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

[Mightygoose]

Question on the TRO. Was under the impression earlier it was in effect until today. Does that now extend until July 31? Therefore CoG still cannot send the letter of termination to IA right now?

 

[Llama19]

First of many articles...

Judge orders City of Glendale to make $3.75 million July payment to Coyotes, increases team's bond

Source: http://www.abc15.com/sports/sports-blogs-local/arizona-coyotes-city-of-glendale-back-in-court-monday

 

[Whileee]

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.

Maybe LeBlanc was also a bit puffed up because he read some of Morgan's stuff where he found a lawyer who wondered aloud how Glendale's attorney had passed the bar exam. Those guys seem to have piped down a bit, too.

 

[Fugu]

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.

Goyotes, I'm not sure I'm following. The lease is a subset of the Arena Manager contract. This document is between COG and IA/Coyotes, which IA uses as the asset that will bring 41 home dates, etc.

On what basis do the Coyotes get the use of the arena if the primary contract is rescinded?

Edit: You also called into question the other arena dates, that the deals were between IA and the acts being brought in. Would this not apply to the Yotes in the same way?

 

[JimAnchower]

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.

I agree with this. We don't know the most money Glendale would offer nor do we know the bottom figure the Coyotes would accept. If the two aren't close, then yes the Coyotes era is Glendale would be over. If there is room for an agreement, they can be there for a long time. There could be other things that get in the way of a deal as well. Maybe Glendale makes a point of no escape clause, but the Coyotes fight that.

 

[Whileee]

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?

So, if Glendale prevails in canceling the arena management agreement they'll turn around and tell the Coyotes "we're changing arena managers, but you are free to continue playing at the GRA rent free".

 

[MNNumbers]

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.

Now you confused me again. Are you saying that if the city wins, the contract is divided, and the team still has a rental contract with the city to play at GRA?

 

[goyotes]

Goyotes, I'm not sure I'm following. The lease is a subset of the Arena Manager contract. This document is between COG and IA/Coyotes, which IA uses as the asset that will bring 41 home dates, etc.

On what basis do the Coyotes get the use of the arena if the primary contract is rescinded?

They would argue, as with all contracts the arena manager has negotiated over the past two years, the City has a right to step into the shoes of the arena manager. Otherwise, all contracts, not just with the Coyotes but all contracts involving GRA that are not in direct privity with Glendale, would be voided by termination of the arena manager deal.

I believe a court would have no issue with allowing the City to step in and enforce agreements third-parties had with IA Arena. Since the lease involves IA hockey, I think the City could claim the benefits of what agreements IA Arena may have (including a lease with IA Hockey), but IA Arena doesn't get to receive the benefits because of 38-511.

Otherwise, do you believe that all the agreements now in place are subject to termination? Vendors can cancel? The naming rights deal is rescinded? Concerts can cancel?

IA Hockey (the entity that owns the team), is just a tenant. It has a lease. The lease would be with the City now, instead of IA Arena. Everything would arguably stay the same.

 

[Tom ServoMST3K]

I agree with this. We don't know the most money Glendale would offer nor do we know the bottom figure the Coyotes would accept. If the two aren't close, then yes the Coyotes era is Glendale would be over. If there is room for an agreement, they can be there for a long time. There could be other things that get in the way of a deal as well. Maybe Glendale makes a point of no escape clause, but the Coyotes fight that.

My Guess:

If the yotes can survive with a reduced subsidy, they will negotiate that with the city.

If they cannot survive with a reduced subsidy they will let this play out in court.

so saying

We don't know the most money Glendale would offer nor do we know the bottom figure the Coyotes would accept. If the two aren't close, then yes the Coyotes era is Glendale would be over

is redundant, because if negotiation isn't successful then we know the figures are too far apart.

 

[TheLegend]

Maybe LeBlanc was also a bit puffed up because he read some of Morgan's stuff where he found a lawyer who wondered aloud how Glendale's attorney had passed the bar exam. Those guys seem to have piped down a bit, too.

Glad your so concerned for Morgan's whereabouts....

Morgan said on Twitter this morning he would not be in court today but is planning to attend the hearings in late July.

His stint with Fox Sports Arizona ends after tomorrow (as with all other FS local reporters nationwide). So where he writes from remains to be seen.

 

[Fugu]

They would argue, as with all contracts the arena manager has negotiated over the past two years, the City has a right to step into the shoes of the arena manager. Otherwise, all contracts, not just with the Coyotes but all contracts involving GRA that are not in direct privity with Glendale, would be voided by termination of the arena manager deal.

I believe a court would have no issue with allowing the City to step in and enforce agreements third-parties had with IA Arena. Since the lease involves IA hockey, I think the City could claim the benefits of what agreements IA Arena may have (including a lease with IA Hockey), but IA Arena doesn't get to receive the benefits because of 38-511.

Otherwise, do you believe that all the agreements now in place are subject to termination? Vendors can cancel? The naming rights deal is rescinded? Concerts can cancel?

Yes.

Unless there's language in the Arena Manager contract that discusses what would happen in the case of a breach or this statute coming into play.

However, does this not put COG into the driver's seat? They could tell the Coyotes they could continue, but of course there would be no payment to IA (and thus the Yotes). In other words, it's not going to be up to the Coyotes.

Recall that Glendale authorized its business manager to seek out new options for an arena manager as well. Any third party with an agreement through IA would then have the option of contracting with the new manager or the city itself (e.g., case of naming rights).

IA Hockey (the entity that owns the team), is just a tenant. It has a lease. The lease would be with the City now, instead of IA Arena. Everything would arguably stay the same.

Is there a separate lease agreement? I understood it was part of the main contract that is under question now. The Yotes "lease" would be with IA, not COG, if that's the case, just like the other performers.

I think the only reason both IA Hockey and Manager are on the management contract is to assure COG they'd get all the Yotes home dates.

 

[MNNumbers]

They would argue, as with all contracts the arena manager has negotiated over the past two years, the City has a right to step into the shoes of the arena manager. Otherwise, all contracts, not just with the Coyotes but all contracts involving GRA that are not in direct privity with Glendale, would be voided by termination of the arena manager deal.

I believe a court would have no issue with allowing the City to step in and enforce agreements third-parties had with IA Arena. Since the lease involves IA hockey, I think the City could claim the benefits of what agreements IA Arena may have (including a lease with IA Hockey), but IA Arena doesn't get to receive the benefits because of 38-511.

Otherwise, do you believe that all the agreements now in place are subject to termination? Vendors can cancel? The naming rights deal is rescinded? Concerts can cancel?

With regard to vendors and naming rights, renegotiation would be fair. And may be written into the contract. Like... "Gila River Band is exempted from payment the effect that the Arizona Coyotes cease to be the anchor tenant.". For the vendors, the likely thing would be a period contractually written where stays quo exists as well.

But this a good point.

 

[JimAnchower]

My Guess:

If the yotes can survive with a reduced subsidy, they will negotiate that with the city.

If they cannot survive with a reduced subsidy they will let this play out in court.

so saying



is redundant, because if negotiation isn't successful then we know the figures are too far apart.

I would agree, but just because they haven't negotiated thus far doesn't mean they can't/won't. They may have been looking for an early ruling from the judge to see what their options are, to see what leverage they may have. There could also be things that Glendale asks to get access to that may cause IA to decide to negotiating is a better option than giving that up. The example I brought up before was the complete financial information of the team. That could be something they decide they would rather settle than continue the lawsuit and give Glendale that information.

 

[Glacial]

In the same boat. Never thought the bond would be raised so I settled in to the Escrow camp.

Now my question becomes, can they negotiate now before the remaining $750K is deposited or no?

Don't worry, now that they're getting $3.75M, they'll have more than enough to pay the extra $750k. LOL, let's see IceArizona not pay the extra bond until after they receive the payment from Glendale.

 

[Tom ServoMST3K]

I would agree, but just because they haven't negotiated thus far doesn't mean they can't/won't. They may have been looking for an early ruling from the judge to see what their options are, to see what leverage they may have. There could also be things that Glendale asks to get access to that may cause IA to decide to negotiating is a better option than giving that up. The example I brought up before was the complete financial information of the team. That could be something they decide they would rather settle than continue the lawsuit and give Glendale that information.

My point is that if we reach a negative ruling for IA, the yotes as we know them (Under IA, playing in Glendale) are done.

 

[Killion]

The example I brought up before was the complete financial information of the team. That could be something they decide they would rather settle than continue the lawsuit and give Glendale that information.

I'm guessing, speculating, but Im thinking they'll most likely put up the false pretext of re-negotiating in good faith in order to avoid D&D, trial, exposure to the inner workings & their financials. Cupboards full of skeletons. Im just not sure what they'll offer the COG, whether or not whatever they do offer is even believed. Possible we see some NHL intervention here as well. Regardless, Im certain this teams now done. One more season, thats it.

 

[goyotes]

Just for clarity sake, what I am talking about in legal terms is the CoG asking the court for a "novation". The City would replace IA Arena in all existing contracts. It is not a stretch for a court to award this relief, IF the CoG prevails on the merits and it can void its contract with IA Arena.

These are complicated deals, so I'm not sure exactly how all of this would play out, but the legal concept is well recognized and would fit in this particular instance so that the CoG doesn't "win" on its case against IA Arena, but "lose" when it comes to the economic impact of not being able to enforce contracts already in existence, that usually have long lead times.

I would assume that IA Hockey still has the "out clause" it could exercise, but that would mean three more years at GRA IF IA Hockey wanted to stay, and decided against breaching the lease and having moving trucks show up in the middle of the night ala Cleveland Browns.

I have said I see relocation at this point at better than 50/50. I also think the most likely spot for relocation is downtown Phoenix, but I know many on this Board find that to be a pipe dream.

 

[aqib]

While there have been some great suggestions for the next thread I am going to have to insist it include the phrase "full on haboob" we can't let that not be incorporated into a thread title.

 

[Fugu]

Just for clarity sake, what I am talking about in legal terms is the CoG asking the court for a "novation". The City would replace IA Arena in all existing contracts. It is not a stretch for a court to award this relief, IF the CoG prevails on the merits and it can void its contract with IA Arena.

These are complicated deals, so I'm not sure exactly how all of this would play out, but the legal concept is well recognized and would fit in this particular instance so that the CoG doesn't "win" on its case against IA Arena, but "lose" when it comes to the economic impact of not being able to enforce contracts already in existence, that usually have long lead times.

I would assume that IA Hockey still has the "out clause" it could exercise, but that would mean three more years at GRA IF IA Hockey wanted to stay, and decided against breaching the lease and having moving trucks show up in the middle of the night ala Cleveland Browns.

I have said I see relocation at this point at better than 50/50. I also think the most likely spot for relocation is downtown Phoenix, but I know many on this Board find that to be a pipe dream.

That would be the best outcome, I'd think, just not sure if the timing can work out. I read that a new Phx arena might not be ready for another 5 years?

 

[OthmarAmmann]

While there have been some great suggestions for the next thread I am going to have to insist it include the phrase "full on haboob" we can't let that not be incorporated into a thread title.

Aye!

 

[Whileee]

Glad your so concerned for Morgan's whereabouts....

Morgan said on Twitter this morning he would not be in court today but is planning to attend the hearings in late July.

His stint with Fox Sports Arizona ends after tomorrow (as with all other FS local reporters nationwide). So where he writes from remains to be seen.

He'll be missed by BOH aficionados who are looking for the straight goods on the Coyotes situation... sarcasm

 

[Glacial]

So I guess now we wait on articles written by people with contacts inside the NHL to get a sense of how willing they are for all this to play out.

 

[MNNumbers]

Just for clarity sake, what I am talking about in legal terms is the CoG asking the court for a "novation". The City would replace IA Arena in all existing contracts. It is not a stretch for a court to award this relief, IF the CoG prevails on the merits and it can void its contract with IA Arena.

These are complicated deals, so I'm not sure exactly how all of this would play out, but the legal concept is well recognized and would fit in this particular instance so that the CoG doesn't "win" on its case against IA Arena, but "lose" when it comes to the economic impact of not being able to enforce contracts already in existence, that usually have long lead times.

I would assume that IA Hockey still has the "out clause" it could exercise, but that would mean three more years at GRA IF IA Hockey wanted to stay, and decided against breaching the lease and having moving trucks show up in the middle of the night ala Cleveland Browns.

I have said I see relocation at this point at better than 50/50. I also think the most likely spot for relocation is downtown Phoenix, but I know many on this Board find that to be a pipe dream.

Sorry I can't see a good place to clip this....

NOVATION... Does IA have to request that? Or would court do it immediately following a judgment on favor of COG?

Downtown?... Under what ownership?

I can't see the IA organization continuing to own this team unless it wins a judgment. It has to many $$$$ losses.

And I can't see NHL wanting to own the team again. There is no BK and forced move to Hamilton this time.

I still predict the case does not go to trial, and the team plays next year in Portland or Quebec. The longer it stays unresolved, the better the odds for Quebec.

 

[Llama19]

Judge orders Glendale to pay Coyotes $3.75 million

To quote:

"Coyotes President Anthony LeBlanc said the team was "pleased with the ruling and will continue to pursue our rights.""

Source: http://www.azcentral.com/story/news...orders-glendale-pay-arizona-coyotes/29478355/

 

[GordonGraham]

They had to get their money for services already rendered, what i wanna know is the next payment any word of that ?