Second Home Game of The 2010 Coyote Season
Announced Attendance: 6,702 In-seat Attendance: Less than 5,000

So much information rolled in this week regarding the Coyotes start of their season. Game 1 and 2 home dates (not including those in Europe) were not of any specific relevance until the attendances made them important. The Coyote attendance photos and announced attendances from the NHL itself told a stark story.

As much as the apologies roll in for not poor, but abysmal attendance given the need for a "rallying cry to save the team" at this point in their history, those pictures do not allow for revising history a few weeks, a few months or a few years from now.

One would be OFFside to suggest that poor attendance can do anything good for the Coyotes to stay in Arizona.

In all the posturing and positioning going on between the NHL, Glendale and the Hulsizer group, it is impossible not to be fixated on the future (or ongoing) debate that is sure to be raised once this reaches the NHL Board of Governor meeting to ratify any deal to keep the team in Arizona.

Will the BOG allow this desert mirage to continue, given acceptable ownership due diligence, a satisfactory purchase price and a lease deal where all the losses are covered by City of Glendale and not Hulsizer, and finally that any such government bailout is legally sound and unchallengeable? The long-held assumption is that this best case will result in the team staying in Arizona. The OFFside Blog says not so fast!

The optics of this charade continuing, as above, also mean something tangibly negative to the NHL, the Board of Governors and certainly the players, as Coyote left winger Paul Bissonnette was clearly ticked off in his post-game tweet. This is a HUGE intangible that no media outlet has broached yet.

So the best case essentially has the team totally financially secure under such a deal yet the nightly attendance could be well under 10,000 and even 7,000 for some weeknights. Does the NHL BOG really want this showcase as a "successfully fixed" franchise? Besides constant revenue sharing payments of $15 million or more, does the other 29 teams want the nightly sports highlights on ESPN to poke fun at the NHL's and Glendale taxpayers' expense?

Does the NHL really want any municipal government to look to Glendale and see what becomes of their investment in a brand new state of the art rink for the NHL as a main tenant? (A past Coyote owner only invested $40 million while Glendale tossed in $180 million under that rink deal.) The constant need for bailouts in order to keep the main tenant solvent hardly seems like a business case to follow for the next rink to be paid for by an NHL city given a shaky market in the first place. So if keeping the team in Arizona shows that the NHL doesn't leave their municipal government holding the bag with a rink without a main tenant, then is this situation any better? The current plan to save the Coyotes is far worse for the local taxpayer, and politicians are now starting to use this story to their own politicial advantage with local elections looming. Score a loss for the municipal governments and their rate and taxpayers.

If this deal does get NHL approval then the NHLPA might dig their heels in for the next CBA, as staying in Phoneix is unnaturally keeping the revenues lower than what many other markets offer. Therefore the players are taking a financial hit in respect to gross revenues of which they are promised 56%. So, the NHLPA via the CBA is also subsidizing the Coyotes along with several other nearly-insolvent teams. Also, are bailouts from Glendale considered Hockey Related Revenues under the CBA? No clear answer has been communicated by the NHL. The NHLPA takes it on the chin when this deal comes together.

Fans, owners, taxpayers, and even the players all stand to lose given a best case deal for the Coyotes to stay.

One other wrinkle to this deal: The "out clause" allows the NHL the "out" some BOGs rumuored to have been waiting for. If the "best case deal" has an out clause for the team to move before at least the standard 7 year clause, then it is expected the NHL will just move the team themselves now given their central control of the team under their ownership. Covering large losses cannot continue to forever, so there must be a line in the sand where Glendale or Hulsizer can walk away, just like the last 3 ownership groups have done in the past 14 years.

It is hard to believe that the NHL would entertain any plan that could reopen this saga just 3 to 7 years from present. Talk about a tough sell!

Winnipeg, you never looked so good!

Chris
President, www.myNHLincludesWinnipeg.com
~ The Reality May Surprise You! Excite You! ~