Phoenix CVI: It's good to talk these things out

Status
Not open for further replies.

Fugu

RIP Barb
Nov 26, 2004
36,952
220
϶(°o°)ϵ



Finally. ;)


Are people having trouble seeing the embedded tweets? Llama posted this above all the posts asking for a source.

Either the server is lagging and you missed the earlier post, or the tweets that are embedded aren't showing up for some people.
 

goyotes

Registered User
May 4, 2007
1,811
0
Arizona
These were IceArizona scheduled depositions of Glendale city staff and councilmembers, all of which were cancelled by IceArizona...

Source? Llama, please identify the source that says the depositions were cancelled by iA.

Procedurally, the depositions could have been cancelled by mutual stipulation, or either side. I'm not saying that you statement is factually inaccurate, I have just not seen a source that states IA cancelled the depositions. Please provide your source for you statement "all of which were cancelled by IceArizona."

Thanks
 

Fugu

RIP Barb
Nov 26, 2004
36,952
220
϶(°o°)ϵ
Source? Llama, please identify the source that says the depositions were cancelled by iA.

Procedurally, the depositions could have been cancelled by mutual stipulation, or either side. I'm not saying that you statement is factually inaccurate, I have just not seen a source that states IA cancelled the depositions. Please provide your source for you statement "all of which were cancelled by IceArizona."

Thanks


The tweet says the depositions for/of the council were cancelled.

Is it not safe to assume that each side schedules its own depositions, and thus if they're cancelled for one group, it's the party that required them?

I can't see how COG would cancel having their side attend IA's deposition of them, but continue with their own schedule for IA.
 

goyotes

Registered User
May 4, 2007
1,811
0
Arizona
The tweet says the depositions for/of the council were cancelled.

Is it not safe to assume that each side schedules its own depositions, and thus if they're cancelled for one group, it's the party that required them?

I can't see how COG would cancel having their side attend IA's deposition of them, but continue with their own schedule for IA.

No, that is profoundly not a safe assumption. More often than not, depositions by notice are cancelled and rescheduled by that party who is going to be deposed because preparation time, personal calendars, etc. come in to play.

I don't want to make a bigger deal out of this than it is. Perhaps IA did cancel the depositions. The point was, I was simply asking for a source rather than conjecture.:shakehead

Llama, do you have a source or was the statement based upon your assumption?

The problem with these things is people tend t read into such events, just as Ms. Clark makes some wild speculations about what is happening. It could be as simple as someone became ill or had an issue arise. They may decide to take them next week.

Maybe settlement is being discussed. If that is the case, I submit maybe the City cancelled the depositions because any litigator will tell you your case never gets better once your people are deposed. IA would have very, very little incentive to cancel depositions just so they can table an offer. In fact, you keep the depositions in place so there is a time limit to any demand IA would want to make. That is litigation 101.
 
Last edited:

Brodie

HACK THE BONE! HACK THE BONE!
Mar 19, 2009
15,534
579
Chicago
I tend to have a problem with this argument as it never really takes into account the social capital that sports generate for a city. The impact of a great facility and a sports team goes beyond just the dollars the city puts in and gets out in revenue/taxes. It would be like arguing the sum total value of a world class restaurant or club to a community consists entirely of the property tax and sales tax it generates. We know that's not true, which is why we build things like parks.

The equation may be tipped in the favor of owners and cities do indeed show too little restraint when it comes to spending on sports. But to pretend like the city gets nothing out of the deal beyond the what the ledger provides is silly.

I don't think this follows at all. Detroit, for example, has teams in all 4 major sports. Two of them play in stadiums built within the last 15 years. All 4 have made the playoffs in that period, 3 have played for titles and 2 have won it all. We've hosted a Super Bowl, Final Four and MLB All Star game in that stretch. Portland has one major pro team (sorry Timbers army) who play in a relatively older arena and hasn't won anything in decades. Which city has more "social capital"? Sports might factor into these equations but it is a minor percentage of a big whole.
 

CasualFan

Tortious Beadicus
Nov 27, 2009
3,215
0
Bay Area, CA

Wow, he found the last phone booth in America and ran into it to change into Super Hack!

"Glendale still has to book events and Glendale still has to spend about $6 million per year to manage it, per its own RFPs. We don't have any trouble with Oliver re-opening the publically funded stadium issue. It's fair game, but in the case of the Coyotes, his segment amounted to amusing theater deficient in facts or context."​
Craig, that is ONLY the expense side of the ledger, you dope. The RFPs also documented the REVENUE Glendale would receive from the arena. I know covering an item truthfully rather than just posting nonsense narrative is a strange concept for a hack but there are, in fact, TWO sides to a ledger. Hence, once again Morgan is actually the one posting theater deficient in facts and context.

Also, who is "we"? The byline doesn't have a co-author. Is this hack so insecure that he has to pluralize his bullcrap to give it the appearance of being a consensus? :nod: The only good thing that will come if the Coyotes leave Arizona will be this jerk losing what's left of his job. Go bag some groceries, Morgan.
 

goyotes

Registered User
May 4, 2007
1,811
0
Arizona
Wow, he found the last phone booth in America and ran into it to change into Super Hack!

"Glendale still has to book events and Glendale still has to spend about $6 million per year to manage it, per its own RFPs. We don't have any trouble with Oliver re-opening the publically funded stadium issue. It's fair game, but in the case of the Coyotes, his segment amounted to amusing theater deficient in facts or context."​
Craig, that is ONLY the expense side of the ledger, you dope. The RFPs also documented the REVENUE Glendale would receive from the arena. I know covering an item truthfully rather than just posting nonsense narrative is a strange concept for a hack but there are, in fact, TWO sides to a ledger. Hence, once again Morgan is actually the one posting theater deficient in facts and context.

Also, who is "we"? The byline doesn't have a co-author. Is this hack so insecure that he has to pluralize his bullcrap to give it the appearance of being a consensus? :nod: The only good thing that will come if the Coyotes leave Arizona will be this jerk losing what's left of his job. Go bag some groceries, Morgan.

I like Morgan on some of his on-ice stories, but you are right CF, this was an "article" that was extremely misleading. Slow news day I guess....
 

Whileee

Registered User
May 29, 2010
46,075
33,132

When a "journalist" misleads readers as badly as Craig Morgan continues to do, it makes you wonder whether his next job might actually be with Ice Arizona...

The point, in the case of the Coyotes, is that John Oliver missed the point. The stadium already exists. The public money was spent long ago to build Glendale Arena, which became Jobing.com Arena, then Gila River Arena. You can't suddenly make the arena disappear.

Glendale still has to book events and Glendale still has to spend about $6 million per year to manage it, per its own RFPs. We don't have any trouble with Oliver re-opening the publically funded stadium issue. It's fair game, but in the case of the Coyotes, his segment amounted to amusing theater deficient in facts or context.

He conveniently omits that fact that in addition to the ongoing arena debt Glendale is paying an exorbitant "arena management fee" that is a larger annual cost than the arena debt. I don't mind journalists having an opinion, but skewing the facts is going too far.
 

Pilky01

Registered User
Jan 30, 2012
9,867
2,319
GTA

JimAnchower

Registered User
Dec 8, 2012
1,460
256
When a "journalist" misleads readers as badly as Craig Morgan continues to do, it makes you wonder whether his next job might actually be with Ice Arizona...



He conveniently omits that fact that in addition to the ongoing arena debt Glendale is paying an exorbitant "arena management fee" that is a larger annual cost than the arena debt. I don't mind journalists having an opinion, but skewing the facts is going too far.

Somewhere right now, Hocking is nodding approval to Morgan's article.
 

Roadrage

Registered User
Mar 25, 2010
721
186
Next door
Wow, he found the last phone booth in America and ran into it to change into Super Hack!

"Glendale still has to book events and Glendale still has to spend about $6 million per year to manage it, per its own RFPs. We don't have any trouble with Oliver re-opening the publically funded stadium issue. It's fair game, but in the case of the Coyotes, his segment amounted to amusing theater deficient in facts or context."​
Craig, that is ONLY the expense side of the ledger, you dope. The RFPs also documented the REVENUE Glendale would receive from the arena. I know covering an item truthfully rather than just posting nonsense narrative is a strange concept for a hack but there are, in fact, TWO sides to a ledger. Hence, once again Morgan is actually the one posting theater deficient in facts and context.

Also, who is "we"? The byline doesn't have a co-author. Is this hack so insecure that he has to pluralize his bullcrap to give it the appearance of being a consensus? :nod: The only good thing that will come if the Coyotes leave Arizona will be this jerk losing what's left of his job. Go bag some groceries, Morgan.
I thought a reporter so close to the situation would realize that Glendale isn't responsible for booking events but the arena manager which in this case is IA.
 

The Feckless Puck

Registered Loser
Sponsor
Oct 26, 2006
18,655
11,728
Also, who is "we"? The byline doesn't have a co-author.

It's interesting irony that he chose to use the editorial plural considering that Fox Sports Arizona let him go this month.

Look, I'm as desperate as the next Coyote fan for allies but 250 words' worth of "Nuh-UHHHHHHHH" rebuttal does nobody any favors.
 

Whileee

Registered User
May 29, 2010
46,075
33,132
It's interesting irony that he chose to use the editorial plural considering that Fox Sports Arizona let him go this month.

Look, I'm as desperate as the next Coyote fan for allies but 250 words' worth of "Nuh-UHHHHHHHH" rebuttal does nobody any favors.

Compared to Morgan's weak and false ditty, Oliver's spoofy rant looked like a PBS documentary. I loved how Oliver pulled in BeavisPAC's #1 assassin with the taser incident. It's all been almost too humorous to believe.

:laugh:

:popcorn:
 

TheLegend

Hardly Deactivated
Aug 30, 2009
37,007
29,444
Buzzing BoH
I thought a reporter so close to the situation would realize that Glendale isn't responsible for booking events but the arena manager which in this case is IA.

It's Glendale's building.

Ultimately they are responsible for operating the building, either by doing it themselves, or hiring someone to do it for them.
 

CasualFan

Tortious Beadicus
Nov 27, 2009
3,215
0
Bay Area, CA
It's Glendale's building.

Ultimately they are responsible for operating the building, either by doing it themselves, or hiring someone to do it for them.

Right. But under the without Coyotes RFPs, do you think the city might make some revenue from the operation or do they pay $6MM a year then just walk away going "aww shucks"? Is Morgan deficient in facts and context by reporting just the expense number?
 

Whileee

Registered User
May 29, 2010
46,075
33,132
Right. But under the without Coyotes RFPs, do you think the city might make some revenue from the operation or do they pay $6MM a year then just walk away going "aww shucks"? Is Morgan deficient in facts and context by reporting just the expense number?

...and by neglecting to mention the full AMF?

Here is Morgan's conclusion, which is the height of irony....

It's fair game, but in the case of the Coyotes, his segment amounted to amusing theater deficient in facts or context.
 

GF

Registered User
Nov 4, 2012
547
0

spellchecker45

Registered User
Oct 3, 2011
178
6


Just saw this on the sportsnet app. It is hilarious and interesting at the same time. Don't know if it was posted somewhere else but I thought it was a funny take on the coyotes end of things.
 

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,219
I like Morgan on some of his on-ice stories, but you are right CF, this was an "article" that was extremely misleading. Slow news day I guess....

This guys a sell~out. Disinformation Officer. Quizzling.
 

goyotes

Registered User
May 4, 2007
1,811
0
Arizona
Yep and Bettman think a new franchise is worth 500mm$. Yeah right. :laugh:

Respected TV sports guy in Phoenix tweeting that CoG and Coyotes may have renegotiated new AMF and lease. Jude LeCava of Fox 10. Take it for what it is worth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad