Skip to content

New Glendale mayor won’t offer Jamison any extension

Jan 29, 2013, 10:00 AM EDT

Los Angeles Kings v Phoenix Coyotes - Game Two Getty Images

Prospective Coyotes owner Greg Jamison has until Thursday for his investment group to purchase the Coyotes from the NHL. If he fails to meet that deadline, new Glendale mayor Jerry Weiers won’t offer him an extension on the proposed lease agreement that would involve the city paying Jamison’s group millions annually to manage Arena (per 92.3 KTAR).

“We are not there yet,” Weiers said. “If he doesn’t put the deal together, we won’t go down that road again with him. Obviously, if we can keep the Coyotes here under different circumstances and without that same deal it is certainly something I would like to push forward with.”

Jamison recently stated there would be an announcement regarding the sale of the club “one way or the other” this week.

It’s worth noting that back in late November when Weiers was still the Mayor-elect, he voiced his opposition to the lease deal.

“I’m not overly happy with the decision made, but we’ll take that decision and run with it the best we can,” Weiers said at the time.

“It is what it is, the council, the current council passed it. It’s something I’m going to have to deal with.”

Or maybe not?


Glendale officials have “no idea” if Jamison can complete Coyotes purchase

  1. sunk500 - Jan 29, 2013 at 10:05 AM

    Im so sick of reading about Quebec City and Saskatoon. Yes, Phoenix has attendance issues – that much we know. But the city also has a big metro and one of the biggest TV markets in the US.

    Now, I know ever fkn Canadian is screaming for an NHL team but the reality is that Quebec City has a metro of 700k, and Saskatoon has a metro of 200k while Seattle and Phoenix has a metro of 3.5 and 4.2 MILLION PEOPLE. So please stop asking for teams to move to these towns in Canada, and stop for a second and think about what that would do to the game.

    Keep in mind Phoenix and Seattle also has some of the best TV Markets in North America, so please remind me how moving a team from a city of 4.2million to a _town_ in Saskatoon is going to help the game? It wont.. Ever… Are you guys really that fkn stupid to think that selling tickets to a game is going to make the move from phoenix to Quebec or Saskatoon viable?

    Quebec and Winnipeg both had their fun and look how it ended – relocation for both. The return of the Jets is an experiment.

    If the Phoenix relocate, which they should, it should be to a big City like Seattle. NHL already wants more west coast team, it has a metro of 3.5million, top 15 TV market, built in rivalry with Canucks and most importantly it could support a NHL franchise while help growing the game.

    • davebabychreturns - Jan 29, 2013 at 10:32 AM

      You’re probably right – if the Coyotes relocate it will be to a largish American market (with little or no history of supporting a big league hockey franchise).

      That being said, comparing the metro area of a city like Phoenix or Seattle to Saskatoon is utterly pointless.

      For starters, is Saskatoon even the third likeliest Canadian destination? There’s another Toronto-area team and there’s Quebec City, and any other Canadian city is miles kilometres behind that in terms of viability.

      Second, there might be five times as many people in the Phoenix are as there are in Quebec City but you can’t tell me with a straight face there are five times as many hockey fans. Same with Seattle, which at least has a history with major junior hockey but would also have an NHL franchise competing with football, baseball, basketball and NCAA franchises for local sports revenue.

      There is the possibility that the Candian dollar goes into the tank again which spells trouble for 4/7 current Canadian franchises, but until that happens you have ready-made markets that will support a team – not a hope to build those marketplaces over a decade of potential losses.

      Anyway the clear cut choice for the best market without a team at this time is the Greater Toronto Area.. huge population, rabid hockey fans, the money will come pouring in without even putting a dent in the Maple Leafs revenues (although obviously something will have to be worked out with them).

      Maybe Seattle can be a viable market but let’s not pretend there aren’t obstacles, hopefully not as many as in Phoenix because once upon a time people were saying they could be a viable market too. And maybe they could have been but in my opinion without drastic changes that ship has sailed.

      • sunk500 - Jan 29, 2013 at 10:47 AM

        There are obviously obstacles with every location out there.

        I completely agree with you and I think it make sense to add another team in the TO area, mainly because it’s such a large city and I see it as Canada’s version of New York, who supports 3 teams pretty well (rangers, islanders, devils). Obviously there are obstacles here as well as Toronto has been sucking since the dawn of age and another team might convert a lot of fans away and I doubt the leafs would welcome the competition if you look at the state they’re in.

        However, I’m all for growing the game and I agree with you that point.

        My concern is that recent moves are taking steps backwards instead of growing the game. Winnipeg got their franchise back and they’re a small market, and the isles are moving into an arena that’s not meant for hockey and only seats 14500 and now talks about moving the franchise back to Quebec city?

      • davebabychreturns - Jan 29, 2013 at 10:54 AM

        I think “growing the game” is honourable and there are success stories in places like Dallas, Denver, etc. I think places like Columbus can still emerge as great hockey cities.

        That being said, it is risky and there are situations that are clearly not working out right now. Phoenix is one, Florida may turn out to be another.

        Then there is expansion – the league denies it but I simply can’t believe they would turn their nose up at half a billion dollars in revenue in expansion fees (that the players don’t get a whiff of, by the way) for a pair of new teams.

        I have my doubts about the long term viability of Winnipeg (although there is no doubt their fan base will support them, they sold out three years of season tickets within hours of opening sales), Quebec City and Brooklyn as markets but I think taking risks in new cities like Phoenix or Miami or Seattle or Kansas City for that matter has to be balanced with making sound financial decisions in moving teams to locations that will be viable and that stable ownership groups want to do business in.

        The GTA is definitely one, and locations like Quebec City and Brooklyn at the very least show promise of being others. Perhaps Seattle and KC do too, although you don’t have built in hockey markets there.. we know people in QC and New York are going to happily shell out $50 for a ticket by the tens of thousands.

      • tmoore4075 - Jan 29, 2013 at 10:55 AM

        Everything here. ^^ I’m not against Seattle, I think a team could do very well there, especially compared to how the Coyotes currently are. Winnipeg is like 15% the size of Atlanta and look what they are drawing. It’s not comparing apples to apples. Population size or tv market size does not equate to anything in the NHL. SoCal should be easily able to house two teams comfortably but the Ducks have struggled in attendance the last few years.

        I mentioned in the other article that I expect relocation of the Yotes to Seattle and expansion to Quebec City and Toronto. Not that I’m for expansion it just appears to be inevitable. In reality I’d want relocation of the Yotes to Seattle and either Columbus or Florida to Quebec but that’s not the NHL’s way.

        The mayor said in another statement that if he has the investors than why is he waiting so long to announce. Would he like a better deal for the city? Yeah. Will Jamison want a different deal? Probably not. Every potential owner has wanted some sort of help and a sweet deal to take on this team.

      • comeonnowguys - Jan 29, 2013 at 1:12 PM

        I know I’m an idiot, and this is like arguing over position #14 in the power rankings, but it seems that KC always hangs around the fringes of the discussion whereas Milwaukee doesn’t.

        Is it a matter of the arena? No interested owners? Isn’t that a better hockey market with well established rivalries with Minnesota, Illinois and Michigan?

    • slickdemetrius - Jan 29, 2013 at 11:07 AM

      When Quebec City takes the Coyotes, they should also take the mayor. Perhaps 92.3 KTAR will also move to la belle province. Let’s take the whole dang city!

    • hawks4 - Jan 29, 2013 at 12:01 PM

      For all your vulgar arrogance toward people, sunk, you sure come late to an argument with three-year-old arguments here.

      Saskatoon? Heck, I haven’t heard of that being a possible destination since the St Louis Blues almost moved there back around 1985. Failed Canadian franchises? That is soooo 1995, when the Canadian dollar was less than 2/3 of the American dollar. It is on par and economists certainly agree that it is here to stay.

      Winnipeg experiment? How about a 17 year experiment in Phoenix that has never made money, has turned out the worst attendance in the NHL, and fewer than 10,000 fans a game watching for free on TV?

      The fact is, hockey is a passion all over Canada, if you ever visited there you would be able to see it and feel it. I have to laugh when I’m up there (I travel there frequently) and see how hockey is always the lead story, not an afterthough, even in my home city of Chicago, a strong hockey market.

      It was a noble idea to try to spread hockey in the US, but it has failed, at least in the south. The only teams making money are Canadian, Original Six, and Philadelphia. Winnipeg is doing just fine, Quebec or another team in Toronto will do so as well once/if they receive a team.

      • hockeywithdrawal - Jan 29, 2013 at 12:33 PM

        Forbes list of NHL hockey clubs’ operating incomes released November 2012 disagrees with your assessment of “the only teams making money”. While I agree in some respects to the sentiment, it’s narrow-sighted.

        Grow the sport all you want, Commish – just don’t make the players pay for the expansion. It will struggle and in some cases a team might need moved. But even if a team fails, the sport was spread (probably just before it’s time). Keeping the sport to small markets or isolating the sport to several locations is just an asinine idea – and comes across as “I’ve got mine – eff the rest”.

        Here’s an example. If you put another team in Toronto, did you REALLY grow the sport? Or did you just take some Maple Leafs fans and tell them to root for a different team now? That’s not growing the fan base. Neither is putting a club in a market that is already cheering on another NHL club nearby.

      • sunk500 - Jan 29, 2013 at 12:41 PM

        I lived In Halifax, NS and I currently live in the US so I think I have pretty good perspective.

        hockeywithdrawal put it perfectly, there’s no point of locking in franchises in small existing markets, its all about growing the sport and at least Phoenix was an attempt in doing so – which failed miserably.

        However, expanding the hockey into markets like Seattle and Milwaukee would be significantly better for the sport than sticking them into tiny Canadian villages.

      • hawks4 - Jan 29, 2013 at 12:59 PM

        I read the Forbes report too, please tell me what I’m missing here? Okay, so LA eeked out a small profit and Pittsburgh and Washington had a good season for once.

        Anyhow, my post here was to refute the tired argument sunk has put forth that big markets = successful franchises. Yes I understand the notion of growing the game, what I had pointed out is that they tried and FAILED at this in Phoenix and other select cities. If you’re going to try to argue that Phoenix has a better chance to make money than the “tiny villages” of Quebec City and Markham (Toronto), sorry, the proof is already out there.

    • misterchainbluelightning - Jan 29, 2013 at 12:40 PM

      You haven’t a clue why Quebec left. Just like you haven’t a clue about Saskatoon. You’re entire post is full of childlike fail

    • misterchainbluelightning - Jan 29, 2013 at 12:42 PM

      Ah Dave Babych already destroyed your entire argument, I can’t believe you attempted to reply

    • fikuserectus - Jan 29, 2013 at 3:26 PM

      Would the Maple Leafs or even the Buffalo Sabres want another team anywhere near them? I doubt it. Toronto like New York could support more than 1 hockey team. I think the Maple Leafs would block any team from moving to metro Toronto. It just isn’t going to happen. Even if it would be good for the game.

  2. cweez2 - Jan 29, 2013 at 10:05 AM

    Looks like Doan’s going to have to learn French

    • steelpenbucs87 - Jan 29, 2013 at 11:27 AM


      • sw19womble - Jan 29, 2013 at 2:54 PM


  3. pavelfitzgerald - Jan 29, 2013 at 10:20 AM

    Someone’s a “Kii Oats” homer .. ..

    You could have 10 million people in Phoenix’s TV market & it wouldn’t matter. The NHL is a gate driven league – meanig they need asses in the seats to pay the bills. After the last lockout Bettman got raped on the TV deal so TV markets means nothing at this point. Besides that, the TV numbers in Phoenix are almost as atrocious as Phoenix’s game attendance.
    Saskatoon is a ridiculous idea, Quebec is not. You can’t argue the cold hard facts Sun – Phoenix has lost money EVERY YEAR they’ve been in Phoenx!?!?! EVERY year!!! Enough already, any arguement saying Phoniex can work is more ludicrus then saying Saskatoon would. What a gong show

    • sunk500 - Jan 29, 2013 at 10:26 AM

      You dont think the TV market generate more revenue more than ticket sales?

      LOL, did you perhaps hear the news that LA Dodgers are getting 7 billion with their new TV-deal… That would be a lot of ticket sales! Now I understand MLB and NHL are far apart, but the problem with moving a team to Quebec is that it’s a very small market and it would not help grow the NHL to move it to a city that’s less than 1/5th of Phoenix with a virtually non existing TV market.

      Seattle, Milwauakee or KC on the other hand would make much more sense for all purposes, mainly for growing the NHL, not shrinking it!

      • davebabychreturns - Jan 29, 2013 at 10:38 AM

        Hey sunk, do the Dodgers play hockey?

        Did some company offer the kings $7B for their broadcasting rights?

        Just because the MLB and NFL could play the games in empty stadiums and still make money, does not make this the case for hockey.

        The entire national broadcasting rights for the NHL just went for about $200m per season, over a ten year period (Gary signed them away for ten years because he thinks that’s a good deal), there was a time when the league couldn’t sell their national broadcasting rights at all.

        How much are a few million indifferent Arizonaiaians going to change that? Here is an article claiming that a 2011 Coyotes playoff game was watched in fewer than 30 000 households, that’s an embarrassment. In the regular season that year they averaged 9000 households watching per game.

      • comeonnowguys - Jan 29, 2013 at 10:48 AM

        There is a BIG difference between the Los Angeles Dodgers and the Phoenix Coyotes. TV revenue is nice, but does it offset the bad optics of 41 games of a near-empty arena?

        IIRC, this millions-of-people market broke the top 20–twenty–in attendance once in its tenure in Arizona. It’s traditionally among the five lowest teams in attendance. You can spin TV revenue all you want, whether they stay or not, Phoenix still hasn’t proved itself a hockey market. It’s a market with a hockey team.

      • sunk500 - Jan 29, 2013 at 10:54 AM

        Im making a point; Basing success on ticket sales alone is just as stupid as basing it on TV revenue – there has to be a balance!

        Quebec might make sell tickets, but their TV market is a joke. Phoenix and Florida might not sell as many tickets, but they’re in much better TV markets.

        You would need to relocate the team that can offer revenue in both area, such as TO, Seattle or Milwaukee.

      • davebabychreturns - Jan 29, 2013 at 11:06 AM

        The reality for right now, and for the next decade if you ask Gary Bettman (again based on the deal he signed with NBC) is that the NHL is not going to get the kinds of dollars from American television that other major sports do.

        Last year through six games, the Stanley Cup Finals averaged 3 million viewers per game on NBC.. and that’s with teams in Los Angeles and the NYC area playing, the highest ratings I could find for SCF games were the 2011 finals in which one game drew about 8.5m viewers.

        So the high water mark for NHL games is fewer than 9m viewers in the United States.

        (By the way, 1/4 of the population of Canada watched game 7 of the 2011 SCF.. that’s equivalent to a game drawing about 80 million viewers in the states.)

        Last year the least viewed World Series game had four times as many viewers as the average rating for the SCF, and the year before that (keep in mind the 2011 SCF had that 8.5m viewed game, the most viewed NHL game on US television since 1973) the most watched World Series game still had three times as many viewers as the most watched SCF game.

      • sippindasyzurp - Jan 29, 2013 at 11:41 AM

        Just because you have a big TV market doesn’t mean your actually going to make money because it’s big.. People actually need to tune in to watch the games for any TV company to pony up the cash to pay the team broadcasting rights.. In Winnipeg we pay $10 a month to see all Jets games on TV locally.. I bet this is unheard of in almost every US market..

        I can tell you NHL in Winnipeg is no experiment, one of the Co-owners of the Jets David Thompson is the richest man in Canada with a net worth of 17.6 Billion (35th in the world in the world actually).. There is not one owner in the NHL that would even come close to that…

        Winnipeg has the second highest AVG ticket price in the NHL.. And the building is sold out for the next 5 years with a waiting list capped at 8000 people, not to mention all the people who share season tickets PAY as well to watch all the games on TV.

        The reason why the NHL did not work in Winnipeg last time around was because they did not have anyone who wanted to buy the team due to the struggling Canadian dollar at that time.

    • cweez2 - Jan 29, 2013 at 11:38 AM

      pavefitzgerald and davebabychreturns are right on here. The expansion into southern TV markets has – at best – broken even. If you’re the NHL, you go to where the people buy tickets.

      Not saying that Seattle can’t deliver, and personally I’d like to see a team in KC for selfish reasons, but all KC can offer is a building, and Seattle has is a potential co-tenant to carry the load in a new arena.

    • hockeywithdrawal - Jan 29, 2013 at 12:37 PM

      Not sure I’d call the $2B deal with NBC getting raped. Ratings are higher than they’ve ever been – and people in Glendale at least got comfortable with hockey for a little while, no matter what happens. Now there are more than several die-hard fans there. Might need to leave the city, but the sport was definitely expanded.

  4. bayafan - Jan 29, 2013 at 10:51 AM

    I think Seattle would be good. They support their teams really well up there.

  5. ballistictrajectory - Jan 29, 2013 at 10:55 AM

    Seems to me that if the deal was going to happen it would have happened already, “one way or another.”

    Too bad Greg Jamison won’t get sued for wasting everyone’s time and a lot of cash.

  6. kmacle - Jan 29, 2013 at 11:00 AM

    The NHL couldn’t get network coverage because no network (except a fledgling like Versus) is going to give national coverage to a regional sport. With that in mind the NHL had to try expanding to new markets. But there’s been enough time to recognize that Phoenix is just not going to work.

  7. broadstbully33 - Jan 29, 2013 at 11:12 AM

    Why would anyone want to own a team in this city? The city of Glendale seems to stand in the way every time a possible buyer or solution is found just to make it that much more difficult.

    • misterchainbluelightning - Jan 29, 2013 at 12:44 PM

      Stand in the way?
      Don’t you mean the city isn’t stupid enough to throw money away again and again?

  8. broadstbully33 - Jan 29, 2013 at 11:13 AM

    I think Seattle would get a team before another team is moved to Canada.

  9. govtminion - Jan 29, 2013 at 11:20 AM


  10. tmoore4075 - Jan 29, 2013 at 11:30 AM

    Quebec might be a small tv market but a Quebec team will be on national tv in Canada more times than a Seattle team would be in the US. The US you have NBC Sports Network and that’s about it. Unless they are playing a good team a Seattle team probably wouldn’t get much coverage on the big NBC network. Quebec on the other hand will have TSN/RDS, Sportsnet and CBC to broadcast them and more people who would be interested in watching them.

  11. bardown66 - Jan 29, 2013 at 11:34 AM

    The expert failed. Send them to Quebec or try Seattle if you want to stay in an American market. Stop wasting Shane Doan and a decent team on a fanbase that is non existant

  12. ethanmacleod1685 - Jan 29, 2013 at 12:10 PM

    Ole ole ole ole ole, ole ole!!!!!

  13. proudliberal85392 - Jan 29, 2013 at 1:03 PM

    As someone who resides approximately 15 minutes from arena, I’d like to offer an insight that’s been overlooked. Jerry Weiers is a well-known blowhard who contributed nothing during his 12 years in the state legislature. On the other hand, he is also known for not being the brightest bulb in the chandelier. I wouldn’t put much stock in what he says. Let’s wait for Jamison’s announcement later this week before we start loading the moving vans, OK?

  14. innout10 - Jan 29, 2013 at 3:20 PM

    Proudliberal… How does this guy get elected!? That city council is just brutal …

  15. proudliberal85392 - Jan 29, 2013 at 8:41 PM

    innout10: That’s the $64 question…how did he get elected? I’m active in local politics and have met Jerry on a number of occasions. I can’t figure out how he got 12 years in the legislature and how he got elected mayor.

  16. pastabelly - Jan 29, 2013 at 10:24 PM

    Kansas City and Seattle are both better expansion candidates than small Canadian cities.

  17. fiddytucker - Jan 29, 2013 at 10:56 PM

    You all have such big Internet muscles.

    • comeonnowguys - Jan 29, 2013 at 11:47 PM

      Not as big as yours, Mr. Pot.

Top 10 NHL Player Searches
  1. P. Kane (1733)
  2. P. Kessel (1499)
  3. M. Richards (1265)
  4. P. Datsyuk (1091)
  5. N. Backstrom (1072)