CS85 Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 Anyone know of where to find video from this? I'm having no luck. Quote Quote "You are nothing more than a small cancer on this message board. You are not entertaining, you are a complete joke." twitter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnus Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 So...if the city of Glendale is so insistent on keeping the team, why doesn't the city of Glendale just buy it? They wouldn't have to keep funneling money to private interests, at least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee. Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 I think we covered this a page or so back, but NO PUBLIC OWNERSHIP of a team. Quote Welcome to DrunjFlix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IceCap Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 Also cities aren't allowed to own sports teams, or any other private entity, in the state of Arizona. So that's a no-go on the NHL level and a no-go on the state level.I think you'll just have to accept that the Packers are a unique case at the pro level Magnus. Quote PotD 26/2/12 1/7/15 2020 BASS Spin the Wheel, Make the Deal Regular Season Champion 2021 BASS NFL Pick'em Regular Season Champion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 Hell, if the NFL had the ability to force a sale into private hands, they'd do that in a minute. Nobody wants public ownership of teams, least of all the NFL. We'll never see such an arrangement again. Quote The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STL FANATIC Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 If there's a ("major") league it would happen in, though, it'd be the NHL. But even in that rinky dink league, there's probably always going to be enough interested private parties (whether it's in their preferred market or not) to avoid such a situation. Quote JUSTIN STRIEBEL | PORTFOLIO | RESUME | CONTACT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Giant Pacific Octopus Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 The funny thing is, is that the Winnipeg Jets of the WHA were essientally publiclly owned. When they entered the NHL in 1979, the NHL wouldn't allow public ownership so the ownership had to be transferred to an investor. I think it was Barry Shankenrow. Quote The Catch of the Day! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rams80 Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 Also cities aren't allowed to own sports teams, or any other private entity, in the state of Arizona. So that's a no-go on the NHL level and a no-go on the state level.I think you'll just have to accept that the Packers are a unique case at the pro level Magnus.Besides, they'd be forced to divest or fold the team in 3 or so years when the inevitable municipal bankruptcy unfolds. 1 Quote On 8/1/2010 at 4:01 PM, winters in buffalo said: You manage to balance agitation with just enough salient points to keep things interesting. Kind of a low-rent DG_Now. On 1/2/2011 at 9:07 PM, Sodboy13 said: Today, we are all otaku. "The city of Peoria was once the site of the largest distillery in the world and later became the site for mass production of penicillin. So it is safe to assume that present-day Peorians are descended from syphilitic boozehounds."-Stephen Colbert POTD: February 15, 2010, June 20, 2010 The Glorious Bloom State Penguins (NCFAF) 2014: 2-9, 2015: 7-5 (L Pineapple Bowl), 2016: 1-0 (NCFAB) 2014-15: 10-8, 2015-16: 14-5 (SMC Champs, L 1st Round February Frenzy) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HedleyLamarr Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 So thinking about that out clause the new owners have (5 years or $50 million lost, whichever happens first)...Does the money that the NHL dishes out in revenue sharing count towards money 'earned' by the Coyotes? And didn't the NHL 'win' in a sense of maintaining who and how much the league can give towards the lower revenue teams?If so....any reason not to believe the NHL made some off-the-record, backdoor deal with Glendale about giving the Coyotes a hefty chunk of the shared revenue money to soften the blow (or, at least make up the difference between the $6 million Glendale budgeted and the $15 million the new owners wanted)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DG_ThenNowForever Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 So why aren't they called the Glendale Coyotes? That's the part I don't get. Quote 1 hour ago, ShutUpLutz! said: and the drunken doodoobags jumping off the tops of SUV's/vans/RV's onto tables because, oh yeah, they are drunken drug abusing doodoobags Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CS85 Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 So why aren't they called the Glendale Coyotes? That's the part I don't get. Quote Quote "You are nothing more than a small cancer on this message board. You are not entertaining, you are a complete joke." twitter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McCall Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 So why aren't they called the Glendale Coyotes? That's the part I don't get.If for some insane reason the Cubs DID move to a new park out in Rosemont, should they be renamed the Rosemont Cubs? Hell no. Now obviously the Cubs have much more history than the Coyotes, but it's the same basic situation; it's a suburb. Carries little-to-no marketing value. No offense to Glendale, but it's just a location within the market to place an arena. Much like Fremont would've been for the A's. Quote https://dribbble.com/MakaioCall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 So why aren't they called the Glendale Coyotes? That's the part I don't get.If for some insane reason the Cubs DID move to a new park out in Rosemont, should they be renamed the Rosemont Cubs? Hell no. Now obviously the Cubs have much more history than the Coyotes, but it's the same basic situation; it's a suburb. Carries little-to-no marketing value. No offense to Glendale, but it's just a location within the market to place an arena. Much like Fremont would've been for the A's.Not to speak for him, but I believe you're missing his point.The point is, why rename them to anything different if it's not Glendale? Does "Arizona Coyotes" help Glendale? I'd argue that the absolute only reason for this is to "get" or "spite" Phoenix, since there's no benefit. Phoenix is the metro area, and it's not like people in other parts of Arizona feel disenfranchised from clubs that use that local. On the flip side, marketing "Phoenix" does have a benefit to Glendale, since as more people are attracted to the Phoenix metro area, the more that will spill into Glendale. When the center of the metro area does well, the surrounding areas tend to do well also. I would argue that they're (in only a very small way - I'm not getting carried away here) shooting themselves in the foot with this move. It'd be one thing if they started out that way from the start with the state name, but to change it now is rather silly. Every area is a little different though, so while I am tempted to say that this is how I feel about all wide-spanning location names, it's certainly something that needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Quote "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DG_ThenNowForever Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 My point is that if Glendale's taking all the risk, Glendale should get the benefit. It's not like folks it Tuscon and other Arizona places all of a sudden like hockey now. Glendale's risking an awful lot for this hockey franchise in a way that Rosemont or Fremont probably (hopefully) wouldn't.To me, this is very much not about marketing -- the team's been there for a generation and people know it exists or they don't. It's recouping whatever value you can for a hefty investment. Quote 1 hour ago, ShutUpLutz! said: and the drunken doodoobags jumping off the tops of SUV's/vans/RV's onto tables because, oh yeah, they are drunken drug abusing doodoobags Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sodboy13 Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 Yes, but this entire, prolonged exercise has been about Glendale taking all of the risk while receiving none of the benefit. Why change that now? Quote On 1/25/2013 at 1:53 PM, 'Atom said: For all the bird de lis haters I think the bird de lis isnt supposed to be a pelican and a fleur de lis I think its just a fleur de lis with a pelicans head. Thats what it looks like to me. Also the flair around the tip of the beak is just flair that fleur de lis have sometimes source I am from NOLA. PotD: 10/19/07, 08/25/08, 07/22/10, 08/13/10, 04/15/11, 05/19/11, 01/02/12, and 01/05/12. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DG_ThenNowForever Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 Yes, but this entire, prolonged exercise has been about Glendale taking all of the risk while receiving none of the benefit. Why change that now?Touche. What a bunch of dummies. Quote 1 hour ago, ShutUpLutz! said: and the drunken doodoobags jumping off the tops of SUV's/vans/RV's onto tables because, oh yeah, they are drunken drug abusing doodoobags Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmic Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 My point is that if Glendale's taking all the risk, Glendale should get the benefit. It's not like folks it Tuscon and other Arizona places all of a sudden like hockey now. Glendale's risking an awful lot for this hockey franchise in a way that Rosemont or Fremont probably (hopefully) wouldn't.To me, this is very much not about marketing -- the team's been there for a generation and people know it exists or they don't. It's recouping whatever value you can for a hefty investment.They really kinda should be the Glendale Coyotes. The difference between this and the Cubs situation is that this is the Coyotes and that's the Cubs. What storied history is being thrown out the window? The city has basically put up enough money subsidizing losses over the years to buy the team outright (no, I'm not saying they could or should (and yes, I know that it was stupid of them)). That should get them something other than being suckered into another lousy deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted July 8, 2013 Author Share Posted July 8, 2013 The fundamental difference between Chicago/Rosemont and Phoenix/Glendale (besides the fact that Rosemont is run by organized crime, while Glendale is a form of disorganized crime), is that pretty much everyone in the tri-state area will identify with being from Chicago, whereas lots of people from big suburbs of Phoenix will utterly flip their crap if you use "from Phoenix" as a shorthand for "from Scottsdale" or "from Chandler" or "from creepy para-governmental Del Webb development" or whatever. To that end, it ends up being better to them to say "from Arizona," since most of the state's population is in the Phoenix metro anyway. Glendale, then, in their infinite wisdom, sees it as better to be from Not Phoenix than from Glendale. They really kinda should be the Glendale Coyotes. The difference between this and the Cubs situation is that this is the Coyotes and that's the Cubs.This reminds me of how LeBlanc said to the council as he was hitting them up for money, "look, I'm not buying the New York Yankees here." They'd better be your Yankees if you want them so badly. Jerk. Quote ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 OK, that explaination makes sense. Didn't realize that "not Phoenix" was a big selling factor. To the point about "Glendale Coyotes" though, I'd think that if non Phoexians(?) are turned off by references to Phoenix, non Glendaliens would be turned off by references to Glendale, and there's a lot more non Glendalians than there are non Phoetians. So the least limiting names in order would be Arizona > Phoenix > Arizona (but not Phoenix!) > Glendale Quote "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rams80 Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 The fundamental difference between Chicago/Rosemont and Phoenix/Glendale (besides the fact that Rosemont is run by organized crime, while Glendale is a form of disorganized crime), is that pretty much everyone in the tri-state area will identify with being from Chicago, whereas lots of people from big suburbs of Phoenix will utterly flip their crap if you use "from Phoenix" as a shorthand for "from Scottsdale" or "from Chandler" or "from creepy para-governmental Del Webb development" or whatever. To that end, it ends up being better to them to say "from Arizona," since most of the state's population is in the Phoenix metro anyway. Glendale, then, in their infinite wisdom, sees it as better to be from Not Phoenix than from Glendale.I guess if Phoenix is a monument to man's arrogance, the suburbs are monuments to man's hubris. At least something could be where Phoenix is without massive irrigation and air conditioning. What's the suburbs' story? Quote On 8/1/2010 at 4:01 PM, winters in buffalo said: You manage to balance agitation with just enough salient points to keep things interesting. Kind of a low-rent DG_Now. On 1/2/2011 at 9:07 PM, Sodboy13 said: Today, we are all otaku. "The city of Peoria was once the site of the largest distillery in the world and later became the site for mass production of penicillin. So it is safe to assume that present-day Peorians are descended from syphilitic boozehounds."-Stephen Colbert POTD: February 15, 2010, June 20, 2010 The Glorious Bloom State Penguins (NCFAF) 2014: 2-9, 2015: 7-5 (L Pineapple Bowl), 2016: 1-0 (NCFAB) 2014-15: 10-8, 2015-16: 14-5 (SMC Champs, L 1st Round February Frenzy) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.