Saturday, May 08, 2010

Coyotes saga paints a poor picture of league

This is a follow up story to the blog post that I posted earlier today. More of the unfolding drama. I do have to agree with the author of this tory this does make the NHL look a little silly. Also, there seems to be something to the story that David Thomson and Mark Chipman of True North Sports and Entertainment Ltd. are leading a group to move to the Coyotes back to Winnipeg.
And while espn.com reported the city and Ice Edge had agreed on a new lease agreement that would keep the team in the desert through next year, at least, the agreement on covering operating losses still needs to be debated by Glendale city council. Still, Winnipeg seems to be back on the back burner, for now. The Reinsdorf deal, meanwhile, was always a joke; it required the creation of a special taxation zone that would convey to the gracious saviour of the team approximately US$65-million over the next three years to put towards the purchase price, and another US$100-million over seven years to cover operating losses.

Not only that, but it included control of the arena, the right to leave after five years, and a guarantee that Reinsdorf would get US$103-million back in any sale of the team. It was not a credible business arrangement; it was a charity.


And that is where this league was going. In its final attempt to keep a team in a non-traditional market -- or at least, in the display of something resembling an attempt --the NHL seems to have been reduced to proposing municipal blackmail.

Thus the best-case scenario for the Coyotes to stay in the desert is that the business receives publicly funded indemnification against losses. If only the auto industry had been smart enough to write that into their deals with the state of Michigan. Then again, it worked for much of Wall Street.

So what does this tell the next canary in the NHL's overexpanded, misaligned coal mine? What does this tell to the owners and city councils entangled with teams like Atlanta, Nashville, Columbus, Florida -- located outside Miami -- or the New York Islanders, the last of whom are currently fighting for a new building that may never come?

What it says is that if you are a Jerry Moyes, the league will sell you down the river once the money runs out, and if you are a Glendale, you will be held hostage. Oh, and if you want to move a team into the Toronto area you're out of luck, because that's being saved for expansion. Hell of a way to do business. Step right up and own a team, folks.

But we Canadians won't care about how it looks; if Winnipeg is ever finally made whole, hockey-wise, the elation will steamroll any worries about precedent, or that the building is too small, or what happens should the loonie dip back to 65 cents U.S. And as long as Mr. Thomson and his partners agree to absorb any financial losses in private, then all that's fine. [Read the whole story]
BallHype: hype it up!

2 comments:

  1. If they don't continue to work in markets like Florida, California and Arizona, then where does hockey go as a sport?! It becomes even more irrelevant in even more parts of America. It may not be what we want as hockey fans up in the north but it is what the game of hockey needs if it ever wants to grow outside of Canada...

    I would love to see a team in Winnipeg as much as the next guy with the close proximity it would bring but how can we not at least make an attempt to grow hockey in non-traditional hockey markets. I bet without the NHL in some of these states, many of the US-born kids that are excelling in USA hockey wouldn't even play or have any desire to play the game. I know this year's WJC U20 USA team had a lot of kids from all over the country...I don't recall off hand but I think there were some from California, Oklahoma, Nevada..etc.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I don't know hockey is a niche sport and I don't know if we need to promote it in non-traditional markets. The fact remains that the Yotes have been a miserable failure since they moved to the Desert.

    ReplyDelete