Phoenix CV: CoG went full-on haboob, man. Never go full-on haboob.

kdb209 · Jun 29, 2015

Don't want to listen to the whole thing? Here are approximate times of some notable moments.

3:45 â€” Glendale attorney states the city's stipulations for accepting a temporary restraining order.
4:10 â€” Coyotes attorney argues for expedited court scheduling, describing damages the team has suffered due to the council's decision.
8:55 â€” Coyotes attorney describes the team's needs with upcoming NHL draft, free agency and planning for the 2015-16 season.
15:15 â€” Glendale attorney responds to Coyotes' request for an expedited schedule.
17:30 â€” Coyotes attorney likens damage to team as a "full-on haboob."
20:30 â€” Judge comments on the Coyotes' expedited-scheduling request.
34:55 â€” Coyotes attorney says the team is fighting to stay in Glendale.
37:30 â€” Glendale attorney asks for the city to be allowed to forgo a $3.75 million payment to the Coyotes.
38:30 â€” Judge responds to city's request to place payment in escrow.
40:00 â€” Judge asks Glendale attorney why the city shouldn't have to pay the Coyotes for services already performed.
42:45 â€” Coyotes attorney asks for Glendale to reveal the identities of the employees it alleges had a conflict of interest.
43:30 â€” Glendale attorney reveals the names of the employees in question.

Click to expand...

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/glendale/2015/06/18/coyotes-glendale-arena-deal-hearing/28945673/

And in a timely story:

The return of the haboob! Phoenix covered in a blanket of dust for as massive cloud rolls in from desert cutting power to 15,000 homes

Haboob:

Full-On Haboob:

Major4Boarding · Jun 30, 2015

Last page of discussions from Phoenix CIV: May be time to put the band back together ...

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1913553&page=40

Carry on!

MNNumbers · Jun 30, 2015

I would like to start with my earlier question..

Who gets deposed? Does that schedule become public?

And, it seems we are clear that the main interest here for onlookers is how far into the negotiations of the current lease the judge allows that process to go. IOW, does IA financing become part of the trial? What does her question about how much Glendale really lost (9-10M) really indicate? Does the league itself get pulled in somehow? Obviously, COG wants all that if possible.

MNNumbers · Jun 30, 2015

Also, in regards to today's executive session of city council, could that mean IA contacted them about negotiation? Too early, I assume...

Perhaps Glendale legal counsel just wants to update city council on the next steps of the case.

tadiran · Jun 30, 2015

What does it mean...?

The City Council will meet with the City Attorney for legal advice, discussion and consultation regarding the city’s position in pending or contemplated litigation, including settlement discussions conducted in order to avoid or resolve litigation

Major4Boarding · Jun 30, 2015

tadiran said:
What does it mean...?

The City Council will meet with the City Attorney for legal advice, discussion and consultation regarding the city’s position in pending or contemplated litigation, including settlement discussions conducted in order to avoid or resolve litigation

Standard procedure. Every Executive Session notice contains this. They'll no doubt discuss yesterday's events

CasualFan · Jun 30, 2015

Here's what I see at a glance (send piles of vCash for more thoughtful/thorough analysis)

MNNumbers said:
I would like to start with my earlier question..

Who gets deposed? Does that schedule become public?

And, it seems we are clear that the main interest here for onlookers is how far into the negotiations of the current lease the judge allows that process to go. IOW, does IA financing become part of the trial? What does her question about how much Glendale really lost (9-10M) really indicate? Does the league itself get pulled in somehow? Obviously, COG wants all that if possible.

The transcript, roster, and schedule should become available from the clerk.

COG would seem to have little to no reason to include the NHL. The questions about how much Glendale lost appeared to be in context of restitution. Until the full transcript is reviewed, its hard to say what it really indicates. Probability seems to favor the judge rejecting the notion that remedy is available for this case. (Ie- Glendale cannot attempt to get a refund of what they spent or lost. If they want to get their money back for services rendered, they need a legit reason. 38-511 isn't it)

TheLegend said:
It'll be up to the judge to determine that, and with next to zero cases to draw from (I think CF said there is one)

No case law at all, great wide open. Glendale ran Maucher up the pole but the judge did not salute. The only piece of potential authority out there is Ariz. Attorney General Opinion: I08-010 (R08-026). If this matter gets to trial, that's probably going to be an important item. It strongly favors Glendale.

Mork said:
I don't know Arizona law in particular, but most jurisdictions look for (i) a strong prima facae case on the part of a party seeking an interim injunction; (ii) irreparable harm that can't be compensated in damages if an injection were not issued; (iii) the balance of convenience favoring an injunction; and (iv) the ability of the party obtaining an injunction to indemnify the other side if the claim is eventually dismissed. Reading between the lines, it sounds like Arizona law is similar.

I don't know Ariz law either. Here's what I found (including an interesting departure from the 9th Cir):

AZ generally follows traditional criteria for elements required for injunctive relief: a plaintiff must show (1) a strong likelihood of success on the merits, (2) the possibility of irreparable injury to plaintiff if preliminary relief is not granted, (3) a balance of hardships favoring the plaintiff, and (4) advancement of the public interest. Ariz Courts generally cite Shoen

The 2008 SCOTUS ruling in Winter changed (2) irreparable harm to "likely, not just possible". Arizona does not appear to have adopted that standard in their state courts. Since this matter is in Maricopa County Superior Court, the "possibility" standard applies.

Also, there is US District Court case law regarding a sliding-scale where a court may grant an injunction if the Plaintiff demonstrates (a) probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury or (b) that serious questions of merit are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply to Plaintiff. Ariz. Appears to have adopted the sliding-scale and "serious questions test" via Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Comâ€™n v. Brain. Obviously, I have no idea if IA would even pursue sliding-scale.

Great spectator sport, indeed. :handclap:

Slashers98 · Jun 30, 2015

Other than the Chris Pronger trade... the Coyotes have yet to re-sign a single player this off-season. They haven't sent a qualifying offer to Mark Arcobello, John Moore and Mark Visentin, among others.

It appears to me that they don't have the green light to add much salary...

GreenHornet · Jun 30, 2015

kdb209 said:
And in a timely story:

The return of the haboob! Phoenix covered in a blanket of dust for as massive cloud rolls in from desert cutting power to 15,000 homes

Haboob:

Full-On Haboob:

<yada, yada, yada>

First image looks move like side-Haboob to me. :naughty:

CGG · Jun 30, 2015

Interesting that the Richards contract termination is happening at the same time, especially if Bettman upholds the Kings' position that Richards violated something and his contract can be scrapped. The side by side comparison will be fun to watch as Bettman goes into full on lawyer mode, talking out of both sides of his mouth.

On Richards: Material breach! He did something "material" so the team can rip up the remaining years on a 12 year $69 million contract! The team can use a loophole to void the contract! A contract means nothing because it has been breached!

On Glendale: How dare they! A contract is a contract. This contract was negotiated in good faith! It's a 15 year $225 million contract! The city has to live up to their commitment! Any actions by Tindall (including writing the ordinance) are not at all "substantial"! They can't get out of this contract through an obscure loophole! We'll fight tooth and nail to make sure the city is stuck in this contract forever!

Killion · Jun 30, 2015

CGG said:
We'll fight tooth and nail to make sure the city is stuck in this contract forever!

Hypocrisy's never ending with this league. Whats' good for the goose rarely if ever good for the gander.

Ciao · Jun 30, 2015

CasualFan said:
I don't know Ariz law either. Here's what I found (including an interesting departure from the 9th Cir):

AZ generally follows traditional criteria for elements required for injunctive relief: a plaintiff must show (1) a strong likelihood of success on the merits, (2) the possibility of irreparable injury to plaintiff if preliminary relief is not granted, (3) a balance of hardships favoring the plaintiff, and (4) advancement of the public interest. Ariz Courts generally cite Shoen

The 2008 SCOTUS ruling in Winter changed (2) irreparable harm to "likely, not just possible". Arizona does not appear to have adopted that standard in their state courts. Since this matter is in Maricopa County Superior Court, the "possibility" standard applies.

Also, there is US District Court case law regarding a sliding-scale where a court may grant an injunction if the Plaintiff demonstrates (a) probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury or (b) that serious questions of merit are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply to Plaintiff. Ariz. Appears to have adopted the sliding-scale and "serious questions test" via Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Com’n v. Brain. Obviously, I have no idea if IA would even pursue sliding-scale.

Great spectator sport, indeed.

In practical terms, no matter how they word it, a claim for an injunction is always a "sliding scale" or a balancing act. If the claim on the merits is very strong the likelihood of irreparable harm gets a little less scrutiny, and vice versa. When you're up before the judge, if he or she thinks one element is not very strong, the other elements had better be pretty solid.

Here, I do think IA will eventually get its injunction, but there will be terms.

P.S.: Here, the likelihood of irreparable harm is so great that the court would pretty much have to be satisfied there is almost no likelihood of success to deny an injunction, especially in the absence of settled case law. As so many others have already observed, the court will be very reticent to flush the balance of a 15-year, $225-million contract down the toilet if there is almost any possibility that IA could succeed in preventing its termination. Therefore, the balancing act weighs heavily in favour of preservation of the status quo.

Llama19 · Jun 30, 2015

Mork said:
In practical terms, no matter how they word it, a claim for an injunction is always a "sliding scale" or a balancing act. If the claim on the merits is very strong the likelihood of irreparable harm gets a little less scrutiny, and vice versa. When you're up before the judge, if he or she thinks one element is not very strong, the other elements had better be pretty solid.

Here, I do think IA will eventually get its injunction, but there will be terms.

One year or 615,000 in attendance, whichever occurs first... :sarcasm:

TheLegend · Jun 30, 2015

Slashers98 said:
Other than the Chris Pronger trade... the Coyotes have yet to re-sign a single player this off-season. They haven't sent a qualifying offer to Mark Arcobello, John Moore and Mark Visentin, among others.

It appears to me that they don't have the green light to add much salary...

Maybe you should just wait to see what they do after FA opens tomorrow before making any speculative claims about salary????

Ciao · Jun 30, 2015

Llama19 said:
One year or 615,000 in attendance, whichever occurs first...

To its credit, the court has the pedal to the metal in moving this thing along.

These things usually unwind very slowly, but Judge Bergin has pushed this phase along very effectively so far. I'd be pretty surprised if things don't continue the way they've started on this file -- and that would mean it won't be hanging around the court longer than is necessary.

It would be refreshing to see the entire case heard or resolved before the 2015-16 NHL season is over.

CasualFan · Jun 30, 2015

Mork said:
In practical terms, no matter how they word it, a claim for an injunction is always a "sliding scale" or a balancing act. If the claim on the merits is very strong the likelihood of irreparable harm gets a little less scrutiny, and vice versa. When you're up before the judge, if he or she thinks one element is not very strong, the other elements had better be pretty solid.

Here, I do think IA will eventually get its injunction, but there will be terms.

Yes, understood. I was more in context of Glendale already speaking about public interest prong in transcript from 6/12. There's some case history where hardship is blended with public interest when a gov entity is a party, but it may not be on-point here. If you run Bergin judicial performance, she has previously held that all four elements must be phrased in the conjunctive. She has denied injunctive relief for plaintiffs who failed to establish that public policy favors enjoining a defendant. In my reading of the tea leaves, this may become a difficult obstacle for IA

enarwpg · Jun 30, 2015

re http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=104522573&postcount=969 in which goyotes says:

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.

Of course the arena manager did / are bringing in 41 dates..... but IA was insincere / disingenuous in "demanding" an extra $6 million per year for the AMA by implying they'd bring in lots of other traffic (concerts) and give the COG huge dollars from parking ....considering.... as you say ".. the concert market isn't what it was in the 80's and 90's .."

But seeing as the majority of council are / were country bumpkins, the COG continue to pay the price for listening to a bunch of opportunists.....

TheLegend · Jun 30, 2015

JordanStaal#1Fan said:
If he doesn't and he probably won't it doesn't have anything to do with him no given the green light and everything to do with no top free agent would willingly put himself in that mess.

Not that I think they have permission to spend money, but reading that from them not signing anyone of note tomorrow makes no sense.

Dave Tippet seems to think they're going to spend money. At least Maloney and the ownership have convinced him of that.

http://www.foxsports.com/arizona/story/dave-tippett-arizona-coyotes-coach-onboard-with-teams-direction-062915

If not then people outside of AZ won't have to worry about skewering IA because most of the Coyotes fanbase will.

Killion · Jun 30, 2015

TheLegend said:
Nothing like a little rumor mongering to kick off a new thread I say....

....

to go with your cup of Good Morning America huh? Id be rather shocked to see LeBlanc displaced. Pleasantly surprised mind you, but no, not seeing it.

Mork said:
To its credit, the court has the pedal to the metal in moving this thing along.... It would be refreshing to see the entire case heard or resolved before the 2015-16 NHL season is over.

Indeed. I dont know how many people could take a repeat performance of Judge Redfield Baums' adjudication, just a series of non-decisions. Wasnt willing to cut new trails, make decisions & set precedence when none previously existed. So yeah. Lets hope Judge Dawn Bergin here actually does expedite & moves this thing along, is decisive. No fear. So far so good.

Nordskull · Jun 30, 2015

Killion said:
.... to go with your cup of Good Morning America huh? Id be rather shocked to see LeBlanc displaced. Pleasantly surprised mind you, but no, not seeing it.

Indeed. I dont know how many people could take a repeat performance of Judge Redfield Baums' adjudication, just a series of non-decisions. Wasnt willing to cut new trails, make decisions & set precedence when none previously existed. So yeah. Lets hope Judge Dawn Bergin here actually does expedite & moves this thing along, is decisive. No fear. So far so good.

See thats what I don't get.

Neither CoG nor IA controls the court agenda. You could certainly see the court ordering the Coyotes to leave arena in early february.

Is there a pilot in the airplane?

tony d · Jun 30, 2015

A new thread for this saga and the same story, got to wonder if this will be the final thread for this saga, somehow I doubt it.

Fugu · Jun 30, 2015

CasualFan said:
Here's what I see at a glance (send piles of vCash for more thoughtful/thorough analysis)

I'm like the US Federal Reserve here. How much vCash do you want? :laugh:

Llama19 · Jun 30, 2015

Fugu said:
I'm like the US Federal Reserve here. How much vCash do you want?

I would, at least, give CasualFan $15,000,000 to start...

Whileee · Jun 30, 2015

TheLegend said:
Maybe you should just wait to see what they do after FA opens tomorrow before making any speculative claims about salary????

We can speculate a bit based on the Pronger trade.

My speculation is that their actual player salary budget will be less than the cap floor.

Agree or disagree?

TheLegend said:
Dave Tippet seems to think they're going to spend money. At least Maloney and the ownership have convinced him of that.

http://www.foxsports.com/arizona/st...tes-coach-onboard-with-teams-direction-062915

If not then people outside of AZ won't have to worry about skewering IA because most of the Coyotes fanbase will.

Sounds like Tippett and Maloney are actually taking LeBlanc at face value. That hasn't proven to be the most productive approach.

I highly doubt that the Coyotes will be a "mid cap" team (excluding Pronger's zombie contract), but time will tell....

cbcwpg · Jun 30, 2015

Whileee said:
We can speculate a bit based on the Pronger trade.

My speculation is that their actual player salary budget will be less than the cap floor.

Agree or disagree?

Totally agree. The cap ( top and bottom ) has gone up as announced recently, and this team just can't afford to pay what the league says they have to at a minimum. Picking up Pronger was all about meeting the floor without paying to the floor. Can't imagine what the Coyotes payroll would be if there was no floor.

Just me, but if my team was going to be picking up some players, I would hope they would be players that can actually, you know, PLAY!

More speculation.... maybe the Coyotes will make a minor trade for Marc Savard. He currently still has two years remaining on a seven-year, $28.05 million contract which carries a $4.027 million cap hit for 2015-16, but only a $575,000 base salary - the majority of which will be picked up by insurance.

Phoenix CV: CoG went full-on haboob, man. Never go full-on haboob.

Registered User

Unfamiliar Moderator

HFBoards Sponsor

HFBoards Sponsor

Registered User

Unfamiliar Moderator

Tortious Beadicus

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Megathread Gadfly

Registered User

Tortious Beadicus

Registered User

Megathread Gadfly

Registered User

WAITING FOR NORDS

Registered User

RIP Barb

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Ad

Ad

Ad