Phoenix CIV: May be time to put the band back together ...

[TheLegend]

But, a lame duck one isn't much better...

It isn't a lame duck season yet.... let's not get our hopes up.

 

[cbcwpg]

What do you think really changed for LeBlanc? Do you think that he actually thought he had a clear case for dismissal?

To me...no, nothing changed. But who knows whats going thru LeBlanc's mind. Maybe he was hoping for a miracle.

But, I think that there will be some serious conversations between IA and "Head Office" to decide just what they want to do and if they want to go thru the D&D come July 31.

 

[MNNumbers]

^^^^

Goyotes,

There has been much discussion here to the idea that the team lease and the AMF are one document or contract. If that is true, and no negotiation is fruitful, and the city wins the right to cancel the contract, then the team has no place to play, correct?

And I think the idea of relo for now is based on exactly that. Or.
1- League does not want trial, for the publicity of the way they, IA, and Tindall dealt with City Council.
2- IA is not financially viable at less than 15M/yr.
Thus..... A severance agreement of sorts, and the team moves.

 

[goyotes]

LeBlanc changes his "company" faster than Tippett changes lines.

It would be an interesting precedent for a judge to find that all you need to do to avoid the 38-511 statute is to change the name of your company.

I have a feeling that Glendale will be able to show a pretty compelling unbroken relationship between Tindall and LeBlanc that transcends the various companies LeBlanc set up to try to benefit from Glendale's willingness to subsidize the Coyotes' owners. Remember the line about putting "the band back together"? That sort of says it all.

Except IA doesn't have the same group of owners as IE or RSE. There is overlap, but the law recognizes entities as separate persons. So its not just changing companies - it's doing a deal with an entirely different entity. And the IE and RSE dealings go back years. For the most part, I think it is agreed that the City didn't have dealings with IA for at least a year between the time LeBlanc and Tindall where talking and LeBlanc was repping other entities.

I don't see this as a mere formality or a simple technicality that the court should overlook. LeBlanc isn't IA. And if you read the statute, Tindall never went to work for IE and/or RSE so I'm not sure what was discussed with an IE or RSE representative is even relevant under the clear language and plain meaning of the statute. But who knows...judges see things different than I do all the time.

 

[Tom ServoMST3K]

Basically, an escrow since time of council vote, without really requiring an escrow. I agree. I think it will be difficult for IA to get the permanent injunction on the 31st. Lots more bleeding over into the merits side of the case at that point. I don't think most observers would have said the City's case was frivolous as we use the term in litigation. I'm not sure that equates to the judge thinking the City's case is weak or strong (not implying you said that CF).

I can't help but think that the City's strategy of a renegotiation of the arena management deal isn't a bad one here. After everyone cools off, and sees the other side's arguments in writing, there may be a way for IA to cut off a couple million in revenue and still make the deal attractive to them for another three years or so (until they exercise the out clause).

One point that keeps popping up is relocation. People need to keep in mind that the Coyote's lease is not being terminated. The Coyotes still have a lease with the City of Glendale. Arguably, nothing the City of Glendale has does excuses the Coyotes from honoring their lease until the out clause can be exercised. And, just as importantly, even if the City wins it's case, it can't throw the Coyotes out of GRA.

I know everything with the Coyotes leads to some people talking about relocation, but nothing in this case has any direct or immediate bearing on whether the Coyotes have a place to play next year.

respectfully disagree.

Maybe if the team could actually be sold, but it cannot right now.

IA needs a city subsidy to make it work. IA is the only ownership group that can make it work in Glendale.

 

[cbcwpg]

It isn't a lame duck season yet.... let's not get our hopes up.

Apart from the whole business side of things going on between the CoG and IA and speculation about the team playing when people know they are leaving, hence the term "Lame Duck" season....

Any team that trades for Chris Pronger to eat up cap space looks to me at least to be one that doesn't appear to be too concerned about icing a better than AHL team.

It may not be "Lame Duck" in the board room, but it's sure looking like it could be pretty lame on the ice. The Coyotes seem to be reading the Tanking for #1 manual that the Sabre's have been using.

 

[Llama19]

^^^^

Goyotes,

There has been much discussion here to the idea that the team lease and the AMF are one document or contract. If that is true, and no negotiation is fruitful, and the city wins the right to cancel the contract, then the team has no place to play, correct?

Per CasualFan's post (http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=104440797&postcount=709), they are one and the same...

IMO, IceArizona is not and will not be negotiating with Glendale...

 

[goyotes]

^^^^

Goyotes,

There has been much discussion here to the idea that the team lease and the AMF are one document or contract. If that is true, and no negotiation is fruitful, and the city wins the right to cancel the contract, then the team has no place to play, correct?

My understanding is that the City is not looking to terminate the lease with the Coyotes. The agreement is one "contract" if you will, but with three parties. I can't answer what the ultimate result will be if the City wins, but I continue to operate with the understanding that the lease with the Coyotes can survive even if the arena management agreement is terminated (different party to the arena management part than the party to the lease), and that the City expects the Coyotes to play at GRA and pay rent, even if the arena management agreement is cancelled.

I also think that the City would argue that even if the arena management deal is cancelled, the City would have the right to step into the shoes of any contract the arena manager has with vendors, tenants, artists, concerts, etc. But that will be something that may be litigated in the context of the merits of the City's case.

 

[Tom ServoMST3K]

Per CasualFan's post (http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=104440797&postcount=709), they are one and the same...

IMO, IceArizona is not and will not be negotiating with Glendale...

The cost if they lose is way to great for them not to, IMO.

They should at least try.

 

[Llama19]

The cost if they lose is way to great for them not to, IMO.

They should at least try.

Nope...not with IceArizona...

 

[CasualFan]

I don't think most observers would have said the City's case was frivolous as we use the term in litigation. I'm not sure that equates to the judge thinking the City's case is weak or strong (not implying you said that CF).

I follow you. My indignation is for LeBlanc who used many colorful descriptions during his media tour after the council vote, all of which implied or directly stated this matter would be laughed out of court. I'll probably continue to reference Anthony's disingenuous wind baggery throughout the proceedings.

I can't help but think that the City's strategy of a renegotiation of the arena management deal isn't a bad one here.

I agree and would add that when/if IA starts to discuss harm as a result of all the subsequent agreements they've executed while relying upon the lease, the city will be able to say to the court "all they have to do is meet with us and negotiate a lease without the self-dealing aspect and the team would not incur any harm as it would be seemless to the (fill in the blank contract)"

One point that keeps popping up is relocation. People need to keep in mind that the Coyote's lease is not being terminated. The Coyotes still have a lease with the City of Glendale. Arguably, nothing the City of Glendale has does excuses the Coyotes from honoring their lease until the out clause can be exercised. And, just as importantly, even if the City wins it's case, it can't throw the Coyotes out of GRA.

It would seem to be pretty difficult to enact the severability clause and allow the lease of team space to continue, no?

 

[Tom ServoMST3K]

Phoenix CV: LLLLLLLLET'S GET READY TO RUMBLE!

 

[MNNumbers]

My understanding is that the City is not looking to terminate the lease with the Coyotes. The agreement is one "contract" if you will, but with three parties. I can't answer what the ultimate result will be if the City wins, but I continue to operate with the understanding that the lease with the Coyotes can survive even if the arena management agreement is terminated (different party to the arena management part than the party to the lease), and that the City expects the Coyotes to play at GRA and pay rent, even if the arena management agreement is cancelled.

I am not up on contract law, but it appears to me that the entire contract would be terminated.

I agree, however, that the best and hoped for outcome to the City is that the team stays, but at market costs to the city.

And, IMO, that can't happen, because the entire ownership organization cannot afford it. Not can any other ownership group, nor the League wish to be involved again.

 

[cbcwpg]

My understanding is that the City is not looking to terminate the lease with the Coyotes. The agreement is one "contract" if you will, but with three parties. I can't answer what the ultimate result will be if the City wins, but I continue to operate with the understanding that the lease with the Coyotes can survive even if the arena management agreement is terminated (different party to the arena management part than the party to the lease), and that the City expects the Coyotes to play at GRA and pay rent, even if the arena management agreement is cancelled.

I would say it's safe to assume that now that the loan to FIG is no more, that some of the AMF money that IA is getting to manage the arena is being used to subsidize the team. Maybe for a small amount I don't know, but an amount that IA is not willing to give up given their statement of not re-negotiating.

So even if technically the team could still play out of the arena, given that ownership of the team and management of the arena are the same people, I would say it's doubtful the team would agree to play in the building if they are also not the managers receiving the $15MM

 

[Llama19]

Phoenix CV: LLLLLLLLET'S GET READY TO RUMBLE!

How about: Phoenix CV: LLLLLLLLET'S GET READY TO CRUMBLE!

 

[goyotes]

It would seem to be pretty difficult to enact the severability clause and allow the lease of team space to continue, no?

If I were the city, I would argue I can step in to the shoes of any contracts negotiated by the arena manager, and get the benefit of vendors, corporate, concerts, and tenants (which is the team). Otherwise, anyone doing business with GRA may question whether they have to perform, or if their concert dates are even secure, because those contracts run between the vendor and IA, not the vendor and CoG.

 

[Ciao]

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=104180809&postcount=523

I'm curious to see if Defendants advance a $750,000 bond theory at the hearing (18 days between 6/12-6/30 x daily rate of the AMF) to make the bond an even $1MM. Either way, it is my strong opinion that IA should be compensated for services provided and the July 1 payment should flow to them - unless, the judge wants to treat the hearing as a re-do of the rushed TRO hearing and allow the city to attack the "likely to prevail on merits" prong.

Sounds like the judge did it for them. Sounds like an active bench. Hopefully when July 31 gets here, there will still be a reason to reconvene

Great call, CF!

Your crystal ball is in good working order!

 

[goyotes]

I would say it's safe to assume that now that the loan to FIG is no more, that some of the AMF money that IA is getting to manage the arena is being used to subsidize the team. Maybe for a small amount I don't know, but an amount that IA is not willing to give up given their statement of not re-negotiating.

So even if technically the team could still play out of the arena, given that ownership of the team and management of the arena are the same people, I would say it's doubtful the team would agree to play in the building if they are also not the managers.

What is the legal basis for the team to terminate the lease without exposure? As we have seen already, anyone side can try and terminate a deal they don't like. And that could happen if IA decides it is cost efficient to breach the lease and move on. I'm just saying everyone is saying the two are the same- which I don't believe is the case.

 

[MNNumbers]

If I were the city, I would argue I can step in to the shoes of any contracts negotiated by the arena manager, and get the benefit of vendors, corporate, concerts, and tenants (which is the team). Otherwise, anyone doing business with GRA may question whether they have to perform, or if their concert dates are even secure.

Good point. Perhaps contacts are made through the manager but it's still city owned arena.

Still, the point remains that present team ownership will not be able to play without the generous AMF they have gotten.

That's why there is some talk of a lame duck year.

 

[Slot]

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=104180809&postcount=523

I'm curious to see if Defendants advance a $750,000 bond theory at the hearing (18 days between 6/12-6/30 x daily rate of the AMF) to make the bond an even $1MM. Either way, it is my strong opinion that IA should be compensated for services provided and the July 1 payment should flow to them - unless, the judge wants to treat the hearing as a re-do of the rushed TRO hearing and allow the city to attack the "likely to prevail on merits" prong.

Sounds like the judge did it for them. Sounds like an active bench. Hopefully when July 31 gets here, there will still be a reason to reconvene

The batting average of the legal minds on this thread is pretty close to 1.000 wow.

 

[Killion]

What do you think really changed for LeBlanc? Do you think that he actually thought he had a clear case for dismissal?

I think he probably did, yes. His words & actions during & then following the Council vote were of such a nature that thats pretty much what Ive concluded. He'd gotten away with so much over the past 2yrs that he thinks he's Teflon.

IMO, IceArizona is not and will not be negotiating with Glendale...

Agreed. IA is absolutely entrenched. Ramses II.

 

[MNNumbers]

What is the legal basis for the team to terminate the lease without exposure? As we have seen already, anyone side can try and terminate a deal they don't like. And that could happen if IA decides it is cost efficient to breach the lease and move on. I'm just saying everyone is saying the two are the same- which I don't believe is the case.

Again, true. They are not same. But the same people currently own both.

If the arena manager loses its account, the profitable side of the combined business disappears. What does the money losing team side do then? Voluntarily lose 60M/ yr?

 

[JimAnchower]

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=104180809&postcount=523

I'm curious to see if Defendants advance a $750,000 bond theory at the hearing (18 days between 6/12-6/30 x daily rate of the AMF) to make the bond an even $1MM. Either way, it is my strong opinion that IA should be compensated for services provided and the July 1 payment should flow to them - unless, the judge wants to treat the hearing as a re-do of the rushed TRO hearing and allow the city to attack the "likely to prevail on merits" prong.

Sounds like the judge did it for them. Sounds like an active bench. Hopefully when July 31 gets here, there will still be a reason to reconvene

Great minds think alike but fools seldom differ. (Thanks to 30 Helen's Agree from Kids In the Hall for teaching me this.)

 

[goyotes]

Again, true. They are not same. But the same people currently own both.

If the arena manager loses its account, the profitable side of the combined business disappears. What does the money losing team side do then? Voluntarily lose 60M/ yr?

Like I said, anyone can breach a contract if they do the calculations and decide it no longer pays. I suppose the CoG could ask for specific performance (essentially what the Coyotes are seeking now against the City) and require the Coyotes to play out the string. Doubt it would happen - and doubt the City would win.

My point simply was that a win for the CoG doesn't mean the Coyotes don't have a lease to play at GRA. So, when people talk about the Coyotes not having an arena to play in, I just think that is making an assumption that doesn't follow what the current case is going to decide.

 

[CasualFan]

If I were the city, I would argue I can step in to the shoes of any contracts negotiated by the arena manager, and get the benefit of vendors, corporate, concerts, and tenants (which is the team). Otherwise, anyone doing business with GRA may question whether they have to perform, or if their concert dates are even secure, because those contracts run between the vendor and IA, not the vendor and CoG.

Good point. Long way to go before they even have to consider such things but I enjoy getting a head start. Have a good one. Respectfully, CF