The view from Phoenix: An interview with 12 News reporter Brahm Resnik (and why he thinks Reinsdorf will win)

I very seldom formally interview people in the media, especially for this site, but in this case I'll make an exception. For anyone who has been following the Phoenix Coyotes saga closely, news anchor and reporter with the NBC affiliate 12 News Brahm Resnik has been one of the best sources, on Twitter from the courtroom and online.
One of the key things that separates him from all of the other local media is that (a) he's a huge hockey fan and (b) he grew up in Montreal and graduated from McGill University before moving to the U.S. for graduate school and his journalism career. He also spent time living in Chicago and has followed White Sox owner Jerry Reinsdorf's dealings to an extent.
So, as someone who has lived and worked in the Phoenix area for about 10 years and covered bankruptcy proceedings many times over, he has a good handle on both sides of what's happening here.
The first thing I'll ask you is how long do you think there's been a problem with the Coyotes and how long have you been paying attention to this as as real business issue?
Resnik: When I moved here in 2000, almost from the very first day, we were paying attention to it. That's when you had Richard Burke who wanted to sell and Steve Ellman who apparently wanted to buy, and that for me was Day 1 on the Coyotes, the whole Ellman saga when they used Glendale to get a pretty nice deal on the arena.
I think the original sin here was Steve Ellman. I don't know how the NHL found him as an owner; his struggles to get financing were enormous, enormous, and even today if you talk to investment bankers, they still wonder how he did it and all kinds of questions about that. So this has been a struggle from Day 1 with this team. Pre-Jerry Moyes. This goes back almost 10 years, and I've been following it that long, and not just the team but the associated development (Westgate City Center) around the arena.
The arena is connected to Westgate, which is a struggling entertainment/retail complex next door. Westgate was the only reason that Steve Ellman wanted this team. He was using the arena to get the land there, as a way to pay for Westgate, essentially.
What a lot of people forget is that Steve Ellman put this team up for sale almost as soon as he moved into the arena.
Can you talk just a little bit more about Westgate — what is it exactly?
Resnik: All the land out there is former farmland, and it's really remarkable what they've build out there, a world-class football stadium, the arena, Westgate, shopping, retail. Westgate is an outdoor complex, mainly restaurants and bars, entertainment, because you always want entertainment near sports venues. There's a big movie theatre there, modest retail. They thought it was going to be a big retail centre but the problem is, when there are no games or concerts going on, there's nobody there. There's just nobody there. When there are some games going on, it's packed, and you really can't survive that way as a business. Several have failed. It's struggling, it's really struggling.
They also built a pretty nice hotel right next to there... Glendale again subsidized that. Out of desert farmland, you have what is a pretty spectacular location. It's spectacular to the eye, but if you looked at the books, you wouldn't be that impressed.
Is it a matter of Glendale just not being that bit of a city (about 250,000 residents)?
Resnik: The problem with Glendale is there's no there there. I think that's what someone once said about Oakland, California. Glendale was largely a modest, middle income to lower income bedroom community... they had this vision of building this sports complex, and pursued it very aggressively, but the problem is, again, it's like this island, this huge island in the middle of Glendale.
There are no office workers... there's nobody within miles, there's really no big concentration of workers within miles of that place which is why it's so tough to support when there aren't any games going on.
He obviously sold the team to Moyes, but is Ellman still involved at all?
Resnik: He has a seat at the table. He's very reclusive. I think I've spoken to him once in 10 years, he's very reclusive, but he has a seat at the table because he still owns Westgate and any solution, any concessions, any potential owner like a Reinsdorf is going to get, you have to go through Steve Ellman because he's got to be a part of that. Because of the financial stake he has in Westgate and the way it's tied into the Coyotes.
Here's one little irony: I still believe Jerry Moyes didn't really know what he was getting into with this. To the point that, it is the Coyotes that still pay the $1-million penalty for Westgate falling short of its sales tax revenue targets. The Coyotes are stuck with that.
And do they fall short?
Resnik: Every year.
What's the reception from the fans been like from your perspective?
Resnik: [Phoenix] is a very different place. It's a different kind of fan. Don't forget, pro sports is only about 40 years old in Phoenix, the Suns were the first team in '67 or so, the Cardinals are only 20 years old here, and if the NFL wasn't a type of socialist state where everybody shares revenues and a huge pot of TV money, it's very likely the Cardinals wouldn't have survived here given how inept their management was. But they managed to survive long enough to get the big free stadium and all kinds of goodies and they're raking in the dough now. But boy if they didn't have that NFL support, it's really hard to see how they could survive the first 20 years out here.
The Diamondbacks are only about 10 years old, and their CEO made a really good point when he said, "you know, it's a tough market because you don't have the father and the son, the families that grow up together watching teams, none of this has been passed on. The Coyotes are a first generation team that in effect has done nothing to sell themselves to the fan here. They've done everything wrong. It's a very different kind of market, there is no depth of hockey experience or knowledge, it's a baby market. People are taking baby steps into hockey.
However, we're also a front-runner market, and if they did well, I think they could fill the place up. If they had a charismatic player and a winner, people here love winners, and I think they would get on the bandwagon.
Watching this unfold in court, what's your opinion of Jim Balsillie and his quest to get a team?
Resnik: My opinion of Balsillie and all these guys, and this is shaped by my background [covering cases like this], these are all hard, tough businessmen who want what they want and they will do anything they can to get it. Period. Will they make mistakes, yes everyone's made mistakes here. But they will do what they think they need to to protect their interests and get what they want. ...
That's Jerry Reinsdorf and that's the way he's always dealt with anybody. When he threatened to take the Sox to Tampa Bay 20 years ago — he knows how to get what he wants. People ask me, is he going to walk away — why is he going to walk away? He's on the verge of getting a major professional sports team free. Why walk away from that? I think ultimately he wants it for his son, to get him into the game of sports ownership, but why's he going to walk away? He's put nothing down here.
Balsillie, same deal. He wants a hockey team in the most desperate kind of way. Did he make strategic mistakes? Yeah, probably.
Do you have any thoughts on how you think this is going to get resolved? It sounds like you think Reinsdorf is going to prevail here.
Resnik: All along, from my end, because of my business background, I've just been waiting to see what the creditors, what SOF was going to do, because they have an enormous amount of clout here. And last week you had SOF saying, in essence, giving Balsillie the thumbs up... and then suddenly, this week, we have a deal with Jerry Reinsdorf. So suddenly it's a 180 degree turn. And they count for a lot.
Will they vote for Reinsdorf, you know stick with him when it comes down to an auction, if there is one — I don't even know if we're going to get to an auction.
What would prevent that?
Resnik: My belief is the NHL will keep running the team. I've talked to a bankruptcy judge here about this... it's conceivable the NHL could appeal this. For example, if Balsillie does stay in the auction, the NHL may go ahead with an appeal right away. I'm not sure if an appeal will stop the auction but I don't think it will. I think the court will let it go ahead and deal with whatever issues afterward.
But I think at a minimum the NHL will end up funding this team for a year, if there is any kind of uncertainty involving appeals. Although I can also draw you a scenario in which the NHL appeals but Balsillie can still take the team. That scenario is out there.
What do you think the percentage chance that Balsillie could win the team in an auction? Do we know?
Resnik: I'm a bit wary of offering percentages with what's happened in the past week. A week ago, you could have said 50 per cent, today, would I say 25 per cent — I think so, but we don't know what's going to unfold in the next 20 days. The unsecured creditors still get nothing from Jerry Reinsdorf. It's not clear whether Reinsdorf has the financing, how he's getting the financing to pay SOF, because Reinsdorf is not putting a dime into this... Is it possible the NHL is helping pay SOF? What do you think?
It's possible.
Resnik: I think that's entirely possible. So, percentages? All I would say is today his chances of taking the team aren't as good as they were seven days ago.
The court will take into account the debtor — what the Coyotes say has a big impact on what the court does — what the NHL says, they have an impact, what SOF says, has an impact, and what the unsecured creditors say has an impact. And you can see them all going in different directions.
(We also talked here about Ice Edge's potential impact and some of the other uncertainties in the case. "Until you see the money, you just don't know," Resnik said.)
How does Glendale come out of this? What sort of concessions will they give up to Reinsdorf?
Resnik: Boy, Glendale is in such a pickle with this team. They need a team there. They're on the hook for more than half a billion dollars in bonds, that whole area, they need a team there, they need to keep generating tax revenue to support the bonds. It's a house of cards. You build a house of cards and you keep it up with tax revenues, so they must have a team there. They have to find a way to give — we saw what Reinsdorf wants, will he get that, I don't know — they have to find a way to give Reinsdorf or anybody tens of millions of dollars in cash over several years to ensure that this team can survive. The credit markets aren't going to give anybody any money, you're talking private money now... so Glendale must come up with money.
Phoenix is all about real estate and development, and Reinsdorf has a significant hand in some of the development going on around that arena. It's connected to the (White Sox') spring training ballpark up there which isn't too far away from the arena. Reinsdorf because of his ownership up there, they can offer him more than just help for the Coyotes, they can offer him more in non-cash dollars, special taxing districts for example, that was in the appendix, that include something called Main Street, which is the project that's right next door to his spring training ballpark. It's right next door to a big piece of land he has an option on. So they can offer him more than they can the (Ice Edge) group.
The bind Glendale is in — I can see the mayor pulling back from this whole big commitment to sports, she was never big on it in the first place years ago, she's been there 15 years. And then there was the Super Bowl and national media and wow everybody's here it's exciting, and today we're back to the reality, this is a huge, huge bet, and it's not paying off. She's been pulling back from it and laying down the markers, saying we're not going to give, this arena lease is going to stay the way it is, we're going to see the same amount of money from this lease under a new owner. Don't touch the lease. So the city manager has to find all kind of ways to funnel money to whoever the new owner's going to be, and that's still up in the air. And that's really going to be hard.
But, again, Reinsdorf has special advantages there. He also has special advantages given who his point man is, a guy named John Kaites, he's a unique guy to Glendale and [Kaites] considers himself a taxing district expert. He has been coaching Glendale for years on how to do a lot of this stuff. That is what gives Reinsdorf the advantage.

I know that's incredibly long, and I don't expect many to read the entire interview, but I do want to put out as much information as possible on this and allow others to sift through everything. (This was really only about 70 per cent of our conversation.)
My sincere thanks to Brahm for his insight and perhaps I'll touch base with him again as this case develops.
3 recs |
161 comments
| Add comment
|
Comments
Well, I for one read the entire piece. Some things are just too complicated to boil down to bullet points – no need to apologize because this is one of them.
I was unaware that Reinsdorf might not want the team fro himself, but for his son. Interesting.
"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle." -- Philo of Alexandria
by Baroque on Aug 13, 2009 2:09 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Excellent job
It was great to read the perspective of someone who has been following the team for almost a decade.
by Exit716 on Aug 13, 2009 2:12 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Agreed. This is some great insight that we just don’t get to see often enough.
by Resolute on Aug 13, 2009 2:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Terrific read. Brahm pulls no punches but I think this is the first time since this whole debacle began that a truly local Phoenix/Glendale point of view has been put out there. Kind of nice to read something that’s more in line with my own perspective as a STH for a change.
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on Aug 13, 2009 2:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Great interview
Interesting to hear him place the “original sin” on Ellman. (What a perfect metaphor for this!)
The Glendale bit is just sad, seeing a suburb getting in over its head: My best friend lives there (a transplant, no surprise) and I remember the feeling I got the first time I visited a few years ago. I was partly excited to check out a brand-new NHL arena, and partly dreading confirming the fears/reports I’d read about what the whole development actually was: An island.
From afar, at its conception the Burke/Ellman/Gretzky/Westgate scenario had that wishful “house of cards” smell to it — as if everything had to break just right, when instead everything has broken the wrong way. But it’s still a shame to see it turn out that way.
Lighthouse Hockey: Side effects may include Weight gain and frequent game loss.
by Dominik on Aug 13, 2009 2:35 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Gretzky...
Gretz seems to pick real winners in the business world, eh? First McNall, then these guys. I guess I should say first Peter Puck, then the rest.
by dcsj on Aug 14, 2009 12:18 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You’re forgetting his success with MVP.com!
The 2009-10 Colorado Avalanche: Aiming for the Charity Point
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Aug 14, 2009 9:46 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here’s one little irony: I still believe Jerry Moyes didn’t really know what he was getting into with this. To the point that, it is the Coyotes that still pay the $1-million penalty for Westgate falling short of its sales tax revenue targets. The Coyotes are stuck with that.
I can’t be the only one who had to read that twice, right? What a big damn mess.
http://sacrificethebody.blogspot.com/
Sacrifice the Body - Examining the NHL through statistical analysis, reasoned thought, and blind conjecture.
by IAmJoe on Aug 13, 2009 2:35 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
No, you’re not. I had to read it twice, too.
And is still sounds screwed-up as anything.
"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle." -- Philo of Alexandria
by Baroque on Aug 13, 2009 2:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Crazy. Remember Moyes’ quote at the beginning of this summer, something about “sort of fell into” owning a hockey team?
Lighthouse Hockey: Side effects may include Weight gain and frequent game loss.
by Dominik on Aug 13, 2009 3:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
There’s probably story on this somewhere in this saga, but how did Moyes get involved? My conspiracy theory hat wonders what role the NHL office played in bringing those parties together, and what types of “sales” the NHL did, if any.
Glen Sather is a Hockey Genius.
http://glensathersucks.com/
http://twitter.com/ThGeneralissimo
by poploser on Aug 13, 2009 5:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jerry Moyes is probably the wealthiest resident (or at least was the wealthiest resident, pre-Yotes) of the West Valley, which includes Glendale. He is a large charitable giver in the area. He is also close to the longtime mayor of Glendale. He is very connected to the place. What I have been told by several people is that he got involved as a favor to the mayor when it was apparent that Ellman could not carry the team. A small initial investment turned into ownership and huge losses.
by Brahm Resnik on Aug 13, 2009 10:21 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Hey, welcome to FTR!
http://sacrificethebody.blogspot.com/
Sacrifice the Body - Examining the NHL through statistical analysis, reasoned thought, and blind conjecture.
by IAmJoe on Aug 14, 2009 10:43 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That was a great read, gave us a better understanding of not only the situation in Glendale but also a peak into what Reinsdorf is actually offering.
by wlittle on Aug 13, 2009 2:45 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
Really good stuff from Mr. Resnik.
Thanks for doing the interview with James. This was enlightening.
P.S. Tell Johnny I loved Name
The 2009-10 Colorado Avalanche: Aiming for the Charity Point
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Aug 13, 2009 3:29 PM CDT reply actions 2 recs
P.S. Tell Johnny I loved Name
If the ’Yotes leave, will he sing “Westgate is dark tonight”?
by Robert Cleave on Aug 13, 2009 4:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow. +1.
I’m just glad I wasn’t the only one thinking “related to Johnny?”
by Afino on Aug 13, 2009 8:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Excellent post James. The only thing I’d like to hear more about is Brahm’s take on the Goldwater Institute-we hear about their potential to play the spoiler with regards to any deals Glendale cuts with Reinsdorf but I’m still not sure if they have anything to work with besides trying to sway public opinion.
by yrmom on Aug 13, 2009 3:29 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
So far Goldwater has racked up a victory in a state appeals court on the foundation for its germinating case against Glendale: that subsidies from government to private businesses violate the gift clause of the Arizona Constitution. The case involves a tax break the City of Phoenix gave a private developer to build a parking ramp at a high-end shopping center.
The Goldwater threat to a deal with a Coyotes buyer has to be taken seriously, if only because it could mean more expensive litigation and uncertainty. It would be ironic if a buyer asked Glendale, as part of the lease or other concessions, to assume the costs of all potential litigation and any legal remedy. Would that violate the gift clause?
But the courts have not had the final say yet on the gift clause. Still to come later in September are arguments before the state Supreme Court. What if the court ruled for the city of Phoenix? I wouldn’t be surprised to see the case go to the US Supreme Court.
by Brahm Resnik on Aug 13, 2009 10:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed, good interview. I’m tired of reading what Daly, Bettman, Basillie, Rodier, Reinsdorf, etc. have to say. Interesting to see another perspective.
Sad, though, (and I say this as someone who lives close enough to Phoenix to go watch the Flames play there once a year) that this is such a mess, and that even keeping the team there is likely a loss for both the locals and fans in Hamilton (or other hockey markets). There is no winner the way this has gone down. Man, I hate the way the NHL has operated for so long…
by maimster on Aug 13, 2009 3:30 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
The one positive for me out of all of this is that, from Brahm’s comments, it’s easier for you guys to see that the problems with the Coyotes aren’t necessarily that the market is unsuitable for hockey. Non-traditional, sure, but this perspective lets it be known that given similar circumstances it’d be hard for even a traditional hockey market to survive, much less prosper.
There certainly isn’t a lot left for us fans to defend, that’s for sure. So much of this mess is indefensible that it’s hardly worth the effort anymore.
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on Aug 13, 2009 3:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well.......
cheap tickets as consolation? Thats how it was for a few years going to the 75% empty hawks games.
twitter.com/kaner88
by Original Six on Aug 13, 2009 11:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Great Interview
Part that stood out for me is how Ellman worked the city for a free arena under the pretext of building a bloated retail/entertainment complex and then bailed on the Coyotes as soon as he had his concession-laden development built. And how the complex is a total, predictable failure.
Typical carpet-bagger taking taxpayers to the woodshed.
But of course, Charles Wang and the Lighthouse Project are TOTALLY different.
by garth the hoser on Aug 13, 2009 4:10 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Not Sure that Westgate is the total failure it's projected as here...
Certainly those restaurants are a lot more full when there is a game or a concert going on (despite having at least 8 fairly large restaurants, you will still have an hour wait at all of them an hour before opening face-off or showtime). But, I’ve been out there plenty of times when nothing is going on and it is not a deserted wasteland. It’s just as busy as any other restaurants during the week…there are a couple of smaller restaurants that are getting hit harder than the bigger establishments on those nights, but generally I think the retail/restaurant/movie theater area is doing fine even if it is not bringing in as much tax revenue as the City of Glendale wants (lest we forget that the City negotiated some sweet deals for themselves in these agreements)…
World Ph*cking Champs! That was fun - let's do it again...
by Moridin417 on Aug 13, 2009 4:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Have you counted the number of failed businesses there? The empty space in the offices? It’s struggling.
by Brahm Resnik on Aug 13, 2009 10:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
But of course, Charles Wang and the Lighthouse Project are TOTALLY different.
Was waiting for that, since it’s so easy to superficially call them the same.
Regardless of whether the LP is the right development idea, it is, in fact, completely different from Westgate in both financing (private financing, not half a billion in bonds on a small city) and location (a heavily populated county that has long sought redevelopment of its “hub” and actually requested proposals for itnot farmland at the edge of a populous).
You’d have to actually judge the LP based on its final negotiated form, after the long, open-to-the-public process takes its course.
Lighthouse Hockey: Side effects may include Weight gain and frequent game loss.
by Dominik on Aug 14, 2009 12:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
To add to this: Whereas Ellman apparently said, essentially, “Build me an arena, and I will develop shiny new tax-contributing businesses around it,” Wang is saying, “Let me develop your hub, and as part of it I will rebuild your arena and keep its main tenant there.”
Lighthouse Hockey: Side effects may include Weight gain and frequent game loss.
by Dominik on Aug 14, 2009 1:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was wondering about the financing – is that “private financing” fully private? Or is there some hidden cost that the county/town are going to have to pick up?
Glen Sather is a Hockey Genius.
http://glensathersucks.com/
http://twitter.com/ThGeneralissimo
by poploser on Aug 15, 2009 8:52 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
As of now, it’s the real “private.” Legislators were talking of applying for federal stimulus funds to improve the supporting infrastructure, but … don’t even know if it could be approved in time for that.
Lighthouse Hockey: Side effects may include Weight gain and frequent game loss.
by Dominik on Aug 17, 2009 11:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I still think that Glendale needs to be playing hardball on the lease. Sure, they need a team there, but they should be asking themselves how badly they need a team. There is obviously a point at which they are giving up so much that it eliminates all of their upside. They can’t promise Reinsdorf an infinite number of dollars and come out ahead. The question is, what number less than infinity is their break even point? I think that they’re already close to the point where a settlement that lets the team go elsewhere has more financial value than what they’ll be left with from the lease.
The $500 million that they owe on bonds is a sunk cost. That money is gone, and it’s pointless for Glendale to pursue a course with the intention of recouping it. That’s not going to happen. They really need to figure out what course going forward nets them the most, starting from a baseline of zero.
by J. Michael Neal on Aug 13, 2009 5:04 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Governments aren’t exactly known for paying heed to the sunk cost fallacy…
by MattF on Aug 13, 2009 5:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
When you sink other people’s money it is always hard to have perspective.
Out of curiosity, can Glendale declare bankruptcy? Is that option even available to communities in the US? Here in Japan we’ve had a number of small communities go into bankruptcy because of bad fiscal management and industry shut-downs…
by rsm on Aug 13, 2009 6:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes. Governments can declare bankruptcy. New York City almost did in the 1970s. Orange County, CA. did in 1994. A couple of small California towns did last year, as well as one in Alabama.
The problem, from Glendale’s perspective, is that its tax base is large enough to pay the debts, but may not be large enough to do much else. At least, that was my reading of their budget.
by J. Michael Neal on Aug 13, 2009 8:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The other thing I noticed in Mr. Resnik’s comments is that it seems that there is some disagreement between the mayor and the city manager as to how to proceed. How that affects things depends upon the city’s charter, as well as the personalities involved. If it comes down to a referendum, my idle speculation is that the mayor would be in a better position to mobilize public support, but who knows.
by J. Michael Neal on Aug 13, 2009 8:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sharp observation. It has become clear over the last several months, as the mayor has watched her city, the team it recruited, and the complex it built endure intense, unflattering scrutiny, that she is distancing her self from the dream of a sports mecca envisioned by her city manager, Ed Beasley. (And in retrospect, the rosy financial projections for the mecca aren’t looking too hot, either.) That might be making Beasley’s task even harder in finding the cash to help a buyer.
by Brahm Resnik on Aug 13, 2009 10:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It wasn't too long at all...
Great stuff, and if you want to put up the “Director’s Cut” version, have at it!
by bison on Aug 13, 2009 5:51 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
That interview certainly ranks very near the top of the “most informative things written about the Coyotes situation” list.
No need to apologize for length when you have quality. We don’t have to worry about column inches on the internet :)
All things Thrashers + stats: www.birdwatchersanonymous.com
by The Falconer on Aug 13, 2009 8:06 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
Exactly.
James, the feature article isn’t dead… print journalism may be a walking corpse, but good journalism is still much appreciated and valued.
One day, we will pay for premium articles like this (again). Enjoy it while you can, everyone.
by wlittle on Aug 13, 2009 9:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good post. Good to get another from the ground perspective (we’ve had many from the Phoenix fans as well).
The sudden change of heart of SOF has me wondering what strings the NHL has been pulling in the background. They’ve cooked up all the ownership deals in the past – including the not-so-successful ones so I would be hard-pressed to believe that they don’t have a strong hand in the behind the scenes negotiations.
by hockeycountry on Aug 13, 2009 8:24 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I would be interested in why Mr. Resnick thinks that “Reinsdorf is not putting a dime into this”.
Over and above the SOF matter, do people think that the team is NOT going to require operating capital, and significant amounts of it (for the first few years even in the rosiest of scenarios)? Where does Reinsdorf get that from – the operating capital fairy?
Similarly, I wonder why he feels he can make the (incorrect) assertion that “the unsecured creditors still get nothing from Reinsdorf”. That is false on the face of Reinsdorf’s own filed agreement.
That may seem like me being a stickler, but those are pretty key assertions and issues.
by Gerald on Aug 13, 2009 8:36 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Nice get, though, James. And thanks to Resnik for sharing his thoughts.
by Gerald on Aug 13, 2009 8:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Might Resnick have been referring to not putting a dime into purchasing the team? I mean Reinsdorf would have to provide operating capital no matter what the cost.
And we’d never take you for a stickler Gerald :)
by yrmom on Aug 13, 2009 9:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good points, Gerald. The lack of clarity and precision is my fault. I have to spoken to Jerry Reinsdorf once in my life. But my statement about his not wanting to put a dime into yes, purchasing the team (thank you yrmom) is based on interviews of several people with first-hand knowledge.
The team will need operating capital, and we don’t know where Reinsdorf is getting it from. Presumably. the formal applications in the next few days will tell us. But his demands for concessions would suggest a large chunk of that funding won’t be conventional financing. Is Glendale the operating capital fairy?
Finally, I will concede the point about unsecured creditors. But many large ones are not taken care of in his term sheet.
by Brahm Resnik on Aug 13, 2009 10:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Great read James. This post illustrates why I’ve made FTR the first thing I check when I get to the office.
Thank you also mr Resnik for taking the time to respond to the comments.
(thank you yrmom)
It’s admittedly early on a Friday morning, but something about having a respected source thank your mom made me giggle.
by Gusinabox on Aug 14, 2009 7:12 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hah, no kidding. Hey, if Brahm can give a 30 minute interview to a blogger, I guess he can tip his hat to yrmom. :-)
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on Aug 17, 2009 10:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have been reading your blog for quite some time, following you to this site to keep up. I created my account just so I can say “WOW!” That was a terrific read and completely enlightening— Glendale’s circumstances, Reinsdorf’s getting a team without putting any money into it, the players and motivations, the NHL likely going to finance the team for another year…
Thanks, James for taking the time and making the effort and really delving into this story by providing the other posts (the depositions) and the links.
by ontheboards on Aug 13, 2009 9:37 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
I would like to clarify my statement about NHL possibly financing the team for another year. I suggested that as only one of the possible outcomes of the bankruptcy auction — perhaps because of a delay in the auction, a bidder getting cold feet (could Goldwater put that kind of chill on the process? Not sure), or some other event. At this point, predicting an outcome is a very treacherous business.
by Brahm Resnik on Aug 13, 2009 11:03 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Without the in-depth knowledge or experience you (and others here) have, I think it is a strong possibility. Even if the Reinsdorf bid were to win, and all other challenges to that bid (whether by Balsillie, Moyes, Goldwater) go away overnight, I wouldn’t be surprised to see the NHL agreeing to help support initial operations. But no matter what happens in the upcoming auction process, there is likely to be further litigation – and during that period, I believe any decision on legal ownership of the team will be formally stayed. So the status quo will remain, and the NHL will continue to prop up the team during that time.
Glen Sather is a Hockey Genius.
http://glensathersucks.com/
http://twitter.com/ThGeneralissimo
by poploser on Aug 14, 2009 10:13 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thank you
Thank you to James for taking the time to call and interview me this morning. It was a real treat. And thanks to all of you for your thoughtful comments. You’re helping me think things through.
Brahm
by Brahm Resnik on Aug 13, 2009 11:10 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for answering his call, Brahm. Maybe now I’ll watch you instead of Kent Dana… :)
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on Aug 14, 2009 10:31 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not sure why anyone would be surprised that Ellman got in, then got out. Originally Burke needed something to change. Ellman steps in to help him with a new facility development plan envisioned at the old Los Arcos. Burke agrees, but later announces he’s getting out—period. Burke, however, allows Ellman to cobble together an ownership group which Ellman, in fact, does. And off Ellman goes to do what Ellman does. It wasn’t surprising in the least that, over time, Ellman would attempt to get out of the sports ownership business. I don’t believe the NHL ‘found’ Ellman, I believe Ellman ‘found’ Burke.
The Ellman move effectively extended the opportunity of giving our area longer for hockey to take root. Clearly, Moyes/Shumway were the wrong men for the job. And I have a hard time having much sympathy for guys ‘losing’ so much money but making bad financial decisions every step of the way. And I have a hard time not correlating financial events surrounding the team with Moyes main business interest which was also heading South. Hopefully we’ll find that JR, unlike Moyes/Shumway, actually knows what he’s doing and doesn’t pull garbage like supporting one of his businesses with another of his businesses at an above market cost and then crying foul in the loss department when he makes little to no effort to actually run the businesses soundly as a whole.
It would be nice to actually ice a winner that can be marketed to win new fans. Hockey is the most exciting sport on the planet to watch. When played well, it sells itself. I’d love to finally be able to bring my close, long time friends to games and getting them addicted because the product consistently matches the sports potential.
by R Junk on Aug 14, 2009 6:19 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
First of all, this was an excellent article and there have been some great reactions to it. Don’t ever apologize for giving hockey fans more than a few sound bites James.
Second, R Junk, I hear what you’re saying “hard time having sympathy…” but I would say this. While some of these guys were struck by greed and the idea of making an easy kill on the real estate house of cards that’s been identified, I do think that the league has some culpability here. They’ve known for a long time what’s been going on here and now that they’ve sucked the money out of another owner, they have no problem dropping him like a hot rock now they they’ve mined the well. That just bothers me.
Yes, Moyes made some mistakes, but he also tried to help out and that should not be taken so lightly. Maybe that’s his biggest (or at least 2nd biggest) blunder. And Bettman & Co. have no qualms about sucking hundreds of millions of dollars out of this in the name of a national US TV contract which remains illusory. That disgusts me.
by oilerdago on Aug 14, 2009 7:31 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m confused by what you repeatedly mentioned regarding the NHL getting money out of this franchise. As everybody north of Michigan is quick to point out, the league has been propping the team up financially for some time via revenue sharing and even out-of-pocket immediately before the lockout. When Moyes lost money, he didn’t lose it to the league, so I’m just wondering if you could clarify your comments.
As for the league knowing about the issues, which is likely true, do you honestly expect the league to stand in the way of a franchise acquiring a new facility due to the “house of cards” structure of the finances? When has that ever happened in any sport?
2008-2009 Colorado Avalanche: Dry Humping Mediocrity
by Mike @ MHH on Aug 14, 2009 10:07 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mike, by the NHL getting money I mean this. The league’s primary goal since Bettman became commissioner has been to grow revenues and drive up the value of the franchises by any means possible. They get revenues from franchise fee’s from the ownership, television revenues (national) and licensing.
I do think it’s a safe bet that Phoenix’s does not drive as much licensing revenue as others but still, it serves to bring a wider audience to the table (theoretically) and it has to pay a franchise fee (over $3 million annually according to the court documents). But it’s there to help make the case for a national tv contract in the US.
From an operations standpoint, more teams lose money (iirc the articles from Forbes) and most of these owners only make money upon selling the team. So the league has to keep bringing in new owners to keep driving values up for the owners in order for them to get their money back at some point. And it needs teams paying franchises fees and creating licensing demand in order to keep the game going as well.
So here, the league finds a sucker to prop up a franchise and sucks all the money out of this guy to keep the scheme going – just like the real estate house of cards that’s been played out in Florida, Arizona and Nevada.
While it costs the league some money now in the short-term (to prop it up), it’s a loan. They are a secured creditor and they’ll get that money back. Moyes though is considered by the league (and the courts) as unsecured. He stands to lose it all.
by oilerdago on Aug 14, 2009 11:38 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Thank you for the clarification on your point. I agree that keeping the league the size it is and in the markets currently occupied is an important cog in the ownership cycle for all of the franchises. Bankrupt franchises and teams that can’t find new owners hurt everybody’s bottom line.
My previous question still stands. One way I might have re-stated it is: Are you blaming the league for doing everything possible to insure the health of that bottom line for the other 29 owners? Are you advocating bad business from the league’s standpoint?
It appears from everything I’ve read on this issue (including this informative article) that Moyes fell into ownership for this particular franchise do to being the main creditor to the previous ownership group. He got shackles to a huge bet that the Glendale relocation/development would generate profit, which it didn’t. The article and subsequent comments also speculate that Moyes got involved initially through his connections with the city, not the league. While I agree that he is a sucker and a horrible businessman, why is that the league’s fault in this case?
Do you believe Reinsdorf is another in a long line of suckers?
2008-2009 Colorado Avalanche: Dry Humping Mediocrity
by Mike @ MHH on Aug 14, 2009 1:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mike, I’ll answer in reverse because I think it makes more sense that way.
Reindsdorf is shrewd. No money out-of-pocket, the city comes up with huge concessions and he gets breaks that help his other interests or else forget it. He knows how to manipulate the system. Something Moyes was not able to do (not as sharp a business man?).
Regarding the league – they came at a business solution to help all 30 franchises (revenue sharing) with the lockout. The problems in Phoenix though appear to be un-fixable without major cash giveaways by the city (well beyond what other franchises receive).
And yet the league continued to publically insist otherwise. Of course, they have no choice but to maintain the illusion of a viable business model, and to admit it does not work otherwise it would be an admission of failure that Bettman can not allow.
I agree with your conclusion on how Moyes fell into the ownership. It’s just my sense from reading things that the league wanted someone to come in and save them the embarrassment of having to publically admit the Phoenix experiment has not worked. Moyes comes in, stupidly (?) plays white knight until it bleeds him to death. He also (and it’s obvious from some of the other filings – ie. the airline) tried to use this business to help his other business’s (no surprise) but the problems get out of hand.
Maybe it’s better to say that he was taken advantage of. Be sure a fool and his money will soon be parted, but how can you make that much money in other business’s and be a total idiot?
by oilerdago on Aug 14, 2009 1:47 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
OK, it sounds like we agree on nearly everything, but I still am a little unclear on how you hold the league culpable for anything when all they did was:
1) Not get in the way of a horrible lease agreement for an owner of a team getting a new facility
2) Not expecting Moyes to know he was signing on for a horrible deal
3) Keeping the public face of the league sunshine and rainbows through the whole thing.
The league didn’t force Moyes, he stepped up, even if it was begrudgingly through other connections. The league didn’t force Ellman or Glendale to come up with or sign the craptastic lease agreement. Did you honestly expect the league to get in the way of a new arena, then a new owner, and then tell everybody what horrible business they were involved in?
2008-2009 Colorado Avalanche: Dry Humping Mediocrity
by Mike @ MHH on Aug 14, 2009 3:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The league seems to be ready to get in the way of one potential new owner now. And they seem more than willing back up another’s attempts to sweeten the deal with Glendale. Could they not have done this for Moyes?
I realize they fronted money to the team and were supposedly arranging for a new owner but this obviously wasn’t enough for Moyes to go along.
by yrmom on Aug 14, 2009 5:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The NHL was pretty obviously working hard before Moyes pulled the rug out from other them. I realize the NHL is not held in high regard here and I’m not going to defend them because they’re trying to block my team’s relocation – in fact, I’m very suspicious of their long-term plans – but let’s be frank. They had already taken over the bulk of financing for the team and were actively shopping the team for Moyes for at least a year before they got Reinsdorf on board. To say they came riding over the hill abruptly when it appeared there was a threat of relocation is inaccurate.
And I think it’s pretty damn obvious why they want to block Balsillie – hell, why ANY professional sports league would want to block a guy like Balsillie. Many, if not most, of the executives in pro sports are borderline or even actual crooks, but there’s a difference between a crook that plays by your rules (written and otherwise) and a crook that goes for your throat with a garrotte. Balsillie is the Virgil Sollozzo to Bettman’s Vito Corleone.
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on Aug 14, 2009 6:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You would know better than I, but even before Balsillie, there were rumblings about the future of the Coyotes in Phoenix. I do believe the league was working diligently on finding someone to help or take over from Moyes, but Balsillie’s power play certainly lit a fire under the league. It is, I’d bet, the only reason why Ice Edge even got a meeting. With Reinsdorf a little shaky at times, they needed a fall back plan, even if it was one that would still leave a bad taste in everyone’s mouth.
by Resolute on Aug 14, 2009 6:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, I don’t doubt that Balsillie significantly accelerated the process of the sale – but that’s what he’s done three times now. And if the Coyotes end up staying and Balsillie gets fully moved out of the process, I wouldn’t be surprised if he pops up in Tampa or Atlanta within a year.
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on Aug 14, 2009 7:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Great read
Great insights. Thanks to both of you for sharing the knowledge and perspectives gained over many years…
Other posters: please resume your intelligent and informed postings. My fan-boy moment has passed.
by worstbestteamevah on Aug 14, 2009 8:19 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Great read
I will also add my thanks. I prefer something informative and complete over a piece that’s quick and easy any day. Thanks to both James and Mr. Resnick (I don’t know why I feel like I get to call James “James” just because this is his blog, but I do, dammit) for taking the time to discuss and post this for our collective benefit.
One point relating to this statement:
Glendale is in such a pickle with this team. They need a team there. They’re on the hook for more than half a billion dollars in bonds, that whole area, they need a team there, they need to keep generating tax revenue to support the bonds.
I saw that Mr. Resnick read your earlier post about the potential that an empty rink might be preferable to a local bid, and that he commented on that – the part that is not very clear to my admittedly dense financial mind is how Reinsdorf taking over the team helps Glendale. I take it from Mr. Resnick’s comment to your earlier post that Reinsdorf gains additional political ability to encourage development around the ballpark area, which helps him out…but what is the cost/benefit to Glendale in encouraging more development (presumably at some at least initial cost to the municipality) in that area when they seem to be struggling to meet their debt obligations already? Does it make sense for Glendale to be taking on more debt at this time? On the face of it, that seems like a no-brainer losing proposition for the municipality.
I’m not trying to be a smart-ass; can anybody help me understand this part of it?
jrwendelman
The Artist Formerly Known as "Junior", who blogs at heroesinrehab.ca/blog
"But if someone so eager to engage into fist talk, we can always meet after season end in Minsk." (Mikhail Grabovski and a well-meaning but not particularly skillful translator)
by jrwendelman on Aug 14, 2009 8:31 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
….and I just realized I spelled Mr. Resnik’s name wrong. That’s what I get for trying to figure stuff out before having a cup of tea.
jrwendelman
The Artist Formerly Known as "Junior", who blogs at heroesinrehab.ca/blog
"But if someone so eager to engage into fist talk, we can always meet after season end in Minsk." (Mikhail Grabovski and a well-meaning but not particularly skillful translator)
by jrwendelman on Aug 14, 2009 8:35 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The advantage for Glendale, and I’m on the record saying that it isn’t enough of an advantage, is that the team stays in Glendale, and keeps paying the rent on the building, and the city keeps collecting the sales tax revenue on both concessions sold at the game and on the spending at the bars and restaurants before and after the games. I’m just coming to the conclusion that the present value of a settlement they’d get for the team breaking the lease and moving is greater than the present value of those revenue streams. This is particularly true given that one of the concessions Reinsdorf wants is that, if the losses continue, he can move the team five years from now, and the city can neither object nor collect any damages for breaking the lease. What that tells me is that he thinks that the losses over the next five years will be less than what he’d have to pay for breaking the lease now. Given what the losses for this team project to be, that is an indication that Glendale could collect a lot in damages. (Yes, the clause is that the city pays up to $15 million of the losses or the team can leave, but there’s no way the city can do the first of these.)
by J. Michael Neal on Aug 14, 2009 8:46 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Okay…so again, from Glendale’s perspective, what they get out of Reinsdorf taking over is “a chance to continue throwing good money after bad.” For the next five years, at which point it appears certain that the team leaves, they get no damages, and lose the revenue stream entirely . Right?
jrwendelman
The Artist Formerly Known as "Junior", who blogs at heroesinrehab.ca/blog
"But if someone so eager to engage into fist talk, we can always meet after season end in Minsk." (Mikhail Grabovski and a well-meaning but not particularly skillful translator)
by jrwendelman on Aug 14, 2009 8:57 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That’s an accurate assessment of my take, yes. Obviously, the city manager disagrees with me. However, I think that his ties with friends of Reinsdorf make him something other than objective.
by J. Michael Neal on Aug 14, 2009 9:32 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Got it. Thanks, JMN; just wanted to be sure I wasn’t reading the situation way wrong.
I wonder if Mr. Resnik disagrees and/or would care to comment?
jrwendelman
The Artist Formerly Known as "Junior", who blogs at heroesinrehab.ca/blog
"But if someone so eager to engage into fist talk, we can always meet after season end in Minsk." (Mikhail Grabovski and a well-meaning but not particularly skillful translator)
by jrwendelman on Aug 14, 2009 10:15 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
JMN is correct. To better understand what’s happening in Glendale, think of it as a legal Ponzi scheme. Before I go any further, I want to emphasize the word “legal” — other cities in AZ pursue similar strategies. It’s the basis for much of Arizona’s economy. Unfortunately, “legal Ponzi scheme” is the best description for what’s going on.
So. Gdale owes bond holders hundreds of millions. It must find new sources of revenue to keep paying off the debt. The city believes sports venues are the honey to attract the cash. The venues bring in hundreds of thousands of fans in a given year who also spend money as diners/shoppers/hotel guests — spending that is taxed by the city of Glendale and that is used to pay off the bond debt.
Subtract 41 game nights a year at Jobing.com and you lose, what, 400K fans minumum (est. 10K per game)? How do you pay off the bonds without them? How do you pay off the bonds if you can’t give fans more places to spend their money, because retailers and restaurants and hotels aren’t opening next to your new venues? How do you pay off the bonds if a new Coyotes buyer wants to skim some off the top to cover his potential losses?
by Brahm Resnik on Aug 14, 2009 1:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
…and sell more bonds to finance further such (unsustainable) development in the area of the ballpark?
This is a recipe for financial ruin for the municipality and its ratepayers, isn’t it? I guess my question is, isn’t it better at some point to swallow the financial loss caused by a poorly configured development plan? Isn’t this the equivalent of taking out a series of rotating payday loans? Eventually, the interest payments are going to overtake the taxpayers’ ability to pay (including whatever patrons can be enticed to the various venues financed in this way) and the whole shooting match goes bankrupt.
jrwendelman
The Artist Formerly Known as "Junior", who blogs at heroesinrehab.ca/blog
"But if someone so eager to engage into fist talk, we can always meet after season end in Minsk." (Mikhail Grabovski and a well-meaning but not particularly skillful translator)
by jrwendelman on Aug 14, 2009 2:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is it better to do that at some point? Absolutely. Do you want to be the guy who goes that route, and books the loss, or do you want to push it along a little bit farther, so the next guy has to be the one to throw in the towel?
This is why the idea of a sunk cost is so important. Contra rsm, it’s not just governments that need to learn this lesson. Corporations are at least as bad about it. No one likes to admit that previous decisions were bad.
by J. Michael Neal on Aug 14, 2009 3:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is why the idea of a sunk cost is so important. Contra rsm, it’s not just governments that need to learn this lesson. Corporations are at least as bad about it. No one likes to admit that previous decisions were bad.
Sports GMs, too!
Lighthouse Hockey: Side effects may include Weight gain and frequent game loss.
by Dominik on Aug 17, 2009 11:31 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Are the Glendale bond offering documents available for viewing anywhere? Would be interesting from a “disclosure” prospective what information was including relating to the team and the league.
Glen Sather is a Hockey Genius.
http://glensathersucks.com/
http://twitter.com/ThGeneralissimo
by poploser on Aug 15, 2009 8:56 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bond docs
Most interesting is Moody’s analysis and rating of of bonds. I’ve reported Moody’s has indicated it has concerns of about levels of indebtedness. It has not changed the city’s rating. And the language is typically bland — their “concern” isn’t necessarily an alarm, but in the understated world of municipal finance it does raise a red flag for me.
by Brahm Resnik on Aug 15, 2009 12:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not speaking to Glendale’s bonds specifically, but muni bonds is the next part of the finance world that I expect to get whacked really hard. This is particularly true in California, where the state balanced its budget, if you squint just right and don’t look at the details, by pulling back billions of dollars that would have gone to local governments. I think the ratings agencies are every bit ahead of the curve on munis as they were on mortgage bonds three years ago. They still haven’t done anything that should lead people to the idea that they’ve found a clue.
by J. Michael Neal on Aug 15, 2009 6:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
well i meant the original offering docs, but this would still be an interesting development. In many cases, the bond documents themselves involve penalties or other default-type provisions if the bond rating drops below a certain level.
Glen Sather is a Hockey Genius.
http://glensathersucks.com/
http://twitter.com/ThGeneralissimo
by poploser on Aug 16, 2009 10:34 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
..though i should add that I dont work in municipal bonds so I don’t know if that is common in those.
Glen Sather is a Hockey Genius.
http://glensathersucks.com/
http://twitter.com/ThGeneralissimo
by poploser on Aug 16, 2009 10:34 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Obviously, the city manager disagrees with me. However, I think that his ties with friends of Reinsdorf make him something other than objective.
Not sure how the city manager is appointed in Glendale, but I’ve run across quite a few U.S. municipalities that have elected mayor/councilmen, yet the entrenched, hired city manager pulls the levers of power and greases the network. Local politics is the loveliest, insider-scratchingest of them all.
Lighthouse Hockey: Side effects may include Weight gain and frequent game loss.
by Dominik on Aug 14, 2009 1:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
A delicious historical irony in all this is that the most famous proponent of the council/manager system in modern Arizona history was none other than Barry Goldwater. His first elected office was as a reform councilman who helped bring the council/manager system to Phoenix. Today an anti-tax, “good government” group bearing his name is fighting against corruption in that system in both Phoenix and Glendale.
by Big Picture Guy on Aug 14, 2009 1:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is a fairly typical exercise in America, in which people desperately want to remove the politics from their politics.
by J. Michael Neal on Aug 14, 2009 3:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
How Reinsdorf helps Glendale
I don’t think I fleshed that out well enough. Reinsdorf helps Glendale because Reinsdorf might be the only buyer whom Glendale can help with the kind of funky concessions (taxing district) we’ve read about. Plus Reinsdorf brings to the table his lobbyist John Kaites, who documents show is tight with Glendale’s city manager and understands how to structure a potential deal that takes advantage of a city’s taxing powers. Plus Kaites must surely know where all the sources of city money are.
by Brahm Resnik on Aug 14, 2009 2:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
…in other words, better to deal with the snake in the grass whose habits you know than one you’ve never dealt with before. :)
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on Aug 14, 2009 2:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Great read., James and Brahm. It’s very interesting to hear about the historical issues and some of the problems, rather than the typical “It’s so far away from Phoenix!” argument.
They thought it was going to be a big retail centre but the problem is, when there are no games or concerts going on, there’s nobody there. There’s just nobody there.
Brahm, has Glendale done anything to try to attract non-retail businesses to the area? It strikes me that if you want people to come, try to get businesses to set up office space. That will not only bring more people to the area, but gives more traffic to the retail space during times where events are not happening. Plus, if they bring corporate offices to the area, that may allow the Yotes to offer season ticket packages, set up sponsorship deals, and build up your corporate support base. I could be wrong but that could do a lot for the health of Westgate and Glendale.
The Coyotes are a first generation team that in effect has done nothing to sell themselves to the fan here. They’ve done everything wrong. It’s a very different kind of market, there is no depth of hockey experience or knowledge, it’s a baby market.
In my opinion, that’s a common theme with expansion teams. Nothing is done at the grassroots level to promote the game, and that’s something that I feel is a responsibility of ownership and the NHL. They don’t make baby steps into possible markets. They take one giant step, put a team there, host an All-Star game and just expect it to succeed. In my opinion, that’s not how it should be done.
by Bosc Ulrich on Aug 14, 2009 8:56 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I don’t know that nothing is being done, myself. Dallas, I know, has seen a relative explosion in hockey participation since the Stars arrived, and we are seeing a relatively significant number of kids from California and Arizona coming into the WHL the last few years. I would take that as a definite sign that hockey programs are growing in these areas, likely the direct result of the Coyotes, Ducks and Sharks joining the league in the 90s.
by Resolute on Aug 14, 2009 9:31 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I know I’m repeating myself, but one of the lessons of soccer is that a sport’s popularity at the youth level has little to do with its popularity as a spectator sport. While sponsering youth hockey can’t hurt, I’d be wary of pinning too many hopes on it.
by J. Michael Neal on Aug 14, 2009 9:38 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Absolutely. It is basically a logical fallacy. You need the grassroots to thrive, but having the grassroots does not guarantee that you will thrive.
The growth of youth hockey in these areas is a sign of potential. As Brahm noted, Phoenix is still a first generation NHL market. But the kid who took up hockey in Phoenix ten years ago because of the arrival of the Coyotes is potentially a customer today, and if he brings his own kids to the game ten years from now, is worth 2+ customers in the future. Problem is, the Coyotes are suffocating that potential fan today, crippling their own future.
by Resolute on Aug 14, 2009 6:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The problem with that is you are assuming that the kid will stay in Phoenix and support the Coyotes, and bring his own little spawn to the games later. In an increasingly mobile society, depending on his profession and where he goes to college and what relationship he develops later, he could live and work anywhere – and might still support the Coyotes morally from afar, or switch to a new team in his new home region, or if he is too distant from the sport stop supporting it entirely and switch his fandom to cricket or something if that is very common in his new home.
Grassroots support can help – but a lot of people grow out of being sports fans entirely as they get more involved in their career, family, other hobbies, and it is just easier to spend the time they used to spend on following sports in other things and begin to ignore the game they used to follow closely because they are too busy now.
"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle." -- Philo of Alexandria
by Baroque on Aug 14, 2009 10:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Resolute said “potentially”.
I don’t mean to speak for Resolute, but I think the basic idea behind what they’re saying is that kids playing hockey in Phoenix bodes better for the future of hockey there than does no kids playing hockey in Phoenix. No, it’s not a guarantee of success, but it’s a better sign than the alternative.
by dzuunmod on Aug 15, 2009 12:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess it’s just that I see very little connection between “playing sports as a kid” and “being a sports fan” in the people I know. I never played anything, have no desire to do so – and am a sports fan. My brothers and sisters who are the strongest fans were actually the ones who didn’t play anything. Neither of my parents really played any sports, and my mother is a stronger sports fan than my father – partly because she remembers watching sports with her father since she was the oldest and could fill him in on what happened in the baseball game when he came back from work. Among my family and friends, playing is completely irrelevant to being a sports fan – but often the connection of watching with someone they care about, either on television or in person, is more of a predictor.
It seems logical that someone who plays a sport would also love it enough to take their kids to games and become long-term supporters – but I wonder if the logic actually holds. Sports fandom is a hobby that seems very difficult to predict.
"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle." -- Philo of Alexandria
by Baroque on Aug 16, 2009 7:19 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s not so much that playing sports necessarily begets fandom, so much as fandom begetts playing in a certain percentage of the fandom. The soccer argument doesn’t hold because soccer costs almost nothing; hockey costs hundreds of dollars in equipment, insurance, and rink time. In a game like hockey, therefore, I think you can draw a pretty straight line from “number of youth players” to “number of their parents who are fans and likely to pass it on to their kids.”
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there)
by Doogie2K on Aug 16, 2009 9:55 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The soccer argument doesn’t hold because soccer costs almost nothing; hockey costs hundreds of dollars in equipment, insurance, and rink time. In a game like hockey, therefore, I think you can draw a pretty straight line from "number of youth players" to "number of their parents who are fans and likely to pass it on to their kids."
You can theorize that that’s the case, but I haven’t seen any evidence to support it. I have seen a sport where that doesn’t happen. There may be differences between soccer and hockey, but that’s more evidence than there is for the opposite argument.
by J. Michael Neal on Aug 16, 2009 5:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well said, baroque, if a little anecdotal. I have been saying that for years over on HFBoards. I believe that the “develop the grassroots” in terms of placing NLH hockey in certain markets ranks as one of the bigger myths out there (I was going to say “canard”, but I have used that one once this week).
by Gerald on Aug 16, 2009 12:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Canard though it may be, the grassroots hockey programs in Arizona were non-existent before the Coyotes got here. The Roadrunners weren’t doing squat to build hockey around here and the only ice rink around was in the bottom floor of Metrocenter Mall.
The Coyotes’ presence here has certainly established hockey as a legitimate sports option for kids. There are now championship-winning youth programs, high school and college programs, the PF Changs development league which has achieved nationwide acclaim for the quality of its graduates, and ice rinks in key locations around the Valley. That’s not bad after 12 years of absolutely awful NHL hockey in a market where ice’s existence is anecdotal, right? :)
Heck, the Coyotes even have a kid playing in the AHL who’s FROM Arizona in Dave Spina, who led the Rampage last year as one of the team’s most prolific scorers.
Now, if only our local sporting goods stores would start stocking with hockey gear…
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on Aug 16, 2009 2:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It is all well and good, zyllyx. I think though that the point is, unlike everyone on both sides of the debate (the Canadians who think that hockey is Canada’s birthright because “everyone” grew up playing it, and the Americans who think that you need an NHL team to get the kids to grow up playing it and become fans for the local team) is that no one has ever provided any evidence to demonstrate that hockey PLAYERS are the ones that go to the games at the NHL level.
Although I played hockey as a kid and younger man, I am of the view, along with Baroque (apparently) is that – contrary to the conventional wisdom – there is no correlation between people who go to games and people who played the game. Certainly no proven correlation, at least. Just an assumption that people like to cling to.
by Gerald on Aug 16, 2009 4:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That is roughly what I’m thinking, Gerald. Fans have a connection to a sport or they wouldn’t care enough to identify themselves as fans. It can come from playing it and enjoying the experience, but it can also come from watching games with parents and having pleasant memories associated with it, or going to games of their local minor league baseball team and getting an autograph and a baseball from the pitcher that is their favorite player because he’s lefthanded just like them, or just because they stumbled into being a fan of lacrosse because one of their classmates at Johns Hopkins was on the team, they went to games to support him, and got into watching the sport out of the personal connection with a college friend. Playing the game is only one of many ways to develop a personal connection with a sport, and I wonder if it isn’t a fairly minor one as most people aren’t all that athletic.
I would love to see such a study actually done of fans – it seems as though there are a lot of numbers regarding age and drinking habits and income levels and how much time they devote to fantasy sports, but I haven’t seen one that had simple questions about how someone became a fan in the first place and what was the most important determining factor. The answers would be pretty fuzzy, I should think, especially if someone was just a fan as long as they could remember, but it might still be better than nothing.
"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle." -- Philo of Alexandria
by Baroque on Aug 16, 2009 4:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
My point was not so much in getting more people to PLAY the game...
…than it was to get people to inject hockey into the local consciousness. The growth of the grassroots programs made hockey a legitimate destination for kids and their parents, sure – but it also introduces the friends of those kids and parents to hockey in Arizona. You and I both know that the phrase “hockey in Arizona” is akin to “sanity in politics” or “ethics in talk radio” in terms of believability; yet all claims to the contrary from up north hockey IS a growing sport in this state (keep in mind I’m referring to hockey in general, not just the NHL – a mistake many people who should know better seem to make).
There’s still an awful long way to go and the state of Arizona grassroots hockey is not nearly stable enough to survive a complete withdrawal of professional hockey, IMO. BUT – and this is important – nobody would have ever bothered with hockey at all if the NHL hadn’t put a franchise here. The Roadrunners certainly weren’t building a hockey culture here.
Now, do I believe it’s a smart move to put the cart before the horse, as it were, and dump an NHL team in a place with no prior demand? No. And I think had I been a fan of the game back in ‘97 when the Mutts slunk into town from Winnipeg I’d have been as incredulous as anyone else. Having said that, it’s a tough thing for me to see some actual gains for the sport around here and then see it all on the chopping block because a Canadian billionaire thinks his peeps deserve it more than we do.
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on Aug 16, 2009 5:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am much more easily persuaded that cause and effect do work in the other direction. Putting an NHL team in a non-traditional market could very well have an effect on the number of kids that play it. That’s particularly true if it’s a self-fulfilling thing through the NHL team actively supporting those leagues.
A statement’s truth value says nothing about the truth value of the converse.
by J. Michael Neal on Aug 16, 2009 5:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
And your point? You just described every sports fan in every market in at least North America, especially Detroit. Should we roll up the carpet in the Motor City because nobody who can afford a ticket to Red Wings games want to live, work, or raise children in Detroit?
2008-2009 Colorado Avalanche: Dry Humping Mediocrity
by Mike @ MHH on Aug 16, 2009 1:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
All I’m saying is that if the Coyotes are staking their future in Arizona on raising a generation of fans and their goal is to hang on for 10 or 15 or 20 years, that doesn’t seem to be a good business plan. People come to be fans of a sport for a lot of different reasons, and playing it or having parents who played is only one of many.
Grassroots hockey programs are wonderful for a lot of reasons – it’s always good for kids to have many options for recreation, it’s a good thing for them to be exposed to sports that they might not have thought of trying before, it’s a way for a team to knit itself into the fabric of the community in the same way that charitable foundations and personal appearances serve a similar function – but to count on it to eventually provide the cash-paying fans that a team needs to survive is pretty shaky.
The population of a region as it exists now is the most relevant situation in revenues for supporting a team. If that population as it stands does not support a team, then a team is in trouble – it may need to drastically change management and philosophy, it may need to look at how the budget is allocated, it may need to look at how the marketing is being done, or it may need to look at relocation – but to look at a situation and think, “we don’t have to do anything other than hunker down and survive for another decade, and then our season ticket holders will appear and save us,” which some teams have appeared to have as a strategy, doesn’t seem to be the best business decision. From what some are saying, that seems to be the opinion of all too many – and it irritates me to no end because it ties in with the same elitist attitude of some fans that unless you actually played the game, you can’t possibly be a “real fan,” no matter how much you pay attention to the game and how devoted you are to your chosen team or teams.
Supporting sports for kids is great – but it should be done for the benefits that are already demonstrated, not because at some point they might be paying fans since they played the game.
"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle." -- Philo of Alexandria
by Baroque on Aug 16, 2009 4:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree 100%. But your previous post was talking about people essentially fleeing Phoenix. Even if they weren’t hockey fans, this would hurt PHX’s bottom line due to a drop in population and therefore potential fans. If hockey fans left, they’d likely continue to support A team, but none of that ‘home-grown’ money would be coming the ‘Yotes’ way.
2008-2009 Colorado Avalanche: Dry Humping Mediocrity
by Mike @ MHH on Aug 17, 2009 1:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
And your point? You just described every sports fan in every market in at least North America, especially Detroit. Should we roll up the carpet in the Motor City because nobody who can afford a ticket to Red Wings games want to live, work, or raise children in Detroit?
Sounds good to me actually
The 2009-10 Colorado Avalanche: Aiming for the Charity Point
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Aug 17, 2009 9:07 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry, saying “nothing” was too strong. Not enough is probably a better phrase.
Texas already had a huge minor-pro hockey base and LA had the biggest star in the game in his prime. Those are two exceptional cases, IMO. Phoenix has the same star LA did, but as a coach, not a player. I think it’s different.
I don’t follow the W, but there are kids coming from Arizona? That’s promising, at least.
by Bosc Ulrich on Aug 14, 2009 9:39 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think there may have been one or two, but really not that many. California’s made a huge influx into the WHL though.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on Aug 17, 2009 10:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hell, Californian Jonathon Blum was CHL Defenceman of the Year last year.
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there)
by Doogie2K on Aug 18, 2009 7:59 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The market for office space is at least as bad as the market for retail space. Commercial real estate as a whole is now where residential real estate was about nine months ago. The wave of bankruptcies is just getting started, and any strategy that depends upon a demand for renters is in a world of hurt. If the local Phoenix commercial real estate market is anything like its residential market, it’s going to be years before it perks up again.
by J. Michael Neal on Aug 14, 2009 9:36 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Unfortunately correct. The problem with Westgate was that it was built ASSUMING that that area of Glendale was primed for a development explosion which, if you look at the commercial/residential trends from that point in time, looked very possible.
As Brahm has said, Westgate has really turned into a terrific “metroplex” after starting out as a hockey arena in the middle of a deserted cotton field. But the “if you build it, they will build” theory took a major blow with the recession and, while development is continuing around Westgate and in the adjoining areas, it is at a far slower pace (and at times is almost at a standstill).
The area really is a prime location for development but the money has to be there, and it isn’t. Longer term, if the economy rebounds then things could get back on track but right now what is out there right now is what you get.
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on Aug 14, 2009 10:37 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
zyllyx and JMN are correct. One thing I’d add: Cardinals boss Michael Bidwill’s interest in what Glendale does for a new buyer is intriguing. Bidwill is the most important man in Glendale. If the future light rail line to Glendale runs by the stadium/arena, thank Michael Bidwill. He has two attorneys keeping an eye on concessions for the Yotes.
His statements indicate he’s fighting for his fans who might be taxed to the hilt when they attend his team’s games. I take that at face value. Every sports owner today is feeling the effects of fans cutting back their spending.
But the Bidwill family is also a large landowner around the stadium with its own plans for an office high-rise and other commercial development in the area. (Are you seeing a theme here?) Those plans are on hold for all the obvious reasons. But I suspect Bidwill would want some of what a Coyotes owner might get.
by Brahm Resnik on Aug 14, 2009 2:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Light rail to Westgate? That would be HUGE. If they could do a mainline/express from Copper Square to Westgate, what a boon that would be.
It’s sad that nobody expected Phoenix to boom and sprawl like it did. A subway system like the one in Boston would really be a world-shrinker for Scottsdale, Mesa, Phoenix, and the other outlying cities. I remember living in Nashua, NH and commuting into Boston for Sox games on the T.
At any rate, it’s really hilarious how Bidwell has become this major figure in the West Valley after spending so many years as everyone’s favorite whipping boy. Of course, the example of the Cardinals should (SHOULD) give hope to Coyotes fans considering the absolute awfulness that has marked that franchise until the past couple of years.
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on Aug 14, 2009 2:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
A subway system like the one in Boston would really be a world-shrinker for Scottsdale, Mesa, Phoenix, and the other outlying cities.
A subway system would be a disastrous boondoggle for Phoenix. It is exactly the sprawl that makes it such. Subway systems require a level of population density that is unseen in the US outside of the northeast.
Even a light rail system is problematic. The list of systems that have been successful is a lot shorter than the list of those that have been a failure. In regards to this case, I think the latter is a lot more likely than the former. As a general rule, there has to already be something that draws a lot of traffic at each end of the line in order to make it work; rail doesn’t jump start development. The Hiawatha line here in Minneapolis has been great, because it connects downtown Minneapolis with the airport and the Really Big Mall, both of which drew thousands of people every day long before the rail line was built.
A light rail line designed around a sports complex that has events, including concerts, maybe 100-150 nights a year isn’t going to work. It’s going to cost a lot to build, and it isn’t going to generate traffic on those other nights, or at all during the day. It’s a horrible idea for pretty much everyone except Michael Bidwell.
by J. Michael Neal on Aug 14, 2009 3:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
A rail line to Glendale/Peoria that connected to Copper Square and linked up to Sky Harbor would see a lot of use. If it happened to pass by Westgate, so much the better.
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on Aug 14, 2009 6:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That’s the same argument we have against mass trans here in OKC. The city is just too spread out with multiple business districts. While a light rail or similar would be convenient to some, it wouldn’t be to the many that are required for such a system to pay for itself and be successful.
2008-2009 Colorado Avalanche: Dry Humping Mediocrity
by Mike @ MHH on Aug 16, 2009 1:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with this in principle, however the Rockies, Avs, Nuggets, and Broncos have been instrumental to the success of the light rail in Denver.
For the most part it succeeds cost-wise because people go downtown for work, and it clearly makes most of its money that way, but it was the accessibility to sports events that won it the public support. I think it’s almost necessary to have both, because even if it’s financially successful without public support it will fail as well.
The 2009-10 Colorado Avalanche: Aiming for the Charity Point
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Aug 17, 2009 9:12 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bram, are there any areas in the Westdale area zoned for residential use, or are there currently residential developments in place or underway?
by Gerald on Aug 14, 2009 8:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
There are blocks of condos on site at Westgate – and I know that there was additional land zoned for residential use but I’m not sure whether that has changed over time.
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on Aug 14, 2009 10:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
There is a complex of formerly way overpriced condos right next to the Jobing.com arena parking lot. Many of those condos are now being rented because they didn’t sell. (Would you pay 300K to live at street level next door to a hockey arena?) There are homes less than half a mile away from Westgate. But there is no concentration of office workers there from 7am-6pm.
by Brahm Resnik on Aug 15, 2009 12:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, but I was thinking that, if there are residential-zoned areas, a light rail system is a more feasible infrastructure investment than simply a light rail system to an arena and retail area.
by Gerald on Aug 15, 2009 10:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
maybe if it was MSG ;)
Glen Sather is a Hockey Genius.
http://glensathersucks.com/
http://twitter.com/ThGeneralissimo
by poploser on Aug 16, 2009 10:35 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Or the Bell Centre, or the ACC… or probably most other arena that’s right downtown in the ‘hip’ part of its city =)
by Habs on Aug 16, 2009 11:48 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would love to know what the NHL’s “due diligence” was during this move, and other expansions and team moves. I am not confident, based on its history of investigating potential owners, that it has a well-reasoned and consistently implemented policy for determining potential growth markets.
Glen Sather is a Hockey Genius.
http://glensathersucks.com/
http://twitter.com/ThGeneralissimo
by poploser on Aug 14, 2009 10:25 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Great stuff James
What I get out of this is that as I suspected, the team is basically irrelevant. People use the team as a sidebar to obtain their own interests. Whether it’s tax income, an anchor to draw people to your retail/entertainment complex, a way of drawing your offspring into the family business, a free arena to house your Dire Straights concerts… every single person who’s even toyed with the idea of buying into the Coyotes for the last decade hasn’t done it because they wanted the team itself.
They all just want access to the accoutrements associated with it.
Resnik put it best: “[Reinsdorf]’s on the verge of getting a major professional sports team free. Why walk away from that?”
This is the NHL’s White Knight? Apparently the league’s business model is such that giving a team nobody wants that plays in an empty building to some dude for free will make everyone rich in the long run.
What an absolute joke.
by pevans on Aug 14, 2009 10:04 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I’d still contend (from the leagues point of view) that perhaps that is a better scenario than giving a cash cow to an owner nobody wants in the club.
2008-2009 Colorado Avalanche: Dry Humping Mediocrity
by Mike @ MHH on Aug 14, 2009 10:12 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Welcome to modern day sports.
Glen Sather is a Hockey Genius.
http://glensathersucks.com/
http://twitter.com/ThGeneralissimo
by poploser on Aug 14, 2009 10:20 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yep, pretty much. The only people who seem to care about the TEAM are the hard-core fans and STH like me. Certainly, very few other people have much to invest in – casual fans have no desire to spend money on a perennial loser, investors see massive debt and stay away, and the league only wants to protect its decision-making ability.
The more I hear about Reinsdorf, the less I like the idea of him being involved in the team. If it weren’t for Balsillie and Rodier and their tactics, as well as the probability that the Coyotes are our only shot at a Phoenix NHL franchise in my lifetime, I would probably not care if the team moved somewhere else. It certainly seems like the least painful option given the circumstances.
I kind of wish I had become a hockey fan when I was in Boston, though, so I didn’t have so much sweat equity built up in this epic fail of a franchise.
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on Aug 14, 2009 10:43 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Being suspicious of Jerry Reinsdorf is always a good idea. I confess that, in the same way that I suspect that Gerald’s commentary is biased by a pre-existing dislike of Jim Ballsillie (which is well justified), mine may be biased by a long standing dislike of Reinsdorf. This goes back two decades or more, to his shenanigans extorting a stadium from the city of Chicago, as well as his shameless backing of labor relations efforts by MLB that were held to be illegal on multiple fronts.
Reinsdorf is a snake, but that’s an insult to most species of suborder Serpentes.
by J. Michael Neal on Aug 14, 2009 11:01 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
The thing I remember about Reinsdorf prior to all of this was a big stink regarding the Bulls and Michael Jordan. I don’t recall the specifics but it really wasn’t pretty IIRC.
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on Aug 14, 2009 12:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
One point of clarification...
Reinsdorf extorted a Stadium from the State of Illinois, not the City.
by bison on Aug 14, 2009 12:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was not pre-disposed to like/dislike him. I have never met him. I have simply been evaluating him as a businessman and as a potential partner (putting myself in the shoes of the NHL). That is JB’s only relevance to any hockey blog discussion.
by Gerald on Aug 14, 2009 8:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dire Straits hasn’t been around since 1993, but there is a new Mark Knopfler album coming out next month.
by J. Michael Neal on Aug 14, 2009 11:02 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here the sad part for fans: For all of the team’s existence in PHX, the team has never had an owner — Burke/Ellman/Moyes — who wanted to own a hockey team. How big a difference does that make in a team’s chances of success?
by Brahm Resnik on Aug 14, 2009 2:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Context is a very rare commodity in this situation – which is why I read James’ blog instead of almost anything else on the subject. For all the talk of the “failed Phoenix experiment” and “lousy hockey market” and so forth, the upshot is that with everything that has happened in and around this franchise since it moved from Winnipeg, it would have taken success of miraculous proportions on the ice for it not to fail.
Jerry Colangelo is a polarizing figure in AZ sports because of how he front-loaded the Diamondbacks to win the World Series. People bitch about this now because of deferred salaries and the like – yet had Jerry not built to win in the first three or four years of the franchise’s existence, how popular would the team be right now? We might be talking about Chase Field becoming an airplane storage hangar at this point had the D’Backs been as bad – and poorly-managed – as the Coyotes. As it is, the way the D’Backs keep tripping over themselves lately on and off the field it’s a good thing the team got entrenched early in its existence.
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on Aug 14, 2009 2:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
A view from Phoenix
We are all forgetting the principles of bankruptcy law. A bankruptcy auction can sell no more than the debtor owns. The debtor here owns a franchise in the NHL. It is a contractual right. The franchise agreement has certain provisions about how a team may be moved. The buyer at auction buys the franchise agreement; however, he buys the movement regulations and the CBA along with the franchise. Thus, any buyer is still governed by the franchise agreement and CBA unless he can reach a negotiated agreement with the franchiser, here the NHL, and the NHLPA within the structure of the bankruptcy proceedings (Chapter 11 reorganization) or later.
by Thomas Allen on Aug 14, 2009 11:12 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Isn’t the point (on Balsillie’s side of the room, anyway) that the terms of the franchise agreement restricting the movement of franchises may be unenforceable a la the Oakland Raiders case? In other words, the debtor owns a franchise subject to (at least arguably) no (because they are unenforceable) restrictions on its movement.
jrwendelman
The Artist Formerly Known as "Junior", who blogs at heroesinrehab.ca/blog
"But if someone so eager to engage into fist talk, we can always meet after season end in Minsk." (Mikhail Grabovski and a well-meaning but not particularly skillful translator)
by jrwendelman on Aug 14, 2009 2:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m no expert (obviously) but I would guess that the NHL’s response would be that you can move the franchise wherever you want, but to expect to compete in the NHL without approval – particularly after obtaining the franchise at odds with the BoG and league bylaws – would be a pipe dream.
In other words, Balsillie could move the team to Hamilton but he’d have to find another league for the team to play in. I really doubt that the bankruptcy judge is going to (or CAN) force the NHL to let the Coyotes play next season from Hamilton.
But that’s just my layman’s view – maybe there’s some legal loophole that Ratdier has found that he’s pursuing on Ballsie’s behalf.
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on Aug 14, 2009 3:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That argument wouldn’t fly if a court had already ruled that the movement restriction portions of the franchise agreement were unenforceable as written. Only a portion of the franchise agreement would be essentially struck down or “read out” of the deal. But both sides would still be parties to a contract that, on the NHL side, requires them to recognize the ’Yotes, include them in the schedule and otherwise participate in the activities of the league. I think the debtor would be entitled to insist that the league honour those terms, or else be liable for damages.
IIRC, that was the basic result in the Raiders case; that’s how the Raiders ended up in L.A. (briefly) and it’s one of the (many) reasons that the NFL hated Al Davis.
I’m not expressing any view on whether the anti-trust challenge of those movement restrictions would be successful, just thinking through the scenario if they were struck down.
jrwendelman
The Artist Formerly Known as "Junior", who blogs at heroesinrehab.ca/blog
"But if someone so eager to engage into fist talk, we can always meet after season end in Minsk." (Mikhail Grabovski and a well-meaning but not particularly skillful translator)
by jrwendelman on Aug 14, 2009 3:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The question then becomes, is there language in the NHL bylaws that nullify the franchise agreement if the owner(s) violate the terms thereof or are not approved NHL owners or somesuch?
I dunno, it’s all very Byzantine and I’m not fond of the complexities of law, which is why I avoided that career in the first place. :)
You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
by zyllyx on Aug 14, 2009 6:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
jrw, the court has in essence ruled on that already in favour of the NHL. The question of whether the NHL has consent rights has been answered in the affirmative. JB’s sole issue is actually Moyes’ issue, which is whether the NHL has discharged its implied contractual obligation of good faith in exercising its consent rights.
The judeg has also given a pretty clear indication on the relocation issue as well. Again, the NHL has consent rights to relocation, subject only to their exercise of same in good faith. The Raiders/Davis case is, as i said before, and as the preliminary rulings in the Coyotes case have amply demonstrated, not the current law.
by Gerald on Aug 14, 2009 8:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Gerald, how is the Raiders case not the current law? I thought the decision in that case was – as you say – that sports leagues may impose relocation restrictions on their member teams, but that they must entertain a relocation application in good faith when received and make a decision based on certain criteria (rather than the arbitrary 3/4ths majority then in place in the NFL).
Again, I’m not trying to be a smartass, but I’m not sure why you say the Raiders case isn’t good law. Quoting from Baum’s decision in the June 15th ruling at p.12:
The seminal decision was the injunction in 1982 barring the NFL and its member clubs from interfering with the transfer of the Oakland Raiders to Los Angeles [citation omitted]…In affirming the injunction and the jury’s liability verdict (which damage award was later vacated), against the NFL, the court reached several conclusions which are important here…[here, Baum goes on to describe various facets of Raiders decision that impacted upon the motion before him]
Seems like Judge Baum was very specifically relying upon the reasoning in that case…
jrwendelman
The Artist Formerly Known as "Junior", who blogs at heroesinrehab.ca/blog
"But if someone so eager to engage into fist talk, we can always meet after season end in Minsk." (Mikhail Grabovski and a well-meaning but not particularly skillful translator)
by jrwendelman on Aug 14, 2009 9:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was referring to the first Raiders case. IIRC, Baum J relied on Raiders II.
by Gerald on Aug 15, 2009 8:28 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
To follow further, the first Raiders case involved simply a bare restriction on relocation.
by Gerald on Aug 15, 2009 8:29 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Again, though (damn it for posting before thoughts are finished), Baum referred to the first case and the second case. There are also additional cases which touch upon various aspects of the present matter. It is not correct to simply say “teams can move because Al Davis did”. The Davis fact scenario on which that case turned does not exist any more. That was the point I was trying (and failing miserably after rolling out of bed on a Saturday morning) to make.
by Gerald on Aug 15, 2009 8:34 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
There’s one part of the judge’s order I’d like someone to explicate for me. I haven’t read it, but a column said that Baum ruled against the Goldwater Institute on the grounds that tax payers don’t have a direct financial interest in the outcome of the lease negotiations. That makes no sense to me. I can’t even figure out who else on that side of the deal would have a direct financial interest in it.
by J. Michael Neal on Aug 16, 2009 12:31 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
In a separate order on Thursday, Baum denied a motion by the Goldwater Institute, on behalf of eight Glendale taxpayers, to file a conditional bid objection.
The Goldwater Institute had argued that the taxpayers have a right to know the details of Glendale’s arena lease renegotiations with Reinsdorf’s group, but Baum ruled that they "do not have a direct financial stake in the outcome of this case."
Perhaps it’s that taxpayers cannot directly represent their own interests nor can 8 taxpayers be taken as representation for the entire tax roll. They have elected officials to represent citizens.
Unless there is a mechanism that requires Glendale to put any negotiations before the electorate before being ratified (which would be akin to governing by plebiscite) Glendale ratepayers will have to deal with the outcome at the next election.
Democracy is not perfect.
by hockeycountry on Aug 16, 2009 6:19 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
That’s fine, but that’s not the same thing as saying that they don’t have a direct financial stake. That is like saying that a shareholder does not have a direct financial stake in the company since they are represented by the board of directors. I can see reasons for making the ruling that Baum did, but the one that is quoted is nonsensical.
by J. Michael Neal on Aug 16, 2009 8:59 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It seems pretty straightforward as a matter of law. Your analogy is a li8ttle misplaced IMO. If a company is entering into a transaction, they do not have a direct financial stake. THe Board of directors part is irrelevant.
In the above example, the shareholders have an indirect stake in a transaction between the company and a third party in their capacity as shareholders. They do not have a direct stake. They are not personally party to the transaction.
In the City example, they have an indirect stake as taxpayers. The only legal entity with a direct stake is the City itself.
by Gerald on Aug 16, 2009 12:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry, but since i cannot edit my post above, I will clarify the first paragraph above, since i missed a phrase. It should read:
It seems pretty straightforward as a matter of law. Your analogy is a li8ttle misplaced IMO. If a company is entering into a transaction, the shareholders in said company do not have a direct financial stake. The Board of directors part is irrelevant.
by Gerald on Aug 16, 2009 12:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If a company is entering into a transaction, the shareholders in said company do not have a direct financial stake.
This may be the definition under law, which would answer my question. However, I don’t think that it makes any sense in rationality. If a company enters into a transaction, it is the shareholders’ money that they are spending. That’s who owns it. That’s a direct financial stake. If the deal loses money, the part on the balance sheet that ultimately shows the loss is Shareholders’ Equity. That’s direct.
The same is true for Glendale. The people on the hook if the deal goes bad are the taxpayers. That is a direct financial stake. If someone can come to me and say, “You owe me money for this deal,” I don’t see how the stake can be any more direct.
by J. Michael Neal on Aug 16, 2009 5:14 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
the stake can be any more direct.
I wanna make a lawyer/vampire joke here, but words fail me at the moment. Anybody else wanna take a swing?
2008-2009 Colorado Avalanche: Dry Humping Mediocrity
by Mike @ MHH on Aug 17, 2009 1:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
AS for the substance of your post, Michael, I sense some serious misunderstanding on your part with the meaning of the term “direct”, at least in this context. Both scenarios (SH/Company, City/taxpayers) involve an additional step. Your final statement illustrates this:
“If someone can come to me and say, "You owe me money for this deal," I don’t see how the stake can be any more direct.”
Shareholders cannot do this for parties with whom their company is in contract. Taxpayers cannot do this for parties with whom their city is in contract.
by Gerald on Aug 18, 2009 10:56 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
However, the people who bought the bonds can come to the taxpayers to collect the money. That’s exactly Moody’s point in saying that the bonds are still good: the taxpayers are on the hook. You have the direction reversed. The direct financial stake here is on the downside.
The statement you are quoting did not apply to my discussion of a shareholder and a corporation. There, the direct financial stake of the shareholder is even more obvious. He owns a part of the company. It is his money that is being spent when the company buys something, or invests in a project. How can you argue that spending someone’s money means anything other than that they have a direct financial stake in the matter?
by J. Michael Neal on Aug 18, 2009 1:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have done my best to help you clear up your fundamental misunderstanding of the term “direct:”. I have no more aids available for you. If you haven’t gotten it by now, either you are being deliberately obtuse or you simply will never get it.
That aside, I would love to have you explain how bondholders can get money directly from taxpayers. Joe Sixpack can be forced to pay money directly to Bob Bondholder? Please do tell.
by Gerald on Aug 19, 2009 8:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The bondholder comes to the city, and tells them to pay the bond out of general fund revenues. Whose money do you think that is? The city managers?
by J. Michael Neal on Aug 20, 2009 8:26 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Again, Michael, you simply do not comprehend the meaning of the term “direct” as used in this context, as stunning as it may seem to me that you would not be able to do so.
If it was “direct”, they would sue the individual taxpayers. They do not and cannot. Contrary to what you said above (“the people who bought the bonds can come to the taxpayers to collect the money”), that is not the case.
by Gerald on Aug 20, 2009 10:20 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Go back six posts in this thread. Look at what I wrote. Carefully this time. Start with the very first sentence.
by J. Michael Neal on Aug 20, 2009 2:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I read what you wrote, dude. I read it when you first wrote it. I also read when you then went on to suggest that it didn’t make any sense in rationality.
This is truly the Seinfeld of sub-threads.
by Gerald on Aug 20, 2009 7:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
So why are you trying to lecture me on the legal meaning of the term?
by J. Michael Neal on Aug 20, 2009 7:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The legal meaning is the same as the dictionary meaning as the common-sense meaning in this case.
And with that, you are welcome to have the last word.
by Gerald on Aug 21, 2009 3:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wanna make a lawyer/vampire joke here, but words fail me at the moment. Anybody else wanna take a swing?
To kill a vampire, you need to put a stake through its heart. This renders lawyer vampires immune.
by J. Michael Neal on Aug 17, 2009 3:22 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Nice one…
2008-2009 Colorado Avalanche: Dry Humping Mediocrity
by Mike @ MHH on Aug 17, 2009 4:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 

















