I wish I knew, your guess is as good as mine, but if I had to guess it would be agree on the amended lease, go to BOG for approval and then the transfer of ownership would be complete. Then if GWI sucessfully files an injunction then that is when the money would go to the City.
Phoenix Part XXXI: I feel I'm in a time loop
- Thread starter LadyStanley
- Start date
- Status
I wish I knew, your guess is as good as mine, but if I had to guess it would be agree on the amended lease, go to BOG for approval and then the transfer of ownership would be complete. Then if GWI sucessfully files an injunction then that is when the money would go to the City.
I think it would depend upon the relief sought. I'm not a bond expert, but I assume it is more likely the bonds would lose their tax-exempt status. Either Snell & Wilmer or Greenberg Traurig offered the opinion on the tax-exempt status of the bonds, so I am sure they would likely be sued (unless of course the interest rate already reflects the lost tax status - in which case there would be no damages).
Yes, GSC and I have gone back and forth over this before. I have noted that the eligible costs for calculating the "arena management fee" include a wide set of Coyotes' Team costs. So even if the arena operations per se do not lose much money, Hulsizer can still claim operating losses from the Coyotes to make up the difference and ensure he gets the full "arena management fee".
DeathToAllButMetal
Let it all burn.
- May 13, 2010
- 1,361
- 0
Sorry, but they're NOT EVEN ASKING QUESTIONS!
That's not reporting, unless you're working for Pravda circa 1989 or earlier. The TSN crew just flat-out ignored this story for months, and even bought into the crap from Hulsizer a couple of weeks ago with that sham $75 million "guarantee." All anybody had to do there was ask how $75 million would make a real difference when the real price of financing the bonds with interest would be over $300 million. They didn't do that. They just parroted the stupidity of Hulsizer, said this would surely do the trick because, after all, $75 million is, like, a lot of $100 million.
I'm astonished at how little TSN and CBC are covering this mess. I can only assume both have been told by the NHL to back off, because otherwise you have to think that both would be all over the huge story of the Jets possibly coming back to Canada. As it is, though, neither network looks to be giving this story any serious attention at all. They'll jump on it the day Bettman makes the moving announcement and not a moment before. If there is a leak before that, you can bet it'll come from the WFP or a radio station there, not the supposed major media players here. And that's really, really pathetic, given how TSN is supposed to be the big NHL network.
That's not good reporting in any way, shape, or form. That's just kissing ass to the powers that be in the NHL, so that Gary and crew don't get upset and cause trouble down the line when the time comes to renew their broadcasting deal.
Old news on both fronts. They've had a buyer for the bonds for like a whole month now. The sticking point is the interest rate. Plus, I wouldn't put all my faith on Shannon's sources. Historically speaking, he's not usually correct. IMO.
Edit: And who's NHLwiki? 'Anonymous hockey fan' twitter?
Last edited:
How can someone be correct or not, in "your opinion?" Either he has a history of being correct, or he doesn't. Your opinion doesn't matter.
Not only that, if he's simply relaying a sources words, it's not him that's not correct. It's his sources that aren't correct.
The devil's in the details.
He hasn't said anything different than what's been said for the last 2+ weeks. I'll give him that. Im just saying, he's been wrong before. Look back at a dozen threads, it's all there. If you want to put all your eggs in Shannon's basket, feel free. I'll keep my eggs for Easter.
Oh btw. Regardless if I'm wrong or right, my opinion matters. As does yours. That's the whole point of this forum. IMO.
Yup. My guess is that this is the NHL's line... there is a buyer for the bonds but not at a rate that Glendale wants to pay. The question is whether Glendale will finally break down, bite the bullet, and sell the bonds at the high rate. The NHL is hoping they do, as is Matthew Hulsizer. Now and again it doesn't hurt to have one of the NHL "insider" reporters make the point publicly that they have a bond buyer, just to give Glendale another nudge.
actually its not old news on the bond front. They never had a local bond buyer, there were rumors that the NHL had buyers lined up but none that the COG themselves had lined up.
I didn't see anything in the tweet that said that CoG found the buyer? the AZSportsTalk bit said "John Shannon at Rodgers Sports Net in Canada reported that he is hearing that the City of Glendale has a buyer for the bonds, please see the video below it is around the 1 minute mark.". The CoG is the seller so they have the buyer, but who found the buyer is not revealed here or in the tweet about Shannon.
It also smells like old recycled news. Its been so slow that people are biting on almost anything at this point, and starting to pull stupid stunts like the flag and signs at GWI.
Last edited:
The local buyer part is new. Agreed. I guess it doesn't really matter where the buyer or buyers is from. Im just surprised there are some from the area. Good call.
Killion
Registered User
- Feb 19, 2010
- 36,763
- 3,215
Of course. Never mind Pravda circa 89 Todd, try circa 1935, 45, 1955 or 65, when reporters were underpaid & open to graft from owners, coaches & managers to either write the story they wanted written or not to mention it at all. If they didnt?. Loss of access. De-accreditation. There are tons of anecdotal stories floating around on that score. CBC at least tries (remember, GB canceled his annual chat with HNIC's RM during the All Star Break); while TSN is great for surface inf. from talking heads and nothing else. The Toronto Star & the Toronto based Globe & Mail ignored the rumors about Alan Eagleson for nearly 10yrs, happening in their own backyard, leaving it to a guy from a Podunk MA newspaper (Russ Conaway) to uncover & run a series of reports that eventually drew the interest of the US Justice Department & the FBI, spurring the RCMP & the Toronto Cops to act out of embarrassment, who like the Globe & Star had been sitting on complaints for years & years. Why?. Cant be upsetting the hockey establishment eh?.
peter sullivan
Winnipeg
- Apr 9, 2010
- 2,356
- 4
when the relocation was hamilton it was constant news on the big networks....if it aint happening in southern ontario, it might as well be happening on mars.
the toronto media is still in denial that thomson is a 50% owner in TNSE.
the toronto media is still in denial that thomson is a 50% owner in TNSE.
DeathToAllButMetal
Let it all burn.
- May 13, 2010
- 1,361
- 0
OT, so I don't want to go too far here, but awesome points. There is such a long history of this. That the Eagleson story had to be broken so far from the NHL-controlled media in Canada remains a black mark.
Killion
Registered User
- Feb 19, 2010
- 36,763
- 3,215
Not so far off topic as peter alludes to. Unfortunately the media often "shapes" the news with its own premises' & agendas'. The Globe&Mail (&Star) were called out & vilified for ignoring the complaints from players for years about Al Eagleson & subsequently went all out with their "investigative journalistic approach" to the business of hockey, lead by the likes of actual business reporters like Teresa Tedesco & others. Unfortunately for the rest of the country, the Globe really only concentrated on the business of the Toronto Maple Leafs, with passing references & page space to Montreal & QC, Ottawa, Wpg etc. Paid circulation in Southern Ontario is such that needs must follow that they focus resources on that market in order to keep the subscribers happy, while also keeping ad revenues up; PPC's on their site bustling along.
Their coverage of the Coyotes since the BK & Balsillies departure has tailed off considerably, short of the odd "editorial/opinion" piece by Shoalts or Brunt, using Winnipeg as a paddle to try & beat up on the NHL for its laggardly, haphazard & incompetent ways, their opinions of course, and very provincial & unworldly they be, in order to push their agendas' that the game is being ill served by Americans for Americans in places like Phoenix. Supercilious sanctimony & piety with your morning coffee. I might enjoy it & agree with them if it was 1957 & John Diefenbaker was the Prime Minister and I lived in Willowdale. But not in 2011. Not if I live in Montreal, Winnipeg, Calgary or Vancouver, and I sure as Hell would resent it if I was an American about to lose my team. Likewise, if I was in Winnipeg, Id be wonderimg why "Canada's Newspaper" wasnt devoting more time & attention to a story that ultimately could well change the face of the NHL in this country?.
One thing to think about though peter; Thompson owns the Globe&Mail, and you know what us Toronto guys are like eh?.....
Last edited:
Assuming that none of this violates the gift clause, and also assuming that a deal with Glendale can't be done because Goldwater won't give in and litigation isn't a practical alternative, would it then be fair to conclude based on the foregoing that:
1. Hulsizer doesn't want to keep the bundle of rights he would have sold to Glendale and finance them himself because he doesn't want to assume the risk they might decline in value (i.e.: as you say, he wants to lock-in his value by selling them); and/or
2. Any other buyer on the open market would not pay as high a price as Glendale for very same rights that Glendale would have purchased?
I'm not suggesting I share these assumptions. I'm just trying to understand why, given where we are now, Hulsizer doesn't proceed without Glendale's involvement.
Last edited:
I think your two points precisely answer the question as to why Hulsizer is not proceeding without Glendale's involvement.
But here's a question for those who remember the halcyon days of the CFD. Since the CFD was meant to generate revenue from parking around the Jobing.com, it begs the question as to from whom the CFD would have acquired those rights. Would the new owner have just handed over these rights, which are claimed to be worth $100 million to a CFD? If not, how would the CFD have been able to purchase the rights? At the time that the CFD was being proposed, I think that many of us were assuming that it was the City of Glendale that would assign the rights to parking revenue to the CFD. Wasn't that why the CFD was created to encompass all of the City of Glendale property around Jobing.com?
Killion
Registered User
- Feb 19, 2010
- 36,763
- 3,215
He cant. IMO, he either does not have access to the kind of capitol required to close this deal; or internally he lacks the same conviction he has apparently quite successfully employed externally in convincing the COG to step out of the window and onto the ledge 62 stories up. "Dont look down, inch yourselves allllll the way around now, Ill be waiting for you right here in yer office, rifling through all yer stuff, trying to find a solution"...
"I certainly dont need the COG's credit to close this deal".
Matthew of Hulsizer.
Sure. Sure thing Pal. I just bet you dont.
RR
Registered User
The June 2010 MOU the City approved with Ice Edge spells out the chronology of how the parking rights would flow from the Buyer, to the City, to the CFD.
http://www.glendaleaz.com/clerk/agendasandminutes/Meetings/Agendas/060810-20.pdf
Thanks. But doesn't this strike you as a very odd plan? Basically, the Buyer gives the parking revenue rights to the City, who assign them to the CFD, which then turns around and gives parking revenue to the Buyer? Huh???
Why doesn't the Buyer just keep the parking revenue rights and keep the parking revenue directly? This is the sort of thing that makes many skeptical about the value of the parking revenue. It seems as though each ownership candidate can't wait to get rid of the parking revenue rights, while expecting the City of Glendale and/or the CFD to guarantee the parking revenue.
RR
Registered User
Odd? This deal? Certainly you jest.
I don't read anything to indicate the Buyer "gives" anything. It's clear the parking has always been an asset the buyer would acquire and then choose to monetize rather than retain. In Hulsizer's case it is to sell it up front. In the Ice Edge case it was to sell it over time.
IIRC the April Reinsdorf MOU also assigned the rights to the City, which assigned them to the CFD, which repaid the Buyer over time. In all cases the asset was first acquired by the Buyer from the Owner (NHL).
Odd? This deal? Certainly you jest.
I don't read anything to indicate the Buyer "gives" anything. It's clear the parking has always been an asset the buyer would acquire and then choose to monetize rather than retain. In Hulsizer's case it is to sell it up front. In the Ice Edge case it was to sell it over time.
IIRC the April Reinsdorf MOU also assigned the rights to the City, which assigned them to the CFD, which repaid the Buyer over time. In all cases the asset was first acquired by the Buyer from the Owner (NHL).
And it is this insistence that the parking rights be paid for up front, or guaranteed over time, that has been a key reason why the purchase and retention of the Coyotes in Glendale remains so tenuous. If any of the ownership candidates truly believed that the parking revenue was worth what they were demanding for it (from either the CFD or the COG), then when it became a key stumbling block to a deal why didn't they just decide to retain the parking rights and generate the revenue themselves? It now appears that Hulsizer (like Reinsdorf before him) is willing to let the deal go rather than risking the possibility that the parking revenues are not worth the amount that he has demanded for them.
badinsults
TWO WEEKS
Some people have been saying that part of the agreement between Hulsizer and the CoG is that Hulsizer pledges to keep the Coyotes in Glendale for 30 years. How good is such a pledge? How many NHL teams have had the same ownership for the past 30 years in good markets, let alone an unproven one like Phoenix. Even teams like the Leafs, Habs and Rangers have been sold several times during that time. About the closest I can think of is the Blackhawks, which have been owned by the Wirtz family for many years. Does anyone believe that Hulsizer has the capital to stay with the team for 30 years, especially when there will definitely be at least a few money losing seasons to begin with?
Buck Aki Berg
Done with this place
- Status
