Phoenix CXX: High Tempe-rature

[enarwpg]

I am sure that IA will not limit the numbers of ways they can get someone to subsidize their plan.

Good on Glendale for putting the details in play of the current lease. Hopefully, they can also show the legislature details of the old lease and all of the broken promises from this ownership group. The legislature needs to know who they would be working with.

It is important for the legislature to realize, that in spite of Tony's statements about having nowhere to play, it is really about IA wanting someone to subsidize the team to keep it afloat. Glendale, no longer wants to pour money into the abyss, and so Tony is looking for another sucker. And as Tony says they will take money from anyone and they have no intention of turning down a handout

Maybe, they should consider an annual Telethon???

Jerry Lewis is available.

 

[aqib]

How Glendale could work against Arizona Coyotes new arena plans in Tempe (*)

Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/...e-could-work-against-arizona-coyotes-new.html

(*) Article is behind a pay wall

However, here are some sections from that article:

- City of Glendale is already part of the political dynamic at the Legislature on the Coyotes issue and could add ot (sic) the political resistance to state help for the Tempe arena

- “In anticipation of that debate, during these meetings with legislators, we have provided factual information regarding the city’s existing lease with the Arizona Coyotes,†said Glendale Public Affairs Director Brent Stoddard in a statement. “We have shared facts regarding the significant investment taxpayers have already made and are still paying off to support the Coyotes in the West Valley. We have also communicated to legislators the city’s continuing desire for the Coyotes to remain the anchor tenant at the Gila River Arena.â€

- The Coyotes declined comment on the Glendale meetings and lobbying on the arena issue at the Legislature. But last month, LeBlanc said the Coyotes have also been meeting with lawmakers as well as policy and business groups about the arena plans. The team is also not strapped on to one specific funding plan.
“It would be suicidal to pin its success on one possible way of getting the financing done.†LeBlanc said. “We intend to aggressively pursue what we think is the most cost-effective, high benefit way of getting this deal done.â€

- ASU has been quiet on the arena plans.

- “The current outstanding balance of the facility is $144.9 million,†said Glendale Assistant City Manager Tom Duensing. “This amount plus $78.8 million in interest is scheduled to be paid through 2033.â€

This is interesting for a number of reasons:

1) the city bought the arena from Ellman for $180 million 13 years ago (it was structured as Ellman building it then the city buying it)

2) It seems strange that with the declining interest rates they haven't been able to refinance this and pay it down faster

3) It looks like with the remaining payments that they pay approximately $13.1 million a year. So they first paid $50 million over 2 years and then agreed to pay $15 million more every year to recover that $13.1 million per year

4) had they accepted Ballsilie's offer they would be under $94 million left because more of the payments would have gone to the principal.

5) if they had taken the money and applied the $50 million they paid out to the NHL they could have sold the arena and recovered something. Miami arena was way more outdated when it sold in 2004 for $24 million.

6) Instead of spending $200 million of their money + $200 million in rebates of "a portion. just a portion of the state tax revenue that wouldn't exist but for the arena" they could just buy the arena for $144 million (probably less) and ask the state for the "portion of taxes" as an incentive to stay.

 

[Fairview]

This is interesting for a number of reasons:

1) the city bought the arena from Ellman for $180 million 13 years ago (it was structured as Ellman building it then the city buying it)

2) It seems strange that with the declining interest rates they haven't been able to refinance this and pay it down faster

3) It looks like with the remaining payments that they pay approximately $13.1 million a year. So they first paid $50 million over 2 years and then agreed to pay $15 million more every year to recover that $13.1 million per year

4) had they accepted Ballsilie's offer they would be under $94 million left because more of the payments would have gone to the principal.

5) if they had taken the money and applied the $50 million they paid out to the NHL they could have sold the arena and recovered something. Miami arena was way more outdated when it sold in 2004 for $24 million.

6) Instead of spending $200 million of their money + $200 million in rebates of "a portion. just a portion of the state tax revenue that wouldn't exist but for the arena" they could just buy the arena for $144 million (probably less) and ask the state for the "portion of taxes" as an incentive to stay.

IF they actually have $200 million ...they might be better paying off their debts and then might not need such a big operational subsidy.

 

[Whileee]

^^^^^^^^

From what Llama quoted, I think the message that Glendale is conveying to the Legislature AND that they want to be in public, and thus it is found in that article is:
"There is already a substantial public debt associated with the Coyotes, which is still outstanding. It will take us 16-17 more years to pay that off. Given that is the case, we would appreciate it if you did not remove from us the asset of the Coyotes, which we are essentially still paying for. Also, it does not seem necessary to incur MORE public debt when this is not yet paid off. Also, if they jilted us and went to the State, why would the State want to incur public debt, and then not have it paid off, and have the Coyotes looking again." So, it's a 3-part PUBLIC message.

And, it is possible, but not at all sure, that, behind the scenes, the city of Glendale is also showing the state the Compliance Review. And, perhaps, they might even be documenting the history of payments made directly to the team, so as to show the State what they might expect.

Where that all leads, and how the individual legislators balance their thinking, I don't know. But, that's the message I get from what Llama shared of that article.

It's hardly surprising that the gloves have come off. The Coyotes and NHL had the public build them an arena, extorted $50 million in public funds to get them to stay, too another huge whack of money in a lease agreement, failed to comply with that agreement and now want more public subsidies to ditch Glendale and their very nice arena, which will directly compete with the GRA. Of course, LeBlanc will argue that they were kicked out, to which Glendale will reply that IA failed to comply with the lease, broke a state law on conflict of interest, and has refused any discussions about a more equitable lease with Glendale's arena manager.

Good luck rebutting Glendale's objections, Tony.

 

[TheLegend]

^^^^^^^^

From what Llama quoted, I think the message that Glendale is conveying to the Legislature AND that they want to be in public, and thus it is found in that article is:
"There is already a substantial public debt associated with the Coyotes, which is still outstanding. It will take us 16-17 more years to pay that off. Given that is the case, we would appreciate it if you did not remove from us the asset of the Coyotes, which we are essentially still paying for. Also, it does not seem necessary to incur MORE public debt when this is not yet paid off. Also, if they jilted us and went to the State, why would the State want to incur public debt, and then not have it paid off, and have the Coyotes looking again." So, it's a 3-part PUBLIC message.

And, it is possible, but not at all sure, that, behind the scenes, the city of Glendale is also showing the state the Compliance Review. And, perhaps, they might even be documenting the history of payments made directly to the team, so as to show the State what they might expect.

Where that all leads, and how the individual legislators balance their thinking, I don't know. But, that's the message I get from what Llama shared of that article.

Glendale is trying to force IA to come to them..... or poison the entire well for them if they don't. They're playing the victim card again (our poor taxpayers). Which is a smart move on their part. But it could backfire om them too.

If IA has a response to this they *might* come back with the position that Glendale initiated this situation by cancelling the 15-year lease they had with them. Therefore Glendale should not be crying about the money they've spent on an arena after they kicked their primary tenant to the curb.

IE.... Glendale brought it on themselves.

(cue the usual rhetoric from the anti-IA crowd. Bear in mind I'm only presenting a possible scenario here)

 

[Fairview]

Glendale is trying to force IA to come to them..... or poison the entire well for them if they don't. They're playing the victim card again (our poor taxpayers). Which is a smart move on their part. But it could backfire om them too.

If IA has a response to this they *might* come back with the position that Glendale initiated this situation by cancelling the 15-year lease they had with them. Therefore Glendale should not be crying about the money they've spent on an arena after they kicked their primary tenant to the curb.

IE.... Glendale brought it on themselves.

(cue the usual rhetoric from the anti-IA crowd. Bear in mind I'm only presenting a possible scenario here)

To which someone will likely ask the question ..Why was the lease cancelled by Glendale..No one from IA or their loyal supporters would want that question asked..

 

[TheLegend]

To which someone will likely ask the question ..Why was the lease cancelled by Glendale..No one from IA or their loyal supporters would want that question asked..

Certainly.... and the finger pointing back and forth could get even lower than that.

Glendale could have notified IA that hiring Tindall was not cool and given them an opportunity to rectify it. Instead they let it go for months before apparently springing it on them.

But there is so much we don't know that went on from the time Barroway bought in to when the initial public rift came about.

 

[PCSPounder]

Does the arena in Glendale fare better without a tenant in a two-big-arena market or without one in a three-big-arena market? There's good reason to poison the well...

...even if I wonder if Glendale would be better off razing half the building as they convert to an outdoor arena and try to draw MLS. But that's just me, and I'm not holding my breath, and I'd argue MLS is more in need of a centralized (or transit-friendly) location than even the Coyotes. And Phoenix is way behind in that effort anyway. But that's a possibility in mind.

More important, if anything is really going to happen in Tempe, in reading the legislative tea leaves, I cannot see this working if this is primarily a benefit to the Coyotes (in addition to a measly little ASU hockey arena... which the state can easily accomplish without the Coyotes). To really bring this closer to reality, in my mind, requires something that actually benefits ASU beyond just the land deal and development. That means having something in the hopper right now IMO. Something creative, outside normal expectations, not too expensive, but a little wow. If only I had faith in this happening.

 

[GuelphStormer]

Glendale is trying to force IA to come to them..... or poison the entire well for them if they don't. They're playing the victim card again (our poor taxpayers). Which is a smart move on their part. But it could backfire om them too.

If IA has a response to this they *might* come back with the position that Glendale initiated this situation by cancelling the 15-year lease they had with them. Therefore Glendale should not be crying about the money they've spent on an arena after they kicked their primary tenant to the curb.

IE.... Glendale brought it on themselves.

(cue the usual rhetoric from the anti-IA crowd. Bear in mind I'm only presenting a possible scenario here)

come on, Glendale did not bring this on themselves. and stop spewing this silly lie that Glendale kicked them to the curb. that's nonsense and ignores the context and facts leading up to the decision to cancel the lease. the team is free to stay, but without the fraudulently obtained subsidies.

the NHL lied to Glendale and conned it out of $25M twice. more importantly, IA lied to Glendale when it negotiated the 2013 lease agreement and then refused to provide required financial documentation as per that agreement. you seem to want to completely ignore that.

it makes complete sense for the City to release these details for all to see. it lays bare the simple fact that the NHL is run by liars without concern for host cities.

 

[Headshot77]

come on, Glendale did not bring this on themselves. and stop spewing this silly lie that Glendale kicked them to the curb. that's nonsense and ignores the context and facts leading up to the decision to cancel the lease. the team is free to stay, but without the fraudulently obtained subsidies.

the NHL lied to Glendale and conned it out of $25M twice. more importantly, IA lied to Glendale when it negotiated the 2013 lease agreement and then refused to provide required financial documentation as per that agreement. you seem to want to completely ignore that.

it makes complete sense for the City to release these details for all to see. it lays bare the simple fact that the NHL is run by liars without concern for host cities.

That's not what he believes, that's what IA is likely going to try and spin this as.

 

[WildGopher]

. . . The Coyotes and NHL had the public build them an arena, extorted $50 million in public funds to get them to stay, took another huge whack of money in a lease agreement, failed to comply with that agreement and now want more public subsidies to ditch Glendale and their very nice arena, which will directly compete with the GRA . . .

Their abuse of the public trough is now coming back to bite them, and I'm sure the legislature won't be in any mood to give them the subsidy they need to cover their ongoing operating losses.

Common business sense might suggest that's the end of the Coyotes in the Valley, but Bettman and the 'Yotes have one more potential source of Other People's Money to draw on: the league's owners.

Bettman can honestly (for a change) tell the owners that the optics of the neighboring team moving just as the new Vegas franchise starts would not look good. I'm sure if the team eventually has to move, he'd much rather it happen in a year or two, after Vegas' anticipated early "success" is established. A shiny new franchise with some apparent fan support, the only major league team in town to generate media buzz, the most generous expansion draft rules in NHL history - the new Vegas franchise has a real chance to get off to an upbeat start - at least until the novelty wears off. Gary's legacy following such "proof" of the success of hockey in the desert would look a lot better then, than if the 'Yotes move this summer.

The wildcard is will the owners let Gary fund the franchise through revenue sharing and his hockey development fund for a couple more years? If for convenience sake, we say the 'Yotes are losing $30 million a year, that's a million per owner per year - and even for millionaires, that's real money.

But Gary can point out that with expansion, he got the owners $500 million to divide up, that everything should be done to not detract from the Vegas start-up, and that NHL money put into the 'Yotes is a necessary expenditure for now. It's anybody's guess, but the owners have been giving Gary a lot of room on this issue to date, so I'd still put it at better than 50/50 that the owners pony up for another year or two before facing the inevitable.

 

[SunDancer]

Neither is Dave Tippett's wife's account.

Both were taking some very heavy harassment.

I can understand Mrs. Tippett ... but you think a few trolls chased away Leblanc? Someone in his position should have thicker skin than that. It seemed that the whole purpose of his account was to act as a cheerleader for the ownership group and put a positive spin on anything Coyotes. It's strange that besides the arena press conference in November, he's been relatively disengaged from the fans since the end of last season.

 

[Whileee]

Glendale is trying to force IA to come to them..... or poison the entire well for them if they don't. They're playing the victim card again (our poor taxpayers). Which is a smart move on their part. But it could backfire om them too.

If IA has a response to this they *might* come back with the position that Glendale initiated this situation by cancelling the 15-year lease they had with them. Therefore Glendale should not be crying about the money they've spent on an arena after they kicked their primary tenant to the curb.

IE.... Glendale brought it on themselves.

(cue the usual rhetoric from the anti-IA crowd. Bear in mind I'm only presenting a possible scenario here)

It's "rhetoric" from the anti-IA crowd but a "possible scenario" from the pro-IA crowd, right?

I think Glendale will have the much stronger case....

Exhibit A: Compliance review (makes IA look very bad).
Exhibit B: Balance sheet of Glendale's public funding for the Coyotes (hard for the Coyotes to look like a "victim" with $50M + in public subsidies).
Exhibit C: Summary of the legal case against Coyotes for violating state law in hiring two former Glendale employees, including a lawyer intimately involved in drawing up the lease.

Remember, it's IA that needs to make a persuasive argument as to why they need to relocate and receive a ton of public funds to do so. All Glendale has to show is that they've already built a terrific arena and are willing to let the Coyotes play there under a reasonable lease agreement. It'll be "brain dead simple" for legislators to figure out why Glendale moved to terminate the previous lease, and why they should be very wary of investing a bunch of new public funds to give them a "do over".

 

[cbcwpg]

Glendale is trying to force IA to come to them..... or poison the entire well for them if they don't. They're playing the victim card again (our poor taxpayers). Which is a smart move on their part. But it could backfire om them too.

If IA has a response to this they *might* come back with the position that Glendale initiated this situation by cancelling the 15-year lease they had with them. Therefore Glendale should not be crying about the money they've spent on an arena after they kicked their primary tenant to the curb.

IE.... Glendale brought it on themselves.

(cue the usual rhetoric from the anti-IA crowd. Bear in mind I'm only presenting a possible scenario here)

Not being anti IA on this issue, but the CoG will argue that IA brought it on themselves.

A lease that had a specific clause in it that said IA could not hire someone like Tindall... a clause that was put in the lease and agreed to by both parties... a clause that IMO IA must have let into the lease just to appease the CoG and never thought that the CoG would ever use it.

When we are talking millions of dollars in losses, and you give one party an out... they are going to use it. We can argue this and that forever, but I would suggest that it can be said that ol' Tony underestimated the CoG and their lawyers.

 

[Whileee]

Their abuse of the public trough is now coming back to bite them, and I'm sure the legislature won't be in any mood to give them the subsidy they need to cover their ongoing operating losses.

Common business sense might suggest that's the end of the Coyotes in the Valley, but Bettman and the 'Yotes have one more potential source of Other People's Money to draw on: the league's owners.

Bettman can honestly (for a change) tell the owners that the optics of the neighboring team moving just as the new Vegas franchise starts would not look good. I'm sure if the team eventually has to move, he'd much rather it happen in a year or two, after Vegas' anticipated early "success" is established. A shiny new franchise with some apparent fan support, the only major league team in town to generate media buzz, the most generous expansion draft rules in NHL history - the new Vegas franchise has a real chance to get off to an upbeat start - at least until the novelty wears off. Gary's legacy following such "proof" of the success of hockey in the desert would look a lot better then, than if the 'Yotes move this summer.

The wildcard is will the owners let Gary fund the franchise through revenue sharing and his hockey development fund for a couple more years? If for convenience sake, we say the 'Yotes are losing $30 million a year, that's a million per owner per year - and even for millionaires, that's real money.

But Gary can point out that with expansion, he got the owners $500 million to divide up, that everything should be done to not detract from the Vegas start-up, and that NHL money put into the 'Yotes is a necessary expenditure for now. It's anybody's guess, but the owners have been giving Gary a lot of room on this issue to date, so I'd still put it at better than 50/50 that the owners pony up for another year or two before facing the inevitable.

There is absolutely no reason why the Coyotes couldn't negotiate a reasonable lease agreement to play in GRA, probably even with some forms of direct and indirect public subsidy. The City of Glendale has repeatedly shown an openness to provide that sort of public subsidization. Of course, it would have to be less than what the NHL and various ownership groups have demanded, but still reasonable as long as the NHL is willing to be a good partner. Instead, the NHL has repeatedly shown a lack of good faith, to the point of demanding $50M in direct subsidies or they would relocate.

I agree that if the NHL really wants to stay in the Phoenix market, they could make it happen. But they can't expect the kind of public partnership that they've demanded in the past to make it happen. IA killed that golden egg laying goose.

 

[Whileee]

Not being anti IA on this issue, but the CoG will argue that IA brought it on themselves.

A lease that had a specific clause in it that said IA could not hire someone like Tindall... a clause that was put in the lease and agreed to by both parties... a clause that IMO IA must have let into the lease just to appease the CoG and never thought that the CoG would ever use it.

When we are talking millions of dollars in losses, and you give one party an out... they are going to use it. We can argue this and that forever, but I would suggest that it can be said that ol' Tony underestimated the CoG and their lawyers.

My guess is that Glendale would never have used legal means to terminate the lease if IA had not been such a deceptive and unreliable partner. The smoking gun here is the Compliance Review. Glendale became increasingly frustrated with IA, and suspicious. I still think they assessed that IA had plans to skip out during the "out clause window", and decided to move on before they had invested more time and money.

 

[Whileee]

Certainly.... and the finger pointing back and forth could get even lower than that.

Glendale could have notified IA that hiring Tindall was not cool and given them an opportunity to rectify it. Instead they let it go for months before apparently springing it on them.

But there is so much we don't know that went on from the time Barroway bought in to when the initial public rift came about.

I believe that the Tindall legal stuff was a pretext, not the cause of the rift. The real reasons for the rift are plainly spelled out in the Compliance Review, and many other public statements. IA was doing very little to hold up their side of the bargain, that included good faith efforts to make the GRA a long-term success.

 

[WildGopher]

There is absolutely no reason why the Coyotes couldn't negotiate a reasonable lease agreement to play in GRA, probably even with some forms of direct and indirect public subsidy. The City of Glendale has repeatedly shown an openness to provide that sort of public subsidization. Of course, it would have to be less than what the NHL and various ownership groups have demanded, but still reasonable as long as the NHL is willing to be a good partner. Instead, the NHL has repeatedly shown a lack of good faith, to the point of demanding $50M in direct subsidies or they would relocate.

I agree that if the NHL really wants to stay in the Phoenix market, they could make it happen. But they can't expect the kind of public partnership that they've demanded in the past to make it happen. IA killed that golden egg laying goose.

When the two-year lease was being finalized about 18 months ago, Craig Morgan reported that it contained a renewal option. I don't know if that was accurate or not, but Glendale would certainly deal if the NHL is willing to. As antagonistic as Glendale and IA appear to be right now, it was much worse when the 2013 lease was voided two summers ago - LeBlanc saying they were done in Glendale, threatening to sue for $200 million, yet they came together to sign the two-year lease only a month later. Big, unexpected swings seem to happen in this saga all the time.

One thing I wonder about the league's owners' willingness to keep the status quo, though: The 'Yotes have now lost 9 in a row. At what point is it clear to owners, press, and fans alike that the team's revenue (which you're right, is not likely to be augmented by any more big subsidies) is simply not enough to field a competitive, major-league level team? When do the negative optics of that outweigh the bruise to the NHL's image that would come from moving the 'Yotes just when a neighboring franchise is starting up in Vegas? Hard to know, but those are just some of many moving parts to the decision whether or not to try to stay in Arizona when the new Tempe arena doesn't materialize.

 

[mesamonster]

When the two-year lease was being finalized about 18 months ago, Craig Morgan reported that it contained a renewal option. I don't know if that was accurate or not, but Glendale would certainly deal if the NHL is willing to. As antagonistic as Glendale and IA appear to be right now, it was much worse when the 2013 lease was voided two summers ago - LeBlanc saying they were done in Glendale, threatening to sue for $200 million, yet they came together to sign the two-year lease only a month later. Big, unexpected swings seem to happen in this saga all the time.

One thing I wonder about the league's owners' willingness to keep the status quo, though: The 'Yotes have now lost 9 in a row. At what point is it clear to owners, press, and fans alike that the team's revenue (which you're right, is not likely to be augmented by any more big subsidies) is simply not enough to field a competitive, major-league level team? When do the negative optics of that outweigh the bruise to the NHL's image that would come from moving the 'Yotes just when a neighboring franchise is starting up in Vegas? Hard to know, but those are just some of many moving parts to the decision whether or not to try to stay in Arizona when the new Tempe arena doesn't materialize.

I agree, the idea of the Coyotes signing on for a few more lame duck years in Glendale seems counter productive. the bad vibe between the two is palpable, particularly from IA and their bumbling mouthpiece. His pronouncements, after the lease was cancelled, should have been enough right there to have him fired. It should have been a good indicator to COG that they had a poor dance partner. Better to file the divorce papers now than to live miserably in a poor marriage.

If the Coyotes were to remain in Glendale, for perhaps another two years on GB`s dime, what does that say for IA and their part in all of this? Nothing, most of us already assume that they have NEVER been in control of this franchise and a boost from the league at the 11th hour would confirm our suspicions. Like Glendale, the NHL needs to cut this rope sooner than later, two or more years of ineptitude in the desert would only open this wound even more. They have shown this season how poorly managed they are from puppet ownership on down to a young video stats guy as asst. GM. This is a minor league franchise in all of its color. You only need to look at the product, young yes, but even the young players are not out of this world good! They are simply young with perhaps some promise for some of them. But look around the league, every team has young stars on the way up, the difference is they also have veterans and mid career players that are helping them win today. Not so for this team, they by virtue of their constraints on payroll have set back this franchise by many years. Time for Gary to pull the plug once the legislature has extinguished any hope of a new venue.

 

[Fairview]

Certainly.... and the finger pointing back and forth could get even lower than that.

Glendale could have notified IA that hiring Tindall was not cool and given them an opportunity to rectify it. Instead they let it go for months before apparently springing it on them.

But there is so much we don't know that went on from the time Barroway bought in to when the initial public rift came about.

IIRC Glendale wanted to renegotiate the terms of the lease. Both Tony and Gary made statements that there would be no renegotiation. IMO, council wanted a fair lease and IA wanted to keep the $15 million golden egg, so it was a case of throwing the baby out with the bath water..as far as the Tindal situation the renegotiation of the lease could have easily allowed IA to remedy the situation. There is your "opportunity to rectify".

 

[Killion]

Glendale is trying to force IA to come to them..... or poison the entire well for them if they don't. They're playing the victim card again (our poor taxpayers). Which is a smart move on their part. But it could backfire om them too.

If IA has a response to this they *might* come back with the position that Glendale initiated this situation by cancelling the 15-year lease they had with them. Therefore Glendale should not be crying about the money they've spent on an arena after they kicked their primary tenant to the curb.

IE.... Glendale brought it on themselves.

(cue the usual rhetoric from the anti-IA crowd. Bear in mind I'm only presenting a possible scenario here)

... yes, understood. .... not sure how "playing the victim card could come back to bite them". Care to elucidate?... Ruminate?

More important, if anything is really going to happen in Tempe, in reading the legislative tea leaves, I cannot see this working if this is primarily a benefit to the Coyotes (in addition to a measly little ASU hockey arena... which the state can easily accomplish without the Coyotes). To really bring this closer to reality, in my mind, requires something that actually benefits ASU beyond just the land deal and development. That means having something in the hopper right now IMO. Something creative, outside normal expectations, not too expensive, but a little wow. If only I had faith in this happening.

Yeah I'm with you on this one PCS. Dying to know what it is beyond the development of the property itself (which will happen anyway, all kinds of options) that would be so attractive to ASU that they'd suspend their skepticism of IA, throwing caution to the wind in enabling through their support the creation of yet another sports & entertainment destination in an already overcrowded market. What have they been told, promised?

come on, Glendale did not bring this on themselves. and stop spewing this silly lie that Glendale kicked them to the curb. that's nonsense and ignores the context and facts leading up to the decision to cancel the lease. the team is free to stay, but without the fraudulently obtained subsidies.

the NHL lied to Glendale and conned it out of $25M twice. more importantly, IA lied to Glendale when it negotiated the 2013 lease agreement and then refused to provide required financial documentation as per that agreement. you seem to want to completely ignore that.

it makes complete sense for the City to release these details for all to see. it lays bare the simple fact that the NHL is run by liars without concern for host cities.

Right.... But as Headshot says...

That's not what he believes, that's what IA is likely going to try and spin this as.

... and yes, they really cant spin it any other way, adding that building an arena out in the wilds of Glendale in the first place was a mistake however thats a bit tricky because it then begs a whole passel of questions to which there is no satisfactory answer, indeed, all the more damning. That passel of questions as prickly as opening up a potato sack, reaching in without looking and instead finding yourself grabbing the tail of a seriously disturbed live porcupine having a feast. You ever have that happen to you Headshot? Came close once myself. Dont recommend it. No Sir. Always look before you leap, or go to grab something. Felt like a right Jethro Bodine. Mama ... So anyone at the Legislature then asking if you felt that way, determined early on that Location was a fatal flaw, then why did you then extort hundreds of millions from the City of Glendale, making promises thay you knew you couldnt keep (?) and so on and so forth....

Remember, it's IA that needs to make a persuasive argument as to why they need to relocate and receive a ton of public funds to do so. All Glendale has to show is that they've already built a terrific arena and are willing to let the Coyotes play there under a reasonable lease agreement. It'll be "brain dead simple" for legislators to figure out why Glendale moved to terminate the previous lease, and why they should be very wary of investing a bunch of new public funds to give them a "do over".

... yeah, but we do know (with a fair amount of certainty though could be wrong as we have yet to see anything in writing, detailed outline) that their approach seems to be that no, not looking for subsidies, looking to get a TIF, creation of new taxes where none previously existed ergo "self funding". Not looking for a handout, looking to capture & retain a portion of said newly created tax to pay for 50% of the new arena and one would assume ongoing management, maintenance & operational costs likely over a 25-30yr term. Thats the only way they can present it. We dont know if IA is asking the State for a $200M check in advance of this flow of newly created tax that they'd have to pull from General Revenues or if theyve secured a lender who will supply the balance of funds to build the arena based on projected TIF returns, and or if that lender requires that the State back those projections. That if IA projections are off, revenues falling shorty, the State will make up the difference. Theres just so many questions. No answers thus far. At least with the previous plays for the club, from Reinsdorf through Hulsizer & Renaissance/IA we knew the details. Here were really shooting in the dark however you & others who have followed this very closely over the past 7+ years can make educated & well informed guesses based on past performance, on what we do know about the groups shortcomings from a financial perspective, simply following the money.

 

[Glacial]

come on, Glendale did not bring this on themselves. and stop spewing this silly lie that Glendale kicked them to the curb. that's nonsense and ignores the context and facts leading up to the decision to cancel the lease. the team is free to stay, but without the fraudulently obtained subsidies.

the NHL lied to Glendale and conned it out of $25M twice. more importantly, IA lied to Glendale when it negotiated the 2013 lease agreement and then refused to provide required financial documentation as per that agreement. you seem to want to completely ignore that.

it makes complete sense for the City to release these details for all to see. it lays bare the simple fact that the NHL is run by liars without concern for host cities.

Each party deserves measures of blame. Glendale built two very pricy facilities as a suburb with a population of a quarter of a million based on grandiose visions that turned into a desert mirage. They didn't get the amount of commercial development they hoped for or becoming anything besides "the other 'dale". The council under Scruggs approached this with the gambler's fallacy.

On the other hand, the NHL was ruthless in shifting the burden of support from themselves onto the city's residents. Why pay for operating costs themselves when they can find some marks to do so? Then they try and mask what it a blatant public subsidy under the laughable label of being a standard AMF when he was beyond double the next highest AMF and they were so terrible as arena managers, they should've been sued for willful negligence. Of course, the funny part is the NHL themselves are demonstrating gambler's fallacy with sticking to Arizona when market forces would've dictated they shift the team to a more profitable state/province (even considering having a reluctance to relocate in the face of profitability under the auspices of trying to grow the game and/or have a nationwide presence, given how much money the Coyotes have lost and having never found profit there).

IceArizona plays like a sloppy, low-tier version of the NHL (maybe LeBlanc is angling to be the next Commissioner? ) They were lousy arena managers too, demanded lavish AMFs and once they got the deal, treated the city like dirt, acting completely ungrateful for the amount of financial support Glendale has done for the team and when a new city council wises up and slams the brakes on the gravy train, particularly after the amateur and very corrupt mistake LeBlanc made (I suspect the NHL wouldn't have hired Tindall, being a little more legalistically on the ball), he burns bridges and tries to find a new party to sucker for a subsidy- the state. Almost every other team owner would be cautious with painting themselves into a corner with having nowhere to play, but not Tony. But maybe he's not to blame for that, maybe it's something in the water looking at the Diamondbacks' Kendrick. IceArizona are the worst party because they have the least amount financially committed into the team of the 3 parties and lucked into being able to 'own' and run a team. In no other market would such amateurs be allowed to run the team. Instead of showing appreciation and humbleness for being in a place they know they aren't qualified for, they act like they own the place and have the gall to make high demands on everyone to keep them there.

 

[PCSPounder]

Just an observation: the Diamondbacks are stone-cold bluffing and I suspect Maricopa already called it.

Hard to threaten to leave without a place to go, harder to co-habitate and make money, especially hard to convert most minor league stadia into even a temporary MLB park (or would they really go to Buffalo).

Arguably, Glendale already called the Coyotes' bluff and the organization hasn't left yet.

 

[Ciao]

This is politics. Logic will have precious little to do with the outcome.

If someone powerful would profit from a new arena, it will go through. Otherwise, probably not.

Who can be bought off this time?

 

[Glacial]

This is politics. Logic will have precious little to do with the outcome.

If someone powerful would profit from a new arena, it will go through. Otherwise, probably not.

Who can be bought off this time?

Maybe LeBlanc can work off a bribe (oh wait... 'campaign contribution' ) plan with someone in the legislature, to pay it in installments from what the get from the TIF because based on their MO, they don't have much money to use for leverage in the legislature. These are small-time players on a big stage.