Phoenix CIII: Sue Me, Sue You Blues

[TheLegend]

http://www.tsn.ca/talent/coyotes-will-eye-other-cities-if-team-loses-lawsuit-1.310073

Sorry....

IMO.... Westhead has been writing with a definite agenda in mind since this started.

Of course the chance the Coyotes leave Arizona is a possibility. But Westhead seems to go out of his way to promote it, almost pandering to TSN's readership base which isn't the US.

 

[Slashers98]

We all know that Ice Arizona needs more than $6M/year to even think about surviving... so it's basically the same and Glendale knows that.

 

[Slashers98]

Sorry....

IMO.... Westhead has been writing with a definite agenda in mind since this started.

Of course the chance the Coyotes leave Arizona is a possibility. But Westhead seems to go out of his way to promote it, almost pandering to TSN's readership base which isn't the US.

Coyotes fans have Craig Morgan so that's only fair.

 

[CasualFan]

One point that's been made several times is that the NHL will be reluctant to pursue a lengthy trial and risk the negative fallout in the press but I'm not convinced that's the case. When has the NHL ever backed down from a fight in the courts? On the contrary, the NHL leadership seems to be made up of litigious personalities that relish the idea of a good legal scrap.

Nor do I believe that they are in the least bit concerned about any negative press. Since when has the NHL given a rat's tail what the fans or media think? We're talking about a league that regularly initiates lockouts come hell or high water.

I also think that dragging this out could actually have some advantages for the league as well. The NHL'S PR machine is in overdrive and Glendale has had it share of mud slung it's way. In time, public pressure, recalls, etc. could sway some of those votes on council in the NHL'S favor. More importantly, it gives the league time to dictate a resolution on its terms, i.e. perhaps find a new investor that would facilitate a move downtown or simply maximize a relo sale.

The NHL has had so many opportunities to move this franchise but, for whatever reason, it has always opted to stay... always. I doubt that this latest threat will force them to rush out of town... especially if they have a chance to win their case.

The difference of opinions is part of what makes BOH such a great place. I happen to disagree with pretty much everything here though.

- Ambulance chasers relish the idea of a good legal scrap. Sophisticated litigators seek to avoid trials. Generally speaking, of course. Now if you’re calling the owners a bunch of ambulance chasers, well then, I probably disagree a lot less…
- The NHL legal team is not flawless. The myth that they are this collection of never lose heavy weights sounds good for a comic book but in real life you don’t have to look any further than the botched Moyes proxy to see that the NHL counsel failed badly in their contractual attempt to block Jerry’s path to BK. They win some, they lose some – just like everybody else.
- The NHL appears to care very much what the media says. Or at least, they spend an inordinate amount of time trying to control the message. But the tide could turn on this. If it does, the league would be helpless to stop the avalanche. It’s an especially dangerous game on this file because the Coyotes lease is such a blatant operating subsidy and the terms are so spectacularly terrible for the city. If this becomes the tipping point for anti-pro sports subsidies, it would very much work against the leagues interests. That’s probably part of their risk assessment on this.
- If the Glendale council majority held through the initial barrage, it would seem reasonable to anticipate that they are not going to change course on this. Again, speaking generally, the churn of the news cycle is what? About 48 hours? Maybe 72 hours for some spectacle story? The pressure was applied, it didn’t work, and now it’s gone. The Council also have the benefit of knowing what evidence is in their favor. If they find it compelling, they’re not going to move off their positions regardless of what the media hacks do or say.
- I do not believe the NHL had any legitimate location options to move the franchise between 2008-Present with the exception of Winnipeg. Also, quite frankly, with Glendale serving as a $25MM per year ATM, the league had very little incentive to move it either.

 

[LPHabsFan]

Sorry....

IMO.... Westhead has been writing with a definite agenda in mind since this started.

Of course the chance the Coyotes leave Arizona is a possibility. But Westhead seems to go out of his way to promote it, almost pandering to TSN's readership base which isn't the US.

Well, one persons agenda is another persons logical direction for a particular situation. It's buried in there at the bottom but he does say an NHL source says it's not happening this year. It's possibly to read into the "this year" but I personally wouldn't.

Part of the problem is that so few people (basically nobody) is actually reporting or talking on this aside from the little PR BS. None of the big boys are touching on this anymore and my speculation is that Westhead is being fed information from the other guys at TSN or those guys are pushing their sources to contact him because they know they can't touch this story with a ten foot pole.

 

[TheLegend]

Coyotes fans have Craig Morgan so that's only fair.

We have a lot more than Craig Morgan here, Fred. But nice try.

What's fair is discovering what the true facts are and ignoring the associated BS and innuendo that gets intermixed with it.

 

[CasualFan]

Sorry....

IMO.... Westhead has been writing with a definite agenda in mind since this started.

Of course the chance the Coyotes leave Arizona is a possibility. But Westhead seems to go out of his way to promote it, almost pandering to TSN's readership base which isn't the US.

Fully agree and not sorry. How much more hack could Westhead be? None. None more hack. He goes to 11.

 

[Fugu]

Okay, but once that is done. Like Jean said, what do Coyotes gain from it ?

It's not like Gila River Arena is out of date. It's considered one of the most beautiful and technically equipped buildings in the USA. It opened in December 2003.

Usually if you are not the owner of the arena, you pay that owner to use its facility. Even as a Arena manager, you pay a sum to the owner (usually the city) to use its building and be able to make money.

So while Coyotes currently do pay RENT fee, they also receive $15M per year in management pay. That's kinda the opposite of what everyone else does.

Now, if Coyotes lose money despite BEING PAID to use an arena, how are they gonna make money in one where they need to PAY TO USE ?

You can try, but I very much doubt an explanation would make any sense at all.

The city does get some revenue back however. There are the ticket and parking surcharges, share of arena naming rights , etc.

The issue for Glendale is that they are paying far more for services that is the industry norm, and aren't getting close to what they budgeted back.

I just wanted to point out that money does go back to COG, but perhaps not enough to justify the arena mgt fee.

 

[IceAce]

Coyotes fans have Craig Morgan so that's only fair.

Coyotes fans have "skin in the game" whereas Canada really doesn't. Westhead is pushing an agenda and pandering to the "traditional market" crowd and those holding out misplaced hope that somehow the team winds up somewhere up North. Hell, most of the arguments taking Glendale's side in this very forum are based on that.

 

[Fugu]

Sorry....

IMO.... Westhead has been writing with a definite agenda in mind since this started.

Of course the chance the Coyotes leave Arizona is a possibility. But Westhead seems to go out of his way to promote it, almost pandering to TSN's readership base which isn't the US.

He probably does pour it on a bit too thickly, but he was the guy that first reported the audit by Tavares had been completed. Seeing that's a payable bill right now, he was right. He also brought up the loss amount and that the lease might be in question.


Morgan, from my POV [and I don't mind if the Coyotes stay in metro Phx, but I don't like the methods the NHL has used with Glendale, or what Glendale itself was doing] appears to print whatever IA feeds him. There is more of Yotes slant, but more importantly, the facts and figures he reported with regard to the Borrow-Away acquisition haven't stood up whatsoever.

 

[Fugu]

Coyotes fans have "skin in the game" whereas Canada really doesn't. Westhead is pushing an agenda and pandering to the "traditional market" crowd and those holding out misplaced hope that somehow the team winds up somewhere up North. Hell, most of the arguments taking Glendale's side in this very forum are based on that.

I disagree.

Today it's taking COG's side, whereas from 2009- May 2015, it was Gongdale.

I absolutely do not have another city in mind where I want the Coyotes to move. I think in a league with 25 or more US teams, metro Phoenix makes sense given its market size (as did Atlanta, or as Houston and Seattle would also make sense).

Most of you weren't here for the very first thread in the list that kdb posts. What got me interested in this saga initially were Bettman's denials that there were any problems with the franchise's finances. Back then, it was all Moyes's fault. Then Balsillie was the bad guy-- but it was very interesting to watch the trial and information that came out if you like business of hockey topics. Then we were treated to Glendale figuring out how much money they could just give away, with no strings attached-- like that $50 MM in the first two post-BK years.

It only got better with the Jamisons, Hulsizers and various LeBlanc et al incarnations.

The story in and of itself has been entertaining completely due to all the league's machinations and manipulations. Brazen, in fact. My "beef" as a hockey fan has been with Bettman and the NHL. Period.

I don't fault the Yotes fans whatsoever. They've been held hostage by this perfect storm of bad business decisions. They don't get an out-clause, other than abandoning their own team.

 

[MNNumbers]

I agree with Fugu. It personally pleases me to see people make sound non-emotional decisions.

So far, this saga has been a case of the NHL operating in their best interests while telling everyone else half-truths. Everyone else has believed anything NHL has told them. COG included. It has been a race to the bottom of the cliff. Look at the people involved... Moyes, Bslsillie, Hulziser, Jamison, LeBlanc..All have been played by the league one way or another. Most of all, COG.

What is making me happy now is that finally someone is acting in their own best interests. It pleases me that truth might come out.

I don't care where the team ends up, so long as the new city doesn't get taken for a ride, too.

I have my own analysis. I think that they will move, but not until next year. Quebec would be a good choice. Portland is possible. So is Seattle. Vegas I doubt, because they will get expansion. But it doesn't matter.

I only like seeing truth come out.

 

[TheLegend]

We all know that Ice Arizona needs more than $6M/year to even think about surviving... so it's basically the same and Glendale knows that.

Fred.... you do comprehend the notion that of that $15M dollars the Coyotes get, they have to pay the costs of operating the arena (lights, water, general maintenance, general payroll, event payroll, etc.) Even for the non-hockey events.

Glendale had originally earmarked $6M for that. Whether or not an NHL team played there. There are fixed costs in operating a facility no matter what you put in it.

The added $9M is where you could contend a subsidy is in place. But of that $9M.... Glendale got back around $7-8M of it through the ticket surcharges, parking.... etc.

Of course, it's much less than what it should be. Nobody it denying that. Question now is Glendale pushing to eliminate that additional $9M or would they settle for something different?? Or do they even have a clue as to what they want?

 

[IceAce]

I disagree.

Today it's taking COG's side, whereas from 2009- May 2015, it was Gongdale.

I absolutely do not have another city in mind where I want the Coyotes to move. I think in a league with 25 or more US teams, metro Phoenix makes sense given its market size (as did Atlanta, or as Houston and Seattle would also make sense).

Most of you weren't here for the very first thread in the list that kdb posts. What got me interested in this saga initially were Bettman's denials that there were any problems with the franchise's finances. Back then, it was all Moyes's fault. Then Balsillie was the bad guy-- but it was very interesting to watch the trial and information that came out if you like business of hockey topics. Then we were treated to Glendale figuring out how much money they could just give away, with no strings attached-- like that $50 MM in the first two post-BK years.

It only got better with the Jamisons, Hulsizers and various LeBlanc et al incarnations.

The story in and of itself has been entertaining completely due to all the league's machinations and manipulations. Brazen, in fact. My "beef" as a hockey fan has been with Bettman and the NHL. Period.

I don't fault the Yotes fans whatsoever. They've been held hostage by this perfect storm of bad business decisions. They don't get an out-clause, other than abandoning their own team.

And I agree with most of what you say here, however there's a definite skew with the arguments in this place.

Two years ago CoG were labeled incompetent morons in this place. Now all of a sudden they're the Rebels from Star Wars trying to blow up the NHL's Death Star, even though their legal argument is disingenuous and wreaks of trying to get out from a contract they now dislike.

Like you I don't really have any "skin in the game.' I'm basically Jane Goodall in this whole thing, who has empathy for the Coyotes fanbase since for about a decade and a half my team had their own "Sword of Damocles" hanging over our heads (my God, I'm turning into Killion )

It's just hard to ignore sometimes the obvious bias injected into some of these comments here.

 

[barneyg]

And I agree with most of what you say here, however there's a definite skew with the arguments in this place.

Two years ago CoG were labeled incompetent morons in this place. Now all of a sudden they're the Rebels from Star Wars trying to blow up the NHL's Death Star, even though their legal argument is disingenuous and wreaks of trying to get out from a contract they now dislike.

Like you I don't really have any "skin in the game.' I'm basically Jane Goodall in this whole thing, who had empathy for the fanbase since for about a decade and a half my team had their own "Sword of Damacles" hanging over our heads (my God, I'm turning into Killion )

It's just hard to ignore sometimes the obvious bias injected into some of these comments here.

Re. the city:
They were stupid because they did something stupid.
They are possibly less stupid now because they are trying to undo it.
They are probably still at least a bit stupid, but the reliably stupid people (Alvarez, Martinez, Beasley) are gone.

Re. this board:
I see no groupthink here, except perhaps by some people who are consistently characterizing "this board" as some homogenous entity. We are all distinct individuals here, whether homocoyotes, heterocoyotes, bicoyotes or transcoyotes. Everybody comes with his/her own biases, and the fact that your bias is on the other side of the majority does not make you any less biased.

 

[berklon]

Two years ago CoG were labeled incompetent morons in this place. Now all of a sudden they're the Rebels from Star Wars trying to blow up the NHL's Death Star, even though their legal argument is disingenuous and wreaks of trying to get out from a contract they now dislike.

But everyone is consistent. The lease agreement was a horrible deal and the CoG WERE "incompetent morons" for going along with it. Today the lease agreement is still horrible, but the CoG is finally smart enough to realise it and are finding a strong legal loop-hole to cancel it. No one has changed their opinion on the lease agreement... the only thing that's changed is the CoG got smart. No flip-flopping here.

However, on the Coyotes board - I've seen posts saying that if the CoG manages to get out of the deal that they hope the city turns into a ghost town. These were the same people who used the lease agreement as being needed because they were concerned for the city's and resident's financial well-being. Now THAT is flip-flopping based on personal bias and entitlement.

 

[Fugu]

And as much as we dislike the lease agreement from a "giving tax dollars away" perspective, it still pales in comparison to the $25MM x 2 yrs that COG under Scruggs gave to the NHL.


If the NHL had a much better option, they would have taken it, but they didn't, yet they managed to convince that city's government to just pass over $50 MM in cold, hard cash. Just imagine how much debt and cost that alone would cover for the arena had they done nothing with booking nonhockey events and basically shuttered the place.

 

[Karl Pilkington]

I agree with Fugu's thesis that IA won't renegotiate because it has no money with which to negotiate anything.

I am so disappointed that the Borrow-way "purchase" was a sham. Following this from a distance, I thought it was very refreshing that someone finally was putting his own money into it without leaning on the City of Glendale to foot the bill. So it turns out I was just foolishly naive.

I also agree with the notion that a true sale from the NHL to Ice Arizona was never actually completed in that not enough money seems to have changed hands. The NHL has set Ice Arizona up in "ownership" as a mere caretaker until the chickens come home to roost, which they eventually will whether now or later. If the Ice Clowns blow their cover the NHL will have no option but to pull the plug and relocate ASAP, unless they want to do the honourable and ethical thing by paying their own bills for a while without trying to figure out another way to send the bill to the taxpayers of the good City of Glendale.

It looks like the Clowns were nothing but a front to try to squeeze as much money out of Glendale as possible, all the while buying time for the NHL to plan an eventual relocation in the overwhelmingly likely event that the Coyotes would not financially succeed in Arizona.

Stupidly, at one time I bought in to the suggestion that the Coyotes were in Glendale to stay, and I would have liked that result, but now the whole thing seems slimier than ever.

It's actually hard to imagine the NHL surpassing its previously epic efforts to screw Glendale, but they just never give up trying. Now, as Killion says, they seem to be preparing to leave while blaming the victim.

I really hope if things play out this way that the media is merciless in their calling out of the NHL in their dealings here. Weed out the corruption in our sport's most prominent league before it gets insanely out of control.

 

[madhi19]

I don't fault the Yotes fans whatsoever. They've been held hostage by this perfect storm of bad business decisions. They don't get an out-clause, other than abandoning their own team.

I don't fault fans for wanting to keep their team... At least to a point, Glendale went so far off that point it not even funny anymore... Fans have some serious gall moaning about what they did last week. Your "cheap" entertainment cost them over $80MM in the past five or so years. The NHL found gullible people running a city, and took them to the cleaner. Is anybody really proud of that? The only reason Yotes fans had hockey for at least the past five years is Glendale. This maybe the last chapter, or the chapter before it at least, if you're mad place the blame of this mess at the right feet.

 

[IceAce]

But everyone is consistent. The lease agreement was a horrible deal and the CoG WERE "incompetent morons" for going along with it. Today the lease agreement is still horrible, but the CoG is finally smart enough to realise it and are finding a strong legal loop-hole to cancel it. No one has changed their opinion on the lease agreement... the only thing that's changed is the CoG got smart. No flip-flopping here.

However, on the Coyotes board - I've seen posts saying that if the CoG manages to get out of the deal that they hope the city turns into a ghost town. These were the same people who used the lease agreement as being needed because they were concerned for the city's and resident's financial well-being. Now THAT is flip-flopping based on personal bias and entitlement.

So politicians who get into a bad business deal are morons. But a similar group who tries to weasel out of that contract based on a technicality that was present and known (and legally waived) two years ago is now somehow competent?

As for the "strength" of said loop hole, lets be honest, no one outside of this forum and maybe the Glendale City Attorney's office believes that. Based on 13 years of working on contracts, I can say it's probably a long shot, especially given the legal firepower that the Coyotes/NHL are going to throw at this thing. I dont pretend to know Arizona law intimately (work in PA/NJ) but I cant see them winning this thing without some kind of smoking gun showing malicious intent on the part of Tindall here. Parties to contracts waive rights all the time. It would be a very odd circumstance that court would let you waive something up front only to pull the "rabbit out of the hat" two years down the road once you deem the deal unfavorable to you.

 

[Tom ServoMST3K]

Fred.... you do comprehend the notion that of that $15M dollars the Coyotes get, they have to pay the costs of operating the arena (lights, water, general maintenance, general payroll, event payroll, etc.) Even for the non-hockey events.

Glendale had originally earmarked $6M for that. Whether or not an NHL team played there. There are fixed costs in operating a facility no matter what you put in it.

The added $9M is where you could contend a subsidy is in place. But of that $9M.... Glendale got back around $7-8M of it through the ticket surcharges, parking.... etc.

Of course, it's much less than what it should be. Nobody it denying that. Question now is Glendale pushing to eliminate that additional $9M or would they settle for something different?? Or do they even have a clue as to what they want?

I mean, That's fine when thinking of how the city views this, but we're talking about ownership.

18 mill (Revenue Share) + 9 mill subsidy = 27 mill total coming in as fake revenue.

The question I have is "can the ownership group afford losing all or some of that 9 mill?"

I know LeBlanc has said the yotes are "close" to breaking even in the past.

So politicians who get into a bad business deal are morons. But a similar group who tries to weasel out of that contract based on a technicality that was present and known (and legally waived) two years ago is now somehow competent?

As for the "strength" of said loop hole, lets be honest, no one outside of this forum and maybe the Glendale City Attorney's office believes that. Based on 13 years of working on contracts, I can say it's probably a long shot, especially given the legal firepower that the Coyotes/NHL are going to throw at this thing.

Few things with this post (motivations are 50% devils advocate, 50% Personal disagreement):

A) It's not just Tindall anymore,

B) It seems that the Statute over-rides the waiver (Maybe? I dunno)

C) This particular "loophole" has never been tested in court, aside from one other time, where IIRC, the courts sided with a city. (That doesn't tell us much, but still)

D) Legal firepower means nothing if the contract was correctly broken.

 

[berklon]

So politicians who get into a bad business deal are morons. But a similar group who tries to weasel out of that contract based on a technicality that was present and known (and legally waived) two years ago is now somehow competent?

I didn't say they are now "competent"... I said they "got smart". One can still be incompetent and yet finally realize when they're being conned.

 

[CasualFan]

So politicians who get into a bad business deal are morons. But a similar group who tries to weasel out of that contract based on a technicality that was present and known (and legally waived) two years ago is now somehow competent?

As for the "strength" of said loop hole, lets be honest, no one outside of this forum and maybe the Glendale City Attorney's office believes that. Based on 13 years of working on contracts, I can say it's probably a long shot, especially given the legal firepower that the Coyotes/NHL are going to throw at this thing.

The same legal firepower that totally botched the Moyes proxy and allowed Jerry to put the team into hock? That legal firepower?

As for the strength of the case assessment, do you often review movies you haven't seen? Can you post your review of Ted 2? Remember, let's be honest now.

If the contract had fraud in the inducement, is the voiding party weaseling out of it? Is that what your extensive experience has led you to believe?

 

[Slashers98]

Fred.... you do comprehend the notion that of that $15M dollars the Coyotes get, they have to pay the costs of operating the arena (lights, water, general maintenance, general payroll, event payroll, etc.) Even for the non-hockey events.

Glendale had originally earmarked $6M for that. Whether or not an NHL team played there. There are fixed costs in operating a facility no matter what you put in it.

The added $9M is where you could contend a subsidy is in place. But of that $9M.... Glendale got back around $7-8M of it through the ticket surcharges, parking.... etc.

Of course, it's much less than what it should be. Nobody it denying that. Question now is Glendale pushing to eliminate that additional $9M or would they settle for something different?? Or do they even have a clue as to what they want?

Sure, they don't pay $15M to IA without any benefit, but don't tell me they get a good bang for their buck. The problem is that IA is not delivering the promised results and CoG wants to renegotiate the deal to a more sensitive amount.

As for breaking the agreement, I'm not a judge, so I don't know if they have a valid reason to do so. We'll see if it goes to trial in July... which I doubt, but that is the saga that never ends.

 

[IceAce]

Few things with this post (motivations are 50% devils advocate, 50% Personal disagreement):

A) It's not just Tindall anymore,

B) It seems that the Statute over-rides the waiver (Maybe? I dunno)

C) This particular "loophole" has never been tested in court, aside from one other time, where IIRC, the courts sided with a city. (That doesn't tell us much, but still)

D) Legal firepower means nothing if the contract was correctly broken.

A. I'm aware of the PR woman but I think it's a stretch to say her involvement in the process was "significant."

Your point C sort of makes B unclear. I've read the alleged precedent on this, and its a bit tangential to say the least.

As for D, a convincing enough legal argument can make breaking the contract correctly rather difficult. Good lawyerin' makes a lot of things possible