Phoenix CII: Oh, the pain the pain

[danishh]

That is not an assumption I am prepared to accept. Let's just suppose Bailey suggested council get an outside legal opinion on the 38-511 issue but two council members wanted to push forward with this gambit. I would not assume going against the deal is prima facial evidence of good conduct.

Hypothetical suppositions aside, what are the realistic backroom dealings that come out from this on the mayor's side? That wiers and hughes were conspiring to save the taxpayers money?

 

[Llama19]

Didn't Sherwood say that it would be the opposite? That council was going to reverse their decision? Sounds like a certain councillor has been sidelined, being fed disinformation....

Again, I would love this thing to go to discovery. Can you imagine Sherwood being exposed for all the 'less-than-totally-straight-forward' dealings he was involved with in the last negotiation? It would be a glorious day of truth winning over deception.

When the recall on Sherwood occurs in November, he will be on the outside looking in...

I wonder who he will work for then...

 

[CasualFan]

Hypothetical suppositions aside, what are the realistic backroom dealings that come out from this on the mayor's side? That wiers and hughes were conspiring to save the taxpayers money?

The harder path is getting a finding that Knaack, Martinez, Sammy and Gary were conspiring to not save the taxpayers money. GoYotes point on any theory regarding the deal being in the public interest is a good one. The bar on public purpose seems to be an unquestionable abuse of discretion based on the facts. Unquestionable is a pretty high bar. I'd love to see the city argue against its own actions to show it was.

 

[Glacial]

When the recall on Sherwood occurs in November, he will be on the outside looking in...

I wonder who he will work for then...

Well, there may be a new arena manager looking for events to book and depending on how things go, Sherwood could join LeBlanc as members of a three-ring circus at the Gila River Arena.

 

[blues10]

Lots of reading to catch up today. Looks like the COG majority has dug its feet in the sand and Sherwood is doing his best Leblanc impersonation. Barroway out as majority owner and two new shells in. IA looking to relocate if the COG wins but not to Phoenix. Wow - who needs playoff hockey. Lots of entertainment to be found here.

What are we looking at for some key dates? please correct if I am wrong.

June 17 - Bailey files paperwork

June 24 NHL BOG meeting

June 26- Leblanc's Coyote rally

June 29- Judge revisits TRO

On a lighter note - I came across two 11 year old boys today discussing NHL hockey. One was dressed in a Blackhawks cap and shirt. The discussion was not about the big cup win last night but about salary cap and cap issues with teams in the league. Future BOH posters....and Gary thinks fans aren't interested in CAP stuff.

 

[Headshot77]

Yeah, I don't think of any scenario where IA retains the team in a new location. They'll need to sell.

Yet, if the league are the real owners here, they won't have any issues selling off to out of town hopefuls and send Tony and his band on their merry way

This. If we have our tinfoil hats on and believe that the NHL is running this team still (which I do), then it is very easy for them to reclaim the team from IA (since nobody seems to have an actual financial investment in it anyway), and sell to Foley, Quebecor, or Paul Allen.

 

[TheLegend]

Opinion piece from one EJ Montini (whoever the Hell he is when he's at home... in Glendale apparently). Hit job. Not impressed.

Montini's a liberal... or at the least tends to work that side.

He's been critical of the AMF as well, but his position on Glendale is they're taking a "cut off leg to eliminate a mole" stance.

 

[Whileee]

Montini's a liberal... or at the least tends to work that side.

He's been critical of the AMF as well, but his position on Glendale is they're taking a "cut off leg to eliminate a mole" stance.

His stance is completely contrary to the perspectives of Moody's, as an example, that believes canceling the contract is positive for Glendale.

 

[Whileee]

That doesn't sound right. The team and league doesn't need to wait for the filings. I'm sure Tindall didn't withhold any details. They already know if there is something potentially problematic out there. Or potentially more problematic than what's already occurred, I should say.

I suppose.

The wildcard is that there doesn't seem to be a lot of precedent in this area, so it might be difficult for IA / NHL to know how problematic certain things are. It's a bit of uncharted territory for both sides, I would think. Glendale appears to be trying to take the moral high ground. I wonder how long that would last.

 

[OthmarAmmann]

In the instant case, yes. I think they might. They may have managed to turn their inter workings and backroom dealings into a sword and a shield. As for gambits go, this looks pretty clever. But of course what looks clever now might turn out to be not so clever later. We'll see if the NHL wants to tangle with them on this.

Oh I totally believe so. Weirs would enjoy throwing former members of council and city management under the bus, then stuffing and mounting them on his wall.

 

[JimAnchower]

The Rattlers play once a week. They have 9 home dates. What the heck is the issue?!

http://www.usairwayscenter.com/events/all

There is 1 event in October, 2 in December, then Disney on Ice for 5 days. I think you are grasping at some straws with this one currently. Staples Center has no issue with 2 basketball teams and a hockey team(that's 123 days out of 365 if they didn't do any double headers).

Mercury are done by the time hockey starts, I don't really see too much of an issue here.

The Kings, Lakers, and Clippers also start the scheduling process knowing they all have to work together. They aren't bringing someone else in halfway through the process when they have draft schedules started.

 

[Nordskull]

I dream of a judgment in favor in Glendale kicking out NHL of Gila River arena in the middle of january..

 

[Fourier]

Yeah, I don't think of any scenario where IA retains the team in a new location. They'll need to sell.

Yet, if the league are the real owners here, they won't have any issues selling off to out of town hopefuls and send Tony and his band on their merry way

If the League are the real owners I think they do have a significant issue with respect to selling the team under duress. Bettman has said the NHL has no plans for expansion but he still thinks $500M is reasonable for an expansion fee. Can anyone envision the price tag for a quick relocation being $500M? In fact from the NHL's perspective they would really need more like $700M since they will want to recoup the original franchise cost.

What does a sale of the Coyotes do to their "non-existent" plans for expansion. That is the key here as far as I am concerned.

 

[TheLegend]

His stance is completely contrary to the perspectives of Moody's, as an example, that believes canceling the contract is positive for Glendale.

Be as it may Whileee...

Outside of the Glendale Star, which has a history of not being very objective.... the city of Glendale is taking a royal pounding in the media everywhere here, even from places that would have supported them in the past. And LeBlanc's media run this past week isn't influencing it.

Maybe when we see Glendale present their case that tone may change.

 

[madhi19]

If the League are the real owners I think they do have a significant issue with respect to selling the team under duress. Bettman has said the NHL has no plans for expansion but he still thinks $500M is reasonable for an expansion fee. Can anyone envision the price tag for a quick relocation being $500M? In fact from the NHL's perspective they would really need more like $700M since they will want to recoup the original franchise cost.

What does a sale of the Coyotes do to their "non-existent" plans for expansion. That is the key here as far as I am concerned.

You can't always get what you want. And burning a expansion market to get out of this mess would be worth it. This situation is interesting on so many level. First the NHL now own all, or most of the debt that the clowns accumulated. Second they have at least two interested buyers. The big question is will QMI/Foley play hardball in order to get a cheaper deal?
I think not, I think whoever buy the Yotes get to overpay because they cash in on the expansion anyway.

 

[hisgirlfriday]

Not a lot of new information in this article on what is happening in Glendale but it has a nice rundown of all the various law firms involved in the Glendale-Coyotes dispute and Barroway's ownership changes over the last year.

http://www.americanlawyer.com/id=12...tm_source=twitterfeed&slreturn=20150517081705

I had not seen it previously reported that Glendale had hired outside counsel to assist them on this.

 

[barneyg]

what i'm saying is that if you disregard the 85M note, the 'purchase price' that needs 50% cash to be met is 85M, so it's plausible that gosbee + friends put in 42.5M. If that's not how they did it, then the FIG money counted as part of the 50%, so in effect FIG owned the team, but the NHL allowed IA to restructure with the LOC, after the purchase, so while IA never had 50% in the game, at purchase time IA + FIG did.

The Gosbee et al money, whatever the actual figure, was their first year working capital-- their stake.

They assumed $170 MM of debt (100% of team value), and put in maybe $40 MM of cash towards operating costs. (If that figure is true.)

I'm not sure what you guys are arguing about here. The league/BOG have already shown they are more committed to keeping the Coyotes in Arizona than respecting their self-imposed bylaws: they outright owned the team for years!

That said, I have three comments:

1) the NHL would much rather say they are making an exception to the 50% capital rule than come up with a calculation where a franchise is actually worth $80 million (which is necessary to claim that $40 million is enough).

2) it doesn't matter how one officially assigns the $210 million capital requirements between purchase price and working capital. The truth is that if they have $170 debt and $40 capital then 19% of everything is capital and 81% of everything is debt. they can say the $40 million was used to buy the team or the $40 million was used for working capital, it doesn't change the financial substance of the transaction.

3) the point behind the 50% capital rule is to ensure some kind of financial stability and make sure the owners have access to some extra capital if things went bad. there is absolutely no way the high-yield FIG loan can be counted as part of 'capital'. if they disregard the NHL loan it's like they're treating it as a subordinated loan i.e. have almost written it off in this context. the only logical conclusion here is they've bended the 50% rule to fit their primary objective of staying in Arizona if possible.

 

[Llama19]

Not a lot of new information in this article on what is happening in Glendale but it has a nice rundown of all the various law firms involved in the Glendale-Coyotes dispute and Barroway's ownership changes over the last year.

http://www.americanlawyer.com/id=12...tm_source=twitterfeed&slreturn=20150517081705

I had not seen it previously reported that Glendale had hired outside counsel to assist them on this.

Better link (through Twitter account):

 

[Whileee]

Be as it may Whileee...

Outside of the Glendale Star, which has a history of not being very objective.... the city of Glendale is taking a royal pounding in the media everywhere here, even from places that would have supported them in the past. And LeBlanc's media run this past week isn't influencing it.

Maybe when we see Glendale present their case that tone may change.

That's partly why my advice would be to publicly challenge LeBlanc to drop the out clause. Let him explain why he still needs it.

In any case, GoC lawyers have vowed not to argue their case via the media.

 

[CasualFan]

Oh I totally believe so. Weirs would enjoy throwing former members of council and city management under the bus, then stuffing and mounting them on his wall.

Hypothetically, Glendale might stack

- Con/Tort for fraudulent inducement (possibly negligent misrepresentation)
RSE made intentional misrepresentations (revenue projections); misrepresentation was material to Council decision; Council relied on the misrepresentation; City suffered financial harm as a result

- 38-511 for Tindall and Frisoni
They are employee and consultant of a party to the contract; both had direct correspondence with voting members of Council (Frisoni apparently in clear violation of OML; Tindall apparently proving drafting guidance on at least one section of the contract)

- Article 9 Sec 7
By routing the AMF entirely to FIG, the city unconstitutionally gave to the aid of the team/arena llc

- Wistuber 1
The Council unquestionably abused its discretion in the course of deciding public purpose of the contract

- Wistuber 2
The fee paid is grossly disproportionate to bargained for consideration received

The remedies available for each would include voiding the contract. To me, Wistuber 1 is a pretty big stretch. The others don't appear to be much of a stretch at all. Obviously, lots of procedural motions between here and there, assuming alternate resolution isn't achieved. That still seems most likely (even if the alt res is the NHL selling the team from under IA and sending it to LV or QC or the moon, wherever they had an MOU/LOI already in place so they don't take a bath as desperate sellers)

The optics of the NHL fighting to persist an absurd "arena management fee" while Glendale produces all the inner workings of how arena subsidies work against the back drop of a cap floor team playing last place hockey in an nearly empty barn cannot seem like a very good idea to Gary and Bill.

 

[cbcwpg]

The optics of the NHL fighting to persist an absurd "arena management fee" while Glendale produces all the inner workings of how arena subsidies work against the back drop of a cap floor team playing last place hockey in an nearly empty barn cannot seem like a very good idea to Gary and Bill.

A lot has happened since 1996 with this franchise that never could have or should have been seen as a good idea to Gary nor Bill, but here we are. I put nothing past Bettman nor am I ever surprised at what lengths this man will go to prove the point that he's right and everyone else is wrong.

We could be in for a lengthy court battle between IA and the CoG with the NHL's blessing or the team could be relocated the day it looks like the CoG has a foot to stand on. Anything is possible.

 

[JimAnchower]

The optics of the NHL fighting to persist an absurd "arena management fee" while Glendale produces all the inner workings of how arena subsidies work against the back drop of a cap floor team playing last place hockey in an nearly empty barn cannot seem like a very good idea to Gary and Bill.

The problem with those optics is that someone would have to actually do the investigation to expose it all. If there is eventually a relocation, the NHL will be able to control the message, for the most part. The writers that have been pronouncing the death of the Coyotes will write that the experiment in the desert failed longed ago and the NHL only now realized it. Depending on the destination, they may be happy or complain more. The writers that have defended the Coyotes and written more in step with what the NHL wants will lament the loss of the team and blame it on Glendale. I just don't see anyone investigating this and asking Glendale what happened. This could all change if it goes to court, however, as it will be easier to get the information.

Any city that is looking to build a new arena may ask the NHL about Glendale, but the NHL would give them the same line "we really tried, but Glendale failed us". I highly doubt any future city will call Glendale to get their opinion.

 

[enarwpg]

I have flown in an old vintage Otter... and an old Vintage Beaver... they are separate planes - Beaver is single engine, Otter is twin engine. And I've flown, not quite all over the north, but to quite a few different places. Freakiest place ever was Dawson City, which much as you'd expect is right inside the Klondike River valley - ass soon as you take off from the Dawson City Airport the plane has to take a hard, hard left turn to avoid slamming into the hillside.

But the airport codes are just a shorthand to try and explain why I'm a Jets fan (originally from from Winnipeg/YWG), who goes by the name Yukon Joe (lived in Whitehose, YXY), and now lives in Edmonton (YEG).

I was in Dawson City many years ago. Flew in and out from Whitehorse in an old DC3..... cool place but wouldn't want to live there.... far too much light in the summer (sun still up at midnight, makes for drinking way too long and then it's hard getting up in the morning), not enough in the winter.....

 

[GF]

Hypothetically, Glendale might stack

- Con/Tort for fraudulent inducement (possibly negligent misrepresentation)
RSE made intentional misrepresentations (revenue projections); misrepresentation was material to Council decision; Council relied on the misrepresentation; City suffered financial harm as a result

- 38-511 for Tindall and Frisoni
They are employee and consultant of a party to the contract; both had direct correspondence with voting members of Council (Frisoni apparently in clear violation of OML; Tindall apparently proving drafting guidance on at least one section of the contract)

- Article 9 Sec 7
By routing the AMF entirely to FIG, the city unconstitutionally gave to the aid of the team/arena llc

- Wistuber 1
The Council unquestionably abused its discretion in the course of deciding public purpose of the contract

- Wistuber 2
The fee paid is grossly disproportionate to bargained for consideration received

The remedies available for each would include voiding the contract. To me, Wistuber 1 is a pretty big stretch. The others don't appear to be much of a stretch at all. Obviously, lots of procedural motions between here and there, assuming alternate resolution isn't achieved. That still seems most likely (even if the alt res is the NHL selling the team from under IA and sending it to LV or QC or the moon, wherever they had an MOU/LOI already in place so they don't take a bath as desperate sellers)

The optics of the NHL fighting to persist an absurd "arena management fee" while Glendale produces all the inner workings of how arena subsidies work against the back drop of a cap floor team playing last place hockey in an nearly empty barn cannot seem like a very good idea to Gary and Bill.

Great analysis CF.

The bold part, what in the world would the NHL gain from staying in Glendale? The court battle is certainly not something the NHL would want. Public image and all. And even if they would, in the end if they win, what would they win? The right to lose 20m$ a year in Glendale? Just to excercise the out close in a couple years? Complete nonsense (even by NHL's standards).

If the NHL is not working behind the scene to relocate the Coyotes as of now, I can't wait to see what the plan is. Especially this time as CoG is looking real serious about terminating this mess.

 

[not a troll]

The problem with those optics is that someone would have to actually do the investigation to expose it all. If there is eventually a relocation, the NHL will be able to control the message, for the most part. The writers that have been pronouncing the death of the Coyotes will write that the experiment in the desert failed longed ago and the NHL only now realized it. Depending on the destination, they may be happy or complain more. The writers that have defended the Coyotes and written more in step with what the NHL wants will lament the loss of the team and blame it on Glendale. I just don't see anyone investigating this and asking Glendale what happened. This could all change if it goes to court, however, as it will be easier to get the information.

Any city that is looking to build a new arena may ask the NHL about Glendale, but the NHL would give them the same line "we really tried, but Glendale failed us". I highly doubt any future city will call Glendale to get their opinion.

Why not? When you have hundreds of millions of dollars at stake wouldn't you at the very least get both sides of the story?

Anybody interested in an NHL team is very interested in this saga and has probably been following for quite some time. If you get past all of the media BS from LeBettman it's very easy to find the skeletons in the closet. All one needs to do is pour through the many threads that has existed in the BoH forum.