TheOldRoman

Telephonic conversation. Horatio Skeete. God, I never want this Coyotes saga to end.

The debate between relocation fee vs. expansion fee is irrelevant. If the NHL was smart (which it's not, but still) their rules on relocation would be similar to those of the NFL. The NFL can change the fees depending on the size of the market (and it makes sense since an owner in Los Angeles would stand to make a lot more money than one in Houston). With the NHL, it's not about the size of the market, but how badly said market wants a pro team. If Quebecor wants hockey badly enough, it'll gladly pay $400 million in relocation fees on top of the $100 mil or so it would have to pay for the moribund Coyotes.

I can't say for certain that I wouldn't be as blinded if a team I loved was in the same situation, but c'mon. It's silly to yell for Glendale to honor their ageement when the Coyotes structured the agreement in such a way that they could pack up and move at their leisure. This year alone they "reported" $30 million lost, out of the $50 mil they had to lose over three years to move with no penalties. And honestly, this might not even be them cooking the books. They have $9 ticket-and-hotdog deals and still can't get more then 9,000 into the stadium on a weeknight. It's just an awful situation and the dopes in power fifteen years ago made the mistake of building this place. No amount of subsidies-they-don't-have will make the Coyotes a profitable franchise.

The only way staying in Phoenix makes sense is if they really believe that 1) they can tag along on a new Suns downtown arena; and 2) they'll get a young marquee player which will lead to a large increase in popularity. When they signed the most recent deal with Glendale, we knew from their three year opt out clause that they were only staying in Glendale until something better opened up. The existence of the clause (and everything we know to date) proved that they were going to lose money in Glendale no matter what. Would they be better off in a new downtown Phoenix stadium that's properly equipped for hockey? No doubt. However, I don't know that they'd be better off enough to not pursue Quebec while it's still available (anything is better than Vegas). They still might not be solvent in a new downtown house.

The only way I think they'd go in on it is if they got a very favorable lease that allowed them to pack up the trucks after a few years and move. I don't think there's any way they'd risk a 20 year lease on the fanbase suddenly sprouting up. And everyone would know their intentions, so I imagine the Suns would have to do all the leg work on the deal and tell the Coyotes "sit in the car and don't touch nothing."

Suspension/termination would be death for franchise values. It's not an option.

What is an option is Bettman dipping into the revenue-sharing slush fund, the one the new CBA provides to aid needy (warm-weather) teams. The NHL could pay rent in Glendale in the short term until the Indians build the new Suns/Coyotes/ASU arena/casino.

Yeah, but that's not really short term. The Suns are more or less sniffing around at this point, with no blueprints even. It would be at least four years until a new arena opened. If it came down to that, they'd probably crawl back to Phoenix just to stick it to Glendale (and of course Glendale would find itself with a profit without them).

The Coyotes threatened Wednesday night that they would sue the city for $200 million and the team indicated on Thursday that it will file for a court injunction and temporary restraining order to re-instate the arena management contract.

"A restraining order, what are they going to do, keep us out of our building?" Hugh explained. "We own the building. We pay $8 million a year on the debt on the building."

LOL

Build a new Suns arena? Isn't theirs barely 20 years old?

Yeah and these days 20 years old is when you start rumbling for a new venue. We've seen it in several places already. It's becoming a disturbing trend. One I wish cities would balk at. Teams like the Red Sox have shown that it's complete bunk that teams "need" new venues. If the owners were willing to maintain and upgrade their current hopes they continue to be more than adequate. But cities keep falling for it. And as soon as a few do, the rest are subjected to the familiar refrain, "but city XXX built their team a new venue with all these new amenities, so now we need the same..."

Fenway's not a good example because it required hundreds of millions of dollars in renovations, and even with that it's still somewhat subpar as a facility. And also, it's a special situation because of its history. They had a reason to renovate it. There's not a damn reason at all anybody should have put millions into renovating the '70s donut stadiums or any soulless '80s basketball arena. That being said, cities and states shouldn't be paying money for these new stadiums to be built.

Rick Westhead ✔@rwesthead

Mayor Weiers: "I don't care how good a deal is. If you're breaking the law you're breaking the law. I don't care how good a deal it is."

breakin' the law, breakin' the law...breakin' the law, breakin' the law...

You know, this situation does call for a Judas Priest parody. But I'm far too tired.

And to those who speculated on this thread ending? Oh no! This is but another beginning. Now things will really get silly as the Coyotes sue.

The NHL isn't letting Phoenix get away from them now with 2016's #1 overall pick coming out of Phoenix youth hockey. I expect this year's deux ex machina to be the announcement of a new Suns/Coyotes/ASU arena out near Tempe or Scottsdale.

I don't know if you had heard that or it was a joke, but it might be prophetic. The Suns are looking into a new arena, but it's still in downtown Phoenix. I'm not sure how that would work for ASU. You'd have to figure the Coyotes would latch onto that at first sight, unless the new owners were given the team with the directions from Bettman that they could move to a more lucrative city (QC) in three years. Of course, this depends on how the Suns feel. They might not want anything to do with the Coyotes, although both teams have different ownership than when they were co-tenants.

If the contract was voided, I honestly think the NHL and the Coyotes would fight like hell to get money out of the city. I think they'd stay in the Jobberdome for one more year of bickering because they'll still get much more money out of the concessions/advertising contracts they control than playing elsewhere. Also, I don't think they'd go back to the Suns' arena because that would be admitting it was over in Glendale, which would mean it was only a matter of time before the team moved. Attendance for that season in Phoenix would be in the triple digits most nights.

With the news of Glendale possibly ending the lease with the Coyotes and the arena, and the Coyotes set to show off new uni's at the draft, could we possibly see an instance similar to when the Nordiques updated their look, only to move to Colorado?

I don't think Colorado could support a second team.

Seriously though, no. The Coyotes are going to milk Glendale for all they can. They feel that they had a binding contract with the city (binding on the city's end, anyway), and are going to put up a huge legal battle if Glendale tries to stop payments. They wouldn't cut and run so quickly here. Besides, the arenas in Quebec and Las Vegas are not yet ready.

The old color was much richer and more distinctive. But I really liked the helmet shade of gold from the Super Bowl year. Nike changed it to better match their new shade of beige for the pants and numbers. The problem with the Super Bowl set was that the helmet gold was different from the pants gold, the numbers gold and the collar gold (which were all different themselves).

They can go with either the SB gold or the classic one. As long as they use metallic pants, match the gold on the entire set and have the pants stripes match the helmet, they'll look great. Until then, they'll continue to look like a bland mess.

I'm guessing that was from when he was in high school. 1) How the hell does one get a Randy Brown jersey? 2) Why the hell would anybody want a Randy Brown jersey?

I'm assume it was a custom Mitchell and Ness jersey, and I imagine he shouldn't have had access to such perks back in his high school days.

Guys, Quebec City is getting another team. They'll just have to add more teams to the West to even the conferences out. And since they're the NHL, I'm guessing those teams end up in Boise and Albuquerque. Also, Helena is on deck in case the Jets have a single empty seat next year.

Wait, do we have a link about Dan Uggla getting a custom-made children's size authentic jersey? I know he's always worn his jerseys tight, but that seems beyond belief. I mean, he's 5'10" and 210, which is pretty built. I can't imagine he'd fit into a boys' size without the buttons popping open.

Also, I dislike all laces on hockey jerseys. They just seem so contrived, particularly on newer looks. It's not functional. It would be like if a football team came out with a helmet that mimicked the pattern of old leather helmets (don't say Michigan). I mean, there would be certain times that would look appropriate, but for the most part it would be dumb.

In response to the leather pattern...

I know, I meant more of the pattern in terms of seams, not the texture of leather.

Here's a unpopular opinion - the NBA should make a rule that all players wearing any kind of shirt or tights under their jerseys should be kicked in the testicles before taking the court. It looks like crap. It's doesn't make you look cool, and it doesn't help your blood flow or any crap like that. You look like the kid on the junior high team who wore a shirt because he was self-conscious about his lack of underarm hair. Or alternatively, the fat kid who wore a t-shirt in the pool.

I know he wears a t-shirt. It looks dumb on him, too.

Here's a unpopular opinion - the NBA should make a rule that all players wearing any kind of shirt or tights under their jerseys should be kicked in the testicles before taking the court. It looks like crap. It's doesn't make you look cool, and it doesn't help your blood flow or any crap like that. You look like the kid on the junior high team who wore a shirt because he was self-conscious about his lack of underarm hair. Or alternatively, the fat kid who wore a t-shirt in the pool.

"Have an unsightly scar or rash that you'd rather not be projected to millions of viewers in HD on ESPN? Screw you! You look like an amateur!"

Yes. Clearly after never having an issue before, the NBA is suddenly awash with scars and rashes the past few years. Why, I bet they're contagious!

While I understand they're classics, I have always hated the shoulder stripes on USC's uniforms.

What the hell is going on with his jersey? Either Nike messed up in putting sweatbox badly off-center, or the number is sewn on at a very skewed angle. Look at the bottom of the 7. I've never seen anything like that.

Also, I dislike all laces on hockey jerseys. They just seem so contrived, particularly on newer looks. It's not functional. It would be like if a football team came out with a helmet that mimicked the pattern of old leather helmets (don't say Michigan). I mean, there would be certain times that would look appropriate, but for the most part it would be dumb.

Here's a unpopular opinion - the NBA should make a rule that all players wearing any kind of shirt or tights under their jerseys should be kicked in the testicles before taking the court. It looks like crap. It's doesn't make you look cool, and it doesn't help your blood flow or any crap like that. You look like the kid on the junior high team who wore a shirt because he was self-conscious about his lack of underarm hair. Or alternatively, the fat kid who wore a t-shirt in the pool.

From 2006, the last year of the 1988 set for the Chargers, and year two for the current set for the Cardinals.

A bit off-topic, but I always thought that Chargers set was a bit underrated. The one they have now is better (especially the logo/helmet), but I think the 1988-2006 set was better than the one that it followed.

Yes and no. You're right that set was underrated. It was incredible. But the current set is an atrocious mash-up of crap, worse than its predecessor in every way.

There was a time when I thought those Nike skates were the coolest things on the planet. Especially Fedorov's white skates, but they look really silly now.

The Sharks are the Jacksonville Jaguars of the NHL. Knocked it out of the park on their first try and have been downgrading ever since.

Alternatively, they're the Florida Marlins of the NHL. And I'm in the same boat with those Nike Skates. I didn't even play hockey and I thought they were the coolest thing ever.

$375 million for the stadium? Doesn't that pretty much buy you a circus tent in the current stadium market? I can't imagine this stadium would be state-of-the-art.

There are plenty of color combinations that work in theory, or even in other medians, but not for sports. Purple and light blue might look decent on a polo shirt or a comforter, but not for a sports team. And no, don't show me a picture of the 2000's Jazz claiming they would have looked good eliminating the navy.

Wait, there was a Tecmo Super Bowl III? How did I never know that? I was playing the original Tecmo Super Bowl until around 2000.