NHL Anti-Thread: Bad Business Decision Aggregator

[HedleyLamarr]

Many home teams (not sure about the NHL/city-funded Coyotes) offer hotel rooms that are walking distance from the arena for players that wish to take their mid-day naps on game days there instead of driving home after the morning skate. There were a couple times where I almost ran over Thrasher players that were crossing the street (albeit, at times when they weren't supposed to be crossing)...

The Thrashers (at least, before Bob Hartley took over) had their morning skate at the practice facility instead of at Philips Arena.

There are two hotels in the same parking lot as the arena, so I'm sure if they wanted to, they could make the accommodations to put them up there if they really wanted to. I guess it'd be interesting to also look into what teams do that and where the practice rink is located compared to the arena in relation to where the players lived. What was the Thrashers situation in that regard?

Ever since the Coyotes moved to Phoenix in the first place, the players have almost all lived in Scottsdale or at least that side of the Valley. I don't know why they didn't do this when the arena was build in Glendale in the first place if it was that much of an inconvenience or, as they players/coaches said, an advantage.

I know that moving the morning skate rink site is a small thing, but it brings back the point. I wonder if this whole mess would have ultimately been avoided if they built the arena in Scottsdale like they were originally supposed to. Closer to the players, coaches, management, "hockey-type" fans, downtown Phoenix, airport, etc. Or if it was just never going to work in the first place? Hypotheticals, I know, but it's interesting to at least throw around.

Most of the Thrashers players lived in Duluth (near the practice rink), with a few living in Buckhead (15 minutes from Philips Arena when there's little-to-no traffic).

[Still MIGHTY]

Unrelated to the Blue Jackets issue, but the Coyotes just signed a new AHL affiliation for five years.

In Portland, Maine.

In case you're not putting two and two together, Maine is a lot closer to Quebec than Arizona.

Perhaps I'm reading way to much into this, but back in the WHA days, the Nordiques had an affiliate in Maine (Lewiston, not Portland, but still).

Whatever, I'm probably just reading too much into this.

The Sharks affiliate is in Worchester, Massachusetts. The Kings affiliate is in Manchester, New Hampshire. The Ducks affiliate is in Syracuse, New York.

All of those are closer to Quebec than California, but I don't think the Quebecor boogeyman is hanging over San Jose, Los Angeles, or Anaheim.

Yeah, you're reading way too much into that. The Coyotes ended their affiliation with San Antonio, then the Panthers left Rochester for San Antonio, the Sabres left Portland for Rochester. Phoenix still needed an AHL team, and Portland was the only open spot. There's nothing there to read into... Unless you're Quebec and you really want a team back.

[IceCap]

Maybe there's nothing to read into, but there should be.

[SeaTac]

EDIT: Ugh, The Red Wings' attendance figures in the early '80s have no bearing on anything happening in 2011-12. The Coyotes' attendance figures in 2011-12 do. Additionally, don't mistake civic institutions such as the Red Wings and Blackhawks for real estate schemes like the Coyotes and Panthers. God, do we still have to be this remedial?

I was referring to the Blue Jackets not the Coyotes. Bad teams usually equal bad attendance. Sorry to offend you oh great admiral of the sportslogos.net

I know people that have been on here forever hate newcomers. Get over it.

[The_Admiral]

Actually, I like new people.

The point is that there's no sense in citing Detroit's bad attendance when the team blew goats and the Joe Louis was somehow even colder and alienating than it is today. I also wanted to pre-empt the sort of slack-jawed "well look at what happened in Pittsburgh and Chicago" analysis that always gets brought in to apologize for markets that are far less resilient.

Anyhoodles, the Jackets' spending spree is going to blow up in their face if they're going to come hat in hand to the government while being as expensively bad as they've been so far. "Maybe you could pay your rent if you didn't pay James Wisniewski like Nicklas Lidstrom," the teabaggers would say, if I had any confidence that they know who either of those people are, which I don't. At any rate, I have a tough time believing that Columbus's bailout of an allegedly necessary mixed-use real estate development will go uncontested while Glendale's bailout of an allegedly necessary mixed-use real estate development remains a complete disaster. I suppose it helps to use the local newspaper as your house organ, though. Sodboy saying that a bad year could kill the Jackets seemed hyperbolic at first, but now that I think about it, all it'll take will be a prolonged losing streak and a snag in the bailout procedure, and suddenly the vultures are circling.

[HedleyLamarr]

The point is that there's no sense in citing Detroit's bad attendance when the team blew goats and the Joe Louis was somehow even colder and alienating than it is today. I also wanted to pre-empt the sort of slack-jawed "well look at what happened in Pittsburgh and Chicago" analysis that always gets brought in to apologize for markets that are far less resilient.

Why is it that these older teams get a free pass while the newer markets are seemingly given a short leash?

It's tough for anyone to defend Phoenix because that seems to be a lost cause to everyone except the NHL. However, locations like Atlanta and Columbus (both of which have shown that they can fill seats and turn a profit) are quickly deemed as "not hockey towns" despite having similar problems to these established teams. Pittsburgh lucked (more like, the NHL rigged the 'random draft order') into getting Sidney Crosby, and Chicago got lucky in that their cheap owner died. Meanwhile, the Islanders haven't won crap in a generation (and have been arguably the worst NHL franchise the last 20 years), and they only get a pass because they won Cups 30 years ago. Buffalo, Ottawa, and Pittsburgh all had filed for bankruptcy within the past decade, yet still got a pass because they see snow on a regular basis.

Atlanta wasn't given much a chance (and no, 11 years is not a fair shake) to work out their issues, and it looks like the same is happening in Columbus. Neither team filed for bankruptcy, if memory serves me correctly.

To me, it sounds like traditional hockey fans get selective in their assessment of determining which cities can support hockey and which ones can't. Older teams are given a longer leash while the newer markets must shape up immediately or else move them.

[The_Admiral]

Why is it that these older teams get a free pass while the newer markets are seemingly given a short leash?

Well, my initial point was that it's blatant misdirection to point to problems the Red Wings had thirty years ago when they've been the best hockey organization in the world for the last twenty years.

My contention is merely that it's unfair to say that all other things being equal, every city is equally capable of sustained and fervent support. That's just the reality on the ground. Owing to not being a cultural institution and showing up late to the party, there's simply a lower threshold for what a lot of these expansion teams can be (and I would contend the same for baseball and basketball, too), such that it doesn't seem worth it to wait for them to reach that low threshold when players and owners have an urgent financial and competitive stake in leaguewide prosperity. When people say that because Chicago survived a ten-year dark age and came out with a championship and a successful organization, any marginal market can, it seems to me like they've got it totally backward: if backwaters can approach something resembling success, imagine what sleeping giants can do.

I don't want to wait to see what Phoenix or Columbus can be if it's better for the sport to know what Quebec City is now.

[mattwswfc]

Last night when the Phoenix Coyotes hosted the Los Angeles Kings, the attendance was 7,128. That's probably been inflated by the league though. I thought the Coyotes said they had record number of ST holders this year?

[IceCap]

The point is that there's no sense in citing Detroit's bad attendance when the team blew goats and the Joe Louis was somehow even colder and alienating than it is today. I also wanted to pre-empt the sort of slack-jawed "well look at what happened in Pittsburgh and Chicago" analysis that always gets brought in to apologize for markets that are far less resilient.

Why is it that these older teams get a free pass while the newer markets are seemingly given a short leash?

It's tough for anyone to defend Phoenix because that seems to be a lost cause to everyone except the NHL. However, locations like Atlanta and Columbus (both of which have shown that they can fill seats and turn a profit) are quickly deemed as "not hockey towns" despite having similar problems to these established teams. Pittsburgh lucked (more like, the NHL rigged the 'random draft order') into getting Sidney Crosby, and Chicago got lucky in that their cheap owner died. Meanwhile, the Islanders haven't won crap in a generation (and have been arguably the worst NHL franchise the last 20 years), and they only get a pass because they won Cups 30 years ago. Buffalo, Ottawa, and Pittsburgh all had filed for bankruptcy within the past decade, yet still got a pass because they see snow on a regular basis.

Atlanta wasn't given much a chance (and no, 11 years is not a fair shake) to work out their issues, and it looks like the same is happening in Columbus. Neither team filed for bankruptcy, if memory serves me correctly.

To me, it sounds like traditional hockey fans get selective in their assessment of determining which cities can support hockey and which ones can't. Older teams are given a longer leash while the newer markets must shape up immediately or else move them.

Well did the Red Wings, when they sucked and drew flies, losse over $400 million in 16 years? Did they ever ask the Detroit city government or Michigan state government for a bailout? No. That's the difference between markets like Phoenix & Columbus and markets like Chicago & Detroit. When the traditional teams suck long enough to the point that they draw flies they still have the economic stability to survive without losing obscene amounts of money or asking local governments for tax payer handouts. That's why fans in traditional markets are so critical of how things are being done in Columbus and Glendale.

As for Atlanta? No, perhaps they weren't given a fair shake. Rather then laying the blame at the feet of True North, Winnipeg, Canada, or "traditional hockey fans" though, blame Mr. Bettman and the NHL. You, me, and everyone else who's not part of the NHL's collective leadership knows that the team to go to True North and Winnipeg should have been Phoenix.

Your Thrashers got offered up as a sacrifice by the same people you were defending in those "should the Coyotes move?" discussions to save a Coyotes team that is beyond saving in its current location.

[Sport]

Just to be clear, the proposal in Columbus is not a "tax-payer bailout". They're using a small portion of the will-be tax revenue from the new casino to purchase the arena. Nobody will have to pay more taxes to buy the arena from Nationwide Insurance (so that the Blue Jackets aren't handcuffed by a lease twice as much as other teams pay). Nationwide is also investing 52 million of its own dollars into the team to become a 30% owner. Noone is going to pay an extra cent in taxes to "save the Blue Jackets".

They're decreasing the burden of the financial problems onset by the arena expenses towards the team and they're doing it without increasing taxes and without taking away the money previously earmarked for schools, fire, police etc. They'll all get theirs too. It's actually a pretty creative solution if you ask me and nobody is really hurt by it.

[Sodboy13]

Last night when the Phoenix Coyotes hosted the Los Angeles Kings, the attendance was 7,128. That's probably been inflated by the league though. I thought the Coyotes said they had record number of ST holders this year?

Last season, the Coyotes had a Thursday home game against the Kings in October and drew something like 6,400. Movin' on up!

[The_Admiral]

Just to be clear, the proposal in Columbus is not a "tax-payer bailout". They're using a small portion of the will-be tax revenue from the new casino to purchase the arena. Nobody will have to pay more taxes to buy the arena from Nationwide Insurance (so that the Blue Jackets aren't handcuffed by a lease twice as much as other teams pay). Nationwide is also investing 52 million of its own dollars into the team to become a 30% owner. Noone is going to pay an extra cent in taxes to "save the Blue Jackets".

They're decreasing the burden of the financial problems onset by the arena expenses towards the team and they're doing it without increasing taxes and without taking away the money previously earmarked for schools, fire, police etc. They'll all get theirs too. It's actually a pretty creative solution if you ask me and nobody is really hurt by it.

I dunno, "creative financing" has become kind of a euphemism for "bullsh-t," and not wrongly so. I mean, this isn't exactly the found money it's being made out to be, either. You can say that this isn't directly taking away from money earmarked for public services, but operating under the premise that government pretty much always runs a deficit, what happens if actual public services require additional funding while tax dollars have already been committed to buying a playplace for a sports team? What happens if the casino doesn't bring in the projected tax revenue? There are hidden costs and unintended consequences with everything once you start getting the government involved in sports facilities; none of this can ever be as cut and dried as "we took out a loan and paid it off" like Palace of Auburn Hills/United Center/TD Garden/etc.

Maybe this is just the simple cheapass midwesterner in me that can't comprehend what them there fancy number men in tall towers do.

[IceCap]

Well it can't be that bad if they aren't buying a parking lot from themselves.

[mattwswfc]

Last night when the Phoenix Coyotes hosted the Los Angeles Kings, the attendance was 7,128. That's probably been inflated by the league though. I thought the Coyotes said they had record number of ST holders this year?

Last season, the Coyotes had a Thursday home game against the Kings in October and drew something like 6,400. Movin' on up!

One of the biggest sport leagues in the world and one of it's teams is drawing less than 8,000.... Even some CJHL teams get more than 6,400.

[The_Admiral]

Well it can't be that bad if they aren't buying a parking lot from themselves.

It's a testament to just how long and winding this road has been that I stared at this post for like eight seconds thinking "what the hell does that even mean" before I remembered that Glendale tried to buy a parking lot from themselves. Creative financing!

[Gothamite]

Last night when the Phoenix Coyotes hosted the Los Angeles Kings, the attendance was 7,128. That's probably been inflated by the league though. I thought the Coyotes said they had record number of ST holders this year?

Last season, the Coyotes had a Thursday home game against the Kings in October and drew something like 6,400. Movin' on up!

One of the biggest sport leagues in the world and one of it's teams is drawing less than 8,000.... Even some CJHL teams get more than 6,400.

Ten years ago, we were watching to see when the Vermont Expos would draw more than the Montreal parent club.

Now, I guess we'll wait to see if the Portland Pirates can outdraw the Coyotes on any given night.

[mattwswfc]

Personally I hated the fact the Expos left Montreal, but bad attendance and ownership I guess were a problem for MLB.

Seems to be a trend with a few major leagues in North America, and that trend is try and keep a failing team in the US, but it's all too easy to let a Canadian team move south for examples Expos, Grizzlies, Nordiques and the original Jets.

Gary Bettman appeared in the mid-90's to help the Jets and Nordiques stay in their respective markets, but he just let things sort themselves out, and now with a team in exactly the same boat as their predecessors (except the arena problem), he is trying his damn well hardest to keep the Coyotes in Glendale, even if this requires losing millions of dollars.

After the Jets and Nordiques left he had to cover his tracks and make sure he didn't come off as 'anti-Canadian', teats when he set up a fund that would help the smaller Canadian of markets i.e. Ottawa, Edmonton & Calgary, because lest we forget that both the Flames and Oilers nearly left, but thankfully Bettman and the NHL came to their senses and sorted the problem out.

But now in 2011, we don't have that problem any more, the Canadian dollar is stronger than its US counterpart, the Canadian economy is on the rise and continuously the Canadian teams fill their arenas regular. Now this is the perfect time for the NHL to consider putting at least one other team in the Great White North!

[Still MIGHTY]

Now, I guess we'll wait to see if the Portland Pirates can outdraw the Coyotes on any given night.

Well, Portland drew 5,285 (out of a possible 6,733) against the Manchester Monarchs on Wednesday.

It's close.

[Still MIGHTY]

Here's a panorama of the Kings/Coyotes game yesterday:

Yeah, no way in hell is that 7,000 people

[Gothamite]

Wow. That's pathetic.