Glendale to Coyotes: Would you take $10m a year not to move?

Hey, so how are Glendale officials doing holding the line on the Phoenix Coyotesdemands for $15 million a year in subsidies? As of last month, the city council was only willing to as high as $6 million a year, but apparently that’s changed already:

The source said Glendale could be open to a $10 million per year arena deal but also wants some concerns about the Renaissance bid addressed — especially using city payments for debt service.

Because using city payments to line your pockets is so much better than using it to pay off your bank loans.

On a marginally more hopeful note, Glendale officials also say they don’t want to give the new Coyotes owners an out clause in their lease after a few years, because, well, duh. At least they’re negotiating, I guess, though “We got the team to promise not to leave right away and it’s only costing us $10 million a year in annual payments!” isn’t really the kind of bargain you want to brag too loud about.

13 comments on “Glendale to Coyotes: Would you take $10m a year not to move?

  1. Let’s just say Neil owes me $20. The standard joke, when I ask him for the twenty bucks, would be, “I’d rather owe it to you than cheat you out of it.”

    That’s the Coyotes for us, in a nutshell.

    I’m fascinated by all this, because I’m over 90% certain this is exactly how things are going to work out in Sacramento. Sacramento is going to be the new Glendale. It’s going to be, “Well, in order to generate that $233M/year, we just need to invest more.” Which, of course, won’t impact the ROI at all, of course.

  2. Yes, exactly like Sacto. Right down to replacing a downtown mall with the only modern arena in the market for a team that has been supported like mad for decades. EXACTLY.

  3. So…. I’m not surprised at the new “offer”, of course. But I would like to know what happened to “Glendale is not your cash register”?

    Will Weiers now come out and announce: “Attention sports team owners: Glendale IS your cash register”?

    If not, why not?

  4. Well to be fair it was the mayor who said Glendale was no longer their cash register. And they did only approve the $6.5 million (that was in line with other arena mgmt offers outside the NHL) at this week’s city council meeting. It’s only some unnamed “source” stating they MIGHT be open to $10 mil. But so far no actual named individuals have said as much. And the NHL has not indicated that their buyer would accept anything less than $15 mil.

  5. It’s now being reported that a lease agreement is in place, from the sound of it with the full $15m subsidy intact:

  6. Not from what I’m reading. Sounds like the city offered somewhere between 8-11 million bucks.

    Still so much for sticking to their guns. The cash register is open, just not quite as wide as it was previously.

  7. Actually this is the link

  8. Right, that’s what my Arizona Sports URL above links to. The way I understand it, the “gap” was between the $6m that the council approved and the $15m that the Coyotes buyers wanted, and if it’s been “bridged” with $8-11m that means that the Coyotes will be getting their whole $15m.

    Assuming that anything Fox Sports Arizona wrote can be trusted, which given how much this is all rumors and reports of rumors at this point, probably shouldn’t be much. Plus we don’t know what “Coyotes-related revenues” means. Hopefully more will be revealed over the weekend.

  9. Sure, Ben, the whole revitalization argument. We’ve never seen that one before.

    Pretty original.

  10. I see the “gap” bridged is nothing more than the City Manager negotiated the best deal it could with RSE and they will use it to evaluate the other two (non-hockey) proposals next week. They haven’t signed anything and still have two offers on the table. Hard to get a read how close this bridge is to what the Glendale city council would consider.

  11. JB:

    It’s true. From what I understand, the city is still very much considering other arena management proposals… they are not “single sourcing” the AM deal at this point (which was certainly the case with the previous prospective owners).

    I hope they stick to their guns and do an apples-apples comparison between the “hockey” and “non-hockey” options.

    If they do that, there seems next to no possibility that they would opt for the Mgmt agreement that requires a $15m subsidy to a professional sports business.