The_Admiral

Consider it Icecap-service.

Sounds like Glendale rejected it because they forgot to fill in part of a registration form or something. There were enough signatures, they just threw it out on a technicality. This crap's never gonna end.

I still don't think Greg Jamison has the money (source: Greg Jamison)

That article offers an intriguing alternative that I haven't seen being discussed here (probably): Folding the Coyotes, and collect an expansion fee from either Quebec City or Seattle (although the SODO Arena has hit a snag.) It obviously makes the NHL more money, and it means that whoever (more than likely Quebec City) can bide their time until their new arena is running.

Oh hey everyone the motherboard of my computer has been DEAD! since Monday and I need to repair or replace my laptop. Did I miss anything? NO OF COURSE I DIDN'T IT'S THE PHOENIX COYOTES THREAD

Anyway. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Ergo, they just might do it. However, for the sake of record-keeping, it might not be the worst idea if they presented this scenario in public, that the Coyotes franchise has been nuked and this new team has no connection, just so we don't have to relive that whole "you have to honor your franchise history or we'll take your lunch money" thing we went through with Winnipeg and Atlanta, which would be doubly stupid here as we force the Quebec Nordiques to celebrate the WHA Winnipeg Jets.

As for the Sacramento Kings entering NHL territory when it comes to bad business, I don't know about that. I don't think they're there yet. So far, they've just unfolded the map. We haven't had the Maloofs offer to sell to the team A Secret Mystery Owner not once but thrice. Incidentally, can you imagine Bettman taking the Glendale act to Newark? Go tell Cory Booker you need to hit his city up for $25 million in "arena management fees" while you put the finishing touches on a deal with a secret mystery owner whose name cannot be mentioned at this time. That'll go over well, I'm sure of it.

Finally, I've hypothesized this before, and I need you guys to tell me I'm wrong: with the linkage system in the CBA, it's actually beneficial for there to be really weak teams, as they keep strong teams from having to spend in proportion to their own respective revenues. If spending were tied to how much money the Leafs/Bruins/Canadiens/Canucks make, they'd be spending much more; by having the Coyotes/Panthers/Hurricanes/etc drag down the average, they can spend much less. So is it actually in the best interests of the league's power brokers to maintain failure? In the case of the Coyotes, where they own them, does the money each team has to pony up to cover remaining losses justify the cap not going up to the extent that it would in a non-failed market?

One of the videos on the sidebar to "You Want a Chili Dog, Nerd?" is the 1993 Walter Matthau film adaptation of Dennis the Menace, in its 92-minute entirety. Why, though?

Wherein some piece of crap harasses the old guy gathering signatures. I swear this is the same guy as:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yg7fAqQizDA

Yeah, that would be a bad situation, but preferable to what we have now, since I doubt they would've gone into receivership and stayed there for three or maybe four years. Hamilton would've failed anyway. Without even getting into Balsillie losing his fortune, the team would be dead as a doornail the second the Leafs are good again.

So it almost came to this:

http://www.azcentral...l#ixzz1yqLZzycX

The Glendale Arts Commission reaffirmed at a meeting Thursday that it would not support selling pieces from the city's art collection.

On May 31, the commission debated a City Council directive to explore selling items in the municipal art collection to help the city's financial situation.

Commissioners were against the idea, Chairwoman Diane Lesser said Thursday, but they asked staff to gather feedback from the community.

A section was added to the city's public art website and five comments were submitted as of June 15. Those comments included:

"The proposed sale of City of Glendale owned art is a travesty ...These art works are not replaceable, unlike buildings, vehicles or the people who made this recommendation."

"Years ago when my family was out of work, we had to sell our valuables that we treasured in order to buy food, I would not be offended if my city sold artwork to help out our budget, we can always go to the Goodwill stores or Salvation Army stores to buy other artwork."

I didn't even think Glendale had an art collection.

Personally, I'm particularly worried about how the Cubs will try to "creatively and dynamically" "partner" with the city to renovate their private property. And they'll say the same things, that it's a good investment because of tourism and surrounding businesses and whatever else, but the city doesn't have the money, and the Tribune seemed to take care of its property just fine with their own money. Fortunately, the Ricketts clan is such a bunch of tone-deaf square-state gomers that they can't present a plan to the city without leaving the flash drive with the PowerPoint on it at home. I'd hate to see Chicago raise its sales taxes even more just to build that stupid goddamn "triangle building" the Cubs have wanted for like ten years.

Yeah, just collect insurance after the arson. I'll help burn it down. Of course, I will require a considerable Riot Management Fee for my services, but when you consider that I'm assuming the risk, you're actually coming out ahead!

Well, no, because they budgeted for sales tax revenue from adjacent properties to pay for it and those revenues never materialized. At least one culturally bankrupt gimp has gone to the Jimmy Buffett restaurant.

Funny you mention him. It hit me the other day how similar Glendale is to Zion when I was reading Joyce Clark's twitter. All that talk about praying to God to prove the naysayers wrong is the same old movie, and I already know how it ends.

Oh, and Camelback Ranch failed because it was supposed to be surrounded by exciting new retail developments that never got built because the Phoenix/national/global economy went bye-bye. Kind of like Westgate if it had been aborted.

So it's come to this:

http://www.azcentral...t.html#comments

Glendale officials this week considered offering up City Hall and the main police station as collateral to obtain a $41 million loan to cover sports-related debts.

The city would use the money to cover payments to the National Hockey League and potentially to make payments on Camelback Ranch stadium, the city's spring-training ballpark.

Glendale officials acknowledged the proposal wouldn't bring the city any savings.

"This is by no means a money-saving exercise," Interim City Manager Horatio Skeete said. "This exercise would basically allow us the freedom to do a couple things: spread the payments of the $25 million that is currently owed to the NHL and to shore up ourselves for the (Camelback Ranch payments) that are coming due."

No one talks enough about how that Camelback Ranch thing is just as much a disaster as the Coyotes/Jobberdome. "It has two team facilities separated by a fully stocked pond! We didn't pay for it!"

You can't fight City Hall, but apparently you can pawn it off.

EDIT: oh and

http://www.azcentral.com/community/glendale/articles/2012/06/20/20120620glendale-possible-sales-tax-hike-referendum.html

Glendale is expected to trim $1.1 million from police, fire and other city departments in an effort to avert a referendum to repeal the sales-tax hike the City Council passed last week.

. . .

The latest cuts follow a painful budgeting process that included the layoff of nearly 50 employees and service cuts as the city shored up a $35 million shortfall in its operating budget for the coming fiscal year, which opens July 1.

Some of the budget woes come as the city plans to pay potential Phoenix Coyotes buyer Greg Jamison $17 million in the coming fiscal year to manage the city-owned Jobing.com Arena.

Interim City Manager Horatio Skeete said if the tax increase was repealed, the city would have to consider whether it could pay the arena-management fee.

Sports.

* Jamison has said numerous times he wants to BUY the arena within a couple years. That would take ALL BURDEN off of the tax payers – no more management fees, no more payments on the arena debt. The city of Glendale would effectively be out of the arena business. Whether or not you believe that building Jobing.com Arena was a wise decision, this is the ONLY way for the city to completely rid itself of the responsibilities and costs of owning the arena.

But why buy the cow when you not only get the milk for free, but get paid to drink it, too? (No, can't you see, you evil relocationist naysayer? It's a Milk Management Fee! It's standard procedure! Greg Jamison assumes all risks of spilling milk on himself! That's what people don't realize!) Public ownership with a private master lease is the best of all possible worlds; you get all the revenue while paying nominal rent rather than property taxes. And this deal not only does that but includes a generous subsidy as well. There is no world in which voluntary cessation of this handout makes any sense for the "arena manager." If you actually believe he would use his option to buy the arena, you are without a shadow of a doubt one of the dumbest human beings ever to draw breath.

the previous owners of the team have only been interested in real-estate deals, NOT in making the team more successful by generating better attendance and getting corporate sponsors. Greg Jamison is ONLY interested in being a HOCKEY team owner and making that team a WINNING team.

Jamison has publicly said he wants to significantly increase the amount of non-Coyotes game events.

hey buddy

Caught this on Joyce Clark's twatter feed:

Joyce Clark ‏@clarkjv

@VeroPadilla34 Veronica, Dawn Monaghan and I would like to direct message you about your experience with forged petition signatures

Between "it's illegal, ahhh, so whaaat" editorials and aldermen trying to forge signatures, it's like Daley took the whole machine down there.

here's a video from informglendale.com:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqlP0ZUhNjU

cool story, bro

This whole thing is a labyrinth of contingencies, false dilemmas, and straight-up lies, but my new favorite is the one that goes like this:

Greg Jamison will use his arena management acumen to fill the calendar with non-hockey events as he proved he can do with the Sharks

but when it's mentioned that all this could be done without subsidizing the hockey team,

You can't replace the Coyotes dates with other events because there are too many superior venues in the Phoenix area and everyone just goes there instead.

So which is it? How is it that the key to saving the Coyotes is supplementing the anchor tenant if you're simultaneously arguing that the arena cannot be supplemented? If monster truck rallies and concerts and conventions and such won't come to your podunk arena without a team there, why would they be more likely to come there with fewer open dates to do so? It makes no sense.

STFU

Your team's gameplan is largely predicated on unpenalized obstruction and a goaltender who dives like Greg Louganis; you have no right whatsoever to bitch about the refs. "A doormat in the league" doesn't finish 4th, 6th, and 3rd under league ownership. And the idea that "no one stands up for you" is silly considering that if the league didn't "stand up for them" in the first place, they'd have moved to Quebec this summer, Winnipeg last summer, or Hamilton THREE FREAKING YEARS AGO. Just retire already, Whitney, you worthless compiler.

I'm sure the NHL can work it out to where the Coyotes can stay in the playoffs long enough to generate the $5 million that the city is short.

It would be beautiful if the Coyotes came to an end against an obstructively trapping team that nobody gives a about.

Before we say this is a slam dunk for Quebec, let's remember that the NHL was running the Coyotes, Stars, and Blues at the same time this season. They could own both on paper if they really had to, I guess. What a league!

I wonder why Jamison, who said himself he's short on money, wouldn't cash out of the Sharks, of which he owns something like maybe 10% at most. Gotta figure that's at least $20 million right there, and if he's to be the managing partner of Taxpayer Shakedown LLC or whatever, he can't have that other ownership stake, anyway. Surely it couldn't be that he has no confidence in this plan and is hedging against its failure, because he said he Believes In The Market. Money, mouth?

I also wonder why if Greg Jamison is some sort of arena management wizard, who apparently can make a venue calendar fuller than a Thanksgiving stomach simply by saying "come here, for I am Greg Jamison!", he hasn't been doggedly pursued by a number of other teams who could use his sparkling business acumen after the Sharks' other owners pushed him out for fiddling around with MMA crap at the expense of hockey operations. And if all it takes to flesh out the Jobberdome's calendar from nothing but Coyotes games and high school graduations (yeah seriously) is Greg Jamison's Proven Success, what does he need $20 million a year for?

I also wonder why "fiddling around with MMA crap at the expense of hockey operations" makes someone the savior of a hockey team.

The NHL doesn't allow municipalities to own teams because they might elect representatives who don't want to own a hockey team. In fact, elections are supposed to be coming up pretty soon. They've gotta get this done before the teabaggers come in.

The Jets said they're not receiving revenue sharing this year. Doesn't that mean they made money? If you're citing 2011 figures, wouldn't that be Atlanta? Also, Phoenix lost more than $24 million, because the $25 million subsidy was paid in full, unless that means they lost $49 million, in which case sweet Jesus.

I lost my official Gary Bettman Scorecard, but I'm pretty sure Ilitch and Dolan aren't big ownership-solidarity guys, seeing as how they'd like to be unencumbered to outspend everyone and crush their opponents for the fun of it. I know Dolan in particular is on really crappy terms with the Count due to revenue sharing and a universal team website template (yeah, I don't get it either). As for that last part, when you think of all the losers who make more money by not fielding a team (Karmanos, whoever owns the Panthers, the NHL itself in Phoenix, et al), there might not be all that much backlash from ownership.

As for that last editorial, what an idiot.

The prospects of a 19,000-seat arena without an anchor tenant aren't encouraging.

17,000

The value-added is captured and given to the team primarily through a $15 million a year fee the city will pay for the team to manage the facility.

It's frontloaded so that it's more like $20 million to begin with

Bad writing. I hope it wasn't published with ink on paper.

Bettman sends Gary Jamison an Edible Arrangement shaped like Shane Doan as a thank-you

That's actually Shane Doan. UNCLE!

How on Earth have the owners not revolted against this idiot Bettman yet?

He shut down the league for a year to stop the fiscal bleeding and forced the players into a 25% pay cut. He makes his bosses money, however unscrupulously. By doing the bidding of Jacobs, MLSE, and a consortium of small-timers, he's consolidated a good deal of power.

Worth noting is that Jacobs does own the concession rights to Nashville's arena, so not only are they subsidized, but they're in turn indirectly funding the Bruins. Nice scheme if you can work it.

Yeah, he even told the city council he didn't have enough money before they voted.

As usual when it comes to the NHL, I'm having some trouble wrapping my head around the Creative Math that would go into this. (Matt Hulsizer being gifted more money than it would take to buy the team but still not being able to afford that is the all-timer.) From what's trickled out over the last few years, the Coyotes have lost about $40 million a year, so minus the taxpayer subsidy that's about $15 million that the league loses on the team every year. The subsidy is going down, player payroll is possibly going up, and if Jamison doesn't have enough money to buy the team outright, how does he have the money to shoulder the annual losses? If this is supposed to be part of a payment plan, how does he afford to pay in installments? The only explanation I can come up with for this plan is that Jeremy Jacobs owns their concession contract.