Phoenix C: The F A.R.S Awakens

kdb209 · Jun 10, 2015

Fugu · Jun 10, 2015

News Links from Last 24 Hours

Figured since a new thread is starting, it would make sense to collect the relevant news links. If we missed any, go ahead an add.

If you click on the red box next to the poster name in the quoted section, you will be taken back to the other thread.

Major4Boarding said:
Chris Daniels chiming in

Llama19 said:
AZ Republic article, Glendale to vote on whether to kill Coyotes deal

To quote:

"The city asked if the Coyotes would be willing to renegotiate the contract "but that's not going to happen," [Anthony] LeBlanc said."

Source: http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/2015/06/09/glendale-vote-coyotes-deal/28777933/

Fugu said:
38-511. Cancellation of political subdivision and state contracts; definition
A. The state, its political subdivisions or any department or agency of either may, within three years after its execution, cancel any contract, without penalty or further obligation, made by the state, its political subdivisions, or any of the departments or agencies of either if any person significantly involved in initiating, negotiating, securing, drafting or creating the contract on behalf of the state, its political subdivisions or any of the departments or agencies of either is, at any time while the contract or any extension of the contract is in effect, an employee or agent of any other party to the contract in any capacity or a consultant to any other party of the contract with respect to the subject matter of the contract.

B. Leases of state trust land for terms longer than ten years cancelled under this section shall respect those rights given to mortgagees of the lessee by section 37-289 and other lawful provisions of the lease.

C. The cancellation under this section by the state or its political subdivisions shall be effective when written notice from the governor or the chief executive officer or governing body of the political subdivision is received by all other parties to the contract unless the notice specifies a later time.

D. The cancellation under this section by any department or agency of the state or its political subdivisions shall be effective when written notice from such party is received by all other parties to the contract unless the notice specifies a later time.

E. In addition to the right to cancel a contract as provided in subsection A of this section, the state, its political subdivisions or any department or agency of either may recoup any fee or commission paid or due to any person significantly involved in initiating, negotiating, securing, drafting or creating the contract on behalf of the state, its political subdivisions or any department or agency of either from any other party to the contract arising as the result of the contract.

F. Notice of this section shall be included in every contract to which the state, its political subdivisions, or any of the departments or agencies of either is a party.

G. For purposes of this section, "political subdivisions" do not include entities formed or operating under title 48, chapter 11, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19 or 22.

wildcat48 said:

CasualFan said:
Here's the JIG II Lease in substantial final https://www.glendaleaz.com/documents/ArenaMgmtAgmtSFD.pdf

Here's the RSE(IA) Lease: https://www.glendaleaz.com/documents/ProfessionalManagementServicesArenaLeaseAgmt.pdf

Any of the sections look similar? 38-511 includes anyone substainailly involved in drafting...

LadyStanley said:
http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/coyotes-deny-breach-of-arena-lease-agreement/

AP story on special meeting

Some $$s for posterity/discussion

Even if they vote to cancel the agreement, my bet is the NHL and Coyotes have a suit files and TRO within a week.

wildcat48 said:
It certainly sounds like Morgan believes Glendale doesn't have a leg to stand on.

CasualFan said:
Of course. Assuming the city votes to terminate, the recourse would almost certainly be injunction relief.

Tindall Severance https://www.glendaleaz.com/clerk/Contracts/8419.pdf
He resigned in April but was providing services for six additional months. It will take a finding of fact to determine what, if any, of those services may be applicable to the 38-511 claim (beyond the appearance that he was involved in drafting large portions of the agreement that were carried forward from JIG)

wildcat48 said:
Here's Morgan's take....

READ MORE>>>>

cbcwpg said:
Just a little sidebar....

In November of 2013, then-Councilman Phil Lieberman filed an ethics complaint with the State Bar of Arizona concerning Tindall. Lieberman alleged that Tindall went to work for the Coyotes in 2013 while still being paid a severance by Glendale. The State Bar dismissed that claim.

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news...ismisses-complaint-coyotes-attorney/13199545/

An eight-month Bar investigation failed to produce "clear and convincing" evidence of ethical violations, according to a letter sent Wednesday to Tindall's personal attorney by Bar counsel Hunter Perlmeter.

"The state Bar conducted a very thorough investigation. And after that investigation, they dismissed Mr. Lieberman's charge. I think the dismissal speaks for itself," Tindall's attorney, Andrew Halaby, said Friday.

"After our investigation of this matter we have decided to dismiss the allegations because this is not clear and convincing evidence of an ethical violation," Perlmeter wrote in the letter to Halaby, which was obtained by The Arizona Republic.

Llama19 said:

Llama19 said:
Coyotes crisis rears ugly head at terrible time

Source: http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/coyotes-crisis-rears-ugly-head-at-terrible-time/

QcBlizzard said:
Seems legit

madhi19 · Jun 10, 2015

So the BoG meeting is like... Two weeks from now. To be a fly on that wall.

Acesolid · Jun 10, 2015

QcBlizzard said:
Seems legit

Hum... too vague. This is not threatening enough.

If I were Bettman, I'd think the best way to save the Coyotes is to pull a huge bluff/threat, plus put a carrot in front of them.

Here's what I'd say:

- "Guys, We want the Coyotes to be sucessful. But if you vote yes tonight, tomorrow morning we will sue you for hundreds of millions in damages with a team of some of the best lawyers in the world. Not only that, but we will also immediately relocate the team and make a white elephant of your arena. And if you do the logical thing vote no. We'll politely (and publicly) ask our friends who own the team to play nice and work with you better and help Glendale."

I think, even if I were told it's not possible to relocate now, I'd say that if I were Bettman. Because in my opinion this is quite likely to make Glendale cave-in, and save the team.

Fugu · Jun 10, 2015

I'll leave the question here for our legal team.

Tindall was investigated for an ethics violation based on Lieberman's filing with the state's attorney. They found there wasn't enough evidence to back an ethics violation.

My reading of the Arizona statute doesn't say anyone has to prove any type of ethical violation, just that any type of involvement in the contract deemed as significant is sufficient grounds for contract termination. This seems to be a different legal test-- not a case of misconduct of the individual and potential disbarment, but simply significant involvement at some level (to be demonstrated). The end result isn't an action against Tindall, but termination of a contract.

This suggests to me that the bar is much lower in proving there was a conflict of interest, but merely the knowledge that there was familiarity/involvement alone is sufficient under the state law. That's very much tilted towards the municipality, it would appear.

Killion · Jun 10, 2015

Evil Doctor said:
I don't see how a league going to war with one of it's member host cities can in any way benefit the league? The only end result is that ground is permanently salted for hockey in that area, and might cause other potential host cities to reconsider wanting to get in bed with the NHL.

That would require some critical thought, vision, munificence, benevolence & compassion, empathy & understanding. Sense of fair play rather than one-sided, mutually beneficial arrangements & agreements... This is the NHL were talking about here Doc. I mean, what are you thinkin? That they could care about anything like that?

wildcat48 · Jun 10, 2015

The mega thread is back!!!! :yo:

LPHabsFan · Jun 10, 2015

Fugu said:
I'll leave the question here for our legal team.

Tindall was investigated for an ethics violation based on Lieberman's filing with the state's attorney. They found there wasn't enough evidence to back an ethics violation.

My reading of the Arizona statute doesn't say anyone has to prove any type of ethical violation, just that any type of involvement in the contract deemed as significant is sufficient grounds for contract termination. This seems to be a different legal test-- not a case of misconduct of the individual and potential disbarment, but simply significant involvement at some level (to be demonstrated). The end result isn't an action against Tindall, but termination of a contract.

This suggests to me that the bar is much lower in proving there was a conflict of interest, but merely the knowledge that there was familiarity/involvement alone is sufficient under the state law. That's very much tilted towards the municipality, it would appear.

This is what CF said in post 973 on page 39 of the last thread....

"I mean low barrier in sense that it's far more a question of fact rather than a question of law. Tindall is an employee of IA so if he were to be found, factually, to have had a significant role in initiating, drafting, or creating the lease, they can void it without penalty. Have no idea if it's a slam dunk because there has been no discovery/docket of what Tindalls involvement was. The timing of his separation vs timing of the lease is largely irrelevant. If the city can demonstrate that he initiated, drafted, or created portions of the lease, they will have significant leverage to renegotiated the $15MM, which is likely their ideal outcome. Tony LB doesn't seem very interested in giving back any of his subsidy though:

MuzikMachine · Jun 10, 2015

Acesolid said:
Hum... too vague. This is not threatening enough.

If I were Bettman, I'd think the best way to save the Coyotes is to pull a huge bluff/threat, plus put a carrot in front of them.

Here's what I'd say:

- "Guys, We want the Coyotes to be sucessful. But if you vote yes tonight, tomorrow morning we will sue you for hundreds of millions in damages with a team of some of the best lawyers in the world. Not only that, but we will also immediately relocate the team and make a white elephant of your arena. And if you do the logical thing vote no. We'll politely (and publicly) ask our friends who own the team to play nice and work with you better and help Glendale."

I think, even if I were told it's not possible to relocate now, I'd say that if I were Bettman. Because in my opinion this is quite likely to make Glendale cave-in, and save the team.

a carrot in front of them.

Here's what I'd say:

- "Guys, We want the Coyotes to be sucessful. But if you vote yes tonight, tomorrow morning we will sue you for hundreds of millions in damages with a team of some of the best lawyers in the world. Not only that, but we will also immediately relocate the team and make a white elephant of your arena. And if you do the logical thing vote no. We'll politely (and publicly) ask our friends who own the team to play nice and work with you better and help Glendale."

I think, even if I were told it's not possible to relocate now (and it's a bluff), I'd say that if I were Bettman. Because in my opinion this is quite likely to make Glendale cave-in, and save the team.

That, or it the Coyotes relocate, the Coyotes owners, Bettman, NHL, etc. can claim that they did everything within their power to keep the franchise in Glendale, and look the victims of the CoG that got evicted.

If if the relationship has gone toxic, I wonder if we'll still see one more season in Glendale where the Coyotes are a lame duck franchise?

sipowicz · Jun 10, 2015

Wow looks like some of the folks in Glendale finally grew a pair, the NHL had (has) been playing the sleepy politicians in Glendale for years, wonder what finally made them wake up? :help:

Llama19 · Jun 10, 2015

LPHabsFan said:
This is what CF said in post 973 on page 39 of the last thread....

"I mean low barrier in sense that it's far more a question of fact rather than a question of law. Tindall is an employee of IA so if he were to be found, factually, to have had a significant role in initiating, drafting, or creating the lease, they can void it without penalty. Have no idea if it's a slam dunk because there has been no discovery/docket of what Tindalls involvement was. The timing of his separation vs timing of the lease is largely irrelevant. If the city can demonstrate that he initiated, drafted, or created portions of the lease, they will have significant leverage to renegotiated the $15MM, which is likely their ideal outcome. Tony LB doesn't seem very interested in giving back any of his subsidy though:

To take it one step further, another poster wrote this:

The "or" has no material effect on the argument:

"an employee or agent of any other party to the contract in any capacity or a consultant to any other party of the contract"

He only needs to be one of those things to qualify.

"in any capacity" would mean he could be the negotiator, or the contract administrator, or the business manager or whatever, as long as he is an employee or consultant to the contracting party.

There is an implied "and" wtihin the statement "with respect to" as part of "with respect to the subject matter of the contract."

The part of the statute "significantly involved in initiating, negotiating, securing, drafting or creating the contract" is not in question. He was the city attorney. He was on tv explaining the deal to the city council. There is no question here. Yes, absolutely he was significantly involved.

hisgirlfriday · Jun 10, 2015

Fugu said:
I'll leave the question here for our legal team.

Tindall was investigated for an ethics violation based on Lieberman's filing with the state's attorney. They found there wasn't enough evidence to back an ethics violation.

My reading of the Arizona statute doesn't say anyone has to prove any type of ethical violation, just that any type of involvement in the contract deemed as significant is sufficient grounds for contract termination. This seems to be a different legal test-- not a case of misconduct of the individual and potential disbarment, but simply significant involvement at some level (to be demonstrated). The end result isn't an action against Tindall, but termination of a contract.

This suggests to me that the bar is much lower in proving there was a conflict of interest, but merely the knowledge that there was familiarity/involvement alone is sufficient under the state law. That's very much tilted towards the municipality, it would appear.

Right, Fugu. As I read the statute, all that needs to be proven is Tindall was "significantly involved" in the city work on this contract before joining the Yotes. The ethics investigation stuff is only relevant if there was evidence gathered/ testimony given in that proceeding that relates factually to whether Tindall was "significantly involved."

And to have a sense of exactly what "significantly involved" means under this statute would require some serious research of Arizona case law.

wildcat48 · Jun 10, 2015

Just as a refresher this is likely how things will play out....

1. Glendale votes to void arena management agreement and lease agreement
2. Anthony LeBlanc goes ballistic in front the cameras - finger waging and tell everyone the city is wrong.
3. IceArizona files injunction to freeze everything
4. NHL BoG meet to discuss its options and what to do moving forward
5. Bettman stands in front of the media and proceeds to tell everyone it was Glendale's fault for moving the team to City X
6. Team leaves for City X and legal battle between IA, NHL and Glendale proceeds for next several years.

Ultimately, even if Glendale was to lose any court proceeding is the cost of the legal battle less than $225M?

LPHabsFan · Jun 10, 2015

wildcat48 said:
Just as a refresher this is likely how things will play out....

1. Glendale votes to void arena management agreement and lease agreement
2. Anthony LeBlanc goes ballistic in front the cameras - finger waging and tell everyone the city is wrong.
3. IceArizona files injunction to freeze everything
4. NHL BoG meet to discuss its options and what to do moving forward
5. Bettman stands in front of the media and proceeds to tell everyone it was Glendale's fault for moving the team to City X
6. Team leaves for City X and legal battle between IA, NHL and Glendale proceeds for next several years.

Ultimately, even if Glendale was to lose any court proceeding is the cost of the legal battle less than $225M?

Only thing that's missing is the result of the injunction. I don't think they do anything unless it becomes clear as day that it will take a long time for a decision on the injunction.

Grudy0 · Jun 10, 2015

To all that have mentioned a relocation scenario, I'd imagine this is how it plays out...

Unlike the Thrashers, where Atlanta Spirit Group was looking to unload the team, Andrew Barroway owns 51 percent of this team and is most likely committed to continue ownership based upon previous efforts to purchase a team.

Therefore, any relocation scenario would most likely be contingent that Barroway will still own the team. This will not be an auction-like scenario where the highest bidder will acquire the team - this will be more like the prior relocation, where Peter Karmanos moved the Whalers to Raleigh because it's within his control.

We already have MGM stating they'll reconfigure the current arena to allow the Coyotes to play until the new arena is completed. The only question is if there are better offers from others. For example, there's aging Paul Allen in Portland owning the Blazers and Moda Center, and there's aging Les Alexander in Houston owning the Rockets and operations of the Toyota Center. Then there's a ready arena in Quebec, and a few placed with a proposed arena on the books with their own obstacles like Seattle.

Forget summer television, I think this will be the best soap opera to watch over the course of the next few weeks.

sipowicz · Jun 10, 2015

wildcat48 said:
Just as a refresher this is likely how things will play out....

1. Glendale votes to void arena management agreement and lease agreement
2. Anthony LeBlanc goes ballistic in front the cameras - finger waging and tell everyone the city is wrong.
3. IceArizona files injunction to freeze everything
4. NHL BoG meet to discuss its options and what to do moving forward
5. Bettman stands in front of the media and proceeds to tell everyone it was Glendale's fault for moving the team to City X
6. Team leaves for City X and legal battle between IA, NHL and Glendale proceeds for next several years.

Ultimately, even if Glendale was to lose any court proceeding is the cost of the legal battle less than $225M?

Actually this is probably playing out just how the NHL had hoped, blame Glendale for everything, exit current location and embrace new location!

ChiefBlackhawk · Jun 10, 2015

Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.

or some crap like that. oh well where is the popcorn

Killion · Jun 10, 2015

sipowicz said:
Wow looks like some of the folks in Glendale finally grew a pair, the NHL had been playing the sleepy politicians in Glendale for years, wonder what finally made them wake up?

Yes, stunning really, and begs the question; have they really grown a pair, or is this all just born from frustration that LeBlanc refuses to renegotiate? An ill advised Bluff, threat, that yes, gunna cancel the Lease? Came right out of left field right on the heels of a meeting they held on Monday, LeBlanc coming out Tuesday claiming everything was Hunky~Dory, on~track. Then Whammy. Clearly they didnt tell Anthony that they were so upset & disgruntled that they were planning to go nuclear or if they did, then what? LeBlanc in the State of the Union presser is lying through his teeth? I dont think so. They must be absolutely reeling, phone-lines, emails burning a hole through the ozone overnight & today between Glendale & New York, New York & Glendale. Seriously heated.

canuckster19 · Jun 10, 2015

I don't think the NHL has the balls to sue the COG. If they ever want to go to places like KC, Hartford or back to Atlanta (for the THIRD TIME), they can't act all scorched earth towards these people, no one will want to deal with the NHL.

madhi19 · Jun 10, 2015

wildcat48 said:
Just as a refresher this is likely how things will play out....

1. Glendale votes to void arena management agreement and lease agreement
2. Anthony LeBlanc goes ballistic in front the cameras - finger waging and tell everyone the city is wrong.
3. IceArizona files injunction to freeze everything
4. NHL BoG meet to discuss its options and what to do moving forward
5. Bettman stands in front of the media and proceeds to tell everyone it was Glendale's fault for moving the team to City X
6. Team leaves for City X and legal battle between IA, NHL and Glendale proceeds for next several years.

Ultimately, even if Glendale was to lose any court proceeding is the cost of the legal battle less than $225M?

That's one ugly way for this mess to get sorted out.

Scenario 2 The negotiated divorce.
1. Glendale votes to void arena management agreement and lease agreement
2. Anthony LeBlanc goes ballistic in front the cameras - finger waging and tell everyone the city is wrong.
3. Lawyers for all sides start meeting, and negotiate a settlement. Some token money get exchanged so that everybody save face.
4. Team moved to wherever.
5. NHL say they tried everything. Or better yet they never mention this whole mess ever again.

Stanley Cup · Jun 10, 2015

Is it wrong to enjoy all the drama in Glendale?

Llama19 · Jun 10, 2015

Glendale issues statement on tonight's meeting regarding Coyotes arena lease

To quote:

"Discussions and negotiations regarding the contract have been ongoing for months. Specifically, the City is open to a resolution but it must be one that provides certainty and fairness to both parties, especially the taxpayers. The Council has agreed to stand for transparency and the highest standards of ethics for any future agreement with the Coyotes."

Source: http://yourwestvalley.com/glendale/article_90449db2-0f12-11e5-95b4-ab917b6e8e9f.html

Also on Glendale's Home page: http://www.glendaleaz.com/

Acesolid · Jun 10, 2015

madhi19 said:
That's one ugly way for this mess to get sorted out.

Scenario 2 The negotiated divorce.
1. Glendale votes to void arena management agreement and lease agreement
2. Anthony LeBlanc goes ballistic in front the cameras - finger waging and tell everyone the city is wrong.
3. Lawyers for all sides start meeting, and negotiate a settlement. Some token money get exchanged so that everybody save face.
4. Team moved to wherever.
5. NHL say they tried everything. Or better yet they never mention this whole mess ever again.

I think this is what'd happen... if we were in April. But here's the thing, we are not! We're in June! There's no time!

They have no time for prolongued (as they certainly would be, most likely on purpose by the Glendale Lawyers) discussion between lawyers, and to relocate this year!

If the NHL is willing to play one INSANELY painful and long lame-duck season in Arizona before the Yotes leave in an orderly way or reach a deal, it might happen that way.

But are they? I dont necesserely think so!

sipowicz · Jun 10, 2015

Killion said:
Yes, stunning really, and begs the question; have they really grown a pair, or is this all just born from frustration that LeBlanc refuses to renegotiate? An ill advised Bluff, threat, that yes, gunna cancel the Lease? Came right out of left field right on the heels of a meeting they held on Monday, LeBlanc coming out Tuesday claiming everything was Hunky~Dory, on~track. Then Whammy. Clearly they didnt tell Anthony that they were so upset & disgruntled that they were planning to go nuclear or if they did, then what? LeBlanc in the State of the Union presser is lying through his teeth? I dont think so. They must be absolutely reeling, phone-lines, emails burning a hole through the ozone overnight & today between Glendale & New York, New York & Glendale. Seriously heated.

Wonder if we get the obligatory shot of Bettman angrily seething while looking at his cell phone (again) during the Stanley Cup finals tonight! Plus Ã§a change, plus c'est la mÃªme chose (the more things change, the more they stay the same) seems appropriate about now! :popcorn:

CGG · Jun 10, 2015

Llama19 said:
Glendale issues statement on tonight's meeting regarding Coyotes arena lease

To quote:

"Discussions and negotiations regarding the contract have been ongoing for months. Specifically, the City is open to a resolution but it must be one that provides certainty and fairness to both parties, especially the taxpayers. The Council has agreed to stand for transparency and the highest standards of ethics for any future agreement with the Coyotes."

Source: http://yourwestvalley.com/glendale/article_90449db2-0f12-11e5-95b4-ab917b6e8e9f.html

Also on Glendale's Home page: http://www.glendaleaz.com/

Okay, well I guess there will be no "future agreement" with the Coyotes then. Lack of ethics and complete opaqueness are completely necessary for an NHL lease, as we've learned time and again during this saga.

Phoenix C: The F A.R.S Awakens

Registered User

RIP Barb

Just the tip!

The Illusive Bettman

RIP Barb

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

The thrill is gone

Registered User

Moderator

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

The thrill is gone

Registered User

Registered User

Former CDC Mod

Just the tip!

Bettman's ice bucket

Registered User

The Illusive Bettman

The thrill is gone

Registered User

Ad

Ad

Ad