hatterson
Registered User
As far as I'm aware, the next payment isn't due for 3 months, and there's court dates set prior to that. My guess is the judge won't rule on it until (if) we get closer to that time without a resolution.
Phoenix CIV: May be time to put the band back together ...
- Thread starter kdb209
- Start date
- Status
As far as I'm aware, the next payment isn't due for 3 months, and there's court dates set prior to that. My guess is the judge won't rule on it until (if) we get closer to that time without a resolution.
Llama19
Registered User
Payment schedule: On the first day of the subsequent quarter (Oct 1, Jan 1, Apr 1, and Jul 1)
FY2016 payments are yet to be determined, because IceArizona is technically no longer the arena manager,
but IceArizona does get their FY2015 payment (July 1, 2015), as the judge ruled...
Too many moving part, you know...
Llama19
Registered User
Partial win for city and Coyotes in court
To quote:
"“If ultimately at the end of the day, the city prevails, and is able to recover losses on this contract, that they may be able to tie to these allegations you’ve made against Mr. Tindall and Ms. Frisoni, then that is something that I might look at,†she [Judge Dawn Bergin] explained.
“What I’m looking at now is the difference between what you paid and what you made off the contract,†she added.
City Attorney Michael Bailey responded by telling her the city pays the Coyotes $15 million annually and its net loss each year is between $9 and $10 million.
[IceArizona Attorney James] Condo agreed the judge has some discretion in this case, but argued that if the city receives back from the Coyotes less than what it pays them, he does not consider that damages, because that is what each side agreed to during the contract negotiations."
Source: http://www.glendalestar.com/news/article_e3297f4e-1ea2-11e5-9795-efa546d8857b.html
To quote:
"“If ultimately at the end of the day, the city prevails, and is able to recover losses on this contract, that they may be able to tie to these allegations you’ve made against Mr. Tindall and Ms. Frisoni, then that is something that I might look at,†she [Judge Dawn Bergin] explained.
“What I’m looking at now is the difference between what you paid and what you made off the contract,†she added.
City Attorney Michael Bailey responded by telling her the city pays the Coyotes $15 million annually and its net loss each year is between $9 and $10 million.
[IceArizona Attorney James] Condo agreed the judge has some discretion in this case, but argued that if the city receives back from the Coyotes less than what it pays them, he does not consider that damages, because that is what each side agreed to during the contract negotiations."
Source: http://www.glendalestar.com/news/article_e3297f4e-1ea2-11e5-9795-efa546d8857b.html
Ramses II?! Didn't his dynasty run just about the time this whole Coyotes/Glendale thing was starting up?
The City would have to request this as part of any case they would make. Right now, they are not the plaintiff. They are only responding to IA. I assume the City will make its case in the form of a counterclaim after the injunction part is worked out. At some point, however, yes...the City would have to request this as part of a judgment.
Pure speculation what IA's losses are to date other than what was reported in 2013-2014 (which is subject to an audit and people don't even agree on that). I am of the mindset that the losses are overstated given the new local and national tv money, revenue sharing, corporate dollars, naming rights, etc. It is a shell game as to what is being taken in as revenue for IA Hockey, and what IA Arena is showing. IA Arena could be making a net profit of $6 - $8M, and that money is never showing up on IA Hockey's balance sheet. None of us know what the real losses are, since none of us have seen audited financials. I am not going to argue that the Coyotes aren't losing money. I'm just not prepared to accept that $6 -$8M in revenue makes or breaks them.
I do not believe relocation within a year is going to happen. Downtown Phoenix may be a pipe dream, but for some reason I think this is a perfect storm for Glendale, and I do think relocation to downtown Phoenix would ensure a more viable team financially. Aside from QC, none of the relocation markets are proven hockey markets, and I tend to think that the NHL would rather expand than relocate.
But....5 years of litigation hasn't really added much clarity to the Phoenix situation thus far.
RECCE
The Dog House
Wouldn't the be in the same position if the judge waits too long..... they'll haven't to get their money for services rendered.
Llama19
Registered User
Glendale ordered to pay Coyotes $3.75M; team to post increased bond to protect city
To quote:
"Meanwhile, city officials have offered to renegotiate the deal, something Coyotes officials have staunchly said they will not do."
Source: http://www.yourwestvalley.com/glendale/article_92d2b6de-1e69-11e5-b022-e7b8f2bd00fd.html
To quote:
"Meanwhile, city officials have offered to renegotiate the deal, something Coyotes officials have staunchly said they will not do."
Source: http://www.yourwestvalley.com/glendale/article_92d2b6de-1e69-11e5-b022-e7b8f2bd00fd.html
TheLegend
Megathread Gadfly
Payment schedule: On the first day of the subsequent quarter (Oct 1, Jan 1, Apr 1, and Jul 1)
FY2016 payments are yet to be determined, because IceArizona is technically no longer the arena manager,
but IceArizona does get their FY2015 payment (July 1, 2015), as the judge ruled...
Too many moving part, you know...
As long as the restraining order is in place they still are.
I'll let the legal beagles correct me there if I'm wrong.
madhi19
Just the tip!
Without commenting on the merits of Glendale's case...I really don't like what they are doing here, and I think it provides the potential for a negative backlash against the City, and reflects poorly in general that the City would attempt to back out of this deal, but I have to say...the strategy for this particular situation is really pretty solid.
I would not be surprised if IA doesn't come to the table with something, or at least engage in informal settlement discussions before July 31st. If IA is not able to get an injunction, or if the court raises the bond substantially to cover the next year's worth of payments made by the City while under injunction, then I could see IA entering into serious talks to settle with the City.
As I see it, if the City was prepared to pay up to $6M for an arena manager, and right now the City is effectively paying out $8M, that is a $2M float. If something could be worked out such that IA nets $5M or so, with reasonable benchmarks for performance as arena manager, I can't see a $3M difference as something to relocate over.
Frankly, what other play does the City have? I see their true downside as minimal unless IA intends to take this to the wall and seek damages. Given Glendale's poor financial condition, collecting damages in the range IA was throwing around is highly unlikely. Glendale would more likely declare bankruptcy and get out from under any judgment, plus it may be able to extricate itself from Camelback Ranch which is an even bigger financial disaster than GRA and the Coyotes (although for some reason that has stayed out of the press for the most part).
Last edited:
Future payments will be decided after the injunction hearing. Way to early to comment on the likelihood of an injunction being put in place. A twist to this is that the City likely will ask for the bond to be increased if the City is going to have to make a year's worth of payments while under injunction. I could see the court requiring IA to put up at least $5M if an injunction is ordered and Glendale must pay the arena management fee for the next year.
TheLegend
Megathread Gadfly
Yes. If the TRO is turned into a permanent injunction, IA stays on as arena manager. Right now, IA is asking the court to enjoin the City from executing on its decision to terminate the contract. Because of an injunction, the City would still have IA Arena as the arena manager.
I really don't know how this will shake out, particularly because I don't know how much doubt the City can throw up to establish that there isn't a substantial likelihood the IA will prevail on the merits.
Putting the legal issues aside, if I am the judge I am reluctant to not enter an injunction, the absence of which throws everything into chaos. But, I also would want money available if Glendale does prove its case. There has been no real discussion of whether the City gets damages, disgorgement of the entire contract amount, disgorgement of what passed through to Tindall and Frosoni, or exactly what financial relief the City may get if the contract is voided under 38-511. It puts the judge in a difficult position.
Going way out on a limb without the benefit of seeing the evidence and the briefing, I am going to speculate the judge enters an injunction, but makes IA increase its bond substantially. JMO.
I think i partially agree with this. The city's offer to negotiate anew won't look bad in the eyes of the public when more information gets into the public's hands.
I could do the math again and show you that the city actually is getting about 5M or less from the actual parameters of the AMF, which are not separated out on Glendale's website in a way that makes it easy to see that. So, if Glendale actually budgeted 6M (still too high, IMO), they are really down 4M/yr. Or, put another way, IA has only brought back about 60% of their claims.
But I digress. The reality for COG, as you said, is that there is no down side to this case. Think of the options...
1- Coyotes negotiate a deal with better terms to COG...COG wins.
2- Coyotes can't afford to do that, team leaves. Now SMG runs the arena. Better for COG again. (Truth be told, this is probably best for COG, unless they can get IA to agree to something like 4M/yr with performance clauses.)
3- Case goes to trial, Coyotes win. COG out little.
And again, goyotes, the carrot for coming to the table before the hearings is that whatever emails can be brought into the focus of the case, and thus be made public on trial, might be incredibly bad publicity for IA and/or NHL. Of course, we don't know what they might be. But IA should. In other words, it's the potential PR hit that might bring that to happen.
And, I might add....
Many of us remain convinced that the league has more skin n this game than they are letting on.
kdb209
Registered User
- Jan 26, 2005
- 14,870
- 6
Jumptheshark
Rebooting myself
thought it said Ha Boob--did not realize it was an actual weather condistion and not something from spring break ft lauderdale
The key word here is the city WAS willing to pay $6 million for an arena manager, I don't think they'd still be willing to pay that now. They've gotten smarter. The $6 million number always struck me as willful stupidity. They would blissfully assume that was a real number because Hocking said so, despite the evidence of the RFP's from real companies that indicated the city could do far better than lose $6 million a year.
The $6 million was really only step 1 to getting the IA deal approved. Before you can convince a city that spending $15 million to maybe get back $9 million was a good idea, you had to first convince them that the alternative was to "lose" $6 million by paying that to an arena manager (who would apparently generate $0 in income for the city).
Chances are, $6 million is no longer the starting point.
I really don't know what the answer to that is or what the City would be prepared to do. This is a unique situation in that the arena manager is bringing 41 dates right off the bat, and I don't believe anyone realistically thinks GRA replaces even half of those dates and attendance numbers with an independent firm. Too much competition, and the concert market isn't what it was in the 80's and 90's.
I don't think the City has nearly the leverage everyone appears to give to Glendale. They have a real problem with Westgate, and not just the arena itself, if the Coyotes leave and Phoenix builds the new downtown arena that is being discussed.
Of course, one side or both could try and overplay their hand and this goes to trial.
Or 4) case goes to trial, Coyotes win, and get a money judgment for several million...not enough to BK the City, but enough to hurt the citizens.
Unlikely result, but something still within the realm of possibility....
Question for the legal team here.
The parts in bold:
“While I agree with you that the statute doesn’t require a person to act in bad faith, if I’m following the standard set forth by Dobbs … the statutory policy would be undermined by a restitutionary recovery,†Bergin said.
...
The judge then offered some indication of how she might ultimately rule in this case. She said the relative lack of similar court cases offers her some flexibility in determining a standard for setting damages in her judgment.
“If ultimately at the end of the day, the city prevails, and is able to recover losses on this contract, that they may be able to tie to these allegations you’ve made against Mr. Tindall and Ms. Frisoni, then that is something that I might look at,†she explained.
“What I’m looking at now is the difference between what you paid and what you made off the contract,†she added.
What is the standard set forth by Dobbs?...
The judge then offered some indication of how she might ultimately rule in this case. She said the relative lack of similar court cases offers her some flexibility in determining a standard for setting damages in her judgment.
“If ultimately at the end of the day, the city prevails, and is able to recover losses on this contract, that they may be able to tie to these allegations you’ve made against Mr. Tindall and Ms. Frisoni, then that is something that I might look at,†she explained.
“What I’m looking at now is the difference between what you paid and what you made off the contract,†she added.
On the part about the difference in what they made vs what they paid, I can't imagine this is good for the Coyotes. Recall that one of the legal consultants asked to review the agreement called it "very, very team friendly." Might not the judge's thinking be to look at just how it got so lopsided-- and if Tindall's or Frisoni's fingerprints might not be there?
LOL... I read the OP for the other thread before I posted here. But I meant, ****-storm in the case of the Coyotes,... not the actual storm taking place in the areas around Phoenix.
Or maybe it is dust... dust of a long-dead carcass blowing around.
Last edited:
- Status
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
Series Talk: WCSF: Dallas Stars vs Colorado Avalanche | Stars lead 2-1- Latest: Nikki Potnick
