Coyotes to stay in Phoenix, apparently

[ZBBM]

No thread on this?  Did I miss it?  Or have we forgotten the epic 350+-pager on the old site that plumbed the depths of contract law, Arizona politics, the inner workings of Jim Balsillie's pysche (and isn't he probably glad, in hindsight, that he never got a team seeing that RIM is about to go el busto), Gary Bettman's insufferable arrogance/ego, the diffidence of Yotes fans, the inner workings of Shane Doan's psyche, the vagaries of Glendale's arena lease, explanations of what the hell Jobing.com is, the conservative legacy of Barry Goldwater, the burial practices of the Anasazi, etc. etc. etc.?

Anyway, it all seems to have come down to a fairly anticlimactic finish.  And there still will be no NHL team in Kitchener.

 

[Kin]

This is from the ESPN article on the subject

Jamison still must complete negotiations on a lease with the city of Glendale. That has long been the nagging issue in the league's attempts to sell the team, which the NHL purchased out of bankruptcy.

So, as someone who contributed a good 30-40 of those 350 pages of the original thread, I'm inclined to hold off on thinking anything is a done deal until the t's have crosses and the i's have dots.

 

[cw]

They claim to have a new deal structure to get around the Goldwater Institute. I guess I'll believe it when I see it and read the fine print carefully after Goldwater has responded. The Az Gift Clause laws bumped the bond rates the last time which killed their deal - even though a number of legal opinions said the city would prevail. Even the slightest higher risk is a good excuse to drive interest rates and the price tag for that was about $60 mil more in interest - something crazy like that.

I think Gary knows as well as anyone that in normal circumstances, this would be a dumb time to talk to the press. He does not have a signed deal with the new owners. The city doesn't have a signed lease with the new owners nor has the city council approved it. And then there's Goldwater.

So they're in about the same spot they were with Reinsdorf & Ice Edge groups - agreement in principle pending lease without much Goldwater scrutiny yet. And not as far along as they got with Hulsizer - who got scuttled by the bond interest rate getting inflated with the Goldwater threats to cover that risk.

Let's say it all blows up: Gary will have provided a fourth pretty serious suitor to the city of Glendale. And he just sold a bunch of tickets short term and maybe some seasons ticket for next season along with ads, viewers & merchandise - if they're still there for a last season. He really didn't have much to lose at this point.

I still think Bettman is a pretty shrewd businessman and he could probably write David Shoalts article for him in the Globe & Mail tomorrow for all the predictable pessimism that will be written. But I can't count him out that he and his lawyers may yet pull a rabbit out of his hat to scuttle Goldwater's angle.

We'll know one way or the other in the next few weeks because the city of Glendale doesn't have the will nor the cash to throw at it for the third go round. Either they get something now that cuts their losses or it's toast.

 

[Tigger]

...don't forget Bryzgalov doesn't want to play in Winnipeg...Moyes was a scumbag/the league is run by the mob...Ponzi schemes...the raw cost of concrete...naming rights...parking fees...f=ma...media markets...p=mv...Richard Rodiers underhand serves...and of course 2012...

 

[bustaheims]

A truly epic thread comes to its inevitable almost maybe conclusion, possibly. Sounds about right.

 

[hockeyfan1]

From:
http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/2012/05/07/phoenix_coyotes_sale_glendale_bettman

According to long-time Glendale city councilor Phil Lieberman, the terms of the deal being given to Jamison -- who has partners, apparently, but wouldn't name them -- basically see him guaranteed $306 million in management fees for Jobing.com Arena over the next 21 years, or an average of $14.6 million a year. A large chunk of that money is front-end loaded, with Glendale on the hook for $92 million over the next five years.

So no, he and his backers -- whoever they are -- aren't complete fools to write a cheque for $170 million for a team that has lost more than $50 million the past two seasons despite a rock bottom payroll and consecutive playoff appearances.

The management fee seems like a pretty good deal for them, revenue sharing makes it better. Nearby University of Phoenix Stadium, home to the Arizona Cardinals of the NFL, carries a $9.2-million management fee annually.

The flexibility the arena has in terms of dates without having to work around a sports team's schedule may actually off-set whatever benefits the facility might get from a sweetheart lease deal the club would surely command.

Lieberman has long been a vocal opponent of paying the NHL to stay in Phoenix from his seat on council, and he was no different when Bettman and his posse presented the deal to him in a conference room at city hall Wednesday afternoon.

They didn't change his mind, though it's expected a majority of the seven city councilors will approve the deal.

"If I had to choose between the Coyotes staying and them leaving, I wish they were leaving," said Lieberman.

It's not hard to see why, and they still may yet. Monday night's press conference aside, there are a lot of hurdles to overcome before a deal to keep the Coyotes out of Quebec City is reached.

The city of Glendale has to agree to the deal being sought by the Jamison group, and then a city with a $35-million budget shortfall has to figure out how to pay for it -- no easy task given homeowners are already going to be hit with a 30 per cent property tax hike in August that will likely come with a layoff of city employees. There's also the matter of the watchdog Goldwater Institute deciding whether or not the deal is enough of an affront to taxpayers to make it worthwhile opposing through litigation.

Lieberman says he shudders to think what hockey in the desert has cost the city he's lived in, worked in and served for most of his life after returning from the Second World War.

"I figure about $134 million in cold hard cash so far," he said. "Wow is right."

 

[dappleganger]

From:
http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/2012/05/07/phoenix_coyotes_sale_glendale_bettman

According to long-time Glendale city councilor Phil Lieberman, the terms of the deal being given to Jamison -- who has partners, apparently, but wouldn't name them -- basically see him guaranteed $306 million in management fees for Jobing.com Arena over the next 21 years, or an average of $14.6 million a year. A large chunk of that money is front-end loaded, with Glendale on the hook for $92 million over the next five years.

The city of Glendale has to agree to the deal being sought by the Jamison group, and then a city with a $35-million budget shortfall has to figure out how to pay for it -- no easy task given homeowners are already going to be hit with a 30 per cent property tax hike in August that will likely come with a layoff of city employees. There's also the matter of the watchdog Goldwater Institute deciding whether or not the deal is enough of an affront to taxpayers to make it worthwhile opposing through litigation.

Lieberman says he shudders to think what hockey in the desert has cost the city he's lived in, worked in and served for most of his life after returning from the Second World War.

"I figure about $134 million in cold hard cash so far," he said. "Wow is right."

WTF are they trying to keep the Coyotes in Phoenix? ???

 

[cw]

From:
http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/2012/05/07/phoenix_coyotes_sale_glendale_bettman

According to long-time Glendale city councilor Phil Lieberman, the terms of the deal being given to Jamison -- who has partners, apparently, but wouldn't name them -- basically see him guaranteed $306 million in management fees for Jobing.com Arena over the next 21 years, or an average of $14.6 million a year. A large chunk of that money is front-end loaded, with Glendale on the hook for $92 million over the next five years.

The city of Glendale has to agree to the deal being sought by the Jamison group, and then a city with a $35-million budget shortfall has to figure out how to pay for it -- no easy task given homeowners are already going to be hit with a 30 per cent property tax hike in August that will likely come with a layoff of city employees. There's also the matter of the watchdog Goldwater Institute deciding whether or not the deal is enough of an affront to taxpayers to make it worthwhile opposing through litigation.

Lieberman says he shudders to think what hockey in the desert has cost the city he's lived in, worked in and served for most of his life after returning from the Second World War.

"I figure about $134 million in cold hard cash so far," he said. "Wow is right."

WTF are they trying to keep the Coyotes in Phoenix? ???

for M-O-N-E-Y

It may seem like they're paying a lot for arena management BUT the ONLY reason one would consider doing such a thing is if there is a substantial financial return for the city compared to higher financial losses they would experience if the Coyotes leave. One can't expect any new owner to buy something they'll lose their shirts on. Nobody in their right mind would go for that.

One also can't just look only at the expense side of the ledger the way Lieberman is. Business 101 math requires that one look at both revenues and expenses of each alternative. And the bottom line for the alternative the city should take is the alternative that will cost their taxpayers the least factored with the risk. That is what the city is trying to achieve out of a messy situation because they're on the hook for a rink ($200 mil in outstanding bond payments roughly) and hundreds of millions in sales taxes, business taxes, real estate taxes and parking revenues the city won't ever receive if the team leaves. And the city doesn't have the cash to redevelop or launch some new venture.

The issue here is not whether the team is viable/break even on it's own as a business. Over the next 5-10 years, it definitely is not. The issue here is how to minimize the losses to the taxpayer - a very different business problem. In other words, the final alternative compared to the original deal may not be as attractive to the city but the original deal is dead and the alternative should be considerably more attractive financially than the city losing their shirts on an empty building. Otherwise, the city shouldn't proceed.

That to me seems to be where a lot of folks are having trouble getting their heads around this. They conclude that if the team isn't break even, then the team should go while ignoring what it could cost the city. It is not that simple. If it was, this thing would have been over long ago.

"I figure about $134 million in cold hard cash so far," :
overstated by a politician on the other side of the aisle and ignoring the revenues they received during that time that would offset a bunch of that while keeping the option for the better alternative alive.

 

[dappleganger]

From:
http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/2012/05/07/phoenix_coyotes_sale_glendale_bettman

According to long-time Glendale city councilor Phil Lieberman, the terms of the deal being given to Jamison -- who has partners, apparently, but wouldn't name them -- basically see him guaranteed $306 million in management fees for Jobing.com Arena over the next 21 years, or an average of $14.6 million a year. A large chunk of that money is front-end loaded, with Glendale on the hook for $92 million over the next five years.

The city of Glendale has to agree to the deal being sought by the Jamison group, and then a city with a $35-million budget shortfall has to figure out how to pay for it -- no easy task given homeowners are already going to be hit with a 30 per cent property tax hike in August that will likely come with a layoff of city employees. There's also the matter of the watchdog Goldwater Institute deciding whether or not the deal is enough of an affront to taxpayers to make it worthwhile opposing through litigation.

Lieberman says he shudders to think what hockey in the desert has cost the city he's lived in, worked in and served for most of his life after returning from the Second World War.

"I figure about $134 million in cold hard cash so far," he said. "Wow is right."

WTF are they trying to keep the Coyotes in Phoenix? ???

for M-O-N-E-Y

It may seem like they're paying a lot for arena management BUT the ONLY reason one would consider doing such a thing is if there is a substantial financial return for the city compared to higher financial losses they would experience if the Coyotes leave. One can't expect any new owner to buy something they'll lose their shirts on. Nobody in their right mind would go for that.

One also can't just look only at the expense side of the ledger the way Lieberman is. Business 101 math requires that one look at both revenues and expenses of each alternative. And the bottom line for the alternative the city should take is the alternative that will cost their taxpayers the least factored with the risk. That is what the city is trying to achieve out of a messy situation because they're on the hook for a rink ($200 mil in outstanding bond payments roughly) and hundreds of millions in sales taxes, business taxes, real estate taxes and parking revenues the city won't ever receive if the team leaves. And the city doesn't have the cash to redevelop or launch some new venture.

The issue here is not whether the team is viable/break even on it's own as a business. Over the next 5-10 years, it definitely is not. The issue here is how to minimize the losses to the taxpayer - a very different business problem. In other words, the final alternative compared to the original deal may not be as attractive to the city but the original deal is dead and the alternative should be considerably more attractive financially than the city losing their shirts on an empty building. Otherwise, the city shouldn't proceed.

That to me seems to be where a lot of folks are having trouble getting their heads around this. They conclude that if the team isn't break even, then the team should go while ignoring what it could cost the city. It is not that simple. If it was, this thing would have been over long ago.

"I figure about $134 million in cold hard cash so far," :
overstated by a politician on the other side of the aisle and ignoring the revenues they received during that time that would offset a bunch of that while keeping the option for the better alternative alive.

Does Bettman care about the taxpayers in Glendale?

I understand why the city would want the team to stay. I don't see how any potential owner is going to make money with the Coyotes in Glendale.

The whole saga is shady. Bettman should be doing what will make the NHL the most money and I can't see how keeping the team in Phoenix achieves that.

It seemed fairly easy to send the Thrashers to Winnipeg.

 

[cw]

From:
http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/2012/05/07/phoenix_coyotes_sale_glendale_bettman

According to long-time Glendale city councilor Phil Lieberman, the terms of the deal being given to Jamison -- who has partners, apparently, but wouldn't name them -- basically see him guaranteed $306 million in management fees for Jobing.com Arena over the next 21 years, or an average of $14.6 million a year. A large chunk of that money is front-end loaded, with Glendale on the hook for $92 million over the next five years.

The city of Glendale has to agree to the deal being sought by the Jamison group, and then a city with a $35-million budget shortfall has to figure out how to pay for it -- no easy task given homeowners are already going to be hit with a 30 per cent property tax hike in August that will likely come with a layoff of city employees. There's also the matter of the watchdog Goldwater Institute deciding whether or not the deal is enough of an affront to taxpayers to make it worthwhile opposing through litigation.

Lieberman says he shudders to think what hockey in the desert has cost the city he's lived in, worked in and served for most of his life after returning from the Second World War.

"I figure about $134 million in cold hard cash so far," he said. "Wow is right."

WTF are they trying to keep the Coyotes in Phoenix? ???

for M-O-N-E-Y

It may seem like they're paying a lot for arena management BUT the ONLY reason one would consider doing such a thing is if there is a substantial financial return for the city compared to higher financial losses they would experience if the Coyotes leave. One can't expect any new owner to buy something they'll lose their shirts on. Nobody in their right mind would go for that.

One also can't just look only at the expense side of the ledger the way Lieberman is. Business 101 math requires that one look at both revenues and expenses of each alternative. And the bottom line for the alternative the city should take is the alternative that will cost their taxpayers the least factored with the risk. That is what the city is trying to achieve out of a messy situation because they're on the hook for a rink ($200 mil in outstanding bond payments roughly) and hundreds of millions in sales taxes, business taxes, real estate taxes and parking revenues the city won't ever receive if the team leaves. And the city doesn't have the cash to redevelop or launch some new venture.

The issue here is not whether the team is viable/break even on it's own as a business. Over the next 5-10 years, it definitely is not. The issue here is how to minimize the losses to the taxpayer - a very different business problem. In other words, the final alternative compared to the original deal may not be as attractive to the city but the original deal is dead and the alternative should be considerably more attractive financially than the city losing their shirts on an empty building. Otherwise, the city shouldn't proceed.

That to me seems to be where a lot of folks are having trouble getting their heads around this. They conclude that if the team isn't break even, then the team should go while ignoring what it could cost the city. It is not that simple. If it was, this thing would have been over long ago.

"I figure about $134 million in cold hard cash so far," :
overstated by a politician on the other side of the aisle and ignoring the revenues they received during that time that would offset a bunch of that while keeping the option for the better alternative alive.

Does Bettman care about the taxpayers in Glendale?

I understand why the city would want the team to stay. I don't see how any potential owner is going to make money with the Coyotes in Glendale.

The whole saga is shady. Bettman should be doing what will make the NHL the most money and I can't see how keeping the team in Phoenix achieves that.

It seemed fairly easy to send the Thrashers to Winnipeg.

If Bettman didn't stand with Glendale when they stood to lose their shirts on the investment for their arena, what are the chances any other municipality would chip in to build a building for the NHL in the future? Considerably less in my opinion. The NHL has benefited from billions in municipal investment to help them grow their sport. Municipal partnership has to be a key to the future of the NHL.

Further, if the NHL assisted in letting the team leave town in the wrong way, there was probably significant legal recourse Glendale could have taken against the NHL because their own by-laws dictated that they became the owner of the team when Moyes defaulted. The NHL had to be pretty darn careful in how they handled themselves so they weren't paying for Glendale's rink as part of the cost for the move to Hamilton or Quebec or wherever.

Arizona and Nevada are the two areas expected to grow the most in North America over the next couple of decades. Compounding their current troubles is that Arizona was hit as hard as any area in NA by this recession. But Arizona represents a significant broadcast market as it is right now. To not have a team there is a significant hole in the NHL's broadcasting footprint. And, if I had the choice between the Sabres and Coyotes as to which team I'd rather own in 20 years, I'd take the Coyotes in a heartbeat due to that significant projected growth - including a bunch of Canadians going there to retire. A smaller percentage of market share in a growing bigger market can be more attractive than bigger percentage of market share in a small, stagnant market. If the Coyotes can tough it out for the next 5-10 years, they will become above NHL average in financial viability in the decade that follows that period and their franchise value will grow accordingly. If the new owner can break even for the next 10 years or so, he'll probably double his investment because 10 years or so from now, things will look considerably brighter for them.

So Bettman hasn't suddenly got stupid. There are good business reasons for the NHL to be dug in on the course they've taken here. And there are good business reasons why guys like Reinsdorf, Ice Edge, Hulsizer and Jamison would be interested. Those guys didn't accrue their wealth by being stupid either.

 

[Rebel_1812]

From:
http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/2012/05/07/phoenix_coyotes_sale_glendale_bettman

According to long-time Glendale city councilor Phil Lieberman, the terms of the deal being given to Jamison -- who has partners, apparently, but wouldn't name them -- basically see him guaranteed $306 million in management fees for Jobing.com Arena over the next 21 years, or an average of $14.6 million a year. A large chunk of that money is front-end loaded, with Glendale on the hook for $92 million over the next five years.

The city of Glendale has to agree to the deal being sought by the Jamison group, and then a city with a $35-million budget shortfall has to figure out how to pay for it -- no easy task given homeowners are already going to be hit with a 30 per cent property tax hike in August that will likely come with a layoff of city employees. There's also the matter of the watchdog Goldwater Institute deciding whether or not the deal is enough of an affront to taxpayers to make it worthwhile opposing through litigation.

Lieberman says he shudders to think what hockey in the desert has cost the city he's lived in, worked in and served for most of his life after returning from the Second World War.

"I figure about $134 million in cold hard cash so far," he said. "Wow is right."

WTF are they trying to keep the Coyotes in Phoenix? ???

for M-O-N-E-Y

It may seem like they're paying a lot for arena management BUT the ONLY reason one would consider doing such a thing is if there is a substantial financial return for the city compared to higher financial losses they would experience if the Coyotes leave. One can't expect any new owner to buy something they'll lose their shirts on. Nobody in their right mind would go for that.

One also can't just look only at the expense side of the ledger the way Lieberman is. Business 101 math requires that one look at both revenues and expenses of each alternative. And the bottom line for the alternative the city should take is the alternative that will cost their taxpayers the least factored with the risk. That is what the city is trying to achieve out of a messy situation because they're on the hook for a rink ($200 mil in outstanding bond payments roughly) and hundreds of millions in sales taxes, business taxes, real estate taxes and parking revenues the city won't ever receive if the team leaves. And the city doesn't have the cash to redevelop or launch some new venture.

The issue here is not whether the team is viable/break even on it's own as a business. Over the next 5-10 years, it definitely is not. The issue here is how to minimize the losses to the taxpayer - a very different business problem. In other words, the final alternative compared to the original deal may not be as attractive to the city but the original deal is dead and the alternative should be considerably more attractive financially than the city losing their shirts on an empty building. Otherwise, the city shouldn't proceed.

That to me seems to be where a lot of folks are having trouble getting their heads around this. They conclude that if the team isn't break even, then the team should go while ignoring what it could cost the city. It is not that simple. If it was, this thing would have been over long ago.

"I figure about $134 million in cold hard cash so far," :
overstated by a politician on the other side of the aisle and ignoring the revenues they received during that time that would offset a bunch of that while keeping the option for the better alternative alive.

Does Bettman care about the taxpayers in Glendale?

I understand why the city would want the team to stay. I don't see how any potential owner is going to make money with the Coyotes in Glendale.

The whole saga is shady. Bettman should be doing what will make the NHL the most money and I can't see how keeping the team in Phoenix achieves that.

It seemed fairly easy to send the Thrashers to Winnipeg.

If Bettman didn't stand with Glendale when they stood to lose their shirts on the investment for their arena, what are the chances any other municipality would chip in to build a building for the NHL in the future? Considerably less in my opinion. The NHL has benefited from billions in municipal investment to help them grow their sport. Municipal partnership has to be a key to the future of the NHL.

Further, if the NHL assisted in letting the team leave town in the wrong way, there was probably significant legal recourse Glendale could have taken against the NHL because their own by-laws dictated that they became the owner of the team when Moyes defaulted. The NHL had to be pretty darn careful in how they handled themselves so they weren't paying for Glendale's rink as part of the cost for the move to Hamilton or Quebec or wherever.

Arizona and Nevada are the two areas expected to grow the most in North America over the next couple of decades. Compounding their current troubles is that Arizona was hit as hard as any area in NA by this recession. But Arizona represents a significant broadcast market as it is right now. To not have a team there is a significant hole in the NHL's broadcasting footprint. And, if I had the choice between the Sabres and Coyotes as to which team I'd rather own in 20 years, I'd take the Coyotes in a heartbeat due to that significant projected growth - including a bunch of Canadians going there to retire. A smaller percentage of market share in a growing bigger market can be more attractive than bigger percentage of market share in a small, stagnant market. If the Coyotes can tough it out for the next 5-10 years, they will become above NHL average in financial viability in the decade that follows that period and their franchise value will grow accordingly. If the new owner can break even for the next 10 years or so, he'll probably double his investment because 10 years or so from now, things will look considerably brighter for them.

So Bettman hasn't suddenly got stupid. There are good business reasons for the NHL to be dug in on the course they've taken here. And there are good business reasons why guys like Reinsdorf, Ice Edge, Hulsizer and Jamison would be interested. Those guys didn't accrue their wealth by being stupid either.

Oh no, this is entirely personally for that little man.  If he moves the franchise it looks like Ballisle was right and bettman can't have that.  If the coyotes were one in bad shape due to the depression they would have made money in other years.  The fact they have never made money shows that is a bad hockey market period, regardless of all other excuses. Even if you think it was because they didn't have a good team remember they had a pretty good team when Keith Tkachuck was there. 

The only way this makes sense to the owner to buy a business that loses money is if he gets money from the government.  That hugh management fee sounds like exactly that.  I have a feeling Goldwater will challenge the deal for that reason.  Also you have repeatly stated the city would be worse off if the team moved.  I think that is speculative at best.  The kanas city arena is making money without a tenant.  The markham arena plans too as well.  The city of glendale also said they would look to get an AHL team if the NHL one left.  Therefore, it is not doom and gloom if the team left.

 

[Zee]

This is stupid.  Nobody cares about hockey in Phoenix, they lose tons of money, just move the team already.  Quebec would be more than thrilled to have a team again.  Bettman can be so stubborn.

 

[AvroArrow]

seeing that RIM is about to go el busto

Hi, my name is misinformation.

 

[Kin]

The whole saga is shady. Bettman should be doing what will make the NHL the most money and I can't see how keeping the team in Phoenix achieves that.

There are two reasons why this approach makes business sense. CW already explained the importance of encouraging public investment in team facilities but, if anything, he undersold it. Getting these huge, money generating facilities built on the cheap is a huge part of the modern pro sports business model. Bettman, and the rest of the commissioners in the major sports, have to work pretty hard to convince these municipalities to put up money for these places in spite of pretty significant evidence that the benefit to these municipalities is pretty minimal or even non-existent. If Bettman didn't fight hard to save the Coyotes then what happened to Glendale would be example 1A as to why a city, even if they believe that building stadiums is good business, shouldn't ever get in bed with a pro sports league. 

But the other reason that Bettman has an important interest in keeping existing markets working is that, quite correctly, Bettman feels as though the potentially lucrative, arguably under-served market places that don't currently have teams are assets that are the NHL's to control. The way for the NHL and it's current members to make the most money off of Southern Ontario or Quebec City is to open the bidding on expansion franchises, not let sad sack owners buy failing teams on the cheap and then move for a relocation fee.

We just saw it with the Jets. The Jets paid a, what, 60 million dollar relocation fee? Compare that to the 250-300 million or so they could get for a new Quebec City franchise or the 300-350 million they might be able to get for a second Toronto team.

And the thing that ties those two points together is that, I think undeniably, it serves a league's interest to have markets out there that are eager for teams that don't have them. Look at the NFL. The most profitable league in the world has for almost 20 years not had a team in the country's second largest market. They've expanded four times in that stretch and Los Angeles has lost out to Houston, Cleveland, Charlotte and friggin' Jacksonville, Florida. Is the NFL crummy at business? Don't they realize a team in LA would be more valuable than one in Jacksonville?

What the NFL knows is that each and everyone of their teams has the threat of moving to a vacant LA market as a weapon in their pocket for any negotiations they make with their existing cities. Just today, in the midst of a tough economic year, Minnesota's House of Representatives approved a deal that would see nearly 400-500 million dollars be put into a new stadium for the Vikings. Does that happen without the threat of LA?

Having vacant, attractive markets is a good thing for a league. Being able to sell municipalities on building arenas is much, much more valuable to them then the revenue swing of any one move.

 

[ZBBM]

seeing that RIM is about to go el busto

Hi, my name is misinformation.

Lining up to buy their stock, are you?  Have it at.

 

[cw]

seeing that RIM is about to go el busto

Hi, my name is misinformation.

Lining up to buy their stock, are you?  Have it at.

If one had bought in just before Balsillie started scheming for the Coyotes, their RIM stock would be worth about 10 or 15 cents on the dollar now. It lost 75% of it's value in the past year. Their sales are in steep decline. They lost $125 mil last quarter. They'll be a shell of what they were in short order - if they aren't bought and absorbed. They've been exploring going private to get the disaster out of the news. Balsillie and other key management are out. It's a tragic disaster for what was an exciting Canadian company.

 

[Zee]

seeing that RIM is about to go el busto

Hi, my name is misinformation.

Lining up to buy their stock, are you?  Have it at.

If one had bought in just before Balsillie started scheming for the Coyotes, their RIM stock would be worth about 10 or 15 cents on the dollar now. It lost 75% of it's value in the past year. Their sales are in steep decline. They lost $125 mil last quarter. They'll be a shell of what they were in short order - if they aren't bought and absorbed. They've been exploring going private to get the disaster out of the news. Balsillie and other key management are out. It's a tragic disaster for what was an exciting Canadian company.

Nortel 2.

 

[cw]

seeing that RIM is about to go el busto

Hi, my name is misinformation.

Lining up to buy their stock, are you?  Have it at.

If one had bought in just before Balsillie started scheming for the Coyotes, their RIM stock would be worth about 10 or 15 cents on the dollar now. It lost 75% of it's value in the past year. Their sales are in steep decline. They lost $125 mil last quarter. They'll be a shell of what they were in short order - if they aren't bought and absorbed. They've been exploring going private to get the disaster out of the news. Balsillie and other key management are out. It's a tragic disaster for what was an exciting Canadian company.

Nortel 2.

For the shareholders, they're 90% of the way there. They've lost 85% of their market share in smartphones.

If the tweaked Playbook O/S for the upcoming Blackberry 10 is as bad as the limited applications for the Playbook due to it's O/S was, maybe/sort of. As of this moment, they're not financially underwater like Nortel was (their shareholders are). So they would have a ways to go. But their brand is seriously damaged.

Apple lost a big bundle in the mid-90s but Steve Jobs had long departed when that happened. He came back and the rest is history. So they're not dead when you consider that type of example but the vast majority of the time, companies experiencing what they've gone through can't overcome it. Balsillie's a respectable entrepreneur but he doesn't strike me as another Steve Jobs.

 

[AvroArrow]

Guys, I didn't mean to derail the thread.  If people want to converse on the topic, perhaps a mod could move the relevant posts.  Essentially, the idea that RIM is going bust, near bankruptcy, etc is utter crap.

$2.1 billion in cash, cash equivalents, short-term and long-term investments at the end of the
quarter, which increased by approximately $610 million in the quarter

A company in that position is not on the verge of bankruptcy.

Plus, their so-called "loss" in the last quarter was not a monetary loss.  It was adjusted due to inventory problems or something (from same link):

The Company?s GAAP net  loss for the fourth quarter  of fiscal 2012  was  $125 million, or $0.24  per share
diluted, compared with GAAP net income of $265 million, or $0.51 per share diluted, in the prior quarter and
GAAP net income of $934 million, or $1.78 per share diluted, in the same quarter of fiscal 2011.  Adjusted net
income for the fourth quarter was $418 million, or $0.80 per share diluted. Adjusted net income and adjusted 2
diluted earnings per share for the fourth quarter exclude the impact of pre-tax charges of $355 million which
are predominantly non-cash ($346 million after tax) for the impairment of goodwill and $267 million ($197
million after-tax) for an inventory provision taken primarily on certain BlackBerry7 products.

In addition, BlackBerry is the #1 smartphone in several markets.  I believe, UK, Latin America, and some others - don't remember them all.  They're also growing quickly in some emerging smartphone markets like Indonesia


It just really irritates me that people perpetuate the idea that they're in any way close to going bankrupt.  From the financials alone, they could survive about 10 years on the status quo.  Obviously, they're hard at work at going above and beyond the status quo to turn the stock around.

The stock tanked...there's no denying that.  But they're not close to busting or going bankrupt.

 

[AvroArrow]

If you want an idea of how they're doing in some other markets, check out this link.