Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

The NFL, Major League Baseball and the NBA have lined up in support of the NHL's court fight to block the sale of the Phoenix Coyotes and move to southern Canada

The other major sports leagues, including the office of baseball Commissioner Bud Selig, filed statements in U.S. Bankruptcy Court on Monday in support of the NHL.

The sports leagues' statements ask the court to "respect the National Hockey League's rules and procedures regarding ownership transfer and relocation."

The NFL statement asked the court to avoid a "precedent that has the potential to undermine or disrupt the business of professional hockey, football or other major league sports."

NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman added his voice to the flood of court documents in the league's battle with Coyotes owner Jerry Moyes and the attempt to sell the franchise and move it to southern Ontario.

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20090 ... rt+for+NHL

imagine that... other sports leagues filing amicus briefs defending their right to block one owner.

i think the NHL just loves waving it's middle finger at true hockey fans... it's akin to spitting on your customers...

the NHL is the franchiser... it's their company, but I really don't understand why they'd rather throw good money after bad in Phoenix rather than let Balisle buy the team and move them...

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:imagine that... other sports leagues filing amicus briefs defending their right to block one owner.

i think the NHL just loves waving it's middle finger at true hockey fans... it's akin to spitting on your customers...

the NHL is the franchiser... it's their company, but I really don't understand why they'd rather throw good money after bad in Phoenix rather than let Balisle buy the team and move them...

I agree. Nothing against Phoenix, but I think the NHL is better off with more teams in Canada.

Actually, the biggest reason for keeping the team in Glendale is the arena. It was openened only 6 years ago. If the NHL does not do everything they can to keep the team in place, then they can forget about conning any more governments into building new arenas.
I'm of the opinion that governments should not be building stadia for professional sports teams like this, but that's another thread topic.

Marcus Garvey wrote:Actually, the biggest reason for keeping the team in Glendale is the arena. It was openened only 6 years ago. If the NHL does not do everything they can to keep the team in place, then they can forget about conning any more governments into building new arenas.
I'm of the opinion that governments should not be building stadia for professional sports teams like this, but that's another thread topic.

Agreed - when a city builds an arena/stadium, the understanding is that the team is there for a long, long time.

If the Coyotes manage to skip out of town, leaving Glendale stuck, then this will be used by oppostion anytime ANY pro team wants government help.

Marcus Garvey wrote:I'm of the opinion that governments should not be building stadia for professional sports teams like this, but that's another thread topic.

Amen!!!!!

JayJ79 wrote:

Marcus Garvey wrote:I'm of the opinion that governments should not be building stadia for professional sports teams like this, but that's another thread topic.

Amen!!!!!

pfft... wrongest wrongness in wrongville.

My senior thesis in college was on public financing of sports facilities. I studied what worked, what didn't and why.

My conclusions:

building multi-purpose arenas that attract 40 basketball or hockey games a year, plus concerts and other events is a BIG boon to the area around the arena. The caveat to this, is to create arena architecture that encourages people to come early and/or leave late from the area. (that is, dont connect the arena directly to parking structures... let people walk outside a bit)

building a baseball park with 81 home games a year has a similar effect, although the direct cost/benefit is more opaque. the real upside of an MLB park is the 81 televised games showing your city to potential tourists, visitors, new residents or investors.

building an enclosed NFL stadium - a HUGE boon to a city in terms of prestige and influence. a great source of revenue, the 8-10 NFL games don't really do it... it's all the other stuff that the stadium gets used for, final fours, concerts, potential super bowls, college bowl games, monster truck shows, trade shows... these facilities, managed properly can make a lot of money, attract conventions and other business that would not come to the city otherwise.

open air NFL stadiums... flushing money down the toilet. the prestige of an NFL team is a nice ancillary benefit, but in terms of spending money on sports facilities... it's at the bottom of the list in terms of benefits.

you can debate whether you think its right or not, but in 3 of the 4 examples above, the benefits outweigh the costs largely. there are, admittedly, more efficient uses of the money... however, the prestige boost to an area with a professional sports team is almost impossible to quantify. being a "major league city" is the ultimate intangible benefit.

As for Phoenix, I know what I would argue as lobbyist for a project... "they were trying to bring ice hockey to Phoenix... the problem wasn't the arena... the problem was the market and the siting (Glendale??? the northwest corner of the Phoenix area??? stupid location... shoulda stayed near downtown)

TwinTownBisonFan wrote: As for Phoenix, I know what I would argue as lobbyist for a project... "they were trying to bring ice hockey to Phoenix... the problem wasn't the arena... the problem was the market and the siting (Glendale??? the northwest corner of the Phoenix area??? stupid location... shoulda stayed near downtown)

On my Arizona board, we have argued this ad nauseum - with me firmly in the camp of terrible location for an NHL arena.

People will drive 8 times a year for a football game, on Sunday.

People will not drive in rush hour traffic on a weeknight for a baseball/hockey/basketball game. Those facilities need to be more centrally located.

No need for another arena downtown (US Airways for the Suns already there). A great location in Scottsdale was rejected by the voters in Scottsdale. Area sits vacant to this day.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

JayJ79 wrote:
Amen!!!!!

pfft... wrongest wrongness in wrongville.

My senior thesis in college was on public financing of sports facilities. I studied what worked, what didn't and why.

My conclusions:

building multi-purpose arenas that attract 40 basketball or hockey games a year, plus concerts and other events is a BIG boon to the area around the arena. The caveat to this, is to create arena architecture that encourages people to come early and/or leave late from the area. (that is, dont connect the arena directly to parking structures... let people walk outside a bit)

building a baseball park with 81 home games a year has a similar effect, although the direct cost/benefit is more opaque. the real upside of an MLB park is the 81 televised games showing your city to potential tourists, visitors, new residents or investors.

building an enclosed NFL stadium - a HUGE boon to a city in terms of prestige and influence. a great source of revenue, the 8-10 NFL games don't really do it... it's all the other stuff that the stadium gets used for, final fours, concerts, potential super bowls, college bowl games, monster truck shows, trade shows... these facilities, managed properly can make a lot of money, attract conventions and other business that would not come to the city otherwise.

open air NFL stadiums... flushing money down the toilet. the prestige of an NFL team is a nice ancillary benefit, but in terms of spending money on sports facilities... it's at the bottom of the list in terms of benefits.

you can debate whether you think its right or not, but in 3 of the 4 examples above, the benefits outweigh the costs largely. there are, admittedly, more efficient uses of the money... however, the prestige boost to an area with a professional sports team is almost impossible to quantify. being a "major league city" is the ultimate intangible benefit.

As for Phoenix, I know what I would argue as lobbyist for a project... "they were trying to bring ice hockey to Phoenix... the problem wasn't the arena... the problem was the market and the siting (Glendale??? the northwest corner of the Phoenix area??? stupid location... shoulda stayed near downtown)

I know it can work, for the right type of venue and area. That still doesn't mean it's the government's job to subsidize a professional sports team. Even when it does work, who benefits? The service-oriented businesses in the immediate area and their relatively low-wage earning employees.

Goverments are better served sinking their money into infrastructure projects to attract businesses that will generate higher tax revenues: Office parks, manufacturing facilities, etc...

Really, the whole impetus behind the stadium building craze is summarized by the phrase, "If we don't build the team a stadium, some town dumber than us will!"

Marcus Garvey wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
pfft... wrongest wrongness in wrongville.

My senior thesis in college was on public financing of sports facilities. I studied what worked, what didn't and why.

My conclusions:

building multi-purpose arenas that attract 40 basketball or hockey games a year, plus concerts and other events is a BIG boon to the area around the arena. The caveat to this, is to create arena architecture that encourages people to come early and/or leave late from the area. (that is, dont connect the arena directly to parking structures... let people walk outside a bit)

building a baseball park with 81 home games a year has a similar effect, although the direct cost/benefit is more opaque. the real upside of an MLB park is the 81 televised games showing your city to potential tourists, visitors, new residents or investors.

building an enclosed NFL stadium - a HUGE boon to a city in terms of prestige and influence. a great source of revenue, the 8-10 NFL games don't really do it... it's all the other stuff that the stadium gets used for, final fours, concerts, potential super bowls, college bowl games, monster truck shows, trade shows... these facilities, managed properly can make a lot of money, attract conventions and other business that would not come to the city otherwise.

open air NFL stadiums... flushing money down the toilet. the prestige of an NFL team is a nice ancillary benefit, but in terms of spending money on sports facilities... it's at the bottom of the list in terms of benefits.

you can debate whether you think its right or not, but in 3 of the 4 examples above, the benefits outweigh the costs largely. there are, admittedly, more efficient uses of the money... however, the prestige boost to an area with a professional sports team is almost impossible to quantify. being a "major league city" is the ultimate intangible benefit.

As for Phoenix, I know what I would argue as lobbyist for a project... "they were trying to bring ice hockey to Phoenix... the problem wasn't the arena... the problem was the market and the siting (Glendale??? the northwest corner of the Phoenix area??? stupid location... shoulda stayed near downtown)

I know it can work, for the right type of venue and area. That still doesn't mean it's the government's job to subsidize a professional sports team. Even when it does work, who benefits? The service-oriented businesses in the immediate area and their relatively low-wage earning employees.

Goverments are better served sinking their money into infrastructure projects to attract businesses that will generate higher tax revenues: Office parks, manufacturing facilities, etc...

Really, the whole impetus behind the stadium building craze is summarized by the phrase, "If we don't build the team a stadium, some town dumber than us will!"

1. You have a surprisingly hard time drawing new residents to a city with nothing to do.

2. while infrastructure is a valuable investment (moreso than sporting venues to be sure), the folly in evaluating sports facilities is presuming that direct economic benefit is the only way to gauge a projects viability

3. as for your quotation... that town isn't dumb for building the facility as a municipal facility. especially in the case of arenas, the benefits, both directly economic and intangible in terms of prestige and image are a huge plus for a city.

the irritation i have found in my career is it's always framed as an "either/or" argument... which is foolish... here in MN we spent 15 years fighting uphill against "a Twins stadium will take money from the children" and finally overcame it with an innovative funding scheme that if I were in policy school I'd be writing a paper on.

I developed a theory about this called "Cold Omaha Theory" - the more things to do in a metropolitan area by way of recreation/arts/sports the greater the likelihood that you can convince companies and investors to relocate or build in an area. The theory points out that absent pro sports, a vibrant arts scene and a significant infrastructure for outdoor recreation the Twin Cities would be a "Cold Omaha" and would have the same trouble attracting young professionals and companies to an area.