Phoenix CIII: Sue Me, Sue You Blues

kdb209 · Jun 17, 2015

hisgirlfriday · Jun 17, 2015

GJB · Jun 17, 2015

Is the NHL really, like really, like really going to have a season in which the NHL/Coyotes are suing the very town they play in? Just seems off-the-walls crazy. But then I guess a LOT of this has been already....

Killion · Jun 17, 2015

^^^ Yep. Already fully engaged GJB. Barring a miracle or if the City caves, dont think the freighter gets turned around. Positions well & truly entrenched.
IA & the NHL adamant, obtuse, no way no how that agreement gets re-opened. Glendale demanding such, hammer dropped. Unchartered waters.

member 157595 · Jun 17, 2015

GJB said:
Is the NHL really, like really, like really going to have a season in which the NHL/Coyotes are suing the very town they play in? Just seems off-the-walls crazy. But then I guess a LOT of this has been already....

Maybe I'm wrong (my wife tells me I'm wrong all the time :laugh:

) but I don't see any real upside in it (suing the City of Glendale) for the NHL. However, those in charge of the NHL have consistently shown that they are most concerned with getting their way and to hell with the complications, so who knows.

If I had to guess, the two parties agree to renegotiate and the Coyotes stay in Glendale until IceArizona envokes the out clause (which I believe they will.) If the COG officially files the notice, IceArizona is putting all their eggs in the legal basket unless they agree to renegotiate, and the time frame on that is very prohibitive.

Slashers98 · Jun 17, 2015

OmniCube said:
Maybe I'm wrong (my wife tells me I'm wrong all the time ) but I don't see any real upside in it (suing the City of Glendale) for the NHL. However, those in charge of the NHL have consistently shown that they are most concerned with getting their way and to hell with the complications, so who knows.

If I had to guess, the two parties agree to renegotiate and the Coyotes stay in Glendale until IceArizona envokes the out clause (which I believe they will.) If the COG officially files the notice, IceArizona is putting all their eggs in the legal basket unless they agree to renegotiate, and the time frame on that is very prohibitive.

Leblanc reiterated today that Ice Arizona won't renegotiate. So it's a wait-and-see approach for both parties right now until June 29th, 2015, unless Bettman and the NHL decide this gamble is too risky and they move the franchise elsewhere in the next few days.

madhi19 · Jun 17, 2015

OmniCube said:
Maybe I'm wrong (my wife tells me I'm wrong all the time ) but I don't see any real upside in it (suing the City of Glendale) for the NHL. However, those in charge of the NHL have consistently shown that they are most concerned with getting their way and to hell with the complications, so who knows.

If I had to guess, the two parties agree to renegotiate and the Coyotes stay in Glendale until IceArizona envokes the out clause (which I believe they will.) If the COG officially files the notice, IceArizona is putting all their eggs in the legal basket unless they agree to renegotiate, and the time frame on that is very prohibitive.

I doubt it, otherwise IA and the NHL would lay off the rhetoric and posturing. For me it feel like the PR angle is blame Glendale for everything for a week or two, and get out if they don't cave.

kihekah19* · Jun 17, 2015

GJB said:
Is the NHL really, like really, like really going to have a season in which the NHL/Coyotes are suing the very town they play in? Just seems off-the-walls crazy. But then I guess a LOT of this has been already....

We'll have to wait and see, but my understanding is that Glendale has yet to formally give notice of lease termination to the team.

Are they dragging their collective feet in hopes of scaring the Coyotes to the bargaining table..... only to have their bluff called and be forced to drop this?

cbcwpg · Jun 17, 2015

OmniCube said:
Maybe I'm wrong (my wife tells me I'm wrong all the time ) but I don't see any real upside in it (suing the City of Glendale) for the NHL. However, those in charge of the NHL have consistently shown that they are most concerned with getting their way and to hell with the complications, so who knows.

If I had to guess, the two parties agree to renegotiate and the Coyotes stay in Glendale until IceArizona envokes the out clause (which I believe they will.) If the COG officially files the notice, IceArizona is putting all their eggs in the legal basket unless they agree to renegotiate, and the time frame on that is very prohibitive.

And that's the other issue. If the CoG truly believes for whatever reason(s) that no matter what is being said by IA and no matter what happens, that IA is going to invoke the "out clause" ... then get out now while you have a chance. Why would the CoG want to pay IA another $15MM/yr for another couple of years when IA ( in the CoG's thinking ) is going to pull the plug anyway.

Killion · Jun 17, 2015

madhi19 said:
I doubt it, otherwise IA and the NHL would lay off the rhetoric and posturing. For me it feel like the PR angle is blame Glendale for everything for a week or two, and get out if they don't cave.

Yeah, IA & the NHL letting fly. PR Machine in over~drive. Intentional Bullying in the hopes Glendale will reverse its course. But its too late for that. These attacks rather than serving there intended purposes of getting them to crack its having the opposite effect & merely burning any good will & bridges that may have existed. Glendale taking the High Road, wont dignify the insults in fighting back through the media, see you in Court.

cbcwpg · Jun 17, 2015

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeoza...mpleting-his-purchase-of-the-arizona-coyotes/

Why Andrew Barroway Is Not Completing His Purchase Of The Arizona Coyotes

"You know what I say about a “philosophical difference” being the reason for the share buy back? I say it has diddly squat to do with it.

From what I am hearing, Barroway has come up with less than half the $151 million he needs to finish the deal".

LPHabsFan · Jun 17, 2015

Isn't the COG supposed to lay out its case to the courts today? Anyone know when and what if anything will be made public?

Killion · Jun 17, 2015

cbcwpg said:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeoza...mpleting-his-purchase-of-the-arizona-coyotes/

Why Andrew Barroway Is Not Completing His Purchase Of The Arizona Coyotes

"You know what I say about a “philosophical difference” being the reason for the share buy back? I say it has diddly squat to do with it.

From what I am hearing, Barroway has come up with less than half the $151 million he needs to finish the deal".

Un huh. And the digit counters fall. If the Reporters apeculation is accurate, the deal that was announced as being closed back on December 31st 2014.... wasnt "closed". Done..... Barroway still raising the funds. Then this happens. So what does he do? Stops trying, looks for a way out, minimizing his exposure and right away. Anyone with a lick of common sense would do the same, though I guess more fundamentally anyone with a lick of sense wouldnt have gotten involved with IA in the first place. Whole situation is just beyond absurd. Bettman has just got to be taking some serious heat from any number of less than amused members of the BOG's. This kite flying expedition unraveling, shot to pieces, a complete & utter unmitigated disaster.

Llama19 · Jun 17, 2015

cbcwpg said:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeoza...mpleting-his-purchase-of-the-arizona-coyotes/

Why Andrew Barroway Is Not Completing His Purchase Of The Arizona Coyotes

"You know what I say about a â€œphilosophical differenceâ€ being the reason for the share buy back? I say it has diddly squat to do with it.

From what I am hearing, Barroway has come up with less than half the $151 million he needs to finish the deal".

The only ones with any real money have been the "Bottomless Pit" NHL and the "Borrow At Any Cost" Fortress Investment Group...

cbcwpg · Jun 17, 2015

Question for the lawyers:

On the website for this case:

http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/CivilCourtCases/caseInfo.asp?caseNumber=CV2015-007216

it lists the following dates in the case Calendar:

Date Time Event
6/29/2015 10:30 Pre-Trial Conference
7/31/2015 9:30 Evidentiary Hearing
8/7/2015 9:30 Evidentiary Hearing
8/10/2015 9:30 Evidentiary Hearing

***

Now we all know about June 29th, but what about the other dates? Are these dates just planned dates and times in case they need them or are they going to be used? Is it normal to set aside dates and time in case?

madhi19 · Jun 17, 2015

Killion said:
Un huh. And the digit counters fall. If the Reporters apeculation is accurate, the deal that was announced as being closed back on December 31st 2014.... wasnt "closed". Done..... Barroway still raising the funds. Then this happens. So what does he do? Stops trying, looks for a way out, minimizing his exposure and right away.

Or the other guys are no longer interested in diluting their piece of the pie anymore. Why would the rest of the ownership group suddenly decide, to grab those shares anyway? What could possibly motivate them to do that? :popcorn:

Llama19 · Jun 17, 2015

cbcwpg said:
Question for the lawyers:

On the website for this case:

http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/CivilCourtCases/caseInfo.asp?caseNumber=CV2015-007216

it lists the following dates in the case Calendar:

Date Time Event
6/29/2015 10:30 Pre-Trial Conference
7/31/2015 9:30 Evidentiary Hearing
8/7/2015 9:30 Evidentiary Hearing
8/10/2015 9:30 Evidentiary Hearing

***

Now we all know about June 29th, but what about the other dates? Are these dates just planned dates and times in case they need them or are they going to be used?

Case Number: CV2015-007216
Court Docket link: http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/CivilCourtCases/caseSearch.asp

Under Search By Case Number, enter the above case number, and then click Search.

Killion · Jun 17, 2015

cbcwpg said:
Question for the lawyers... Now we all know about June 29th, but what about the other dates? Are these dates just planned dates and times in case they need them or are they going to be used? Is it normal to set aside dates and time in case?

Im not a Lawyer but yes, those dates in July & early August are set for Disclosure
so they will be used if this all proceeds past the 29th of June as looks very likely.

CasualFan · Jun 17, 2015

LPHabsFan said:
Isn't the COG supposed to lay out its case to the courts today? Anyone know when and what if anything will be made public?

Pretty sure they're supposed to support their contention that they don't have to pay the July 1 installment of the AMF (for services rendered by IA in Q4-FY15). I assume it will be narrowly constructed for this purpose. Unless they motion to file under seal (which would seem unusual for this) it will be public.

Llama19 · Jun 17, 2015

Judge puts Coyotes arena contract cancellation on hold

To quote:

"Attorney Cindy Ricketts, who helped represent the city during the hearing, asked for more time, because Glendale City Council would be in recess during July, with many members on vacation.

[Judge Dawn] Bergin agreed there was no need to rush the proceedings. She wanted to make sure each side had sufficient time to gather information to answer the claims of the other side."

Source: http://www.glendalestar.com/news/article_6310bbc4-151a-11e5-8981-2fb1fb744ccc.html

Glacial · Jun 17, 2015

Killion said:
Un huh. And the digit counters fall. If the Reporters apeculation is accurate, the deal that was announced as being closed back on December 31st 2014.... wasnt "closed". Done..... Barroway still raising the funds. Then this happens. So what does he do? Stops trying, looks for a way out, minimizing his exposure and right away. Anyone with a lick of common sense would do the same, though I guess more fundamentally anyone with a lick of sense wouldnt have gotten involved with IA in the first place. Whole situation is just beyond absurd. Bettman has just got to be taking some serious heat from any number of less than amused members of the BOG's. This kite flying expedition unraveling, shot to pieces, a complete & utter unmitigated disaster.

That's what makes the BoG meeting interesting regarding the Coyotes saga. Unlike earlier, where it was just how the league looked in manipulating Glendale into funding the Coyotes to lower the bath they were taking every year in their revenue and keeping them in the Phoenix DMA, here, if it goes to trial, people & documents from the NHL have a risk of getting subpoenaed. More than airing dirty laundry, they may turn up other things, things other attorney generals' offices might want to look into, the equivalent of airing dirty laundry and seeing some stolen mink coats or paintings which look like famous works of art that disappeared in museum heists years ago. The league may say "Nothing to see here. It's just a reproduction", the courts or AGs might want to say "Let's have some experts put it under the microscope". No one wants to have skeletons in their closet opened up to court analysis and an expert say "These bones belong to Jimmy Hoffa". :laugh:

The perils of discovery make me think just the fact the trial would get green-lit is their signal to fold if Glendale doesn't back down by then. The best way to avoid being blown to smithereens in a minefield is to avoid the minefield.

The next (drumroll) two weeks should be very interesting. I wonder what day might be the one an "anonymous NHL source" spills the beans on the NHL's plan B?

hisgirlfriday · Jun 17, 2015

Well if Barroway gets to go on vacation, why shouldn't the council?

Major4Boarding · Jun 17, 2015

Transferred from the previous thread, as I raised this question back then and don't recall receiving a response.

CasualFan said:
Major4Boarding said:

Its quite easy to swing a bat at the opposition but, so far, I've seen no one with a bat.

Click to expand...

Seems like the city staff left it in the dugout on purpose. Reposting my own comments does nothing to advance the conversation but it sure is good for my ego. So here: http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=89730285&postcount=109

Glendale did suppress the info beyond the statutory requirement for release. But after the threat of litigation to unseal the bids was raised, the city complied. It's kind of funny because the RFP suppression was among the most disingenuous things the city did during the public discourse on this matter.

In the comparison presentation, for "without hockey" Glendale listed the AMF as $6MM expense but in the revenue forecasts, instead of using data from the bids they already had, the city instead claimed the revenue would be limited to $350k from ticket surcharges. Think about that for a moment. The surcharge revenue concept was from the Moyes/NHL agreements. The city was suggesting that if the team left and a new arena manager was hired, somehow the city would still be trapped in the old surcharge model with revenues limited to a couple bucks per ticket. They did this even though they had a bid from SMG in their hand which clearly offered many additional revenue streams, none of which were limited by a per ticket surcharge.

Basically, they willfully and purposefully misrepresented the financial aspects of the with and without hockey scenarios. Obviously, that was good enough for some less discerning observers. Some people aren't bright enough to realize when they're being lied to. Interestingly, other people might realize they're being lied to - but as long as you're telling them what they want to hear, they'll happily go along with the charade.

With Beasley gone for almost a year to the day these RFP's were presented, would it have taken a majority vote by Council to suppress the RFP results (ultimately released anyway through "prodding") or could Staff simply have done so without Council vote? The length of this rabbit hole is infinite, to me anyway.

Forgot to add that, interestingly enough, it was Dan Barr who publicly stated his socks were in a wad over the "lack of transparency" over the withholding of the RFP's from public consumption.

MaskedSonja · Jun 17, 2015

Going into Draft and UFA time-this is surreal. A team going to court during the offseason with the city who are basically saying "unless you renegotiate we don't want you here", an majority owner who allegedly didn't have anything close to the money to pony up for the team, I feel like I'm in some weird version of William Gibsons Idoru.....

hisgirlfriday · Jun 17, 2015

LPHabsFan said:
Isn't the COG supposed to lay out its case to the courts today? Anyone know when and what if anything will be made public?

There was some article indicating cog is supposed to file a response to ia's pleadings today. No hearing though and who knows if we'll see a copy of what they might file. The other docs were released by the Coyotes themselves.

Phoenix CIII: Sue Me, Sue You Blues

Registered User

Moderator

Dr. Hook

Registered User

member 157595

Guest

Registered User

Just the tip!

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Just the tip!

Registered User

Registered User

Tortious Beadicus

Registered User

Registered User

Moderator

Unfamiliar Moderator

Registered User

Moderator

Ad

Ad

Ad