Coyotes scouts kept on short leash

by James Mirtle on Jan 13, 2009 8:45 AM CST Comment 56 comments

The Phoenix Coyotes' losses this season are expected to hit $45-million (all currency U.S.) once their debt servicing is taken into account, according to two sources, and the club is making further cutbacks after layoffs last week.

Among the austerity measures pushed on the club by the NHL, which is monitoring the Coyotes' financial and player-personnel moves, is a reduction in travel by the club's scouts, according to sources.

— David Shoalts, The Globe and Mail

I know, I know — more awful news coming out of the desert. The Coyotes can't catch a PR break lately, and their fan base is understandably a bit testy.

As I've said already, I don't think the Coyotes are going anywhere in the short term. No one wants them, and even if they did, the team's lease is onerous enough to all but ensure they stay put, bleeding cash.

Besides, contraction seems incredibly unlikely in all but the most dire circumstances, and where on earth could they relocate to? Southern Ontario is quite likely the only underserved market in North America, and the Leafs will have a thing or two to say before a team lands in nearby Hamilton.

For an excellent look back at how the franchise, formerly the beloved Winnipeg Jets, ended up in Phoenix in the first place, The New York Times' Stu Hackel has the long and winding tale.

The NHL landing back in Winnipeg is a pipe dream, and not something many serious pundits are ever going to endorse. For one, the economics of the NHL have escalated so dramatically from where they were 13 years ago that it's completely unreasonable to assume that a city of 650,000 with a mediocre economy (and that is fighting like mad to keep its youngsters within the province) could ever compete even on the low end of the scale.

The building in Winnipeg is not big enough, there's no suitable owner and there are at least a half dozen better options between Southern Ontario and the U.S. In a league where you now need to generate at least $80-million to hit a break-even point, Winnipeg wouldn't have a hope.

Let's keep in mind that the Jets flew the white flag back when the average player salary was about $800,000, one-third of what we've seen this season. The city's population has remained stagnant, and its AHL franchise, the Moose, has seen its attendance numbers fall to 7,200 per game this season.

In a perfect world, the NHL would have stayed at 24 or 26 teams and built up a top-notch regional powerhouse, avoiding the sort of nightmare we could potentailly see unfold in markets like Phoenix, Atlanta, Nashville and Tampa Bay. As it stands, however, I bet this is a 30-team league for the next decade-plus, even if there is some shifting around to new markets.

All the recession's done is prevented them from going to 32.

0 recs | Comment 56 comments | Add comment |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Read More: winnipeg jets, Phoenix Coyotes

Comments

The last sentence was the most important. The league can’t wait to get to Kansas City and the Sprint Center’s very friendly building lease and either Las Vegas or somewhere else in Ontario. It’s more income and the easiest way to grow league revenues. Notice I didn’t say the smartest way.

by Brad Lee on Jan 13, 2009 9:07 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Yep, that’s one benefit of the recession! (Not that Bruckheimer doesn’t make charming films). Be nice if it forced them to maybe, you know, lower the price of attending a measly hockey game.

The Kansas City thing scares me: Handing a team to another questionable market just as a favor to (or sign of the undue influence) of Darth Anschutz? Grief.

Lighthouse Hockey: an SB Nation New York Islanders blog with hip issues.

by Dominik on Jan 13, 2009 2:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Reducing the scouting budget is a subtle disaster.

When Major League Baseball owned the Expos, they killed the scouting budget and that – more than anything else, perhaps – is why the team stunk and still stinks. It’s the difference between having good young talent that you can’t afford to keep once it becomes too expensive and never having that good young talent in the first place. It blows.

Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world

by J.P. on Jan 13, 2009 9:08 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

That was my reaction. Maybe they’re doing it carefully, shaving travel pennies wherever they can, but generally speaking, cutting scouting is a short-sighted move.

Lighthouse Hockey: an SB Nation New York Islanders blog with hip issues.

by Dominik on Jan 13, 2009 2:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

well

I can understand cutting the travel budget. The Sabres have been moving more and more of their scouting work to video without much discernible drop off yet. It might not be the beginning of the end but just a creative move to save some cash.

Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.

by PPP on Jan 13, 2009 2:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That’s a decent point.

by James Mirtle on Jan 13, 2009 2:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

hahaha

don’t stint on the praise boss ;)

Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.

by PPP on Jan 13, 2009 4:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree with James. That didn’t suck as much as usual. ;-)

by Gerald on Jan 13, 2009 4:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I wondered if that was the theory behind whatever cuts they’re making. The article doesn’t really say. I pictured the NHL handing them the Central Scouting rankings and saying, “Here, knock yourself out.” :)

It’ll be interesting to see if the Sabres model shows any drop off.

Lighthouse Hockey: an SB Nation New York Islanders blog with hip issues.

by Dominik on Jan 13, 2009 3:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

When the NHL

Simply gives them a membership to Hockeybuzz to work with then i’ll really start to worry. (e4)

Support Your Local Coyotes Blog! -
Five For Howling

by OdinMercer on Jan 13, 2009 5:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

James, I only wish you could convince your colleague Mr. Brunt of the above. I had a lengthy (6 or 7 turns each) email exchange with him yesterday, and I provided him with a variety of facts, figures and analysis that pretty clearly demonstrates that (a) the Coyotes have not lost even half of the alleged $30 million, (b) revenue sharing cannot go up to $15 million per year at current levels of NHL revenue, and © getting an advance on revenue to which the team is contractually entitled does not constitute “throwing the keys on the table”, as he put it in one of his emails.

Dave Shoalts is trying a little, and i see he at least has Brian Milner trying to help him, but his little series of articles are both seriously deficient and grossly misleading. I do note, by the way, that Shoalts has tweaked his story in a way that is probably imperceptible to the average reader but is nevertheless significant. He has changed his tune on the advanced monies such that it is not revenue sharing funds but an advance on the Coyotes’ share of league-wide revenues (TV, sponsorships, etc.).

by Gerald on Jan 13, 2009 9:20 AM CST reply actions 1 recs

Good on you Gerald

Everytime I tried to draft an email to him It just turned into some childish diatribe. Hence my blog vent. Thanks for at least attempting to set the record straight. Big ups!

Support Your Local Coyotes Blog! -
Five For Howling

by OdinMercer on Jan 13, 2009 9:26 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That was indeed quite the diatribe, FFH. Colbert kills me.

If you want some financial analysis demonstrating how it is impossible that the Coyotes have not lost more than $15 mil and how they can’t receive revenue sharing of $15 or $20 or $22 million, let me know and i will hook you up.

by Gerald on Jan 13, 2009 9:31 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

THat would be great.

If I could use it in an article about finances that would be awesome. Or if you Want to write something about it, since it sounds as though you know quite a bit more about it than I do that would be awesome too. If you want to email me, a link to my email is at the bottom of my blog. :)

Support Your Local Coyotes Blog! -
Five For Howling

by OdinMercer on Jan 13, 2009 9:38 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Email sent. Enjoy.

by Gerald on Jan 13, 2009 2:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The Solution Is Simple

A second Ontario team (one that plays in Hamilton but calls itself Ontario) and taking advantage of Seattle on the rebound are necessary moves for the NHL. After that, the number of northern US cities with the potential to support teams is high enough for there to be 6 other relocations. Quebec City has shown growth and has transformed into a fully bilingual city since the Nordiques left and may be a viable site at some point in the near future. There has always been muted talk of a second Detroit team, while I don’t think that’s a truly viable option it needs to be explored.

The NHL is doing itself a disservice by pretending everything is alright and focusing on Kansas City, Las Vegas and Toronto. The most immediate moves need to be made to Seattle, Southern Ontario and one of the large Great Lakes cities with no teams.

by Brodie on Jan 13, 2009 9:37 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

There has always been muted talk of a second Detroit team

This is the first I’ve heard of it. Detroit could never support a second team. Michigan is losing population, the economy is in the dumps. Only major cities like NY, LA, and Tor can support 2 teams

by detroitnick on Jan 13, 2009 11:18 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I’m surprised you’d not heard of it if you’re from Detroit. Bill Davidson owns the Pistons and also owned the Lightning at the time. There was a lot of talk in the Free Press and Detroit News about moving them north when the Lightning weren’t doing so well. The reasoning was all his other teams played at the Palace of Auburn Hills, except the Lightning. They have the facilities, as the IHL Vipers used to play there.

In the late mid-to-late ’90s, I would have said an area in Metro Detroit could have potentially supported a team, but not now, particularly in this economy. There are league rules against teams with such close proximity as far as I know.

by hallock on Jan 13, 2009 1:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I had heard rumblings, but nothing serious

Detroit is too much of a Red Wings town – rooting for an interloper would seem treasonous to a lot of fans, I think.

"A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature replaces it with." -- Tennessee Williams

by Baroque on Jan 13, 2009 5:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I’ve said it a million times, but Toronto could support two teams in a heartbeat. The only hold up is the Leafs.

by James Mirtle on Jan 13, 2009 1:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Winnipeg’s economy hasn’t been affected by the recession… mainly because we haven’t had an economic boom since the ’70s.

Winnipeg is a great place for hockey – but not for the NHL or AHL. If anything, I’d say ditch the Moose and bring in a WHL team.

Don't be afraid to take a few steps back, but you better keep moving forward.

by wlittle on Jan 13, 2009 9:52 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Seattle has no arena, politicians who are actively hostile to pro sports, and taxpayers who want nothing to do with footing the bill for a new arena. The window of opportunity for the NHL in the Pacific Northwest was 1998-2001 when Paul Allen was willing to backstop the Penguins in case of bankruptcy and later was rumored to be a buyer for the Coyotes before Ellman stepped in. Allen might have made a go of it in Portland: the arena was (is) NHL ready, the Winter Hawks were vying with Calgary for the best attendance in the WHL (their current attendance figures have dropped quite a bit), and Allen would have been an asset to the league as an owner, certainly better than the pikers and con artists Bettman has recently brought on board. But Allen has moved on (to the new MLS franchise in Seattle) and the in migration of Californians has changed the Pacific Northwest in ways that are not friendly to spectator sports. I agree with James that Winnipeg is a non-starter and that all parties in the league will do everything to stave off contraction, despite the babble on the most recent HNIC Hot Stove.

by Big Picture Guy on Jan 13, 2009 10:15 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Not to mention that the SuperSonics just left town…

Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.

by PPP on Jan 13, 2009 10:57 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I think Portland is still in play. They’ve been trying to lure the Florida Marlins, and still have the facilities at the Rose Garden. While I doubt Paul Allen would buy a team to move there at this point, there certainly is enough money in the region to bring a team to the Northwest. I’d also guess, just from my dealings with people in Portland, that there would be more interest there than most of the current markets.

by Brodie on Jan 13, 2009 8:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The chick in the early-70s orange Oilers jersey is the winner of this picture.

by Doogie2K on Jan 13, 2009 10:30 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Buffalo= crappy economy, no young people

As one of the few youngsters who’s sticking around Buffalo, its hard for me to swallow that a city that’s economic description sounds remarkably like my own hometown’s can’t hold a team. Clearly, Mirtle knows far more about this stuff than I do, so how come a crappy economy and no youth in Buffalo means a team that still sells to almost capacity every night but not in Winnipeg?

by annieb on Jan 13, 2009 12:16 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Because Winnipeg has twice the population of Buffalo… wait, that doesn’t make sense. I’m guessing it’s because of the lack of owner, arena and the Canadian dollar.

by twoeightnine on Jan 13, 2009 12:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

1) Buffalo has southern Ontario to draw from!

by Fauxrumors on Jan 13, 2009 12:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Bingo. I’ve heard that as many as 25 per cent of the Sabres’ season ticket base is Canadian.

Buffalo’s metro population is also almost double Winnipeg’s. There’s no “outlying areas” in Manitoba.

by James Mirtle on Jan 13, 2009 1:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes

While Buffalo is indeed as much of a hole as Winnipeg it has the benefit of being close to Southern Ontario.

Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.

by PPP on Jan 13, 2009 1:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I’d say Buffalo metro (including Niagara Falls/St. Catharines/Welland) is more than twice as large. There is one scenario where Winnipeg works, and that’s with the USD and CAD at par, because Winnipeg’s GDP/capita (~$35k) is higher than Buffalo’s ($23k). That scenario is unlikely, of course.

Incidentally, the NHL could have chosen any moment in time to institute a salary cap and revenue sharing to control costs. Had they done that in 1995, the NHL would have a couple of insolvent Canadian teams instead of a bunch of insolvent American teams. But let’s not forget how arbitrary the list of “viable” markets is beyond the 2nd Southern Ontario team.

by Hawerchuk on Jan 13, 2009 2:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

But let’s not forget how arbitrary the list of "viable" markets is beyond the 2nd Southern Ontario team.

Exactly. There really isn’t more than one other decent hockey market left.

by James Mirtle on Jan 13, 2009 2:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I believe the Sabres have said ten percent, James.

by Gerald on Jan 13, 2009 2:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

“The Sabres’ market extends beyond western New York into southern Ontario, traditionally the Toronto Maple Leafs’ domain. Fifteen percent of the Sabres’ season-ticket holders come from across the Niagara River in Canada.”

As per here, which was written in May, 2007. I’d love to have the numbers of smaller ticket packages, as it makes more sense for Canadians to go to a handful of games.

by James Mirtle on Jan 13, 2009 2:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

My bad. Twelve percent was the number I heard, as per http://sports.espn.go.com/chat/sportsnation/story?page=ultimatestandings07No1team . Also in 2007. Either way, though we are now both in the same ballpark.

by Gerald on Jan 13, 2009 3:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

expansion beyond sustainability doesn’t work in any economy [or ecology] (as if theyre independent from each other. HA!) but it takes thick skulls to learn the hard way – or not at all – in hockey and in “the real world.”

the fact that the economics of hockey are so bloated (i mean ’expanded’) and stupid that it alienates fans in culturally specific hockey areas (Winnipeg) is an absolute joke. the fact that these teams depend more on corporate sponsors (which all the fans end up buying their garbage products) is a laugh in itself. you cant sustain a sports team by coming out to the games alone – you have to also purchase high amounts of crappy products to overpay athletes and enjoy a simple game of stick and puck.

just like the first professional league in 1904, it literally “mined” mining towns and then collapsed. whats left to mine for the NHL in cities that don’t have a hockey culture other than dollars they dont want to give you? while losing 30 million dollars every year on the side. thats not a big sum or anything. maybe one of the local corporations in the Phoenix area can fit the bill. i bet theres some great local industry in the middle of miles of sand. please import water for drinking, lawns, golf courses and a hockey rink.

even that logic makes The Joker look sane.

by Savagist on Jan 13, 2009 12:27 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

You make a good point about the limits of growth, but one small thing: Phoenix does not lose $30 million per year. They lose half that, tops. For them to lose $30 million, their non-salary expenses would need to be ~$54 million, or nearly double what the average other NHL team spends.

by Gerald on Jan 13, 2009 12:53 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Or they pay a lot in interest on the purchase price of the team. Normally, we shouldn’t pay any attention to the financing costs when assessing the operational profitability of a team, no matter what GAAP says about where interest costs go on the income statement. Usually, they’re a decision about how to buy the team, and what’s going on is that the owner is taking advantage of the tax benefits of debt.

However, there are situations in which they matter a lot. If there is no ready purchaser. If the owner doesn’t have the ability to retire the debt under changed circumstances. Roughly speaking, if there is no ability to operate the team without paying the debt service, the interest costs become critically important to assessing the underlying health of the franchise.

Now, this would probably only be a concern in a situation where a lot of banks are on the edge of insolvency, there are problems in getting loans even for positive cash flow businesses, there are major retrenchments in consumer spending, and there is a shortage of obscenely rich people with cash to spend on a vanity business. So, we really don’t need to worry about this possibility at all.

by J. Michael Neal on Jan 13, 2009 1:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

With their debt at $80 million, their carrying costs on a secured loan (which universally carries lower rates) dating back to before the credit crunch would be $4-8 million tops. It certainly might be more going forward if it was renegotiated in November.

by Gerald on Jan 13, 2009 2:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Don’t they also have to pay the city for parking fees? Something ridiculous like $9-million?

by James Mirtle on Jan 13, 2009 1:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

According to Stu Hackel, it’s $2.70 per parking spot or about $900K and they are trying to recoup it.

Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.

by PPP on Jan 13, 2009 1:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes

But it’s actually only about 2 million. I remember that someone said most teams make about 10 million, off of parking so it was a big loss, but the actual payment to the city isn’t all that much. Well, 2 million, but still…

Support Your Local Coyotes Blog! -
Five For Howling

by OdinMercer on Jan 13, 2009 2:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Do you actually believe that expansion alienated fans in Winnipeg, Savagist? There was 26 teams in the NHL when the Jets relocated, hardly “overexpanded”. Moreover, the Jets also left before salaries exploded, and if one looks at the attendance history, it would be hard to argue that Winnipeg failed for any reason but one: The city is not a major league market.

I love visiting Winnipeg, and as far as minor league sports cities go, I would match it against any other in North America. But Winnipeg was not capable of generating enough revenue to be sustainable as an NHL franchise 15 years ago, and it is not today. There is a really odd romanticism surrounding the Jets that really does not exist with any other defunct franchise that I can think of, but that doesn’t mean the market is viable.

by Resolute on Jan 13, 2009 6:23 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs

Doesn’t that same romanticism exist with the Whalers too?

by Scrabbleship on Jan 13, 2009 8:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

There’d probably be more romanticism about the North Stars if the area didn’t get a new franchise five years later.

by Doogie2K on Jan 14, 2009 10:06 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I'll take that bet

James wrote: “I bet this is a 30-team league for the next decade-plus, even if there is some shifting around to new markets. All the recession’s done is prevented them from going to 32.”

We’re a lot closer to the beginning of this economic downturn than we are to the end.

Whether it’s $15 million or $30 million or $6 billion, if a company can’t service its debt in this environment, it’s dead. Sports, at best a money-laundering operation or real estate r@pe of helpless taxpayers, no longer makes sense from a business standpoint.

The closest thing we have to a sports league that exists in the real world of revenues and expenses is the CFL, with players making “ordinary Joe” money (for the most part), teams that rely on ticket sales, and a tiny TV deal.

The NHL is a Fantasy Land. It’s over.

by Dr Van Nostrum on Jan 13, 2009 2:08 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I’m not saying everyone stays where they are. They’ll just shuttle their problem teams off to other markets, even if the buyers pay a pittance to get them.

by James Mirtle on Jan 13, 2009 2:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Not true, IMO. Sports makes a ton of business sense as an arena play. The team and arena generate a ton of cash flow, and you get big time depreciation costs (which are a non-cash item) which reduce your tax bill tremendously.

I will agree that, if you don’t control your arena, it is extremely problematic.

by Gerald on Jan 13, 2009 2:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

If the team doesn’t actually buy the arena, what is there to depreciate? You can only depreciate from the original book value of an asset, and a building can’t be carried at greater than cost.

by J. Michael Neal on Jan 13, 2009 5:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

It is my understanding that player contracts can be depreciated. Yes, I know, it seems odd from an accounting perspective (players being both an expense and a capital asset?), but that is my understanding.

by Gerald on Jan 13, 2009 6:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

This only works for a limited time. Up to half of the value of a sports franchise at the time of purchase can be considered to be the basis of player contracts, and that can be depreciated over five years. It isn’t the amount of the player contracts, per se, that can be depreciated.

However, this has been limited somewhat, and isn’t terribly useful in many instances. For one thing, the depreciation is subject to the passive loss rules, so most of the partners can’t use it to offset anything but other passive income. The other is that the IRS has gotten a lot more active in auditing the value assigned to player contracts at the time of purchase.

by J. Michael Neal on Jan 13, 2009 9:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks, Michael. You sound like an accountant.

by Gerald on Jan 13, 2009 10:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

God, I hope so. I’m planning to sit for the CPA exams this spring.

by J. Michael Neal on Jan 14, 2009 11:44 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

New Venues

I’m not sure if this would be an advantage or a disadvantage to the NHL, but the NHL “problem teams” – Phoenix, Atlanta, Nashville – all have new, beautiful arenas. The teams in trouble in the other leagues all are in talks about relocation because of their old, outdated venues. I know teams like Pittsburgh threatened to move, and New York is in need of renovations or they might move, but it still seems like the theme at league headquarters is centered around teams that have great venues, unlike the other American leagues. Maybe I don’t pay enough attention to the other leagues financial/attendance issues, but this is what I’m noticing.
MLB – Florida, Tampa, Expos(moved to DC), Twins(new stadium 2010). NFL: San Diego, Oakland, Buffalo, New Orleans(pre Katrina). NBA: Seattle(moved to OKC), Sacramento.

by stadiumguru on Jan 13, 2009 5:49 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Well, the Vancouver Grizzlies played in a nice new arena and relocated anyway. The three problem teams you list have two big things in common: First, they all have sucked for nearly their entire existence, and second, there isn’t a lot of major hockey history in any of them aside from the Atlanta Flames.

Hockey is much more of a niche sport in the US than the other three big leagues are, so it does stand to reason that the NHL would have more difficulty finding suitable markets. However, there are still plenty left. Houston, Portland, Las Vegas, Kansas City, Southern Ontario. A lot of places to move to where the potential for big revenues exists.

by Resolute on Jan 13, 2009 6:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe I'm in living in a parallel universe

Regardless of how many dots on the U.S. map you can find, you still need an owner. Somebody to sign those cheques. And how do hockey teams get purchased? With maximum leverage, most of the time. Where is that financing coming from these days? It no longer exists.

Maybe if you’re buying the Washington Redskins. Or the Dallas Cowboys. Or the NY Yankess.

But in a world where even the Chicago Cubs are getting dumped off. Where otherwise profitable businesses are having trouble raising financing. Who’s lining up to lend the next nouveau millionaire $200M to buy a hockey team in the Sunbelt?

This city is full of rumours that Bear Mountain is for sale or has been sold. Except nobody’s buying real estate. So where does Len Barrie raise the cash to pay off the Vendor Take Back on the Lightning?

As for White Knight Balsillie, I don’t know how much of his personal wealth is tied up in RIM, but somebody oughtta turn on BNN because dude’s down a dime this year.

Darryl Katz in Edmonton? If Rexall Group is private, he’ll probably won’t go broke, but if the Oilers’ purchase wasn’t a real estate play I’ll eat Wednesday’s edition of the Globe and Mail and post the pictures online. Is it conceivably to anyone that Edmonton’s parasite class would even consider greenlighting a new downtown arena for the Oilers now? With oil <$40 and the hockey team nearer to last than first?

The Flames? Owned by oilmen?

The Canucks? An owner who fought off a lawsuit from a another guy who insisted he owned them. Does anybody know where his money comes from?

Coyotes? Owned by a guy whose trucking company is functionally insolvent?

Kings and Thrashers? Hockey teams that exist for the sole purpose of selling tickets to something on nights when the basketball team isn’t in town.

The Sabres. Can’t afford to pay scouts.

The Habs and Stars? Their owners blew their brains out on a soccer team. How long can their hockey teams remain immune from the spillover?

And on and on.

by Dr Van Nostrum on Jan 14, 2009 1:01 PM CST reply actions 0 recs