HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #181  
Old Posted Jan 1, 2009, 6:33 PM
Pegger5 Pegger5 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Proud to be from "The Peg"
Posts: 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by h0twired View Post
So I say that he said that he can't see a team working in a 15,000 seat arena and then you tell me he wants an 18,000 seat arena and that makes me a liar?

Did you have a chance to ask him about the MTS Centre last night?

What are his thoughts about an NHL team at the MTS Centre?
Never called you liar so take it easy. and yes he thinks for a market like Winnipeg they could demand higher ticket prices for a smaller amount of seats. He thinks it could work if corporate support and ownership are there..
This is not an arena issue he said for Winnipeg or "will they fill the seats at higher price"? issue. It is strickly everything else. TV, corporate signage, other sponsorships, ownership group etc.
Lets not put Ken King on a pedastal as he will never tell any Joe the inside NHL Winnipeg secrets. He for sure supports bringing a team to Winnipeg and would vote for it. He said all Canadian teams would most likely vote in favour. MTS Centre is not an issue for NHL in Winnipeg. Everyone needs to stop thinking bigger is better. Look at what Major league Baseball has done with their stadiums !!

NJ downsized their new arena, Anehiem and SJ only have 17K seats. The revenue difference is minimal for those extra 2K seats especially when you look at average ticket price...
Lets all please not dwell on size as it does not matter
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #182  
Old Posted Jan 1, 2009, 9:00 PM
h0twired's Avatar
h0twired h0twired is offline
Dynamic Positivity!
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,914
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pegger5 View Post
Never called you liar so take it easy. and yes he thinks for a market like Winnipeg they could demand higher ticket prices for a smaller amount of seats. He thinks it could work if corporate support and ownership are there..
This is not an arena issue he said for Winnipeg or "will they fill the seats at higher price"? issue. It is strickly everything else. TV, corporate signage, other sponsorships, ownership group etc.
Lets not put Ken King on a pedastal as he will never tell any Joe the inside NHL Winnipeg secrets. He for sure supports bringing a team to Winnipeg and would vote for it. He said all Canadian teams would most likely vote in favour. MTS Centre is not an issue for NHL in Winnipeg. Everyone needs to stop thinking bigger is better. Look at what Major league Baseball has done with their stadiums !!
The problem is that with the NHL there is a difference between demand and ticket prices.

With NHL teams (with the exception of Toronto) the winning teams have high demand for their tickets.

Use Calgary as an example. They have been using the Saddledome since 1987 and they have been on the verge of losing the franchise a couple of times due to poor performance in the regular season. Win a cup and then things turn around dramatically in terms of ticket prices and demand. However when there is a down season many tickets are sold off cheap through other retailers just to fill the seats and make SOME revenue instead of zero. After all cheap seats a better than empty seats. Unfortunately it waters down the pricey seats as well.

Now lets consider a franchise in Winnipeg.

Any franchise going to Winnipeg would probably be a bankrupt loser team being relocated to Winnipeg. Right off the bat you start off with a team that needs at least 2-3 seasons to rebuild into a winning team.

You will start off with a couple of good seasons for ticket sales just based on the fact that the team is new. However if the team does not turn around quickly those ticket sales may (i said "may" not "will") start to dwindle.

I am not doubting that with higher priced tickets in a sold out 15,000 seat arena that the numbers would work on the side of profitability. However it comes down to how risk averse an ownership group would be starting with the smallest arena in the league with a team that will probably not make the playoffs in the first 2-3 seasons.

However with a larger arena you have the ability to sell more tickets and at a lower average price. This is where the size of the arena matters in terms of new teams. More people would most likely be willing to see a losing team at a lower price than seeing the same team at a higher price.

When the team gets better having a bigger arena allows more tickets to be sold at a higher price and makes the team more profitable.

Yes it IS possible to have a profitable team in a 15,000 seat arena.

Unfortunately an ownership group is unlikely to shell out a couple hundred million to take a chance like that. Why buy a club and have the deck stacked against you to start with? If you were an ownership group would you rather take a chance on a large arena with a $40 average ticket price or a $55 average price in a small arena?

This is where size matters.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #183  
Old Posted Jan 1, 2009, 9:13 PM
trueviking's Avatar
trueviking trueviking is offline
surely you agree with me
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: winnipeg
Posts: 13,461
man, you are trying really hard, but the straws you are grasping are weak....your logic is flawed

first of all the 6 weakest teams financially, according to the chart on page 6 are: phoenix, florida, chicago, the islanders, atlanta, washington and nashville...only two of those teams are below .500 this season...their weakness has nothing to do with their record, but the city they play in (except chicago)

secondly...look at the experience of every single re-located or expansion team....their buildings are always full...there is never indifference in the begining because of poor performance....this would be especially true in a hockey market that has been starved for 15 years....a bad team would have an effect down the road, just like it does in every city, but not at the begining....your bad team scenario is not realistic.

try being an owner of a losing team in a city that doesnt care about the game...when 1/3 of the league averages only 10 000 full price tickets, what does it matter how big their arena is?

your theory that you can spread around low priced tickets in a bigger arena is totally flawed and does not happen in reality.....once again, i will say that the 2000 seats that are missing from MTS are low revenue upper deck seats...they always are, no matter what the rest of your tickets cost.....if you have to drop the price of tickets even 20% because you have a bad team, you will be losing $8 million per season...having an extra 2000 upper deck seats (even if you filled them) would only bring in another $2 million, so obviously those seats are not significant even in your scenario...the primary 15 000 seats generates 95% of your ticket revenues, no matter what....

if you are relying on that 2 million dollars per year from 300 level seats to keep you afloat, then you have way bigger problems than the size of your arena.

Last edited by trueviking; Jan 1, 2009 at 10:44 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #184  
Old Posted Jan 1, 2009, 10:12 PM
trueviking's Avatar
trueviking trueviking is offline
surely you agree with me
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: winnipeg
Posts: 13,461
Quote:
Originally Posted by h0twired View Post
If you were an ownership group would you rather take a chance on a large arena with a $40 average ticket price or a $55 average price in a small arena?

This is where size matters.
lets look at this for a second....

15000 seats averaging $55 per seat is $34m annually.

17000 seats averaging $40 per seat is $27.9m annually.

you would need to fill an arena of 21000 seats every game to have the same overall revenues at an average ticket price of $40...

and thats assuming that those added 6000 upper deck seats are worth the average $40, which is obviously not realistic.



if we assume that upper deck prices are worth 50% of the average (as it is currently in calgary and edmonton), then even to reduce the rest of the seats to an average ticket price to $50 per seat you would need to sell out 19000 seats every game to have the same revenues as a 15000 seat arena at $55 per seat.

19000 @ (15000 seats @ $50ea. = $30m) + (4000 seats @ $25ea. = $4m) = $34m
15000 @ $55 = $34m

as you can see those seats do not affect overall revenues significantly...you seem to forget that those missing 2000 upper deck seats are always worth far less than the rest, no matter what you average price is....they are always worth only about half the average.

and these numbers are still far above more than half the league is currently earning.

Last edited by trueviking; Jan 1, 2009 at 10:48 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #185  
Old Posted Jan 3, 2009, 5:29 AM
JayM's Avatar
JayM JayM is offline
Youth of a Nation
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba
Posts: 1,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by trueviking View Post
lets look at this for a second....

15000 seats averaging $55 per seat is $34m annually.

17000 seats averaging $40 per seat is $27.9m annually.

you would need to fill an arena of 21000 seats every game to have the same overall revenues at an average ticket price of $40...

and thats assuming that those added 6000 upper deck seats are worth the average $40, which is obviously not realistic.



if we assume that upper deck prices are worth 50% of the average (as it is currently in calgary and edmonton), then even to reduce the rest of the seats to an average ticket price to $50 per seat you would need to sell out 19000 seats every game to have the same revenues as a 15000 seat arena at $55 per seat.

19000 @ (15000 seats @ $50ea. = $30m) + (4000 seats @ $25ea. = $4m) = $34m
15000 @ $55 = $34m

as you can see those seats do not affect overall revenues significantly...you seem to forget that those missing 2000 upper deck seats are always worth far less than the rest, no matter what you average price is....they are always worth only about half the average.

and these numbers are still far above more than half the league is currently earning.
BURNED! LOL
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #186  
Old Posted Jan 3, 2009, 3:23 PM
h0twired's Avatar
h0twired h0twired is offline
Dynamic Positivity!
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,914
Quote:
Originally Posted by trueviking View Post
lets look at this for a second....

15000 seats averaging $55 per seat is $34m annually.

17000 seats averaging $40 per seat is $27.9m annually.

you would need to fill an arena of 21000 seats every game to have the same overall revenues at an average ticket price of $40...

and thats assuming that those added 6000 upper deck seats are worth the average $40, which is obviously not realistic.



if we assume that upper deck prices are worth 50% of the average (as it is currently in calgary and edmonton), then even to reduce the rest of the seats to an average ticket price to $50 per seat you would need to sell out 19000 seats every game to have the same revenues as a 15000 seat arena at $55 per seat.

19000 @ (15000 seats @ $50ea. = $30m) + (4000 seats @ $25ea. = $4m) = $34m
15000 @ $55 = $34m

as you can see those seats do not affect overall revenues significantly...you seem to forget that those missing 2000 upper deck seats are always worth far less than the rest, no matter what you average price is....they are always worth only about half the average.

and these numbers are still far above more than half the league is currently earning.
If you think it is that cut and dry... then where are the ownership groups banging down Winnipeg's door?

The risk of starting a new NHL team in the leagues smallest arena is not worth it.

Mark my words. There will NEVER be an NHL team to play full time at the MTS Centre.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #187  
Old Posted Jan 3, 2009, 3:44 PM
Biff's Avatar
Biff Biff is offline
What could go wrong?
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 8,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by h0twired View Post
If you think it is that cut and dry... then where are the ownership groups banging down Winnipeg's door?

The risk of starting a new NHL team in the leagues smallest arena is not worth it.

Mark my words. There will NEVER be an NHL team to play full time at the MTS Centre.
There apparently is an ownership group in place. The deal is, if you have noticed, is there are no available teams currently. The NHL will not be expanding anytime soon and although we have an arena and an ownership team in place we will have to bide our time. We will not be able to compete with the likes of billionaire RIM guy Jim Basilie - and look at how succesful he has been. Our group (lead by Chipman) has said that if an opportunity provides itself they are ready. I can see Kansas City being the current front runner and maybe Basilie - but the NHL will never grant him a team in Hamilton. Winnipeg will have to wait. It actually may never happen but the point is we are ready if everything is appropriate to for us buy - Chipman isn't stupid. In the next 10 years southern teams will be come available - some will be relocated and some will cease operations and the league will contract (a good thing).

The bottom line is that is the correct opportunity for Winnipeg to aquire an NHL team arises we will be there.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #188  
Old Posted Jan 3, 2009, 4:08 PM
MooseJets's Avatar
MooseJets MooseJets is offline
Winnipeg Metro: 762 800
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Posts: 93
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by h0twired View Post
If you think it is that cut and dry... then where are the ownership groups banging down Winnipeg's door?

The risk of starting a new NHL team in the leagues smallest arena is not worth it.

Mark my words. There will NEVER be an NHL team to play full time at the MTS Centre.
This has been another post by Hotwired the prophet. Let us all worhisp his word, because he knows all as he has spoken to Ken King!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #189  
Old Posted Jan 3, 2009, 4:46 PM
Pegger5 Pegger5 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Proud to be from "The Peg"
Posts: 217
There is

Quote:
Originally Posted by h0twired View Post
If you think it is that cut and dry... then where are the ownership groups banging down Winnipeg's door?

The risk of starting a new NHL team in the leagues smallest arena is not worth it.

Mark my words. There will NEVER be an NHL team to play full time at the MTS Centre.
Wow, do your research h0twired !! There has been an ownership team in place for a few years. At what price and if a team is available is the question.

Please watch these Mark Chipman (potencial owner) CBC interview video's and do your homework next time...

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=zu6uAuTXBOo

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=4pORpOIcZys

Last edited by Pegger5; Jan 3, 2009 at 5:00 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #190  
Old Posted Jan 3, 2009, 9:18 PM
trueviking's Avatar
trueviking trueviking is offline
surely you agree with me
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: winnipeg
Posts: 13,461
Quote:
Originally Posted by h0twired View Post
If you think it is that cut and dry... then where are the ownership groups banging down Winnipeg's door?

The risk of starting a new NHL team in the leagues smallest arena is not worth it.

Mark my words. There will NEVER be an NHL team to play full time at the MTS Centre.
its funny when people boastfully predict the underdog will fail...as if they have some insight that the rest of us dont have.

i donk its cut and dried....in fact, i think its a long shot that winnipeg will ever get a team....your argument was specifically based on the size of the arena, and that is specifically my rebuttal...its a knee jerk reaction that i am tired of hearing because it is not based on fact....you have been flailing to find reasons to prove that the MTS centre is too small and i disproved them with actual ticket revenue comparisons....

the MTS centre is only to small because of perception...the smallest market and the smallest arena in the NHL is not good optics....economically, the reality is different, which is what i have been trying to prove...but i agree that perception is a definite detriment....with most of the world thinking that winnipeg is a backwater, it doesnt help to add a small arena to their list of misconceptions.

there are lots of other reasons that winnipeg is a long shot to ever get a team back....ownership and the overpriced capital cost of purchasing a franchise being the biggest one....that might change with the economic downturn and the dozen or so owners who are bankrolling teams losing money hand over fist, become tired of doing so....but i am not holding my breath

just because the economics might work doesnt mean that a team will magically appear...just as the fact that there is no owner actively pursuing a team for winnipeg doesnt prove that the economics dont work.

why dont houston, OK and KC dont have teams? do the economics not work there?....are their arenas are too small?.....there are lots of reasons that cities dont have teams....guys willing to drop $200m on what is basically an expensive hobby are not easy to come by.

if jim balsille was from winnipeg we would have a team...but our super rich guys do not appear to be that interested in owning a hockey team at this point...

Last edited by trueviking; Jan 5, 2009 at 5:17 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #191  
Old Posted Jan 9, 2009, 12:10 AM
wpgcityone's Avatar
wpgcityone wpgcityone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 23
If I was Commissioner

I've already thought about the 2010-11 season when the NHL will see a large drop in revenue, resulting in the folding of seven teams: Tampa Bay, Atlanta, Florida, Carolina, Phoenix, Columbus and Nashville. The Jets will rejoin the league...

Wales Conference (Eastern)
Patrick Division (Atlantic): NY Islanders, NY Rangers, Washington, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, New Jersey.
Adams Division (Northeast): Boston, Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, Detroit, Buffalo.

Campbell Conference (Western)
Norris Division (Central): Chicago, St Louis, Minnesota, Dallas, Colorado, Winnipeg.
Smyth Division (Pacific): Los Angeles, Anaheim, San Jose, Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary.

A balanced 78 game schedule would feature 6 games against own division teams, 4 games against conference teams, and 2 games against opposing conference teams (every West teams get a home and home with every East team, just like years ago).

Regular season goes from Oct to Mar, and playoffs from Apr to May (no more Stanley Cup finals in June).

130 players would lose their jobs, but half of them could probably play in the AHL, and the other half probably shouldn't be playing hockey anyway.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #192  
Old Posted Jan 9, 2009, 2:41 AM
Only The Lonely..'s Avatar
Only The Lonely.. Only The Lonely.. is offline
Portage & Main 50 below
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 4,871
Quote:
Originally Posted by wpgcityone View Post
I've already thought about the 2010-11 season when the NHL will see a large drop in revenue, resulting in the folding of seven teams: Tampa Bay, Atlanta, Florida, Carolina, Phoenix, Columbus and Nashville. The Jets will rejoin the league...

Wales Conference (Eastern)
Patrick Division (Atlantic): NY Islanders, NY Rangers, Washington, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, New Jersey.
Adams Division (Northeast): Boston, Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, Detroit, Buffalo.

Campbell Conference (Western)
Norris Division (Central): Chicago, St Louis, Minnesota, Dallas, Colorado, Winnipeg.
Smyth Division (Pacific): Los Angeles, Anaheim, San Jose, Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary.

A balanced 78 game schedule would feature 6 games against own division teams, 4 games against conference teams, and 2 games against opposing conference teams (every West teams get a home and home with every East team, just like years ago).

Regular season goes from Oct to Mar, and playoffs from Apr to May (no more Stanley Cup finals in June).

130 players would lose their jobs, but half of them could probably play in the AHL, and the other half probably shouldn't be playing hockey anyway.
Awesome...

I was about to try and figure this out on my own but I see you did the work for me.
__________________
WINNIPEG: Home of Canada's first skyscraper!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #193  
Old Posted Jan 9, 2009, 7:04 AM
Distill3d's Avatar
Distill3d Distill3d is offline
Glorfied Overrated Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver (Burnaby), British Columbia
Posts: 4,151
Columbus isn't suffering as badly as the other teams mentioned.

Nashville will relocate, Tampa will restructure and potentially merge with the Florida Panthers, Carolina will restructure and weather the storm, the other teams will collapse.

keep in mind since the 1934 no team that has won the Stanley Cup has folded or relocated.
__________________
The Brain: Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?

Pinky: I think so, Brain, but this time, you put the trousers on the chimp.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #194  
Old Posted Jan 9, 2009, 10:31 PM
flatlander's Avatar
flatlander flatlander is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,369
The Globe and Mail has been publishing a number of stories this week on the Coyotes in particular. Today's is below.

HOCKEY: NHL: COYOTES
$80M DEBT AND GROWING
The Phoenix franchise is heavily in debt, bleeding red ink, laying off staff and going to the NHL for advances to meet expenses and for approval to make roster decisions. Who will ride to the Coyotes' rescue?
DAVID SHOALTS
With a report from Brian Milner
E-mail David Shoalts | Read Bio | Latest Columns
January 9, 2009
Almost everything the Phoenix Coyotes own or earn is pledged as collateral to SOF Investments LP of New York, according to financial documents obtained by The Globe and Mail.

Two NHL governors say the financial situation is distressed to the point that the Coyotes have had to draw on advances from the league to meet a $42.4-million (all currency U.S.) annual player payroll and operational expenses. The advances are made from anticipated NHL broadcast rights, merchandise sales and revenue sharing.

It is not known exactly how much money the Coyotes have received from the NHL. The game schedule is at the halfway point, which could mean, under NHL bylaws, the club cannot have received more than half of the money it expects from shared revenue. NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly said the Coyotes have not yet received as much as half of their expected share of the NHL revenue, which could come to $22-million.

In return for the advances, the Coyotes need the NHL's approval for any major player or financial transactions, according to sources. Daly wrote in an e-mail message yesterday that the arrangement "is not as much 'approval' as it is 'consulting.' "

Earlier this week, the Coyotes laid off 18 employees, about 10 per cent of the club's front-office staff. The employees worked in ticket sales, game operations, administration, public relations and community relations. Daly said the NHL was "aware" of the layoffs before they were announced, but he did not say whether the league recommended them.

With the club's losses again expected to exceed $30-million this season, it is practically impossible to find new investors or someone to buy the team from Jerry Moyes, whose trucking company is also in serious financial trouble. Unless the franchise declares bankruptcy, it is locked into a 30-year lease at Jobing.com Arena with the city of Glendale, on the western outskirts of Phoenix.

The uniform commercial code financing statements obtained by The Globe show that, starting on Dec. 29, 2003 - only two days after the Coyotes played their first game at newly constructed Jobing.com Arena - the franchise signed over almost all assets and revenue to SOF, its primary lender at the time.

More documents show that SOF tightened its grip on the club as the Coyotes borrowed more money. The loans now total about $80-million and will expire on Dec. 29, 2013, under current terms, according to a source.

The timing of some documents suggest the Coyotes increased their loan from SOF in January of 2007 in order to pay off another loan, to a New York hedge fund, Fortress Credit Opportunities LP.

Assets signed over to SOF Investments include the rights to the franchise, all equipment, inventory, all government licences, trademarks, logos, copyrights and insurance policies.

Further, all revenue is pledged to SOF, except $2.5-million annually in arena-naming rights, $1.50 a ticket owed to the city of Glendale (for paying $180-million toward the $220-million arena) and $9 a ticket for "all NHL hockey events" to the club. Other revenue includes NHL broadcasting rights, any share of future expansion or relocation fees, revenue sharing, merchandise sales, concessions, sponsorship contracts and practice facility rentals.

The $9 cut from ticket sales does not go far. Through 21 home games, the Coyotes ranked 26th among the NHL's 30 teams in attendance with an announced average crowd of 14,789 a game.

The Coyotes received a reported $15-million in revenue sharing last season from the NHL's wealthiest clubs, the most of any franchise that qualified for the handout.

SOF Investments is a private equity fund owned by another New York company, MSD Capital, which was set up in 1998 to manage exclusively the capital of computer tycoon Michael Dell and his wife.

Its mandate is to invest in publicly traded securities, make private equity investments (venture capital), invest in real estate (in the Phoenix area, among others) and engage in other market activities. Its aim is to build an investment portfolio designed for long-term capital appreciation.

Neither Moyes nor Coyotes chief executive and governor Jeff Shumway responded to requests for comment. Daly said earlier the league is aware of the extent of the Coyotes' indebtedness to SOF.

"We have no doubt that the Coyotes' secured loan is more than covered by the value of the franchise," Daly said.

Forbes magazine recently valued the franchise at $142-million.

Daly declined to confirm or deny that the Coyotes are receiving money from the league, but did say that it is not unusual for clubs to draw on revenue-sharing amounts in advance of scheduled payment periods.

One document, filed with the state of Delaware on Jan. 17, 2007, says simply that "the collateral consists of all assets of debtor." Another, filed on Nov. 6, 2008, as a continuation of the agreement with SOF Investments, goes into much more detail about the Coyotes' collateral.

A six-page statement lists everything signed over to the financing company, starting with "the franchise to own and operate the team and all assets of the debtor related thereto (including, without limitation, all rights under the NHL governing documents)." In addition to physical assets, the team also pledged all of its bank accounts.

These assets will not belong to SOF unless the Coyotes break one of the loan covenants, such as missing a specific debt-capital ratio. But the more onerous the conditions of a loan, the more unstable a borrower is considered by a lender.

One interesting item states that "for the avoidance of doubt," the contract between the Coyotes and managing partner and head coach Wayne Gretzky is "specifically excluded."

SOF and MSD Capital are located corporately in Delaware, as are many other corporations.

Just about the only thing not mentioned in the documents is the office equipment. But that in itself is the subject of liens to two office-supply companies, which have control of the equipment.

Moyes's personal financial problems call into question his ability to continue covering the Coyotes' losses. His main business, Swift Transportation Co., was hit hard, like every other trucking company, by the rise in fuel costs and collapse of the economy in the past 18 months. The fuel costs began skyrocketing about the time Moyes took Swift private in May of 2007 with debt financing of $2.74-billion.

Like his hockey team, Moyes also has pledged significant personal assets as collateral to lenders. Moyes, his wife, Vickie, and their family trust all have liens against them, according to documents obtained by The Globe.

The Moyeses' list of creditors includes Morgan Stanley, the merchant bank involved in taking Swift private; Swift Transportation; U.S. Bank National Association, a trustee of asset-backed securities and registrar of corporate bonds; and First United Funding LLC, a short-term business credit institution.

According to Eiad Asbahi, the managing partner of Prescience Investment Group of New York, who has studied Swift's situation, the trucking company loaned Moyes $560-million as part of his takeover in May of 2007. Moyes personally guaranteed the loan, Asbahi said in an analysis of Swift done earlier this year.
__________________
For best results play at maximum volume.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #195  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2009, 3:12 AM
RAFS RAFS is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by wpgcityone View Post
I've already thought about the 2010-11 season when the NHL will see a large drop in revenue, resulting in the folding of seven teams: Tampa Bay, Atlanta, Florida, Carolina, Phoenix, Columbus and Nashville. The Jets will rejoin the league...

Wales Conference (Eastern)
Patrick Division (Atlantic): NY Islanders, NY Rangers, Washington, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, New Jersey.
Adams Division (Northeast): Boston, Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, Detroit, Buffalo.

Campbell Conference (Western)
Norris Division (Central): Chicago, St Louis, Minnesota, Dallas, Colorado, Winnipeg.
Smyth Division (Pacific): Los Angeles, Anaheim, San Jose, Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary.

A balanced 78 game schedule would feature 6 games against own division teams, 4 games against conference teams, and 2 games against opposing conference teams (every West teams get a home and home with every East team, just like years ago).

Regular season goes from Oct to Mar, and playoffs from Apr to May (no more Stanley Cup finals in June).

130 players would lose their jobs, but half of them could probably play in the AHL, and the other half probably shouldn't be playing hockey anyway.
You have definitely got my vote as the new commiss!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #196  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2009, 9:16 AM
viperred88's Avatar
viperred88 viperred88 is offline
visionary
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Wpg
Posts: 1,214
A couple of links showing facts & figures that the NHL can work in Winnipeg




__________________
'We shape our buildings and then they shape us. They capture the Zeitgeist, the spirit of their time.'
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #197  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2009, 9:28 AM
newflyer's Avatar
newflyer newflyer is offline
Capitalist
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Calgary
Posts: 5,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by Distill3d View Post
Columbus isn't suffering as badly as the other teams mentioned.

Nashville will relocate, Tampa will restructure and potentially merge with the Florida Panthers, Carolina will restructure and weather the storm, the other teams will collapse.

keep in mind since the 1934 no team that has won the Stanley Cup has folded or relocated.
Columbus may not be as close to death as some of the others ... they are definately hurting and are not viable long-term.

I look for 5 to 6 teams to face major restructuring in the next couple years. (ie: sold, relocated or folded) Neither of the Florida teams will be around much longer... not to mention Atlanta, Nashville, Pheonix, Carolina who will need serious luck anf alot of help to survive.

The once projected bider for a team in KC is now in jail ... and the US is in the depths of a very serious downturn. It should be interesting to see how it plays out, but the NHL will be very different when its all over.
__________________
Check out my city at
http://www.allwinnipeg.com **More than Ever**
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #198  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2009, 5:48 PM
DowntownBooster DowntownBooster is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by h0twired View Post
Mark my words. There will NEVER be an NHL team to play full time at the MTS Centre.

Never say NEVER. There were many people who always make the comment that IKEA would NEVER come to Winnipeg. You may doubt that the NHL will return to Winnipeg but don't be so arrogant as to say that there will NEVER be an NHL team to play full time at the MTS Centre.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #199  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2009, 6:03 PM
Prairie Guy Prairie Guy is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by h0twired View Post
Mark my words. There will NEVER be an NHL team to play full time at the MTS Centre.
Mark my words. hotwired/sputnik is a negative douchebag who likes to think he is some sort of know-it-all, loves to slam Winnipeg every chance he gets, and doesn't think Winnipeg can amount to much. hotwired/sputnik lives in Calgary which is a souless city with no culture, and believes that Calgay is superior to Winnipeg. hotwired is an arrogant troll.

Mark my words.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #200  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2009, 6:09 PM
h0twired's Avatar
h0twired h0twired is offline
Dynamic Positivity!
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,914
Quote:
Originally Posted by flatlander View Post
the Coyotes ranked 26th among the NHL's 30 teams in attendance with an announced average crowd of 14,789 a game.
Interesting. Losing money hand over fist and still averaging 14,789 people per game.

I wonder what their average ticket price is.


Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:51 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.