The GWI is the only entity the "believes" or "may think" the transaction is "possibly" illegal. Your analogy is misplaced because you assume the deal is illegal because such an assumption no doubt serves your purpose.
Oh, come on.
You assume the deal is
legal because "such an assumption no doubt serves
your purpose."
Do you honestly believe that everything is on the up-and-up with this deal? That it's 100% legal?
Seriously?
I don't care about GWI's political agenda (and they obviously have one), but I'm quite certain the people who run that organization didn't just wake up one day and say "I want to **** with the Phoenix Coyotes." Something about the deal struck them as illegal, so they pursued it.
The reason I assume the deal is illegal is because if it was totally legit, the CoG would have instantly produced documents proving everything was kosher. GWI could have been satisfied, Hulsizer could've bought the team, and you could be renewing your season tickets.
That hasn't happened. There seems to be a lot of stalling on the CoG/Hulsizer side of things, which (to me) doesn't seem like it should be necessary if everything is legal. It's already April and the deal
still hasn't happened.
All GWI has done is say they will sue if the deal goes through in its current form, or unless they can be convinced otherwise. If the CoG is convinced it's in the right, it should just go ahead with the deal. As many have mentioned on here, GWI is pretty powerless. All they can do is sue if/when the deal closes, and if the CoG is confident of the deal's legality, who cares? Surely if they can provide irrefutable evidence that it's all legal, they have absolutely nothing to fear in court.
Also, GWI isn't the
only group of people who feel the deal is illegal. Have you read any of the (probably by now) thousands of articles written about this debacle in newspapers and magazines across Canada and the US? It seems like there's a
lot of skepticism out there. I know many Coyotes fans like to think the big bad Canadian media has an anti-sunbelt agenda (or some other ********), but, conspiracy theories aside, I don't think so many respected journalists (and some not-so-respected ones) would be questioning the deal if the CoG was acting so obviously within the law.
I could present an analogy of you being subject to a citizen arrest for something that someone else thinks may be wrong. I suspect you would not appreciate 1) that an unempowered individual attempts to hold you subject to 2) their personal beliefs with a result of 3) no accountability if they are mistaken. I submit that situation is more in kind with how many citizens tend to view the GWI's actions here
I'm pretty sure any proof that the deal
is legal would completely destroy the GWI's reputation (especially since this whole thing has been played out in public). Also, wouldn't there be some kind of penalty for bringing a frivolous lawsuit?
As for your "citizen's arrest" analogy, I disagree with you. The GWI is not "arresting" anyone. They're drawing attention to the fact that something potentially illegal is going on. As in my original 'crime' scenario... the GWI is the lady across the street who sees a shifty-looking guy scoping out parked cars and decides to say "hey, shifty-looking guy! If you don't get away from those cars, I'm going to call the cops!"
Nothing wrong with that. If the guy doesn't listen and turns out
not to be a car thief, he should be able to prove that when the cops show up.
And, when is it common practice for a duly elected governmental body, that has negotiated a deal for its community in an open forum, to have to go to court to enforce its democratic decision to appease an unelected and marginal "watchdog" group? I hope that is not what my country is coming down to, where special interest groups can dictate the will of elected officials and the majority of citizens they represent.
The CoG
doesn't have to appease the GWI. What they should do (again, assuming they are convinced of the deal's legality) is say "**** the GWI," go right ahead and close the deal, and if the "unelected and marginal watchdog group" decides to raise a fuss, fight back with the
facts (again, assuming there is factual evidence the deal is legal).
There are likely fringe special interest groups protesting about every single government action that takes place at any level. I'm sure in over 90 per cent of the cases, they are just straight-up ignored by governments. There's nothing wrong with what GWI is doing and, again, if the deal with Hulsizer isn't breaking any laws, the CoG should have no difficulty getting rid of such a group.
Also, you're assuming that keeping the Coyotes is the will of the 'majority' of the Glendale residents. Is there any evidence that this is the case? Please link us to this information if so. All I've seen are easily-manipulated online surveys (which allow users to vote multiple times), and there hasn't been a lot of evidence that residents care about the team in large numbers, based on the turnout at key council meetings, etc.
As to what I know about the uses of the Job? I would say as a Valley resident for nearly 20 years, I know considerably more than you do about the likelihood of economic fallout over the Coyotes leaving. I tried to explain this isn't a development in the CBD with a lot of other economic drivers to bail out an area. The entire development was premised on hockey and an arena. The area is already hard hit by other factors. There isn't anything else to gain traction upon. Will it be a $500 million dollar hit? That I don't know. But its effect will be deep and long lasting. I will be here to see it. I don't you will pay any further attention to the matter so long as the Coyotes relocate.
You're right. I won't pay any attention to the matter once the Coyotes relocate. Why would I care? Why would anyone care, aside from the people who live in Glendale? I think that's part of the problem here... a lot of Coyotes fans keep playing up the "but the arena is going to empty and the area is going to suffer" card.
My response to that is
so what?
Look, I'm not trying to be insensitive, but crying about the potential prosperity (or lack thereof) of some suburban development is not going to change anything. If the NHL determines that the team needs to relocate, the league is not going to change it's mind because someone is upset about the impact relocation will have on some ****ing shopping district.
"Well, we were going to move the team to Winnipeg, because there was no owner in Glendale willing to pay for it, the team had horrible attendance, and it was hemmorhaging for years... but jeez, I didn't realize it might set back some local merchants a little bit, so I guess we'll have to keep the team where it is."
Do you honestly think an NHL spokesman is going to say something like that? The "Logan Trick" doesn't work every time.
...and besides,
every city in
every sport that goes through a relocation is negatively impacted afterwards. None of the other cities seem to have a lot of difficulty picking up the pieces and carrying on, and in many cases, they've actually
improved conditions and have acquired new franchises a few years down the road.
No sympathy.
) .
) optically its is odorous to say the least. He'd basically be getting his bread buttered on both sides of the transaction. Again however, from a strictly cold & calculating business perspective, I really dont have a problem with it and in fact have suspected for some time that this was his plan all along, though I dont think he was/is planning to buy 100% of the issue, likely just 50% of them, ameliorating to some extent the concerns expressed below. 
