Part XVIII: Phoenix -- Imminence Front

[Coach]

Don't you love the quote by COG spokesperson Frisoni saying that the COG can't possibly post all the information for the public? Fair enough, but how about starting with the two studies that were done to assess the plan to fork over $100 million to Hulsizer? That seems to be more than a trivial piece of information, especially considering the substantial contradictions in the assessments. The fact that at least two city councilors said that they never even heard of the Walker study, but were instead told generally about Hocking's conclusions is damning. If they revealed the information about Walker's study to the mayor and selected councilors (who favour the deal) and not others, it is even worse.

I agree with you. However, considering the editorial that this newspaper posted last week it is pretty clear which side they are on. I'm just saying the article is a little more neutral than I thought I would see from this newspaper.

 

[bacon25]

Nice to see a more neutral article on the topic than the ones released at the end of last week.

I actually see this article as being against keeping the Coyotes. By that I mean with her summarizing of the deal it would seem that the COG would break even and that is if you go by the positive study of the parking fees generated. The other study shows that the COG will not be able to pay off the debt with just parking fees.

"The consequences if Glendale struggled to pay its bond debt are unclear.

Glendale will back the bonds with its excise taxes. Those revenues pay for city services and operations.

If parking fees lagged, the city could cut services to residents or raise taxes or fees to cover the payments.

Glendale officials insist residents would not be impacted. The city would seek other revenue streams, they said, such as raising parking fees or creating a special taxing district around the sports stadiums to raise enough money to pay the debt."

I don't see how taxpayers are not going to be impacted, attendance has not gone up since the COG voted and putting a price on parking will on hurt attendance numbers more. I just can't see them making enough money that they would not have to start cutting services in other areas.

 

[MAROONSRoad]

I actually see this article as being against keeping the Coyotes. By that I mean with her summarizing of the deal it would seem that the COG would break even and that is if you go by the positive study of the parking fees generated. The other study shows that the COG will not be able to pay off the debt with just parking fees.

"The consequences if Glendale struggled to pay its bond debt are unclear.

Glendale will back the bonds with its excise taxes. Those revenues pay for city services and operations.

If parking fees lagged, the city could cut services to residents or raise taxes or fees to cover the payments.

Glendale officials insist residents would not be impacted. The city would seek other revenue streams, they said, such as raising parking fees or creating a special taxing district around the sports stadiums to raise enough money to pay the debt."

I don't see how taxpayers are not going to be impacted, attendance has not gone up since the COG voted and putting a price on parking will on hurt attendance numbers more. I just can't see them making enough money that they would not have to start cutting services in other areas.

You make some good points. I also believe the NHL will be concerned about the content of any plan. If the plan is not realistic, it is possible the NHL will not approve of it even if they were to get their $170 MM back for a local sale. The last thing the NHL wants to do is revisit this situation. They want closure and a long term solution. And there is not much time left to achieve that.

GHOST

 

[cbcwpg]

Just a general thought or question for the hockey fans in Phoenix.

Let's assume the CoG raises the money to give to Hulsizer to buy the team. So in a few weeks it is annouced that the team has been purchased by Hulsizer and is staying. So all the Coyotes fans are happy. But my question to the Coyotes' fans while they are celebrating is....

The number one thing or reason I have heard fans give for either staying away currently or in the past was they thought that the team was managed poorly and had bad ownership. Now, given that, just how confident or happy are you to have a new owner that, quite frankly, has bought the team without spending one dime out of his own pocket? Are you happy to just have someone own the team?

IMO I would be much happier if a new owner came in spending $175M out of his own pocket, because to me, that at least shows his is serious and committed to keeping the team. With Hulsizer and group, you have someone who can walk away in 5 years and it will not have cost him anything. Will fans look at Hulsizer as just another stop-gap owner who isn't really serious? And will they still stay away?

 

[borno87]

I am still not buying the whole "bad ownership" reasoning behind the poor attendance.

I provided an example in an earlier thread in which a family of four would never choose to not go to a hockey game because of "bad ownership" even though it would be an extremely fun and affordable evening.

The team has been contending for over a year now, the prices have never been lower, and they still can't fill their executive suites or get 15,000 into the arena on a Saturday night for $1 beers?

I'm sure the attendance will really skyrocket once COG starts charging $20 for parking plus extra taxes and fees on anything and everything you buy around the arena to pay for this bond issue.

Glendale - please take a lesson from Winnipeg and True North, you don't need an NHL team to run a world-class, highly profitably arena. Look at how Quebec City is building a $400 million arena without an NHL team. Obviously they would like one, but they are still building one without any guarantees they will eventually get one. The reason being is they know that even if they didnt get the team, they wouldn't have to "board up the windows and shut off the lights" as Scruggs has tirelessly suggested.

 

[Whileee]

I agree with you. However, considering the editorial that this newspaper posted last week it is pretty clear which side they are on. I'm just saying the article is a little more neutral than I thought I would see from this newspaper.

Yes, I agree with you. I made that point with Sanders' previous couple of articles. I think that over the past year or so she has been a bit of a "booster", but in the past few articles she has highlighted some of the sordid elements of the process. Perhaps one of them was Glendale's stonewalling on the Arizona Republic's request for the parking studies, which she eventually accessed from the Goldwater Institute's site.

 

[Gump Hasek]

An enterprising reporter in Arizona should grill the Mayor of Glendale about the status of the $25 million in taxpayer money sitting in the escrow account - assigned to cover the NHL's losses in Glendale this season.

Has the NHL filed any claims against the escrow account as of yet? When the NHL eventually does claim all or a portion of the money, will that not represent taxpayer money bailing out a business? Will the $25 million (that will eventually be transferred from the coffers of Glendale taxpayers just to cover the losses for this season alone) also come from the proposed future parking windfall?

Inquiring minds and whatnot.

 

[Fidel Astro]

I am still not buying the whole "bad ownership" reasoning behind the poor attendance.

I provided an example in an earlier thread in which a family of four would never choose to not go to a hockey game because of "bad ownership" even though it would be an extremely fun and affordable evening.

The team has been contending for over a year now, the prices have never been lower, and they still can't fill their executive suites or get 15,000 into the arena on a Saturday night for $1 beers?

I agree with you on the "bad ownership" thing. I've never bought that as an excuse, for any team. Aside from serious die-hard fans and the type of people who post on this forum, I really don't think most people who are interested in hockey are giving much thought to what some suit in the team office is doing.

They're interested in having a good time and (hopefully) watching their team win. The ownership doesn't really come into play. The family of four in your example is not going to hesitate when going to a movie because of the theatre's ownership -- they're not even going to consider the theatre's ownership -- so why would a hockey game be any different?

The only reason ownership is an issue at all is because this is the Business of Hockey board, and team ownership is a major topic of conversation. The average joe doesn't care.

While I can fully understand the uncertainty around the team's future being a deterrent for some fans, that's not "bad ownership" -- it's "uncertain ownership." Considering the team has been owned by the NHL for the past couple of years, and the NHL has jumped through hoops to prevent the team from relocating, I think they're actually an example of "good" owners.

...and anyway, throughout this process, the team has had a very good chance of remaining in Arizona (although it's looking a little less likely now). There's absolutely no excuse for the fans not to turn up in huge numbers and make a statement about their desire to keep the team. That, of course, hasn't happened. It's baffling.

Glendale - please take a lesson from Winnipeg and True North, you don't need an NHL team to run a world-class, highly profitably arena. Look at how Quebec City is building a $400 million arena without an NHL team. Obviously they would like one, but they are still building one without any guarantees they will eventually get one. The reason being is they know that even if they didnt get the team, they wouldn't have to "board up the windows and shut off the lights" as Scruggs has tirelessly suggested.

Yeah, that "shut off the lights" statement makes absolutely zero sense. Obviously without a hockey team, they won't have a guaranteed 41 nights filled on the arena's booking schedule each year, but it doesn't mean the arena itself will need to be shuttered. According to the discussion about parking revenue, the arena does host other events (like concerts) now. Couldn't they just book more non-hockey events? It's ridiculous that the city would just completely give up on an expensive building like that.

 

[Jesus Christ Horburn]

If COG makes a decision tomorrow night to allow the team to leave Glendale (highly unlikely, given their past history, but humor me), would the NHL make the announcement that they've sold the team to TNSE almost simultaneously?

I can't help but feel that if the COG ever voluntarily kills this deal, it will be tomorrow night, but at the same time the NHL probably wouldn't want anything to take attention away from the All-Star game. Plus the Coyotes have home games scheduled both tomorrow night and Thursday and Thursday, and I doubt the NHL would want to risk alienating fans and reducing the attendance for those and the rest of the home games.

That said, I'm interested to see whether or not the "announcement" would be made prior to the trade deadline in February. If before, it would allow Maloney to ship out upcoming UFAs for assets (assuming those UFAs would have no interest re-signing with a team that is about to relocate), even though the Coyotes will probably still be contending for a playoff spot at that time.

 

[Killion]

Don't you love the quote by COG spokesperson Frisoni saying that the COG can't possibly post all the information for the public? .

"Depends on what your interpretation of 'is' is". Whileee.......

"What we have here is a failure to c o m m u n i c a t e". City officials deliberately withholding information & or selectively using data that supports their positions. I have no "worldly idea" what Frisoni's doing in ducking for cover. Oh, wait a minute, here we go, new-rule number 38; "non-disclosure". A roughly $250M investment guaranteed by the taxpayers on top of the existing debts & neither the elected officials nor the public have a need to know; on top of which "the lone recipient & beneficiary of the estate to receive all my earthly chattels including but not limited to Jobing.com Arena for the princely sum of NO DOLLARS & ZERO CENTS after 5 years". . Who does she think she's working for?. The Pentagon?. The CIA?. Project Blue Book?. A shady company looking for private placements?. Is she an "Information Officer" or "Dis-information Officer"?. An Implausible Deniability Expert with a Memory Eraser Pocket Rocket?. A Shadow Government?. Men in Black. Like the guys across the street in the midnight black 66 Lincoln with the smoked out windows & suicide doors that have been watching my home & following me around for decades....

"You know, sometimes I think its important to demand your rights. Even if you dont know what they are or if your even screaming at the right person. Then, slam the door on your way out, just for emphasis".

Jack Handey

 

[goyotes]

Two things are significant about the agreement on the table for tomorrow. First, it addresses the creation of a CFD as another revenue source for the CoG to recover $$$. Second, a local reporter says the arena management deal has a likely value of $50 M according to the GWI. MH is getting $97 M. Attached to the deal is payments from Ellman to CoG for 30 years that totals.... $47 M.

I confess that I have not been able to connect the dots as to how the $47 M might satisfy the GWI's concerns, but it does bridge a gap and the money is not coming from any taxpayers.

This new deal may be very significant to address the GWI's major arguments (or may not I confess), but I think it is a lot more than just taking $12.5M out of escrow in non-city funds to pay ongoing loses for this year.

 

[OthmarAmmann]

I agree with you on the "bad ownership" thing. I've never bought that as an excuse, for any team. Aside from serious die-hard fans and the type of people who post on this forum, I really don't think most people who are interested in hockey are giving much thought to what some suit in the team office is doing.

They're interested in having a good time and (hopefully) watching their team win. The ownership doesn't really come into play. The family of four in your example is not going to hesitate when going to a movie because of the theatre's ownership -- they're not even going to consider the theatre's ownership -- so why would a hockey game be any different?

The only reason ownership is an issue at all is because this is the Business of Hockey board, and team ownership is a major topic of conversation. The average joe doesn't care.

While I can fully understand the uncertainty around the team's future being a deterrent for some fans, that's not "bad ownership" -- it's "uncertain ownership." Considering the team has been owned by the NHL for the past couple of years, and the NHL has jumped through hoops to prevent the team from relocating, I think they're actually an example of "good" owners.

...and anyway, throughout this process, the team has had a very good chance of remaining in Arizona (although it's looking a little less likely now). There's absolutely no excuse for the fans not to turn up in huge numbers and make a statement about their desire to keep the team. That, of course, hasn't happened. It's baffling.

To what, then, would you attribute the significant decline in attendance between 2008-09 (average 14,875) and 2009-10 (average 11,989... almost 20% drop)

Yeah, that "shut off the lights" statement makes absolutely zero sense. Obviously without a hockey team, they won't have a guaranteed 41 nights filled on the arena's booking schedule each year, but it doesn't mean the arena itself will need to be shuttered. According to the discussion about parking revenue, the arena does host other events (like concerts) now. Couldn't they just book more non-hockey events? It's ridiculous that the city would just completely give up on an expensive building like that.

There is a slight difference however, since the MTS Centre has a near monopoly and is centrally located. Jobing.com is more comparable to a hypothetical arena located in St Norbert and competing with the MTS Centre.

 

[CasualFan]

It is amazing that this is still ongoing. I thought for sure that Glendale would issue the bonds and get this thing so far down the road that Goldwater would have no chance of unwinding the transaction. Shows you what I know.

I would also like to put forward some information regarding the City of Glendale Parking Agreement Agenda Item for Tuesday before we run any further astray on what the item actually means. If you can believe it, my old friend GSC2K2 and I discussed this very item back in May of 2010 on "Part VII Phoenix Coyotes post bankruptcy".

05-23-2010, 08:40 PM
Originally Posted by Mulligan View Post
So this $25 million is sitting in an account and is a part of the bankruptcy ?

Do the CoG/NHL have more right to this money than the unsecured creditors like Gretzky etc. ?


No.

You've got to go all the way back to the start and follow the process.

- The original Mixed-Use Development Agreement (MUDA) - http://156.42.40.50/UnOfficialDocs/pdf/20011155422.pdf - acknowledges that areas of Westgate that are designed as parking lots in 2001 may be conveyed to the developer later because they would be far more valuable if they had residential/retail development instead of just being a parking lot. Put simply, Ellman (via Coyote Center Development, LLC) can turn parking lots into development as long as they replace the parking lot someplace else in the complex.

Fast forward to November 2005. Ellman (via Coyote Center Development, LLC) identify that Lots 7 and 14A are more valuable as residential units than parking lots. Per the MUDA, Ellman agrees to transfer 1,440 spaces in return for building the residential units. This agreement provides them until November 2008 to complete the transfer.

Fast forward again to July 2008. Coyote Center Development, LLC agrees to put $25M is in an escrow account to build a parking structure on Lot 8 which fulfills their obligation to replace what they took in Lots 7 and 14A to build residential units back in 2005. That Agreement for the Replacement of Temporary Parking is among City of Glendale (City), Coyote Center Development, LLC, (Ellman) and Glendale Garage LLC/Coyotes Hockey, LLC/Arena Management Group, LLC (Moyes)

In May 2009 Moyes filed bankruptcy. Moyes has rights under The Replacement of Temporary Parking to have that $25M be applied to a parking structure built for the team. It is a Material Contract right, not an asset the can be liquidated or paid to unsecured creditors.
Note: Because that particular agreement (C-5575-1) has not been located/posted, there is some speculation here, however, it is pretty safe to make the assumption that Glendale Hockey, LLC/Arena Management Group, LLC held the right to have the parking structure constructed. We also don't have access to the escrow account, but the agreement was executed on July 1, 2008, so it's almost certain that Ellman's Coyote Center Development, LLC did make the deposit.

If Glendale/NHL is successful in assuming Moyes' rights under that agreement, they will control both sides of the equation which gives them unique leverage to alter the agreement to suit their needs without much risk of being successfully challenged.

I believe that Glendale has simply assumed the contract and will now cash it out for $12.5MM. Dare I say that this was a predictable outcome and in no way an indication that Glendale is going to voluntarily kill the deal tomorrow. This is an epic saga but I would encourage us all to refrain from diving into fictional interpretations, the truth is already strange enough.

 

[Whileee]

"Depends on what your interpretation of 'is' is". Whileee.......

"What we have here is a failure to c o m m u n i c a t e". City officials deliberately withholding information & or selectively using data that supports their positions. I have no "worldly idea" what Frisoni's doing in ducking for cover. Oh, wait a minute, here we go, new-rule number 38; "non-disclosure". A roughly $250M investment guaranteed by the taxpayers on top of the existing debts & neither the elected officials nor the public have a need to know; on top of which "the lone recipient & beneficiary of the estate to receive all my earthly chattels including but not limited to Jobing.com Arena for the princely sum of NO DOLLARS & ZERO CENTS after 5 years". . Who does she think she's working for?. The Pentagon?. The CIA?. Project Blue Book?. A shady company looking for private placements?. Is she an "Information Officer" or "Dis-information Officer"?. An Implausible Deniability Expert with a Memory Eraser Pocket Rocket?. A Shadow Government?. Men in Black. Like the guys across the street in the midnight black 66 Lincoln with the smoked out windows & suicide doors that have been watching my home & following me around for decades....

"You know, sometimes I think its important to demand your rights. Even if you dont know what they are or if your even screaming at the right person. Then, slam the door on your way out, just for emphasis".

Jack Handey

Whoa, Killion, now you're making me nervous. Sinister...

One thing that has occurred to me based on some of the recent developments is that the Goldwater Institute seems to have sniffed out the essence of the situation vis-a-vis the COG and its efforts to keep the Coyotes rather comprehensively.

They correctly assessed that the City of Glendale was inclined to directly subsidize a new owner for the Coyotes, and might be forced to do so. Hence, their sabre-rattling about the "gift law".

They also sensed that to do so, Glendale was going to need to find a creative and perhaps secretive way of doing this. Hence, they have been challenging them to produce documents under the freedom of information laws.

Based on what has transpired recently, they also appear to have anticipated the danger that Beasley would go all "black ops" on this, if need be. Remember last Spring when they strenuously objected that Beasley was given the authorization to negotiate directly on the new lease agreements? In retrospect, their concerns were well-founded, now that it has been revealed that not only did he negotiate a deal that is financially ill-advised for the City of Glendale, but he also cooked up supportive studies and concealed contrary analyses.

I don't know much about the GWI's capabilities or success in other contexts, but they have been very attentive on this situation. The fact that they are publicly challenging Glendale on both the transparency and public accountability as well as the "gift" elements might well give the City of Glendale something to think about. It is one thing to have parking wonks debating future parking revenue projections in front of a judge / jury and the public, it is quite another to be poring over emails and documents to see whether city officials and politicians have been forthright with each other and the public. I think that Glendale politicians and city officials might fear the latter challenge more than the financial considerations fight.

 

[CasualFan]

Two things are significant about the agreement on the table for tomorrow. First, it addresses the creation of a CFD as another revenue source for the CoG to recover $$$. Second, a local reporter says the arena management deal has a likely value of $50 M according to the GWI. MH is getting $97 M. Attached to the deal is payments from Ellman to CoG for 30 years that totals.... $47 M.

I confess that I have not been able to connect the dots as to how the $47 M might satisfy the GWI's concerns, but it does bridge a gap and the money is not coming from any taxpayers.

This new deal may be very significant to address the GWI's major arguments (or may not I confess), but I think it is a lot more than just taking $12.5M out of escrow in non-city funds to pay ongoing loses for this year.

Is there something on the agenda besides "14. Arena Mixed-Use Development and Parking Agreements."?

Is there is a revision to the AMULA as well?

 

[Whileee]

It is amazing that this is still ongoing. I thought for sure that Glendale would issue the bonds and get this thing so far down the road that Goldwater would have no chance of unwinding the transaction. Shows you what I know.

I would also like to put forward some information regarding the City of Glendale Parking Agreement Agenda Item for Tuesday before we run any further astray on what the item actually means. If you can believe it, my old friend GSC2K2 and I discussed this very item back in May of 2010 on "Part VII Phoenix Coyotes post bankruptcy".



I believe that Glendale has simply assumed the contract and will now cash it out for $12.5MM. Dare I say that this was a predictable outcome and in no way an indication that Glendale is going to voluntarily kill the deal tomorrow. This is an epic saga but I would encourage us all to refrain from diving into fictional interpretations, the truth is already strange enough.

Thanks, CF. Very enlightening. I suppose that it is still a bit premature to understand why the COG has cashed it out for $12.5 million, but some of us have speculated that it might relate to their obligation to reimburse the NHL for operating losses accrued on the Coyotes this season. Do you have any thoughts on that?

As I noted in a post above, I happen to think that the COG is concerned about more than the financial and business aspects of the GWI's challenge. Note that the GWI has been in litigation with the COG about public disclosure, and their most recent statement makes it clear that they have widened their area of focus to include the most recent public disclosures that city administrators withheld financial information from city councilors and the public prior to the vote on the lease agreement. It is one thing for the COG to go to battle over financial details, particularly post-hoc. It is quite another to be battling over who knew what and when, and whether elected officials had been mislead, etc. One can imagine why the COG would be reluctant to go ahead on the deal with this legal threat hanging over their head. I speculate that they want to find out the extent of fight left in GWI before proceeding.

 

[Tommy Hawk]

I agree with you on the "bad ownership" thing. I've never bought that as an excuse, for any team. Aside from serious die-hard fans and the type of people who post on this forum, I really don't think most people who are interested in hockey are giving much thought to what some suit in the team office is doing.

They're interested in having a good time and (hopefully) watching their team win. The ownership doesn't really come into play. The family of four in your example is not going to hesitate when going to a movie because of the theatre's ownership -- they're not even going to consider the theatre's ownership -- so why would a hockey game be any different?

The only reason ownership is an issue at all is because this is the Business of Hockey board, and team ownership is a major topic of conversation. The average joe doesn't care.

While I can fully understand the uncertainty around the team's future being a deterrent for some fans, that's not "bad ownership" -- it's "uncertain ownership." Considering the team has been owned by the NHL for the past couple of years, and the NHL has jumped through hoops to prevent the team from relocating, I think they're actually an example of "good" owners.

...and anyway, throughout this process, the team has had a very good chance of remaining in Arizona (although it's looking a little less likely now). There's absolutely no excuse for the fans not to turn up in huge numbers and make a statement about their desire to keep the team. That, of course, hasn't happened. It's baffling.

Yeah, that "shut off the lights" statement makes absolutely zero sense. Obviously without a hockey team, they won't have a guaranteed 41 nights filled on the arena's booking schedule each year, but it doesn't mean the arena itself will need to be shuttered. According to the discussion about parking revenue, the arena does host other events (like concerts) now. Couldn't they just book more non-hockey events? It's ridiculous that the city would just completely give up on an expensive building like that.

I completely disagree with you on the bad ownership. I think in certain cases it will ultimately affect attendance. People were tired of Wirtz's trading away fan favorites when they were due pay raises as well as statements such as "it's too expensive to win a stanley cup", etc. But also, that went on for a significantly longer time than Phoenix has gone through and their owners never said any comments like Wirtz.

It is amazing that this is still ongoing. I thought for sure that Glendale would issue the bonds and get this thing so far down the road that Goldwater would have no chance of unwinding the transaction. Shows you what I know.

I would also like to put forward some information regarding the City of Glendale Parking Agreement Agenda Item for Tuesday before we run any further astray on what the item actually means. If you can believe it, my old friend GSC2K2 and I discussed this very item back in May of 2010 on "Part VII Phoenix Coyotes post bankruptcy".

I believe that Glendale has simply assumed the contract and will now cash it out for $12.5MM. Dare I say that this was a predictable outcome and in no way an indication that Glendale is going to voluntarily kill the deal tomorrow. This is an epic saga but I would encourage us all to refrain from diving into fictional interpretations, the truth is already strange enough.

First of all, just because they issue the bonds doesn't mean the money goes to Hulsizer. Contracts ave to be signed, he has to be approved as an owneer, etc. Secondly, you're argument about the deal not being able to be "undone" is completely unfounded. Deal can be undone with the swipe of the pen of a judge.

 

[Whileee]

Is there something on the agenda besides "14. Arena Mixed-Use Development and Parking Agreements."?

Is there is a revision to the AMULA as well?

I don't see anything on the agenda related to revising the AMULA.

 

[goyotes]

Is there something on the agenda besides "14. Arena Mixed-Use Development and Parking Agreements."?

Is there is a revision to the AMULA as well?

Yes. It is a 35 page agreement that Ellman has already signed that the council is voting on to let the City Manager sign.

This may, or may not go to court. Clearly, the CoG intends to proceed with this deal and take their chances that the GWI does not get an injuction (which under the standard for an injuction would be extremely difficult to obtain).

As with everything in this saga, it will come down to the last minute with much kicking and screaming. I still remain of the opinion that the bonds will get sold (backed by excise taxes and everyone agrees they will have no trouble selling), the BoG will approve MH bid, he will close, and the GWI suit (if brought) will be a cloud over this but nothing like the cloud that has existed for nearly two years.

 

[Fugu]

I actually see this article as being against keeping the Coyotes. By that I mean with her summarizing of the deal it would seem that the COG would break even and that is if you go by the positive study of the parking fees generated. The other study shows that the COG will not be able to pay off the debt with just parking fees.

"The consequences if Glendale struggled to pay its bond debt are unclear.

Glendale will back the bonds with its excise taxes. Those revenues pay for city services and operations.

If parking fees lagged, the city could cut services to residents or raise taxes or fees to cover the payments.

Glendale officials insist residents would not be impacted. The city would seek other revenue streams, they said, such as raising parking fees or creating a special taxing district around the sports stadiums to raise enough money to pay the debt."

Answers the question of who pays for things when the parking revenue is insufficient, which no doubt it will be. Very few things track according "to plan" unless you're Microsoft in the 1980's.... and then you're way above plan.

 

[RAgIn]

I actually see this article as being against keeping the Coyotes. By that I mean with her summarizing of the deal it would seem that the COG would break even and that is if you go by the positive study of the parking fees generated. The other study shows that the COG will not be able to pay off the debt with just parking fees.

"The consequences if Glendale struggled to pay its bond debt are unclear.

Glendale will back the bonds with its excise taxes. Those revenues pay for city services and operations.

If parking fees lagged, the city could cut services to residents or raise taxes or fees to cover the payments.

Glendale officials insist residents would not be impacted. The city would seek other revenue streams, they said, such as raising parking fees or creating a special taxing district around the sports stadiums to raise enough money to pay the debt."

I don't see how taxpayers are not going to be impacted, attendance has not gone up since the COG voted and putting a price on parking will on hurt attendance numbers more. I just can't see them making enough money that they would not have to start cutting services in other areas.

I can't see how raising parking fees would help out. If the city of Glendale can't get enough money through parking revenues, making the fees go higher would likely drive more fans away from the rink. Parking and ticket fees should not be the same price, especially since the average price of a Coyote's ticket is currently below the NHL average. That would be absurd. I'm sure Hulsizer wouldn't like having less patrons attend games in the future, then currently. Than again, he's getting a tremendous deal in the short term.

 

[MaskedSonja]

Whoa, Killion, now you're making me nervous. Sinister...

One thing that has occurred to me based on some of the recent developments is that the Goldwater Institute seems to have sniffed out the essence of the situation vis-a-vis the COG and its efforts to keep the Coyotes rather comprehensively.

They correctly assessed that the City of Glendale was inclined to directly subsidize a new owner for the Coyotes, and might be forced to do so. Hence, their sabre-rattling about the "gift law".

They also sensed that to do so, Glendale was going to need to find a creative and perhaps secretive way of doing this. Hence, they have been challenging them to produce documents under the freedom of information laws.

Based on what has transpired recently, they also appear to have anticipated the danger that Beasley would go all "black ops" on this, if need be. Remember last Spring when they strenuously objected that Beasley was given the authorization to negotiate directly on the new lease agreements? In retrospect, their concerns were well-founded, now that it has been revealed that not only did he negotiate a deal that is financially ill-advised for the City of Glendale, but he also cooked up supportive studies and concealed contrary analyses.

I don't know much about the GWI's capabilities or success in other contexts, but they have been very attentive on this situation. The fact that they are publicly challenging Glendale on both the transparency and public accountability as well as the "gift" elements might well give the City of Glendale something to think about. It is one thing to have parking wonks debating future parking revenue projections in front of a judge / jury and the public, it is quite another to be poring over emails and documents to see whether city officials and politicians have been forthright with each other and the public. I think that Glendale politicians and city officials might fear the latter challenge more than the financial considerations fight.

Have we stepped into a Ludlum novel now? "The Coyote Conspiracy"? Wow, this is intriguing-so I'm assuming that we shall all back off, because this transaction in the interest of national security, and therefore not all information can be released to GWI

This is impressive stuff!

 

[CasualFan]

I suppose that it is still a bit premature to understand why the COG has cashed it out for $12.5 million, but some of us have speculated that it might relate to their obligation to reimburse the NHL for operating losses accrued on the Coyotes this season. Do you have any thoughts on that?

I thought that Glendale would have this signed, sealed, and delivered before the new year started. My thoughts on what Glendale is doing are not worth very much.

 

[MaskedSonja]

Answers the question of who pays for things when the parking revenue is insufficient, which no doubt it will be. Very few things track according "to plan" unless you're Microsoft in the 1980's.... and then you're way above plan.

It seems no matter how Glendale writes or spins it, the taxpayer is going to get it in knickers in the end.

 

[Fugu]

I suspect that in addition to GWI, one thing holding up the issuance of bonds is the interest rate. Glendale budgeted for 6% (or less, presumably). The market experts quoted earlier were saying they'd probably have to issue at 7-7.5% (iirc?).


For the amount of money involved that 1.0-1.5% of additional rate isn't exactly insignificant.