Phoenix CXX: High Tempe-rature

[Llama19]

Does this hardline stance from IceArizona melt down if their ASU TIF scheme falls apart? I can picture Tony the Clown doing something so completely shameless as casually calling back AEG after all that and saying "Hello? This is the Coyotes. Yeah... we'll accept that offer now. Bye".

I could see LeBlanc doing that...but, no, that original rejected offer will likely not be given again...

...[snipped, but lLots of good stuff there, but this part is interesting]...This ranking determines whether the Coyotes stay or go because unlike the Thrashers, if everything falls through, they still have an arena they could go back to. AEG ain't Atlanta Spirit...

No, I do not think that LeBlanc will go back to GRA, as he has already drawn that line in the sand...

"“Simply put, the Arizona Coyotes have every intention of leaving Glendale as soon as practicable,†LeBlanc wrote in the letter. “By unilaterally breaking a 15-year signed management agreement with the team — a contract the Coyotes would have honoured for the length of its term — the Council effectively evicted us from our home.â€"

Source: http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/coyotes-every-intention-leaving-glendale-2017/

I do not see LeBlanc going back on his word...

 

[Mightygoose]

And if the arena financing plan via the state doesn't pan out, what kind of lease can the Coyotes really accept?

Will they really sign a long term lease at an unfavourable rate of return? They're already losing significant money on the team as it and with attendance dropping further and the on-ice prospects dim more, would they really want to put themselves in that position if they don't have to?

If they sign a short term lease with no new building in sight, how does that sell that they're sticking around to attract new customers and business accounts? This puts the franchise in a far worse position and I can't see the BoG putting up with it much longer.

 

[cbcwpg]

And if the arena financing plan via the state doesn't pan out, what kind of lease can the Coyotes really accept?

Will they really sign a long term lease at an unfavourable rate of return? They're already losing significant money on the team as it and with attendance dropping further and the on-ice prospects dim more, would they really want to put themselves in that position if they don't have to?

If they sign a short term lease with no new building in sight, how does that sell that they're sticking around to attract new customers and business accounts? This puts the franchise in a far worse position and I can't see the BoG putting up with it much longer.

JMO, but if the new arena financing is not put in place with someone actually building said arena, then IA will not be signing anything to stay in Glendale. The only way IA agrees to any lease with Glendale is if they know they have a new place to play in a couple of years.

No new arena.... pack your bags. JMO.

 

[MNNumbers]

JMO, but if the new arena financing is not put in place with someone actually building said arena, then IA will not be signing anything to stay in Glendale. The only way IA agrees to any lease with Glendale is if they know they have a new place to play in a couple of years.

No new arena.... pack your bags. JMO.

This is surely the speculation of many. Even if it's wrong, I would surely watch to see exactly what happens and how NHL and IA try to spin if there is no new arena financing.

 

[Fairview]

Right after the lease was signed in Glendale, I remember hearing some talk around the idea that had Glendale not given in to the NHL's demands that the trucks were going to haul this team to Seattle. Was there any shred of evidence to support that or was it just wild speculation? Is Portland a better bet?

 

[Fairview]

JMO, but if the new arena financing is not put in place with someone actually building said arena, then IA will not be signing anything to stay in Glendale. The only way IA agrees to any lease with Glendale is if they know they have a new place to play in a couple of years.

No new arena.... pack your bags. JMO.

I agree with this. I also believe it is calculated to provide maximum impact. There is far less urgency if the team has a lease beyond June 2017.

Regarding any potential lease negotiations with IA. TL mentions that AEG will not tell IA to get lost. But is Glendale duty bound to accept any IA offer that AEG presents to them? Do they have any right of refusal? AEG will walk if the Coyotes leave anyways, so in that case if AEG is in bed with the Coyotes, it might be time to get rid of them and get an impartial arena manager in. Terminate them for lack of performance? Is that possible?

 

[Glacial]

I could see LeBlanc doing that...but, no, that original rejected offer will likely not be given again...

Yeah, I'd agree the original deal wouldn't be given again, especially if IceArizona doesn't get back to them until June. IA might find themselves getting less favorable terms the closer to the deadline and if Gary doesn't want the team to relocate, they'll be forced to accept whatever deal they are given by AEG.

No, I do not think that LeBlanc will go back to GRA, as he has already drawn that line in the sand...

"“Simply put, the Arizona Coyotes have every intention of leaving Glendale as soon as practicable,” LeBlanc wrote in the letter. “By unilaterally breaking a 15-year signed management agreement with the team — a contract the Coyotes would have honoured for the length of its term — the Council effectively evicted us from our home.”"

Source: http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/coyotes-every-intention-leaving-glendale-2017/

I do not see LeBlanc going back on his word...

Very true. LeBlanc's word is as good as gold... fool's gold (which they have a lot of around the state).

Will they really sign a long term lease at an unfavourable rate of return? They're already losing significant money on the team as it and with attendance dropping further and the on-ice prospects dim more, would they really want to put themselves in that position if they don't have to?

If they sign a short term lease with no new building in sight, how does that sell that they're sticking around to attract new customers and business accounts? This puts the franchise in a far worse position and I can't see the BoG putting up with it much longer.

And that's part of why I wonder what the NHL wants/has wanted out of the Coyotes. Now that they've been stripped of the cushy AMF and might not have a brand new arena with new subsidies to go to, will the NHL want to keep the Coyotes in a financial arrangement where they lose even more money on top of the black hole they already lost? How much do they value the conference alignment as they touted so much a few years ago vs. turning a debt-laden team into a money-generating team and collecting a big payday and changing the average price of a NHL team by having QC pay the gold standard for what is the equivalent of a dirt-covered nickel-zinc coin?

 

[Tom ServoMST3K]

Lets just say if the timeline plays out like we kinda think it will here the timing will be... Interesting.

Back when IA first bought the team I speculated the reason they made the purchasem, with very little of their own money, was to get a piece of the upcoming expansion. Now I wasnt really serious, as I assumed the NHL wouldnt allow that, but here we are in 2017, and its about to happen. Sell the team right after expansion.

 

[MNNumbers]

Concerning AEG, IA and Glendale....

I believe the contract between Glendale and AEG gives Glendale the right to review any contract extension with the Coyotes. But, the specific word used is vague in its meaning. It's not "veto power" or something like that. 'Review' might be exactly the word.

And, the AEG out-clause. I believe that out-clause is there for the case where another arena is built, and the Coyotes move within the market to that arena. It's not protection against the Coyotes leaving so much (there is not much to lose for AEG because IA gets all the $$ from game nights - so just Naming Rights and some sponsorships, maybe). It's more that a new arena is even MORE competition for events, which are how you make money in the arena business. So, in the case of more competition, AEG has the right to re-negotiate the contract.

At least, that's how I read it.

 

[TheLegend]

OT but somewhat related......

Another shot across the bow. DBacks just filed suit against Maricopa County over Chase Field.


http://m.dbacks.mlb.com/news/article/212771836/d-backs-file-lawsuit-against-maricopa-county/

 

[WildGopher]

OT but somewhat related......

Another shot across the bow. DBacks just filed suit against Maricopa County over Chase Field.


http://m.dbacks.mlb.com/news/article/212771836/d-backs-file-lawsuit-against-maricopa-county/

Simple solution: A field-sized sport, the 1932 NFL title game, was once played inside Chicago Stadium. And we're seeing rink-sized hockey played in big ballparks all the time now. So . . .

D-Backs play in a reconfigured GRA, with towering outfield fences like the Dodgers needed in the LA Coliseum; 'Yotes play 41 Winter Classic games a year at Chase. Both teams get their new buildings. And to think it only took 100+ threads to solve this whole mess!

 

[Slot]

Simple solution: A field-sized sport, the 1932 NFL title game, was once played inside Chicago Stadium. And we're seeing rink-sized hockey played in big ballparks all the time now. So . . .

D-Backs play in a reconfigured GRA, with towering outfield fences like the Dodgers needed in the LA Coliseum; 'Yotes play 41 Winter Classic games a year at Chase. Both teams get their new buildings. And to think it only took 100+ threads to solve this whole mess!

A modest proposal indeed.

 

[TheLegend]

Simple solution: A field-sized sport, the 1932 NFL title game, was once played inside Chicago Stadium. And we're seeing rink-sized hockey played in big ballparks all the time now. So . . .

D-Backs play in a reconfigured GRA, with towering outfield fences like the Dodgers needed in the LA Coliseum; 'Yotes play 41 Winter Classic games a year at Chase. Both teams get their new buildings. And to think it only took 100+ threads to solve this whole mess!

A modest proposal indeed.

Yeah but you''re both leaving the Suns out of the equation.

 

[Slot]

Yeah but you''re both leaving the Suns out of the equation.

Camelback ranch?

 

[Llama19]

Right after the lease was signed in Glendale, I remember hearing some talk around the idea that had Glendale not given in to the NHL's demands that the trucks were going to haul this team to Seattle. Was there any shred of evidence to support that or was it just wild speculation? Is Portland a better bet?

The Coyotes Were Damned Close To Moving To Seattle

To quote:

"Three sources with knowledge of negotiations confirm the Coyotes would have been bought by New York investment banker Ray Bartoszek and his partner Anthony Lanza and moved to Seattle as soon as the following day — playing up to three seasons at KeyArena — had the vote not passed.

"Most people don't realize how close we were to actually getting an NHL team,'' says former Seattle mayor Mike McGinn, who had been involved in the relocation talks."

Source: http://deadspin.com/the-coyotes-were-damned-close-to-moving-to-seattle-1643791488

 

[TheLegend]

The Coyotes Were Damned Close To Moving To Seattle

To quote:

"Three sources with knowledge of negotiations confirm the Coyotes would have been bought by New York investment banker Ray Bartoszek and his partner Anthony Lanza and moved to Seattle as soon as the following day — playing up to three seasons at KeyArena — had the vote not passed.

"Most people don't realize how close we were to actually getting an NHL team,'' says former Seattle mayor Mike McGinn, who had been involved in the relocation talks."

Source: http://deadspin.com/the-coyotes-were-damned-close-to-moving-to-seattle-1643791488

I remember when Larry Brooks of the New York Post declared he had "three sources with knowledge" that Andrew Barroway's buy in to IA was 100% dead.

 

[Llama19]

Concerning AEG, IA and Glendale....

I believe the contract between Glendale and AEG gives Glendale the right to review any contract extension with the Coyotes. But, the specific word used is vague in its meaning. It's not "veto power" or something like that. 'Review' might be exactly the word.

And, the AEG out-clause. I believe that out-clause is there for the case where another arena is built, and the Coyotes move within the market to that arena. It's not protection against the Coyotes leaving so much (there is not much to lose for AEG because IA gets all the $$ from game nights - so just Naming Rights and some sponsorships, maybe). It's more that a new arena is even MORE competition for events, which are how you make money in the arena business. So, in the case of more competition, AEG has the right to re-negotiate the contract.

At least, that's how I read it.

AEG is acting as Glendale's 'arena manager' agent...

And, since there are already incentives in the existing contract between the two, Glendale does review and 'rubber-stamp' any agreement...

Any other 'negotiated' revenue streams are between AEG and said parties (i.e., IceArizona)...

 

[Glacial]

I remember when Larry Brooks of the New York Post declared he had "three sources with knowledge" that Andrew Barroway's buy in to IA was 100% dead.

The thing about sources is sometimes they are very accurate and in the loop (Deep Throat), sometimes they are completely full of crap, as in the case you mention and the Patrick Kane case, where 'sources close to the investigation' or 'close to the parties involved' provided 'facts' painting a picture which, once actual evidence and testimony gets revealed, is revealed to be 180° from what those sources claimed (and provided nothing to back it up). A journalist can tout a source and use it to make 100% proclamations and when it tumbles down like a house of flaming cards, they just act nonchalantly like nothing happened, no reputation ever gets trashed, no egg is ever on their face (which makes me think LeBlanc has a future in journalism ). The art of vetting is a lost art.

 

[Fairview]

I remember when Larry Brooks of the New York Post declared he had "three sources with knowledge" that Andrew Barroway's buy in to IA was 100% dead.

Probably not the best comparison you could have used. We have no way to know if he BOUGHT IN or was BROUGHT IN

There has always been a question of whether the announcement of the terms used when he joined the group were ever actually completed as reported.

Amount of cash for 51%

 

[mesamonster]

Probably not the best comparison you could have used. We have no way to know if he BOUGHT IN or was BROUGHT IN

There has always been a question of whether the announcement of the terms used when he joined the group were ever actually completed as reported.

Amount of cash for 51%

My understanding was that Barroway never fulfilled his equity commitment. There was nothing the NHL could do about it because they had already over inflated the value of the franchise and had a sucker willing to put his name on it in exchange for dropping the NYI lawsuit. Last I heard he was expected to put up $45MM, he came in with $17MM and has yet to make up the difference!

 

[Fairview]

My understanding was that Barroway never fulfilled his equity commitment. There was nothing the NHL could do about it because they had already over inflated the value of the franchise and had a sucker willing to put his name on it in exchange for dropping the NYI lawsuit. Last I heard he was expected to put up $45MM, he came in with $17MM and has yet to make up the difference!

Yes, that is what I heard as well. Maybe, contrary to what TL would like to believe, Brooks was much closer to the truth.

 

[Glacial]

My understanding was that Barroway never fulfilled his equity commitment. There was nothing the NHL could do about it because they had already over inflated the value of the franchise and had a sucker willing to put his name on it in exchange for dropping the NYI lawsuit. Last I heard he was expected to put up $45MM, he came in with $17MM and has yet to make up the difference!

How would this affect a potential sale of the team? Couldn't the NHL either sue or outright take over and handle the sale of the team themselves? I'm not sure of the legalties of what formally defines when a person is precisely an owner or not, which Barroway, if he didn't put up the full total, might not be (was he approved contingent on paying up and he hasn't been called out for being an impostor owner because the NHL didn't want people to realize what a farce this all has been or was the approval enough to make him owner)? I'm wondering what his right is to collect a portion of the sale price based on his ownership stake (be it the listed stake or the de facto stake) or even be the one making the sale decisions. Bettman's a lawyer, so he may take up this case if he feels the league might be screwed by the transaction (e.g. Barroway didn't pay up and now he collects) or want to get back at Barroway for bad faith (playing the long game for revenge).

Is this where we find Barroway saying "I haven't been a NHL owner, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express the night before I was approved by the BoG"?

 

[mouser]

Concerning AEG, IA and Glendale....

I believe the contract between Glendale and AEG gives Glendale the right to review any contract extension with the Coyotes. But, the specific word used is vague in its meaning. It's not "veto power" or something like that. 'Review' might be exactly the word.

And, the AEG out-clause. I believe that out-clause is there for the case where another arena is built, and the Coyotes move within the market to that arena. It's not protection against the Coyotes leaving so much (there is not much to lose for AEG because IA gets all the $$ from game nights - so just Naming Rights and some sponsorships, maybe). It's more that a new arena is even MORE competition for events, which are how you make money in the arena business. So, in the case of more competition, AEG has the right to re-negotiate the contract.

At least, that's how I read it.

I think there's a simpler explanation for the AEG out-clause that doesn't require a new arena being built. Losing your anchor tenant that generates 80%+ of the current arena revenue streams is a massive material change for the contract. Even if AEG thought they could plan out ahead of time how the contract numbers would work without the anchor there's a mountain of uncertainty. It makes sense AEG would want an opportunity to renegotiate or exit the contract if the team leaves regardless of where they go.

 

[mesamonster]

How would this affect a potential sale of the team? Couldn't the NHL either sue or outright take over and handle the sale of the team themselves? I'm not sure of the legalties of what formally defines when a person is precisely an owner or not, which Barroway, if he didn't put up the full total, might not be (was he approved contingent on paying up and he hasn't been called out for being an impostor owner because the NHL didn't want people to realize what a farce this all has been or was the approval enough to make him owner)? I'm wondering what his right is to collect a portion of the sale price based on his ownership stake (be it the listed stake or the de facto stake) or even be the one making the sale decisions. Bettman's a lawyer, so he may take up this case if he feels the league might be screwed by the transaction (e.g. Barroway didn't pay up and now he collects) or want to get back at Barroway for bad faith (playing the long game for revenge).

Is this where we find Barroway saying "I haven't been a NHL owner, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express the night before I was approved by the BoG"?

Barroway is the straw man, both he and Bettman know that. What was GB going to do if it ever got out that his majority owner was a flake and the NHL had backed an individual with such a shady reputation? He had to go with it, knowing that if the team was relocated the NHL would either be the beneficiary or as I expect the NHL is going to be holding the bag. They are doing all that they can to delay the inevitable, which could mean a capital call on the BOG!

 

[TheLegend]

Probably not the best comparison you could have used. We have no way to know if he BOUGHT IN or was BROUGHT IN

There has always been a question of whether the announcement of the terms used when he joined the group were ever actually completed as reported.

Amount of cash for 51%

Except a lot of posters here originally bought into Brooks' "scoop" about Barroway backing out.

It matter not one iota what happened along the way. The point is and always has been a lot can be said after the fact. Twice the Coyotes were "fifteen minutes away" from moving. Except for the ignored fact that the Glendale city council on both occasions had a majority in favor of keeping the Coyotes there. All of us here locally back then knew Glendale would approve keeping them here.

Now if you were to ask that today the answer would probably be no.

My understanding was that Barroway never fulfilled his equity commitment. There was nothing the NHL could do about it because they had already over inflated the value of the franchise and had a sucker willing to put his name on it in exchange for dropping the NYI lawsuit. Last I heard he was expected to put up $45MM, he came in with $17MM and has yet to make up the difference!

Ah the infamous "last I heard".......

These stories were both posted here and discussed.....

http://arizonasports.com/story/486999/andrew-barroway-to-maintain-51-percent-stake-in-coyotes/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2016/03/10/andrew-barroway-now-owns-54-percent-of-arizona-coyotes/#1f05b09a7632