Skip to content

Glendale sets aside $17 million for arena-management fee

May 18, 2012, 5:20 PM EDT Arena

Just days after laying off 49 employees to help close a $35 million budget shortfall, the City of Glendale has reportedly included a $17 million fee to manage Arena, payable to Phoenix Coyotes prospective owner Greg Jamison, in its proposed preliminary budget.

City council will vote on the preliminary budget Tuesday, and by all indications it will be approved.

From The Arizona Republic:

Four of seven Glendale council members have said they see the $17 million management fee as a placeholder in the city’s budget. The city must manage the arena whether the Coyotes stay in Glendale or not, and if a deal is not reached with Jamison, the budgeted amount allows the city to put arena management up for bid.

The four council members say they see the $17 million as a reasonable cost based on information city staffers have provided and that keeping the Coyotes in Glendale is crucial for the city’s economic future.

Vice Mayor Steve Frate said he feels comfortable approving the fee in the preliminary budget because it won’t be effective until council sees a finalized deal. He expects one soon.

I’d be interested to know the information city staffers used to deem the $17 million a “reasonable cost” to manage an arena. Not because I don’t think it is – I have no idea if it is or not. I’ve never owned an arena. But if it’s not, the Goldwater Institute could claim it violates the state’s gift clause and make a stink about it.

  1. sjsharks66 - May 18, 2012 at 6:06 PM

    It must be hard to keep up, since there are no fans in Phx.
    If they get swept, I wonder how many people will show up next season.

    • serbvet1 - May 19, 2012 at 10:18 AM

      Hey SJSHarks66,

      We will have record fans next year. I bet you that SJ loses fans due to the poor hockey they played toward the end of the season. We will have record number of season ticket packages (for the franchise) sold and an increase in attendance.

      You wish you had our new ownership group!

  2. yotesfan3 - May 18, 2012 at 7:07 PM

    Hey sharks fan, you guys lost more money the phx does till jamison showed up.

  3. atwatercrushesokoye - May 18, 2012 at 9:06 PM

    They just can’t wait to hand out money…if they want to save a few bucks I’ll run their arena and I’ll only charge them $3.5 million a year. And under my reign I promise no Nickelback concerts!

  4. proudliberal85392 - May 18, 2012 at 10:14 PM

    Exactly yotesfan. Upset about your guys watching on TV, sjsharks?

  5. wisbadgers - May 19, 2012 at 9:04 AM

    Where does a San Jose Sharks fan get off giving Phoenix a hard time about fan support. I went to a game there in 2005 and no one was there, maybe 2200 people. This was a game against Calgary, who was the defending Western Conference Champions. Now I know for a fact that the Sharks are near capacity almost every season, but there was a time when they were struggling for fan support, too.
    Also, I’m sure the Sharks would have difficulty filling up the Sharks Tank if there was constant talk of the team moving for 4 straight years.
    Also, I’m assuming that you have selective memory because back in 1991, the City of San Jose funded $132.5 million of the $162.5 million needed to build the stadium Sound familiar, it should!!
    ( .

  6. cuffhimbanano - May 19, 2012 at 10:02 AM

    Forming an opinion based off 1 game in 2005, which is either a post-lockout exhibition game or post-lockout early regular season game probably isn’t the smartest thing.
    There’s a reason why many feel the Coyotes are doomed.

  7. sjsharks66 - May 19, 2012 at 5:41 PM

    I doubt the sharks will lose any fans. Lol
    We knew all season this team was not good. Yet sold out every game this year.

    Do you remember when Boston came to phx? When they lost it was so loud it sounded like they had won. Except everyone was cheering for Boston.

Top 10 NHL Player Searches
  1. P. Kessel (1588)
  2. P. Kane (1522)
  3. M. Richards (1324)
  4. P. Datsyuk (1176)
  5. N. Backstrom (1065)