City of Glendale Opts Out of Lease Agreement with Coyotes After 2021-22

[Pete]

I'm not sure we can make that distinction yet, unless you've got some financials for us to review. We know Arizona, specifically, are hemorrhaging at a rapid pace and are plagued by endless problems with both ownership and venue stability. We also know close to a third of the league "operate at a loss," but we don't know the extent to that loss. It's entirely plausible that some percentage of them are only experiencing marginal loss due to the lack of playoff revenue for not being yearly contenders.

 

I seriously doubt that each of these teams are losing at the rate of Arizona — approximately $30–50 million per season, but even if they were, we're talking about an increase in HRR of $1.15 billion between Vegas and Seattle, not to mention the impressive television rights they just sold to ESPN and TNT.

 

Growth is growth, but intentionally turning your nose up at exponential growth by rejecting massive expansion fees is a real massive failure for any commissioner.

 

You've seen the financials, so I'm not playing that game.

 

You're saying teams lose money because of lack of playoff revenue... So? They're still losing money.

 

And let's be clear, expanding to places like Nashville was smart. *Over* expanding in a money grab is not smart. Arizona is a fail, Atlanta for the 2nd time is a fail and moving them to Winnipeg... They still lose money.

 

The league doesn't need 32 teams.

[Phil]

You've seen the financials, so I'm not playing that game.

 

You're saying teams lose money because of lack of playoff revenue... So? They're still losing money.

 

And let's be clear, expanding to places like Nashville was smart. *Over* expanding in a money grab is not smart. Arizona is a fail, Atlanta for the 2nd time is a fail and moving them to Winnipeg... They still lose money.

 

The league doesn't need 32 teams.

 

1. I've not seen the updated ones. It's not a game — I was legitimately asking so we had real data points to work from.

 

2. Yes, they're still losing money, so by that logic, every team that loses money must be relocated? This is what I was referencing earlier and offline. Running a loss isn't an inherently dire thing. Running multiple years of loss isn't an inherently bad thing. The degree of the loss is what matters. In the case of Atlanta, it lead the league to believe that relocation was necessary. In the case of the Coyotes, that's probably likely. But this isn't true for all teams operating in the red because they're not all failing to the point of fracture. Context matters.

 

3. Define over-expanding. Also, define money grab, because I'd argue that given what we know of the financials from Vegas, that doesn't qualify for either definition. At least not as far as I define them. Vegas stepped into the league giving the league a half a billion dollar revenue boon, immediately made the Cup Final, and spend to the cap every season. They are by all accounts, extremely profitable. Marc-Andre Fleury was the third-highest selling jersey in the league behind only Ovechkin and Crosby in 2019. Seattle haven't played a game yet, but paid $650 million to enter and the market seems rabid, just like Vegas. Sure seems like they'll be profitable, too. How are either an example of over-expansion or is it just because you don't like the idea of 32 teams?

[Pete]

1. I've not seen the updated ones. It's not a game — I was legitimately asking so we had real data points to work from.

 

2. Yes, they're still losing money, so by that logic, every team that loses money must be relocated? This is what I was referencing earlier and offline. Running a loss isn't an inherently dire thing. Running multiple years of loss isn't an inherently bad thing. The degree of the loss is what matters. In the case of Atlanta, it lead the league to believe that relocation was necessary. In the case of the Coyotes, that's probably likely. But this isn't true for all teams operating in the red because they're not all failing to the point of fracture. Context matters.

 

3. Define over-expanding. Also, define money grab, because I'd argue that given what we know of the financials from Vegas, that doesn't qualify for either definition. At least not as far as I define them. Vegas stepped into the league giving the league a half a billion dollar revenue boon, immediately made the Cup Final, and spend to the cap every season. They are by all accounts, extremely profitable. Marc-Andre Fleury was the third-highest selling jersey in the league behind only Ovechkin and Crosby in 2019. Seattle haven't played a game yet, but paid $650 million to enter and the market seems rabid, just like Vegas. Sure seems like they'll be profitable, too. How are either an example of over-expansion or is it just because you don't like the idea of 32 teams?

I don't like the idea of 32 teams when 12 of those teams aren't financially solvent. I don't like 32 teams because it dilutes the talent pool. I don't like 32 teams when two of those teams are Ottawa and Arizona.

 

Vegas was a huge success, but the draft was rigged for them to be successful. I'm willing to bet that by the time Vegas is in the league as long as Arizona has been in the league will be asking why the NHL insists on putting hockey in the desert.

[Bugg]

Im starting to believe losses are good enough for some owners. They get to write them off of their massive incomes. Like sometimes buying real estate where it makes sense just for interest writeoff

 

Almost certainly true. Nobody who owns a major 4 sports professional sports franchise is a charity case. it isn't their primary business. And as with real estate, depreciation of various assets, even the players, means many of them have paper losses but good cash flow. And really paper losses for an owner who is making $ in other businesses is not the worst thing.

 

Suspect in the Coyotes' case they may really be losing money though. Same is probably true of the Sabres and Panthers. And really we now know the Coyotes could've moved the Vegas years ago and printed money while Bettman spent years talking about "cost certainty" and pissed away a season.

 

Again, Vegas is bulletproof. Even if they start to suck, people are going build their vacations around seeing their team there. And as per friend who live out there, the locals buy up tickets for the secondary market. Same thing is happening with the Raiders.

[Phil]

I don't like the idea of 32 teams when 12 of those teams aren't financially solvent. I don't like 32 teams because it dilutes the talent pool. I don't like 32 teams when two of those teams are Ottawa and Arizona.

 

Vegas was a huge success, but the draft was rigged for them to be successful. I'm willing to bet that by the time Vegas is in the league as long as Arizona has been in the league will be asking why the NHL insists on putting hockey in the desert.

 

OK, but again, "financially solvent" is a relative term, and that degree absolutely matters. I'm with you 100% on moving the Coyotes for pretty much every reason you could list. I supported the move from Atlanta, too. But it's probably financially impossible for 32 teams to be "financially solvent" or operate in the black every single season. Winning is directly correlated with profit. It's very rare people look to pay to see a losing product, so markets that can be profitable with a competitive team should be given the opportunity to rebound, not be forced to relocate the moment they're in the red.

 

The draft being "rigged" doesn't matter. They're a huge success, both monetarily, as well as competitively. There's no viable argument that the league should have accepted less revenue by forcing a relocation rather than charging a premium for expansion. They can have their cake and eat it to. And why shouldn't they when, rigged or otherwise, it's clear that the system they have in place ensures a competitive team out of the gate?

[Pete]

OK, but again, "financially solvent" is a relative term, and that degree absolutely matters. I'm with you 100% on moving the Coyotes for pretty much every reason you could list. I supported the move from Atlanta, too. But it's probably financially impossible for 32 teams to be "financially solvent" or operate in the black every single season. Winning is directly correlated with profit. It's very rare people look to pay to see a losing product, so markets that can be profitable with a competitive team should be given the opportunity to rebound, not be forced to relocate the moment they're in the red.

 

The draft being "rigged" doesn't matter. They're a huge success, both monetarily, as well as competitively. There's no viable argument that the league should have accepted less revenue by forcing a relocation rather than charging a premium for expansion. They can have their cake and eat it to. And why shouldn't they when, rigged or otherwise, it's clear that the system they have in place ensures a competitive team out of the gate?

 

So again the league doesn't need 32 teams. By your logic, let's just have 40 teams and collect expansion fees as a away to artificially inflate HRR. Maybe I can suit up as a 4th liner for the Boise Taters.

 

A rigged Vegas draft absolutely matters because you're judging immediate success based on a gifted roster. Like I said, let's see where they are when they've been around as long as Arizona.

[Dunny]

Quebec City is small, poor, isolated, has awful weather, and has virtually no corporate footprint.

 

Why would they put a team there?

[Phil]

Almost certainly true. Nobody who owns a major 4 sports professional sports franchise is a charity case. it isn't their primary business. And as with real estate, depreciation of various assets, even the players, means many of them have paper losses but good cash flow. And really paper losses for an owner who is making $ in other businesses is not the worst thing.

 

Suspect in the Coyotes' case they may really be losing money though. Same is probably true of the Sabres and Panthers. And really we now know the Coyotes could've moved the Vegas years ago and printed money while Bettman spent years talking about "cost certainty" and pissed away a season.

 

Again, Vegas is bulletproof. Even if they start to suck, people are going build their vacations around seeing their team there. And as per friend who live out there, the locals buy up tickets for the secondary market. Same thing is happening with the Raiders.

 

Right, but in the case of both, we know the markets can actually be rabid, and in the case of both again, there are no long-term venue problems. Buffalo is arguably a top-three hockey market in all of the US beside Boston and Minnesota because it's culturally ingrained in the market. The Sabres have been horrendous for more than a decade, so it stands to reason why the fans aren't willing to fork over dollars to support that product, but the fans haven't abandoned hockey, or the NHL. They are regularly one of the largest consumer audiences for the NHL product on television in the States.

 

That's why I keep coming back to context here. It matters a ton. The Panthers took 20+ years to get good. That's entirely too long, no doubt, and it's likely at the forefront of why their general sales are so low. But look at what's happened since they've put a winning product on the ice. They found stable ownership. Their have a long-term lease. The success of the product should have a direct affect on ticket sales and attendance figures as that permeates the market. Just as it did for the Sabres and Lightning.

 

Coming out of the lockout, in which they were the "defending" champions, Tampa were second in average attendance in 2005-06. They fell to third the following season, eighth the year after, and 21st for 2008-10 when the team was bottoming out to select Stamkos and Hedman at the top of back-to-back drafts. By 2010-11, they were back up to 18th. Then 13th the year after that. They jump around from 8th to 10th from 2012-2016. Then jump way back up again to 6th in 2017-19, and to 5th in 2019-20. The pandemic fucked them, but I'm willing to bet their attendance would have been top-three the last two seasons, and will assuredly be top-five this coming year.

 

tl;dr: interest in seeing them play literally coincides with how good they are. As it does for most teams.

 

There's no justifiable reason the same argument/model cannot be applied to the Panthers, who operate in the same state, just 240 miles apart.

 

There's certainly no justifiable reason the same argument/model cannot be applied to the Sabres, either, who saw similar trends in attendance through the oughts when they were a dominant, perennial contender. They were 8th in the league in 2006-07, for example, and second in 2007-08. They basically remained a top-10, or just outside of it market until 2016-17 (15th), and have only fallen to 20th in 2019-20, which is amazing considering the team hasn't qualified for, or been a remote threat for the playoffs since 2010-11.

[Phil]

So again the league doesn't need 32 teams. By your logic, let's just have 40 teams and collect expansion fees as a away to artificially inflate HRR. Maybe I can suit up as a 4th liner for the Boise Taters.

 

A rigged Vegas draft absolutely matters because you're judging immediate success based on a gifted roster. Like I said, let's see where they are when they've been around as long as Arizona.

 

If the product could sustain 40 teams, sure, but it almost certainly can't given not even the NFL — a goliath in American sports — only has 32 teams themselves.

 

It's not an artificial inflation to HRR, either, if the inflation is sustained just as it was with Vegas and likely will be with Seattle. It's just ol' fashioned good business.

 

And no, a rigged draft doesn't matter, because that's almost assuredly the model for all expansion moving forward (should there be any more), and it's proven to be rewarding with the first market, and should prove to be rewarding with the second. That makes it a good model, not an outlier because Minnesota and Columbus were given scraps twenty years ago.

[Phil]

Quebec City is small, poor, isolated, has awful weather, and has virtually no corporate footprint.

 

Why would they put a team there?

 

They shouldn't. They arguably shouldn't have put a team back in Winnipeg either, for the same reasons. Not to mention the fact that the arena they had locked in place holds a maximum of just 15,321. But with Winnipeg in place, and Ottawa still in existence, I'd imagine the league has little to no interest in any cities outside of a second team in Toronto north of the border for exactly these reasons. They'll look to capitalize, be it relocation or expansion, on booming American markets. Houston still makes the most sense.

[Bugg]

Quebec City is small, poor, isolated, has awful weather, and has virtually no corporate footprint.

 

Why would they put a team there?

 

You may know this better than me. But is Ottawa any better? At least 15,000 paying customers would show up every night.

[Pete]

If the product could sustain 40 teams, sure, but it almost certainly can't given not even the NFL — a goliath in American sports — only has 32 teams themselves.

 

It's not an artificial inflation to HRR, either, if the inflation is sustained just as it was with Vegas and likely will be with Seattle. It's just ol' fashioned good business.

 

And no, a rigged draft doesn't matter, because that's almost assuredly the model for all expansion moving forward (should there be any more), and it's proven to be rewarding with the first market, and should prove to be rewarding with the second. That makes it a good model, not an outlier because Minnesota and Columbus were given scraps twenty years ago.

 

Once the gifted rosters turn over, we'll see how successful these teams are at pulling fans when their teams don't get to the finals.

 

Like I said, let's see in 5-10 years when we're all asking why we have hockey in the desert.

[Phil]

Once the gifted rosters turn over, we'll see how successful these teams are at pulling fans when their teams don't get to the finals.

 

Like I said, let's see in 5-10 years when we're all asking why we have hockey in the desert.

 

I mean, OK, but Florida is/was hit with the same argument. Tampa proved why the "non-traditional hockey market" argument is baseless. Is "a swamp" really so much better than "a desert" in this regard?

 

Winning cures all.

[Pete]

I mean, OK, but Florida is/was hit with the same argument. Tampa proved why the "non-traditional hockey market" argument is baseless. Is "a swamp" really so much better than "a desert" in this regard?

 

Winning cures all.

 

Of course winning cures all but you can't have teams with no one in the building unless that team is in the conference finals LOL. When fans don't stick around during the lean years, it just leads to more lean years. Especially in places like AZ, OTT, Peg, Carolina, etc where the arena isn't near anything else. No gate means owners spend less, rosters get worse, product gets worse, etc.

 

I'm sorry, but it's incredibly reductive to sit there and say "Well just win, and you won't have that problem". If winning were easy, everyone would do it.

[LindG1000]

They shouldn't. They arguably shouldn't have put a team back in Winnipeg either, for the same reasons. Not to mention the fact that the arena they had locked in place holds a maximum of just 15,321. But with Winnipeg in place, and Ottawa still in existence, I'd imagine the league has little to no interest in any cities outside of a second team in Toronto north of the border for exactly these reasons. They'll look to capitalize, be it relocation or expansion, on booming American markets. Houston still makes the most sense.

 

I have no doubt that the Coyotes, Panthers, Senators, and probably the Jets are big losers in the NHL.

 

I think it's actually rather costly to move a team. There's paying any owed debts, paying employee relocation fees, standing up new teams to hire the personnel, coming to an arena deal, branding, design, management, possibly buyouts of existing local contracts, sourcing new sponsors, marketing, building a new fanbase, possible arena renovations - it's exhausting.

 

It's all the shit you'd have to do for an expansion team aside from collecting a half billion dollar fee. I get why it's not desirable in the face of smaller losses.

 

The Coyotes are a team that's just losing more than should be allowed. I have no issue seeing them move to a place where they'll have a fanbase and a downtown arena and the support they need as they move to rebuild, whether it's Houston, SLC, Austin, Charlotte, Toronto, Mexico City, or wherever.

[Dunny]

You may know this better than me. But is Ottawa any better? At least 15,000 paying customers would show up every night.

 

Ottawa is a government town. Half the city is on Cash for Life and work 30 hours a week, when it's convenient.

 

It also has a burgeoning tech sector.

[Long live the King]

Quebec has the arena, which is fundamental to all of this. The problem is, the east-west balance suggests keeping the Coyotes' organization in the West, specifically the Central, not adding to an already out-of-balance Atlantic/East.

 

Quebec was shot down for expansion when Vegas came in, but a lot of NHL talking heads at the time said they were probably a prime target city for relocation, which this situation almost certainly calls for.

 

Meh,

 

North East:

 

Quebec

Ottawa

Montreal

Toronto

Buffalo

Boston

NYR

NYI

 

Mid West:

 

Winnipeg

Minnesota

Chicago

Detroit

Columbus

Pitt

St. Louis

Colorado

 

South East:

 

New Jersey

Philly

Washington

Carolina

Tampa

Florida

Dallas

Nashville

 

West:

 

Edmonton

Calgary

Vancouver

Seattle

Anahiem

LA

San Jose

Vegas

[fletch]

I have no doubt that the Coyotes, Panthers, Senators, and probably the Jets are big losers in the NHL.

 

I think it's actually rather costly to move a team. There's paying any owed debts, paying employee relocation fees, standing up new teams to hire the personnel, coming to an arena deal, branding, design, management, possibly buyouts of existing local contracts, sourcing new sponsors, marketing, building a new fanbase, possible arena renovations - it's exhausting.

 

It's all the shit you'd have to do for an expansion team aside from collecting a half billion dollar fee. I get why it's not desirable in the face of smaller losses.

 

The Coyotes are a team that's just losing more than should be allowed. I have no issue seeing them move to a place where they'll have a fanbase and a downtown arena and the support they need as they move to rebuild, whether it's Houston, SLC, Austin, Charlotte, Toronto, Mexico City, or wherever.

 

I'd like to see the study on the feasibility of a franchise in Mexico. Doesn't seem like there is a built in fanbase there clamoring for hockey

[Phil]

Meh,

 

North East:

 

Quebec

Ottawa

Montreal

Toronto

Buffalo

Boston

NYR

NYI

 

Mid West:

 

Winnipeg

Minnesota

Chicago

Detroit

Columbus

Pitt

St. Louis

Colorado

 

South East:

 

New Jersey

Philly

Washington

Carolina

Tampa

Florida

Dallas

Nashville

 

West:

 

Edmonton

Calgary

Vancouver

Seattle

Anahiem

LA

San Jose

Vegas

 

Detroit (and Columbus) fought like crazy to get back to the East due to travel. They play in the Eastern Time Zone. This is probably a no-go on that alone.

[LindG1000]

I'd like to see the study on the feasibility of a franchise in Mexico. Doesn't seem like there is a built in fanbase there clamoring for hockey

 

22 million people there, but huge disparity between poorest and richest. Average annual wage in Mexico City is around $57,000 USD - but that accounts for the earlier disparities. The most common wages are around $17K USD.

 

I know the NFL has toyed with the idea of a team in Mexico City in the past.

 

Also, there is apparently a Mexican Hockey league. Four teams, all based in Mexico City, all play at the same arena. The teams are....

 

The Aztec Eagle Warriors

The Mayan Astronomers

The Olmec Stone Heads

The Teotihuacan Priests

 

I don't think it's the best idea, but I've heard worse.

[Phil]

Nah, come on, that idea is absurd. They're probably decades out from expansion into Mexico, if they ever seriously consider it. They're sure as shit not going to be the first pro league in the U.S. to do it, either.

[LindG1000]

Nah, come on, that idea is absurd. They're probably decades out from expansion into Mexico, if they ever seriously consider it. They're sure as shit not going to be the first pro league in the U.S. to do it, either.

 

Aside from the fact that while Houston sits without a team, it's by default not the best idea - it's literally the most Bettman thing possible. He sticks with his southern strategy, breaks into a high potential market that isn't being covered by other leagues, gets to stick it to Canada.

[Phil]

Aside from the fact that while Houston sits without a team, it's by default not the best idea - it's literally the most Bettman thing possible. He sticks with his southern strategy, breaks into a high potential market that isn't being covered by other leagues, gets to stick it to Canada.

 

Houston makes a ton of sense.

 

1. First, and foremost, they have a billionaire owner who wants an NHL franchise in Tilman Fertitta

2. Currently the fourth-most populated city in the U.S. with approximately 2.4 million citizens.

3. Immediate access to an 18,300-seat arena (Toyota Center) which Fertitta is making "major upgrades" to over a four- or five-year span between 2019 and 2022/2023.

4. Massive corporate sponsorship opportunity. Seriously. Count the Fortune 500 companies headquartered in Houston.

 

Unless they're ready to split Toronto and give them a second franchise, there's probably not a better North American city available to relocate the Coyotes to.

 

Fertitta has admitted there are "southern" challenges to getting butts in seats, which would be exacerbated by inheriting the horrendous Coyotes' current roster, but that's likely more of a short-term loss rather than a long-term fear.

[Long live the King]

Detroit (and Columbus) fought like crazy to get back to the East due to travel. They play in the Eastern Time Zone. This is probably a no-go on that alone.

 

OK, get radical. Arizona goes to Quebec AND Houston gets an expansion team.

 

West:

 

Edmonton

Calgary

Vancouver

Seattle

Anahiem

LA

San Jose

Vegas

Winnipeg

Minnesota

Colorado

 

North East:

 

Quebec

Ottawa

Montreal

Toronto

Buffalo

Boston

NYR

NYI

Detroit

Columbus

New Jersey

 

South East:

 

Washington

Carolina

Tampa

Florida

Dallas

Nashville

Houston

Philly

Pitt

St. Louis

Chicago

 

Add 2 games to the schedule. Play each team in your division 4 times. Play the teams in other divisions twice. Playoffs is top 5 in each division plus the 6th place team with the most points, straight seeding 1 through 16.

 

Lock it in.

[Sod16]

I would like to see a couple of teams moved, and certainly Houston should have a team, but Bettman basically has instituted a no move policy in favor of endless expansion and dilution and the fees it generates. That said, Phoenix is too good of a market to leave. There are enough Minnesotans there to support a team if no one else came! You put an arena in a terrible location and field a team that is bad for decades on end and you aren't going to succeed no matter how good the market is. They should only be moved if they can't get an arena. I don't know the configurations of the arena the NBA team plays in in Scottsdale, but in our ridiculous age, these teams demand and get their own arenas with 100 percent rights to all of advertising and ancillary event revenue.