IceCap

Oh and they're ramrodding the vote through on a Friday morning when no one can address City Council. This happens with every potential owner. They announce a "deal" (ie illegal operation that involves a city buying a parking lot from itself) but then the proposed owner can't get the money together because even with all the money being thrown at them by the city no investor with half a brain's willing to touch the Coyotes with a ten foot poll. The asset is toxic. Just move them already.

So if the owner decides it's not feasible then they don't have to change it.

Agreed. I'd agree, if that template had a hem stripe pattern. As it was, it was to top heavy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wiYdUe36_Q

It doesn't have to be this way though. Bettman could finally give in and let them move, and still spin it as a success. He could play the "I fought as hard as I could to uphold our policy of considering relocation as only a last resort" card (making the owners happy) while also appearing as a hero in the hockey hotbed of Quebec City. He could easily turn any defeat represented by the Coyotes moving into a victory.

AND STAY DEAD!

Agreed 8000%. When they went from stirrups to solid socks/long pants, I didn't shed a tear. I emphatically agree. They serve absolutely no purpose and they look silly. They're a relic from the past and once we figured out how not to use poisonous dyes, stirrups should've been discontinued forever. They looked especially dumb in the 70's and 80's when they kept getting taller and taller and all you'd see was a skinny stripe of color on otherwise white socks. Here's another unpopular opinion: I hate the knickered baseball pants look. Wear your pants to your shoes like an adult male. I don't like the dumb baggy pants look either, but this looks better than this Agreed. Also, I found playing in longer pants to be more comfortable.

Presidential seal or not, I can't blame a team based in Washington DC, named the Capitals, for using the colour scheme red, white, and blue. Regardless of how over-used it might be.

Hockey the hard way indeed.

Schools are not funded at the city level. Plus Maricopa County has 57 school districts, and Glendale covers multiple. *yawn* librarians then. Fact is civil servants are being laid off to keep this sham going.

So it begins.... Music and art teachers should be weary.

*AHEM* For one thing Hamilton used to be in the NHL. Secondly Hamilton can support an NHL better than either Winnipeg or Quebec put together. So it would be nice if you can put away your anti-Hamilton bigotry for once and all... If it's Winnipeg and Quebec City put together then it's not "either" of them. Also, you can be bigoted against a race, a religious group, a gender, or sexual orientation. I don't think bigotry just against a particular city is a "thing." Not on the level of the before-mentioned examples anyway. Not by a long shot. I admit, I'd love it if Hamilton could somehow get a team. It would be great to have a Canadian NHL team within driving distance that I could actually get tickets to. Thing is, MLSE would never allow it. Yeah, the Leafs could probably continue on as the juggernaut of southern Ontario even with a Hamilton team, but they still won't allow it. Plus the Sabres might go bankrupt. Though that's not quite the problem it used to be in Gary Bettman's NHL.... Point is Winnipeg made money hand over fist, and will likely continue to do so. The move from Atlanta was extremely profitable. Do I think a team in Hamilton, if given a chance, could reach those levels. Very likely, yeah. It's never going to happen though. And saying Hamilton would be more successful then the Jets and the potential Nords 2.0 put together is just crazy talk. More successful then one of the two? Maybe, if everything works out. Both? Not on your life.

I love the Leafs as much as one can sensibly "love" a pro sports franchise. That being said, some members of "Leafs Nation" really are idiots. Though that can be said about any team's fanbase.

Oh yay ElwoodCuse is here to white knight for Gary Bettman and set up strawmen to knock down again. Since you're so "in the know" Elwood you likely know how profitable the Jets were in Winnipeg, ie how much of a financial success the move from Atlanta was. So tell me. How is keeping the Coyotes in Glendale in the interest of the league's owners when it comes to making money when the success of Winnipeg could easily be replicated in Quebec City?

The funny thing about all of this is that this was discussed pages back. I know that the nature of the thread may make you inclined to stay away, and that's fine, but don't show up and start talking about this as if we're all just making stuff up. Actually go back and read the thread if you want to comment on its goings on. Anyway the fact is that Glendale shouldn't have to close libraries, or hell, even cut library hours as long as they're paying the NHL $25 million a year to cover the Coyotes. They shouldn't be paying anything at all for the Coyotes. Not when something as basic as libraries are on the chopping block. Elaine Scruggs, the mayor of Glendale, made a huge stink (find it yourself, it's a few pages back) about the city possibly not being able to pay the NHL the money it owes it for this year. So if that's the case now, I don't see how the city's finances look promising either under the current arrangement or the Jamison deal for years to come. You really want to play that card? I'm not the one holding onto hope the that the Coyotes stick around, regardless of the cost to the city they play in. It's rather cold to say "I want the Coyotes to stick around no matter what" while Glendale contemplates plans that would make it a city with one of the highest tax rates in the US just to pay for the Coyotes' continued existence. It just means that the you nor any other Coyote fan should complain about the title of the thread. No one here coined it. One of your own did. Governments decide to do stupid and/or illegal things all the time. I don't know Mr. Lieberman. I'm sure he's a nice enough guy, but I've never met him. So reign in the Coyotes rage and bad attempted insults. I do know that the last vote on the matter was a 4-3 split, however. Meaning that there are serious cracks in the wall of support the Coyotes seem to have in the Glendale city council. You're missing the point entirely. I've already posted this twice now, maybe third time's the charm. Arizona Gift Clause. I'm not telling Glendale's elected officials what they can or can't do. The state of Arizona is. It is illegal for them, or any other city in your state, to subsidize a private business, which the Coyotes qualify as. Therefore it is illegal for them to agree to a deal that would require them to subsidize any potential new owner. That's the state, your state, telling them what they can and can't do. I'm just relaying the information to you. Sorry if it bums you out.

Wrong: it costs more to subsidize the tenant and pay down debt than it does to pay down debt (as proven by the formula x + y > x), unless you're postulating that quality of life is so improved by having the #4 sports league that the tax increase and loss of services is worth it. What I am saying is I have yet to hear about all of these government services shutting down and thousands of people losing their jobs solely based on a hockey team. http://www.azcentral.com/community/glendale/articles/2012/02/27/20120227glendale-residents-fear-more-cuts-library-service.html http://www.azcentral.com/members/Blog/westsideinsider/159640 I'm not sure if it was you or someone else Squeaks, but someone complained that the very title of the thread was an insult to the Coyotes and their fans. Well the title was taken directly from Phil Lieberman, a member of the Glendale City Council who wants out of this nonsense. You know, one of those elected leaders you're so fond of? He's the reason the thread has its name. I'm not telling the people of Glendale what their elected officials can and can't do. The state of Arizona is. http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/const/9/7.htm That same link was four posts above yours, on the same page by the way.

And yet, they managed to lose money. The team has not once turned a profit. It has lost money every year, even the first 5. An inconvenient fact, but still very much a fact. And that's why so many of us have finally come to the conclusion that the market cannot be saved. Even with a good team, even with playoff hockey, the facts have shown that the market is just not sustainable. Here's another link. http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=4616786 Anyhow elliot, Admiral covered most of it, so I'll just add a few things. Jamison's deal being illegal isn't me being biased. It's simply a statement of fact. There's something on the books in Arizona called the Arizona Gift Clause (check the link out, right from the Arizona state legislator's website) which makes it illegal for a city to subsidize a private business. Hulsizer's potential deal violated that law, which is why the Goldwater institute threatened to hold the sale up in court if it went through. Jamison's deal also violates that law, which means it will likewise be held up in court if it goes through. Like I said, this isn't me making biased statements. It's simply a statement of fact. Just like it's a statement of fact to say the team has never drawn a profit since moving to Arizona, that Glendale is ruining itself financially under the current arrangement with the NHL, and that it will continue to ruin itself financially under the deal with Jamison. That's not bias. That's just how it is. Well I guess there is. I'll echo what Sodboy said earlier. If someone buys the team with their own money and absorbs all of the team's debts I won't have a problem with the team staying in Glendale. So in that respect, yes there is hope. That could happen. It probably won't, but it could. Jamison's deal isn't that though. It's illegal, and it's bad for the city. Not exactly hopeful. This is one of the lamest strategies I've seen employed on this site. "Well how would you like it if it happened to you?!?!" I'm sorry. I cheer for a team that's dead centre of one of the most hockey crazed regions on the planet. A team that has a legal monopoly on that market. The Leafs are financially set 'til the end of time. To be perfectly honest that means I don't have to answer that question. So I guess the lesson is "don't root for teams that are in bankruptcy" if you don't want to deal with possible relocation.

The NHL wants to be in Seattle, but they don't have a rink. Or the prospect of one. Seattle will only build one if they can get an NBA team (a NHL team would be an afterthought) and it doesn't look like they're getting one.

I want neither. When you have a league engineering the fortunes of a team to determine where it will do business, that looks terrible. The way the Montreal Expos were gutted to facilitate their relocation as was galling as the way the Coyotes' brand of lowest-common-denominator hockey suddenly became good enough to overtake a previously finesse-oriented league. Anyone who's rooting for the Coyotes to keep stacking defenders in the slot and clogging the neutral zone waiting for turnovers because it's a "good story" is a "bad fan." It's really a fundamentally unwatchable brand of hockey they have going, but I suppose that's the way you win when you're being made to win without talent: just bring everyone else down to your level. Unless, of course, it's commonplace for elite teams to get doubled up in shots on goal on a regular basis. So you like the NBA model where you got 3 or 4 good teams that can win and the Washington Generals and a baked up schemed up final with the officals helping to get the biggest stars in the biggest games. Why does it have to be either? Can't we have parity without dragging down the quality of play? It seems rather counter-productive to promote poorly played hockey as something positive when the league is trying to promote itself to casual American fans.

Having the Commissioner move mountains to keep them in place and a municipality dumb enough to prostitute itself to go along helps out. So why don't you address the facts, eh? The team has never once drawn a profit, having flushed more then $400 million down the crapper since the moved to Arizona. Glendale is on the road to financial ruin, spending money they don't have to keep this team around. They've closed libraries to make the payments they promised the NHL. The deal Jamison has on the deal would not relieve the financial burden on the city. Jamison would still demand tens of millions a year from the city to cover the costs of operating the team. So first libraries. What else? What other essential civil services are worth cutting or scraping to keep a sports team around? Also, Jamison's deal violates Arizona state law. Now I'm asking you, can you actually address these concerns? Or are you just going to be a naive, blind-to-reality MOD EDIT about it? Super. Life's not a movie though. Winning it all doesn't solve everything. The financial situation, both of the team and the city they play (while sucking dry) is dire, and no one's offered up a deal to keep them in place that's actually legal. Your entire outlook on this topic is fuelled by sentimentality. Which is noble, I'll give you that. It's just not realistic. Not by a long shot. You're letting emotions cloud you to the very real problems that exist with this team in its current location.

Stop flinging poo and hate you Arizonan Canadian!

Please try to respond to the following facts as a sensible person, not as some bitter, angry fan who's still pissed that the Thrashers 1) left and 2) made more money in a small Canadian city then they did in the metropolis that is Atlanta. Jamison's proposed deal, aside from being illegal, requires the city of Glendale to continue subsidizing the team to the tune of $17 million a year. Money they do not currently have, and can only get by raising taxes and cutting civil services. How is this good for the city of Glendale? Libraries have already been closed. What's next? Cutting the fire department? Laying off teachers? Cutting funding to road repair? What happens when Glendale 1) finally wakes up and decides to stop pissing away cash on a private business or 2) finally hits rock bottom and simply can't pay? Then Jamison will have to eat the loses that come with owning the Coyotes himself. Once that happens I guarantee you he'll want nothing to do with your beloved Coyotes. Back to the illegal thing. This deal may not go through at all, as it violates Arizona state law. So aside from you, a Georgian, being ok with a city bankrupting itself to keep your special little team around, you have to deal with the fact that the offer on the table violates the law. So regardless of how good Jamison may be in turning teams around, it doesn't matter if the deal he's offering cannot legally happen. Call these statements "hate" and "poo" all you want. You know what they really are? Facts. Facts that, in the real world, have to be addressed sooner or later. A bankrupt city paying for a sports team it cannot afford. A financial black hole of a team that's never once drawn a profit. Oh, a deal to buy the team that's illegal. Also, it's more then just Canadians who want to see this joke of an organization move somewhere where they'd actually draw a profit. That much should be apparent. Get over the Jets hate already. Oh, that's golden.

But SPORTS! Arizona seems like a pretty conservative state all things considered, yet Glendale's on track to have one of the highest municipal tax rates in the country, simply to subsidize a failing private business. Steadfast political convictions go out the window when sports are involved. 'cause it's such a great story you know

Sorry, saying "Before anyone comes down on me for being naive or stupid" isn't going to stop me from calling you naive. Not stupid, you're not stupid. Just naive. Lets take a look at the bolded text. Glendale IS continuing down "its own self destructive path" with the Jamison deal. If Jamison's deal goes through (and it's a big if with it being illegal and all) the city's gifting him $92 million in operating expenses. I have to wonder how they can afford that without cutting additional civil services. Sorry, it's not a matter of if Glendale continues down the path of financial ruin. They've already proven they're willing to do so. Three times now, for three different potential owners. The offer that's on the table would guarantee they continue down that path. Now for the italicized text. That would be wonderful, wouldn't it? Thing is, that's not the offer that's on the table. Jamison wouldn't be in the best interests of the city financially and you bloody well know it. It's wonderful to imagine that a mysterious owner will come by, agree to buy the team outright with no cash from the city needed and take up all the team's debts. Thing is that scenario hasn't happened since this mess started in 2009. Ever offer to buy the team and keep them in Glendale would have required the city to continue paying out the a$$. Jamison's offer, the only current offer on the table, is a continuation of this trend. It's not "hopeful," even by your own biased assessment of the situation. The only offer to buy the team straight up and assume all debts was made by Jim Balsillie, who was willing to pay well above market value. The league shot it down, however, because he wanted to move them. The fact that no potential owner has stepped up with an offer to buy them outright and assume all debts while keeping them in Glendale is perhaps a sign that this team shouldn't be in its current location. Go sensible NHL. Go common sense. Go fiscal responsibility. Except that's never once happened. Three potential owners, and not one ever made that offer. The offer on the table you're so "hopeful" about requires continued subsidies from the city. Subsidies they cannot afford without cutting civil services. I don't know what part of the Greater Phoenix Metro area you're from, but if it's not Glendale then you're being incredibly selfish in wanting to see this team stick around. Glendale gets financially destroyed but you're happy because SPORTS! If you are from Glendale then you're being incredibly naive, because your home town's going to bankrupt itself just so you can still have your Coyotes.

Nope.