Worth it to whom? The NHL. If that was the case, the Yotes would be on the move right now. The NHL wants the Yotes in Phoenix. Of that I have absolutely zero doubt.
And I am not sure what you mean when you say that who ever buys the Yotes will be willing to over pay to cash in on expansion. Would it be a smart business decision to pay $100M more than necessary to get a 1/30th share of even a billion dollars in expansion money?
There's no doubt that the NHL would prefer a healthy NHL in Arizona but the reality is it's not going to happen. There is zero evidence and no likely situation that will result in that.
As to the moving of the Yotes, I believe the general consensus was that it was more the NHL wanting to do things on their own terms and on their own schedule. Hence why the they put the 5 year out clause. The same time the arena in Seattle was (at the time) expected to be finished.
The general perception around here is that there have been many disingenuous moments, but why? Based on what? Certainly not any facts. I'd still like someone to answer my question as to how a lawyer (Tindall) and a mouthpiece (Frisoni) have (or at least should have) effected the outcome of the decision to go ahead with the lease. The lawyer's job is to tend to the legality of said lease and who really cares what the mouthpiece is up to.
Just yesterday the COG released yet another statement pushing the legality of the lease, but in the next breath proclaimed they are willing to work out a fair and equitable new lease. OBVIOUSLY they don't like the economics of the lease, but it's equally obvious that they are looking at a technicality, or loophole if you will, to improve the economics, it's certainly not about any form of full disclosure, or justice.
If they indeed let legal council persuad them on ecomomics? They got what they deserved!
As I said previously, we have a very liberal jucicial system these days and I would not be surprised if "the letter of the law" (IF THE WAIVER IS NOT VALID), is not followed because of the absurdity of the case.
The reason for the general belief of disengenious moments is because there is nothing in this entire saga that makes one iota of logical sense. Tindall being involved in the negotiation is pretty evident since A - lawyers are usually the leads on these types of negotations and B - he was on retainer which even though he only offered advice we was doing so while either 1 - being employed by the Yotes or 2 - knowing he was going to employed by them and C - he explicitly stated he negotiated the JIG lease which included Ice Edge and one Anthony Leblanc.
The lawyers here might be able to delve more into whether or not it would make a difference it was under a different LLC and had a few different players but still had some of the same. And on top of that, how much difference is there between the two leases and whether that matter or not.
Frisoni, we know nothing right now. She worked for the COG and now she is doing consulting work for the Coyotes. Public Relations people can be involved in this if they're high enough to influence council members on the public perception of the deal and say why certain things might be better or worse if things were written differently. Again, nothing has been released in terms of information but there are lots of ways people can be involved.
Why the COG wants to end this lease but still willing to work with the Coyotes on a new one is fairly easy. The current one was done illegally (in their minds) and is also not in the publics best interest. So they want to get rid of the illegal one and make a new, legal one.
The more important one is the first part since that's what is legally important. The second part is simply to add to the whole illegal part and just seem like icing on the cake. Also it's part of their PR show as well.
And are you saying that the courts should ignore whether or not it's illegal just because the situation is so bizarrely absurd? Three words. MCdonald's hot coffee.
