NHL Anti-Thread: Bad Business Decision Aggregator

[DaytonBlue]

I always have felt a little bad for fans in danger of losing their team, but after seeing that guy harass the "water guy" for exercising his right to gather petitions, pack em up and move em to Quebec!

[bosrs1]

Looks like Goldwater isn't the only opposition anymore. All 7 city council candidates in the upcoming election are also calling for the city to hold off on approving the final lease (and all 7 of them currently oppose the deal). So if Goldwater holds this up until November or more likely until 2013 since we're passed the November ballot initiative cutoff today, then the new council would may get to vote on it, and they won't be approving the deal.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2012/07/02/20120702glendale-council-candidates-ask-delay-phoenix-coyotes-deal.html

[RyanB06]

Looks like Goldwater isn't the only opposition anymore. All 7 city council candidates in the upcoming election are also calling for the city to hold off on approving the final lease (and all 7 of them currently oppose the deal). So if Goldwater holds this up until November or more likely until 2013 since we're passed the November ballot initiative cutoff today, then the new council would may get to vote on it, and they won't be approving the deal.

http://www.azcentral...yotes-deal.html

Which means we get at least one more year of this. Joy.

[Sodboy13]

Well, one more year of this has been inevitable ever since Bettman trotted out Greg Jamison as the latest stooge owner during the playoffs. But if the voters reject the tax hike, and they vote in a new council that cuts off the public funding pipeline, then one more year is all they get.

[bosrs1]

News gets better. The GWI folks have enough signatures to force the ballot measure. Turns out the city wasn't aware of their own rules when they said it was 1862 signatures that were needed. Turns out the "controlling election" for this ballot is the 2010 election in which 11,309 people voted in Glendale. So GWI only needed 1131 signatures, which they already have.

http://www.cbssports.com/nhl/blog/eye-on-hockey/19516772/reports-opposition-has-enough-signatures-for-coyotes-vote-could-team-be-folded

And on top of that the other referendum, to torpedo the tax hike that's funding this errant venture, also was turned in to the city with plenty of extra signatures and will all but certainly be on the fall ballot. Which means even if GWI somehow fails, the city may not have the funds to go forward with their little scheme.

Well, one more year of this has been inevitable ever since Bettman trotted out Greg Jamison as the latest stooge owner during the playoffs. But if the voters reject the tax hike, and they vote in a new council that cuts off the public funding pipeline, then one more year is all they get.

Is it already too late to relocate them?

[nash61]

Well, one more year of this has been inevitable ever since Bettman trotted out Greg Jamison as the latest stooge owner during the playoffs. But if the voters reject the tax hike, and they vote in a new council that cuts off the public funding pipeline, then one more year is all they get.

Is it already too late to relocate them?

Yes. I believe they would have had to been moved by the draft. IIRC, Winnipeg was cutting it close last year.

[Kevin W.]

Well, one more year of this has been inevitable ever since Bettman trotted out Greg Jamison as the latest stooge owner during the playoffs. But if the voters reject the tax hike, and they vote in a new council that cuts off the public funding pipeline, then one more year is all they get.

Is it already too late to relocate them?

Yes. I believe they would have had to been moved by the draft. IIRC, Winnipeg was cutting it close last year.

Yeah, the Thrashers' move to Winnipeg was officially announced on May 31st so I doubt any move to Quebec City is possible for the next season.

[DarkJourney]

Hopefully it's just one more season of a league owned Coyotes and then the club is sold and moved to Quebec City for the 2013-14 season. Two seasons at Colisee Pepsi and then move into the new barn.

[rams80]

News gets better. The GWI folks have enough signatures to force the ballot measure. Turns out the city wasn't aware of their own rules when they said it was 1862 signatures that were needed. Turns out the "controlling election" for this ballot is the 2010 election in which 11,309 people voted in Glendale. So GWI only needed 1131 signatures, which they already have.

http://www.cbssports.com/nhl/blog/eye-on-hockey/19516772/reports-opposition-has-enough-signatures-for-coyotes-vote-could-team-be-folded

And on top of that the other referendum, to torpedo the tax hike that's funding this errant venture, also was turned in to the city with plenty of extra signatures and will all but certainly be on the fall ballot. Which means even if GWI somehow fails, the city may not have the funds to go forward with their little scheme.

From the comments:

I would take hockey over libraries any day. I couldn't tell you the last time I went to a library. Can't you do/find everything on line that you can do in a library?

[cornettored]

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.

[Sodboy13]

Folding a team during CBA negotiations with the players' union is a great way to ensure we won't be watching NHL hockey for a long, long time.

[Gothamite]

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.

Does it really make the league more money?

On the one hand, we have a $200M expansion fee. On the other, a $60M relocation fee. But in this case, the NHL also pockets the purchase price of the team, which adds another $170M to the party.

So they could let les Quebequois buy the Coyotes (and move 'em) for somewhere around $230M, or they could go through all the trouble of folding the team, dispersing the players, re-working the schedule for an odd number of clubs, holding an expansion draft in two years, and after all that only collect $200M for a new franchise.

It says they'll try to collect the $200M from both Quebec City and Seattle, but that doesn't seem to work, either. Setting aside that such a plan still leaves the league with an odd number of teams, adding two new franchises doesn't do anything about leaving $30M on the table from the Coyotes; they could move that team to QC and expand to Seattle and maximize their revenues.

What am I missing? Or is this just another OITGDNHL moment?

[Sodboy13]

This whole thread, and the two preceding it, comprise one long piece of OITGDNHL performance art.

[bosrs1]

Frankly I think we need to get off the NHL's back. Not saying Phoneix hasn't been an ongoing trainwreck of epic proportions, but it's also not the only trainwreck in the big 4 right now. Looks at the disaster the Maloofs are making out of Sacramento? OITGDNBA?

[DarkJourney]

Look at the disaster the Maloofs are making out of Sacramento? OITGDNBA?

Born stooges. Gavin, George and Joe Maloof.

[ninersdd]

You know what? Maybe the NHL and NBA could arrange a deal where the Maloofs are owners of the Coyotes. After all, Phoenix is kinda close to Vegas. If they're in charge of them, I could see trades like Mike Smith and Ekman-Larsson to Chicago for say Jamal Mayers and a 7th round pick. Seriously though the Maloofs and this Coyotes situation are huge jokes and hopefully will end soon.

[Crash]

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.

Does it really make the league more money?

On the one hand, we have a $200M expansion fee. On the other, a $60M relocation fee. But in this case, the NHL also pockets the purchase price of the team, which adds another $170M to the party.

So they could let les Quebequois buy the Coyotes (and move 'em) for somewhere around $230M, or they could go through all the trouble of folding the team, dispersing the players, re-working the schedule for an odd number of clubs, holding an expansion draft in two years, and after all that only collect $200M for a new franchise.

It says they'll try to collect the $200M from both Quebec City and Seattle, but that doesn't seem to work, either. Setting aside that such a plan still leaves the league with an odd number of teams, adding two new franchises doesn't do anything about leaving $30M on the table from the Coyotes; they could move that team to QC and expand to Seattle and maximize their revenues.

What am I missing? Or is this just another OITGDNHL moment?

Not to mention that the only reason the selling price for the Coyotes has been so low is that they wanted someone to keep them in Glendale. If they open up the bidding with everyone knowing that relocation is acceptable, they will almost definitely get much more than the $170M.

[Gothamite]

Sure, every league has its share of stupid, arrogant, boneheaded owners. If course, in the NHL that stupid, arrogant, boneheaded owner happens to be the league itself, which makes them a special case. OITGDNHL.

[The_Admiral]

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?

[njmeadowlanders]

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.

Does it really make the league more money?

On the one hand, we have a $200M expansion fee. On the other, a $60M relocation fee. But in this case, the NHL also pockets the purchase price of the team, which adds another $170M to the party.

So they could let les Quebequois buy the Coyotes (and move 'em) for somewhere around $230M, or they could go through all the trouble of folding the team, dispersing the players, re-working the schedule for an odd number of clubs, holding an expansion draft in two years, and after all that only collect $200M for a new franchise.

It says they'll try to collect the $200M from both Quebec City and Seattle, but that doesn't seem to work, either. Setting aside that such a plan still leaves the league with an odd number of teams, adding two new franchises doesn't do anything about leaving $30M on the table from the Coyotes; they could move that team to QC and expand to Seattle and maximize their revenues.

What am I missing? Or is this just another OITGDNHL moment?

I think the "and" was to mean that QC and Seattle would be options, not that they'd collect $200M from EACH. It's one or the other, there won't be 31 teams.