Phoenix LXIV: Will You Still Need Me, Will You Still Read Me, on Thread LXIV?
- Thread starter kdb209
- Start date
- Status
CF and others,
I don't have access to watch. Can you post a recap of sorts. Or, a score card of how they might now vote?
And, CF, closer to what?
Thanks.
I don't have access to watch. Can you post a recap of sorts. Or, a score card of how they might now vote?
And, CF, closer to what?
Thanks.
Martinez, Clark, Frate all for the deal
Scrugg, Alvarez against
Knacck suggested to bring it to a vote so it could be suggested that she is all in.
The slides aren't numbered http://www.glendaleaz.com/clerk/agendasandminutes/documents/ArenaManagement112012.pdf
On the slide with the 10 year forecast, in FY22, with the JIG lease, the city will have a negative General Fund balance of -$17.9MM. Without the JIG lease, the forecast is for a negative General Fund balance of -$17.1MM.
Or put simply, at the 10-year point of the agreement, Skeete forecasts that Glendale is $800k better off without the Coyotes.
Martinez, Clark, Frate all for the deal
Scrugg, Alvarez against
Knacck suggested to bring it to a vote so it could be suggested that she is all in.
I think it will be a great show, but ultimately irrelevant if they vote to approve it. Without the support of the acting city manager (Skeete) and the incoming mayor and council there is plenty of latitude for killing the deal, even if you don't factor in a petition for a referendum and the possibility of a legal challenge under the gift clause.
Certainly, it may get voted through but Skeete may just sit on it for 30 days and esssentially kill the deal. If that is possible.
For those who watched the whole thing (I know you didn't), why the hell are "general fund expenditures" roughly 5% higher under the "no team" scenario than the "team stays" scenario? Everything related to the arena is a separate line item.
As I understand the city charter, if they pass the lease the ordinance would not come into effect for 30 days in any case. So the lease agreement couldn't be signed until late December.
Perhaps someone more familiar with the Glendale city council procedures could clarify when the new mayor and council take their seats. It was my understanding that they would be sworn in on the regular meeting of December (December 14th).
cbcwpg
Registered User
... so, where are we at here?
Suicide vote coming soon: some for, some against: acting city manager recommends not signing with Jamison: GWI waiting to see what happens: Lieberman's seat still empty....
Definitely fun and games.
Killion
Registered User
- Feb 19, 2010
- 36,763
- 3,216
... wow. Any idea when this votes going to be held?.... Doesnt Lieberman have a responsibility to serve out his term in totality or what? Makes no sense. He can just walk, refuse to vote, participate? How contemptible can one get?
Major4Boarding
Unfamiliar Moderator
sipowicz
The thrill is gone
- Mar 16, 2011
- 31,761
- 41,525
Let me get this straight, the city manager is against the deal, gramps Jamison's secret investors are still secret and some of these clowns including an ousted city councillor will vote for the deal.
The NHL must be very proud of themselves in allowing this to wallow for three years and then having these incompetents decide the city's financial future in a vote by a lame duck city council.
The NHL must be very proud of themselves in allowing this to wallow for three years and then having these incompetents decide the city's financial future in a vote by a lame duck city council.
Last edited:
checkerdome
Registered User
- Oct 31, 2006
- 1,041
- 12
For once he could actually do something to illustrate his opposition to the AMF in a concrete way and he's nowhere to be found; for all the verbal criticism he levelled at this whole project.
One of the regulars would know the partuculars but the reason the deal was vetted a week before the vote came out of one of the GWI lawsuits. Today was a workshop, not a council meeting so no vote could be taken. Timing was planned all along.
... so, where are we at here?
One week, which is a nice change from two weeks. They put it on the agenda for Tue Nov 27.
It appears that Knaack is still the swing vote. She has supported the deal for the entire time so I don't see any reason to think that she would suddenly change course now that they reached the approval phase. I didn't see all of the meeting but the part I saw was the indication from four council members that they wanted to bring this to a vote. Frate also said something about sleeping on the matter but I doubt that either Frate or Knaack change their minds. But it's still Glendale so anything could happen.
If it goes as anticipated, the JIG lease will pass and then we can finally see who will put skin in the game and who has been bluffing. I'm looking forward to that part.
Isn't there a somewhat thorny "catch-22" here, CF?
The NHL will likely not finalize a sale to Jamison and his group until they know that the coast is clear in Glendale. At the very least, that Jamison and the NHL will need to see that there is no referendum planned, the legal coast is clear and the city council will carry through with the lease as negotiated and approved by the previous city council.
In the meantime, the lease cannot be signed until the NHL has completed a sale of the Coyotes to Jamison.
Either way, if the lease is approved on November 27 as I expect, there will be a considerable amount of time and plenty of drama before a sale is completed and the lease actually signed.
madhi19
Just the tip!
30 days delay for opponent to organize a signatures drive for a new referendum initiative since it a new lease and must be aproved by the Cog I don't see how they can dodge it. I bet the business owners who failied to win the Tax initiative will be chomping at the bit for a rematch.
Scenario 1 Referendum get enough signatures so lease can't get finalise until after the current CoG is gone. Lease get trash by the new CoG on Jan 1 or whenever they meet for the first time.
Scenario 1.5 Referendum does not get enough signatures.
Scenario 2 After the threat of a referendum is gone Jamison close the deal but GWI sue.
Scenario 2.5 After the threat of a referendum is gone Jamison close the deal but GWI does not sue.
Scenario 3 Jamison chicken out and walk away either before or after the threat of a referendum issue is settled for whatever reason he give publicly. Privatly he never had the money.
Scenario 4 The future CoG tell the interim city manager that if he sign that stupid lease in late December he better start cleaning his desk now. In fact the 30 days delay might be just enough for the new CoG to meet and reverse the decision anyway. Jamison better have his duck in a row because his window to close that deal if the referendum petition fail could be the four last days of December. If he get instructions from the future CoG I bet Skeete will be out town for the holliday.
Last edited:
Let me get this straight, the city manager is against the deal, gramps Jamison's secret investors are still secret and some of these clowns including an ousted city councillor will vote for the deal.
The NHL must be very proud of themselves in allowing this to wallow for three years and then having these incompetents decide the city's financial future in a vote by a lame duck city council.
Gary and William's finest moment.
I am still not convinced that the NHL is not the "secret" investor. Is this lease transferable? With a large AMF and revenue sharing combined with no attempt to book any other events and shutter the doors during the summer this could be a break even deal.
Good enough for the league. stranger things have happened.
Regardless won't the COG be surpsised when GJ is not the majority owner.
madhi19
Just the tip!
Gary and William's finest moment.
I am still not convinced that the NHL is not the "secret" investor. Is this lease transferable? With a large AMF and revenue sharing combined with no attempt to book any other events and shutter the doors during the summer this could be a break even deal.
Regardless won't the COG be surpsised when GJ is not the majority owner.
Nothing surprise me anymore in this saga but that would. I believe the NHL is fine with letting somebody else take the risk but they sure as hell don't want to be tied down with owning the Yotes for twenty years in Glendale. That would be an even greater admission of failiure by Gary than relocating the franchise without any of the benefit of a relocation.
In looking at the Team / No Team scenarios, there are two key considerations. First, the AMF and Capital Fund for the arena (tied to the Jamison lease) is expected to be considerably more expensive than the arena management costs without the team.
So why does the deal "save" money in the long term. According to the figures presented, they are projecting that without the team they will have much higher General Fund expenditures. I can't recall any rationale for that assumption.
Can someone clarify why Skeete projects that General Fund expenditures will be substantially higher with No Team, even after the arena management costs are considered?
- Status
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
-
2024 NHL Draft Lottery Team that wins #1 pick - PICK ONLY ONE TEAMWagers: 9Staked: $11,200.00Event closes- Updated: