So, this sounds like another expensive blunder by LeBlanc and IA. I would have thought that his connections with local savants like Tindall, Frisoni and Wood would have given him some insights so he could avoid these sorts of missteps. I guess not....
Phoenix CVII: Can yet the lease of my true love control
- Thread starter kdb209
- Start date
- Status
So, this sounds like another expensive blunder by LeBlanc and IA. I would have thought that his connections with local savants like Tindall, Frisoni and Wood would have given him some insights so he could avoid these sorts of missteps. I guess not....
- Oct 26, 2006
- 18,637
- 11,663
Well, as much schadenfreude could be dropped on IA for ever dealing with R+M+A, in fairness they do a lot of big business in Arizona for public figures and politics. If you stay on their good side they are relentless in message control. I may not agree with their ethics or their philosophies but they are in the business of getting results; so second-guessing IA for enlisting them is really only smart in hindsight.
I agree. Team would get naming rights and sponsorships only. Not enough for them to survive.
JimAnchower
Registered User
- Dec 8, 2012
- 1,460
- 256
With regards to naming rights, the only amount they gained was the 20% (~$600K a year) they were previously giving to the city.
Again, not what the minute entry says. Rose's motion was denied and no fees awarded for bring the motion to compel. The minute entry, unlike your inference, says nothing about the merits of the case against IA as it relates to "paying over $275,000 to Rose & Co. Inc." In fact, is says just the opposite.
The order notes parenthetically that the only sums that appear to be owed are to Scottsdale Polo Championship for years 2015-2017. Of course, Scottsdale Polo is not a party to the action. The court could not award a judgment against IA on behalf of Scottsdale Polo, because Scottsdale Polo did not bring suit. To quote the court:
"Thus, all that remains in issue are the $55,000 payments to Scottsdale Polo Championships, LLC, for the years 2015 through 2017. There is no allegation that Plaintiff (Rose & Co) was to receive any compensation in addition to that pled in its Amended Complaint. Thus, Plaintiff has already been directly compensated and the only sums that remain are payable to Scottsdale Polo Championships, LLC, a wholly separate entity and a non-party to this litigation."
Did you even read the minute entry before suggesting IA was on the hook to Rose & Co for $275,000, or do you just not understand what your are reading? {Mod}
Last edited by a moderator:
TheLegend
Megathread Gadfly
Just scanned the minutes entry for the first time and it says just that.
If I read it right.... Rose group was already compensated $25,000 up front and they didn't show enough to the judge to warrant any more.
Last edited by a moderator:
Killion
Registered User
- Feb 19, 2010
- 36,763
- 3,217
Thanks for clearing that up goyotes. I couldnt make heads or tales of all that legalese, jargon & verbiage, couldnt see where the $275K had been ordered to be paid.
Ok, thank you for that summary.
So all that bluster from LeBlanc about how they were going to take Glendale to court and easily win, that was just hot air.
I can't see how the Coyotes could possibly stay in Arizona beyond the next season, but this saga has been full of surprises so who knows?
JimAnchower
Registered User
- Dec 8, 2012
- 1,460
- 256
The hot air from LeBlanc was IA trying to put public pressure on the COG to change their decision. Once is was obvious after 48-72 hours that it wasn't going to work, they mostly stayed quiet. The problem with this tactic is if you give in to other side after about month, it makes you look a bit silly and amatuerish. Given that depositions and discovery was about to start on the trial, it wasn't a surprise.
Llama19
Registered User
Surviving? More like zombie mode...
From March 14, 2015, IceArizona reported over $34 million in losses(*)...
To quote:
""This franchise is doing exactly what we said it would do when we purchased it. This is a viable market," LeBlanc said.
"We always said this was a process; that it would take time," LeBlanc said. "The terrific news is that we showed a better-than-expected financial result in our very first year. This shows we are clearly on a path to success.""
(*): http://www.sportingnews.com/nhl/sto...nhl-profits-34831-million-in-last-fiscal-year
I don't see how the reduction of Glendale's $15 million-to-$6.5 million-AMF,
despite IceArizona keeping almost all of the revenue now,
will IceArizona make it on their own, going into year three...
Killion
Registered User
- Feb 19, 2010
- 36,763
- 3,217
... yeah, what transpired a far cry from he & Grant Woods standing on the steps of City Hall on the night of the vote to void the Lease back in June shooting their mouths off... as Jim says....
... and that once it hit the court system for realsy the NHL & IceArizona would lose all control, they quickly reversed their position of "we will never renegotiate", pulled a 180 & renegotiated, then publicly apologized to the Mayor & Council before they voted again in July on a new 2yr agreement,
the details of which you'll find here in this thread back <<< thataway somewhere.
TheLegend
Megathread Gadfly
This was previously hashed over. But let's continue to leave out the pertinent details shall we?
Of that $34M loss.... over half were one time charges consisting of acquisition costs and the Mike Ribiero buyout that will be paid out in installments but had to be posted all at once. That left an operational loss about $16-17 million for year one.
At that time... LeBlanc stated the operational losses in year two was around half of year one. However with the new lease agreement chances are we won't see even a ballpark figure now that Glendale no longer can audit the Coyotes. [whoops!! So much for Follow Your Money" being a source anymore...
]MNN posted some figures earlier about the difference the new agreement meant to Glendale. IIRC.... Glendale would gain back about $2.5 million? Which means IA would be getting $2.5 million less to work with.
JimAnchower
Registered User
- Dec 8, 2012
- 1,460
- 256
Half of year one's loss means they lost about $17M in year two, roughly the same as year one after the one time charges are removed. Given how many events they have booked this year, probably already over 2014's numbers after the Taylor Swift concerts, they'll probably come close to breaking even for arena deal.
TheLegend
Megathread Gadfly
Think you misinterpreted my post.
They had the one time charges in year one that wouldn't be there for year two. The quoted operational losses for year one were $16-17M. If they halve that then we're looking at something in the $10M range (ticket revenue was down due to the team's performance.)
But... we may never find what that is now since Glendale can no longer audit them.
This was previously hashed over. But let's continue to leave out the pertinent details shall we?
Of that $34M loss.... over half were one time charges consisting of acquisition costs and the Mike Ribiero buyout that will be paid out in installments but had to be posted all at once. That left an operational loss about $16-17 million for year one.
At that time... LeBlanc stated the operational losses in year two was around half of year one. However with the new lease agreement chances are we won't see even a ballpark figure now that Glendale no longer can audit the Coyotes. [whoops!! So much for Follow Your Money" being a source anymore...
MNN posted some figures earlier about the difference the new agreement meant to Glendale. IIRC.... Glendale would gain back about $2.5 million? Which means IA would be getting $2.5 million less to work with.
To be more precise about what I said......
It's not quite that simple. Let's look at Glendale's side, first. I have the numbers from the Monthly Arena Reports at hand.
CoG paid 15M.
They got back from the AMULA (Which are not the totals on the AMR on the site. I am parsing this out.).
Ticket surcharges: 2.1M
Parking fees: 1.1M
Supplemental surcharges (these were paid from IA's pocket, not from ticket stubs): 950K
Total: 4.2M or so
They got, from sales tax in the arena: 1.35M
From Naming Rights: 350K (this should go up next year, but still goes to CoG),
From Miscellaneous other: About 650K
Rent: 500K
Total: 2.85M or so. This last 2.85M will not change.
Net for CoG: 15M out. 7M in. 8M loss
Now, for CoG, they pay 6.5M.
They get back all the 2nd group of that. Or 2.85M. Thus, about 3.65M net loss. This is obviously a 4.35M gain for CoG.
Now IA:
Income: 15M
Pay CoG for supplemental surcharge: 965K. Pay rent: 500K. All the management costs we will assume will be constant.
Net for IA: About 13.5M From the deal.
With the Amendment:
Income: 6.5M
Pay Rent: 500K
If they can charge the full ticket price (meaning last year's price + the surcharge), and If they can get the same parking fees, then that would be: 3.2M
That's a total of 9.2M net. Compared to last year, that's 4M+ up in smoke.
And, again, that assumes that they can charge the ticket surcharges themselves. Otherwise, it's worse.
Just to be correct.
Llama19
Registered User
No time being wasted...
August 25 City Council meeting will have an Executive Session on finding/discussing a new arena manager
2. LEGAL MATTERS – PROPERTY & CONTRACTS
A. Discussion and consultation with the City Attorney and City Manager to receive an update, to
consider its position, and to provide instruction/direction to the City Attorney and City Manager
regarding Glendale's position in connection with the lease and management of the Gila River
Arena. (A.R.S. §§ 38-431.03 A(3)(4)(7))
Source (PDF): https://glendale-az.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=A&ID=393422&GUID=5FD23C57-BE33-4578-8149-9B7D8CEEB9CF
August 25 City Council meeting will have an Executive Session on finding/discussing a new arena manager
2. LEGAL MATTERS – PROPERTY & CONTRACTS
A. Discussion and consultation with the City Attorney and City Manager to receive an update, to
consider its position, and to provide instruction/direction to the City Attorney and City Manager
regarding Glendale's position in connection with the lease and management of the Gila River
Arena. (A.R.S. §§ 38-431.03 A(3)(4)(7))
Source (PDF): https://glendale-az.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=A&ID=393422&GUID=5FD23C57-BE33-4578-8149-9B7D8CEEB9CF
Yet again you misstate something which demonstrates you are either purposefully misleading people, or don't understand what you are reading. Either way, it's unfortunate. Nowhere does the notice state the executive session will be about finding an new arena manager. All it says is that the council will provide direction to the city manager and attorney "regarding Glendale's position in connection with the lease and management of the Gila River Arena." This could just as easily be about the council instructing the manager to engage in negotiations with IA about an extension. Of course, I am not saying that is what the meeting is about because I can actually read, and in so doing, conclude that the topic of IA or any other manager is not referenced in any shape or form.
{Mod} The sad thing is, you don't need to overstate to continue your narrative. IA and Glendale are doing just fine on their own in making the case the Coyotes may not last much longer in their current location.
Last edited by a moderator:
Killion
Registered User
- Feb 19, 2010
- 36,763
- 3,217
Yes, clearly some speculation there & point taken goyotes. Its reasonable to assume "they might be" discussing outside alternate options but yes, imprudent to state it as fact, to frame it in such a manner. Wrong to assume anything really when it comes to this matter. They could just as easily
be discussing a proposal we (the media & public) know absolutely nothing about from IA.
JimAnchower
Registered User
- Dec 8, 2012
- 1,460
- 256
When comparing year 1 to year 2, we don't know which figure LeBlanc is using for the comparison (the $16-17M figure or $34M figure). I would figure he'd want to use the $34M figure so everything looks better, especially as he didn't quote specific figures but general percentages IIRC. But, as you said, we'll never know.
JimAnchower
Registered User
- Dec 8, 2012
- 1,460
- 256
I would agree it is reasonable to assume that this is for a new arena manager. Didn't Kirk say he wanted to get the process going a couple weeks ago? Of course, IA would able to make their offer, but it seems others would be brought in as well.
Llama19
Registered User
To quote from the August 12 article, Vice mayor wants to lower taxes:
"“I [Vice Mayor Ian Hugh said] know I’m not alone in thinking this or wanting it done either, but I think the city needs to begin an RFP process for securing a management firm for our arena.â€
Under the terms of the newly renegotiated contract with the Arizona Coyotes, the city can, after one year, issue a request for proposals and transfer management of the arena from the team to some other contractor."
Source: http://www.glendalestar.com/news/article_0fe889c2-4058-11e5-8b69-679928620737.html
Begin the beguine...
cbcwpg
Registered User
True enough... anythings possible.. but what's most likely?
The CoG sitting down with IA after all the mudslinging and verbiage, the napalming of fragile bridges, etc.
Or
The CoG deciding ( team or no team ) to start anew on the arena with someone else, someone whom might actually put in the effort and at a reasonable cost.
***
Sure we might go a little overboard on the negativity at times, but historical precedence does push us towards that speculation.
Killion
Registered User
- Feb 19, 2010
- 36,763
- 3,217
Oh ya, though I prefer to categorize it as skepticism mixed with cynicism of the healthy variety rather than outright negativity. Time & time again every single player in this charade has disappointed, underperformed, deliberately misled. Hard not to be cynical & speculate at times as it seems everyone involved has trouble telling the truth huh? So, only natural youd speculate a bit, as in what is really going on? And thats cool, provided the Poster when presenting a linked article or documents of anykind doesnt preface such with intimations that are not included in said link. Fine to say "Heres a link to XYZ, its my speculation they might be discussing ABC". Not "They are going to be discussing" or running numbers on a court document, non existing judgement. Of course any number of Members here will get upset with that kind of framing, call it out. Big help to us as Moderators as we do read or try to read every single post but often cant, miss the odd bit that should be edited or whatever. Corrected. And Im glad they do. Not a real big fan of disinformation. Facts please.
Last edited:
TheLegend
Megathread Gadfly
RE: Glendale looking into an RFP so soon.
I thought about this for a while and from Glendale's POV it's completely practical for them to do so.
IF you want to get a good deal for yourself you need to have options. By getting other potential arena management offers they gain bargaining clout if and/or when IA comes to negotiate a new agreement.
I thought about this for a while and from Glendale's POV it's completely practical for them to do so.
IF you want to get a good deal for yourself you need to have options. By getting other potential arena management offers they gain bargaining clout if and/or when IA comes to negotiate a new agreement.
- Status
