The road to repairing the damage Moyes and Balsillie did will be a long, difficult, maybe impossible one.
Pretty sure a few of us told you that before the season started.
So somehow Moyes is responsible for this from day 1 in Pho , i could side with you if that was true but it is not you have a personal hate for the guy but no answers to the bad owners before him and GBs head in the sand which all led him to be where he was.
And now that the courtside ordeal is more or less over, have to give incredible kudos to Bettman (or whichever of the legal beagles came up with the idea) for putting in its own bid when it was apparent the willful damage done by Moyes and Balsillie had ended any hope of local bids. It was clearly a move that almost no one saw coming (certainly not Balsillie, Moyes, or Rodier), and it won the day, completely and totally.
The team may not be able to survive in Phoenix thanks to the damage done and lack of any on ice success, but the league retained its ability to control its move, where it moves to, and who owns it.
Rest assured, the owners bidding was once again done. You guys can hate all you like, fact is what Bettman wants to get done, gets done, at least among things the league can control.
Another raise?
the NHL doesn't care if the team is in Phoenix long term, in fact, they probably already are resigned to the fact it will move sooner or later. They got what they wanted, control over where teams are located....
edog - that's not what the NHL said. Yes, they wanted control over relocation/ownership selection, but they also have been fighting (in the past decade) to do what they can to keep teams in their locations. Only after they've exhausted options of local ownership do they want to consider relocation.
Via Twitter:
brahmresnik: #Coyotes Next: Team's future is now in City of Glendale's hands. Must show new owner the money. Clock is ticking, team losses mounting.
brahmresnik: @ghosthoffa don't believe anything about a deal until it's on council agenda. IE said they're "very, very close."
Maybe this is schenfreude, but I'll laugh if the team continues to draw about 9k fans for their home games and the other owners end up losing even more money on this. It will be interesting to see how many parties line up to buy them if this sort of attendance continues. Favorable new lease or not, that is a massive money-losing proposition. The day may come when the owners will wish they had taken Balsillie's offer. He may have been a bull in a china shop, but he would have at least made a profitable franchise out of them. But as Ken Campbell says in the latest issue of the the Hockey News, it's all about the Leafs and their monopoly in S. Ontario.
That day WILL NEVER COME! To suggest it tells me you have not followed this story at all or you would understand that the fight was not to keep the Coyotes in Phoenix, but to keep control of who own teams and where they play with the NHL.
The league will be fine on this deal. They'll sell to an owner who wants to keep the team here, or to an owner who will relocate it.
Give up wishing Phoenix ill will. It's shameful to demean any fans who love this game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonas1235
I have a feeling that they won't be in Glendale for the 2010-2011 season. Too much damage has been done.
Somebody will come in with a large offer to relocate the club. The NHL will have no other options but to choose the highest bidder, to make up the losses that they've suffered and will suffer going forward without an owner.
That would violate the league's purchase agreement and subject it to legal action by the City of Glendale.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haymaker
Sorry if this has already been discussed, but how does the league avoid allegations of a conflict of interest in this scenario? They can't invest league resources to A) outbid for top talent and B) keep the team afloat perpetually until a local owner comes forward, and if/when the time does come to sell to outside interests, what transparency failsafes are there to ensure that the process is fair, and that a deal to move the team to what the league deems a 'desirable market' doesn't get preferential treatment?
It just doesn't seem possible to simultaneously act in the best interest of the league and the team.
The league is not making on-ice hockey decisions. President Doug Moss and GM Don Maloney are in charge of that. It's well-established the Coyotes are operating on a salary budget of <$45M until the team is sold, and that sales and marketing budgets will also remain minimal until a sale.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyStanley
As discussed previously, the NHL (in consultation with Moyes' representatives) set a budget for the Coyotes president and GM to follow during bankruptcy. (And the NHL paid the bills.)
My thinking is that the process will remain pretty much the same until new ownership is in place. The NHL will provide (budgetary) guidance/resources, but the actually running of the team, including player movement/contract negotiations, lies solely with the Coyotes management. The Coyotes were able to sign a handful of free agents this summer.
Absolutely correct. It's really surprising to me that after 21,000+ posts people still don't seem to understand exactly what you have had to point out, again. The budget DOES NOT CHANGE now that the league owns the team. It remains the same as when the NHL and Moyes approved it.
Last edited by LadyStanley: 11-03-2009 at 01:35 PM.
Actual crowd was less than that. I don't know why you feel the need to post this for every game, but I'll indulge you and let you know how close actual was to announced. Last night was probably 4000-4500.
You do understand that local attendance this season has no bearing on whether the teams stays or goes, correct? If a local owner is going to buy the team it is not going to base it's decision on this season's attendance. Anyone with the money to afford to buy a professional franchise will be looking at a lot of other factors than attendance in a season that has been decimated by the activities of this summer.
That day WILL NEVER COME! To suggest it tells me you have not followed this story at all or you would understand that the fight was not to keep the Coyotes in Phoenix, but to keep control of who own teams and where they play with the NHL.
The league will be fine on this deal. They'll sell to an owner who wants to keep the team here, or to an owner who will relocate it.
Give up wishing Phoenix ill will. It's shameful to demean any fans who love this game.
I don't wish Phoenix or it's fans ill, and I'm not disparaging them. I'm disparaging the league for their actions. It's funny how they are bending over backwards to keep the team there, but didn't do the same for Winnie or QC. I'm not Canadian, but I think this is what irks so many Canandian fans and show hypocracy on the league's part.
I don't wish Phoenix or it's fans ill, and I'm not disparaging them. I'm disparaging the league for their actions. It's funny how they are bending over backwards to keep the team there, but didn't do the same for Winnie or QC. I'm not Canadian, but I think this is what irks so many Canandian fans and show hypocracy on the league's part.
Look the same thing is going to happen to Phoenix as Winnepeg if a local buyer is not found. The league had to protct their right to choose owners and locations. If they don't find a local owner than the league will be hurt for new arenas because of what happened here. If they find a local owner than they will have protected themselves for a little while anyway. They don't want to just run out on a city but they will (in the case of Winnepeg) if they don't find someone willing to own the team in Glendale....they will have no choice.
I don't wish Phoenix or it's fans ill, and I'm not disparaging them. I'm disparaging the league for their actions. It's funny how they are bending over backwards to keep the team there, but didn't do the same for Winnie or QC. I'm not Canadian, but I think this is what irks so many Canandian fans and show hypocracy on the league's part.
the league would have done the same for winnipeg or quebec if the situation was the same. In those instances the owners went through the proper channels to sell the team, and no local buyers emerged, rendering relocation as the only option. In this case, JB and Moyes tried to move the team through a backdoor without even trying to find a local owner.
The team itself lost a lot less money before Moyes bought out his co-owner at the time. Yeah they lost money but it was a manageable amount and not nearly what it ended up being because of shady practices. If a prospective owner didn't think that picking up the team now, with an adjusted lease, wasn't worth it, you wouldn't see at least two groups publicly showing interest in doing so. Obviously they feel it can be done otherwise there wouldn't be such interest. Like I said, the losses Moyes put on the reports are a hell of a lot more than a new owner will have...partly because of a new lease and partly because of a lack of overspending on things like parking cars and Wayne Gretzky.
As for your second point, if you don't see a vast difference between a struggling franchise and a league giving up control of who owns teams, where they're located, and what owners can actually do in their own league, you simply don't get it and won't. The constant shuffling and relocating of franchises is in the best interest of nobody and that's exactly what the league is trying to avoid and a bankruptcy purchase and forced relocation would've caused an opening of a can of worms that would be impossible to close.
I have never believed that Balsillie would make a bad owner if he was given what he wants...a team in Hamilton. However, in each situation that he went about trying to get one, he refused to cooperate with the league and tried to underhandedly gain control of one for his own ego. It should be easy to understand why the league refuses to accept him as a partner. Like it or not, the ends don't justify the means.
Of course the new prospective owners will have some sort of out clause. I think it's absolutely foolish to expect a profit within the next five years after this fiasco unless the Coyotes become a powerhouse team, which is certainly possible with what they have currently.
I'm not sure of the legalities of a lease write-up but I doubt that business profits will be a clause but probably something geared towards attendance being the trigger. We'll see. I'm not expecting the Coyotes to remain in Phoenix but it's a misguided notion that it is somehow the fans' fault or the market's fault for this happening. The organization and its product has been a consistent failure. It is asinine to expect to sell a product of no quality to the public for a handful of years or more.
So constant losing of money is ok if it's less than under Moyes? They have never made money. Never. Any prospective owner will have to consider that. So my option as an ower is to invest 140m with slim prospects of ever making a dime on that investment, and only losing less than Moyes. No thanks.
I understand the difference you point out above perfectly. What you are missing (and maybe I"m not explaining my position clearly) is that just because the league retains control of those decisions and regulates where teams are located, that they will make good and prudent and profitable decisions with that authority. So far their track record with that power isn't very good. Your assumption is that the control the league is fighting to retain has intrinsic value, and maybe that is true, but such authority only has value if they make good use of that control. Continuing to lose money on franchises in bad markets based on a flawed strategy is valueless.
Lastly, it's not the fans' 'fault' if there isn't a sufficient number of them that are interested or devoted to hockey. But the fact remains that if there aren't enough people there willing to buy tickets, it's not a good market. Yes, they've sucked for quite a while. Can we assume that the team will somehow turn around? What if they don't? What if it takes a really long time? Some franchises have sucked for decades (Detroit Lions). How long must an owner wait? What are reasonable expectations for such an investment?
That same crappy team would sell out every game in Hamilton regardless of how long it takes.
[quote=cantskate;21935602]So constant losing of money is ok if it's less than under Moyes? They have never made money. Never. Any prospective owner will have to consider that. So my option as an ower is to invest 140m with slim prospects of ever making a dime on that investment....
However, what you do not seem to understand is that many professional sports teams are run to break even on the year to year costs. The profit the owner seeks is with the increasing value of the franchise itself....
$13.3m in escrow to cover legal costs, residual to Moyes, Gretzky. Sounds like the rest of the creditors have been paid (in full or as negotiated, e.g., SOF).
edog - that's not what the NHL said. Yes, they wanted control over relocation/ownership selection, but they also have been fighting (in the past decade) to do what they can to keep teams in their locations. Only after they've exhausted options of local ownership do they want to consider relocation.
Via Twitter:
brahmresnik: #Coyotes Next: Team's future is now in City of Glendale's hands. Must show new owner the money. Clock is ticking, team losses mounting.
brahmresnik: @ghosthoffa don't believe anything about a deal until it's on council agenda. IE said they're "very, very close."
a lot of those options have already dried up with the bankruptcy. The best bet to keep that team in Phoenix left when Reinsdorf pulled out. His was the only bid that really committed to Phoenix. Ice Edge wasn't credible since they wanted to play games in Saskatoon & what other options are out there? That lease will keep any group from ever turning it around there & the well has been poisoned in Glendale.....
a lot of those options have already dried up with the bankruptcy. The best bet to keep that team in Phoenix left when Reinsdorf pulled out. His was the only bid that really committed to Phoenix. Ice Edge wasn't credible since they wanted to play games in Saskatoon & what other options are out there? That lease will keep any group from ever turning it around there & the well has been poisoned in Glendale.....
Ice Edge has stated that the five games they'd play in Saskatoon are only a $$-making option and would only last for up to five years.
That specific quirk has not been put before the BOG for approval or disapproval.
Neither Ice Edge or the Argonaut owners claim anything but planning on staying in Phoenix (with new lease) long term.
So constant losing of money is ok if it's less than under Moyes? They have never made money. Never. Any prospective owner will have to consider that. So my option as an ower is to invest 140m with slim prospects of ever making a dime on that investment....
However, what you do not seem to understand is that many professional sports teams are run to break even on the year to year costs. The profit the owner seeks is with the increasing value of the franchise itself....
Re-post this once they actually break even.
Also, it may turn out to be a flawed assumption that the value of the franchise will always increase. Kind of like that real estate that will NEVER devalue.
I am no big fan of Gretzky but it appears he did not do so bad with his additions in Pho the team winning today is mostly his players , like him or not he is owed what he is owed and i do think there was more behind the scenes work from NHL that put him in Pho to sell tix to begin with they now should shut up and pay or expect him to tell hes unhappy and begin to give details why.
There are a few Coyote fans who don't blame Gretzky for everything. I'm not saying he was a good coach, but I seriously doubt any coach could have gotten any of the crappy rosters Gretzky coached into the playoffs the last 4 years (the last couple years not so much crappy but obviously too young with half the team full of 18-21 year olds, whereas the rosters from 3-4 years ago were downright putrid). I don't think anyone would argue that Tippett isn't a better coach, but there are a few of us who don't think a different coach would have 'automatically' done better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhoPhan
The Coyotes team that's winning right now was largely put together by Don Maloney and is anyway rather similar to the one Gretzky coached (or failed to coach) last year. Their success is, if anything, a mark of shame on Gretzky's coaching ability.
This is really not true. Gretzky was 8-4-1 after the trade deadline last year which is when he had Lombardi, Upshall, & Prucha who are top 6 forwards - Lombardi outperformed Jokinen, Upshall was a huge upgrade over Carcillo, and Morris was barely missed. If you look at the changes from the deadline there's about 50% turnover. OUT: Jokinen, Carcillo, Morris, Hale, Fedoruk, Klee, Reinprecht, Lisin, Lindstrom, Turris, Tikhonov, Boedker, Prust and a bunch of other Junk....IN - Lombardi, Upshall, Prucha, Lang, Vrbata, Fiddler, Pyatt, Vandermeer, Aucoin, Lepisto, Korpikoski
That's about 10 regulars.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbud
For many posts it was blame freinds of Gretzky for all the on ice issues as they apparently were set up by his involvement and that was what i was refering to, as for the rest the NHL i am sure wanted TGO to sell the game it was no doubt part of why he was put there to begin with.
Gretzky may not have had great success coaching but it appears he did certainly help develop some skills as i doubt the kids just did a overnight transformation his work may not have had great results for him but it seems he was not far off
Unfortunately he's a lightning rod for criticism. He is blamed for every prospect who hasn't performed to expectations and get's no credit for those who did. He certainly deserves some criticism, just not all of it, and there are some very good former prospects who are playing significant minutes this season and have all-star potential in Hanzal & Yandle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cantskate
I don't wish Phoenix or it's fans ill, and I'm not disparaging them. I'm disparaging the league for their actions. It's funny how they are bending over backwards to keep the team there, but didn't do the same for Winnie or QC. I'm not Canadian, but I think this is what irks so many Canandian fans and show hypocracy on the league's part.
I thought the issue with Winnipeg and Quebec had more to do with them not having a NHL-caliber arena and no owner to get one built?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cantskate
So constant losing of money is ok if it's less than under Moyes? They have never made money. Never. Any prospective owner will have to consider that. So my option as an ower is to invest 140m with slim prospects of ever making a dime on that investment, and only losing less than Moyes. No thanks.
I understand the difference you point out above perfectly. What you are missing (and maybe I"m not explaining my position clearly) is that just because the league retains control of those decisions and regulates where teams are located, that they will make good and prudent and profitable decisions with that authority. So far their track record with that power isn't very good. Your assumption is that the control the league is fighting to retain has intrinsic value, and maybe that is true, but such authority only has value if they make good use of that control. Continuing to lose money on franchises in bad markets based on a flawed strategy is valueless.
Lastly, it's not the fans' 'fault' if there isn't a sufficient number of them that are interested or devoted to hockey. But the fact remains that if there aren't enough people there willing to buy tickets, it's not a good market. Yes, they've sucked for quite a while. Can we assume that the team will somehow turn around? What if they don't? What if it takes a really long time? Some franchises have sucked for decades (Detroit Lions). How long must an owner wait? What are reasonable expectations for such an investment?
I'm a season ticket holder and I renewed my seats prior to the bankruptcy so I really had no choice. I sit in the upper deck (in the 2nd cheapest ticket prices) so my investment isn't that hard to swallow. I'm willing to bet the biggest loss of season ticket holders were those in the lower bowl...and I certainly don't blame them for not renewing their tickets at a cost of $10K if it would have gone to support a team being sold to Baldsilly or another owner who hasn't committed to Arizona long-term.
It certainly is odd that successful on-ice teams like San Jose, Anaheim, Chicago which are profitable represent essentially the same markets as the unsuccessful on-ice teams which are losing money, and according to you never will be able to turn a profit....and Chicago may not be a similar market, but it certainly was a crappy one a few years ago....gee I wonder why
It's also not Coyote fans fault either that all of the 'supposed' expert hockey fans like yourself who 'know' hockey can't work in Arizona and will always lose money refuse to do any research to be able to knowledgeably discuss why the team A) lost money while they were somewhat successful on the ice during the early/mid-90's; B) Why the team has been so crappy the last 6 years; and most importantly C) Why the team should/could be successful the next 10-15 years.
B & C above is quite disturbing given the nature of this hockey site and all the supposed hockey experts here. I'll post the following once again in hopes of getting AT LEAST ONE REPLY FROM SOMEONE WHO IS CONVINCED THE TEAM CANNOT BE SUCCESSFUL IN ARIZONA:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devils Advocate
It boggles my mind that on a message board like this that is so closely tied to Hockey prospects, that seemingly no one but Coyote fans understand why this team hasn't made money the past 7 seasons or so. I would think people on these boards would know that the best path for long-term success is to build through the draft.....
Well...how about a quiz for non-Coyote fans
Question 1) Name 5 players drafted by the Coyotes from 1997-2002 that are top 6 forwards or top 4 dmen? How about 2? How about a list of the top 10 players drafted from that time period? Assuming all those players were still on the Coyotes how much would they have helped their on-ice success.....up to now, and the next 10 years?
Question 2) What is the average number of years from draft year to the year these types of players make significant contributions on NHL ice?
Ok, take the answer to question 2 and apply it to the players in answer 1. What kind of impact do you think this had on the teams on-ice success and ultimately revenues over the last 7 years? Positive? Negative? I don't expect non-coyote fans to understand the impacts of the arena the team played in from 1997-2003...but do a little research to guesstimate those impacts. That might at least help you understand why the team lost money when you could at least argue they were a playoff team.
Flash forward to the Coyotes drafts from 2003-2009? How many players drafted from those years are already making significant contributions? More than those drafted from 1997 to 2002? How many of the players drafted the last 5 years would you guess will make significant on ice contributions the next 2-15 years?
Does anyone think this team might start making money the next couple years based on the answers to questions above? How does the long-term picture look for the players drafted the last 5 years compared to those drafted from '97-2002?
So constant losing of money is ok if it's less than under Moyes? They have never made money. Never. Any prospective owner will have to consider that. So my option as an ower is to invest 140m with slim prospects of ever making a dime on that investment, and only losing less than Moyes. No thanks.
I understand the difference you point out above perfectly. What you are missing (and maybe I"m not explaining my position clearly) is that just because the league retains control of those decisions and regulates where teams are located, that they will make good and prudent and profitable decisions with that authority. So far their track record with that power isn't very good. Your assumption is that the control the league is fighting to retain has intrinsic value, and maybe that is true, but such authority only has value if they make good use of that control. Continuing to lose money on franchises in bad markets based on a flawed strategy is valueless.
Lastly, it's not the fans' 'fault' if there isn't a sufficient number of them that are interested or devoted to hockey. But the fact remains that if there aren't enough people there willing to buy tickets, it's not a good market. Yes, they've sucked for quite a while. Can we assume that the team will somehow turn around? What if they don't? What if it takes a really long time? Some franchises have sucked for decades (Detroit Lions). How long must an owner wait? What are reasonable expectations for such an investment?
That same crappy team would sell out every game in Hamilton regardless of how long it takes.
Running the franchise on the average it is expected to be a loss. The money made by the business is in the increased value of the franchise. Whoever purchases the Coyotes, move or not, is going to make a killing. They will buy it at 140 mil or so and probably see its value rise, operating losses or not, to the 200-250 mil point within a few short years. There is simply no way that any new owner(s) will have a 60 mil annual loss. And if they cut it to operating losses in the range of 5-10 mil, they will make money...there is also tax write-offs if I'm not mistaken when losing money in this regard.
As for the NHL's decision-making...it is irrelevant whether or not we agree with it. It is their business and it is their right to conduct business however they wish. They will always do something that is unpopular but if you hate it so much, you can keep your wallet away from their business as your protest. I find it funny that it's quick for people to point out the Moyes, the Del Baggios, and the Barrie/Koules stuff but don't point out the John McConnell's, the Stan Kroenke's, the David Checketts', and other owners the league has. I can appreciate criticism of these decisions but a lack of balance with the guys they have brought in makes the argument ridiculous when it comes to owner selections.
You keep making it out that it is a failed market and that is patently absurd. If the product sucks and doesn't sell, it's because the product is a failure, not the market. If you stick a team in Hamilton or Winnipeg or Quebec City, it does not matter. If you suck for an extended period of time, you will see an impact in ticket sales. There will, of course, be a honeymoon for whatever city gets them and if it's one of those Canadian cities, it will be an extended honeymoon but you cannot suck as long as the Coyotes have in any market and expect that you will continue to be supported by the fans.
There are enough die-hards and casual fans in Phoenix to make it work if you put out a competitive team. The die-hards, a good lot of them, have pulled out due to Moyes and lingering questions of its commitment to Phoenix. The team was routinely in the 13-14k range in a 16k building before the lockout when they were in and out of the playoffs. That kind of attendance and the kind of operating losses at the time were acceptable because the franchise's value would rise.
A new owner will not have a Gretzky contract or car parking services added to their operating expenses, of that I can be confident in. The new owner will have the benefit of a new lease that is probably more favorable in revenue/expenses and the benefit of a young team that is close to hitting a point where they will have success as a team. To go along with that a very low investment of 140 mil or so to buy the team and I can see this team being valued at 200-250 million within five to ten years.
Of course, a new owner can clause it to move whenever they'd like and I accept that possibility is there and good. However, I disagree that it's the market's fault that Moyes ran up the bill, that it's the market's fault the team has mismanaged its way into 7 losing seasons, and that it's the market's fault that putting the team into bankruptcy due to the two things I just said sunk the team's value like a rock.
Unfortunately he's a lightning rod for criticism. He is blamed for every prospect who hasn't performed to expectations and get's no credit for those who did. He certainly deserves some criticism, just not all of it, and there are some very good former prospects who are playing significant minutes this season and have all-star potential in Hanzal & Yandle.
I agree he is by virtue of his name he expected to turn dirt into gold just showing up, and my post simply says he had a contract if GB dumps it expect hardcore Canadian fans to take badly to that , im no big Gretzky fan myself but he wasnt as bad as some say and a deal is a deal live up to it GB.
Article mentions "three possible" ownership/groups: Ice Edge, Argonauts, and Reinsdorf. (Haven't seen any public statement from Reinsdorf he's still interested.)
Article mentions "three possible" ownership/groups: Ice Edge, Argonauts, and Reinsdorf. (Haven't seen any public statement from Reinsdorf he's still interested.)
Would be nice if the Argonauts owners got the team. Honestly, under 6k showed up to the last Coyotes game (I believe). No owner who ends up with the team is going to keep them there, so let's see the team moved to a viable market that will support it. The Coyotes are winning this year and still don't get support.
__________________
The rules of our game have been made very clear. You need to abide by those rules.
Would be nice if the Argonauts owners got the team. Honestly, under 6k showed up to the last Coyotes game (I believe). No owner who ends up with the team is going to keep them there, so let's see the team moved to a viable market that will support it. The Coyotes are winning this year and still don't get support.
First, Argonaut owners claim they have no intention of relocating team.
Second, the linked article addressed the issue of low attendance. It sounds like there is a groundspring/grass roots support movement to get the word out, so, we'll have to see how attendance goes. I think there are some some skeptical fence sitters who want to be assured they'll see a good game and the record thus far isn't just a flash in the pan.
A new owner will not have a Gretzky contract or car parking services added to their operating expenses, of that I can be confident in. The new owner will have the benefit of a new lease that is probably more favorable in revenue/expenses and the benefit of a young team that is close to hitting a point where they will have success as a team. To go along with that a very low investment of 140 mil or so to buy the team and I can see this team being valued at 200-250 million within five to ten years.
Removing Gretzky's contract might help, several millions but how much team has been paying for car parking, is it $2.70 per sold ticket? It would make about $1.5 million per year.
If the new lease is more favorable it would mean that city starts giving money to team, who wouldn't want to operate team under such conditions.
Removing Gretzky's contract might help, several millions but how much team has been paying for car parking, is it $2.70 per sold ticket? It would make about $1.5 million per year.
If the new lease is more favorable it would mean that city starts giving money to team, who wouldn't want to operate team under such conditions.
JOL
Talking to people I know in the organization Ice Edge is not proposing the COG give up anything it is already getting. It is seeking to develop some new revenue streams (one example is converting one club in arena to a public restaurant).
Under the current lease agreement, the team gets little from concession sales with that money going to the COG and vendors. Ice Edge is seeking to get a cut from any new revenue streams while existing concessions deals stay in place. Same thing with Westgate. Existing deals not affected, but new ones would allow IEH to get a cut.
It's what they mean when they say aren't asking for concessions or an out. They have some marketing ideas to grow revenue and want a bigger cut from those NEW ideas.
