Coyotes owner may be settling on Scottsdale arena site, who’ll pay for it still TBD

The Arizona Coyotes owners may finally be close to deciding where to try to build a new arena, if not how to pay for it:

The site is on privately-held tribal land at the northeast corner of the Loop 101 and 202, at McKellips and McClintock. It was home to the Scottsdale 6 drive-in for more than 30 years…

An announcement connected to the site could come on Thursday, I’ve been told. The arena would be part of a larger project at the site.

That’s from Brahm Resnik of KPNX, who doesn’t cite his source, though with the NHL draft starting this Friday and Coyotes owner Anthony LeBlanc having said he’ll have an announcement before then, it’s a fair bet he’ll announce something on Thursday, even if it’s only a front-runner in the arena site competition.

The site described is this one, which is actually in Scottsdale, and as you can see from Google Maps is currently a big ol’ pile of nothing. There’s certainly plenty of room for a “larger project” there, but that won’t necessarily help pay the bills for a pricey arena, especially when LeBlanc’s bottom line is he wants to be paid to play anywhere. I’ll be absolutely stunned if there’s no public subsidy demand attached to this, either in cash or tax kickbacks or both, though I won’t be at all surprised if that bit isn’t revealed this week, since “announce where to put it first, explain how to pay for it later” is tried-and-true sports owner strategy.

Other Recent Posts:

Share this post:

21 comments on “Coyotes owner may be settling on Scottsdale arena site, who’ll pay for it still TBD

  1. LeBlanc’s game, as previously noted, is summed up in his statement that the Coyotes “are currently looking at three plots of dirt that currently generate no tax revenue.” And he’ll do his best to make sure the chosen dirt never produces any tax revenue, at least not any revenue that will benefit the public in general. Perhaps Scottsdale will fall for this. After all, why would one of the most desirable cities in North America ever expect unused plots of land to attract investors and produce tax revenue for the city?

  2. The site is actually on the Salt River Pima Indian Reservation (nearly all addresses near the border show as Scottsdale or Mesa) so it will be the tribal government the Coyotes will have to deal with and they are looking to generate revenue for the tribe. The ‘yotes better be ready to pony up substantial cash. Also the Maricopa County Assessor database does show this property (I suspect because it is nontaxable Indian land).

    1. If there’s no property taxes that’s a bonus, certainly, but then, the Coyotes didn’t pay property taxes in Glendale, either. I have a hard time seeing how this is going to pencil out as an improvement for LeBlanc over his previous lease, unless he gets beaucoup bucks from Salt River in exchange for bringing “development” to the reservation.

  3. It’s like they’re trying to make the franchise even more unsustainable and even worse as a business.

  4. While I am and always have been of the view that this franchise is a basket case and not a real business, there may be some merit to a Scottsdale/Mesa location.

    First of all, as Ellman noted years ago when he was looking at a subsidized arena in Scottsdale, that’s where the monied fans are. That will help.

    The reason Ellman plumped for Glendale was chiefly that Scottsdale wanted to share the cost of construction (with an Ellman contribution up front, as I recall), while Glendale offered to pay everything and just take a cut of all the parking revenue that the arena would surely generate (along with a ticket tax originally, as I recall). This generated about $2m on average per year… until the Coyotes decided they needed that too.

    The franchise itself may be better off as far as attendance and (supportable) ticket prices, it still doesn’t “fix” anything if the extra revenue goes to construction bond payments (or PILOTs or a foreign concept like “rent” etc).

    It only works as a business if someone else picks up at least 30% of the operating costs… ergo, it does not work as a business.

  5. Outstanding reporting, Neil. This had been going on far too long in Scottsdale and neighboring cities, including taxpayer-funded subsidies to Mayor Jim Lane’s campaign PR manager for his polo and rugby matches, and other cash subsidies that are going directly to the promoters instead of infrastructure.

    John Washington
    www.ScottsdaleCitizen.com

  6. I’m not sure if repeating what KPNX said and adding a Google Maps search qualifies as “reporting,” but thanks!

    Will try to dig into this more deeply once details emerge later this week, if the details amount to more than “Three arenas good, two arenas bad!”

    1. Neil,

      That seems to be at least half the business model of the Phoenix Biz Journal, and I do it all the time:)

      But seriously, you’ve recognized an important development and circulated the news to those who might not have seen it otherwise (your article popped up in a standing Google search I have for “Scottsdale News”). So you “done good!”

      And obviously you’ve connected a lot of dots with this and previous work that the average citizen wouldn’t have necessarily connected on their own.

      Thank you!

  7. By the way, as you correctly noted…this site is within the boundaries of the Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community. It is NOT “in Scottsdale.” It has a legacy Scottsdale mailing address (as does all of the SRPMIC) because it was historically serviced (and probably still is) out of the Scottsdale post office.

    Unfortunately, however,

    a) Three of the four corners of that intersection ARE in Scottsdale. So Scottsdale residents and folks traveling that corridor into and out of Scottsdale will have to deal with the game-day traffic,

    b) LeBlanc will undoubtedly have his hand out at Scottsdale City Hall soon enough…if he hasn’t already.

    c) With the financial irresponsibility of our mayor and council majority, LeBlanc will probably get what he wants in exchange for some plump campaign contributions (there’s an election coming up, after all),

    d) Even in the unlikely event that subsidies aren’t in the cards, Scottsdale taxpayers will still pay through the nose for traffic mitigation efforts and other arena-related infrastructure costs on our side of the boundary.

  8. What if the Coyotes make a deal with the tribe that helps develop their land while helping the team re-brand itself and get out of Glendale? What if the tribe agrees to pay for the arena in exchange for a share of the profits and the NHL owners agree to it?

    Vegas is getting a team in two days! Obviously the NHL has a game plan–a strategy to develop the western conference and create rivalries –a long term plan that includes Phoenix. They might be doing this without tax payer money. We don’t know yet. It’d be the first deal of its kind and Vegas is a clear indicator the NHL might be going a different direction when it comes to funding arenas. Two words: Vegas baby!

    It’s a free market. I don’t think we can decide which arenas make it and don’t, especially when it’s on the tribe’s land. In reality, those who oppose this won’t have much of a say if they aren’t paying for it. I guess we’ll see on Friday. It sure would be a unique partnership.

    Glendale promised big things for the team and vice versa. It didn’t work out.

    One more thing: It’s not the Coyotes fault the Suns want a new arena and don’t want to share with them. That’s on Sarver. I think Glendale is upset now because they thought they could push the Coyotes around and it didn’t happen and the Suns didn’t expect the Coyotes to stay around.

    If this arena goes up it’s going to wreck the NBA’s chances of a new tax payer funded arena, which would force them to follow suit of the Coyotes and play in an arena made for the Yotes. Now that would be hilarious (IMO).

    I can only hope the Yotes do something private, so all the naysayers will stop talking negatively about them once and for all. They have a great team and a bright future, if they can get a new start in the east valley.

    1. The Coyotes have a bright future… that particular lie has been told for 20 years as of this September.

      So far they have had two owners walk out on them, one more admit he would have lost less money keeping the team in Winnipeg, and several prospective owners who’s path to profitability involved being paid $15m a year to play in the arena the taxpayers built for them.

      You can say a significant part of that is down to the horrendous decision (on both sides) to relocate to Glendale. But look at the club’s local tv numbers… they are positioned somewhere behind semi pro bowling as a television property. In a CMA of roughly 5 million people they routinely generate the same number of viewers as the test pattern would.

      That has nothing to do with the arena. And as you note, they have often had competitive teams. We don’t need to wait for the people of “Phoenix” to speak on the subject. They have already spoken with their wallets. They won’t pay NHL prices to watch NHL hockey. At times, they’ve been willing to pay minor league prices to watch NHL hockey, but that is hardly a positive.

    2. 1. “Tribal” land and money is just as “public” as Arizonan or Glendale land and money. Tribal does not equal “private.”

      2. Building an arena and a development in the middle of the desert is the opposite of “free market.” Someone is going to have to develop the infrastructure and extend current municipal coverage to the development. Doing this in an era of years of little water is particularly irresponsible and wasteful.

      3. This is just as fanciful as previous ideas of building a “public private” arena with Arizona State University. The owner is straight up that he’s not putting his money behind it. So how that qualifies as “private” I have no idea.

    3. “Glendale promised big things for the team and vice versa. It didn’t work out.”

      I think you answered your own question, especially in the context of Gdub’s very well-stated comments.

    4. “What if the tribe agrees to pay for the arena in exchange for a share of the profits and the NHL owners agree to it?”

      That’s a great idea, but if “a share of the profits” could fund an arena, then LeBlanc could just as easily do it himself.

      The Glendale arena loses money even *before* paying off its construction debt. An arena in the East Valley might well do better, but there’s a long way to go before “better” turns into “spinning off enough money to make both LeBlanc and the tribe turn a profit.”

      1. Thanks for not being as rude as others. I do understand your point. I’m just a hockey fan/former player who wants to see it work out here. Preferably without using tax dollars.

    5. I’ve been listening to this since RIM CEO was trying to snag them back in ’08 and bring them to Hamilton. It didn’t happen because the NHL didn’t want more Canadian teams in the league. Possibly Quebec will get a team one day. But places like Saskatoon? Forget about it.

      The Coyotes have a product. They want to grow it. Growing it takes time. The NHL is set on the west. So many Canadians and northern state folks want to keep the game restricted to cold climates. I grew up playing the game and I for one want to see it succeed everywhere.

      Unless you guys live here you don’t really understand. The arenas down here are jam packed with kids. I was actually just in AZ Ice, Gilbert, yesterday. It’s the middle of June and both sheets of ice are packed like the arena I played at when I was a kid playing up in Minnesota. We have a handful of nice arenas down here and they are always packed/scheduled for practice.

      This has to do with growing the sport. Arizona has the highest increase YOY in youth hockey in the nation. Sure, it’s dwarfed by hockey states. But we do actually have much more by the numbers than many northeastern states. We sit right at #25 in the nation. Two kids from Arizona are going in the top #10. Matthews and Tkachuk. Yeah so…

      I guess Arizona has spoken and doesn’t like hockey.

      Anyway, there’s no point in arguing with you guys. Your minds are set. But I don’t suspect the Coyotes are going anywhere anytime soon. Not when the Canadian with that loonie. I’d post a link but you can Google “Revenue NHL teams” and look at various numbers from Bloomberg to Forbes. The Coyotes aren’t much worse off in terms of revenues compared to Canadian teams because Canadian money is worth less than 2/3 US dollar last time I looked.

      Your water comment I can understand and think about these kinds of matters living in the desert myself.

      The other argument I won’t get into. The tribe can do with their money what they want to do. And they do. I know this because I live here and they were nice enough to build Salt River Fields for The Diamond Backs and Colorado Rockies at Talking Stick without dipping into city funds and without money from tax payers.

      I’m not saying the Coyotes are gold, an arena is going up for sure, but it is an option many desert hockey fans hope comes to fruition. Our own #1 has wanted to be a Coyote his whole life. Not a Maple Leaf. I guess he’ll be able to show northern folks how little interest there is in hockey in the desert when he lights up the lamp next year for them.

      1. MM–I live in a hockey state and consider myself a hockey fan. I’m glad when more people like hockey. I’m happier when more people like playing it. Great sport and lots of fun. However, pro hockey was played in the West long before Gary Bettman–the SF Seals were established 50 years ago.

        However, the particular point here is whether growing a sport requires it to be played at the pro level. Even bigger, the question is whether growing a sport is worth fleecing the public purse of tax revenue and expenditures. The history of Glendale–and many other municipalities–would say no.

        There are many reasonable options available to sports owners to raise money to build a place of business–you’ve raised some of them. However, the history of this team and this owner suggests not at all they are open to them. The preferred option is for the owner to own 100% of the team and get 100% of the revenues, and for the public to pay 100% of the costs. Negotiation is available to work out which forms of tax rebates, tax kickbacks, etc. are used to make the numbers add up “properly.”

        So if the Coyotes build a new arena and sell out every game in an arena built by free enterprise–great. I’d say there is little in their history to suggest that this is at all under consideration by the Coyotes.

      2. You say growing takes time.
        The Coyotes have been there for 20 years now, wars have been won and lost and whole cities have been built in less time than that. How much time is a franchise that has had two arenas, and is now working on a third, despite never having good attendance or rarely fielding a competitive team, supposed to be allowed?

        This has nothing to do with the sun belt vs. traditional hockey markets. It has to do with the fact that the Phoenix area has never shown a real interest in supporting the Coyotes and, unless they magically put together a Stanley Cup winning team in the next few years, this shows almost no likelihood of changing.

        So Phoenix has a decent youth hockey program……pretty much any large US city can make the same claim these days. There’s a big difference between that and a population supporting an NHL franchise. What happens if this Scottsdale arena goes through and the interest or the quality of the team doesn’t improve? Does the team automatically get another 10-15 years at the new arena, or do they bail leaving the PHX area with THREE professional arenas under 25 years old with only one NBA franchise in town?

        Phoenix has had plenty of time for professional hockey to take root and, so far, the results have been pretty poor.

        1. I love when I hear people say “hockey fans really want to see a team thrive in Phoenix.”

          You have a team. You have an arena. You want hockey to thrive? Get in your car and drive to the games. Suck it up and quit whining about the distance.

          Truth is, the distance is just an excuse. If they build a new arena – and man, do I hope they don’t – people will just come up with new excuses not to go. It’s easy to say you would go if the drive wasn’t so far.

  9. MM, your post is like canine macrame of hay bales…..so many straw dogs…

    *******(Hamilton) didn’t happen because the NHL didn’t want more Canadian teams in the league.******

    More like “the league already despised Jim Balsillie for events that far predated his interest in the Coyotes” and “the league likes placating Toronto (and to a far lesser extent, Buffalo).”

    *******Quebec will get a team one day. But places like Saskatoon? Forget about it.******

    Why do you assume that to keep the league westward that it must be Saskatoon or even Canada for that matter? Or that this is what anyone is implying?

    *****The Coyotes have a product. They want to grow it. Growing it takes time.*****

    I do agree with the spirit of your premise but the irritiating thing about this whole chestnut is that a) no timeline is ever given as to how long this should take AKA ” it’s only fair that you let our team lose tens of millions of dollars for decades and decades and decades while people in cities that would support teams should be happy to live their whole childhood (or even adulthood) without a team theyd be willing to voluntarily pay for because of this stuff takes time,” b) it always assumes that the NHL and *the NHL only* is the absolute singular way to “grow the game.” (I absolutely love the idea of ASU having a team, BTW , and wonder why it took so long ).

    ****** The NHL is set on the west.*****
    I asumme you meant SOUTHwest as Portland and Seattle (or for that matter, Saskatoon) were west last I checked.

    ******Unless you guys live here you don’t really understand. The arenas down here are jam packed with kids.*****
    Wonderful! The NHL is sucking tax money out of a city: how about putting those kids and their parents’ money into the NHL team?

    ****This has to do with growing the sport. Arizona has the highest increase YOY in youth hockey in the nation.*****
    All sports fans— withhold any criticisms of anything related to Arizona pro sports teams!! Because the number one priority in all pro sports leagues right now should be if kids in Arizona care about it and if you don’t agree, you’re a heartless monster!

    *****But I don’t suspect the Coyotes are going anywhere anytime soon. Not when the Canadian with that loonie.*****
    Does Paul Allen only pay in loonies?

    ***** The Coyotes aren’t much worse off in terms of revenues compared to Canadian teams because Canadian money is worth less than 2/3 US dollar last time I looked.*****
    Now you’re just lying! I *have* looked those #s up and consistently the Yotes are in the bottom five (or lower) in revenues and no Canadian teams reside there (and yes, that’s in American money). The only team probably close to that low is Winnipeg due to market size and thats only in year five.

    *****Our own #1 has wanted to be a Coyote his whole life. Not a Maple Leaf. I guess he’ll be able to show northern folks how little interest there is in hockey in the desert….****
    “After *20 years* of a NHL team ( with decades of minor league hockey preceding it), we produced a couple of NHL players so therefore the whole operation was a success!!!”

    Yotes fans on msg boards for the next 10 years: “Well…..Matthews….SO THERE!!”

Comments are closed.