Speculation: Ownership Saga:Glendale City Council passes Phoenix Coyotes arena deal (Read post #1)

[XX]

I believe you are right. All you have to do is talk to some actual business owners/managers at Westgate but that would require some to actually get out from behind their computers.

Yeah, it's not like the article posted quotes Westgate business owner or anything.

 

[RemoAZ]

Might be worth listening to. Coming up right now...

http://nbcsportsradioam1060.com/listen-live

Roc from Roc&Manuch ‏@NBCSportsRoc 1m
#Glendale City Councilman Gary Sherwood joins AZ Sports talk NEXT on @NBCSPORTSPHX #Coyotes http://AZsportstalk.com




Expand Reply
Retweet

Favorite


More

 

[RemoAZ]

Yeah, it's not like the article posted quotes Westgate business owner or anything.

Maybe they'll bulldoze the stadium and turn it into all office space. Who needs bars and restaurants. At least the space will get used.

 

[RemoAZ]

From the Sherwood radio interview:

He says the counter proposal they put together today is "mostly legal jagon" and the "5 year out clause for the city". "5% more parking and 5% more naming rights" were the only financial changes.

This deal is "much better than the Jamison deal".

"I have a good feeling"..."It would be a 4-3 vote"

In summary, he seemed to feel that a lot of the legal language that needed to be changed was stuff both sides probably would have agreed on right away if both team's lawyers were in a room negotiating. Because of the short time frame, they've been sending documents back and forth instead of negotiating face to face. That's what I heard anyway.

 

[Howler Scores]

If the new agreement is accepted by RSE:

"@NBCSportsRoc: Councilman Gary Sherwood expects 4-3 vote at best"

So we shall see about their response.

Better summary above mine but I feel a lot better than I did Wednesday.

 

[mouser]

From the Sherwood radio interview:

He says the counter proposal they put together today is "mostly legal jagon" and the "5 year out clause for the city". "5% more parking and 5% more naming rights" were the only financial changes.

This deal is "much better than the Jamison deal".

"I have a good feeling"..."It would be a 4-3 vote"

In summary, he seemed to feel that a lot of the legal language that needed to be changed was stuff both sides probably would have agreed on right away if both team's lawyers were in a room negotiating. Because of the short time frame, they've been sending documents back and forth instead of negotiating face to face. That's what I heard anyway.

I would guess 5% more parking and naming rights might be acceptable to RSE. My fear is that their planned borrowing as part of the purchase is founded on a guaranteed 15 year x $15m revenue stream from the city being available. If that's the case then RSE can't accept a 5 year city opt-out without first renegotiating their financing deal.

 

[XX]

I would guess 5% more parking and naming rights might be acceptable to RSE. My fear is that their planned borrowing as part of the purchase is founded on a guaranteed 15 year x $15m revenue stream from the city being available. If that's the case then RSE can't accept a 5 year city opt-out without first renegotiating their financing deal.

Anyone know which offer they were negotiating off of? RSE walked over guaranteed revenue, but the Sherwood interview implies that the only difference between RSE's counter and this new Glendale offer is the slight increases in parking and naming revenue.

It's an important distinction. Asking RSE to guarantee their side caused them to walk the first time, and probably would again. If there's no such requirement I could see this deal passing comfortably. If Fortress is open to such a change of parameters is another hurdle to clear.

 

[RemoAZ]

I would guess 5% more parking and naming rights might be acceptable to RSE. My fear is that their planned borrowing as part of the purchase is founded on a guaranteed 15 year x $15m revenue stream from the city being available. If that's the case then RSE can't accept a 5 year city opt-out without first renegotiating their financing deal.

Yeah but there's already a 5 year out clause. Now both sides have the option. I don't see why the bank would accept one and not the other. The risk is the same either way.

 

[Howler Scores]

They are already going to pay $6.5 million. So of the $9 million extra that Glendale would pay, even if their revenue projections are half of what RSE is projecting, the most that would be lost is $30 million. This excludes sales tax and only the $6.7 million projection stated today. (Assumed 9-3×5). Sounds like the parking percent increase being requested is on non hockey events.

 

[Sinurgy]

I absolutely dare you to go back in this thread or on the BoH and read the numbers. They spell out very clearly that "Westgate will fail" is nothing more than a scare tactic peddled by idiots, for idiots.

"Westgate will fail" is indeed a scare tactic. "Westgate could fail" is not.

btw...you're one of the better posters around here IMO but the keyboard bully schtick is unbecoming of you.

 

[ClassLessCoyote]

The election was not based on a singular issue much less the singular issue being the stopping any kind of deal to keep the Coyotes in Glendale. Damn those real "facts".

In a perfect world, people who vote would do so based on where the politics of a candiate lies with the politics of the voter. However, in the real world, people vote for others for all sorts of reasons and at times it's not related to politics and often it is one issue that stands out like a sore thumb that the voters will make the decision on who gets their vote. Just like how the state of the economy is the main reason why Obama got elected to 2 terms, it is the issue with trying to give the Coyotes taxpayer money to stay why the likes of Norma Alverez got elected into office.

 

[Sinurgy]

Hugh blabbed about the RFP bids (which are still technically sealed) during the workshop. He was adamant that the RFP bids were better deals for the city. The Republic has requested the bids but I doubt we see them before a vote. We may never see them if RSE completes the deal.

I see, I was hoping for something a little (ok, a lot) more concrete than Hugh's rant session.

 

[cobra427]

From the Sherwood radio interview:

He says the counter proposal they put together today is "mostly legal jagon" and the "5 year out clause for the city". "5% more parking and 5% more naming rights" were the only financial changes.

This deal is "much better than the Jamison deal".

"I have a good feeling"..."It would be a 4-3 vote"

In summary, he seemed to feel that a lot of the legal language that needed to be changed was stuff both sides probably would have agreed on right away if both team's lawyers were in a room negotiating. Because of the short time frame, they've been sending documents back and forth instead of negotiating face to face. That's what I heard anyway.

Last minute legal wording changes is normal. This is going to pass 4-3 or 5-2. There won't be 4 COG members that will take sole responsibility at this point for the team leaving, an empty arena, and Westgate/business failures, not going to happen..

 

[XX]

"Westgate will fail" is indeed a scare tactic. "Westgate could fail" is not.

Right.

This is what I was replying to

Wrong. If the Coyotes leave they write a $25 million check to the NHL next week, have an empty arena that costs millions per year, and all the businesses at Westgate close

btw...I absolutely dare you to even remotely attempt to form a moderate thought and then communicate said thought with even an ounce of humility. You're one of the better posters around here IMO but the keyboard bully schtick is getting really old.

I have no patience for something so ridiculous. I pulled two easily found, readable articles that directly state what he said is not and will not happen. It went so far as a poster saying "talk to the owners" when one of the articles provided does exactly that. You are welcome to loft up the "well, it could" argument but I don't have to pretend like it has merit. It has little, if any, if you look at the numbers. Would you like to post evidence in the thread that paints a different picture? I would be genuinely happy to see it and discuss it to have a more informed opinion.

I don't know whether to laugh or feel sad for humanity if using numbers and supporting articles to put down misinformation or to corroborate what is clearly my opinion makes me a 'keyboard bully.'

I see, I was hoping for something a little (ok, a lot) more concrete than Hugh's rant session.

I'm not sure of the legality of such a move but... if I wanted to sink the deal (RSE accepts) I'd leak those bids to the Republic sometime this weekend. Anyone know if Weiers flat out has the authority to do so?

 

[Sinurgy]

In a perfect world, people who vote would do so based on where the politics of a candiate lies with the politics of the voter. However, in the real world, people vote for others for all sorts of reasons and at times it's not related to politics and often it is one issue that stands out like a sore thumb that the voters will make the decision on who gets their vote. Just like how the state of the economy is the main reason why Obama got elected to 2 terms, it is the issue with trying to give the Coyotes taxpayer money to stay why the likes of Norma Alverez got elected into office.

I don't disagree with your sentiment there, all I'm saying is there is it's almost impossible to know for sure what voters motivations were other than general displeasure with previous candidates. That's why it can't be even close to a fact.

 

[XX]

Craig Morgan ‏@cmorganfoxaz 42s
Renaissance spokesperson David Leibowitz: "The city’s proposal for an out clause is a non-starter.â€

Craig Morgan ‏@cmorganfoxaz 11s
As I mentioned earlier, it appears RSE's lenders will not agree to the 5-year out clause. #Coyotes

Buckle up.

 

[Sinurgy]

I don't know whether to laugh or feel sad for humanity if using numbers and supporting articles to put down misinformation or to corroborate what is clearly my opinion makes me a 'keyboard bully.'

C'mon man, you know full well I'm not commenting on you using numbers and supporting articles to back up your claims, I'm talking about the venomous delivery.

I'm not sure of the legality of such a move but... if I wanted to sink the deal (RSE accepts) I'd leak those bids to the Republic sometime this weekend. Anyone know if Weiers flat out has the authority to do so?

I doubt anyone is passionate enough from an ideological standpoint to do something like that but if they have ulterior motives I wouldn't be surprised at all if the info leaked. Of course this also assumes the information would actually undermine RSE. We still technically have no idea what those bids actually look like.

 

[Jakey53]

If they leave we will see who is right in a coup,e years. And I'm saying the places currently there will go out of businesses. New ones may come in but my point is the current ones won't make it because the coyotes left

That is only speculation on your part. Retail is a revolving door, tenants come and go all the time, but the landlord may not be able to secure as good rental rates from the new tenants.

 

[XX]

Craig Morgan ‏@cmorganfoxaz 1m
RSE said lawyers for both sides met 3 weeks ago at which pt COG attorneys proposed the 5-year out clause and were told RSE could not do it.

This implies that the council was against keeping the Coyotes under RSE's terms. We know that they are unified in their rejection of RSE's latest proposal that does not include an out clause. They walk into the session today, and say that they will pass an agreement that includes an out clause (knowing full well RSE will not agree).

It seems our fate may have been written on the wall for some time now.

I'm talking about the venomous delivery.

If lazy ideological tow-the-party-line style thinking was always met with derision and venom, the world would be a better place.

 

[ClassLessCoyote]

I don't disagree with your sentiment there, all I'm saying is there is it's almost impossible to know for sure what voters motivations were other than general displeasure with previous candidates. That's why it can't be even close to a fact.

In a sense we can since we all know over the years what the politics of Arizona are in relation to deals like the one the Coyotes are trying to get. Not to mention, the tide has turned in the United States now against publicly owned building for sports teams; see the Islanders arena deal by the voters getting shot down at the voting booth.

C'mon man, you know full well I'm not commenting on you using numbers and supporting articles to back up your claims, I'm talking about the venomous delivery.

Probably such responses are there because of this "Too positive, pretend to know everything, make up facts as I go" schtick that is often presented by those not only with a shady background but also appear to be attacking and stalking him as well.

 

[RemoAZ]

If it's posted on the internet it's true right?

All joking aside, I believe what I've seen and been told directly. I believe the theater will be fine. The outlet shops I can't comment on because they are too new. The bars and restaurants, along with the stadium will suffer without the Yotes. Some of them will stay but I believe many will leave and it "could" be a domino effect. Westgate will counter with lower leases to get them to stay which is normal business. Will that be enough? Who knows but as one owner told me, there are simply too many restaurants/bars to survive without the added traffic the Coyotes bring. As a frequent Westgate visitor, I agree. Maybe if I was just reading about it from behind my computer I would have a different opinion but when you can't get a seat anywhere during a weekday game (even when the attendance is low) and barely see anyone on any other week day, it leaves an impression.

 

[Howler Scores]

"@cmorganfoxaz: RSE said lawyers for both sides met 3 weeks ago at which pt COG attorneys proposed the 5-year out clause and were told RSE could not do it."

Fun times

 

[mouser]

Yeah but there's already a 5 year out clause. Now both sides have the option. I don't see why the bank would accept one and not the other. The risk is the same either way.

No it wouldn't be the same. The bank would have a contract with RSE that probably contains other provisions and recourse if RSE opts out. It wouldn't contain those for a CoG opt-out.

Loan risk would have to be assessed differently if a 3rd party outside the loan contract could materially affect the revenue stream assumptions the loan is based on.

 

[Tad Mikowski]

@cmorganfoxaz
This is a business negotiation. Both sides take hard-line stances. Could it die? Sure. But I suspect there'll be more talks this weekend.





this isn't over yet

 

[RemoAZ]

No it wouldn't be the same. The bank would have a contract with RSE that probably contains other provisions and recourse if RSE opts out. It wouldn't contain those for a CoG opt-out.

Loan risk would have to be assessed differently if a 3rd party outside the loan contract could materially affect the revenue stream assumptions the loan is based on.

That makes sense. I didn't look at it from that point of view. Thanks. Seems like a reasonable, fair request from the city but I can see how it wouldn't work especially this late in the game.