TheLegend
Hardly Deactivated
Broken clock syndrome. Gotta be right at least once no??
Only now we're arguing over where the hands are set.
Phoenix CXIX: We're Just Not Executing
- Thread starter TheLegend
- Start date
- Status
Broken clock syndrome. Gotta be right at least once no??
Only now we're arguing over where the hands are set.
Llama19
Registered User
Arizona Coyotes arena: Real estate group eases opposition, tax watchdog still against Tempe plans
To quote:
"Private groups have been and are planning several new hotels in Tempe near ASU, Mill Avenue and the planned arena to the east.
That created some worries about the Coyotes project getting the advantage of private and market-based hotels coming online in Tempe.
But [NAIOP Arizona Tim] Lawless said his group is keeping an open mind to the Tempe arena.
“We see the synergies. We see the vision,” he said.
Still, Lawless said NAIOP will be watching what is proposed at the Arizona Legislature to help get a new Coyotes arena built.
“The devil is in the details,” Lawless said.
Kevin McCarthy is president of the Arizona Tax Research Association. The tax policy and fiscal watchdog group doesn’t like TIFs, proposals that smack of TIFs or subsidies for specific businesses and projects.
McCarthy said the Coyotes have a perfectly good and already publicly financed arena in Glendale and sports teams need to pay for their own facilities.
McCarthy said the ASU development district run by Catellus where the new arena is proposed already retains property taxes within that district to help spur development.
“It’s already the mother of all property tax TIFs,” McCarthy said."
Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/...na-coyotes-arena-real-estate-group-eases.html
To quote:
"Private groups have been and are planning several new hotels in Tempe near ASU, Mill Avenue and the planned arena to the east.
That created some worries about the Coyotes project getting the advantage of private and market-based hotels coming online in Tempe.
But [NAIOP Arizona Tim] Lawless said his group is keeping an open mind to the Tempe arena.
“We see the synergies. We see the vision,” he said.
Still, Lawless said NAIOP will be watching what is proposed at the Arizona Legislature to help get a new Coyotes arena built.
“The devil is in the details,” Lawless said.
Kevin McCarthy is president of the Arizona Tax Research Association. The tax policy and fiscal watchdog group doesn’t like TIFs, proposals that smack of TIFs or subsidies for specific businesses and projects.
McCarthy said the Coyotes have a perfectly good and already publicly financed arena in Glendale and sports teams need to pay for their own facilities.
McCarthy said the ASU development district run by Catellus where the new arena is proposed already retains property taxes within that district to help spur development.
“It’s already the mother of all property tax TIFs,” McCarthy said."
Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/...na-coyotes-arena-real-estate-group-eases.html
When do we hit five years from the now-cancelled COG 15 yr lease with IA? One more season?
Llama19
Registered User
No longer relevant...
The re-negotiated arena lease agreement ends June 30, 2017...
It is all between (or should I say on) IceArizona and AEG for any extension past that date...
TheLegend
Hardly Deactivated
It's never been relevant.
But that wasn't Fugu's point nor the answer to her question.
I know it's no longer relevant. I want to know when IA would have hit that five year mark.
TheLegend
Hardly Deactivated
IIRC..... IA purchased the franchise in 2013, therefore the fifth season would be 2018-19.
ducks2010
I buy milk in bags
- Apr 6, 2010
- 107
- 0
I disagree... the "Five Year Finish Line Theory" predicts Coyotes in Glendale for the 16/17 and 17/18 seasons (based on original 5 year Glendale lease out clause) and then they are out of there for the 18/19 season. The missing piece to all the current new arena shenanigans is the original agreement between IceArizona (IA) and the NHL (which nobody has seen). We do know that IA absolutely required an out of any Glendale agreement after 5 years (after 17/18 season). Current new Tempe arena talk is just a diversion to keep limping a bare bones team towards the end of the 17/18 season finish line. IA has some smart guys amongst them with histories of previously leading successful businesses and making money. These guys were not duped into buying this team... they knew what the chances of turning it around were and would have covered themselves for the risk involved. Don't kid yourself that there is not some sort of NHL crafted "pot of gold" at the end of the 5 year rainbow waiting for them if they can stick it out in Phoenix another year.
See more at:
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=121352411&postcount=224
Last edited:
Slashers98
Registered User
Too bad your theory doesn't work since they have yet to sign a one-year extension to play at GRA next season...
Try that again, Legend....
13-14
14-15
15-16
16-17
17-18.
Next season would be the 5th season.
TheLegend
Hardly Deactivated
Killion
Registered User
- Feb 19, 2010
- 36,763
- 3,219
Well, as I recall it was claimed at the time (2013) that when LeBlanc was asked about it, he said it wasnt IA nor the NHL requiring that 5yr out clause but instead, it was their lender, Fortress Investments. There were also clauses & mechanisms in the agreement between IA & the COG that in case of a default on the $15M AMF that would allow for Fortress to take over the club, sell it, move it, pretty much do with whatever they wanted. Obviously we dont know, were never privy to whatever Fortress negotiated privately with IA & the NHL, the only reason we know anything much at all due to the fact the Lease & Arena Mgmnt Contract with Glendale was subject to transparency, municipal govt, public record. Indeed, it was discussed here at length that when Barroway was brought in, franchise magically revalued to over $300M with that Fortress debt being retired, new debt incurred Im certain with IA instead accessing the NHL's LOC from Citi-Bank or Wells-Fargo, dipping into that to pay-off Fortress.... that why then didnt they drop the 5yr out clause what with Fortress no longer in the picture?... No satisfactory, believable answer was ever given. LeBlanc just brushing it off just as he now brushes off questions pertaining to signing an Extension beyond this season with AEG at GRA.
As for the rest of your post.... I dont share your admiration, respect for any of IA "Crew". That their all "smart businessmen" and so on, successful... and yes, some of them are but not NHL ownership level successful & wealthy. Its my personal belief this entire construct, what constitutes Ice Arizona is in fact merely a Dummy Corporation, a "front"... the NHL still very much large & in-charge. LeBlanc essentially a hired Spook. Disinformation Officer. Was hoped that by some miracle the teams bottom line would stabilize just enough with this fictitious ownership group in place to continue beating the bushes looking for a real owner with real money of their own. Barroway certainly wasnt it. Drummond isnt even close to being in the same league financially, collectively these guys are AHL level owners.... What "reward" forthcoming after the 5yr term, all kinds of goodies. They now own an AHL Franchise outright. For LeBlanc, personal wealth & connection builder. For the rest of the minority shareholders, Party Time.... cool story to tell their Grandkids... how they once owned a piece of an NHL franchise.
The Five-Year OutClause.....
Remember the terms.
If IA incurred 50M in losses on the hockey side, they were entitled to exercise the out clause.
In that event, IA was required to pay COG a sum calculated by the following:
Total all the ancillary monies IA paid to COG for the 5 years. (Ticket surcharges. Parking surcharges. COG's share of Naming Rights, etc. Supplemental Ticket Surcharges.) NOTE: SALES TAX ON ANYTHING PURCHASED WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THIS DEFINITION....
Now, subtract that figure from 45M.
IA would pay that number.
The idea was thet COG budgeted 6M for arena management. 45/5=9. So, that's an average of 9M/yr ancillary $$, and thus COG would average paying 6M/yr for those 5 years.
Many of us thought of that as IA's safety net. We figured they would have no troble showing 50M of losses (and they wouldn't). And, we figured they would be selling for relocation after that.
Their 85M loan from the NHL was interest-free and payment-free until that time.
So, we figured.....
50M in losses. Sell for relo. Pay off FIG. Done. 5 years of fun running an NHL team.
I don't remember any proof that FIG required the out-clause. And, I see no reason they needed to. The 15M right direct to them. So long as IA didn't kill the golden goose, they were going to be paid.
So, the 5-yr must have been a safety net, and a reasonable trial period for the market under 'stable' ownership.
I see no reason to think that the 5-year magic continued to be in play after COG sued to break the lease. If it were, I think a 3-year extension would have been negotiated, rather than a 2-yr extension. I believe that NHL lawyers were involved in that. So, I believe it was with NHL-approval that it was signed that way.
Now, I believe that the 2 years are soon gone. The only way that makes sense to me of everything that has happened in the last 18 months is that the NHL gave IA 2 years to get a new arena in process. So, I believe that, if the legislature doesn't sign off on IA's 'tax district', then IA is done.
What happens next? I don't know.
*****I also believe that IA is going to require at least partial management rights of the new place, and a fee for that. I can't see any way around that.
Remember the terms.
If IA incurred 50M in losses on the hockey side, they were entitled to exercise the out clause.
In that event, IA was required to pay COG a sum calculated by the following:
Total all the ancillary monies IA paid to COG for the 5 years. (Ticket surcharges. Parking surcharges. COG's share of Naming Rights, etc. Supplemental Ticket Surcharges.) NOTE: SALES TAX ON ANYTHING PURCHASED WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THIS DEFINITION....
Now, subtract that figure from 45M.
IA would pay that number.
The idea was thet COG budgeted 6M for arena management. 45/5=9. So, that's an average of 9M/yr ancillary $$, and thus COG would average paying 6M/yr for those 5 years.
Many of us thought of that as IA's safety net. We figured they would have no troble showing 50M of losses (and they wouldn't). And, we figured they would be selling for relocation after that.
Their 85M loan from the NHL was interest-free and payment-free until that time.
So, we figured.....
50M in losses. Sell for relo. Pay off FIG. Done. 5 years of fun running an NHL team.
I don't remember any proof that FIG required the out-clause. And, I see no reason they needed to. The 15M right direct to them. So long as IA didn't kill the golden goose, they were going to be paid.
So, the 5-yr must have been a safety net, and a reasonable trial period for the market under 'stable' ownership.
I see no reason to think that the 5-year magic continued to be in play after COG sued to break the lease. If it were, I think a 3-year extension would have been negotiated, rather than a 2-yr extension. I believe that NHL lawyers were involved in that. So, I believe it was with NHL-approval that it was signed that way.
Now, I believe that the 2 years are soon gone. The only way that makes sense to me of everything that has happened in the last 18 months is that the NHL gave IA 2 years to get a new arena in process. So, I believe that, if the legislature doesn't sign off on IA's 'tax district', then IA is done.
What happens next? I don't know.
*****I also believe that IA is going to require at least partial management rights of the new place, and a fee for that. I can't see any way around that.
TheLegend
Hardly Deactivated
RE: Who required the out clause.....
Just speculation here MNN but FIG may have not required the out clause, however they probably needed some sort of protection in place.
If IA had come up grossly short early and a sale and relo took place FIG would have wanted to be made whole before anything else. If there were no out clause then and the losses kept coming beyond year five with no way of getting out and setting debts then we're probably headed towards BK again.
I doubt the NHL would want to go through that.
Just speculation here MNN but FIG may have not required the out clause, however they probably needed some sort of protection in place.
If IA had come up grossly short early and a sale and relo took place FIG would have wanted to be made whole before anything else. If there were no out clause then and the losses kept coming beyond year five with no way of getting out and setting debts then we're probably headed towards BK again.
I doubt the NHL would want to go through that.
Llama19
Registered User
From the (August 10, 2013) article:
To quote:
""I don't understand all the attention it is getting," NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman said. "The fact of the matter is, every contract has a term. And this term, for it to be invoked, requires the ownership group to lose $50 million, which I assure you they have no intention of doing."
Two of the new owners — George Gosbee and Anthony LeBlanc — also have bemoaned how the out clause has become a source of negativity spoiling an otherwise festive transaction. But they negotiated the clause. If it's such a non-factor, why was it so important to begin with?
"Nobody's playing any games with that," Bettman said. "When you have this type of clause, you can't play accounting games. The fact of the matter is it would require them to lose a real $50 million, and as I said, they have no intention of doing that whatsoever."
Source: http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nhl/coyotes/2013/08/10/phoenix-coyotes-out-clause/2638503/
The entire scenario had a stench about it from day one. the fact that IA needed FIG and the NHL LOC was enough evidence that control never resided with IA! GB, has had de facto control from day one, and GB has not wanted that fact to be known.
As for ASU/Tempe,TIF and the state legislature know all too well that they are dealing with an unstable ownership group. The initiative for a new arena on the Karstens site may well be a possibility, but it will be done without the cash strapped Coyotes. Let the new year arrive and with it we will hear of the Coyotes next destination outside of Arizona.
Tony has his hands full attempting to divert the fans eyes from the squawking bird, while on the ice the misery is apparent in Tips post game rants! His displeasure has as much to do with his team as his complete frustration with the lies that management has made to him. He is a big boy and signed up for this dysfunction, the off ice charade has to be taking its toll on the players and coaches. By the first of the year and no playoffs in sight the wheels will come off to the point where both players and management will be blaming their demise on Tony and his IA partners.
As for ASU/Tempe,TIF and the state legislature know all too well that they are dealing with an unstable ownership group. The initiative for a new arena on the Karstens site may well be a possibility, but it will be done without the cash strapped Coyotes. Let the new year arrive and with it we will hear of the Coyotes next destination outside of Arizona.
Tony has his hands full attempting to divert the fans eyes from the squawking bird, while on the ice the misery is apparent in Tips post game rants! His displeasure has as much to do with his team as his complete frustration with the lies that management has made to him. He is a big boy and signed up for this dysfunction, the off ice charade has to be taking its toll on the players and coaches. By the first of the year and no playoffs in sight the wheels will come off to the point where both players and management will be blaming their demise on Tony and his IA partners.
Llama19
Registered User
After last night's loss...their playoff odds are down 5.1% to 14.1%...
One would think, that is the last thing on LeBlanc's mind...
I think we agree, for the most part, Legend.
FIG had their protection. The 15M went directly to them. No risk. Probably the loan was written that, in the event of IA using the out-clause, they were made whole first.
I agree the NHL would not have wanted a 2nd BK. I think that NHL was party to the negotiations, although in an unofficial capacity, and would have insisted themselves on IA receiving such a clause.
kihekah19*
Registered User
Damn - you read an awful lot into one of the few public displays of emotion from DT in five years!
GindyDraws
Registered User
Llama19
Registered User
Finalized deal?
Nothing finalized on a lease extension...
Nothing finalized on a new arena, either...
GindyDraws
Registered User
Finalized deal?
Nothing finalized on a lease extension...
Nothing finalized on a new arena, either...
Ah for a sec, I was worried about yet another arena being plopped in the greater Phoenix area.
TheLegend
Hardly Deactivated
Broken clock syndrome. Gotta be right at least once no??
Only now we're arguing over where the hands are set.
Well this might be the first time that we will get to see how committed the NHL really is to this market. If, the arena is a no go, will the NHL stay if they have to pay the tab, we know that there is a suitable arena for them to play in..just no BIG subsidy to pay the freight. Would be very interesting to see what they will do.
- Status
Ad
Latest posts
-
Roster/Rumors/Speculation/Trade Talk - 2023-24: Hotel California- Latest: SayItAintSoJohnny
-
-
-
Upcoming events
-
-
BET ON ONLY ONE HORSE WATCH LIVE - Pennine Ridge Stakes (Gr. 2) - BELMONT (AQUEDUCT) RACE 7 - Queens, NYWagers: 3Staked: $565.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
Game 2 Edmonton Oilers @ Dallas Stars - Edmonton Oilers leads series 1-0Wagers: 7Staked: $5,629.00Event closes- Updated:
-
Game 3 Boston Celtics @ Indiana Pacers - Boston leads series 2-0Wagers: 3Staked: $1,900.00Event closes- Updated: