Phoenix Part XXX Hulz, you gotta get a gimmick if you want to get ahead

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sunstroke

Registered User
Dec 18, 2010
53
1
Glendale civic election

Is there a Glendale Civic election at the begining of April? How would this affect the process?
 

Jeffrey93

Registered User
Nov 7, 2007
4,335
46
This modification will take time.....Bettman & Hulsizer have said before, when asking Goldwater to back-off, that they are just about out of time.
 

MotorMaster

Registered User
Jan 7, 2009
774
21
Earth/cybertron/Char
Hulsizer has no intention of submitting a deadline, or threatening to bail. Instead, he will wait for either the city or the NHL to step up to make the next move.

It's funny he said just 2 weeks ago that he is losing his patience and only has the patience to last weeks not months. Same goes with the NHL and Gary Bettman, deadline after deadline comes and goes and yet they keep saying that time is almost up.

I really don't think this team will be leaving Pheonix, they won't stop until they have a solution.
 

RAgIn

Registered User
Oct 21, 2010
900
0
Sudbury, Ont
It's funny he said just 2 weeks ago that he is losing his patience and only has the patience to last weeks not months. Same goes with the NHL and Gary Bettman, deadline after deadline comes and goes and yet they keep saying that time is almost up.

I really don't think this team will be leaving Pheonix, they won't stop until they have a solution.

Everyone seems to have made statements that have come back to haunt them. Hulsizer is a prime candidate.
 

MAROONSRoad

f/k/a Ghost
Feb 24, 2007
4,067
0
Maroons Rd.
Well, I DID try to drum up some substantive discussion by providing an analysis of Hulsizer's letter, but it got drowned out by competing analyses of Hulsizer's grammar, spelling and choice of fax machines.

You might go back there and check that out, and we could at least discuss that.

There is one relevant point, though, regarding Hulsizer's poorly written letter or rather the fact that it was poorly written. It appears that it was written in haste and not reviewed by a law firm, which would have picked up most of the errors to say nothing about the content. I find that telling as it appears an amateur, self-guided, last-minute move. Or do you disagree with that?

GHOST
 

Wham City

Registered User
Oct 27, 2006
4,312
0
Whistler
Ideologues are ideological.

If there was any doubt GWI was not under the sway of McCain in the least. Clint Bolick was just on the FAN590 laughing off McCain's insertion into the situation. I"m paraphrasing here but Bolick said something along the lines of "I'm not sure what he's trying to accomplish, maybe he(McCain) should buy the team with his own money".
 

Sunstroke

Registered User
Dec 18, 2010
53
1
NHL standard 7yr no movement

The NHL standard list of conditions upon buying a team includes the 7-year "no movement" clause outside of the team's 50 mile catchment. Even James Balsillie was given this when he was tire kicking in Pittsburgh and in Nashville. (TNSE's offer to purchase the Coyotes specifically included clause to move the team to Winnipeg. Yet the NHL would ensure the team would then stay within Winnipeg for 7 years

clause is true how could this have happend in Hartford...

If this June 28, 1994: Whalers purchased by Peter Karmanos, Jr., Thomas Thewes and Jim Rutherford (KTR) for $47.5 million. Jim Rutherford named President and General Manager. Paul Holmgren named Head Coach. Whalers draft Jeff O'Neill as they host the 1994 NHL Entry Draft in the Civic Center.



May 6, 1997: Peter Karmanos announces that the team will relocate to Raleigh, North Carolina. The team will play in Greensboro, North Carolina for the first two seasons.

Is this a new clause since 1997 or did the rules get bent ....
 

RAgIn

Registered User
Oct 21, 2010
900
0
Sudbury, Ont
If there was any doubt GWI was not under the sway of McCain in the least. Clint Bolick was just on the FAN590 laughing off McCain's insertion into the situation. I"m paraphrasing here but Bolick said something along the lines of "I'm not sure what he's trying to accomplish, maybe he(McCain) should buy the team with his own money".

Well, that should dispell all the rumors that the GWI would fold under the pressure of Republican officials. What's next, George Bush and his buddy Cheney? :shakehead
 

goyotes

Registered User
May 4, 2007
1,811
0
Arizona
There is one relevant point, though, regarding Hulsizer's poorly written letter or rather the fact that it was poorly written. It appears that it was written in haste and not reviewed by a law firm, which would have picked up most of the errors to say nothing about the content. I find that telling as it appears an amateur, self-guided, last-minute move. Or do you disagree with that?

GHOST

I would agree. His lawyer is with Sidley & Austin in Chicago. I doubt he saw the letter before Hulsizer sent it.

What amazes me it there are some very capable lawyers working on this deal, yet everyone seems ready to accept that the GWI is capable of deciding the deal is illegal. They call the deal illegal yet all they really have is an opinion, shaped by a broader political agenda. No "judge" has decided anything.

If I had to speculate, I would say the modifications to the lease agreement are to make the sale of the bonds cheaper with the full expectation that the GWI will sue after the deal closes. It appears they are looking to make this as lock tight as possible. I'm also not sure that this needs to go before the council for approval, since it only strengthens the deal for the CoG, and the council gave the City Manager the right to negotiate the lease. However, they may put it up for vote next week.

If that is the case, the strategy is pretty solid. Keep the option of selling the bonds and closing the deal open, don't annouce anything until the season is nearly over and hedge your financial bets on both ends.
 

knorthern knight

Registered User
Mar 18, 2011
4,120
0
GTA
The player contract is with the franchise. Under relocation the franchise rights are transferred to another city. The players have no claim whatsoever and must abide by their deals. They are welcome to sit out though and be suspended should they wish.
I understand that several of the players are eligible for free agency next year, so they could legally walk away and get whatever the market will pay. See the following links...
13 restricted and 13 unrestricted free agents. Shane Doan isn't on either list, but he's already in his mid 30's, which is getting old for such a physical sport. While he's still a damn good player and team leader, his best days are behind him. Even if he wanted to follow the team to Winnipeg, if I were the GM, I'd be hesitent to sign him to more than a 1 or 2 year contract. If the team moves to Winnipeg, it'll be essentially an expansion franchise.
 

Jack Bauer

Registered User
May 30, 2007
6,154
743
Cape Breton
It's funny he said just 2 weeks ago that he is losing his patience and only has the patience to last weeks not months. Same goes with the NHL and Gary Bettman, deadline after deadline comes and goes and yet they keep saying that time is almost up.

I really don't think this team will be leaving Pheonix, they won't stop until they have a solution.

Bettman has more time then you think because of where he is moving the team if that happens.

It's not as if it would be a Kansas City or Portland who would be new to the game and you need time to sell.

You put the Coyotes in Winnipeg today and they'll sell out tomorrow. That certainly has to play a factor to Bettman when dealing with this mess, but by more time it's weeks rather then what might be days at this point. He's also in no rush to relocate them while the team is still playing.
 

cbcwpg

Registered User
May 18, 2010
20,101
20,379
Between the Pipes
I understand that several of the players are eligible for free agency next year, so they could legally walk away and get whatever the market will pay. See the following links...
13 restricted and 13 unrestricted free agents. Shane Doan isn't on either list, but he's already in his mid 30's, which is getting old for such a physical sport. While he's still a damn good player and team leader, his best days are behind him. Even if he wanted to follow the team to Winnipeg, if I were the GM, I'd be hesitent to sign him to more than a 1 or 2 year contract. If the team moves to Winnipeg, it'll be essentially an expansion franchise.

I'm OK with that. The goal of TNSE is to land a franchise, not land Shane Doan or anyone else who wants out. Heck, they can all leave if they want, I just want the franchise back. We will find enough players to fill the roster.
 

Donwood

Registered User
Mar 13, 2011
1,393
2
Winnipeg
Goldwater lawyer currently on Winnipeg radio: Says Hulsizers offer was a joke. Glendale still taking on huge risk.

If bonds sell, Goldwater would sue jeopardizing the bond holders.

No injunction considered since if the bonds sell the deal will close.
 

Jack Bauer

Registered User
May 30, 2007
6,154
743
Cape Breton
The NHL standard list of conditions upon buying a team includes the 7-year "no movement" clause outside of the team's 50 mile catchment. Even James Balsillie was given this when he was tire kicking in Pittsburgh and in Nashville. (TNSE's offer to purchase the Coyotes specifically included clause to move the team to Winnipeg. Yet the NHL would ensure the team would then stay within Winnipeg for 7 years

clause is true how could this have happend in Hartford...

If this June 28, 1994: Whalers purchased by Peter Karmanos, Jr., Thomas Thewes and Jim Rutherford (KTR) for $47.5 million. Jim Rutherford named President and General Manager. Paul Holmgren named Head Coach. Whalers draft Jeff O'Neill as they host the 1994 NHL Entry Draft in the Civic Center.



May 6, 1997: Peter Karmanos announces that the team will relocate to Raleigh, North Carolina. The team will play in Greensboro, North Carolina for the first two seasons.

Is this a new clause since 1997 or did the rules get bent ....

Where is the proof the rule(if true) existed 2 CBA's ago?
 

cbcwpg

Registered User
May 18, 2010
20,101
20,379
Between the Pipes
Bettman has more time then you think because of where he is moving the team if that happens.

It's not as if it would be a Kansas City or Portland who would be new to the game and you need time to sell.

You put the Coyotes in Winnipeg today and they'll sell out tomorrow. That certainly has to play a factor to Bettman when dealing with this mess, but by more time it's weeks rather then what might be days at this point. He's also in no rush to relocate them while the team is still playing.

IMO this has nothing to do with Phoenix. The reason Bettman is fighting so hard to keep the team in Glendale is because he will kill himself before allowing a team to move back to Canada. IF ( just saying ) the only option for relocating the Coyotes was Houston, Bettman would have allowed the team to move last year.
 

LadyStanley

Registered User
Sep 22, 2004
105,742
18,871
Sin City
Is there a Glendale Civic election at the begining of April? How would this affect the process?

See Islanders, New York, Nassau County, City of Hempstead, RE: Lighthouse Project.
Some of the locals were so upset, a number of incumbents didn't get reelected.


I have no direct knowledge (and haven't been looking for any stories) as to how the Glendale locals are feeling based on this situation and how it may impact their voting plans.
 

MAROONSRoad

f/k/a Ghost
Feb 24, 2007
4,067
0
Maroons Rd.
Clint Bolick on Sports Radio 1290 in Winnipeg just stated that Grant Woods is a hired gun and he's not surprised Woods would state that the proposed deal fine. Also, Bolick believes the current deal is a fairly clear violation of gift clause. He said the gift prohibition in the AZ Constitution was tailor made for exactly these types of deals where the public entity lends its credit for the benefit of a private entity. The overall impression I got was that GWI was not impressed at all by the recent events this weekend.

GHOST
 

Dado

Guest
There is one relevant point, though, regarding Hulsizer's poorly written letter or rather the fact that it was poorly written.

So let's turn it around and assume Hulsizer isn't a moron, and something so obviously wrong wouldn't get past him. From that assumption we can infer that the letter is the way it is on purpose.

From that one could infer it was deliberately written in a way that would be so impossible to decode that it runs no risk at all of biting his legal ass in the future - while still giving him the opportunity to chat it up during a PR stop on TV.
 

Confucius

There is no try, Just do
Feb 8, 2009
21,890
6,905
Toronto
TNSE could prove to be Glendale's best friend. Just wait another week and state. We've been left hanging long enough. Not interested anymore.
 

LeftCoast

Registered User
Aug 1, 2006
9,052
304
Vancouver
Goldwater has every right to protest and lobby the politicians. Threatening to sue if somebody does something is the definition of tortuous interference -- it is illegal to do so in every single state. You either sue somebody or you don't.
First of all, Goldwater has done nothing illegal. You can be found liable or culpable of a tort without breaking any laws. To the best of my knowledge, there is no law in Arizona that says you can't sue or threaten to sue the city to prevent the sale of bonds.

Secondly, I'm not a lawyer, and I don't have ability or time to search case law, but (very briefly) using google and Lexus Nexus, I did a search, and outside of a few cases involving employment law (restrictive covenants, non-compete clauses) I couldn't find ANY cases where the state is the plaintiff in a tortious interference with a prospective business relationship suit. There is probably a good reason for this.

When you interfere with the business relationships of a private individual or company, you can be liable for the damages caused (although even then, there are a number of defenses, including direct competition). However when for political reasons, you interfere with the business of the state (public entity), the first amendment applies.

Tortious interference is basically a commercial version of defamation. And similarly, while you may be responsible for damages if you defame another individual, you are free to slander your governments - it's your democratic right.


If Goldwater was acting anywhere near the public interest, they would not be breaking the law, they would work with the city to try and convince the elected officials that losing the team is better than doing the deal they have on the table.
I'll simply repeat. There is no LAW against tortious interference.



Glendale shouldn't be able to do "whatever they want", they should do what they feel is in the taxpayer's best interest.
The thing about free speech is that not only appropriate, or agreeable speech is protected, the ugly, nasty, self serving and distasteful stuff is protected too. There is nothing in the first amendment that says your speech must he in the public interest. And who is to judge what the public interest is? The courts have decided that burning a flag is protected, so do you really think the courts are going to silence politically driven criticism of a public policy?

Democracy doesn't need to be polite, appropriate or constrained by someone's idea of what is appropriate. Democracy at times is a nasty and rude as throwing the King's tea in the harbor.


The whole "gift" arguement is flawed at best and in reality completely ridiculous. A gift is something bestowed upon another entity without compensation. The COG is getting compensation in the form of 41+ home dates for their relatively new arena. Like I said, they may already own the parking rights, but parking rights are worth zero if there's no events to attend.

That $100m is to get the city a hockey team with a long term lease, because otherwise, they don't have it.

Goldwater is stopping the Coyotes from staying in Glendale.
Goldwater is stopping Glendale from reaching a deal to keep the Coyotes in Glendale.
Goldwater is stopping anyone from buying the Coyotes.

The gift clause has already been tested in court, and your interpretation is wrong. Indirect benefits to the city are not included.

Secondly - the City of Glendale is not getting an NHL team. Michael Hulsizer is.
 

GSC2k2*

Guest
There is one relevant point, though, regarding Hulsizer's poorly written letter or rather the fact that it was poorly written. It appears that it was written in haste and not reviewed by a law firm, which would have picked up most of the errors to say nothing about the content. I find that telling as it appears an amateur, self-guided, last-minute move. Or do you disagree with that?

GHOST

I do not disagree that it is rushed, although you can keep your own pejoratives for your own purposes. Since Hulsizer is seemingly being represented by Sidley Austin, he is not lacking for quality legal representation.

The style in which it was written is only being discussed IMO because those doing so have nothing substantive to say. As to whether that is because they are incapable of providing any substantive reply, or simply do not care to do so because it is immaterial to their objectives, or some other reason, I will draw my own conclusions and let others draw theirs.

I share in Casualfan's lament.
 

Dado

Guest
I'd love for someone, anyone, to pull the trigger on this, at least it progress past the "2 weeks" crap...

CoG is the only party here with the ability to move anything forward.

Yet they continue to refuse to do so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->