity, doesn't like bad publicity or anything else that threatens the perceived value of its product.

If the sense is that fans will welcome a second team in Toronto/Southern Ontario, why not? There are two teams in Southern California doing rather well...LA and Anaheim. San Jose is just a few more hours away.

And it's not just about creating 'new fans'...just as any marketing strategy is about 'new customers'. It's about maximizing the revenue you can get from an existing customer base.

The Toronto/Southern Ontario market is just as capable of supporting two teams as Southern California, and probably better than the NY/NJ metro area which has THREE teams.

IMHO it's safe to say no one would shed any tears if the Coyotes move north to this market.

The Coyotes are not far away from being a competitive club, another plus...

Agreed?

And don't forget...it would mean YOU have a local team to cheer for against the Leafs.

I know THAT makes you happy...
:D:

Coyotes prez refutes report league has taken control of club

CBSSports.com April 30, 2009

The president of the Phoenix Coyotes denied a report that the NHL has taken control of the cash-strapped hockey club.

Glendale city manager Ed Beasley told the Arizona Republic that the league is running the team and has promised to reimburse the city for parking fees and security costs at Jobing.com Arena, which is located in Glendale.

Coyotes president Doug Moss said Friday that team officials remain in control of the franchise.

"The bottom line is the NHL is not in control," Moss told the Associated Press. "It's not running the franchise.

"To say they've taken control -- we're having conversations with the league. [General manager] Donnie Maloney is running the draft. I'm reporting to [owner] Jerry Moyes. It's business as usual."

Messages left with Glendale officials were not immediately returned.

Beasley told the Republic that the NHL started running the team around the time the rent payment was made in late February. The city and the league are working together and he expects all payments to be made in full.

According to Glendale city records cited by the newspaper, the Coyotes stopped paying the city rent, parking fees and most of its security costs at the arena in August.

Moss declined to discuss specific financial details but added, "We're up to date on the lease."

Copyright 2009 by STATS LLC and The Associated Press.

"According to Glendale city records cited by the newspaper, the Coyotes
stopped paying the city rent, parking fees and most of its security
costs at the arena in August."

Holy crap.

What a mess.

Teams actually need to fold IMO, and this should be the first one. The next one should be Atlanta. Then maybe you can talk about relocation, but we all know this isnt going to happen, just what should happen.

So I had this dream recently.... Gary Bettman sees the writing on the wall and needs to find a way to increase revenues to ride out the recession. So he decides to move quickly and allows Phoenix to be bought by Basillie in early June and moved to the GTA for next season. The GTA team needs a player to sell and come to Murray asking for Spezza.

Murray thinks about it and decides he'll make a deal for his team first and the league second.

Spezza on the GTA team with Gretzky could boost revenues and push the cap up or in the least keep is steady for the next few seasons. Oh ya don't forget about a a new born rivalary.

The GTA team gets a name player and Ottawa gains cap relief to get a Jay-Bo, youth to off set loosing spezza and a 2009 1st.

Ah what a dream, too bad it will never happen.

Billy Van.